Original audience, current context

Walls to keep the badness out . . . or in?? History seen through a glass, darkly. Unfocused.

When asked in an interview, “What is the goal of biblical interpretation?” Craig Blomberg (Ph.D.) replied:

“[The goal of biblical interpretation is] to approximate as closely as possible the original meaning of a biblical author through the text that he wrote to an original audience, and then to apply it to myself in ways that fit that meaning but take into consideration my contemporary context.”

That ought to be easy; it can be stated so simply. But it’s not. First of all, understanding the “original audience” and being adept at applying words geared to that audience in a “contemporary context” presents way too many hoops for even our most learned to jump through safely. Secondly, our reluctance to abandon the conviction that, for instance, Jesus had us 21^st Century followers in mind when he told the story of the prodigal son restricts our thinking, limits interpretation.


The sensibility toward the urgency of proper textual, contextual, historical interpretation has grown, but in the general church body in the West, it’s still stunted to the point where uninterpreted, poorly interpreted texts are spewed from pulpits and TV screens as if they’d been written with full knowledge of 21^st Century contexts.


An example: In 1 Corinthians 14:34, we read “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.” This makes no sense in a 21^st Century context and very gradually, the majority of Christian churches have come to recognize this. The quote is, after all, from a letter written to a certain congregation at a certain time and under certain circumstances (original audience). The fact that Paul didn’t admonish other churches similarly should be a clue to the specificity of that pronouncement to the Corinthian congregation. It took a long time (current context) for equality of women in the church to be broadly assumed (women in leadership in Saskatchewan Mennonite churches and institutions didn’t exist prior to the 1960s, 1970s, give or take).

Those who characterize Paul as an misogynist make the same mistake that we’ve notoriously always made: excluding original audience and current context as legitimate, sacred considerations leading to understanding. There is much in the epistles of Paul that is stated as universal over time and place, like “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5: 22-3, NIV) The historic strife in the Christian church (the absence of love, joy, peace, etc.) should serve as a sign that our misguided interpretation, our arbitrary legalism when coupled with normal human weakness have too much characterized our dealings with one another.

I hesitate to propose a much more pertinent case. The arguments against the church embracing those born gay, lesbian or trans-gendered as equals are based on the stubborn refusal to allow historical and contextual interpretation to inform us. Paul’s observation that the Spirit produces love, joy, peace, etc. argues against the proof-texted justifications for making an exception like the denial of a blessing to a minority in our fellowship. Given the 21^st Century context, I see no way to justify the view that Christ’s conversation with us in the Sermon on the Mount doesn’t apply in our behaviour toward minorities, sexual minorities included.


If gays, lesbians and trans-gendered persons are excluded by Christian fiat from basic rights and the nurturing of Christ’s church, what will our future be like—given the 21^st Century context? If conversely, the granting of equal rights and the love mandate of the church prevail, what will the future look like for all of us?


Another universal seems to fit: 1 John 4:20 (NIV) Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.


Of one thing we can be certain. The world as we experience it today could really use a substantial correction. It behooves us to interpret the signs and the Word with vigour and love.


If not us, then who? The proof of our “Christian” contribution to conflict and disorder lies in the pudding. The cover has just been removed in the USA; the pudding we helped make is fully visible. How sad is that!