Nowadays, any reference to the Bible can be rebutted with the statement, “That’s just YOUR interpretation!”
It’s not a particularly good rebuttal. But as Westerners move more toward moral and cultural relativism, the more traction such arguments gain. Of course, this makes religious and ethical claims virtually meaningless and forces nearly everything, including historical events and persons, into the realm of the subjective.
This was on display in Steve McSwain’s article earlier this year, 6 Things Christians Should Stop Saying. McSwain, whose website glosses him as “a trusted guide, transformational leader, and a spiritual teacher to all,” takes aim at one of the central claims of Jesus Christ…
3. Jesus is the only way to heaven.
What you are really saying is, “The way we interpret John 14:6 is that Jesus was clearly drawing a line in the sand and telling his hearers and the world: ‘If you do not believe in Me, you won’t go to the Father when you die.’”
…what you and your group of believers really mean to say is, “It is our interpretation of John 14:6 that Jesus is saying that He is the only way to heaven.”
Again, it’s your right to “believe” or, more accurately, interpret Scripture as you wish. You do not, however, have permission to arrogantly assume your way of interpreting the words of Jesus are the only way to understand His words. Last I checked, no one’s interpretation of anything is infallible. Not yours. Not mine.
The exclusivity of Christianity is a notoriously hard pill to swallow, especially for someone predisposed to believing that truth is unknowable. It is rather fascinating, however, that so many of those who believe that truth is unknowable have reached this same conclusion independently (i.e., through their own interpretive abilities). So does this consensus lend validity (or objectivity) to their view? If so, then why should centuries of scholarship that has reached the opposite conclusion about Christ be invalidated?
The author chastises the exclusivist who “arrogantly assume[s] your way of interpreting the words of Jesus are the only way to understand His words.” But isn’t this self-refuting? I mean, if all interpretations are fallible, then so are McSwain’s.
The question here seems less about infallibility and more about basic cognition. I mean, is it possible to understand the meaning of any words? Is it possible to extract the gist of any book, any blog post, any historic document, any Facebook Update, or any Tweet? More to the point: Is it possible to understand the meaning of Steve McSwain’s article? If so, then who gave you “permission to arrogantly assume your way of interpreting the words of [Steve McSwain] are the only way to understand [h]is words”?
So please, don’t tell me everything is up for “interpretation” while telling me that I should accept yours.
Well said.
Mike, excellent post. Thank you.
I’ve never heard of Steve McSwain, but the excerpt of his post that you reference is thoroughly post-modern. Rigorous, traditional logic is not the strong suit of post-modern philosophy, but relativism is. I think McSwain would counter your statement by saying that, yes, his interpretation of John 14:6 is fallible if applied to everyone, but it works for him, so it’s right for him, and if it’s right for him, that’s all that matters.
That’s not logical in any traditional sense, but having heard similar lines of reasoning before, I’m pretty sure that’s how McSwain would respond.
But mike , he does say in your quote that , “no one’s interpretation of anything is infallible. Not yours. Not mine.” he says “not mine” . So why are you saying at the end of your article that he is expecting us to accept his interpretation?
He says “not mine” but if you follow his logic, he circles back around to absolute truth. He doesn’t understand that his own logic is faulty. And yet, subliminally, he does. The “not mine” comment is false humility. “You are arrogant, but I’m not.” Basically, “I’m better and smarter than you.”
As I said, that makes his point self-refuting and nonsensical. The author must appeal to laws of logic and textual criticism in order to deconstruct them
Well, Mike, we might like him to apply logic to his deconstruction, but one of the core tenets of postmodernism is that reality cannot be known or described objectively. Therefore, from a postmodernist point of view, nobody’s interpretation is infallible when applied outside of one’s self-contained reality, and it may not be infallible even when applied to one’s self, because the self is limited by language and social constructs and, consequently, may not understand reality.
In such a philosophy, McSwain’s statement makes sense, even if, under the rules and guidance of traditional Western logic, it makes no sense at all.
You can criticize McSwain’s statement from outside his closed-loop “reality,” but if you step into his “reality,” you’re going to have criticize him within his framework of reasoning, and I suspect that you will have a hard time of it.
Let me state that I view McSwain’s comment as you do, i.e., nonsensical, but McSwain’s view of reality would reject our criticism, because it doesn’t accord with what he views as “reality.”
Typo. I should have written, “McSwain, because of his view of reality, would reject our criticism.”
It’s what I get for trying to have a conversation with my wife and type at the same time. 🙁
Steve’s a spiritual teacher but doesn’t seem to have given much critical thought to his faith. God’s Word should be our yardstick for Truth. If we don’t measure up or we disagree with something in the Bible, maybe we’re the ones that need to change, not God’s Word.
your point does not deal with what he is saying , what is gods word? he is saying that what you have is an interpretation, measuring up or disagreeing with Gods word does not come into it if you think the other person has the wrong interpretation.
If Steve does not claim infallibility, why does he insist that we change? Christians, on the other hand, have a Word that does claim infallibility; we should seriously consider it’s claims before rejecting them. At face value.
As an aside: it’s interesting that people get so upset at Christians for our beliefs. They have been imposed on us. They are outside of us. They do not originate from within us, but come to us. We must accept them, or reject them. But we must do so realizing that these truth claims have serious consequences.
So in other words McSwain is saying his interpretation is right. Funny how that works.
No he is not saying that, maybe i said it badly but he says in the article mike quotes “no one’s interpretation of anything is infallible. Not yours. Not mine” That’s fairly clear isn’t it? Its not that i agree with him but lets argue with whats really said .
Soooo…. he’s not saying that his own interpretation is right… but he still insists that Christians stop saying that Jesus is the only way?
Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Dear Mike,
excellent post! I love this topic because you see it everywhere. My brother-in-law, an unbeliever said to me one night at a family dinner, ‘there is no truth’. I asked him, ‘so, is that statement true?’ He just stared at me, then got this slight grin on his face, but he wasn’t happy that he recognized his own circular argument.
I wonder if anyone has had this type of discussion with Steve McSwain?
I have never heard of McSwain until you mentioned him in your post. I skimmed through a few pages of his book, The Giving Myths. What is interesting, is on p.8 he quotes Jesus: ‘He who have saved his life will lose it, but he would gives his life always find it.’
Here is a example of how McSwain not only assumes a correct understanding of Jesus’ words, but assumes that his readers have a correct understanding of Jesus’ words in the context he is writing about. He doesn’t say, ‘this can be interpreted different by different people, and in this context, it means this…’ – no, he assumes one right understanding.
The fact is, there are elements in McSwain’s writing that are true. But isn’t this the big problem with so many writers that use Jesus’ words when it benefits them and their agree, but discard Jesus’ words when it offends them?
He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, mixing error with some truth.
Perhaps the best question for McSwain is why he accepts many things Jesus said as true and having one interpretation that his many readers can understand, but this one thing Jesus said about being the only way, has many interpretations?
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. ~ Romans 16:17-18
In Christ,
Janet
edit: 🙂 should read:
But isn’t this the big problem with so many writers that use Jesus’ words when it benefits them and their argument, but discard Jesus’ words when it offends them?
My brother-in-law, an unbeliever said to me one night at a family dinner, ‘there is no truth’. I asked him, ‘so, is that statement true?’
Kind of like saying, “There are ABSOLUTELY no ABSOLUTES.” hee hee.
lol. true. 🙂
I don’t understand. Is this man a Christian? How can he not know that the only way to heaven is by the undoing of Adam’s sin? And only Jesus could and did do that. Acts 4:12 – there is no other Name whereby one can be saved.
That is my favorite verse, I think, because it simplifies life for me. It isn’t that nothing can be known, but that truth is often complex. The Gospel message, however, is not.
I made the mistake of reading the article. I can see why you highlighted the point you did. He knocked down the core of Christianity, that Jesus is the only way to the Father, right in the middle of strawmen (the other points on the list are debated amongst Christians and believing or disbelieving them does not mean one is saved or is not saved) and then left a red herring at the end to distract his audience from what he had done: “They will know we are Christians by our love!” The core belief of Christianity is that we are saved through Jesus Christ. We are not saved through believing in a young earth, and we are not saved by how much we love.
Hear hear! We love because we are saved, not the other way around.
Like a lot of heresies, there is an element of truth to what he says. None of us are inerrant in our understanding and interpretation of the inerrant Bible. But that fact does not lead to the conclusions he thinks it does. True, Christians argue over things like predestination vs. free will, being sinless vs. once-saved-always-saved freedom to sin, etc. One of the reasons we have so many different groups is the multiple interpretations of Scripture, everyone thinking they have the corner on truth.
But there are equally other truths and interpreations of Scripture that have had a long-standing belief by the majority of Christians, scholars and laity alike. To deny that witness to the truth is to in essence deny that the Holy Spirit can and will lead the Church into all truth. So while any one individual’s interpretation may be wrong, it would be an arrogant person to in effect say based on my interpretation, the majority of Christians now and throughout history are deluded and wrong. Based simply on the laws of probability, the chances of that are infinitesimal.
What many of them do is take plain readings of Scripture to only mean what it plainly means if it fits with their theology. If it doesn’t, it must not mean what it appears to mean. Instead, he’d need to show inherently in the text what Jesus meant that would make logical sense out of it.
Otherwise, you have him making the argument, “No one can be right, so my truth is all that is left.” Problem is, if it is all so relativistic, and there is no absolute truth, then there is nothing to believe in outside of ourselves, and our truth is nothing more than our own fictional universe built to make me feel better about life. What is the point in believing in that? Either there is something objectively outside of ourselves that we can believe in, or if there is not, face up to that reality and be agnostic/atheistic.
If there is an objective reality, as Scripture claims there is, then it is best we recognize that and do our best to know it and align our lives with it. Otherwise it is like ignoring the law of gravity and thinking by walking off a cliff, you won’t fall to your death. Because gravity is just someone’s interpretation of evidence, and can be not true for you.
“To deny that witness to the truth is to in essence deny that the Holy Spirit can and will lead the Church into all truth. So while any one individual’s interpretation may be wrong, it would be an arrogant person to in effect say based on my interpretation, the majority of Christians now and throughout history are deluded and wrong. Based simply on the laws of probability, the chances of that are infinitesimal.”
I think I see what you mean, Rick, but I find this argument lacking. That is, I think if you make it a pillar or foundation for your way of testing whether someone’s interpretation is right or wrong, it will fail you.
If I may, just offering an iron sharpening” thought here…
For centuries, hasn’t the church by and large taught as if some sins are “bigger” or “worse” than others? Haven’t we tolerated lack of faith, fear and unforgiveness while vilifying homosexuality? And yet all of these sins disqualify one for entering the kingdom (Rev. 21:8, Matt. 6:15, 18:35, etc).
Not to mention scriptures such as those in James where we’re told that to sin in any point of the law is to be guilty of the whole thing, and the one in Romans that says anything done without faith is sin.
I think the church is finally growing up to this truth (responding to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, as you mentioned) and practicing it more widely. However, there are still many people who still have the old paradigm of thought, and treat some sins as worse than others.
All that just to say: I wouldn’t use the argument “most of the church has believed this for centuries, so it’s probably right”. There’s plenty of junk outside the basic creeds and tenets of faith that Christians are commonly taught and believe that is horribly unbiblical.
I do agree that if you find yourself all alone in a given interpretation of a scripture, that ought to raise a red flag. However, over time in my walk with the Lord, I have come to see the flaws in enough traditional interpretations that I no longer rest easy just because it has been taught in seminary for decades or centuries.
Teddi, thanks for the input.
Of course, the laws of probability are not absolute. But if you do find yourself alone, I think it is bigger than a red flag. I’d be asking, “What did I miss?”
Take the instance of “levels of sin” you mention. The Church has always believed the “small” sins are just as deadly as the “bigger” ones. However, not all sins have equal consequences as in fall out. For instance, 2-5 years “probation” period for adultery. It isn’t to deal only with the spiritual separation from God, but the fall out from a particular sin, and what it takes to engender true repentance and healing from a particular sin. Adultery requires a lot more healing than telling a white lie, but both left unrepentant has the potential to keep you out of heaven. FYI, the Catholic “moral” vs. “venial” sins classification would be understood in the above light, but was a later development in concept as well. Not something that has been believed by the majority of the Church all through history.
Point being, that is an interpretation of a traditional practice that isn’t accurate, so is not a good example of what you are trying to point at. Likewise, the attitude that “homosexuality” is a worse sin than, say, gossip, to the point of violating someone’s human rights, is a modern view point based on fear, not the traditional understanding. Which does view it as needing more healing time and effort to deal with its consequences than gossip, but will not send a person to Hell faster than gossiping will. Nor does it demand, historically speaking, that someone dealing with this is less of a human, deserves less respect, or has a special place in Hell reserved for them.
But, back to the point. Take a more obvious issue. The Trinity. There have been those who deny that doctrine. However, the Church through councils and countless teachings has consistantly taught it. If I come up with a different interpretation, could I be right and all those other people wrong? Possibly. But to happen would not only be statistically improbable that I alone, maybe along with a few other groups, know the true interpretation (a form of Gnosticism–hidden knowledge the masses don’t know) and all those councils and teachers are wrong, but that the Holy Spirit did a sorry job of leading the Church into all truth.
As I told the Jehovah’s Witnesses who tried to convince me to read the text from Joseph Smith and I would have a burning in my heart that would be the Holy Spirit confirming the truth of what I was reading, “If I can’t trust the Holy Spirit to have gotten it right the first time with the Apostles, why should I trust Him to get it right with you guys hundreds of years later?” They didn’t stick around too much longer after that. And they never returned. (They’d been talking with my wife several times in the previous weeks.)
This is not to suggest that one should not evaluate and understand, and not just accept at face value something, especially the more cultural issues. But core doctrines? If they are outside of historic Christianity, I think anyone would be on very shaky ground to rely upon one’s own interpretation in the face of evidence to the contrary of a host of people through history with a contradictory teaching. Simply because we are fallible. We can’t trust we’ll get it 100% right. I think it is arrogant to assume we will, and toss aside a huge number of witnesses in favor of our own interpretation.
I don’t know if comprehension or the lack of it matters. There’s a secular framework those kind of guys live by that goes something like this:
-be tolerant
-be nice
-let people do what they want as long as they don’t hurt each other
-celebrate diversity as a value (prioritize the marginal over the mainstream)
-be gentlemanly nondogmatic. Don’t have strong opinions.
-have a general skepticism of unpopular values.
-trust popular values implicitly.
Christianity comes in and hammers this. So when he argues like he did, he contradicts himself. But logic really isn’t high on the list of these values, and gets sacrificed. It’s more important for Christianity to be tolerant, by accepting things like same-sex marriage, than to be logical or internally consistent. So appealing to logic doesn’t ever seem to work because it’s just doubling down on attacking the main values.
It’s a tough thing. This is related to Robert’s “mental framework.” The values he holds are higher in priority than what is criticized.