Scholars, laymen, and the principle of clarity

This post is actually in response to Chris Tilling's post Piper and the clarity of scripture and some comments made to the post (at the time of my writing this, nine comments). However, it is a far too detailed response to post under his comments, so I post it here instead.


"For the ordinary layman who wonders what to do when scholars seem to see what you cannot see, I suggest that you stay with what you can see for yourself" - John Piper

I find this principle to be actually sound, to a certain degree. However, there are a few caveats.

First off, what is seemingly clear to one person may be in opposition to what it seemingly clear to another person. Clarity is subjective, as it is based upon our knowledge of the world and the topic (or in this case, the Biblical text) that we are focusing upon. For instance, a person who has barely read the book of Romans and any study upon the Greek language might take peace in Romans 5:1 to refer to inner peace of the mind. However, a person who has studied Romans thoroughly and/or studied Greek (at least the lexical meanings of certain words) might understand peace not to be referring to internal state of harmony, but rather a lack of hostility between man and God. What is clear to one is not clear to the other. And the knowledge we have obtained is an influence upon what is clear.

We also have to realize that we do not have the exact knowledge that the authors of the Bible had. Our understanding of a certain word may be somewhat different form the corresponding word in Greek. In other words, there is no exact one-for-one correspondence between words of different languages. Therefore, if we read a translation of the Bible, we will likely use our understanding of the words of the translation (unless we know the Hebrew/Greek and have studied Hebrew/Greek). As a result, we may emphasize a certain aspect of the meaning or connotation of that word that the author did not intend to convey, but there is not simply way of knowing that without deep study (and even then there is no certainty we will come to understand the very precise meaning of the author). So what we take as clear is in fact only clear if the Bible was written in our language and culture, which it was not. So a scholarly approach is often times beneficial.

However on the flip side, there is more often times than not a great similarity between our understands and the understanding of the author, so laymen can be qualified to make certain judgments without the need of scholarly studies. A certain phrase I keep remembering in the relationship between scholars and laymen is that "Most laymen can do 80% of what most scholars do." It is that 20% that gets more focus though because we tend to differentiate groups instead of thinking about their similarities. And I think scholars would do well to learn that. It would keep them a bit humble so as to not to over estimate their abilities or intelligence level.

I also think that scholars would do well to understand that the principle of clarity is a good principle to apply at times, keeping in mind it is a PRINCIPLE and not a RULE. Why? First off, many scholars are the types of people that keep asking questions about certain areas of knowledge and they will look for evidence to answer those questions. However, it is very naive to think this pursuit is purely unbiased (there is no such thing as a truly unbiased person). Often times questions arise about Biblical texts because it creates a difficulty in the mind of the scholar. Sometimes it is the text that needs to be reinterpreted, and sometimes a change of beliefs are needed. However, human nature would tend towards the former than the latter. So the scholar then asks questions and brings up difficulties with texts that need not actually be brought up, and so he may arrive at a new interpretation, regardless of what the text says. Here, the principle of clarity would be useful. Sometimes the imagination of scholars is greater than the actual evidence, and sometimes scholars out of pride believe their beliefs. In the subconscious they see their interpretations and their abilities to seek answers validating their new interpretations (all people do suffer from pride, but scholars are more prone to suffer from intellectual pride).

The result is that scholars would do well to look back at the text and see if they are trying to create something where there is nothing.

Likewise, laymen would do well to be content that they don't have as great of a potential without further study to obtain truth in regards to the text without further study (which would make them closer to scholars). Knowledge isn't a right, nor must all truth be apparently obvious to the unstudied.

And also, scholars would do well to rid themselves of the idea that laymen are ignorant buffoons who know nothing. Just because they haven't attained to your perceived level of intelligence (when it fact it may be nothing more than a self delusion) doesn't mean they can not understand or that they are not qualified to make judgments on the Bible. Sure there are abuses by laymen without scholarly knowledge, but there are also abuses by scholars with knowledge. The problem lies in how people approach the pursuit of knowledge (what principles do they use and when do they use them), not how much or dedicated they are to that pursuit.

So in summary, both the principle of clarity and the principle of study should be used together. They are not mutually exclusive principles either. Also, some so-called scholars have to stop believing the press they give themselves and laymen have to be content to recognize that they may not obtain as much truth.

Sorry for the somewhat emotional response. Chris' post topic (and not Chris himself by any means) struck a chord with me.