I was listening to a sermon tape while in the car the other day and the preacher said something intriguing - in fact he was relaying something his wife had said to him and he expressed continual thanks to her for it.
He said that we must move away from the idea that we INTERPRET the Bible and move to a more correct expression - that we COMPREHEND the Bible.
The assumption is of course that God has spoken and we just need to work out what he has said. We cannot interpret what he has said, we just need to comprehend it.
Same with my kids. If I say stop - I mean it. And they need to comprehend, understand and apply. They would be wrong to interpret my word stop as meaning go.
Likewise, try out telling a policeman that your interpretation of the speed sign was 170kph not 70 and see if he goes for the whole interpret/ comprehend distinction.
I raise this because I see on may forma (is that the right plural for forum - did not do latin :p ) that people say “That is just your interpretation” and therby dismiss whol arguments. Or as one I have just read, “Jesus parable can be interpreted in many different ways”. With this I agree, but the question is, don’t we need to comprehend the correct understanding?
If we are just using interpret as a trendy way of saying understand then let’s be un-trendy folks.
I think perhaps that this is little more than a semantic distinction. When people talk about “correctly interpreting” the Scriptures, I would suspect that they mean they are “comprehending” the Scriptures. On the other hand, when someone states that “this is simply your interpretation”, they are really saying “you have failed to adequately comprehend the text”.
Of course, this idea only works within the modernist framework adopted by evangelicalism. Interestingly enough, however, the understanding that a particular passage may only have one “correct interpretation” is in itself an example of “interpretation” and may or may not adequately “comprehend” either the Bible itself, or indeed God.
[quote author="David Castor"]On the other hand, when someone states that “this is simply your interpretation”, they are really saying “you have failed to adequately comprehend the text”.
Is that true tho, David? More often than not these days I get the feeling when someone says “that is just your interpretation” that they are expressing what your second paragraph described - the post-modern idea that there are multiple differing understandings of the text in question that are all equally valid, despite appeals to context, grammar, or other reasoning towards a “more correct” understanding of the text. “your” implies that the two readers “own” their respective interpretations, and somewhat sidelines the existence of any particular intention of the author that might be able to validate the competing interpretations.
[quote author="Nigel Fortescue"]the question is, don’t we need to comprehend the correct understanding?
If we are just using interpret as a trendy way of saying understand then let’s be un-trendy folks.
At school, I think the term comprehension was used as simply being able to read the text - ie “what does the text say?” Perhaps the process of interpretation is the next step of getting to “what does the text mean?”
On the other hand, I think maybe we use the term comprehension differently for texts than with people. I don’t so much “interpret” a conversation while it’s happening - I either comprehend it or I don’t. Interpretation seems to be the reflective task looking back on a past conversation or analysing a text, disconnected from the speaker in time and medium. Comprehension seems to be more personal (which is a good thing!), because it treats words as conversation. It builds relationship by attempting to understand the other person through their words, not just to gain an intellectual stimulus to my own thinking.
Is that true tho, David? More often than not these days I get the feeling when someone says “that is just your interpretation” that they are expressing what your second paragraph described - the post-modern idea that there are multiple differing understandings of the text in question that are all equally valid, despite appeals to context, grammar, or other reasoning towards a “more correct” understanding of the text.
I guess that depends upon who is actually making the allegation and whether they would consider themselves to be entrenched in either the modernist or post-modernist camp. So then, “this is just your interpretation” could be interpreted in two different ways depending upon the author’s actual intention in making such a statement.
[quote author="David Castor"]I guess that depends upon who is actually making the allegation and whether they would consider themselves to be entrenched in either the modernist or post-modernist camp. So then, “this is just your interpretation” could be interpreted in two different ways depending upon the author’s actual intention in making such a statement.
Can’t say I often hear evangelicals (assuming that’s equivalent to an entrenched modernist Christian) saying “this is just your interpretation”, tho. Seems like that’s more a luxury of the liberal camp.
In that particular form of words, if anyone says ”simply your interpretation” then it’s likely they think that an interpretation is lesser than/derived from the text. But then, I suppose I could interpret what they are saying, based on what camp they are entrenched in (by the way, are you still allowed to dig trenches around your tent when you’re camping?) or based on whether I think they know what they’re saying - are they saying “simply your” because that’s how their culture always packages the word “interpretation”, or do they mean what they say? That is, maybe they’re not postmodern, maybe they’re just lazy talkers and hang out with postmodernists.
Okay: I agree with David, but I disagree with his reasoning. A-ha! You’re both wrong, and I’m right!
Sorry, I’ll stop teasing you both now. Enjoying the discussion.
[quote author="Arthur Davis"][quote author="David Castor"]Of course, this idea only works within the modernist framework adopted by evangelicalism.
Bad little evangelicals. BAD!
But evangelicals have not been historically modernist.
It may seem strange to us (and did to me) living alongside 21st Century post-modern liberalism, but the modernist liberals, were just as bad.
They both used their own intellect to go above the bible, and decide what God can and can’t have done (a big example is a quote from a UK paper “no learned man seriously still believes in Baalam’s ass or Jonah’s Whale” during the 1930’s(?)).
The problem for evangelicals (and I Know David does not Generally claim to be one), and a great blessing, is they aren’t culture dependent, and need to keep remembering that what is good in a culture, can at another time and place be overshadowed by what is bad.
I think though there can be a tendency to rely on scripture and not rely on knowing God personally.
Peter gives a great example of this in 2 Peter, that we are to add to our personal relationship in personally knowing God epignosis, knowledge about God gnosis, but to these things we have to add other things as well.
I think some people see study of the scriptures as their relationship with God and that is a dangerous place to be.
[quote author="Peter Denham"]
The problem for evangelicals (and I Know David does not Generally claim to be one), and a great blessing, is they aren’t culture dependent
Is that necessarily true for all elements of evangelicalism and all elements of pop culture? For while it may true that evangelicals tend to be counter-cultural (or is the term “reactionary” a better designation?) in some respects, such as developments in stem cell research, sexual orientation and a whole host of other issues categorised as being moral. However, evangelicals tend to be much more conformist when it comes to other aspects of popular culture. For instance, it has recently amazed me (though perhaps I should not be amazed) that evangelicalism tends to be no less middle-class and consumerist than the rest of mainstream society. Perhaps people may disagree with me, in which case I would be more than happy to hear your comments.
For instance, it has recently amazed me (though perhaps I should not be amazed) that evangelicalism tends to be no less middle-class and consumerist than the rest of mainstream society. Perhaps people may disagree with me, in which case I would be more than happy to hear your comments.
As a minister of a church in an area where comsumerism is strong I have to agree with you. But you will hear me regularly preach against such consumerism (and I try and make sure that I don’t have a log in my eye as I do), especially in light of the treasures that wait for us in heaven.
Christians are called to be counter-cultural in those areas of life where the norms of our culture clash with the norms of Christian living (such as consumerism).
That’s what I was thinking, Peter: both postmodernism and modernism are inadequate.
Besides, as a student of history, I suggest we understand postmodernism as both a reaction to and an extension of modernism. I think Michel Foucault was on to something when he identified (what we now call) postmodernism as the next logical step of modernism.
Of course, I believe there is a better way! We are not totally culture-bound…
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
