Skip to main content


Impressionist interpretation of a stained glass window.
School started this week.  Once again, I am teaching Christian Spirituality, a first year university course.  The first day is always a bit nerve-wracking because I never know how many students will show up, what their level of interest will be, or how they will respond to my style of teaching and the course material I have selected.  The first week has gone really well, I think.  The students are keen and clever and for the most part, eager to engage with the material and learn.  They are even polite, asking for permission to use their laptops in class and talking to me afterwards to make sure they didn't come off as argumentative.  It really is a joy and a privilege to be able to teach theology in a university setting where we can have straightforward and informed dialogue about God.

One of the textbooks I use for the course is Philip  Sheldrake's A Brief History of Spirituality. He is very good at easing a person into the topic by explaining what spirituality is, setting it in its historical context, and drawing attention to the methodological nuances necessary to the understanding of the subject.  One of the topics he addresses early on is interpretation.  Any historian, scholar, or theologian knows that texts and events are always interpreted by the one recording them, relating them, translating them, or explaining them.  As human beings acquire knowledge and integrate it with their own context, the information is subject to interpretation and various applications.  This is not a bad thing.

Sheldrake uses the example of performing a Beethoven symphony to illustrate these two intertwined elements of interpretation.  1) One must be faithful to the original while 2) bringing one's own creative wisdom and experience and passion to the mix.  When it comes to performing Beethoven, being technically flawless does not make a good performance, nor can one simply play whatever notes or rhythms one feels like playing.  Detailed attention must be given to the score and the composer's intent must be honoured.  However, one's own contribution cannot be ignored.  The player's passion and wise, creative interpretation are what make the piece come alive for those who are listening.  The performer's interpretation is what lifts the music off the page and makes it accessible and comprehensible to others.

Interpretation is the job of us all, but especially of teachers, scholars, and students.  We study to understand the writer/author's context.  We pay careful attention to words and sentence structure.  We look at overall themes and subtle fluctuations.  We must be attentive not to mangle or twist meanings to suit our own biases.  We must not inject decisive conclusions where none can be found.  We must embrace a certain amount of mystery and ambiguity for many texts were written in another time and the authors are no longer with us.

The comforting thing about interpretation is that a great composition shines through no matter what the skill level of the performer.  A beginner may play a Mozart concerto with timidity and halting pauses, but the melodic genius still shines through.  Similarly, a brilliant text still shines through despite clumsy handling by an interpreter.  The best interpreters are those who have spent a lot of time with the composer/author and his/her works; so much time that they can not only render an authentic performance/reading but they can also improvise in the style of the composer/author.  The best interpreters also know immediately if something does not ring true in a representation of their beloved composer because it is out of sync with the whole work, with the heart behind the works.  The best interpreters are those who have become friends of the author, who live with the composer, who walk and talk and commune with them everyday, in person and through their works.

Let me be an interpreter like this:  a generous, caring, and faithful friend who not only listens and studies the works of another, but brings them to life.


Popular posts from this blog

what binds us together?

For the past few weeks, I have been reading a book by famed psychiatrist M. Scott Peck which chronicles his travels (together with his wife) through remote parts of the UK in search of prehistoric stones. The book is part travel journal, part spiritual musings, part psychology, and part personal anecdotes. A mixed bag, to be sure, and not always a winning combination. At one point, I considered putting the book aside, not finishing it, but then Peck started writing about community. He is no stranger to the concept. He has led hundreds of community-building workshops over the years, helped start a non-profit organisation dedicated to fostering community, and written a compelling book about the topic, one which greatly impacted me when I read it oh so long ago.[1]

In preparation for a course I am teaching next year, I have been doing quite a bit of study on unity and community. Once you start thinking about it, you see and hear evidence of it everywhere. (See my blog on the impact of b…

job hunting

I am on the hunt for a job. PhD in hand, I am a theologian for hire. The thing is, not a lot of places are hiring theologians these days, and if they are, they are usually looking for scholars with skills and experience outside my area of expertise. Today I found job opportunities for those knowledgeable in Religion, Race, and Colonialism, Philosophy and History of Religion, Islam and Society, Languages of Late Antiquity, Religion, Ethics, and Politics, and an ad for a Molecular Genetic Pathologist. Not one posting for a Dramatic Theologian with  a side order of Spirituality and a dash of Methodology.

I know, I know. My expectations are a bit unrealistic if I believe I will find an exact match for my particular skills. I know that job descriptions are wish lists to some extent, so no candidate is ever a perfect match. I also realize that one must adapt one's skill set according to the requirements of the job and be flexible. But there are so few jobs which come within ten or even…

building the church

Imagine two scenarios: 1) Give every person in the room a popsicle stick. Ask them to come together and put their sticks onto a table. Invariably, you end up with a random pile of sticks on a table. 2) Give every person in the room a popsicle stick. Show a picture of a popsicle stick bird feeder and ask people to come together and put their sticks on a table according to the picture. You will end up with the beginnings of a bird feeder on a table.

What is the difference between the two scenarios? In both, each person brought what they had and contributed it to the collective. However, in the first scenario, there were no guidelines, no plan, and no right or wrong way to pile the sticks. People came, placed their sticks on the table, and walked away. In the second scenario, people were given a plan to follow and as a result, something specific was built. Instead of walking away after they made their contribution, people huddled around the table to watch what was being built. Some were…