No absolute truth

Why is it important to talk about interpretation? Because there are many Christians who pretend to have “the truth”. This is a problem not only for the people themselves, but also for the communities in which they stand. A problem arises when thinking in terms of absolute opposites (black and white). “truth versus error,” “true versus false,” “faith versus unbelief,” “Bible versus science,” and the like. If you recognize this, you can draw the circle a little larger. Because, if Jesus is “the truth” (isn’t there a Bible passage about that?), then all other people are “untrue”? Or would it have to be seen more in terms of some being “saved” and others “lost forever”? The Christian self-understanding can (it is not everywhere) consist of a demarcation from all other people. You can see yourself as “enlightened” as a Christian, while all other people are “in the dark”.

(Why is the last one spoken about little and rarely critically?)

Saying such things may trigger immediate opposition, because some here read out that in my opinion “there would be no truth”. However, I neither said nor thought that. Rather, I think we interpret, and our interpretations are by definition incomplete and imperfect. While the interpretation is fractional, it does not touch any truth because the two are different.

However, how one understands oneself as a Christian and how one shapes one’s understanding of truth is not set in stone. They are interpretations that are always worth reconsidering with a little looseness.

It is the inauthentic fusion of interpretation and the concept of truth that leads to sectarian implications and convulsive defensiveness. If we let go of the conflation of interpretation and truth, it does not endanger interpretation or the concept of truth. Rather, these two things can now be considered separately.

It is the inauthentic fusion of interpretation and the concept of truth that leads to sectarian implications and convulsive defensiveness.

Those who interpret try to understand something. This can be personal, but it can also take place in the context of a theology. An interpretation has meaning for church, community, for the understanding of faith in general, for the view on this world and many things more. Personal ideas are not wrong just because they are personal. Our interpretation is merely what we can and should do as human beings – and that makes it completely imperfect. At the same time, interpretations are inevitable if we want to live in this world.

People who travel the world with their eyes open describe things they see along the way. Only those who constantly walk with a vacation brochure from the destination in front of their eyes overlook the current landscape. The Bible is not a vacation brochure from the destination alone, but it gives us a testimony with a view in this world. If you don’t want to trip on the trail, you have to learn to keep looking where you put your feet. Whoever walks like this interprets the path. Interpretation is essential.

In the context of theology, dogmatics is the attempt to tease out and summarize meaning (such as themes in the Bible). Dogmatics is interpretation. Thus, dogmatics is not flawed, but only human. It is important, but also searching, discarding, accepting, shaping. Dogmatics is in essence, and in the best sense, an expression of a culture of learning.

Dogmatics is in essence, and in the best sense, an expression of a culture of learning.

Interpretation becomes problematic and becomes dogmatics when it merges with the understanding of truth. For then dogmatics is elevated to truth and truth itself is limited to interpretation.

Many churches and communities have a distinct dogma or at least an understanding of truth. By this is meant that they have interpretations. If these merge with the concepts of truth, then the beliefs become rigid and can no longer be tested. In this case dogmatics (interpretation) and truth are blithely confused and derailments occur.

Example: A statement like “If you don’t believe in the Trinity, you are not a real Christian,” is a dogmatic assertion disguised as “truth.” Here dogmatics (“Trinity”) are confused with a neutral truth. The Bible is usually supposed to be an authoritative source of truth, but it is precisely in it that any reference to a Trinity is missing. As a result, the dogma is elevated to truth in the aforementioned statement. Therefore, it is not about the truth, but about the dogma, about the interpretation that is imposed as truth. So why does it work? It’s about power. The question of truth is lost in a self-righteous claim to power.

Here, on this website, I also strive for interpretation. This is, of course, imperfect. You gain a lot of freedom in thinking when you separate interpretation from truth. There is also sobriety in this, because one does not put one’s own conclusions (and those of other people) as absolute truth.

Living interpretation leads to a learning culture

If one separates the interpretation from the concept of truth in the understanding, one can gain leeway. This margin is a serious matter. It is about being allowed to think, to be able to examine and not just to walk within known paths. Those who are aware of the deficiency of their own thoughts can deal with it in a curious and learning way. A learning culture requires such freedom. Within the framework of a Christian learning culture, it is a matter of coming to terms with one’s own faith, one’s internalized ideas, just as it is a matter of coming to terms with the Bible and, as a living consequence, also with the world in which we live.

A learning culture is not dangerous. When I put it this way, I think of many conversations wherein people have expressed a direct fear of an open learning culture. These are the same people who like to claim an “absolutely binding truth” because it simplifies life. I understand the desire to simplify. However, the world is complex. It therefore also requires people who are curious about complexity. This is as true in matters of faith as it is in all other matters. A culture of learning is courageous and necessary, even if not everyone participates.

Courage to interpret is important, as is weighing each conclusion. He who weighs up interprets again. In good communication, you can try to outline the starting positions, mentioning the reasons why you come to this or that view.

• Do I have a settled doctrine (what does that mean?)?
• Do I want to include the Bible in my reflections? (How?)
• Which (linguistic/archaeological/logical/etc.) arguments do I use?
• Do I understand the arguments my counterpart uses in the conversation?
• Do I communicate my basics and prerequisites to my counterpart?

People tend to be more certain of their view the less they know (Dunning-Kruger effect). A differentiated view will therefore hardly present itself as “the truth”, but rather invite further reflection.

Dogmatics, dogmas, beliefs and “the truth

One cannot always be open to everything, because we cannot ask all the questions of life and faith anew every day. Logically, we build our understanding of the world in many small individual steps. These individual steps are the best we can recognize right now. They are something like working hypotheses that we test in everyday life. I think this is also true for knowledge of faith.

Dogmatics, dogmas and beliefs are helpful on our way, lead our thoughts in certain directions, help us to realize things. But is it “the truth” or rather a “human interpretation”? Being able to distinguish that clearly is a healthy skill. What I have in mind with this website and these posts is an open learning culture. Of course, I shape these texts with my interpretations. I am deliberately tying in with evangelical ideas. I do this for three reasons:

1. firstly, because I know them well and
2. secondly, because it keeps many people busy and
3. third, because bridge builders are needed.

As a bridge builder, I would like to encourage people to set out on their own journey, to make their own interpretations, to read the Bible for themselves, to think anew about internalized beliefs. For in this way we fulfill not only our humanity, but also our Christianity, our faith.

Paul calls for differentiation when he writes to the Philippians:

“And that’s what I pray for,
that your love overflows even more and more in knowledge and all sensitivity to it,
that you examine what is essential,
so that you may be sincere and unoffending to the day of Christ,
filled with the fruit of righteousness,
which is through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.”
Phil 1:9-11

Paul describes a process as well as motivations and characteristics of a differentiated argument. We are allowed to give room to that. However, if we declare our view to be “the truth”, we testify that we may still discover unknown landscapes that were missing from our vacation brochure.

Conversation

• “Every belief is a working hypothesis.” Discuss.
• Name 5 things your faith is based on (not: what your faith is made of!). Discuss.
• Present the same list (above) to a non-believer. Hear what he says. Is there something to it?
• What is the value of the Bible for you? Describe in two sentences.
• What do you want to interpret next?