Yes, Virginia, You Can Make Sense of the Bible

 

The recent brouhaha stirred up by Jeff Session’s reference to Romans 13, in defense of Trump’s policy of separating immigrant children from their

parents, has irritated another of my pet peeves. (Check out my explanation of Romans 13, lifted from my book I Pledge Allegiance, here and here).

So, I have decided to chime in on the latest Bible reading controversy.

First, let me say that I have been upset with Jeff Sessions for a long time, beginning with his record of refusing to enforce Alabama’s civil rights laws.  Concerning his comments on illegal immigrants, I found his earlier public statement on Trump’s policy most mind-numbingly dystopian when he referred to parents illegally bringing their children across the border as “smugglers.”

What?  Yes, loving parents who risk everything they have trying to get their children someplace where they can try for a better, longer and safer life, suddenly become child smugglers in Sessions’ view.  Oh boy.  George Orwell would have a field day with Mr. Sessions’ use of the English language.

Most recently, Christian and secular media alike are up in arms about Sessions’ reference to Romans 13:1-7, a New Testament text that mentions “submission” to government authority.  Both he and Sarah Sanders have cited the Bible’s apparent emphasis on law-keeping as somehow a universally applicable word from God on following orders.

Apparently, no one in the Trump administration has heard of the Nuremburg defense, which is, in fact, no defense at all.  And we all should beware of politicians citing Bible verses!

Inevitably, as the ruckus brews the media chimes in on the dubious citation of Christian scripture in arbitrating American public policy.  Next, we have the unavoidable influx of historians dispassionately describing the various ways that the Bible has been interpreted and (mis)applied in the past.

This historical overview typically provides a very unsavory retelling of humanity’s worst impulses justified by assorted Bible verses wrenched from their contexts.  Or are they?  How can we know?  Helpful guidance on answering these questions is rarely a part of the historians’ contribution.

Prepare yourself for the onslaught of historical references to slavery, South African apartheid, western colonialism, southern opposition to desegregation, and any number of atrocious actions, all of which were once defended by “good Christians” standing on the supposedly solid rock of Romans 13.

By the time this public furor has run its course, the only thing most people are sure of – including the Christian historians with their scurrilous illustrations and the run-of-the-mill believer with a now dented faith in scripture – is that the Bible makes a handy club for battering the less fortunate.  It is subject to so many different, competing, even contradictory readings that it is impossible for anyone – except, perhaps, for a few ivory pillar, egg-head scholars, who can’t even agree among themselves – to know what the Bible may actually mean.

Eventually, the controversy dies down.  Everyone returns to their own corner, while the general public is confirmed in its long-held suspicion that the Bible is, in fact, just as inscrutable as they had always suspected.  No one can say for sure what any part of it actually means.  There are as many possible interpretations as there are readers.  All interpretations are equally plausible, it seems.  There is no way to sort out the preposterous from the compelling.

Thus, most folks continue along the road of least resistance.  The majority continue to ignore the Bible altogether.  Why not?  Those who bother to read it at all are confirmed in reading the Bible as they wish.  We interpret it as we wish. We apply it as we wish.  And we castigate our opponents for being wrong as we wish.

This is the point where I begin to scream, jump up and down, and pull out my hair.  (Luckily, I have a lot of it. I need every last strand.)

I watched a good many of these “the futility of turning to scripture” cycles when I taught at Calvin College.  I heard students and faculty alike conclude, with a greater or lesser – often a much lesser, even diffident – sense of disappointment, that the Bible offered no help at all in adjudicating our ethical debates. So, let’s forget about Bible reading and move on to the more substantive matters of general morality with the infusion of “Christian values” into public policy.

I sometimes quizzed people at this point in the conversation.

I asked a few simple questions. I initially asked because I was genuinely curious about the answers. But eventually I asked because it was a good way to make an important point. Here are my questions:

• What parts of the relevant Biblical passage(s) do you find most difficult to understand? Why?
• Which commentaries have you consulted as you have tried to resolve your questions?
• Which commentaries were most helpful to you? Why?
• Among the different possible interpretations that you have discovered, which one(s) do you find most convincing? Why?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the different interpretive options?
• What are the different, possible social applications arising from these various interpretations? How has your preferred application influenced your choice of preferred interpretation?

Actually, believe it or not, I never got further than the second question.  The reason is simple:  I never encountered anyone who invested that much energy into finding answers to their questions.  I am not surprised when the general public knows so little about reading scripture, but I was asking my questions of faculty and staff members at a Christian college with a sizeable theological library available to anyone.  Oi vey…

Yep, sometimes understanding the Bible takes a bit of work.  But discussions that leave us believing that scripture is hopelessly inscrutable are irksomely lazy, misleading and just plain wrong.

First, I believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God.  If a person doesn’t believe that statement, then they are off the hook when it comes to the work of interpretation, but they should also stop pontificating about the Bible’s usefulness/uselessness in today’s world.

Second, if a person does share my belief in Biblical inspiration, then it should follow that expending a bit of effort in the task of rightly understanding a Word from God is no big deal.  So, get to work.

Third, every Christian ought to read and study scripture regularly, even daily, with the help of (at least) a good single-volume Bible commentary and a Bible dictionary.

Fourth, yes, there are many multi-volume Bible commentary sets available.  But I will let you in on a little secret: a good many of the modern series are not saying anything particularly new about the Bible.  Most of them exist because today’s publishing houses all want to market their own set of books.  Yes, you will find some variations in interpretation.  There are some choices to be made, but not nearly as many as there are commentaries to buy.  Don’t be fooled by the abundance of books available.

Fifth, a good commentary will survey the interpretive options available whenever a text has been read in different ways throughout church history.  It will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each interpretation, concluding with the commentator’s own preference and the reasons for that selection.  Don’t rely on commentaries where the author only pushes his own views without explanation or looking at the alternatives.  (Note: there are far fewer alternatives than the pundits want you to believe).

Sixth, notice how much of the Bible is actually rather straight-forward.  Yes, historical background is a big help here and there, but most of scripture’s pages will speak to you very simply and straightforwardly.  And remember, the Spirit is always calling us to respond.

So ask yourself: How does this reading want to change me?