Are doctrinal answers ok?

Question

This question asked about doctrine-based questions (and remains unresolved). My question is about answers. Are answers that assume a particular doctrinal stance acceptable here? If someone asks a Tanakh question, is "that means Jesus" or "that's a reference to Mary's perpetual virginity" valid as a response? If someone asks a NT question, is "that's an allusion to Muhammad" a valid answer?

I can see three approaches:

1. Not acceptable; doctrine belongs on Christianity.SE, Mi Yodeya, Islam.SE, Skeptics.SE, etc.

2. Doctrine is an inherent part of interpretation, but be explicit.

3. No problem; we're all adults here and it's up to the reader to evaluate the answers from his own perspective.

Is this site about the text, or about the text augmented by doctrine? Is doctrine so entangled that it's impossible to be text-only?

(Prompted by the discussion here.)

Answer 1

Before answering the direct question, I want to point out the tools regular users can employ to handle sub-par answers:

1. Vote.

   Downvoting in particular can be very powerful.

2. Comment.

   Be civil, but firm. Point out problems with answers.

3. Edit.

   Even better than pointing out problems: fixing them!

4. Flag.

   Moderators have a broad range of tools to deal with problem answers and flagging is the most effective way bring us into the fray.

5. Do nothing!

   To quote Shog9:

   A couple years ago now, we did some analysis of new user retention on Stack Overflow. Some forms of feedback tended to result in folks coming back more than others, but the single biggest way to keep someone away was to just ignore them. Don't vote—up or down. Don't comment. Don't answer. Don't close. Just... ignore. While you're busy walking on eggshells in fear of offending someone, they're seeing a blank page, an empty inbox, and they're walking away.

These are the same tools available for questions with one significant omission: voting to close. Particularly, we don't have a tool to mark an answer as off-topic. That's because site policy governs the topicality of questions and questions govern the topicality of their answers. So we really need to nail down our doctrine topicality policy in the other question first.

---

That said, here are my criteria for an on-topic answer to a question:

1. It has to actually answer the question.

   Seems obvious, but you'd be surprised how often people (including myself) never get around to answering the question. Please use the above tools to address this problem when you see it. (We can encourage people to to ask a self-answered questions if they can't hammer their answer into shape.) In particular, if the question asks for answers from the text or from a particular interpretative tradition, answers that don't do that are off-topic.

2. It needs to be persuasive.

   Intuitively we know that answers should at least try to persuade a neutral party of their position, but we don't always demand it. There's a huge difference between an answer that simply asserts something is true and one that show why something is true, even if neither ultimately changes any opinions. When someone answers purely from a particular doctrinal point of view, the answer is automatically less persuasive than it would be if it started from some sort of first principles. We should strongly prefer answers to guide the reader through a persuasive argument.

   Generally speaking, the way to gauge the persuasiveness of an answer is to look at the voting. Persuasive answers tend to get voted up. Unpersuasive answers tend to either get downvoted (if there are obvious problems) or hover around a score of zero (if they leave people scratching their heads). As a community, we probably need to vote more aggressively on incomprehensible answers—heroic edits tend to be less helpful here.

3. It should document any sources.

   In the end, I believe that some answers will inevitably require an appeal to doctrinal (or other outside) authority. In these cases, we need to encourage answers to document their sources so that readers can evaluate their merit. In a sense, this point is a subset or consequence of the previous point; answers that don't start from the text are not persuasive if they don't document their sources.

   Encourage means to either edit in sources we know about or comment along the lines of:

   It's interesting that you say X. Can you point me to your source or help me understand?

   In my tradition, we have a motto: "Where is it written?" I understand that not all hermeneutical approaches follow that principle, but it doesn't hurt to ask in the comments. (As long as we ask from a place of genuine curiosity and not to gain leverage to knock the other guy down.)

Summary

I think I most strongly agree with your option:

2. Doctrine is an inherent part of interpretation, but be explicit.

Answer 2

I think we have clear and sensible guidelines about what is on-topic - basically summed up as both of the following:

• Questions about hermeneutics
• Questions that start from one or more Bible texts (ie do not start from an idea or doctrine - summed up well here

Note that a question may contain doctrine, it may refer to doctrine, it may lend it self to answers full of doctrine but may not start from doctrine - that is one of the vital distinguishing features of our site.

However you have asked about answers, not questions. I believe I understand where you are coming from - you are concerned about the definition of the site - but in the context of the entire Stack Exchange network, I believe it is universally true the there is no such thing as an off-topic answer.

Answers are simply not judged by that measure - as Jon has already alluded to, there is certainly such a thing as a 'bad' answer - the guidelines here are neatly spelled out the the 'flag' button on an answer (emphasis mine):

• it needs ♦ moderator attention
  • not an answer
    This was posted as an answer, but it does not answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.
  • very low quality
    This answer has severe formatting or content problems. This answer is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.
  • other
    Something not quite right? Let us know about it, and please provide relevant links if possible.
• it is spam
  This answer is effectively an advertisement with no disclosure. It is not useful or relevant, but promotional.
• it is not welcome in our community
  This answer contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.

I would like to see all good quality answers (by the above metrics) welcomed on the site, whatever the perspective they contain. In addition as a community we will continue to grow if we continue to work with each other and new users to help each other write good quality answers - using the tools Jon mentions of voting, editing, commenting etc as well as engaging, welcoming, encouraging and so on.

Answer 3

If someone asks a Tanakh question, is "that means Jesus" or "that's a reference to Mary's perpetual virginity" valid as a response? If someone asks a NT question, is "that's an allusion to Muhammad" a valid answer?

An answer that brings "out-of-context" doctrine, like a Christian answer to a Tanakh question, is a poor answer, like answering a Perl question on StackOverflow with "use Python instead". If we were a reasonably well-balanced site I would say "let voting take care of it", but with a vast majority of the users here sharing a paricular set of doctrine, answers espousing that doctrine out of context have tended to get up-voted anyway even though they are bad answers to those questions. If we want minority participation here, we should develop a cultural norm of respect for context, not look for a big stick. We've already determined that doctrinal questions are off-topic; we should be very careful about bringing doctrine, especially misplaced doctrine, into answers.

Explicitly-labelled, sourced doctrine can add an additional layer of information to an answer, so I'm not saying to never use doctrine. But use it carefully, as secondary information. It's ok to answer a Psalms question in its context and then add "by the way, Augustine understands this as an allusion to Mary"; it's not in keeping with our community standards for that to be the answer.

Answer 4

The Legitamacy of Doctrine in Answers

I consider our site to be aimed at experts in biblical studies. In terms of the academy, both biblical theology and the theological interpretation of scripture are budding areas of study today. So if we're trying to draw experts in biblical studies it makes little sense to set a policy that would exclude research from some of the most flourishing areas of study.

Of course, these areas themselves have had to defend their place in the academy. Here is a short summary of arguments proffered by Vanhoozer et al for the place of theology/doctrine in biblical studies:

Is biblical studies a theological discipline? By and large, the resounding answer, at least in the setting of the modern university, has been Nein! Modern biblical scholars insist that biblical studies must be autonomous in order to be critical (Barr). Yet some degree of involvement with theology seems to be inevitable, for three reasons. First, biblical scholars must have recourse to theology in order to make sense of the text’s claims (Jeanrond). Readings that remain on the historical, literary, or sociological levels cannot ultimately do justice to the subject matter of the texts. Second, biblical studies needs theology (especially the latter’s analysis of contemporary culture) in order to be aware of the aims, intentions, and presuppositions that readers invariably bring to the biblical text (Wright). Third, biblical studies needs theology in order to provide a sufficient reason for the academy’s continued engagement with the biblical text. Only the assumption that these texts say something of unique importance can ultimately justify the depth of the exegete's engagement (Levenson).

Dictionary for theological interpretation of the Bible. 2005 (K. J. Vanhoozer, C. G. Bartholomew, D. J. Treier & N. T. Wright, Ed.) (21). London; Grand Rapids, MI: SPCK; Baker Academic.

While not everyone will agree with an answer like Kazark's reflections on Ecclesiates 4:12 it is still helpful to some, and so I disagree with those who think his answer is diminished in quality because he reads the passage through a Christian lens. Another answer might give a feminist reading of the text or a Jewish reading, etc... While these readings don't match my own presuppositions about the world, I am still appreciative of the insights they do offer, and I feel the utility of this site is greatly diminished if any of these positions are disallowed. (I would go so far as to agree with Levenson above that this site would essentially lose its raison d'etre.)

One mistake I think people commonly make is to miss the subtlety of their own use of doctrine. It's not uncommon, for instance, for a poster to refer to God in an answer, even though the text under examination doesn't use the word "God" but rather uses the Tetragrammaton. Of course even using "God" as a referent for the god of Israel is doctrinal. The dispute in 1 Kings 17-18 is over which god is God: is Yahweh God (so Elijah) or is Ba'al God (so Jezebel and the prophets)?

A less subtle example would be the use of "Christ" as a referent for Jesus. If someone's post referred to Jesus as Christ some will complain and ask that the statement be qualified. Yet in both these examples, I could not support a policy where we edit out every "God" and every "Christ" from answers on this site. Not only would this be tedious and contentious, but doing so also presumes that there is some privileged position from which we can objectively interpret a text - in other words, doing so itself stakes out a doctrinal position.

Nor do I think doctrinal opinions ought to be necessarily qualified as such. I agree with Jeff Atwood: "writing without a strong voice, writing filled with second guessing and disclaimers, is tedious and difficult to slog through." This is not to say it should never be used here. Indeed, it can be quite helpful to know that such and such an interpretation is held by the church fathers, by certain rabbis, or by Karl Barth, etc... Specifying these things can certainly be helpful when trying to follow up, almost like a micro bibliography. But for me personally, qualifications like "I believe,..." only seem to clutter the text, in my opinion, and, to me anyway, interrupt the flow of thought, as far as I'm concerned.

If theology is so entwined with interpretation, should this site be merged with Christianity.SE?

I have attempted to explain elsewhere why I view this site as separate from Christianity.SE. But perhaps a fuller explanation is warranted here.

First, I think they concern different, though somewhat overlapping, disciplines. Princeton Theological Seminary, for instance, divides out it's Ph.D programs like so:

• Biblical Studies (Old Testament, New Testament)
• History and Ecumenics (Church History and History of Doctrine; Mission, Ecumenics, and History of Religions)
• Theology (Systematic Theology, Philosophy and Theology, Christian Ethics, History of Doctrine)
• Religion and Society
• Practical Theology (Christian Education, Pastoral Theology, Homiletics)

While they are all part of the same "school" they are different departments within that school. I would match up BH.SE here with Biblical Studies, while all our "sister sites" (Mi Yodeya, Christianity.SE, and Islam.SE) concern more the latter four.

It's a similar to the relationship between StackOverflow and Programmers.SE. A site like Christianity.SE is more concerned with implementation details, while BH.SE is concerned with the raw material. A question on a particular translation of a phrase in Numbers 19:2 seems off-topic for Christianity.SE. That פרה אדמה means "red heifer" instead of "heifer of the soil" is pretty removed from having much to do with Christianity. Yet I think we can all agree that while maybe this question is not the most important one ever discussed on BH.SE, it is definitely on topic here.

One might object that, "Yes, this kind of translation question which only requires a doctrine-agnostic answer is exactly the only sort of thing we should have on this site." But even translation isn't always so straight forward as looking at the grammar. Translation inevitably involves doctrine. Not only do we have the problem of a plurality of interpretive communinities, but even when we try to read the Bible through first century eyes, we inevitably bring into it our beliefs about first century beliefs. "Does this interpretation of the genitive correspond to what we know about Paul's theology?"

And now I'm probably just talking in circles (though hopefully spirals), which is probably fitting. For anyone who accepts these scriptures as sacred text, biblical studies will always inform theology and vice-versa. That doesn't mean, however, that we cannot create some kind of separation of the two as an aim of study.

Answer 5

I would suggest an additional point, based on the discussion of this answer:

If the doctrinal point builds on the answer, but is not an essential part of it, put the additional point in a comment to the answer. (The linked answer combines a doctrine-neutral part, explaining the metaphor of a three-ply twisted cord for strength, with a doctrine-specific linkage to the Christian trinity.)

I do think doctrine-specific are entirely appropriate, so long as they are so marked—many of my answers assume orthodox Jewish interpretations, for example.

Do folks think this is an appropriate use of comments? I’m not sure it’s consistent with other SE sites—but then, we’re here to establish convention for this site.

ETA: The comments below have convinced me that this is not a great idea. May I amend this to a suggestion that doctrine-specific parts be clearly separated from the rest of the answer.

Answer 6

There is an inherent tension in a site that seeks to exegete a body of texts without a common ground. The main participants at this site seem to be Jews and Christians, but an atheist or a Buddhist or a Muslim could participate here too if they were interested in hermeneutics of ancient texts.

We then run into the problem of either housing strongly stated opinions of deeply various natures on one site, or of relativizing all the opinions. Let's face it. Jews and Christians do not agree on the most fundamental questions on life. The Triune God is the most important thing in my life. If you deny his Trinity, I will work hard to treat you (as he has instructed me) with civility and love, but I cannot but recognize that we disagree in the most fundamental of ways.

And here's where I'm going to start offending a lot of people. So be it.

"From a Christian perspective, Jesus is the Messiah." No. Jesus is the Messiah. "I believe that Isaiah 53 is prophesying Jesus Christ." No. Isaiah 53 is prophesying Jesus Christ.

I am called first of all to serve the King of Kings, Jesus Christ. I desire to be civil and kind towards all the participants at this site, and I have been helped by answers from some of our Jewish participants, such as Monica. But I am not willing to switch into perspectivalism to talk about Christ. I might as well stop talking about him on this site. I don't want to give you "a Christian perspective". I want to give you the truth.

Sure, there are some passages I am more sure about my exegesis then others, and in those cases I qualify my answers. But bottom line is this. Christ is what the Scriptures are about. Christ is what I'm in this for. I am not willing to add qualifying statements to that.

I don't think I have an inherent right to participate in this site. If you have a problem with this, downvote this answer to signify your disagreement (typical meta practice) and if it gets downvoted enough I will resign my membership here without a grudge against you guys and spend my time speaking about Christ in other venues.

Conclusion: If doctrine is not allowed in exegesis, I have no interest in exegesis (what is there left to exegete?). If this doctrine my be qualified by a stated perspective on every occasion, we have embraced perspectivalism in order to reduce the fundamental tension of our massive disagreements.