The Issue Is Interpretation

In 2004, I wrote an op-ed piece for the Wichita Eagle in defense of one of the editorial board, Randy Scholfield, who was being criticized by some of the Christian religious conservatives. While the names will not mean anything to anyone who is not from Wichita Kansas, perhaps the piece will help generate some thought.

The Issue Is Interpretation

Most conservative ministers frame the debate on contemporary social issues, such as marriage for homosexuals, in these terms: A person is either faithful to the Word of God or that person is not. Abe Levy, in his story about the Reverend Joe Wright, of Central Christian Church wrote (July 4 front page), “Whether making public stands against abortion, homosexuality or other moral issues, Wright says he can’t afford to compromise his beliefs. ‘At the end of the day, I have to know God’s pleased with me,’ he said.” In one of his recent televised sermons, the Reverend Terry Fox, of Immanuel Baptist Church, deplored the liberal trends in society, called for removing liberal politicians from office and liberal ministers from their churches, and called for faithfulness to God’s way. The Reverend Patrick Bullock, Director of Missions for the Heart of Kansas Southern Baptist Association wrote (May21 My View), “As Bible-believing Christians, we have a standard of beliefs that cannot change, because the Bible is the revelation of who God is in all His holiness.”

In making such statements, these men suggest that anyone who disagrees with their views, that is “those liberals,” actually do not believe or follow God and God’s Word. That is a false assumption.

In using the Biblical text to inform the debate, the real issue is not in faithfulness to scripture or in who is a true Christian. The real issue lies in different perspectives on interpreting God’s Word.

Here, Randy Scholfield was correct in his article (May 12 opinion pages). All people, including ministers, have had a troubling history of misinterpreting scripture. As Mr. Scholfield noted, very sincere and faithful Christians in the 19th century used scripture to justify the use and continuation of slavery in the South and fervently believed that God had ordained the practice. Other Christians believed otherwise. For decades after the Civil War, on the basis of scripture, some faithful Christians believed they should prohibit inter-racial marriage. Other Christians, on the basis of their faith, disagreed.

Each of these issues, slavery and forbidding inter-racial marriage, was considered foundational to the preservation of society at that time. Christian clergy and laity on both sides believed they were correct in their view of what God required. The difference was in their interpretation. So it is today.

I would defend the right for each Christian to express her or his own view on such issues, whether that person agreed with me or not. Certainly, agreement with my interpretation would not be crucial to determining that person’s faith stance. I would want them to give me, as a Christian, the same right, whether I agreed with them or not.