"If we agree 'the Bible says this,' that's what we have to do," Kieschnick said.
If the Bible doesn't clearly address a dispute, he added, "we have to do what we've always done - respect the rights of individuals and individual congregations to decide what to do as long as it doesn't violate the directives of Holy Scripture and as long as it's an individual, conscientious decision." [Omaha World Herald, 10.14.02]
On the face of it, this seems entirely reasonable: "If we agree 'the Bible says this,' that's what we have to do."
Reasonable, until one asks the question, "But what if we don't agree?"
It is the nature of truth to be true whether individuals or groups agree with it or not. This fact seems to escape people when it comes to dealing with the Biblical texts, however.
Many note rather longstanding substantial disagreements between various groups over the interpretation of particular Scripture passages. In our times, many simply toss up their hands in frustration, claiming one can make the Scriptures say whatever one wants to make them say.
But again, it is the nature of truth to be true whether anyone agrees with it or not. I do not subscribe to the belief that one can make the Scriptures say whatever one wants to make them say. Suppose I wanted them to be a cookbook, wanted to make them teach me how to make pumpkin pie or a chicken brocoli braid? Try as I might, I'd soon find myself unable to make them say whatever I wanted them to say.
The range of possible and probable and plausable interpretations of any given passage is NOT INFINITE, contrary to popular opinion. The fact of the matter is most folks are intellectually lazy enough they don't care to examine the issues and relevant passages for themselves and arrive at the best conclusions. That would require study, thought and prayer. It's easier to dismiss the whole matter with a retreat into relativism: That's YOUR interpretation. This is MY opinion on the matter. We'll just forget that we can't ALL possibly be correct, because our interpretations exist.
Irresponsible exegesis exists. Illogical interpretations exist. Unreasonable understandings of the Scriptures abound.
And then there is truth, which is true whether anyone agrees with it or not, believes it or not. There exists true and accurate interpretation of the Scriptures.
Indeed, conflict and controversy often indicate that there IS something there at the center of it all worth fighting for and retaining -- something worth laying hold of and wrestling with until one grasps it.
I am frustrated with President Kieschnick's statements, because at the end of the day I don't believe disagreement necessarily tells me something about the clarity of the passages at hand. Disagreement is not proof that the text is obscure.
Rather, it is proof that humans are fallible and creatures generally prone to conflict. It seems to demonstrate that ever, always alongside the truth rightly understood and taught -- someone is always there to be the naysayer, critic, and in the end, advocate of false understanding and teaching.
Kieschnick seems to imply that in controverted passages, where agreement is lacking, it is due to a lack of clarity in the Scriptures. More likely, it seems to me, the problem isn't in the texts -- it's in us, and perhaps IS us. We fallen people are the problem. That's true, whether anyone agrees with it, believes it, or not.
