Tag Archives: biblical interpretation

Intellectual Dishonesty and Bad Hermeneutics

education, interpretation, Jesus, Paul, science and religion, theological education, women,

People frequently ask Sophia faculty and trustees what we intend to prepare our students to be and do. This entry is the fourth and final installment in answer to that question. With thanks to my faculty colleagues, Drs. Melissa Jackson and Jon Barnes, it continues our statement concerning how Sophia seeks to prepare individuals and a community for having the mind and doing the work of Christ more authentically today.

Intellectual dishonesty – The science vs. faith dichotomy that predominates in much of the church seems to require that one divorce one’s mind from one’s belief. The result is two distinct realms of discourse, two distinct worldviews, or, as Stephen Jay Gould has put it, two “non-overlapping magisteria.” In such a situation, no communication whatsoever can occur across the boundary between faith and reason. The systems produce completely incompatible understandings of the world, of humanity, and of the “criteria for human flourishing.” Looking ahead, then, neither of the two options regarding the relationship between theology and empirical science—denial or divorce—has proven to be healthy or helpful. The former inevitably results in stances such as contemporary climate change denial; the latter forestalls any communication between faith and science in an untenable epistemological dualism. Thomas K. Johnson laments the direction of Christian theology that resulted in a false dichotomy between faith and science and, ultimately, in the diminishment of Christian influence on decision-making in the public square. As he put it, “We theologians disarmed God’s people on the eve of the battle with exclusive secularism, so our people did not know how to address the public square . . . without giving the impression that person or a society must follow Jesus to know the difference between right and wrong.” The problem reaches even deeper than the somewhat arrogant and exclusivist claim that Christian ethics has roots in a sphere of truth inaccessible to non-Christians. Disdain for empirical science subjects Christian ethics to charges that it is esoteric, blindly ideological, and anti-intellectual or at least intellectually dishonest. Christian anti-intellectualism eliminates any possibility of speaking a common language with non-believers. Vibrant faith does not deny reason and experience.

Bad Hermeneutics* – Intellectual dishonesty, in turn, contributes to the ignorance and misunderstanding of the tradition rooted in Scripture that pollutes the thoughts and actions of much of contemporary Christianity. Often, the problem manifests itself in the supposed conflict between biblical faith and modern science. The biblical authors did not have, could not even anticipate, and therefore could not incorporate into their writings, the vast knowledge about the universe revealed to us by modern science. Indeed, the Bible nowhere claims that it reveals the summation of knowledge about the world. This circumstance is not a problem for believers unless they are unwilling to “harmonize” the ancient and the modern, so to speak. The Bible intends to tell the story of God’s relationship with a community of faith, not to teach science. Worldviews change continually as people acquire more information and understanding. The need to harmonize modern and ancient worldviews does not always apply, however. On many questions, especially regarding matters of wisdom, faith, and righteousness (cf. 2 Tim 3:15-16), the worldviews of ancient Israel and the early church stand against modern understandings and practices. The Bible that commissions God’s people to be “light” to the world and that calls for loving others, even Samaritans and those who hate us, as we love ourselves, does not support protectionism, isolationism, or any actions that manifest lack of empathy – personally, communally, or nationally.

Bad hermeneutics fueled by intellectual dishonesty surfaces in hyper-emphases on certain texts, read without regard to cultural contexts, literary contexts, or the empirical evidence that the world surrounds us with. One example involves the patriarchy that functions as a substrate in both Testaments because it characterized the cultures of the world in which Israel and later the Church came into existence. As early as Genesis, however, the Bible undercuts the idea that gender hierarchy conforms to God’s will. God created humankind in God’s image; both male and female reflect God’s likeness (Gen 1:26-27), for example. A range of other texts about prominent women in the Hebrew Bible contribute to a critique of the notion that gender hierarchy represents God’s intention:  Deborah, Jael, Huldah, etc. Good biblical interpretation does not shoehorn the stories of these women into a construct of the “submissive woman.” Arguably the clearest example of a text dangerously misinterpreted through selective emphasis and intellectual dishonesty is 1 Tim 2:8-12:

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. (RSV)

Perhaps the first thing one should note in this text involves the fact that the author reports his own position and practice: “I desire,” “I permit” (cf. 1 Cor 7:25-26). He makes no claim to be proclaiming a divine mandate. Second, the text notably expresses as much concern for women’s appearance as it does for their silence. The description of a well-dressed and well-coiffed woman speaking before a group of men calls to mind the hetairai or “courtesans” known in the Hellenistic Mediterranean world. Paul elsewhere expressed concern that Hellenistic converts who came from unsavory backgrounds (“And such were some of you,” 1 Cor 6:11, RSV) take care to distance themselves from their pasts. Notably, those today who emphasize the idea that women should “learn in silence” rarely also decry expensive clothing, fashionable hairstyles, pearl necklaces. Third, 1 Tim 2:8-12 should also be read in the literary context of the entirety of scripture, including and especially Paul’s statement concerning the equality in Christ of Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female (Gal 3:28).

Sophia intends to focus on reading scripture honestly and taking seriously Jesus’ mandate to “love the Lord your God…with all your mind.”

* (Portions of this discussion have been adapted from entries dated to February through April of 2025.)

Three Ways Baylor University Has Failed its Students . . . and the Gospel

imago Dei, interpretation, justice, love, science and religion, theological education, , , , , ,

The church often trails behind. Under pressure from conservatives, Baylor University recently returned a $640,000 grant from the Eula Mae and John Baugh Foundation for a project titled “Courage from the Margins” designed to study how the church can be more welcoming to LGBTQIA+ individuals.  A matter of days later, Dr. Jon Singletary stepped down as Dean of Baylor’s Garland School of Social Work. The timing of these events suggests that conservative pressure may have also influenced Dr. Singletary’s decision. I find these developments troubling in three respects, in particular.

First, from the perspective of higher education, they both constitute an affront to academic freedom and they also call into question the wisdom of Baylor’s leadership. We are no longer in the medieval period, when church and academy were so intertwined that the results of scientific inquiry required the church’s imprimatur. There is no freedom of inquiry if the outcome has been predetermined. In purely practical terms, surely, Baylor’s administration could and should have anticipated the conservative reaction to their initial decision to accept the grant. As it is, they have brought trouble upon themselves, including the appearance of insincerity.

Second, from the perspective of faithfulness to the way of Jesus, ironically, by repudiating the project that set out to study how the church can be more welcoming – more hospitable – and by apparently pressuring Dr. Singletary, Baylor’s leadership acted contrary to the Gospel’s call to love one’s neighbor. The whole affair reminds me that institutional structures seem unable or unsuited to being Christian. Almost invariably, they seek to sustain themselves at the expense of individuals. They inevitably find it expedient to sacrifice individuals to preserve the corporate entity.

Finally, the opposition to “Courage from the Margins” rests on an inadequate and dangerous hermeneutic that selectively absolutizes scriptural texts (Lev 18:22 and 20:13, but not Lev 11:1-8 or 19:33-34), that fails to comprehend the dynamic movement toward inclusion evident within Scripture (cf. Deut 23:1 with Isa 56:3-5 and Acts 8:26-40), and that misapprehends or willfully ignores the testimony of modern science (all truth points to God). This is perhaps the most troubling aspect of Baylor’s actions. The Bible can be very dangerous and destructive when its interpreters misuse and misconstrue it, stumbling over the letter and thereby missing the spirit of liberation that breathes through it.

Too often in the history of the human struggle for justice, the church has trailed behind. In 1688, Quakers issued the “Germantown Petition” calling for the end of slavery only 69 years after the first enslaved people were brought to the colonies, but the rest of the church…. As Rev. Lauren Ng of the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists has reminded us, “The Gospel calls us to radical love and justice.”