How should one read the Bible today?

How we read the Bible today is a controversial issue even within Christianity. This is exactly the topic debated at a recent Oregon State University Socratic Club meeting. Speakers, Dr. Martin Emrich, pastor Westminster Presbyterian Church, and Dr. Susan Shaw, Director of women's studies at Oregon State University, represented two very different opinions on the issue.

Review of Dr. Emrich's opening remarks:

Dr. Emrich opened his presentation with this statement "How we read the Bible depends upon what we think about the Bible." In other words, how we read the Bible depends largely upon our presuppositions. Dr. Emrich went on to explain the key to reading the Bible is allowing the Bible to change said presuppositions. He also pointed out the idea "if the Bible is God’s word, and therefore ultimate truth than we cannot use criteria to determine it’s truthfulness that are outside of the Bible itself because there are no criteria higher or more ultimate than the speech of God." This being the case it is essential for the confessing Christian to submit themselves to life long process of allowing our presuppositions to be changed and thus gain a greater understanding of scripture.

The issue of truth found in scripture became a huge part of the debate. Dr. Emrich stated clearly that truth could be found and truth was indeed found in Scripture. "If truth really is from God then we can’t know it because knowledge is limited to this world, scientific investigation." Regarding the issue of relativity Dr. Emrich said, "if all truth is relative hence no such absolute claim can be advanced, it eventually falls apart." A fact the audience discovered latter in the debate.

Dr. Emrich furthurs his argument in how scripture is to be read by saying "We read the Bible presupposing that God speaks in it. God determines what the book is to mean." However, given the sin nature of mankind it is easy to see how this could be harmed, or distorted. In his closing arugment regarding the issue of the depravity of makind distorting our interpretation of scripture, Dr. Emrich says, "it is through the Holy Spirit we submit our presuppositions."

Review of Dr. Susan Shaw's opening remarks:

Dr. Susan Shaw, director of women's studies at Oregon State made the argument that scripture is simply to be read as any great piece of literature ought to be read. Thus it is no more inspired than say Charlotte Bronte is inspired. She claimed that in reading the Bible one ought not look at the message in each verse but rather the "overaching message, that of God’s love." Thus, it is only the overarching message that is relevant to our time, not the text itself.

Dr. Shaw also deals with the issue of truth in saying "no one man can have the whole truth." In her own interpretation of the Bible she combines three different literary theories, reader-response, deconstruction, and feminism. With the reader-response theory Dr. Shaw claims that it is not the text itself that has meaning, but rather the reader engaging in the act of the reading bringing all of his experiences to the table of interpretation that gives scripture meaning. In a deconstruction/feminist theory of interpretation, Dr. Shaw refuses to take scripture at face value and reads scripture through the eyes of those she feels are "marginalized." Thus, she retells scripture in an effort to meet societal needs. "I work on the text, and the text works on me."

My own analysis of the debate:

Personally I have very little to criticze in Dr. Emrich's presentation. His logic is sound, and so his conclusions. Which brings me to Dr. Shaw's most humorous presentation. Dr. Shaw made several points of a humorous nature throughout her presentation and at one point directly contradicted herself. As Dr. Emrich said early on his presentation "if all truth is relative hence no such absolute claim can be advanced, it eventually falls apart." The evidence of this statement is shown within Dr. Shaw's own statements particularly the statement "no one man can have the whole of truth." Following Dr. Shaw's logic, eventually this statement leads to one of two possible conclusions; either there is some sort of secret knowledge in which man kind can only have part of truth and never actually knows if in fact he has truth. The other possibility is that truth simply does not exist. Where this would fall apart lies in the fact that if in fact truth simply does not exist, then is that statement true? When the question was put to Dr. Shaw she skirted around the issue saying "I don't like to live in such absolutes . . . living in a world of uncertainties is a very comfortable place to be." The problem with Dr. Shaw's perspective is that it complete ignores mankinds need for certainty. Study after study have shown that people, particularly children need routine. This implies that people need certainty. Thus a life of uncertainty is in fact a very uncomfortable place for mankind to be and infact Dr. Shaw directly contradicts herself at the end of her presentation by saying "I like to live in a world of uncertainties, it is a very difficult place to be." Thus, Dr. Emrich's statement that relativity eventually falls apart is proven in Dr. Shaw's statements because eventually a relativist will end up contradicting oneself.

So we see that in a relatvist mindset truth simply does not exist though personally will never admit to that. Thus living in a world of uncertainty is in fact not only uncomfortable it is improbable as well as impractical. Mankind's need for certainty as well as man's understanding of reality keeps relativity thus.