How does one interpret language in a post-Modern Age? What about the language of the Bible?

“The notion that all language statements and assertions stand in need of interpretation and may be interpreted in many different ways – including those that contradict the explicit meaning – is wreaking all kinds of havoc. Especially when treating the Bible. Theology has often become an exercise in interpreting away Biblical statements that the theologian does not agree with.

“To be sure, some language calls for interpretation, but other language is clear on its face. Some of the controversies involve questions about which is which. But even interpretation is supposed to help us understand what has been said, rather than undoing what has been said.”

These were words written this morning by Dr. Gene Veith (italics and bold are mine), in his blog post, Cranach: How to interpret "kill Americans", in response to an apology offered by South Korean "Gangnam Style" rapper, Psy. Eight years ago, Psy preached/rapped the following message to a crowd at an anti-war concert:

“Kill those f—— Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captive / Kill those f——- Yankees who ordered them to torture / Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law, and fathers / Kill them all slowly and painfully.”

But today he apologizes in the following words:

“While I’m grateful for the freedom to express one’s self, I’ve learned there are limits to what language is appropriate and I’m deeply sorry for how these lyrics could be interpreted. I will forever be sorry for any pain I have caused by those words” (bold emphasis mine).

What Dr. Veith finds interesting is Psy's assertion that his words need "interpreting." “In what sense is that statement in need of interpretation?”, Dr. Veith asks. Here he is not really addressing the offensive and inciting words of the rapper, or even his apology, but is using this situation, as he stated, to address “The notion that all language statements and assertions stand in need of interpretation and may be interpreted in many different ways – including those that contradict the explicit meaning...”

While a former member of a "conservative" Lutheran church body (not WELS, not ELS, not LCMS), I learned that "all doctrine is taken from direct positive statements of Scripture, only." Positive statements are identified by the grammar and vocabulary of the texts, and distinguished from comparative or normative statements. Direct statements are identified by the context, whether the author is speaking directly, or repeating what someone else said. Only the author is recognized as inspired and empowered by God to issue prescriptive statements, so, unless he is quoting God, indirect statements of the author – that is, statements he is making through another human – are not sufficient to prescribe doctrine. This categorically rules out anecdotal sections of Scripture as offering prescriptive statements or of having sufficient authority to qualify other direct positive statements of Scripture. This is a significant fact to remember, especially when considering, for example, the Bible's teaching on "The Roles of Men and Women." Many advocates of feminist theology among confessional Lutherans (nearly all such advocates, by my estimation), fixate on anecdotal sections of Scripture and set those sections at war against what the Bible says in direct positive terms. "B-b-b-but, what about Deborah?" (attempt to build doctrine from anecdotal sections of Scripture); "B-b-b-but, what about Priscilla?" (another attempt to build doctrine from anecdotal sections of Scripture); "B-b-b-but, what about Lydia?" (more anecdotal references...). WELS advocates of feminist theology were quoted extensively in my post, Post-Modernism, Pop-culture, Transcendence, and the Church Militant, displaying this very hermeneutical approach – attempting to derive meaning from anecdotal sections, even those which have nothing to do with the teaching of "Gender Roles," and vaunting that derived meaning over the clear statements of Scripture.

When my wife and I joined WELS, we learned that the statement "all doctrine is taken from direct positive statements of Scripture, only," is no longer used. Instead, the phrase "all doctrine is taken only from clear statements of Scripture," is used, alongside the warning to "distinguish prescriptive from descriptive statements." I thought that was odd, because the former of these two statements is not a "clear" statement at all. The term "clear" is relative. What is clear to one person may or may not be clear to another. Moreover, if it is unclear what a 'clear statement' is, then it is also unclear whether a statement may be 'prescriptive' or 'descriptive'. So I asked my pastor about this.

"I learned that 'all doctrine is taken from direct positive statements of Scripture, only.' Is this what you teach? Is this what you mean by 'clear statements'?" I asked.

He replied, "Well, essentially, yes. We don't use that phrase anymore because the terms 'direct' and 'positive' require a knowledge of grammar that people don't have anymore. They wouldn't know how to apply it. So we just say, 'clear statements', now."

"So how do they know what a 'clear statement' is?" I further inquired.

"Well, I know the grammar, of course... but for the most part, it's pretty obvious. If someone has a question, though, I am able to clarify it."

"But," I continued to think, "isn't the WELS school system one of the finest private school systems, and among the most highly regarded, in the country? Surely, each one of these students is well-trained in English grammar. Doesn't WELS take into primary consideration who their own people are when establishing hermeneutical principles like this?" Ultimately, I later discovered, it doesn't matter how literate WELS students (who are groomed as future Lutherans, and even WELS members, one would think) are, or how well trained in English grammar and vocabulary they are. The fact is, when you teach people to pay attention to the grammatical construction and the specific vocabulary used as they read their Bibles, then the Bibles they read need to make a faithful attempt to reproduce both the form and content of the original text. The NIV doesn't do this! As a consequence of Dynamic Equivalency (the translation principle governing the translation of the NIV), it makes no academic attempt whatsoever to reproduce either the grammatical form or the specific vocabulary used in the original Greek and Hebrew texts. Rather, the grammar and vocabulary used in the NIV is purely a creation of the translators, who recast the original texts in their own English prose – much like one would as he faithfully summarizes the work of another author in a paper, without quoting the other author directly, by restating what that author said in his own terms. The purpose in making such a summary is to use another author's words to help one make his own point, the grammar and vocabulary of the summary being carefully chosen to serve one's own purpose while still being "faithful" to the author's original message (and as we have frequently pointed out on this blog, in neutering the Bible, in purposefully adopting the politically-correct and feminist requirement of a gender-neutral translation ideology, the NIV translators most certainly have "their own point" to make). The fact is, a "direct positive statement" is defined by the specific vocabulary and grammatical construction in which that statement occurs. Because the grammar and vocabulary of the NIV does not strive to represent the grammar and vocabulary of the original Greek and Hebrew texts, but is merely a creation of the translator as he seeks to restate the meaning of the original in his own English terms (which are reduced for the reader of sixth-grade reading level), what may be a "direct positive statement" in the original texts may or may not make it into the NIV as a "direct positive statement," and what may be a "direct positive statement" in the NIV, may or may not be a "direct positive statement" in the original. Indeed, studiously paying attention to the specific grammar and vocabulary that is found in the NIV may very well lead one astray. That's not the purpose of the translation, after all. (Indeed. Try participating in an inductive Bible study sometime, with NIV and NASB users. It's a real hoot!) And so the precisely defined "direct positive statement" gives way to the relatively defined and manifestly unclear "clear statement," and the poor layman, who may or may not know his own language well enough to follow grammatical construction, is reduced to seeking human authority, rather than the Scriptures themselves, to clarify for him the Bible's teaching. This was the topic of last year's post, The NNIV, the WELS Translation Evaluation Committee, and the Perspicuity of the Scriptures (so far, our third most popular post of all times), and is well worth the reader's review.

The reality is, Psy's offensive and inciting anti-war message doesn't need "interpreting." It is a direct positive statement, and stands on its own. In fact, it was issued as a series of command statements, and, thus, is categorically clear. But, as Dr. Veith intimates, post-Modernism would rob us of such clarity – the clarity of "direct positive statements." Hence, it is not only at war with the political and legal structures of the West (a war which is contributing mightily to social upheaval), but is at war against that on which these structures are ultimately founded, and that which gives us the Message of Jesus Christ and the Hope of Salvation: the Holy Scriptures, the very Word of God. In the opening paragraph of Part 1 of our series, "Relevance," and Mockery of the Holy Martyrs, we introduced this war as the same war that the World, one of the Christian's three great enemies, has always waged against Christ's Church:

“The Christian's three great enemies are the devil, the world, and his own flesh. They each work to lure him into sin, in order to separate him from his Saviour, Jesus Christ. The World especially, Jesus tells us, hates us on account of Him (John 15:15-25), therefore, we should not marvel when the World conspires against us to rob us of His sustaining Word (1 John 3:13), which includes all aspects of Scripture: not just every word, as Jesus tells us directly in Matt. 4:4, but the form, or grammar, as well – as St. Paul amply demonstrates, the central teaching of Scripture hinging on a single point of Hebrew grammar (Gal. 3:13-16).”

Stripping the Scriptures of the significance of their inspired form, as post-Modernism does, robs them of their clarity and requires that even "direct positive statements" be subjectively interpreted. Dynamic Equivalency and the NIV has primed an entire generation of American Christians to accept this notion.

Kyrie Elesion.