Institute for Christian Teaching
Education Department of
Seventh-day Adventists
Literary Theory and
Biblical Interpretation
By
Daniel Reynaud
Faculty of Arts
Avondale College
Cooranbong, NSW, Australia
340-98 Institute for
Christian Teaching
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MOD 20904 USA
Prepared for the
22 International Faith and
Learning Seminar
held at Seminar Schloss
Bogenhofen
Austria -August 1998
Introduction: The need for
an Adventist understanding
The challenge of modem literary studies to Christian belief is not a new phenomenon, but many Seventh-day Adventists continue to find its effect on their faith devastating. Textual criticism has radically changed scholastic opinion on the nature of Bible writing and posed dilemmas for Christian academics. The denial of authority by postmodern thought is so pervasive in academic circles that its attacks on Christian faith cannot be ignored. These schools of interpretation are not merely confined to the world of academia. Increasingly, the relativism of modem and postmodern thought has found its way into popular culture, being evident in music, television and changing social mores.
These issues were highlighted for me when I began post-graduate studies in media at a secular university, at the same time as I began to investigate the practical implications of contemporary literary theory for the teaching of English. It became clear to me very quickly that aspects of postmodernism were undeniably true, but they conflicted with aspects of my Adventist upbringing. This posed a radical and threatening challenge: how much of my faith was valid? Shortly after, I met one of my previous students, a brilliant scholar whose faith was in tatters after several years studying linguistics and modem literary theory at university. Her schizophrenic talk about contemporary theory and faith juxtaposed incompatible dogmas of Adventist faith alongside the free-thinking attitudes of postmodernism. She was a very confused and cynical young lady, trapped between simple faith in her heart and sophisticated doubt in her head. Seeing her dilemma, and facing one of my own, I began to research a practical answer to the problems I faced.
It is an issue, which has
attracted much attention of late in Christian circles, with a variety of
responses. Some liberal theologians have adopted postmodernism almost entirely,
creating a radically altered faith that treats the Bible as merely a culture-biased
text from which modem thinkers can create their own paradigms of belief.[1]
I find this unacceptable, replacing a God-centered and revealed faith with one
of human invention, and all too often human convenience. Other Christian
responses are characterized. by a defensive and fearful tone which is too ready
to criticize the new without giving enough consideration as to whether recent
secular ideas have anything to reveal. But it is not secularism or other
religions per se that we should fear, for virtually no philosophy has gained
currency without a grain of truth. And, as Christians have long recognized, all
truth is God's truth, even when it comes wrapped in secular philosophies
complete with human mistakes. It would be reckless and unwise of us to discard
postmodernism entirely without giving it a fair hearing, lest we discard some
gems with the dross.
While some Christian books
dealing with these issues have very useful points of view, they are often still
overly afraid of postmodernism, defensive about issues that they need not be,
and frequently fail to acknowledge ways in which postmodernism can provide
useful insights for the Christian. One example is The Death of Truth, where writer after writer mixes valid criticism
with unnecessary attacks on postmodernist ideas, which have a certain truth of
their own. The chapter 'Evangelical Imperatives' is perhaps the most balanced.[2]
Yet the impact of
contemporary theories need not be negative. Indeed, they could be valuable to
the Christian, enhancing faith and giving a better understanding of God and His
revelation. Christianity has been most effective when it used compatible
contemporary belief as an entry point for its unique claims. A number of
Christian commentators have found in postmodernism aspects, which have made the
Gospel more relevant and practical than ever. Valuable discussions are included
in such books as Christian Apologetics
and the Postmodern World, with some excellent material showing how
postmodernism can revitalize and energize evangelism,[3]
and in Truth is Stranger than It Used to
Be, with a fruitful exposition on how postmodernism can enrich our
understanding of the Bible and uplift Jesus.[4]
Literary theory need not pose a threat to Christianity. As more than one critic
has noted, literature and literary theory are closely connected with religion,
as all are concerned with insight into the human condition, and issues of
textual interpretation.[5]
We would do well to note ways in which literary criticism can enhance our
understanding of the Bible.
The purpose of this paper is
to outline a Seventh-day Adventist worldview in the light of literary theories
and the work of other Christian scholars, with particular reference to the
interpretation of the Bible. A glance at the development of literary theory
will give a context in which to understand traditional Christian thought and
the challenges of literary theory.
Traditional
literary criticism
It is possible to argue that
literary theory has gone through three broad phases of development, each with
its particular characteristics and implications.[6]
The oldest school of literary thought is the traditional author-centered
approach. It argues that as the author generated the meaning of the text, the
meaning resides in the author. Its approach is to study the author's life for
clues about the meaning of the text. The author wrote down (universal) truth,
the reader's task is to discover the truth.[7]
By adapting the language of
Roland Barthes[8] we can
construe the determinant of meaning as a god-like figure, the authority on
meaning and truth for, after all, whoever determines meaning acts as God for
that particular event or text. There is also, in the very real sense of the
word, a displacement by recent theories of the centrality of God in defining
meaning. The use of the term 'God' in this context may be disturbing, but it is
meant to be, for the various literary theories have profound implications for
our understanding of God, inspiration and the Bible. The traditional school of
literary interpretation could be summarized like this:
This school of thought has
a long Christian tradition, felt to this day in Adventist circles. It is the
basis of Fundamentalist views of the Bible, and usually accompanies a belief in
verbal inspiration. Many have felt most comfortable with it, conforming best
with the idea that God is the author of the Bible. Under this theory, the
Christian's task is simply to read what the Bible says, and then accept that as
God's word, true, universal and unchangeable. The attraction of such a position
lies in its simplicity, in assuming that the Bible is transparent. It also
reflects the anti-intellectualism common to the English non-conformist
tradition (to which Adventism in part belongs) in its insistence on the ability
of the common person to understand the Bible without special training.
The strength of this
position is in recognizing the Divine inspiration of the Bible, and in
affirming the right of the individual to read and interpret it. For the most
part, this holds true. Many parts of the Bible are transparent in their meaning
and can be understood by the ordinary reader. But a major problem is that the
Bible can be, and is, interpreted differently by various groups, who each claim
they are right, that they have the Truth.
Each group naturally says that they are merely passing on God's view. However,
even the most literal interpreter has some parts of the Bible, which they do
not interpret literally. Whether it is the abandonment of the Levitical code,
or a reconciliation of the many surface contradictions in the Bible, or an
attempt to annul the Pauline restrictions on women in church, it must be done.
Fundamentalists of course provide some justification for reinterpreting these
passages, but the fact remains that they feel obliged to explain away the
apparently transparent meaning. But in doing so they transgress their own code
for understanding the Word of God.
This dilemma has always
dogged traditional Christian Biblical interpretation. It stems, of course, from
a mistaken belief in verbal inspiration, a view, which many Adventists hold
despite the church's early declaration affirming inspiration of thoughts rather
than words. That Ellen White and her son W. C. White further denied verbal
inspiration of either her writings or of the Bible seems to have escaped many
Adventists.[9]
The dilemma is further compounded by a failure to recognize the part played by
the human authors of the Bible, who phrased the inspired ideas they received
from God within the language and cultural context of their day, a fact more
easily understood through textual approaches to the Bible.
Textual
approaches
The second school of
literary criticism said that meaning was best understood not in the life of the
author, but in the text itself, and its context. Subdivided into formalists,
structuralists, semioticians and Marxists, some textual critics even argued
that regardless of who the individual author was, meaning was generated by
larger and deeper structures which underpinned human existence. They studied
the characteristic qualities of tales and the social conditions which produced
them, noting that regardless of author, stories shared common underlying
structural features.[10]
This school could be summarized like
this:
The textual school of
thought has helped reveal the human dimension in the creation of the Bible, unraveling
various sources from which the existing text of, for example, the Pentateuch
was compiled, and identifying the literary genres within which Biblical writers
worked. Its findings are widely accepted in Christian academic circles.
Valuable as it is though, it poses some problems for traditional Christian
thought. In finding diverse sources for books, or in suggesting that others are
more mythic than historical, it tends to undermine faith in the Divine
inspiration of the Bible. If indeed the Bible or parts of it have been compiled
and edited from myths[11]
and oral traditions, not all of them Hebrew in origin, then how can Christians
claim it is the Word of God?
The work of scholars such as
Walter J. Ong and Jack Goody[12]
on the differences between oral and chirographic, or written, cultures sheds
some light on this dilemma. Their key findings include the tendency for oral
cultures to define meaning contextually through narrative or proverb (as opposed
to the abstract definitions of written cultures), of possessing an integrated
world view fusing the spiritual and material worlds (where scientific written
cultures separate the spheres), and defining the universe mythically (rather
than historically and scientifically). In particular they argue that historical
thinking as we understand it is only possible in a written culture, which
allows facts to be collected, scrutinized and queried. They see oral cultures
as ones of faith, where beliefs are not questioned, whereas chirographic
cultures are marked by skepticism, requiring things to be proved before they
are believed. Other scholarship confirms their findings, noting that the notion
of realism was hazy in the English language until very recently, and that the
distinction between news and fiction is less than three hundred years old. In
fact the differentiation of the two began with the development of regular
newspapers, themselves made possible by the printing press.[13]
A written culture has the
potential to categorize information in two ways. On one spectrum we can oppose
truth and falsehood, and on another we distinguish between fact and fiction.
We can identify things,
which are facts and true, for example the law of gravity. On the other hand we
might label Superman a fiction that is false. Literature provides many examples
of fictions, which are true, stories, which have never literally occurred yet,
which represent truth. One might point to the psychological insights of the
works of Tolstoy or Jane Austen for examples. It is also possible to identify facts,
which are false, things whose existence is a fact, but which represents a moral
falsehood. Ellen White condemned aspects of history, which glorify evil, the
history being factual, but with a corrupting impact.[14]
The continuing popular fascination with the dark side of Nazism as exhibited in
best-selling books on the SS provides a contemporary example. While the terms 'fact'
and 'truth, and 'fiction' and 'false' are not completely separated in written
cultures, we can still make these distinctions - ones which have already been
made by some Adventist scholars in order to help make sense of other literary
questions, especially over Ellen G. White's attitude to fiction.[15]
There are some who argue
convincingly that the introduction of a fact-fiction axis has been harmful to
Christianity. Some Christian scholars have attacked the Western tradition of
objectivism, claiming that the obsession with factuality often prevents our
engagement with truth on a personal level, and calling for a reintegration of
knowledge with faith and obedience. They insist that knowledge of facts without
practice is in fact ignorance, for knowledge can never really be separated from
truth. Facts do not exist outside of relationship, and true relationship is
found in Jesus. Significantly, He claimed to be the Truth, rather than merely
having it. If this is so, then facts and knowledge can never be separated from
relationship.[16] In effect
these scholars are critical of operating on the fact-fiction axis, calling on
Christians to return to the true-false axis alone - a view which, incidentally
and ironically, receives much support from postmodernism, which itself is
critical of the false objectivity of the Western academic tradition.
It is interesting that oral
cultures are not usually interested in facts as externally verifiable,
objective data. The notion of factuality as distinct from truth is hazy, and
there is a strong tendency to overlook historicity in favor of myth.[17]
In effect their thinking is best characterized by only one axis: the true-false
axis. Therefore all true fictions are treated in precisely the same manner as
true facts - they are usually indistinguishable; similarly, false facts are
treated in the same manner as false fictions. Anything that reveals truth is
treated as truthful, whether it is historical or not. To a written culture this
presents a potential problem. We may insist on the historicity of stories which
were originally valued for their truthfulness, imposing on them a dimension
which was not under consideration at the time. But if the stories can be
demonstrated to be unfactual, faith in the truthfulness of the collection tends
to be seriously damaged.
The Bible, while composed by
members of a literate nation and displaying some of the qualities of
chirographic thought processes, also bears many of the hallmarks of oral
thinking, for the written word was still in very limited circulation at this
time. In particular, the literature of the Old Testament is colored by the
concrete nature of the limited Hebrew vocabulary. Consequently, its dominant
literary forms are narrative, proverb and poetry characteristic of oral
literary forms, and the relatively small sections of abstract reasoning and
logic tend to be couched in poetic imagery and narrative forms. The Old
Testament is also marked by an integrated worldview where the gods interact
with the human world and cause all natural phenomena. This does not detract
from its literary depth or brilliance, for an oral-based literature is in no
way inferior to chirographic literature, but it can leave the Bible open to
misinterpretation by modem minds, who may decode it according to chirographic
codes rather than oral codes. Recent challenges to the factuality of elements
of the Biblical account have disturbed many Christians. Of course, like too
many Christians of the Renaissance era, we could rant and rail against heresy
in science and scholarship, but we risk embarrassment, not to mention the
damage done to God's name, if time shows the challenges to be right.
Alternately, if we keep in
mind that the Bible writers were interested in truth, not factuality, then
there need be no question over its truthfulness, and the issue ceases to be a
problem. Furthermore, neither Ellen White nor her son saw the Bible as an
absolute authority on history, the Scriptures described in W. C. White's words
as having 'disagreements and discrepancies'. But none of this detracted from
the Bible's ability to reveal the way of salvation.[18]
Should science or archaeology demonstrate that our belief in the factuality of
elements of Bible stories is misplaced, we have lost nothing, and gained a
clearer understanding of God's truth. Such has been the case often in the past,
when theologians have resisted scientific insight as contradicting the Word,
only later to find that there was in fact only a failure on their part to
understand the Bible rightly.
When we consider literary
genre, the problem recedes even further. A recognition of the imaginative
elements in some stories and parables and of the hyperbole characteristic of
both Bible prose and poetry helps us understand the theme even more clearly
without needing to take every element literally, and without damaging our faith
in its inspiration. It is critically important that we decode literature
according to the codes by which it was created, if we wish to understand what
they meant to the original readers, and for this reason we should be wary of
moving outside of the true-false axis when engaging in Biblical criticism. For
example, the factuality of the story of Jonah has been questioned by
scholarship, which points out details in the story incompatible with all our knowledge
of the ancient world.[19]
But, among other things, the book is a satire, a powerful attack on racial and
religious prejudice, in which all the heathen display more Godliness than the
supposedly Godly prophet. Even animals such as great fish, cattle and worms are
more obedient that Jonah! This is a truth, which remains true, applicable to
good church-going people of all ages, whether one feels the story is factual or
fictional. It need not lead to a loss of faith in the Bible.
Postmodernism
The most recent school of
thought, growing out of developments in textual criticism, which were labeled
modernism, has questioned the authority of both authors and texts in
determining meaning. Postmodernist theories such as deconstructionism and reader
response have helped us recognize that language is polysemic and unstable -
that signifiers do not have either fixed or single meanings. In revealing the
multiple significations of texts, they identify the reader as the place where
meaning is generated. Without a reader, argues the postmodernist, there is no
text. Each reader produces his or her
own construct of meaning, which is not inherent in a text. Each reader produces
a meaning differing in some way from every other reader; furthermore, each
reader produces a different reading during each successive reading of a text.
Here there is no universal truth. Each reader constructs their own, according
to their set of experiences and the parameters of the text.[20]
Postmodernists reject meta-narrative - stories that claim to explain the world -
for in their eyes they make certain constructed meanings appear natural,
suggesting a universal ethic, which inevitably condemns those who do not belong
to it. The Bible, for example, as a meta-narrative favors Jews and Christians
and proclaims the damnation of non-believers, an attitude that history has
sadly revealed to be common among those supposedly God's people.
By denying the existence of
universal truth originating either from God or from common human experience,
postmodernism deconstructs the very foundations of Christianity, removing the
authority of the Bible as the revealed Word of God and reducing it merely to a
series of constructs made by individual readers. All external authority is
denied; the concept of universal truth is exposed as merely social convention;
and all significance is reduced to the level of the individual. This school
could be summarized like this:
This view presents the
greatest contemporary challenge to the Christian. Ignoring for a moment the
self-deconstructing nature of postmodernist theories (they absolutely and
universally deny the absolute and universal), we must concede that they reveal
a truth about language and texts. It is true that people read texts
differently, and construct meanings, which vary from individual to individual,
or within an individual when revisiting a text. This is because language is
open to variable interpretation, and words shift in meaning over time, and
because people bring different experiences to texts. As we have noted, this is
especially evident in the history of Christianity, where the bewildering
diversity of Christian denominations, each insisting that they are right,
provides further evidence for the postmodernist assertions that texts do not
have single, fixed meanings.
Postmodernism leaves the
Church in a dilemma, for it denies the tenets of the Christian faith. The
consequences are that doctrine ceases to exist, faith is individualized, and
the evangelical character of Adventism must be dropped. The imperative to evangelize
comes from the belief that Jesus is the only way to salvation, but post-modernism
denies the exclusive universality of truth.
There is an alternative to
the either-or conflict between traditional Christian belief and postmodernist
thought. The postmodernist challenges to Divine inspiration need not make them
a threat to faith. A Christian context can turn them into an invaluable resource.
Their relativist ideas are undeniably true when applied to humanity, providing
an excellent explanation of the human world. It is true that we are relative
beings, imperfect, incapable of grasping the universal, always understanding
and expressing it in incomplete, imperfect terms.
The failings of the theories
are in trying to make themselves universal - a tension that we have already
noted. We must recognize their limitations - rather than offering a universal
model for approaching texts, they provide only a partial explanation of the
process of generating meaning. Meanings and texts are not as slippery as
postmodernists sometimes seem to indicate.[21]
While language is polysemic, its conventions are stable enough to allow humans
often to achieve significant consensus on meaning. Cultural and literary
contexts contribute a pool of common codes, which constrain the meanings of
texts. Genres help readers determine the nature of meaning: some, like poetry
or apocalyptic, invite multiple significations; others, like scientific papers,
strive to eliminate alternative interpretations. Authors are involved in
shaping meaning by their choice of genre and their skill in manipulating
language.
A Christian
model
Postmodernism accurately
reveals the temporal, relative human state - a condition that Christianity
agrees with. But Christianity goes further, saying that there is an absolute,
an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God who, by His very nature is beyond
our finite comprehension. It is natural therefore, that postmodernist thinking
is often unable to perceive Him. Its error is in declaring that therefore there
is no infinite truth. Recognizing our limited state, God did what we were incapable
of doing: He revealed Himself to us through the Bible, as the author-centered
approach affirms. In order to explain Himself to limited and relative
creatures, He adopted their terms and frames of reference. Christians have long
understood that God is anthropomorphized in the Bible. He creates pictures of
Himself - necessarily limited -, which are accessible to relative beings. The
Bible itself makes this clear. Ezekiel (1:26-28), Daniel (10:5-6) and
Revelation (1: 13-16) all describe God in metaphoric terms, for literal human
language is inadequate. I Corinthians 13:13 reminds us that we see God
indistinctly, but later will see Him clearly; that now we know in part, but
later will fully know, even as we are fully known. The Bible is therefore not a
complete picture of God, but it is a
sufficient one. It reveals enough about Him for us to know and trust Him, to
develop a saving relationship with Him.
The point is made even more
clearly in the incarnation of Christ. God recognized that the Old Testament was
an incomplete revelation of His character, hence the fuller revelation of God
in the person of Jesus (Hebrews 1: 1-3). Even then, He adopted the guise of
humanity, shrouding divinity in a form, which was accessible to us. The
consequence was that many refused or were unable to recognize who He was (John 7:40-44;
14:8). In a similar manner, though less perfect than Jesus, the Bible is Divine
insight wrapped in limited human thought and language. The model of this worldview
would look like this:
This
model helps us to see that while God is absolute, our grasp of Him is always
limited. This means that we have got some things right and some things wrong.
We also have large areas of ignorance, and even what we know is only partial.
Recognizing the absoluteness of God and our relative understanding of His will
can save Adventism from two errors, which have dogged the Christian church
throughout its history.
Firstly, it is a powerful
preventative against dogmatism, pride and a persecuting attitude towards those
who differ from us. The sad legacy of Christian intolerance and persecution of
infidels and other Christians has too often been based on an author-centered
approach to the Bible. People who believe this naturally believe that their
understanding of the Bible is the unmediated Word of God. They fail entirely to
perceive that between God's revelation and their own ideas is both the filter
of a human Bible writer and the reader's own imperfect, limited and fallible
understanding. And, as some have shown, the Bible is unlike other meta-narratives
in that it is very sensitive to suffering, and posits a God equally outside of
all human cultures.[22]
His interest extends to all people in all cultures in all time. The nature of
the Biblical narrative, therefore, also argues against human spiritual
arrogance, rather suggesting tolerance and peace.
Secondly, it provides a
secure base from which to face challenges to our faith. Christians have often
reacted to challenges to their treasured beliefs by either attacking the change
or abandoning their faith. Neither is healthy. The failure of Christianity to
accept scientific discoveries, which overturned an earth-centered view of the
universe, cost the early modern Church considerable credibility. On the other
hand, many have lost their faith in God because one of their cherished beliefs
was demonstrated to be no longer true. This model allows us to avoid both
extremes. For the problem in both cases can be seen to reside in us, not the
Word of God or even science. New truth, which contradicts old beliefs, reminds
us that we understood the old only in part, or incorrectly. It is not God who
is inadequate; it is our understanding of Him. With this understanding, new
information can be welcomed without threatening our faith.
This also helps us to
recognize the nature of the inspiration of the Bible. In the language of Ellen
White, it is 'a union of the divine and the human'.[23]
It is the revelation of the Eternal and
Absolute through the temporal and limited understanding and language of
relative human beings. As the textual critics remind us, writers wrote within a
cultural perspective, which was often woven into the fabric of their message.
For example the difference in perspective of I Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles
21:1 partly reflects the fact that the first writer wrote at a time before a
theology of Satan had been developed. Hence all human actions were considered
to be prompted by God. This tendency to ascribe all motivation - good and evil -
to God can be seen in other parts of the Old Testament, Pharaoh for instance
during the ten plagues of Egypt (Exodus 9:12; 10; 1, 19, 27 etc).
It is worth considering two
other helps to understanding the Bible aright: that of the Holy Spirit and of
the collective wisdom of the church. The Holy Spirit was promised to us to lead
us into all truth, which assures us of Divine assistance in interpreting the
Bible. The caution of course is that experience shows us that many people, even
good people, have misinterpreted Scripture. The failing is not in the Spirit,
but in human limitations of understanding, in failure to follow Him, and in
arrogance in assuming that our understandings are God's intentions, in part or
in whole. The church's collective will has similar strengths and weaknesses.
The counsel of the church can prevent extremism and heresy, but can also fail
to respond positively to new light, as witnessed in the successive reform
movements in Protestantism as each previous movement refused to grow further.
In effect, these two guides share the strengths and weaknesses of the model
proposed above: the Divine element is reliable, but we are apt at times to
confuse this with the fallible human element.
But as the Bible reveals,
the genius of God is in accomplishing His Divine purposes without violating the
will and freedom of fallible and often uncooperative human beings. The human
element of the Bible never prevents God from revealing His true nature to us.
However, it does require that we be wise in interpreting His book. Recognizing
that it is the Word of God expressed in human terms, we need to be careful to
distinguish between its Divine precepts and their human expression. Otherwise
we are likely to take as absolutes some of the relative and very human
statements in the Bible which have disturbed Christians throughout the ages.
Contemporary theory confirms
what the Bible says about the fallen and limited human condition. It further
affirms our need of external Divine intervention, as our own efforts are
inevitably flawed, incomplete and introspective. It helps us trust God more
completely, while being less certain of our own righteousness and
infallibility. It also strengthens our dependence on the Word of God as the
only sure guide of God's will, being the product of His Divine intervention
into our world. While we may hold firmly to our understanding of God, we
simultaneously acknowledge that a better, clearer picture is just around the
comer. Should this image disrupt some of our preconceptions, the problem lies
with us, not with God or His revelation.
References