The Bible is a tricky thing. It is devious, misleading, contradicting, and tends to add fuel to the fire of violence. Yet it also teaches a profound love, a profound sense of justice, mercy, grace and peace. It is a tricky thing. Hyper-conservatives who lean towards reading the Bible literally tend to take the literal words that are convenient to his or her life situation, or agenda. Wishy-washy liberal who hold the Bible like a hot-potato tend to hold up the aspects and parts of scripture that will lead toward that idealist picture of everyone in the world holding hands and singing some kind of throw-back greasy song like “Give Peace a Chance,” or “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.” As a Baptist, I strive to hold the Word as an authoritative source for my faith, yet I come out of that wish-washy background, and read with a hesitancy towards the “dangerous” texts.
Here is the book that I read – The Moral Vision of the New Testament by Richard B. Hays. This work offers a comprehensive methodological approach to the NT that avoids the flawed and irresponsible approach of literal inerrancy. Yet Hays does not fall into the whining liberal trap of only historical context as the balm for the “dangerous” texts. Hays considers the rules, the practices, the paradigm and the symbolic world that is offered, holding reason, tradition and experience (Methodists rejoice!) in tension with the text. It is an approach that looks to the canonic value of the entire NT and does not let one text trump over another (this means you can’t hate the homosexual… sorry Phelps, but you are just an --- ---- who is misusing the text).
Yet I wonder if bias still plays a part in interpretation. Hays considers the issues of divorce, homosexuality, Jewish-Christian relationships and abortion. He gives us the impression that he is approaching the text with an objective eye to let the Bible guide him in his discernment. In his conclusions, while well reasoned, and consistent with his methodological, he falls on the conservative side of the issues. Now I must wonder if he fell on those sides because that is where the “moral vision” of the NT is leading him, or because it was where he started. Or, is my pause to find myself completely embracing Hays’ conclusion because of where I have started? Hays critiques Hauerwas’ claim that the Bible is read within one’s tradition, claiming that the Bible should always lead and guide tradition (that is a good Baptist claim). Yet can we ever escape our context? I read Hays chapter on abortion, and I read it as a stronger indictment against poverty – that is due in large part to the context from which I emerge.
The Bible is a tricky thing, one that I strive to hold as an authority. Yet I do not believe it is possible to remove the Bible from the context of the reader and life it up as an objective source guiding us in all that we do. In the end, as Hays suggests, we must rest on the Holy Spirit to guide our reading of these dangerous and liberating text.
Here is the book that I read – The Moral Vision of the New Testament by Richard B. Hays. This work offers a comprehensive methodological approach to the NT that avoids the flawed and irresponsible approach of literal inerrancy. Yet Hays does not fall into the whining liberal trap of only historical context as the balm for the “dangerous” texts. Hays considers the rules, the practices, the paradigm and the symbolic world that is offered, holding reason, tradition and experience (Methodists rejoice!) in tension with the text. It is an approach that looks to the canonic value of the entire NT and does not let one text trump over another (this means you can’t hate the homosexual… sorry Phelps, but you are just an --- ---- who is misusing the text).
Yet I wonder if bias still plays a part in interpretation. Hays considers the issues of divorce, homosexuality, Jewish-Christian relationships and abortion. He gives us the impression that he is approaching the text with an objective eye to let the Bible guide him in his discernment. In his conclusions, while well reasoned, and consistent with his methodological, he falls on the conservative side of the issues. Now I must wonder if he fell on those sides because that is where the “moral vision” of the NT is leading him, or because it was where he started. Or, is my pause to find myself completely embracing Hays’ conclusion because of where I have started? Hays critiques Hauerwas’ claim that the Bible is read within one’s tradition, claiming that the Bible should always lead and guide tradition (that is a good Baptist claim). Yet can we ever escape our context? I read Hays chapter on abortion, and I read it as a stronger indictment against poverty – that is due in large part to the context from which I emerge.
The Bible is a tricky thing, one that I strive to hold as an authority. Yet I do not believe it is possible to remove the Bible from the context of the reader and life it up as an objective source guiding us in all that we do. In the end, as Hays suggests, we must rest on the Holy Spirit to guide our reading of these dangerous and liberating text.
afterthought: I read this text for my book group, not the doctoral work - but it is still a worthwhile book to read
