The world around us has changed, and it has changed very quickly by historical standards. One aspect of the world that has changed significantly is the sensitivity with which we read and interpret texts.
It used to be in the Modern world that we, in the Western world, would read a text with the assumption that the words on the page were univocal; that is, that the message of the text was singular, and we assumed the meaning of the text could be found in the text itself and by understanding what Paul Ricoeur called the “world behind the text,” the world of the author.
For example, take the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. It states, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In the Modern world, all that would be necessary to read/interpret these words would be a dictionary and access to a few writings of the “Founding Fathers” to understand it. We might ask the question of what is meant by “militia” or “arms,” and not much more than a dictionary, especially one from the 18th century, would be needed to satisfactorily answer the questions. Reading and interpreting, in the Modern world, was fairly simple and intuitive.
Add to this “Enlightened” way of reading the contributions of the Scottish, Enlightenment philosophers (think Hume, Reid and Smith) and you have another interesting twist to the Modern way of reading in America. One contribution these men (sorry ladies) made to the way we think in America is that reading, understanding and interpreting the world is just a matter of “common sense.” Hence the title to Paine’s argument for revolting against King and Parliament was entitled “Common Sense.” As the result of the contributions of these philosophers and our unique American experience, Americans in particular, during the Modern period, believed that finding the meaning in the text was simple, intuitive and a matter of common sense. In fact, many of you right now have been wondering why is this guy writing about such a stupid question, and what does it matter any way?
If you are an American Protestant this question is massive; I would argue that even if you are not such a person this question is still massive. But for the American Protestant this question of how we read has a particular point of interest.
One of the hallmarks of the Protestant church is that the Bible is the highest and sole authority for what we believe about a range of matters in life. “Sola Scriptura!” Martin Luther cried. The Protestant Reformation was as much about overthrowing a particular authoritative tradition that limited how the text of scripture could be read. Prior to the Reformation, reading scripture was not a private endeavor, and its interpretation was certainly not a private matter either. But with the Protestant Reformation came the notion that every man could read scripture for himself, concluding Rome had it wrong. There was one problem, however. There was no longer any authority over HOW to read/interpret the scripture. The post-Reformation era was marked by very bloody wars over which interpretation of scripture was allowable. Literally, millions of Europeans were killed over this question. The solution, to Europe, seemed simple. Develop an understanding of the world, and the worlds of texts, that would preclude such violent squabbles. The Modern way of reading was born.
For the American Protestant there seems to be no need for authority or tradition when it comes to matters of faith. Bathed in the Modern notions of how to read a text, Nuda Scriptura (naked scripture) is sufficient. Me, my common sense and the Bible will tell me all I need to know. If my church reads it wrongly then I will pick up and go to another church or “plant” my own. As Mark Noll argues this way of reading/interpreting scripture has led to a significant theological crisis for American evangelicals, and we only began to notice this crisis with the onset of the Civil War.[1]
Prior to and during the Civil War, Americans were arguing about slavery. Is it a justifiable institution or not? Since most Americans were biblically literate and Protestant, most Americans turned to scripture to answer this question. Much to the shock of most Americans, no consensus could be reached about the question of slavery. This result was mysterious because those engaged in the debate considered scripture to be the sole and final authority on morality, used the scripture to formulate their arguments and most people in the debate seemed “rational.”
Why could we not agree regarding the message of the text? Why did one “common sense” reading seem to support slavery as a potentially viable institution and another one seem to deny that same possibility? Whose voice “counted” in this debate? Who could speak authoritatively about this issue of scripture’s interpretation? Thus, there was a theological crisis.
“Common sense” did not bring about unity in reading the biblical text for the American church, so the American church could not speak authoritatively about THE major issue in culture at the time. It makes me wonder what major cultural issues today we are not able to speak about because of our method of reading?
The Modern world plodded along in spite of this and many other controversies that seemed impossible to resolve using its tools for understanding. However, after accumulating too many irresolvable readings/interpretations of the world, the Modern world collapsed. Today what counts most in reading is the “world in front of the text,” the reader.
The meaning of the text, in today’s world, is supplied by the reader. Essentially, the text is what I think it means. There is a loss of hope for building any consensus regarding the meaning of any text, especially the biblical text. What we used to think was “common sense” is now understood to be merely personal perspective. The text’s meaning, that I have in my mind, appears to be “common sense” to me because it is my perspective. And that is why it is so frustrating, at times, when others don’t easily, or at all, see what I see in the text. Our world is now a world, agree with it or not, that is sensitized to the impact of perspective in reading. Thus we can speak of our world as being post-Modern.
What troubles me is that many American evangelicals still read, unknowingly, in a Modern way. Oddly, they also read in a post-Modern way. In fact, many read with the worst assumptions of both the Modern and post-Modern way. They read with the assumption that understanding the text is simple, intuitive and a matter of common sense, and at the same time they read it with an eye toward what can only be labeled as a “what does it mean to me” approach. It is not unusual to hear in a home group study of the Bible that exact phrase, or something close to it.
I don’t expect every member of a Protestant Evangelical church to wrestle through what our hermeneutic of scripture ought to be or develop an answer to the questions and problems a Modern and post-Modern reading of text brings up. However, they need to be aware that the questions exist, and certainly, professional, educated clergy should be working toward a pencil sketch of an answer. I certainly expect the Church should wrestle through how we think about and access our sacred text. I absolutely expect the Church to begin bridging the gap between our culture’s understanding of text and a Christian understanding of text. I do expect that the Church ought to develop a church culture that values such discussion, and creates space for the members of the body to learn, think and grow in these issues. Failure to engage this process leaves a vacuum, and that vacuum will be filled by whatever is offered by other cultural institutions (media).
You have a way of reading/interpreting the text, but have you ever given it one thought? Your culture has.
