Like many students graduating from a conservative Evangelical seminary, I was introduced to an exegetical approach that emphasized the historical context, the grammar of the text, and the original intent of the author. The idea of approaching the text with my own socially imbedded views as a legitimate tool in the process of interpretation was practically anathema. Later, during a hermeneutical course of study at Emory University, I was challenged by the works of Paul Ricoeur with the idea that it is practically impossible to really know the original intent of any author, and that frankly, the original intent is only of marginal importance. Furthermore, original intent implies that there is a single intent and not many intentions on the part of the author. The most important point, he argues, is what the text says to the reader and, on a larger scale, to contemporary society.
Enter, ideological texture, and one is confronted with an exegetical approach which posits that the interpretation of any text may never be absent of the socially/culturally imbedded worldviews of the interpreter. Interpretation, therefore, is not a statement or a declaration, but a conversation, a living and ongoing dialogue that explores the text as God’s word with others who offer unique perspectives, and ourselves as individuals who are conscious of our own inherent biases. If this is so, how does one read, understand, teach and proclaim the message of the Bible as the authoritative Word of God? In fact, is there “a word,” or are there “many words” that are equally valid? The fear of some is that ideological texture, as an approach to exegesis, will lead to subjective interpretations, the fallacy, is believing that there is no subjectivity.
Brian McLaren (Leadership,Winter, 2007) writes that he has recently been reading, studying, fellowshipping with, and listening to Latin Americans, Asians, and Africans. He is doing this, he says, “Because the U.S. can so easily become an echo chamber, Western voices arguing with other Western voices about Western topics from a Western perspective” (p. 110). McLaren goes on to say: “Many people in the global South see what we don’t see: how we have blended Christian faith with European-American culture” (p.%
1 comment:
This is an interesting facet of Biblical interpretation. As you rightly noted, in our tradition, consideration of the 'historic' meaning of the text is anathema. The resulting hermenutic is what I call an egocentric hermaneutic, one in which the only thing that matters is what it means to ME.
The two extremes are to relegate meaning to the past or the present. So which is it? I propose that this is a false dichotomy of objective and subjective meaning. We must find a way to transcend these categories of thought.
N.T. Wright, in his excellent work "The New Testament and the People of God" argues for a critical-realist approach in which the deepest level of meaning in scripture is to discover the worldview of the disciples.
He further notes that a critical-realist approach will hold a subvertible worldview or one in which new information is considered and, if necessary, a new worldview is adopted.
Meaning cannot simply be relegated to the past or the present. Having said that, I believe that narrative theology offers the best solution. The Bible is, in fact, a story. Not a new list of rules or timeless platitudes offered by our savior. Understanding the story gives birth to a new worldview for those who hear the Gospel.
Just a few thoughts.
Post a Comment