Skip to main content

Interpretation of Scripture 1: Is This Text Culturally Relative?


The contextual interpretation of Scripture is relevant for ministry, missions, ethics, and theology.  The present discussion particularly has in mind the use of Scripture in Christian ethics by orthodox and Evangelical Christians--those who desire to submit to Biblical authority but have to ask whether a text is transculturally normative or culturally relative.



Thirteen Criteria for Determining Transcultural Norms
Versus Culturally Relative Teaching in Scripture

The following criteria are suggested for consideration when trying to decide if a Biblical text is transculturally normative (speaks authoritatively to all cultures and people at all times) or culturally relative (speaks to a particular culture, people, and time).  This issue arises because the Church accepts Scripture as the supreme authority for faith and practice—it has not been and is not taken by orthodox Christians as an important document for a community because of its antiquity.  It is authoritative because it is ‘God-breathed’: ‘All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness’ (2 Timothy 3.16).  While stated as criteria, they really indicate the kinds of discussion we have about Biblical texts and their continuing relevance.


1.     Criterion of Exegesis.  A clear understanding of what the text was saying to the original audience may well indicate whether it is culturally relative or transculturally normative.  Ask questions such as: Who is saying What to Whom? Why? When? Where? How?

2.     Criterion of Contextual Dissimilarity and Traditional Consistency.  A Biblical norm that is dissimilar to its cultural context and consistent with its own tradition will more likely be transcultural than a norm that complies with the culture of the day.

3.     Criterion of Available Alternatives.  Where no choice really exists for actions or perspectives in a culture or context, the point may be situational and not transcultural.

4.     Criterion of Repeatability. If something can be or was repeated in the same way under different circumstances, its authority may well be transcultural.

5.   Criterion of Multiple Attestation (‘Cloud of Witnesses’).  The case for transcultural normativity is stronger the more we can demonstrate that there are multiple witnesses or proofs (different authors, different time periods, different types of literature [see next criterion]). 

6.   Criterion of Different Genre: The authority of a text is related to the genre, type of literature (e.g., narrative, laws, poetry, proverbs, history, prophecy, visions, apocalypses, letters, parables, etc.).  A point made in different genre may also be transculturally normative, and some genre are more likely transcultural than others (e.g., a narrative may simply describe a situation, whereas a law is meant to fit different contexts).

7.    Criterion of Uses of Scripture: There are different levels of appeal to Scripture.  The more levels of appeal that are evident in Scripture, the more likely the matter should be taken as transculturally normative.  (I would suggest four levels: specifying genre/use (norms, rules), warranting (virtues, values, principles), witnessing (stories, examples, characters), and worldview (basic understanding of the God, humanity, and the world).)

8. Criterion of Theological and Ethical Coherence.  An argument is more likely transcultural if it coheres with other theological and ethical ideas and practices and can be shown to cohere with both theology and ethics.

9. Criterion of Rhetorical Exigence or Contingency.  A response to a specific situation might be a culturally relative or situational response. 

10. Criterion of the Author's Emphasis.  The more the point is emphasised by argument, authority,       and emotion, the more likely the conviction is crucial and therefore transcultural.

11. Criterion of Church History.  The Bible is foundational for the Church and the supreme authority for Christian faith and practice.  The history of the Church’s interpretation of Scripture should be studied to see how the Church has understood the text in different ages and cultures as a way to check present understandings and to hear the Biblical text clearly.

12. Criterion of Meaning, Implications, Significance, and Applications.  The greater the interpreter can establish a relationship between the meaning of Scriptural texts, their theological and ethical implications, and the significance they bear on a given situation, the greater one can argue that the application has transculturally normative authority.


13. Criterion of Central and Peripheral.  What is arguably central in Scripture is likely transculturally authoritative.  What we think might be peripheral may or may not be.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

‘For freedom Christ has set us free’: The Gospel of Paul versus the Custodial Oversight of the Law and Human Philosophies

  Introduction The culmination of Paul’s argument in Galatians, and particularly from 3.1-4.31, is: ‘ For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery’ (Galatians 5.1). This essay seeks to understand Paul’s opposition to a continuing custodial role for the Law and a use of human philosophies to deal with sinful passions and desires.   His arguments against these are found in Galatians and Colossians.   By focussing on the problem of the Law and of philosophy, we can better understand Paul’s theology.   He believed that the Gospel was the only way to deal with sin not simply in terms of our actions but more basically in terms of our sinful desires and passions of the flesh. The task ahead is to understand several large-scale matters in Paul’s theology, those having to do with a right understanding of the human plight and a right understanding of God’s solution.   So much Protestant theology has articulated...
Post a Comment
Read more

Alasdair MacIntyre and Tradition Enquiry

Alasdair MacIntyre's subject is philosophical ethics, and he is best known for his critique of ethics understood as the application of general, universal principles.  He has reintroduced the importance of virtue ethics, along with the role of narrative and community in defining the virtues.  His focus on these things—narrative, community, virtue—combine to form an approach to enquiry which he calls ‘tradition enquiry.’ [1] MacIntyre characterises ethical thinking in the West in our day as ethics that has lost an understanding of the virtues, even if virtues like ‘justice’ are often under discussion.  Greek philosophical ethics, and ethics through to the Enlightenment, focussed ethics on virtue and began with questions of character: 'Who should we be?', rather than questions of action, 'What shall we do?'  Contemporary ethics has focused on the latter question alone, with the magisterial traditions of deontological ('What rules govern our actions?') and tel...
Post a Comment
Read more

The New Virtues of a Failing Culture

  An insanity has fallen upon the West, like a witch’s spell.   We have lived with it long enough to know it, understand it, but not long enough to resist it, to undo it.   The very stewards of the truth that would remove it have left their posts.   They have succumbed to its whispers, become its servants.   It has infected the very air and crept along the ground like a mist until it is within us and all about us.   We utter its precepts like schoolchildren taught their lines. Its power lies in its claims of virtuosity, distorted goodness.   If presented as the vices that they are, they would be rejected.   These virtues are proclaimed from the pulpits and painted on banners or made into flags.   They are established in our schools, colleges, universities, and seminaries.   They are the hallucinogen making our own cultural suicide bearable, even desirable.   They are virtues, but disordered, or they are the excess or deficiency of...
Post a Comment
Read more