In an interview with Christianity Today, CRT advocate
and professed Christian Jemar Tisby stated:
·
In this sense, there’s no such thing as ‘pure
biblical interpretation.’ All our interpretation is shaped by our histories.
This isn’t to say there are no timeless truths or universal principles, but it
is to say that even the questions we ask are going to vary across people groups
and across time periods.” https://www.christianpost.com/voices/jamar-tisby-and-critical-race-theory.html
Of course, we are vulnerable to the influence of our
cultures and “our histories.” We also admit that our interpretation of the
Bible is a subjective process, but so too is our interpretation of our visual
cues. Nevertheless, we can drive our car cross-country without an accident
because our interpretation of these cues is accurate.
We can even accurately interpret the street signs reading, “McDonalds
at exist 42” or the speed limit sign reading “60 MPH.” It is also possible to
read these signs wrongly as just a suggestion of 60 MPH or as a minimum of 60
MPH. However, few do, despite their cultural differences. Nor would these
differences of opinion hold up in court. Why not? The court reasonably expects
that these signs can be perfectly understood despite the subjective processes
involved.
Even though Biblical interpretation is more demanding, we too can reasonably hold a fellow Christian to account for stealing from the offering bowl, even if this thief claims these offerings can be freely taken to give to the poor.
Even though Biblical interpretation is more demanding, we too can reasonably hold a fellow Christian to account for stealing from the offering bowl, even if this thief claims these offerings can be freely taken to give to the poor.
Therefore, it is not enough for Tisby to dismiss the
longstanding Biblical teachings of the Church, even if they might “vary across
people groups and across time periods.” If
it is impossible to decide which group’s Biblical interpretation is the most
accurate, then the Bible is totally useless, and we should just eat, drink, and
be merry.
Instead, to be credible, Tisby must Biblically demonstrate
that these traditional interpretations had been wrong. Perhaps instead, Tisby’s
and CRT’s interpretations has been wrong! And perhaps it is their
interpretations, which have been adversely twisted by their own desires.
We need to talk rather than to dismiss the possibility of
meaningful talk.
2 comments:
Tisby is correct in the sense that we all come to scripture with our own subjective and cultural biases. However, good biblical exegetes have all along understood this and attempted to bring objectively rational processes and the cultural context of the authors into their interpretive frameworks. The fact that there are some notable differences in systematic theologies does not invalidate the methodology, it only exposes how deeply entrenched our biases sometimes are and echos the ambiguity of certain areas of scripture in the non-essentials. People often fixate on the differences and subjective problems in order to divert attention from the vast body of agreement among those who hold to an orthodox view of Christianity and the authority of scripture.
Paul, Very well said! You are right that we approach the Scriptures with many biases. However, I have noted in my own life that the closer I get to Jesus, the less I am concerned about being right and more concerned I am about the mind of Christ and understanding as He does. We become more objective.
Post a Comment