Divine Deconstruction for Human Reconstruction: A Critical Engagement of the Bible in Congregations – by Jermaine Marshall

In his critical reflection of the Christian faith entitled The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith, Marcus J. Borg, a distinguished biblical scholar, suggested that the sacred book we love so passionately is the very heart of our Christian faith. The foundation of the Christian faith is built primarily on the biblical text, hence Borg’s contention for those of us who are Christian believers. Borg contends that the Bible is our source of identity. In essence the biblical text gives our faith meaning and in a sense validates our Christian beliefs. Therefore it is imperative that we as Christians are intentional about critically engaging the biblical text from both a socio-theological and socio-cultural perspective. However, what I have discovered in Christendom is that many of us do indeed read the biblical text, but a critical engagement seems to be a rarity.

Engaging the Bible from a Socio-Theological Perspective

I contend that this rarity in critically engaging the bible stems from the prominence of our embedded theology which poses a threat to critical engagement of the biblical text. All human beings possess an embedded theology because we have all been victimized by various forms of human socialization. These forms have affected our cultural, political, economical, social, emotional, mental, physical, and even religious understanding of human life. Therefore in some shape, form, or fashion we have all been trained and conditioned to think one way as opposed to being taught how to critically think for ourselves. My contention about the threat of embedded theology is in no way intended nor designed to serve as a form of pessimism towards human socialization. In fact I am a proponent of human socialization, but I utilize the verb “victimized” to highlight our lack of understanding as it relates to the biblical text. Even in congregations we lack understanding because our embedded theology has caused us to have an aversion to a critical engagement of the biblical text.

Even after we become intentional about moving beyond our embedded theology to our deliberative theology (which begins at the point that we think about what we actually believe for ourselves as opposed to what we have been taught to believe), many of us still maintain much of our embedded theology. We value the wisdom, philosophies, theories, postulates, theorems, and beliefs of those who influenced, shaped, and molded us into the individuals we have become. Holding such persons and their philosophical notions in high regard is a very noble phenomenon, but it’s only noble if their philosophical notions are right. For example, in my humble opinion a philosophical notion that says, “do as I say not as I do” is wrong primarily because such a notion is hypocritical, but more importantly it is wrong because as Christian believers we all consider God as our parent and Jesus as our elder brother for some who subscribe to homoiousios (similar substance of God and Jesus) as opposed to homoousios (same substance of God and Jesus). In the gospel message God does not say “do as I say not as I do”, what God says is that we all must bear a cross, not just Jesus. We are destined to follow Christ and to live as Christ lived in his earthly ministry, but such an understanding of our calling and mission can only materialize through a critical engagement of the biblical text.

The major challenge to our critical engagement of the biblical text is that many of us fail to realize that we all impose our own views on the biblical text. The famous term for this practice in theological circles is “eisegesis”.  Whether we realize this or not, we all bring different lenses to the biblical text, which explains the preponderance of many different biblical interpretations some of which are complete opposites of the other. Therefore we discover the development and growth of many different denominations and sects within Christendom, because we all bring our own life experiences and human socialization into our interpretation of the biblical text. For example, when I first had the tumultuous epiphany that a civil rights leader and a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan actually have one thing in common, I was literally horrified. The commonality is the fact that they both believe and confess Christ. How could two people from two completely different backgrounds possessing two completely different theologies both confess the same Christ? It just does not seem probable that a peace-seeking person fighting for social justice could be reading and gaining inspiration from the same book being read and utilized by a belligerent racist bigot. However the probability lies in the fact that we all bring our preconceived notions and presuppositions with us in our hermeneutics (interpretation) of the biblical text.

The authenticity of our critical engagement of the biblical text in congregations depends heavily on our willingness to make our embedded theology submissive to our deliberative theology. God has endowed us all with the capacity to function through our deliberative theology. Subjugating one’s embedded theology to his or her deliberative theology is a major struggle because such a task forces us to wrestle with God through the development and posing of tough questions. One of the major mistakes we have made in the Christian church has been our insistence on making people believe that it is wrong to question God. We have done the Body of Christ a major disservice with our perplexing theological notions. When we make such a declaration on God’s behalf, we literally limit God’s lordship, suspend God’s sovereignty, and diminish God’s divinity. I am convinced that God has no problem with our questions, God can and will certainly handle our questions. The apparent problem even in the congregation is that we either just don’t believe or don’t want to deal with God’s answer to our questions – therefore many times we refuse to ask. It is imperative that we as clergy, Christian educators, and spiritually mature laity become intentional about helping our congregants develop and function in their deliberative theology. God has called us to share and deliver God’s word, not to impose our views on the people because sometimes even our views are wrong. It is a fact that God speaks through us, therefore we are tools and vehicles of divine revelation, however we must be careful not to hinder the liberation and vindication of those in our congregations by hindering them from hearing God directly through a critical engagement of the biblical text.

Engaging the Bible from a Socio-Cultural Perspective

In our endeavor to lead our congregations through a critical engagement of the biblical text it is essential that we are culturally relevant without becoming biblically impotent. In essence when we are engaging the biblical text we are meeting the social and cultural needs of the congregation in addition to their spiritual needs. When we are engaging the Bible with racial minorities such as African Americans and Hispanics, it is imperative that we develop a hermeneutic that is culturally and socially inclined. The fear of biblical deconstructionism has hindered the formation and utilization of such a hermeneutic. While I disagree with some of the main tenets of biblical deconstructionism such as the notion that the biblical text lacks a definite meaning, because I believe our sacred scripture always have meaning even in the most difficult parts such as stories in the book of Judges which biblical scholar Phyllis Trible characterize as “Texts of Terror”. Deconstructionism is a form of textual criticism that enables the biblical interpreter to discover the social and cultural ramifications within the text. In essence biblical deconstruction helps alleviate the temptation to interpret the biblical text out of context. Biblical deconstruction has been demonized by some as an enemy of the Christian faith. I disagree.  While deconstructionism does have its flaws, I refuse to embrace the notion that it is the enemy of our faith. I think biblical deconstruction can be a valuable tool to congregations if we are going to critically engage the bible.

Among the many forms of biblical interpretation I uplift deconstructionism because it enables us to fulfill our hermeneutical obligation. If our engagement of the biblical text endeavors to achieve social and cultural relevance for those whom we serve in the congregation then we must consider all levels of interpretation. Many consider deconstructionism as a kind of heretical tool utilized to undermine the gospel message and destroy the sacred constructs of the biblical text. Again while I disagree with some of the philosophical and theoretical notions of deconstructionism, I think in its practical form its helps us to discover and unveil the wisdom and mystery of God’s message in our contemporary age. Many people in our congregations are hurting and they are seeking and searching for healing. Many of these people expect and anticipate that we as the messengers of God and teachers of God’s word have the capacity to deliver a message that has the power and anointing to heal them. People are seeking to discover how these sacred stories and principles in this ancient book we call the bible relates to them in their lives today. They are asking how can the history of Ancient Israel and even the message of the gospel which recounts a crucifixion, death, and resurrection that none of us witnessed minister to their hurt and pain. We as Christian believers, both clergy and laity, are charged with the responsibility of extracting that message of hope, healing, grace, mercy, forgiveness, and reconciliation from the biblical text through critical engagement.

When engaging the bible critically it is imperative that we deconstruct the biblical text in order to reconstruct the broken lives of those people in our congregations that God has called, prepared, and equipped us to serve. Therefore in our engagement of the biblical text, it is imperative that our hermeneutical praxis consist of  interpreting from under the text (becoming submissive to the text itself with the understanding that the biblical text is indeed a divine product written through human vessels for human vessels), from behind the text (examining the historical setting and ramifications on which the text is based therefore understanding the biblical text as not just scripture but also history), and from above the text (approaching the text in a literary critical manner that will enable one to participate in the text in order to understand the role of the biblical characters, plot, and climax). After we have deconstructed the text in such a manner we empower the people in our congregation to understand the message of the bible in a post-critical manner through which they are able to discover how the stories and principles of this ancient book relate to them and the situations in which they find themselves socially, culturally, economically, mentally, emotionally, and even spiritually today.

Conclusion

Over the many centuries in the history of the Christian Church and Christianity overall the biblical text has been corrupted and tainted by people with their own personal agendas. Whether such agendas have been to control the minds, bodies, and lives of their followers and others or to exploit their followers and others in order to gain wealth, these agendas have been fostered through corruptible interpretations of the biblical text that have been erroneously labeled and characterized as divine revelation from God. As a person of African descent the most heinous act of this nature in Christian history was the utilization of the Bible to justify the wicked capitalistic practice of chattel slavery in America. The European enslavers utilized the biblical text in order to formulate a theological construct that justified slavery as the divine destiny of African people. The renowned African American mystic and theologian Howard Thurman recounted his grandmother’s disenchantment with Pauline theology. Thurman recounts how his grandmother had no desire to hear any sermon that was based on the Pauline epistles, because her slave master had utilized Paul’s message to subjugate and subordinate his slaves into obedience to his authority.  Such religious crimes as this and others should remind us of the fact that the Bible is utilized for both good and evil purposes; therefore it is essential to our congregations that we critically engage the biblical text.