Meta-themes, Contexts, and Theological Humility

Hello bloggerites! This post is simply a response to some of the criticisms of my last post “Religion or Education: “The Chicken or the Egg.” A lot of what I have heard in response to this was similar to, and is a summation of Mr. A’s critique. (I suggest you read his critique in the comment section) Mr. A has such an invaluable and crucial perspective on this issue, and religion itself. Throughout this past year, Mr. A has been giving me a perspective that looks at religion from an agnostic perspective in which he asserts a more anthropologic look at religion. I have found his perspective to be more than necessary for a Christian theologian to consider. He makes me realize my context, and criticizes with respect, yet conviction. Our dialogue on religious beliefs has been a constant in my blogging career. So once again, thanks Mr. A. Keep up the criticism! Let me respond to some of his criticisms.


I’ll break down his comments and reply to them individually. Here is the first of his criticisms:

“Do you really think it's simply a matter of reading or not reading particular passages of the Bible? I would guess that Fred Phelps has read every word of the Bible. I just think the idea that there is a "correct" way to interpret the Bible is a rather silly concept. Should education come before faith? Sure, but who is doing the educating? The intelligent Christians? The PhD Christians?”


A great criticism! I have found myself giving this exact criticism for those who hold and argue that their biblical perspective is simply correct down to the detailed tenets. The truth (my use of this word bleeds irony right now) is, we all have our situatedness. We all have our context that shapes the way we reason, the way we perceive, and in turn, shapes our beliefs and worldview. Mr. A helps illustrate this well. I agree with much of the postmodernists’ sentiment, especially regarding truth claims. As Derrida argued, we all have our texts. To think that we can wholly separate ourselves from our situatedness, is simply absurd. This is a mainstay in my theology/philosophy (One that has me deemed “liberal” by many “labelers.”) I know, I know, I bleed Westernism…

But I think there is a bit of misunderstanding in what I meant in my post. I do not assert that I have an exhaustive understanding of the biblical texts. What I would assert, is that I have an objective understanding of the very few main overarching motifs of the bible. What I mean to argue is that, these main motifs are not difficult to exegete. One needs not be a Christian or a scholar to see these motifs. These are plainly evident in the text. Jesus preached an ethic that toted outrageous self-sacrificial love. This doesn’t take a PhD to understand. Nevertheless, with a lack of education I think some people pervert this basic motif of the holistic text (or metanarrative, meaning the themes and message of the entire bible). This is why I asserted that education is seemingly crucial in my previous post) A Fred Phelps takes minuet passages out of context and makes an entire worldview out of these passages. This, we call “proof-texting”. This occurs when one asserts meaning without placing the text in its own social context, literary genre, and/or overarching meaning from the whole book. Fred Phelps argues from the Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:3 passages to argue that God hates certain people (homosexuals). The passages he use read:


Malachi 1:3
“’I have loved you,’” says the LORD. But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' ‘Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ the LORD says. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.’

Romans 9:13- “‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”

(For more on this particular passage, see this link. I am not endorsing this site, but this article, illustrates the a sound exegesis of this passage. http://www.gotquestions.org/Jacob-Esau-love-hate.html)


Phelps strings this argument together: Since God hated Esau, God endorses hatred. God also condemns homosexuality in Phelps’ opinion, and so ‘God hates Fags’. What a boob! His perverted theology is more than uncouth.

Phelps failed to engage in a study of this text. He takes ‘hatred’ for its 21st century English meaning as the opposite of love. But this is simply not the case in the Ancient Near-Eastern definition of the word. He has used “hatred” anachronistically. James Butler, (Ph.D (Princeton) and Old Testament scholar) asserts that “hatred” should be translated as “not preferred” or “did not choose” for its correct meaning for the 21st century mind. These texts assert that Yahweh “chose” Jacob to carry on the covenant, and “did not choose” Esau to carry out the covenant. Phelps has given an uneducated misinterpretation of this text and oppresses people unabashedly with his absurd fallacy. Again, this is why we need education and critical thinking before we assert a truth claim or belief.

With that said, I offer three musings.

1) Religious texts can be difficult to decipher. I don’t deny this. I equate much of this to differences in cultural context. We need to contextualize texts to gain sound meaning. (eg. Language can have different meanings in different situations) It is critical that we engage in good textual criticism. Without it, we can get grossly perverted theologies and messages from texts. 21st century CE American has vastly different social constructs than 13th century BCE Mesopotamia! To turn your head from these differences is pure and foolish ignorance. Fred Phelps, I’m lookin’ at you buddy.

2) If minuet passages in religious texts don’t seem to align with the text’s “meta-motifs” or overarching messages, you probably have a perversion of what the text really is getting at. Love, mercy, and justice are “meta-motifs” in the Hebrew Bible and concepts of self-sacrificial love are championed in the New Testament. Hate simply doesn’t fit. The logical thing to do then, would be to dig deeper, contextualize, find genre, and language differences and so. Wa La! Seeing the differences in language rids us of this passage’s translation ambiguity.

3) I hope I have demonstrated that a simple, yet closer look at texts can relieve a lot of ambiguities. I would accuse a lot of Christians of doing horrible exegesis (interpretation of what a text means in its own context). A lot of these terrible ideas stem from the lack of good exegesis combined with a rushed theological stance without criticizing a theological claim. (It’s terribly frustrating to me). Here’s where education is integral to doing good theology. If we don’t educate ourselves with good methods of doing theology, we get these horrifying perversions. We are far too quick to hold a belief, without first thinking critically about its facets.

Concluding remarks to “...I just think the idea that there is a "correct" way to interpret the Bible is a rather silly concept…”

I would argue that there is always a correct interpretation, and always a wrong interpretation. Nevertheless, I think our contextual situatedness as humans restricts us from ever fully revealing an exhaustively correct interpretation of the whole text. I don’t recall what theologian said this, but a textual critic argues that the text cannot mean what it never intended to mean. So the writer of each text always means to say something objectively. The meaning is not subjective when it comes to these texts. The problem is that we cannot assume to gain an objective meaning. Our interpretation is always subjective in some regard. Therefore, there is a correct interpretation. We simply cannot know it exhaustively. So let’s exercise some theological humility!

Nevertheless, I would still assert that the biblical “meta-themes” are not difficult to exegete, but are easily perverted by silly interpretations and proof-texting. Biblical texts must be looked at holistically. If one wants to quote a passage from let’s say Matthew, they should see the quote in light of the whole book of Matthew. So particularizing a passage, should be done after gaining a holistic theology of the text, if done at all.


Phelps is the proverbial zit on the face Christianity. Good biblical exegesis is the Clearasil.

Mr. A’s critique calls all theologians to exercise humility in doing theology. We must study these texts meticulously prior to making theological claims, and we must allow the text to be ambiguous at times and be okay with simply saying, “I don’t know.”