Lateral thinking and hermeneutics
I recently came across an otherwise irrelevant meme that serves as an excellent (and probably memorable) example of what's called "lateral thinking". The meme is comprised of 3 panels. The first panel is a row of 6 urinals with various letters on them. The second panel is labelled "Boys:", and depicts a cat with tears in its eyes. The third panel is labelled "Girls:", depicting a cat in a defensive posture with a "loading" indicator on its head.
Lateral thinking is a form of reasoning that goes beyond what is immediately stated or obvious. In this case, there's actually very little to go on, no pun intended. The meme does not directly state anything that I am about to explain, and in fact doesn't say much of anything at all. However, it does have a hidden meaning, and that meaning is discernible. However, some people are in a better position to discern it.
First, the urinals spell out two messages. When read together and unobstructed, they spell out "S he be lie ve d". Or, if you condense the letters in a certain way, "She believed". That's the first message. The second, however, is a little more subtle. That is, "he lied". This message is discovered by covering up every second urinal, starting with the first, creating "S he be lie ve d". We then condense the letters again.
The first implication of this is a short story about a woman who believed a man who was very much unworthy of that faith. She believed, he lied. Exactly what that lie was is unclear, though we can make a few further assumptions. For example, given the typical scenario in which men lie to women, we can assume it may be a one-sided relationship, with the lie being "I love you". But this gets far deeper into speculation.
The final implication comes from the addition of the cats. On its own, the urinals would be useful for this article, but the cats add their own implications. Specifically, there is a demographic divide between those who can understand, and those who will not. Aside from reading the comments, I tested this directly by sending the meme to several of my friends, asking them if they understood, and to explain their reasoning. The split was predictable. As the meme suggested, all of the men understood it almost as quickly as I did. None of the women did. The one woman who came close only spotted "She believed", but missed "he lied". Some men also expressed confusion, noticing "sbeve" before realising they were covering the wrong letters.
Why is this? Simply because of male psychology that women typically do not have a reason to understand. Urinals are designed specifically for men, and so women aren't typically familiar with the etiquette around using them. But among men, there is an unspoken agreement that when a urinal is in use, those immediately next to it should be avoided at all costs. So, if a man is using urinal number 1, for sake of all things masculine, no one will use urinal number 2. If urinals 1 and 5 are occupied, urinal 3 is considered the only valid place to pee. If there are 3 occupied urinals, the other 3 may as well not exist.
This doesn't mean women won't understand this concept (especially if they've read a Bible Brain article that uses it as an intentionally awkward example to make the main point stick in people's minds). It also doesn't mean there aren't other ways to figure out the correct answer. It does, however, mean that men are in an objectively better position to understand the hidden messages, and those messages do need lateral thinking to figure out.
When it comes to Scripture, a lot of things are quite clearly spelled out for us. Unlike the meme, the Bible isn't written as some kind of secret code that you can only figure out if you plug in certain cultural nuance. However, there is greater depth that is often missed precisely because we do not understand ancient idioms, Jewish traditions, professional particulars, and in some cases even translational choices.
Christ Himself expertly exemplified lateral thinking in Scripture. A famous example is in Matthew 22:31-32, where He says "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”"
Here, Jesus exemplifies lateral thinking by following a Biblical statement to its natural, though unstated conclusions. Jesus did not cite a verse that speaks about the resurrection of the dead (though there are many). Rather, He cited a statement that naturally implies it. It is not immediately stated that the dead rise, but if the all knowing, all powerful God is able to presently describe Himself as the God of dead men, the only two possibilities are that they will rise, or that there is even a present sense in which they currently live.
As Christians, many of our doctrines use lateral thinking in similar ways. Furthermore, many heresies depend on intentionally blocking this form of reasoning. We often hear "Where does the Bible say...", as though the only way God can legitimately be understood is if He dedicates thousands of pages to re-stating everything He expects us to believe in different wording until there is no plausible way a skeptic can wriggle out of it.
An excellent, and common example is the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly stated in Scripture. However, the Bible clearly tells us:
There is one God.
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not singularly synonymous.
Using lateral thinking, these 5 points (or 3, if you condense 2, 3, and 4) render it impossible to escape the doctrine of the Trinity. The most you can dispute is the terminology.
Of course, lateral thinking does have its limits. It can lead to "sbeve" style shifts, or it can lead to excessive speculation. But it can also help avoid errors, such as rejecting a concept because it is not explicitly stated. Using lateral thinking, we can discover what isn't stated directly, because it is the necessary conclusion of that which is. We can also understand why that which is not immediately obvious to a 21st century audience would be to a 1st century Jew. If this article has worked as I intended, readers will now have a tighter understanding of lateral thinking, and be able to apply it to both their daily lives, and to their Bible study.
Comments