As part of my clinical practice in psychology, it has been important for me to hone my listening skills in order to interpret what people really mean when they try to communicate. Truly understanding another person in any kind of depth is much harder than we realize. We don't even understand ourselves very well and we all have limitations in our ability to communicate. I have had a droll sign in my office that puts it this way: "I know that you think you heard what I said, BUT... I am not sure you realize that what you understood is not what I meant!"

Couples therapy has been a large part of my practice over the years and it may be what I do best. I only work with people who speak English but it is amazing the extent that otherwise intelligent people are unable to understand what the other is saying. Frequently I have to translate the assorted dialects from Mars and Venus, not to mention ethnic and provincial variations. I often must restate what one partner has said so that other can understand it. We all have mental filters, faulty habits of communication, and psychological defenses that cause great difficulties in how we speak and in how we hear others, especially in situations of conflict.

It has been vital for me to pay attention, not just to the meaning of the words, but to such things as voice inflection and tone, facial expressions, body language, and of course the context. There can be many layers of meaning in what someone is saying. This includes the content that the person is deliberately intending to communicate as well as hidden meanings, some of which may be completely unconscious. Note a simple greeting like "Hello." This could be a cheerful breaking of the ice like "Hello, it's good to see you today" or it could mean something sarcastic like "Hello. Doesn't everyone know that?" or even "Hello, is there anyone with a brain in there?" Generally, voice tone and facial expression will give us the necessary clues.

Written messages are even more difficult to understand as originally intended. We do not have the tone of voice, inflection, or body language to help us out. Some stylistic tricks of writing can help to minimize problems due to the lack of visual clues. For example, we can use exclamation points and other methods of emphasis (bold, all caps, italics, etc.). Unfortunately, the ancient languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc.) did not make sufficient use of these kinds of elements of emphasis. However, what the writers could always do is to repeat themselves (as did Paul in Philippians 4--"Rejoice. Again I say rejoice.") and to bring up the most important points in many different places ... as did Jesus regarding the divine Kingdom. Less important points could be communicated only once. All the many kinds of contextual clues (historical, thematic, linguistic, textual, writing style, genre, etc.) become important when we read ancient written material such as the scriptures.

The bottom line purpose to this article's introduction is to convey the truth that it is very easy to misinterpret verbal messages, especially those which are in written form.

Interpretation is Inevitably Personal

A true study of Bible interpretation (or any kind of interpretation or translation process) must include an evaluation of both epistemology and individual heuristics. We first must understand some basics about how humans learn and we must accept the reality that we individually interpret everything we perceive according to our unique perceptual and neurological processing equipment (our different brains) and according to our unique psychological make-up (different background environments, training, desires, and goals). Each individual cannot help but interpret everything he or she hears and reads in a very personal way, filtering it through a uniquely imperfect mind. The one who believes he is unbiased may be the most biased of all.

Although truth itself is objective and God's revelation to us is eternal and absolute, how we receive it is very relative and individualized because it depends on many factors that vary from person to person. And we have not even mentioned all the potential linguistic problems. That we agree about anything at all is often more an artifact of social factors (such as wanting to agree with others) than about actually "seeing eye to eye" on what things mean.

Given the realities associated with the differing and imperfect equipment through which we "know" anything, we must be very honest about our own fallibility in extracting meaning from another's words and actions. When we read the scriptures, they are never fully self-interpreting. Interpretation always depends upon the ability and experience of the interpreter, and only Jesus can interpret accurately all of the time.

Likewise, when we read the scholars' exegesis and hermeneutical commentaries, we still must interpret what they are trying to communicate. We cannot avoid the task of interpreting the interpreters, the so-called experts. Since we cannot read their minds, we are always making our best guess as to what their words mean. There is no getting around the necessity for personal interpretation and the reality of our own fallibility in this task. Humility is always in order.

Besides all the limited methods of "higher criticism" that attempt to appeal to science, our primary strategies for minimizing misinterpretations of the scriptures are two:
(1) prayer for the presence of the Holy Spirit to "guide us into all truth" (John 16:13), and (2) the consensual agreement of respected scholars over time.

As to the first spiritually-oriented strategy listed above, the inevitable difficulty is in confirming that it was the Holy Spirit who has guided us in our understanding and/or whether or not He has guided those who disagree with us. Certainty continues to elude us.

The second strategy of consensus listed above was an idea promoted in the early church (434 AD) by St. Vincent of Lerins, that is, the validity of church doctrines are best defined by "that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all." The problem here is that what has been so believed and agreed upon remains a very small body of information, such as the Nicene Creed. And even with creed we have the interminable arguments about the filoque clause.

These problems are not going away. This is why comparison with traditional interpretations and the various respected scholars and church leaders throughout Christian history will remain important. However, no particular individual after the Apostles has had their authority and virtual infallibility. Even the historic councils, which had great authority, cannot be so regarded. Whether individually or in large groups, fallible is what we are.

Therefore humility is always in order. And yet that does not mean that we should express our committed beliefs in a weak and wavering manner. Jude 1:3 commands us to "contend" for the faith as it was given to the first Christians. And Paul in the familiar Ephesians 6 passage reminds us to use "the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God" against our spiritual enemies. If we are fully convinced that we are teaching and preaching the gospel as originally understood, we should also remember that Peter advised, "If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God" (1 Peter 4:11; see also Titus 2:15 and 2 Timothy 3:16-4:2). If sometimes I write with an air of authority, understand that it is not my authority that matters but that of my Master; and it is to Him only that I am accountable for what I write. "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall."(Romans 14:4). But I had better not stray from the plain meaning of the scriptures or vary greatly from what has been traditionally understood.

My theological opponents can always refer to other scripture passages (if they exist) which counter what I may be asserting. As John R.W. Stott put it: "God's word is infallible, for what he has said is true. But no Christian individual, group or church has ever been or will ever be an infallible interpreter of God's Word. Human interpretations belong to the sphere of tradition, and an appeal may always be made against tradition to the Scripture itself which tradition claims to interpret."

Epistemology and Western Culture

Epistemology is the study of how we know anything, and whether our knowledge is trustworthy and reliable as "truth." It is the investigation of what it is that distinguishes justified belief from mere opinion.

Note this quote by Mario Bergner: "The epistemology of postmodernism is a hybrid of subjective experiences, the culture we live in, and the influences of the moment we occupy in history (Zeitgeist)." It should not surprise anyone that the tendency toward relativism (in theology and values) and the resulting reduction of trust in the authority of Scripture are huge signs that this postmodern epistemology has been co-opted by the churches. Due to the secularization and Marxist liberalization of western culture, it will be very difficult to reverse this trend and move back toward creedal Christianity and "the faith that was once for all entrusted to God's holy people" (Jude 1:3, NIV).

The mental health field, for all the good it has done, has been at the forefront of promoting relativistic philosophy and narcissism in the guise of positive self-esteem and self-actualization: "Create your own divine Self and be happy!" As early as the mid-seventies, Christian psychologists were warning us about this attack on the faith through psychology and sociology. One focus of the attack has been to destroy "sin" as a valid biblical concept and to destroy the perception of humility as a virtue-- and thus eliminate the need for repentance and confession. In response, we assert that humility is only honesty about our true weaknesses and ignorance, and confession is required for any true positive change.

Dr. David Myers, in The Inflated Self: Human Illusions and the Biblical Call to Hope, 1981, applies this narcissistic tendency to religious authoritarianism: "The temptation to pride-- to think more highly of ourselves than we ought-- is ever present. If falsehoods creep into all domains of human belief, then they are bound to contaminate my ideas and yours, and the next person's too. Not only is it therefore OK to have doubts, it is silly self-deification not to grant the likelihood of error within our belief system. Each one of us peers at reality through a glass, darkly, glimpsing only its shadowy outlines. The belief we can hold with greatest certainty is the humbling conviction that some of our beliefs contain error, which is, of course, only a way of saying that we are yet finite men and women, not little gods." [See also P.C. Vitz, Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship, 1977, and E. Jabay, The Kingdom of Self), 1975].

People who do not fully believe in the authority of scripture tend to decide that there are certain things in the Bible which they like and other things they do not like ... and thus are tempted to construct idols in their minds. The current culture which promotes the selfish desires of individuals is what actually rules their religious beliefs and how they interpret the scriptures. God must be what they want Him to be and so they construct a picture of Him NOT based on the fullness revealed to us by God Himself, but on those bits and pieces that fit their own thinking. This is intellectual dishonesty at best and it easily turns into idolatry. They are making God over in their own image.

Detecting the difference in our churches between the influence of "the world, the flesh, and the devil" and the divine influence of the Holy Spirit is not always easy. The litmus test that is most reliable is that of comparing every idea to Scripture itself: "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Cor 10:5). Although cultural, philosophical, and even theological fads come and go, God and His Word do not change (Malachi 3:6, Isaiah 40:8, Psalm 33:11, 119:89, Matthew 24:35).

Practical Tips for Minimizing Error

As a Christian, I fully believe that one day I will stand before the Lord Jesus, the ultimate judge. Knowing this, as well as recognizing my own total inability to know it all or to even discern right from wrong reliably, I must make my choices with humility. Therefore, if I must err, I choose to err on the side of believing the plain reading of the scripture texts as translated by the experts, even when it seems to go against the prevailing winds of popular culture or particular theological factions.

Of course, I will seek the whole counsel of scripture in interpreting any particular verse, and look to interpret it in context. Some scriptures (parables, for example) are obviously metaphorical, but many other passages are ambiguous regarding genre, with some experts interpreting it literally and others allegorically. Some passages, I think, were meant by God to be both, and some prophesies have multiple fulfillments over time. When there is significant doubt about whether a passage is meant to be allegorical or literal, my common sense method requires that I first choose to go with the more literal interpretation and then perhaps add the allegorical as a secondary layer of meaning. Today they call this the historical-grammatical method of interpretation. It generally means to interpret a passage with what the words actually mean linguistically, what they are likely to have meant in the time that they were written, and what the earliest church believed about it. I try to avoid "spiritualizing" or gnosticizing a passage to mean what might be more acceptable in today's politically-correct culture or what I personally want the passage to mean. As Augustine wrote, "If you believe what you like in the Gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself."

If a passage is unclear or confusing to us, then we must first examine a number of versions to see if the differing use of language helps our understanding. Then we should examine what the most reliable scholars and theologians have written in their commentaries. What has "tradition" over the past 2000 years believed about the passage? If there is considerable disagreement among past experts, then we may have to 'table the issue' until God clarifies it with other data. In all cases, we are to pray for guidance and expect the Holy Spirit to help us over time.

Any "new" doctrine or idea is always suspect and must endure a period of time in the testing laboratory that involves our comparing it to what we find both in the scriptures themselves and in traditional theology. Many new ideas fail the test, despite the fact that some denominations have adopted them anyway.

Dr. Atkinson is a graduate of Fuller Theological Seminary with a doctorate in clinical psychology and an M.A. in theology. He is a licensed psychologist in clinical practice in Atlanta and also works as a clinical supervisor training Christian counselors for Richmont Graduate University. He is a founding member of Trinity Anglican Church (ACNA) in Douglasville, Georgia