Deconstructing the Bible, Part 2
Breaking it all down: the thought process which brought me peace as I faced the fears induced by my mad question-asking.
This week, I’m going to take a more technical approach to the newsletter as I continue to deconstruct the ways I used to read the Bible. The reason is that when I first began questioning what I had grown up learning, I felt guilty. I had nights where I would wake up panicky and scared— would God strike me dead for what I was thinking? In those moments, I would walk myself through my process of thinking, focusing on some of the things I will talk about in this letter. This would calm me and center me. I also believed God was love, and I held onto that like a lifeline as I processed my questions.
An Internal Dialogue with Those-Who-Once-Taught-Me-The-Bible
“I’m right about the Bible. Listen to me. Don’t listen to them. They don’t know what they’re talking about.”
But why? Why should I listen to you?
“Why? Well, I’ve cracked the code, you see. I’ve kept it simple. The Bible isn’t a complicated book, after all. And, all the words that are there are God’s, so be respectful. People who question it just don’t want to do what it says.”
Oh-kay. So what do we do about the fact that in Genesis 16:3-4, Sarai gives a slave woman she owns named Hagar to Abraham, “as a wife,” and Abraham has sex with her and impregnates her… and,
Hagar is given no dialogue or voice in these verses.
She is a slave.
She never consents to what Sarai and Abraham do to her.
“Oh, that was just the culture back then. Don’t read too much into it.”
So keeping it simple, and reading it simply, means reading about a rape and human trafficking in the Bible and brushing it off. Wait. If these are God’s words, this means that God is talking about the rape and human trafficking of Hagar without pointing out that it is wrong. No. I can’t accept a God who says rape or human trafficking is okay. That is not a God of love.
Thoughts This Dialogue Sparks
Now, I know there is more to the story, and that God later cares for Hagar and her son. But that doesn’t obscure or change what transpires in Genesis 16:3-4.
This is not the only time in the scriptures we read about a heinous act which goes unchecked by the author; and if the author is God, that is troubling.
To spell it out: If we say that all the words in Scripture are directly from God, and that the Bible is simply God’s clear message to us, than we are using an interpretive lens which has, from time to time, given birth to acts of violence and hatred (slavery, for example), and not love.
For example, when the New England colonies formed and grew in the 17th and 18th centuries, they built a thriving economy using slave labor. Though some of us may have learned this when we took American History, what we may not have heard was how the religious leaders of that time used the Good Book to justify uit. To understand this better, check out this article. Or, if you want to dive even deeper, read historian Ibram X. Kendi’s book, Stamped from the Beginning.
It is telling that the scriptures never say it is wrong to own slaves (just as they never say the rape of Hagar and other women was wrong). Of course, there are places in the Bible that say things like, “We are all one in Christ.” This absence of any direct condemnation of slavery in the Bible, however, led many early theologians to try to convince slave-owners that while they ought to convert their slaves, they needn’t free them.
Cotton Mather is a prime example. He believed slaves could become Christians, but also, in keeping with certain scriptures, that they ought to be “Dutiful… unto their Superiors.” To reach the ethical stance that slavery is morally wrong which most people hold today, anti-slavery Bible interpreters actually had to hold some scriptures above others and read between the lines. They had to go beyond a “simple, black-and-white, literal” interpretation, in other words, to come to the conclusion that slavery is not in line with Christian values.
What is interpretation anyways? And what does it mean?
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, interpreting is the act of making something clear or understandable.
As humans, we are constantly interpreting each other's words, especially when they come in written form. We are asking, “What does this mean?” And when we ask, “What does this mean?” we are almost always wondering, “What does this mean to me?”
Now, if we are trying to interpret what someone we know said, we can simply ask them, “What did you mean by that?” However, if the person who wrote the message is unreachable, we are left to interpret the words ourselves. This is how it is with the Bible; it is up to us readers to try to decipher what it means (and there are many excellent tools and methods which can be used to do this); but we can’t go back and ask the original writer what they meant.
All of this leads to my next question: is it possible for three, five, ten, or even two people, reading a text separately, to arrive at exactly the same interpretation of it? Why or why not? And also, where is meaning actually found, especially when it comes to scripture? Think about this for a week or two, and then think about the implications of your answer.
Now, if you feel an argument rising in you that this might happen with other texts but never with the Bible, I respectfully ask you to open your ears and listen. Even you might have a slightly different interpretation of next Sunday’s scripture passage than your pastor does.
It’s Not That Simple, Nor Should It Be
So when someone tells you, “This is the simplest, most literal, reading of a passage,” it is okay for you to be cognizant of the fact that they are giving you their understanding of the passage, since there is no possible way they could have gone back and interviewed the original author(s).
Take the person who tells you this (that they have the most literal/clear understanding) with a grain of salt, and ask yourself why they might be interpreting the way they are. Better yet, ask yourself what the result of their interpretation might be as it plays out practically— if the end result isn’t love, it might be worth seeking out or adopting another point of view.
Herma-what?
One more thing to think about is what leads an author, teacher, or preacher (or you) to interpret as they do. Whether they recognize it or not, they are bringing their experience and social status to their interpretation. They are also applying a framework, or philosophy, of belief to their reading.
If they think God is the author of all the words in the Bible, for example, then that will cause them to interpret a passage differently than if they believe the Bible was written by people who throughout history were trying to figure God out. If they believe the Bible contains only one message for all humanity, then that will affect their interpretation too. Having a philosophy of belief like one of these is called hermeneutics.
As with interpretation, asking what “fruit” a given hermeneutic produces is important, as is understanding which hermeneutic the pastor/teacher/author is applying in the first place.
Did you know that the hermeneutic which says that, when it comes to the scriptures, God told people exactly what to write and then they wrote it actually comes from the Medieval period, at least if art has anything to say about it. Much Medieval art depicts an angel whispering into a biblical author’s ear, telling them what to write. Nowadays, many theologians and scholars do not think the Bible originated this way.
As an example of a hermeneutic which does not end in love, take a look at what has historically happened when Christians have taken the hermeneutical stance that they are either “God’s chosen people,” or Israel, or both.
Many of the folks who first settled in what came to be America were Puritans and Pilgrims, and they arrived fleeing religious persecution. What not everyone knows, though, is that they read the Bible and identified with the Israelites who were fleeing Egypt. A group of them even formed a covenant with God when they landed on American soil; this covenant parallels God’s covenant with Israel.
Because some of the early colonists believed they were God’s chosen people, they held that their actions were condoned by God. They also believed they had a right to settling on the land they found, even if it meant kicking the current inhabitants out. It is easy to see how this belief fueled Manifest Destiny, which caused harm and heartache to so many (mostly anyone not considered white).
Even today, the rhetoric of “We are God’s people” has been gaining traction and popularity in certain political spaces. What fruit do you suppose it will bear? Do you think that reading yourself into every passage that mentions “Israel” will yield the fruit of love? Or will it lead to the exclusion and the cutting off of anyone who doesn’t believe just like you?
A Few Concluding Thoughts
Friend, there are many different ways to read the Bible. Last week, I promised to address several different issues when it comes to how we read the Bible. As I began to write this week’s newsletter, I saw that it would have to be the second of several in a series about deconstructing the Bible. This week, I wanted to take a deep dive into interpretation and hermeneutics and what fruit a person’s ideas about God and the Bible produces. What I really want you to know is that it is okay to ask questions and then follow your curiosity and instincts, even if you’re scared. Honestly, if God is a God who lives in a box that has to be protected, then she’s not a “big” enough God for me.
In my next newsletter, I will talk through the other topics I originally promised to address: namely, why I no longer call the first section of the Bible the “Old Testament,” what the various theories of the formation of the Bible are, and who you identify with in the scriptures and why.
Thanks for reading, friend! Please share this post if you know of anyone whom it might empower or encourage.