1
Michael Soares
Final Paper, English 401
Debates over interpretations and tools used to interpret the Bible are nothing new. However, in the wake of postmodernism, new intensity creates new arguments, and consequently new complications arise. Although the debates seem familiar, the legitimization of plurality through postmodern theories have caused a rift among biblical scholars. The division is not clear cut; it seems that scholars are simultaneously dealing with the lack of a cohesive definition for postmodernism while at the same time attempting to reconcile the scriptures with pluralism of postmodern philosophy. At first glance, it would seem immediately apparent that biblical studies and postmodern criticism were inherently incompatible. After all, the vast majority of biblical scholars regard the scriptures as an "absolute Truth," immune from the relativism offered by postmodern theories. However, the question of the nature of truth has never ceased to be debated, and even the most conservative biblical scholars, while intolerant of many of postmodern precepts, cannot deny postmodernism's existence and considerable influence on culture and, therefore, literary interpretation. Although it seems that relatively few biblical scholars choose to explore the possible contributions or detractions of postmodern studies applied to biblical studies, there are those who focus on the phenomenon in order to fervently support or refute its influence. According to "The Postmodern Challenge: Facing the Spirit of the Age," an article published in Christian Research Journal, "At the heart of the issue is whether or not objective truth exists" and "the rhetorical power of postmodern terms like 'tolerance,' 'openness,' and 'inclusion' effectively disguises a more insidious objective--the destruction of all absolute truth claims" (Leffel). Mazat concisely sums up the argument in the introduction to his "Apologetics in a Postmodern Age:" "For many, there is no such thing as absolute truth. Rather, there are many competing truths. The Christian Gospel is simply one truth among many 'truths.' How do we represent the Gospel in this age of relativism?" Another concern, articulated by Adams in "Toward a Theological Understanding of Postmodernism" as the "legitimation crisis," suggests that "so-called metanarratives [in this case, Christianity, through apologetics], which in the past were accepted as authoritative, are now being seriously called into question." As a result, "Interpretation is in crisis. So many questions which once seemed settled, so many foundations which once seemed secure, so many agreements which once seemed firm, have come apart. Issues which go to the bedrock of interpretation have opened deep fissures" (Clendenen 101). Therefore, in order to analyze and critique the rift among those scholars which fall on either side of the postmodern biblical studies argument, particularly in reference to pluralism, relativism, and the myth of objectivity, it is necessary to present definitions of postmodernism and research the debate, from its origins in the transition from Modernity to Postmodernity, to its current condition.
Modernists would have agreed that there is an objective truth, but postmodernists recognize, in respect to biblical studies and Christian ethics, the "limits of the fallen mind." While modernists place value in unity, postmodernists obviously value diversity, and this dynamic presents the problem, "if truth is relative, one idea is as good as the other" (Veith). Therefore, while modernist biblical scholars attempted to make the scripture relevant by appealing to the mindset of the "modern man," theology was nearly rendered irrelevant, in that if God was a symbol of modernity, a product of the modern meta-narrative, the faith and obedience necessary to validate interpretation of the scriptures were replaced by a mere appreciation for the symbolic values of the text. Viktor Shklovsky states in his “Art as Technique” that “an image is not a permanent referent for those mutable complexities of life which are revealed through it, its purpose is not to make us perceive meaning, but to create a special perception of the object- it creates a vision of the object instead of serving as a means of knowing it” (25). Therefore, a work, in the form of literature, art, film, and so on, while existing as a construct, is only that, and the construct should not be taken at face value. Postmodern pluralism, on the other hand, also short-circuits the need for truth in that it suggests that multiple truths need to be recognized, effectively negating the objective value required by the scriptures in order to sustain its autonomy. As a result, the tension between the autonomy of the reader and the autonomy of the text is amplified, tapping into the already fractured state of the contemporary Christianity belief community (multiple denominations, for example). The breakdown of modernity is well documented, and has been shown that "modernity didn't produce the harmony that its prophets predicted. After slavery, two world wars, communism, Nazism and nuclear bombs, people began to question the belief that the pursuits of reason, technology, and science would make for a better world" (Fields). Likewise, postmodernism, with its displacement of objectivity and encouragement of plurality and relativism, has further destabilized the foundation necessary for the interpretation of scripture from an objective perspective. Fields, acknowledging the implication of such a shift, writes: "In continuing to remove the possibility of any ultimate knowledge, postmodernism confuses the traditional distinction between the subject of knowledge (the knower) and the object of knowledge (the thing being known)."
Where the dominant was once clear cut, the plurality of postmodern interpretation creates new diversions. Pluralization has been described as "that process by which the number of options in the private sphere of modern society rapidly multiplies at all levels, especially at the level of word views, faith and ideologies" (White 171). According to McHale, “In short, different dominants emerge depending upon which questions we ask of the text, and the position from which we interrogate it” (6). However, the "challenge" of Postmodernism goes "beyond mere relativism. It impacts our literature, fashion, art, architecture, music, morality, self-identity, and theology. Postmodernism views the human experience as incoherent, lacking normative approaches to truth and meaning" (12). Such "incoherence" is contrary to the nature of traditional biblical studies, as its purpose has historically served to provide a moral and ethical structure; conversely, a "myth of objectivity" inhibits efforts of traditional scholars. Therefore, the debate is best presented with definitions of postmodernism by leading secular scholars in the field, concurrently countered and demarcated by recognized biblical scholars. Furthermore, in order to clarify the targeted scholarly population represented in this debate, it should be pointed out that the arguments being presented here are indeed written by scholars who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of the Judeo-Christian God, and not those who study the scripture for merely literary purposes. This group would be looking for spiritual meaning in the text, rather than just historical, sociological, or literary information. As a result, this group of scholars would have much more than academic interest invested in interpretation of the text as opposed to those who have only a secular scholarly or merely aesthetic interest. This also serves to amplify the intensity of the arguments, adding an emotional quality, which also complicates objectivity, and which often serves to reach those who are of a similar disposition, yet alienating and/or agitating those who are supporting the opposition.
Of course, in order for there to be an objective truth, one would have to acknowledge the existence of facts. According to Moore in "Era and Epoch, Epoch and Era: Christian Intellectuals in the Postmodern Turn," "...a fact is simply a linguistic label we place on pieces of data about which we think there can be no more meaningful conversation. That means that facts, as ontological entities, don't exist. Now by calling into question the existence of facts, we are surrendering neither the truth that water at sea-level boils at 100 degrees Celsius nor the truth that the Lord God created the Heavens and the Earth." On the other hand, in his "The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge," Lyotard writes, "Postmodern knowledge is not simply a tool of the authorities; it refines our sensitivity to differences and reinforces our ability to tolerate the incommensurable. Its principle is not the expert's homology, but the inventor's paralogy" (73). In fact, the very premise of biblical studies, at least in the evangelical sense, relies on the premise that the Bible, although composed by multiple authors, was written through the same divine inspiration, a God who never changes, as evidenced by such claims as John 1:1 ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"). Yet, it may very well be the inability to satisfy arguments generated by the obvious ramifications of postmodern knowledge that invents such rows among biblical scholars. Because biblical studies have been, for centuries, practiced in a modern mindset, deriving objectivity from reason, the postmodern "threat" takes form in its discreditation of reason, or as Dr. Daniel Taylor describes it in The Myth of Certainty, "objectivity is supposedly something the intellectual can have, while the person of faith wallows in mere subjectivity" (50). He later counters this with "ironically, the insistence on certainty destroys its very possibility. The demand for certainty inevitably creates its opposition--doubt" (80). Finally, "The reflective Christian must steer between unfounded claims of certainty on the one hand and an equally spurious absolutizing of relativism on the other" (92).
The plurality debate has had widespread effects on biblical studies as scholars grapple with keeping the scriptures relevant in the contemporary academic world. As a result, a chasm deepens between those who would consider themselves fundamentalist, or maintaining an objective view that the scriptures are themselves the only truth and therefore must be set apart and above other writings purporting to be inspired by God, and those that refute any objectivity altogether and actively seek and practice a plurality perspective which seeks to reconcile the scriptures with other writings in either a constructivist or deconstructivist context. In each case, there is the further complication that postmodernism is not easily defined, and that even the leading scholars in postmodern literary theory often disagree on its nature. Consequently, there is no quick resolution to questions for those who debate the issues. Furthermore, because of the plurality of postmodernism itself, it is impossible to form a consensus of what is truth and what is not (a further debate, that despite the best efforts of biblical scholars, the Bible has historically been subject to a plurality of interpretation for thousands of years, only heightens the complexity of the issue).
Fredric Jameson, in “Excerpts from Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism,” discusses the relationship of knowledge to culture and custom and writes that what is considered “good” “conforms to the relevant criteria (of justice, beauty, truth and efficiency respectively) accepted in the social circle of the ‘knower’s’ interlocutors” (75). Therefore, what is truth or reality, as supported by hegemony, is derived from consensus (or from the decree of those in power), which does not allow much room for individual interpretation. For example, when Jesus claims in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," the postmodern tendency to break away from modernist uniformity creates a dislocation of traditional discourse, simultaneously liberating and complicating centuries-held notions of the nature of divinity. The questions scholars ask, based on the particular person's ethical and moral foundation, is paramount in deciding how plurality can be researched and discussed. Unfortunately, until the reader learns to ask different questions about a text, the lack of an ethical foundation because of absence of relative morality is potentially frustrating. In the case of Jesus' assertion to being the "truth," postmodernism makes it difficult, and more likely impossible, to define truth, rendering the claim inconsequential. Because, according to Linda Hutcheon n her “Historiographic Metafiction," the postmodern calls attention to conventions before it can subvert them, there is an unresolved contradiction concerning the nature, or even the existence, of truths (109). Through postmodernism, which, according to Hutcheon, “deliberately confuses the notion that history's problem is verification, while fiction’s is veracity,” the power of conveying truth becomes the contemporary reader’s, caught up in a contemporary ideology, with the ability to both incorporate and look beyond hegemony in order to develop his/her understanding of the text. Jameson takes the concern a step further and writes of “truth” as “part of metaphysical baggage which postmodernism seeks to abandon” (318).
According to Dr. Carl F.H. Henry, Senior Research professor at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, there are two postmodern approaches attempting to unravel objective truth in biblical studies. He sees one as "Destructive Postmodernism," which "endeavors to exegete the implication of the death of God. Instead of replacing the inherited deity by some more congenial divinity, perhaps even by a New Age metaphysical All of which we are parts, it dissolves the deity entirely" (38). On the other hand "Constructive Postmodernism" emphasizes that "even where share truths or values are theoretically or verbally denied, a shared content nonetheless in practice remains quite common, and that 'common sense notions' provide humanity with an escape from unrelieved relativism" (39). Phillips, in "Religious Pluralism in a Postmodern World," asks several questions: "First, if there is no single meta-narrative, what implications follow regarding the concept of biblical revelation?" He also asks "if meaning in interpretation is located in the knowing subject (not in the text), and if that text is interpreted according to a predetermined social agenda, what does this imply regarding the exegetical task?" (134). Phillips relates the argument that "exegesis is irrelevant; hermeneutics is the key" (136). Henry makes an immediate connection to this argument, suggesting that "The Bible is not only a hermeneutical tool but the locus of authority, and its main focus is on the meta-narrative" (46). Eagleton, on the other hand, when discussing the hermeneutics of scholars like Hirsch, writes that "the insistence of these thinkers that meaning is always historical opens the door to complete relativism" and further suggests, "On this argument, a literary work can mean one thing one Monday and another on Friday" (70). Eagleton comments that he does not understand why Hirsch would find this argument so "fearful," but it becomes obvious to the biblical scholar that the integrity of the scriptures is threatened if meaning is not consistent. Complicating this is Henry's assertion that "The more radical postmodernists--or destructivists-- repudiate not only transcendent, objective, and external authority, but reject subjective and internal authority as well" (41).
Ultimately, the very nature of postmodernism itself becomes problematic when attempting to read the scriptural texts. According to Fields, "...postmodernism, with its rejection of modernity's claims, pushes another extreme. With its quasi-nihilist rejection of any and all forms of 'foundations,' or 'absolute truth,' it is in itself a position not beyond question." Similarly, Hutcheon has suggested that by manipulating the ideological concepts from inside the text, the quality of postmodernism exploited is “a contradictory cultural enterprise, one that is heavily implicated in that which it seeks to contest” (106). Mazat writes, "The only absolute truth that exists in the postmodern mentality is that there is no such thing as absolute truth, and as far as the postmodern scholar is concerned, that is absolutely true. He also quotes Veith: "Knowledge is no longer seen as absolute truth; rather, knowledge is seen in terms or rearranging information into new paradigms." Dr. Susan Ritchie, capitalizing on this outlook in her "The Promise of Postmodernism for Unitary Universalist Theology," suggests, "...by focusing on the deeply contextualized character of meaning, postmodernism is uniquely positioned to articulate the importance and significance of differences often elided by modernity." However, the argument will never be resolved as long as traditional biblical scholars maintain "epistemologies and truth theories," which Cabal claims are "inextricably bound up with underlying metaphysical views and their concomitant anthropologies." He suggests that "Postmodern conceptual relativism commits the existential fallacy that by construing the fact of differing views of reality as necessitating that this is the way the world should be or has to be."
The final word goes to Dr. Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who writes: "The universality of the Christian truth claim is neither minimized or, depending on one's reading, denied. In any event, the abdication of the universal truth claim and retreat into the notion of truth as communal, defined a given cultural-linguistic system, is a massive concession fatal to any evangelical theology" (67). As a result, the contemporary biblical scholar is faced with one or two options: adhere to a modernist-style objectivity and work biblical interpretations into a postmodern framework, or take the forefront in creating the "new paradigms," taking care that such paradigms protect the integrity of the "truth" of the scriptures. Ultimately, the debate may only be effective in strengthening a position on either side, and the real benefit is not in coming to an agreement, but an enrichment of the understanding of the nature of the debate.
Works Cited
Adams, Daniel. "Toward a Theological Understanding of Postmodernism." ARIL (2000).
11 Nov. 2002. <
Cabal, Ted. "An Introduction to Postmodernity: Where Are We, How Did We Get Here, and
Can We Get Home?" The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 5:2 (2001): 4-18.
Clendenen, "Postholes, Postmodernism, and the Prophets: Toward a Textlinguistic Paradigm."
The Challenge of Postmodernism. Ed. David S. Dockery. Grand Rapids: BridgePoint,
2001. 90-105.
Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: U of MN, 1983.
Fields, D. Martin. "Postmodernism [1]." PREMISE 2:8 (1995): 5-17.