‍ 

Dialogue on the Meaning of the Word “Clarity”

 

What do Protestants mean when they say 

the Bible is “clear”?

 

Gary Hoge

 

Many Protestants are of above-average intelligence, as evidenced by their successful completion of advanced academic degrees. Such people are capable of understanding something that’s clearly presented in writing. Indeed, the “clarity” of a document, by definition, is the qualitative measure of the ease with which a person or persons comprehend the things presented therein. Therefore, if the Bible were “clear,” these intelligent Protestants would understand it with ease.

 

You start by telling me you are going to give me a definition of the “clarity” of a document. Well and good. But the definition you actually give me is a statement of the ability of a given mind external to the text to understand that text. You have not made good on the first part of your statement, because you have not actually given me a definition of the clarity of a document. In other words, you have collapsed the distinction between the document and the person interpreting the document, and made the objective quality of the document itself depend on the subjective abilities of the interpreter.

 

Tim, you said before that “words mean things,” and that you can’t just twist them around any way you please. Well, that applies to the word “clear,” too. It means something, and you can’t just twist it around to make it mean whatever you want it to mean. Here is the actual definition of the word “clear.” Pay close attention and you’ll notice that, as I said, it does depend on the “subjective abilities of the interpreter.”

 

clear \‘kli(e)r\ adj 3c free from obscurity or ambiguity: easily understood. (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.), 1985, 247).

 

A document is “clear” only if it is “easily understood,” which is exactly what I said. When a person reads something and says, “That was clear,” he means, “I had no trouble understanding what the author was trying to say.” You’re right, though, when you point out that clarity is a property of the document, because a document is “clear” precisely because its author took into account the reading ability and background knowledge of his audience, and chose his words accordingly. A written document is “clear,” then, if it is written in such a way that its message can be easily understood by its target audience. That is what the word “clear” means.

 

The opposite of “clear” is “obscure”:

 

ob•scure \äb-‘skyu(e)r\ abj 2 not readily understood or clearly expressed.

 

Here again, the definition depends upon the ease with which the document is understood, which is what I said. And, as you pointed out, that is necessarily a function of the document itself. It must be “clearly expressed” in order to be “readily understood.” But again, something is “clearly expressed” only if it is, in fact, “readily understood.” If it was not “readily understood,” then it was not “clearly expressed.” The two go hand-in-hand, and cannot be separated. So your attempt to separate them is invalid, and it undermines the very meaning of the word “clear.” Because that word means “easily understood,” your claim that the Bible is “objectively clear,” even if nobody can understand it, is nonsensical. It’s like insisting that a crossword puzzle is “objectively easy,” even if nobody can solve it.

 

An analogy may help. I wear glasses because my vision is horrible.

 

So’s mine, so I can relate.

 

If I walk into a room with my glasses on, I have no trouble distinguishing the items in the room from each other. But if I walk into the room without my glasses on, I cannot do so. Now tell me—is the lack of the clarity in the latter case a property of the room or of my eyes? Obviously of my eyes. There is nothing wrong with the room in and of itself. There is something wrong with the observer of the room.

 

But we would both agree that the room is unclear to you without your glasses, right? The question is why is it unclear? You blame your eyes, and I agree. So apparently, we agree that the Bible is unclear (i.e., “not readily understood”), and we’re just quibbling about why it’s unclear. You blame the reader. Fine. It doesn’t matter to me why the Bible’s not clear, the fact remains that, for whatever reason, it’s not clear, and that’s all I’m saying.

 

And I’m not saying it’s unclear just because “a given person” doesn’t understand it. I’m saying it’s unclear because millions of persons don’t understand it. Entire denominations, which have had centuries to study it and try to grasp its message, still don’t get it. My argument all along has been that if the Bible were “clear” (i.e., “easily understood”), then sincere, intelligent Christians would easily understand it, and they would have no trouble agreeing on what its doctrines are. The fact that they don’t proves that the Bible is not easily understood, and therefore, is not clear. And it matters not a bit whether the fault lies with the Bible or with its reader.

 

Now if you accept this analogy, you cannot logically proceed to say that the fact of doctrinal diversity among Protestants who all claim that Scripture is clear means that Scripture is not clear. That is simply a non sequitur, because it doesn’t take into account the fact that there might be something wrong with the interpreters of Scripture.

 

On the contrary, it follows inexorably from the meaning of the word “clear.” In order for a written document to be “clear,” there must be a correspondence between the document’s use of language, and the interpretive ability of its audience. Its use of language must be adapted to the ability of its audience, such that its meaning is readily understood by its audience. If there is a mismatch between the language of the document and the interpretive ability of its audience, such that the audience does not readily understand its meaning, then the document is unclear (i.e., “not readily understood”), by definition. In the case of the Bible, you admit that such a mismatch exists, and you say it’s because there’s “something wrong” with the audience. But in saying that, you have conceded the argument without realizing it. It doesn’t matter why the mismatch exists; the fact is, it does. The Bible is unclear to its target audience, for whatever reason.

 

Maybe the reason you’re having trouble seeing my point is that you consistently misuse and misunderstand your terms. You say that the Bible is “perspicuous,” and you wrongly define that word to mean, “able to be understood.” But what it really means is, “able to be understood with ease”:

 

Per•spic•u•ous \per-‘spik-ye-wes\ adj plain to the understanding esp. because of clarity and precision of presentation.

 

You admit that the Bible is not “plain to the understanding,” but you attribute that fact to some defect in the understanding. Okay, fine. But the fact remains that it’s still not “plain to the understanding,” and therefore, not “perspicuous.” If you want to postulate that the Bible would be perspicuous if people were wired differently, or weren’t sinners, or whatever, be my guest. But in this universe, with this race, for whatever reason, it isn’t perspicuous.

 

Words mean things, my friend.