On Hubris

In a recent interview, Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Shori has said: "Some people think that you can read the Bible without understanding the original context and simply take literally what you read. We will interpret - and it's an important part of faithful living," Jefferts Schori said. "To assume there is only one way of reading is hubris."

The question is not whether there is only one way to read a text, but whether a text is inherently intelligible, and thus capable of being read. Multiple readings of a text may indicate either (1) a superfluity of meaning in the text--the text is inherently intelligible, but means more than can be stated in a single or simple reading; (2) ambiguity in the text--the text has no clear meaning, and thus one reading is as good as another; (3) inability to read on the part of the reader--the problem is not with the text, but with the reader.

In regard to the Scriptures, the church has always affirmed (1), but the church has also affirmed the inherent intelligibility of Scripture, its clarity, coherence, sufficiency and complimentarity--no part of Scripture can be played off against another--so (2) is not a valid reading, but is rather a heresy. Because the Scriptures have an inherently intelligible meaning, a proper reading is receptive. The goal of the reader is to submit his or her understanding to the inherent intelligibility of the text. The church has always recognized that (3) is a possibility, but this is a damning indictment, not something to be extolled! It is an indication that the reader has either failed to or is incapable of submitting his or her understanding to the text, or, worse, has willfully decided to ignore or thwart the plain meaning of the text in favor of personal wants.

Despite Katherine Jeffert-Schori's claim that it is hubris to assume that there is one way to read the Bible, in order for her own statement to be intelligible, she must assume that there is essentially one way to read her own statement. Otherwise, Schori's statement could be interpreted to mean that not only is it hubris to assume that there is one way to read the Bible, but that it is also not hubris to assume that there is one way to read the Bible, or that it is also hubris to assume that there is less than or more than one way to read the Bible, etc. At some point the laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle apply or all statements become inherently meaningless, and no communication can take place whatsoever.

Basically, the church claims (1): The Bible can have multiple readings because it has a superfluity of meaning, but truly contradictory readings are not allowed, and wherever such take place, the problem is (3), at least one of the readings, and thus one of the readers, is mistaken.

The plain meaning of Schori's statement (and its coherence depends on its having a plain meaning) is that she is affirming (2)--the Bible is capable of multiple interpretations because it has no plain or clear meaning. The Scripture are not then inherently intelligible, and thus we are free to impose whatever meaning we want on them. Such a reading places the reader's own authority over the text, and is, itself, an example of willful hubris--an unwillingness to submit oneself to the authority of anything outside one's own wants.

The most tragic implication of Schori's statement, however, is what it says about God. Karl Barth's masterful rediscovery of the centrality of trinitarian theology was based on the premise that God must be in himself who he is in his revelation. We can know that God is gracious in himself because we can trust and have confidence in the Word he has given us in Jesus Christ, and the Scriptures faithfully bear witness to that revelation.

However, if the Scriptures are themselves unintelligible, and thus incapable of any sure interpretation, then, far from one interpretation being as good as another, no interpretation can provide us any sure guidance about God whatsoever--and we are left with absolute skepticism. If one reading of Scripture is as good as another, then there is no sure revelation of God, and God is not in himself who he is in his revelation. We can then have no confidence that God is gracious in himself, because we can have no confidence in the conherence or intelligiblity of the Word that the church has always claimed he has spoken.

Far from Schori's statement being a cause for rejoicing, it represents a truly tragic reading of the gospel. Schori's God is a God who has not spoken, and cannot speak, and we can know nothing about him/her/it. Unlike the God revealed in Jesus Christ, such a God cannot reach beyond him/itself to be gracious, but leaves us trapped in our own subjectivity, while he/she/it is trapped in unknowable silence.