by VorJack
Historian John Sparks talking about Barton Stone, grandfather of Charles Chilton Moore, who may have been suffering a brief crisis of faith:
It is not inconceivable that, at this time, [Barton] Stone could have come to that realization so unsettling to anyone who has somehow become convinced and assured that he or she possesses pure biblical truth: that no one’s system of belief can truly be straight exegesis from Scripture so much as it is, and ultimately always proves itself to be, instead more of an eisegesis, that is, an attempt to reconcile one’s own varied passions and prejudices with one’s perceptions of the Bible.
–John Sparks, Kentucky’s Most Hated Man, p. 27-28
I’d be lying if I said that this wasn’t one of the reasons I left the faith. A feeling that all Biblical interpretation was eisegesis: “I believe it, the Bible says it, that does it.”
Fred Clark over at Slacktivist is looking at a aspect of this right now. In this case, the conflict between the way that many American Evangelicals interpret the (many) passages about economic justice verses the way they interpret the (few) passages about homosexuality.
Upon reading your linked Wiki entry on eisegesis, I found the section on Biblical study rather humorous. It points out how liberal Christians, evangelicals, Catholics, and Jews are all accusing the other of eisegesis. I happen to agree with them all! :D The only non-eisegesis interpretation is one that doesn’t attempt to reconcile the contradictions and impossibilities in order to maintain belief.
Isn’t it the truth! They are all able to see the “plank in the other guy’s eye” – and they can all see clearly how ridiculous the other person’s faith is.
Here’s a wonderful vid about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVuw1wEuaAQ&feature=related
This is exactly why it is wrong to see the Bible as an autonomous entity, a concept that really only came into being post-Reformation. There are no objective, context-free truths, not even in the Bible. Such a view is in fact incredibly un-Christian, but you wouldn’t know it from the state of American protestantism.
anyone notice that eisegesis sounds like “I see Jesus”?
Icy cheeses?
Mmmm… cheeses…
No, but I immediately thought of one of the early Omni magazines that had ran a “wacky dictionary” contest and the results. One I’ll always remember is “Exegesis: a former savior”. It was the first time I saw the word, and had to look it up. I like the goofy one better.
The thing is, the bible says enough on both sides of every coin that anyone can find a bible verse to support anything (one of the advantages of a book being written by hundreds of authors in violent disagreement with each other) and the Jesus character is vague enough that anyone can see Jesus as whatever they want Jesus to be (one of the disadvantages of not writing your own book and having someone else define your philosophy).
If someone wants a verse that says “thou shalt not kill”, it’s right there. But if someone wants a verse to justify murder, there are hundreds of them. Need an overt biblical endorsement of slavery or rape? Don’t need to look further than the first couple books. But if you wanted something that vaguely suggests rape is wrong or that god wants the slaves to go free, well that’s in the book too.
Eisegesis would be a logical result of people following such a book. People take their own values or the values of their society and read them into the text. This is (in my opinion) the biggest single contributing factor to liberal christianity. It goes something like this.
Step 1: The bible is the word of god.
Step 2: God would only ever command something that was good.
Step 3: Of course slavery is wrong, we all know that.
Step 4: Ergo, slavery is not endorsed in the bible.
( Of course you can swap slavery with pretty much anything that western values now consider wrong which the bible commands or endorses, genocide, rape, witch burning, etc.)
What makes Jesus such an ingenious character is that he is like a Beatles song. He can pretty much mean anything.
Ex-a-what!? I thought X-ing out the Christ in Christmas was bad, but this is just going too far.
I remember discussing this issue with my dear mother, who is a literalist evangelical. She was shocked and horrified that I would even THINK that the bible is open to interpretation. It is absolutely clear, and unequivocal!!!!! (But mom, why are there so many christian faiths? And denominations within faiths? And differences of opinion among people in the same denomination? And how could the bible be misused [ie witch-burning] if this indeed were the case?]
My answer was a stony stare, followed by a cold silence.
“Hush, child, I’m struggling with my cognitive dissonance right now.”
LOL!
lol I always get that stony stare and cold silence when I ask why God would get angry. Amazing how a very pointed and logical question can disrupt a lifetime of programming and brainwashing.