Is cultural diversity *needed* to correctly interpret the Bible? Absolutely.

The task of interpretation starts with several basic principles. 1) the text is controlled by what the original authors intended. We need the what, when, where, why, etc. (1/15)
to derive an operative theology of a text. 2) there is no single unbiased, objective, complete approach to interpretation. We all approach the text w/ our own biases, experiences, questions, limitations, & theological preferences.

No interpreter is perfectly objective. (2/15)
We try to be, but it is impossible. We try to articulate a theology that can be applied to everyone everywhere, but sometimes our limits cause us to get it wrong. Also, no interpreter is able to answer every valid question everyone may have of scripture. (3/15)
The way I wrestle w/ this debate is the question of *questions*, & it is why I insist cultural diversity is needed to interpret correctly. Yes, needed.

Each culture and context brings its own questions and burdens to the text. (4/15)
My burdens are different from those who are different from me in terms of location, economic status, cultural history, conflicts, relationships, etc.

The brilliance of Esau McCaulley's Reading While Black is that it starts with critical questions. (5/15)
He begins each section with questions of navigating a history of oppression, how we relate to police, or dealing with one's rage over injustices. These are very different questions from what I would bring to the text in a vacuum.

If I write a giant theological book, (6/15)
and only draw from scholars who are similar to me, I'll tell you what I think about key interpretive issues, like how we handle money or deal with conflict. It is very likely that my viewpoints will reinforce an ethic that is advantageous to me, (7/15)
but either don't address questions of, or at worst oppress, people in other contexts.

This is why cultural diversity is not just "useful", but necessary. If you want everything to stay status quo, (8/15)
then you'll keep reading interpreters who reinforce that your views are normal and objective, then every other hermeneutic will seem suspicious or dangerous.

If you want to do the challenging work of having beautiful, (9/15)
diverse congregations & fully affirming the humanity of everyone, & affirming their questions and challenges, then being informed by a narrow set of interpreters won't suffice.

I don't preach often on Sunday mornings, (10/15)
but last year I preached shortly after George Floyd's murder, and a couple weeks before the election. You better bet if I had only been informed by interpreters who looked exactly like me, I would have alienated a lot of people in the congregation, (11/15)
not affirming their needs, pain, & questions.

Interpretation is more than just exegeting grammatically in its historical setting. Even debating about "correct interpretation" does not get at the heart of the issue, (12/15)
because a correct exegesis still has to be applied to many modern-day questions and settings, not just my questions and setting. So for me, cultural diversity in interpretation is not just a good thing, it's necessary. Without it, (13/15)
we cannot interpret to fully affirm everyone's humanity, questions, pain, and need for hope. (14/15)
I guess the cool twitter thing to say here is "thanks for coming to my TED talk."

Grace and peace, everyone.
(15/15)
You can follow @Misek222.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.