Scripture Holds Key to Today's Racial Unrest

Review: "Stony the Road We Trod" by Cain Hope Felder

by

Special to the Reporter

How the Bible is to be interpreted in the present or has been in the past has been the source of debate among scholars for centuries. As a way of exploring the topic of the history of racism through biblical interpretation, I will review the text “Stony the Road We Trod” by Cain Hope Felder, a New Testament scholar who taught at Howard University School of Divinity. In this section of the essay, we will look at how biblical interpretation was done in the early Christian Church and compare it to the modern church.

Much of the interpretative work of the Bible that is done by modern scholars is with a gaze at the literary, cultural and theological context of a text (Felder, 1991, p. 20). The primary method of with this focus is historical-criticism. Historical-criticism demands for correspondence between exegesis and interpretation (Felder, 1991, p. 21). The study of authorship, date and content is called Higher Criticism (Felder, 1991, p. 23). Meaning in contemporary discussions is viewed as emerging in the interaction between reader and text; which includes language, literary style, literary forms, historical background (Felder, 1991, p. 64). While many Christians see the Bible as the divinely inspired word of God, in this methodology, the Bible is subject to literary critique like any other piece of literature. This sometimes leads to an aural hermeneutic (Felder, 1991, p. 66). This is a concept that measures what people have been told about God, reality, and themselves; against what they have experienced about the aforementioned (ibid, p. 66).

Some modern Bible scholars, primarily Catholics and Fundamentalists, reject the historical-critical method and prefer to use proof-textual, typological and anagogical methods to interpret the text. Scholars seeking to ascertain authentic manuscripts use techniques of Textual Criticism or Lower Criticism (Felder, 1991, p. 23). Some of these lower critics have a concern for language is a key element in biblical interpretation. However, for the purpose of this paper we will explore the concept of race in biblical interpretation; and we will explore and compare the ancient methodology, with the modern methods.

Early church fathers, Augustine (principal Latin theologian) and Origen (principal Greek theologian) viewed the Bible from an allegorical lens. They felt that the Bible had a literal and a spiritual meaning (Felder, 1991, p. 20). Each concrete and historical element of scripture also possesses a meaning that lies outside of the text. This method seeks a spiritual meaning of the text. Origen distinguishes between two levels of meaning in the text, the literal and the spiritual. The literal meaning is discovered through exegesis, while the Scriptures were inspired and were meant to reveal (Felder, 1991, p. 20). Luther and Calvin rejected allegorizing and argued to offer the plain sense of the text (Felder, 1991, p. 21). Who are we to suggest in the 20th century that the church father’s method is obsolete and ours is more valid? (Felder, 1991, p. 21).

This constitutes a basis for interrogating modern-day mainline churches and synagogues afresh on their readings and subjective modernist applications of Scripture (Felder, 1991, p. 144). Modern Eurocentric translators and interpreters . . . have tended to allow secular ideological presuppositions to govern their exegesis and interpretation (Felder, 1991, p. 144). Biblical interpreters could profit from a more intense exploration of the relationship of oral and textual forms (Felder, 1991, p. 24).

Race

The biblical world was essentially without color prejudice (Felder, 1991, p. 12). Yet, in antiquity, we do not have any elaborate definitions of or theories about race (Felder, 1991, p. 127). Ancient authors of biblical texts did have a color consciousness, but this consciousness . . . was by no means a political or ideological basis for enslaving, oppressing or demeaning other people (ibid, p. 127). The biblical world predated any systematic notion of races and theories of racism (ibid, p. 127).

However, it is the Babylonian Talmud states that Ham was smitten in his skin (Felder, 1991, p. 147). The most damning evidence to support racialized biblical interpretation has been the “Curse of Ham.” A misinterpretation of Genesis 9:25-27, where Noah cursed Canaan for what his father, Ham, had done. This verse has been the basis of centuries of subjugation and slave trading of various African people. Africans were a cursed people because their ancestor Ham was cursed. Additionally, because Noah’s other two sons were blessed by him, it has been interpreted that all of the people of the world are blessed except the descendants of Ham.

Conclusion

After spending sometime this summer reflecting on the racial unrest this country, I began to see how racism continues to persist in the attitudes of Christians. I began to look within the scriptures. And there it was in the red letter as recorded in the gospel of Luke:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners  and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free,19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Jesus entered into the synagogue on the Sabbath day in Nazareth, and he read from the prophet Isaiah. He told them that he was anointed to proclaim freedom for the prisoners, to set the oppressed free and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. It finally hit me this summer, Jesus did talk about slavery! The year of the Lord’s favor is equivalent to the Year of Jubilee in Leviticus. Every 50 years, all debts would be cancelled and all slaves would be released. Yet, that is not how this passage has been historically preached in white churches or black churches. An exegesis of Luke 4:18-19 clearly articulates that Jesus came to free the prisoners and the captives, and to cancel all debts and release the slaves.

The reason this passage of scripture has not been preached in this manner before, has to do with racism in biblical interpretation. How we view the text determines how we read the text. If we believe that Jesus did not speak on slavery, because he never mentioned it, then it will influence our theology. However, if we allow the text to speak for itself and adopt a literal and spiritual hermeneutic, like the early church fathers employed, then we can see the obvious in scripture.

I firmly believe that the Lord is doing something in race relations in the church and the country, as I see people coming to the table that I have never seen before. My fear is that secular-humanistic approaches to racial justice will scare people away. I am a firm believer that scripture has the answer to how we relate to one another across the racial divide, however, I am keenly aware how we interpret the Bible will determine how we approach racism.

Odell Horne is the president of the North Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Men. He has a Master of Arts degree in African and African American Studies and is currently pursuing a Doctor of Theology degree in Contextual Theology.