Biblical backgrounds: Our interpretive lenses

In my last post introducing the topic of biological evolution, Darwin's 'dangerous idea,' I mentioned that what is often a stumbling stone hindering one from listening to the topic is the particular presuppositions we have regarding the biblical account of creation.

Why do I say it like this? Why not say that it is the accounts of creation themselves that hinder us from hearing what it is that Darwin and the scientific community are attempting to say to us regarding how life has developed on our planet? Simply because the text of the Bible is subject to historical development and historic interpretation. From a Christian perspective one can interpret this as 'progressive revelation.' Texts like Genesis have had a literary life - existing first in an oral or written context, then being placed into a written context combined with other literary works, subsequently edited, read, interpreted, and then re-interpreted. Translation has also played a part. For example, how did a writer who first penned the account in the early sixth century BCE understand its meaning? How did Jews during the intertestamental period? How did early Christians like Paul, Origen, or Irenaeus?

Furthermore, when you and I approach the literary text of Genesis we are coming to it with a whole host of interpretive lenses that we have inherited from our particular religious communities, socio-economic background, family life and so on. Within each of these we have acquired a way of seeing, reading, and hearing these particular stories. A Roman Catholic reading differs slightly from an Eastern Orthodox one and Evangelical communities differ from each other. Each one has been shaped by the times and circumstances in which they have undergone. Regretfully, however, we are typically woefully ignorant of these presuppositions and often times read these notions into the text themselves.

This is regretful since it wrongs us in two ways. First, by prejudicing our perspectives and dispositions against an idea that goes against our perceived belief regarding what these text say. In other words: 'this is not that.' We believe that this new idea does not correspond with what we believe the text to say so we a priori reject it rather than questioning our beliefs. Secondly, this is a travesty since we also do not actually hear what these texts do in fact tell us. The biblical texts are, in my opinion, beautiful in both the profundity of their literary features and in their apparent simplicity in communicating complex ideas. They have survived millennia for a reason. If we want to learn from them and see that beauty we need to be willing to let our guards down, become aware of our interpretive lenses, and be willing to grow. In the end, I believe that we have nothing to loose and everything to gain.