According to Bowman and Deal, “A frame is a mental model — a set of ideas and assumptions — that you carry in your head to help you understand and negotiate a particular ‘territory.’ A good frame makes it easier to know what you are up against and, ultimately, what you can do about it” (Reframing Organizations).
When frames are applied rigidly and without critical reflection, they can constrain how we see the world. When our frames begin to diminish our ability to understand reality, they confine us to a narrow field of vision and limit our ability to learn and change. Frames help us to make sense of the world, yet they do so within limits.
Chip and Dan Heath, for instance, identify “narrow framing” as one of four “villains of decision-making.” Citing research done on decision-making in teens, they note, “…teens are prone to narrow framing…They see only a small sliver of the spectrum of options available to them. And, as it turns out, when it comes to decision-making, organization are a lot like teenagers” (Decisive).
Narrow frames create artificial boundaries that obscure our view and make it seem as though the options available within our narrow frame are all the options that are actually available.
This “narrow framing,” is supported by the WYSIATI (What You See Is All There Is) effect which “…facilitates the achievement of coherence and of the cognitive ease that causes us to accept a statement as true” (Thinking, Fast and Slow).
Kahneman goes on to suggest, “Much of the time, the coherent story we put together is close enough to reality to support reasonable action. However, I will also invoke WYSIATI to help explain a long and diverse list of biases of judgment and choice” including “overconfidence,” “framing effects,” and “base-rate neglect” (Thinking, Fast and Slow).
Aside from making it more difficult to make good decisions, committing to a frame that is too narrow can also have an impact on the way that we view ourselves.
If, as Taylor suggests, a “social imaginary” is “something much broader and deeper than the intellectual schemes people may entertain when they think about social reality in a disengaged mode,” committing to a narrow frame also has an impact on the manner in which people “imagine their social existence, how they fit together with others, how things go on between them and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations” (Modern Social Imaginaries).
In other words, the frames that we use to make sense of the world around us are related to the way in which we imagine our position in the world. Our social imagination and our framing are mutually reinforcing.
The significance of this mutual reinforcement is that our frames have an impact on who we understand ourselves to be. Frames are not abstract mental models that have no impact on our own self-understanding.
To some degree, the frameworks we adopt not only help us to make sense of the world around us but also define who we are and mark out our general position within the world. When we frame the world as hostile opposition, we are predisposed to become a resistance fighter or a victim.
When we frame people as having no inherent dignity or as being morally inferior, we may become arrogant, callous, and uncaring.
When we frame the world as operating logically instead of Theo-logically, we will likely operate in the world as if God were not present among us. Adopting a frame is not an innocent decision. It affects who we are at the same time as it says something about who we are.
Framing the Scriptures
Since I began teaching in 2005, I’ve taught and/or designed a number of online and face-to-face courses.
As I did so, I became more and more convinced that frames focusing on the content of Scripture were not sufficient to convey many of the crucial biblical concepts that have the potential to inform not only our reading of the scriptures as a whole but also our vision of what it means for God to be with us and for us to be His image.
Frameworks have to be simple, but they shouldn’t be too simple. They have to have boundaries, but they can’t be overly rigid. Instead, they need to be sufficiently complex and flexible so that they do not foster and sustain our delusions.
We have to choose what frames we use and when because “Like maps, frames are both windows on a territory and tools for navigation. Every tool has distinctive strengths and limitations. The right tool makes a job easier, but the wrong one gets in the way” (Reframing Organizations).
At the same time, the frames we choose need to represent who we are and reinforce key aspects of our identity.
For instance, in suggesting that frames should not be overly rigid or overly simple, it is assumed that the body of Christ needs to be flexible and adaptive amidst the complexity of the world.
God is not simple. We do not know Him exhaustively. So, while we certainly recognize the scriptures as the norming norm of the faith, we also recognize that as finite, fallible human beings we are not immune from error.
Rather than simply organizing content, our frames need to reinforce our fundamental character and identity because, like those who create them, frames are imperfect. They are limited.
Recognizing that frames are limited is not a trivial point. Rather, recognizing that frames are incomplete, underscores something quite crucial concerning our identity. We won’t get it completely right.
We may think we have some comprehensive theory to account for all that is, but the reality is that we are only capable of making sense of what we can see (if we are capable of that). No single frame or paradigm answers every question or provides a universal reading.
As we develop frameworks for reading Scripture, we must resist the temptation to over-determine how sure we are about our reading by representing that our frame is the final frame needed, our frame is somehow uninformed by or isolated from the broader, multifaceted body of Christ, and/or our frame cannot coexist with any other frame.
Frames are intended to simplify. In doing so, they inevitably eliminate detail. There is no reading of the scriptures that covers every nuance or detail of every portion of Scripture. There is no reading of Scripture that does not privilege or bias particular perspectives, traditions, or doctrines.
That is why we need a multiplicity of contributions…multiple testimonies…to understand the full counsel of God in Scripture more fully. We need to get good at negotiating our frames and reframing, which “requires another skill — the ability to break frames” (Reframing Organizations).
Reading the scriptures is not simply a matter of mastering the content of the scriptures. Knowing the Bible, in one sense, is necessary, but not sufficient. It is not that biblical knowledge is negligible or somehow trivial to offering a faithful testimony.
Rather, it is that knowing the Bible is not an end in and of itself. The Bible is God’s revelation of Himself to us, so if we know the Bible without recognizing the God it reveals, we miss the point.
That point at the risk of anachronism, is to develop a theological imaginary in which our connection to God becomes our defining social relationship through which we imagine the rest of our social relationships, understand how to interact with the world and with others, and determine which expectations or “deeper normative notions and images” we must meet at any given moment in order to testify faithfully to the God we serve.
What Influences Our Frames: Thinking about Interpretation
No frames are free from influence, but not all influence is bad. One of the unfortunate assumptions that has (thankfully) been largely abandoned in the postmodern age is that interpreters should seek to be a tabula rasa (a “blank slate”).
In other words, there was a time when many felt that carrying baggage into an interpretive context was detrimental to hearing the text objectively.
While it is certainly the case that we should be diligent about letting the biblical text speak on its own terms, we go too far if we assume that our own background and experience is always an obstacle to be overcome during the interpretive exercise.
We do not approach the text of Scripture from a disinterested position. We are informed and formed by a number of factors that help and hinder us as we seek to read the Bible faithfully.
As we develop a framework for reading Scripture, it is important to build into that framework a recognition of our own fallibility and incompleteness.
It only seems right that our more basic assumptions about interpretation be reflected in our framework.
There are at least five major influencers that condition the manner in which we read a biblical text: self, society, subject, Scripture, and Spirit. Each of these influencers has an impact (positive and/or negative) on interpretation.
1. Self
“Self” refers to one’s own particular, personal characteristics that influence the manner in which we see the world. We develop particular dispositions and tendencies…a natural sort of personality…through which we experience the world.
There is something unique about each of us and the combination of factors including, but not necessarily limited to, our socio-economic background, gender, ethnicity, and key experiences, impact the manner in which we exist within the world.
In thinking about who we are, it is important that we recognize the unique gifts God has given us. He has also put us in a position to make a unique contribution to the body of Christ.
At the same time, we are limited in our perspectives, misdirected in our desires, and flawed in any number of other ways. As such, we must ask how our unique, individual characteristics help us read the scriptures more faithfully and how they hinder us from doing so.
2. Society
The self cannot really be separated from society. By society, I do not intend to refer exclusively to “society” at large, but to the various communities of which we are a part.
These communities might include our families, business organizations, circles of friends, cities, countries, churches, or any other social group.
Each community influences the way in which we see the world, approach the world’s problems, and formulate solutions. Whether the community is Christian or not, all communities exert a degree of influence over those within the community.
Augustine recognized the impact communities can have on individuals noting the “third kind of temptation” that involves being “feared and loved by men,” suggesting,
“Because now certain offices of human society make it necessary both to be loved and feared of men, even therefore doth the adversary of our true blessedness lay hard at us, everywhere spreading in his snares Well done, well done; that whilst we too eagerly gather them up, we may be unawares taken, and brought to disjoint our rejoicing from thy truth, and to settle it in the deceiving opinions of men; pleasing ourselves with being loved and feared, not for thy sake, but in thy stead…” (Confessions ).
While Augustine’s insight concerning the challenges of human systems is certainly valid, we cannot dismiss the necessity and benefits of community.
Hauerwas puts it well: “…I content that the only reason for being Christian…is because Christian convictions are true; and the only reason for participation in the church is that it is the community that pledges to form its life by that truth” (Community of Character).
Part of our role as interpreters is to determine how our communities help us read the scriptures more faithfully and how they hinder us from doing so.
3. Subject
We are not simply a product of our environment. Often, we engage in learning and reflection through a variety of academic disciplines. “Subject” includes those disciplines though the concept should not be limited to formal academic study in a collegiate setting.
Rather, when we engage in any sort of sustained learning within a discipline, we are, to some extent, training our brains to engage the world around us through a particular framework. We learn habits commensurate with the disciplines we study.
For instance, an interpreter trained in biblical and theological studies will likely approach the text quite differently than an interpreter training in geology, archaeology, or sociology.
The questions an archaeologist might bring to the biblical text would likely be quite different to those of a church historian.
Each set of questions may be equally valid, yet no set of questions is comprehensive or without an agenda. Again, we must ask how our particular discipline helps us understand the scriptures more faithfully and how it hinders us from doing so.
4. Scripture
Since we are interpreting Scripture, it may seem odd to list the scriptures as an influencer. But the reality is that because the scriptures constitute a canon of holy, inspired writings, they demand to be approached in a particular manner and to be read as authoritative.
While we are free to disobey, that does not change the demands that the biblical text makes on us. Because the Bible is the “norming norm” for our faith, we know that they don’t hinder the way we understand God; however, the way we read it can.
Consider how we might read the Bible differently were we to start with the Psalms or the Proverbs. Would we have a different experience of the text if we read it from front (Genesis) to back (Revelation)?
The question is not whether the Bible helps us understand God more faithfully. We are convinced that it does. Instead, the question concerns the way in which we approach the scriptures and how it helps us to read the scriptures more faithfully or how it hinders us from doing so.
5. Spirit
The Holy Spirit never hinders us from reading more faithfully. Instead, the Holy Spirit is constantly with us as we read the text. He convicts us and guides us into all truth.
Engaging in the activities (e.g., prayer, worship, rest, fasting, etc.) that keep us in touch with the Spirit of God and ensuring that we are preparing ourselves to hear His voice is a crucial aspect of the interpretive process.
As we consider the Spirit’s influence on the interpretation of Scripture, then, we recognize that our role is not to discern whether the Spirit is helping or hindering our reading of the biblical text.
Instead, our role is to be cognizant of the ways in which we are less than open to the influence of the Holy Spirit. We must be diligent in discerning the ways in which we close ourselves off from the influence of the Spirit.
These five influences do not bulletproof our interpretations. They do not make us superwomen or supermen. Rather, they help us to stay humble and aware.
We remain humble because we begin to recognize that we are limited and in need of others to help us more fully understand who God is.
Yet, in our humility, we do not set aside the gifts God has given us. Instead, we remain aware of our own unique potential to contribute despite our limitations.
We work diligently to understand the scriptures not for fame and fortune and not simply to know God better, but to glorify God by contributing to the body of Christ.
As we consider the development of a framework for reading the scriptures, it seems appropriate to construct a framework that renders the theological reality of our experience with God as faithfully as possible. We have to try to account for progress, anticipation, incompleteness, and mystery.
We have to build a degree of “unfinished-ness” into our theological framework so that we avoid “the commonplace assumption that when people say ‘God’ they know what they are saying” (The Work of Theology).
In other words, we have to build a framework that does not pretend to master God but recognizes that even with God’s revelation in His Word (the Bible) and His Word (Jesus Christ), we do not understand God fully.
For further reading:
What’s Love Got to Do with Christianity?
How Can Christians Know if They're Trapped in Culture Wars?
Why the Church Needs to Get Serious about Discipleship
Photo Credit: ©Unsplash/Pine Watt
