Just How Relevant Is The Bible? Thoughts on Scriptural Interpretation, Authority, and Literary Criticism

So... I have been conversing recently with a very interesting minister about Scriptural interpretation; specifically, we have been talking about postmodern interpretations of the Bible. This gentleman is a supporter of a "postmodern hermeneutic", which is a very vague concept that I am having real trouble following and understanding. My issue is not with understanding postmodernism as a philosophical or critical model - that is not really that difficult. Read Lyotard, Derrida, maybe a few others, and you can get the basics pretty quickly. My issue lies in how postmodernism is being applied in this situation, specifically when it is used to interpret Scripture.

First, a basic understanding of the postmodern critical approach is necessary to follow this discussion. Using the most basic model, the idea is to get at the underlying contradictions within a text, by examining the deconstruction of the text - that is, the ways in which the text is internally inconsistent with its assumptions and foundations. This is intended to show that a text has no single "Being" (to take the term that Martin Heidegger used when he coined the phrase "deconstruction") or "Essence" (as used by Derrida). This may sound odd, and it may not make much sense. If you find this hard to follow, don't feel alone. Luminaries of such brilliance as Searle, Chomsky, and Foucault have rejected much of the thought of the postmodern critics. But, since I would like to understand where these kind of thoughts come from, I'll try to explain it as best I can. So let me use an example, if I may.

Most people assume that a book has a meaning - generally one meaning. Postmodernism, however, rejects this. It would suggest that instead the book has myriad meanings, based on the individual reader and their interpretative work within the text. The idea is that the text itself reveals the inconsistency within itself, and it opens itself up to many possibilities. Thus Hamlet is only about madness if the individual reader makes it so. The Great Gatsby can be saying many things, all of which may be different, based on the individual reader's understanding of the language that is being used.

Before I show why PoMo (postmodern) criticism does NOT work, and where it does not work, let me begin by stating that I agree with much of what these thinkers are saying. Language is a highly morphic thing - words evolve in meaning rapidly, and often mean different things to different people. For example, I want you to take the following word, and think about the picture that comes into your mind when it is written. Think about phrases that come to mind, associations, etc. Ready? The word is: patriotism.

Got it in your head? Your image, association, meaning? Take a minute and do it, for real - it will make the point more clear.

When I hear that word, I think "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." I picture protests, the Tea Party, Johnson burning the American flag in Texas and bringing the case to the

Supreme Court to protect his freedom to do so. I picture Kent State, and the students who were so brave there. I picture all o f this and more.

I can imagine, that others have other ideas, like the 4th of July, or fireworks, or blind support of the country... whatever. The point is not who is right and who is wrong - the point is that language is morphic, and highly subjective. Right on?

So PoMo criticism is pretty cool when applied to standard literature and the like. It gets at the foundations of human understanding, though one can argue the effectiveness of it - it is critical to remember that postmodernism is not a forgone conclusion, since there are many, especially within the hard sciences who reject it utterly. So - good for getting at the human understanding... but what about non-human understanding? Well, on a theoretical level, it should work with anything that is subject to time and interpretation. So essentially, it is good for all mortal things.

So, it seems natural to many that this kind of interpretation be used on the Bible - except for one little problem. The Bible, while penned by men, is literally the words of God Himself. Yes, this requires a leap of faith. But really, isn't all of Christianity a leap of faith? Which is more astonishing - that God told men what to wrote and they wrote it, or that Jesus Christ, the only Son of God died to forgive our sins, and was raised from the dead to conquer Death and the Devil? If we can believe that God's Son came to us in the flesh, it is not that much harder to believe that God spoke to men and they transcribed that Voice's words.

Now let's get back to postmodern interpretation. If we use PoMo to get at the basis of mortal understanding, can it get any deeper? If I were a scientist, I would ask it this way - if science is about the observable, can it be used to describe the unobservable? The only answer available is a quick and resounding "No!" Similarly, can human psychology describe the inhuman? "No" is the only reasonable answer, yet again. In the same way, postmodernism is rooted in human use of language, and the ambiguity associated with the generative and transformational aspects of linguistics - it is not useful for dealing with the Divine. Deconstruction is all about the inherent contradiction of human thought and languages, about the moment when human inconsistency becomes apparent. Since God has no inconsistency, there is nothing present to incite the "deconstructive event".

As a postscript, let me affirm that I understand that interpreting Scripture can be complex, difficult, and laborious. Scripture does not always have a single determinant meaning - contrary to what Luther and Calvin might have wished. But it is not subject to the kind of humanistic interpretative methods and events that a more typical human text. Scripture reveals itself to the diligent, but it must be treated with a different perspective than Shakespeare. We can sum it up with a bit of humor - but humor with a purpose.

Fascism, Socialism, and Racism - Oh My!

So... in case anyone was wondering, I harbor a strong dislike for the presidency of George W. Bush. I disliked his hawkish and oft-times belligerent foreign policy; I disliked his careless, laissez-faire economic policy. I disliked his institution of government surveillance of citizens of the United States; I disliked his policy with regards to domestic issues. I also happen to like much of what President Barack Obama has done in most of the above arenas.

Yet I have a lingering issue, dear readers. It assails me when I watch a speech by the President; it assails me when I talk politics with my buddies at church or with my family at picnics. I believe that those who are on the left of the political spectrum have created a double standard of sorts, and a situation in which critiquing Obama's policy decisions is quickly termed as "racially motivated", when in fact it can fairly be concluded that it is based on ideological differences. What truly disturbs me is that those who shouted most loudly for freedom of speech and freedom of dissent in the Bush years are now calling for censorship during the Obama years.

Case in point - the recent Joker posters that have been popping up lately. In case you live in a cave or have not been watching the Web for news, here is an image of the poster:

I have been reading a lot of people going on and on about the "racist" nature of this particular piece. Many have noted the issue of the 19th century minstrel show, and its relation to this poster. But for these people, I have a simple question.

"How many people on the street would know, if asked without being given a contextual clue, what a minstrel show actually is?"

I would know; so would some others. But my knowledge comes out of a pretty intense study of race relations in the 19th and early 20th centuries as part of my degree in US history. Without this kind of study, I'd be as clueless as the next guy or gal. So I think, given the general level of history knowledge within the US, that the fear of minstrel show associations is pretty low, for most people.

So if this is not the issue then what is? Could it perhaps be that some people feel that "their" candidate should be immune from criticism? This would tend to be my thought. I mean, really now, which is more likely - that the creator of this poster was referencing a relatively obscure part of US history, or that he/she was referencing a fantastically popular, blockbuster film from the very recent past. I know which I would reference if I was trying to make a point. The reality is that a plain reading of this poster as "text" can be used to show Obama as a trickster character, foisting socialism off on the nation in a nearly criminal act.

(At this point it should be noted that I don't agree with this political statement, I just recognize the symbolism in the poster.)

But this is not even the most annoying point to me. What I find more annoying than the sloppy reading of the poster is the cognitive dissonance that the critics of it seem to be walking in. I mean, am I the only one who remembers seeing the pictures of Bush dressed up in a Nazi uniform behind a swastika-laden podium? Or the all the "kill Bush" buttons and stickers and t-shirts? A few are pictured below:

I would think that if we were going to go after "hate speech" or its ilk that this is what we would have gone after. I remember seeing other, even more vulgar expressions and drawings/shirts/hats/stickers/posters at rallies I attended. There is no real room here for anyone to misinterpret what these things are saying. Yet I remember, when conservative people called for this kind of political speech to stop, they were rebuffed with a very loose reading of the 1st Amendment. But this reading of our freedoms and rights has to extend both ways. Liberals cannot and should not silence dissent anymore than conservatives should. If we really want this kind of freedom, then it must be extended to everyone in society, whether we agree with them or not. Anything less is not merely hypocrisy, but it actually becomes tyranny.

So I guess I am calling for some common sense, dear readers. Is race still a volatile issue in America? Absolutely it is. Does racism exist? Yes, it certainly does. Can the supporters of our nations first African-American president (myself included) hide him behind his race and accuse his detractors of racism every time someone dissents from one of his policies? Absolutely not. President Barack Obama does not need a bunch of angry and offended white people to stick up for him - his policies and accomplishments can stand or fall on their own merits. I believe that they will stand, and that our democracy will be more vibrant and robust after his legacy than it has been in many years. But I also think that he will need to endure and weather the same kind of criticism that every other sitting president does. He's strong enough - let us allow him to prove it.