The following is a response I wrote to an acquaintance over at achristianandanatheist.com
I was responding specifically to the idea that interpreting the Bible is a "simple" matter that involves "just reading" the text and doing what it says. We were in the middle of a discussion of the New Testament's treatment of women. This is what I wrote:
[This conversation] reveals a more important issue that I think is cause for concern, namely, the attitude that interpreting scripture is a "self-evident" process which is a matter of "just reading scripture."
I certainly do not mean to put words in your mouth, but I have picked up on this perspective in several of your posts before. This is why I asked you to clarify your "only one interpretation" comment earlier. The idea that interpreting scripture is "simple" or a matter of "just reading" the text strikes me as arrogant, ignorant or both. It is my opinion that interpreting the Bible is NOT simple, and it is certainly a bit more involved than "just reading" the text.
Your post proves my point to an extent. The fact that you appeal to Greek translation (ie should the diakonos "διάκονος" be translated "servant" or transliterated "deacon"?) shows that even these fairly straightforward passages include some interpretational issues that must be dealt with, and could quite possibly lead different readers to different conclusions. Not to mention that the translators' treatment of diakonos also involves theological/cultural/historical issues regarding weather the term is being used to describe the function of the person or the office of the person.
Let me take it a step further in hopes to demonstrate that the process of interpretation is a complicated and multifaceted one that is as likely to produce a multiplicity of interpretations as it is consensus of opinion.
One of the passages that is a big part of our discussion is in 1 Timothy chapter 2. Here is what verses 11 & 12 say:
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
Straightforward? Maybe, but I don't think so. First of all, what makes a "man"? When does a boy become a man? Or does this passage prohibit all women in the church from teaching all males regardless of their age? What is "teaching"? Does Paul mean biblical instruction, theological instruction, moral instruction, practical instruction or all instruction? Is he thinking of an official "teaching" function of the church (Sunday schools and bible studies) or any and all instances where a man might learn something from a woman (a female missionary shares a testimony)? None of these questions are answered directly by the text, so we 21st century believers are forced to interpret the text the best way we know how, which of course, causes many churches to come to different answers to the question "what does this mean?"
The issue becomes even more cumbersome when we read Paul's reasoning for why women are prohibited from teaching. Verses 13 & 14 show that Paul's prohibition is based on a twofold reason: 1) Created order; 2) Eve was the one who was deceived. So what does this mean? Women are more gullible? Enough confusion so far? Well, if not, keep reading. Paul goes on to say that women will be "saved" through "child bearing." What is the simple, straightforward interpretation of that?
All of this and I still have mentioned that part of the interpretational process where we ask the question, "Is this explicit instruction universally binding or is it a specific instruction to a specific person regarding a specific issue that may reveal a more universal principle?" For example, earlier in the chapter, Paul tells Timothy that he wants women "to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. " Is Paul's explicit command that women not wear jewelry or braid their hair a universally binding command? Or was that part of the instruction situational and only the more general principle of "adorn yourself with good deeds, not good clothes" meant to be universally binding?
The more I study this collection of ancient texts, the more I try to learn their wisdom and change in light of their instruction, the more I realize that there is a LOT of ambiguity in the "Good Book". God inspired this thing we call the Bible, but he did so in a very incarnational way. And in doing so, He revealed that He is apparently quite alright with wrapping the "Emmanuel" of the inspired text in the swaddling clothes of human culture, imagination, and experience.
The result is both joyful and messy.
