Question: When we are navigating differences in theology with fellow christians, is it ever proper to say that someone, by nature of holding to a different theological framework or idea, is standing opposed to scripture?
I mean, I understand that we hold to our positions and beliefs because we see it as true. Thus it would follow that we see differing interpretations, given that we engage and test and explore them, as not true/problematic/not likely (fill in the blank).
The other factor here is that while we don’t all agree on the doctrine of inerrancy (that’s something I reject, for example), the simple fact is that most if not all christians see the scriptures as a necessary part of Christian formation and engagement and likewise desire to understand them for what they are actually saying and communicating in their world. Thus to say someone doesn’t value the scriptures or doesn’t see them as important simply on the basis that there is disagreement on our understanding of the scriptures isn’t a good faith approach or good faith argument.
What I think is more appropriate is tto say that theological disagreement means that we hold to different “interpretations.” That distinction is far more than mere semantics. It actually matters to whether differing interpretations can co-exist or not.
Why do I bring this up? Because I’ve encountered that in different discussions alone no less than five times this past week. And without a doubt it erodes the possibility of dialogue and engagement.
A recent example:
I was reading in a book called A Theology of Flourishing: The Fullness of Life For All Creation by Paul Schutz and I came across a note that had me reconsidering a popular translation of a particular verse (2 Corinthians 5:17)
One of the things the author notes, leaning on a commentary by David Horrell, is how often times when we come to these verses in the Greek or Hebrew we are encountering verses that lack clear verbs. Which means we have to make decisions about which verbs to insert, filling it in with our English translations in a way that given scholarship sees as best reflecting the whole.
While this certainly is done flowing in one direction (what does the whole indicate the best translation of a specific verse should be), it’s a reminder that history is full of examples that also flow in the opposite direction: specific translations of singular verses that go on to dictate how we read the whole. A whole that often builds specific Traditions.
Meaning, part of what we navigatge in our disagreements are whole Traditions, contexts, cultures and complex historical trajectories. What’s important to remember in this case is that if we are challenging a theology that has a normalized presence in a particular culture, Tradition or context, it doesn’t mean we are “inventing new theologies or ideas,” nor that we are wrong simply because the majority in our given context disagrees.
It’s a reminder that when it comes to the scriptures we are all acting as interpreters of the text. We are all employing an interpretive lens. We are all participating in larger converstaions that reflect the broader reality of this we call Christianity. For me thats part of the beauty of the theological process. It’s why I see it as important. It’s why I love it. It’s a place where I should expect to be constantly challenged in my thinking. Having my paradigms challenged and sometimes changed is where I’ve found God to be most readily heard. In this way, I don’t think It should ever be the case that we accuse fellow Christians of opposing the scriptures, rather it should be the case that we can hold one accountable to standing in the way of allowing the scriptures to speak and to be honestly read.
On that front, and getting back to the above example, I found this reading of 2 Corinthians 5:17 to be quite compelling. It is commonly translated in the West as the following:
“So whoever is in Christ is a new creation. Everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new.”
In this case there are no clear verbs, so this interpretation is inserting what it sees the inference to be in light of the whole. Harrell argues that the better reading, the one with the greater explanatory power when it comes to making sense of the whole, reads in the following way:
“So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new.”
You can see how this subtle change makes a huge difference to the narrative we see this passage communicating and assuming. In the first case it is about us and what happens to us- salvation becomes about the fate of the individual (we are a new creation “in Christ.”. In the latter case it is specifically about how “in Christ” we see what God has done in and for the world- the whole of creation. Further, it is about how we see that world. Outside of Christ we see the old creation. In Christ we see the new creation. Thus to be “In Christ” is to have our lens, our worldview, changed and transformed. The hope comes from what we see when we look at the world, not at ourselves.
Two different ways of framing our hope and telling the story of the Gospel with two very different emphasis and very different aims.
What’s more intriguing to me about this example though is how this translation fits within the whole. In reading through the larger passage in 2 Corinthians I’ve found once buried cosmic interests coming to the surface, and certain verses that once felt disconnected falling better into place. To me this is a good sign, as is often the mantra of any good theory, because the greater the explanatory power the more compelling it becomes. The Gospel in this sense gains more clarity by speaking first to what God has done in and for the world. From this angle we find an invitation to particpate in what God has done in the world rather than seein the Gospel as God’s intent to save us from the world. In the former our transformation comes from God’s faithfulness in the transformation of the world, in the former a transformed world becomes our reward for being saved according to “our faith.”
That’s one small example of how different conceptions of what a verse means doesn’t negate either position from loving or reading or being committed to the scriptures. And applying that more broadly, it certainly doesn’t negate either position from speaking within the Christian Tradition. If we cannot afford one another the basic dignity and respect of owning our faith and taking it seriously, even those who might ultimately reject it through authentic searching and wrestling, we cannot actually grow ourselves.
The Stories of my Life 