Adam Blatner

Newsweek, February 14, 2011 , page 48, involves an article that’s sort of a book review of two recently released books that invite a re-evaluation of the common understandings of sexual mores as presented in the Bible—mainly in the Old Testament.  What interested me was a statement near the end of the article. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, that citadel of Christian conservativism, concludes that one’s Bible reading must be overseen by the proper authorities.

What an intriguing line!  In today’s multi-cultural world, who is authorized to designate who is and is not a “proper” authority? If I called you a “proper authority,” would you accept that designation? There’s also the further question of who is or should be empowered to pronounce what is and what is not a heresy? On what basis, what assumptions, are judgments made about these questions? Dare anyone lay out their fundamental assumptions and then go so far as to even try to articulate the philosophical assumptions that underlie those assumptions?

Then there’s the obvious problem of there being sub-groups of significant size that then disagree on the validity or interpretation of the assumptions themselves?! The Newsweek article has the good Rev. Mohler adding that, as the word of God, the Bible isn’t open to the same level of interpretation as The Odyssey or The Iliad. My question is: Why not? What are the assumptions about what interpretation is about, and where it can be appropriately used? What, indeed, is a non-trivial statement that has zero ambiguity about its interpretation?

Beyond questioning various assumptions, I am advocating a few things on the positive side: One is that we relinquish the assumption of judicial authority when it is not quite necessary. Even when judgments must be made as a matter of civil order, we should dare to recognize that judgments are constructions that must be made rather than reflections of ultimate truth. A second suggestion is that more questioning rather than less is needed. In that sense, I perceive in this article a continuing pressure on traditionalists by those who seek more historically and intellectually nuanced interpretations.  (I confess my spiritual bias is towards the more liberal, inter-spiritual, creative approach that recognizes the need for flexibility, a grounding in values—the “spirit” of the Law—rather than the illusion of security provided by those who take refuge in the letter of the Law.) So, what this means is that the institution of religion has been in a state of evolution and occasionally, revolution, ever since its inception. For a while it may seem stagnant and monolithic, but there are always some reformers or iconoclasts around. Let’s recognize this dynamic process and dare to participate.