Some Hermeneutical Thoughts - Moving Beyond Authorial Intent

In an earlier post I argued for an approach to reading (scripture) that locates meaning in the author, but also recognizes our limitations in getting into the mind of an author. Moving from there, I want to find a way to read the Bible so that it can engage with readers in contexts different from the context of the intended (or more accurately, implied) audience of the text. My desire to flesh out a hermeneutic that can do this is not only from a practical desire to have scripture influence Christians in all times and places, but also to develop a hermeneutic that sees scripture as the author of Hebrews 4:12 does, living and active.

A method with which many evangelicals are familiar is one that focuses on finding an application. This can be seen as a three step process: 1) first the original meaning (usually conceived of as authorial intent) is discerned 2) a universal/trans-contextual truth of the passage is identified and extrapolated from the text 3) the reader finds a way that this universal truth can be applied to their life. What I appreciate about this method is that it desires to root our use of scripture in the original meaning and recognizes that the original meaning was embedded in a context different from the readers. The shortcoming of this method, as I See it, is two-fold.

First, it operates as if truth concepts can be de-contextualized. I question that assumption, but more importantly, I am confident that our understanding of truth cannot be uncontextual. Think about it, every truth claim of which you conceive is understood in the context of who you are and how you view the world. It is inextricably linked to your subjective perspective the minute it is present in your mind. There is no conceptual meaning that is held without context. Thus, when the reader attempts to identify the trans-contextual truth, they are still viewing that from their contextualized perspective; therefore, step 2 never actually happens. Since step 2 is the crux of the 'objective' nature of the method it seems to bankrupt the approach.

Second, something about the notion of 'application' does not sit well with me. One problem is that given the inability to de-contextualize meaning as discussed above, the reader is manipulating meaning without even knowing it. The reader thinks she is objectively handling the meaning, but in reality she is shaping it the minute she thinks of it. Another problem (which is related to the first) is that the application is often overly disconnected from the authorial meaning. Since this method attempts to pull out a universal truth and hold it in a contextual-less vacuum, it leads to an applicational meaning that is too disconnected from the original context.

My hope is to find a different hermeneutical method that acknowledges both authorial intent and the contextuality of concepts. Though I am still in process with my thinking, my goal is to anchor our reading in the authorial intent of the text, but allow it to move forward into new contexts, without pretending to de-contextualize it. How does that happen?

I don't know that this approach can have a clean cut method like the one described above, but I am going to make a pathetic attempt anyways:

1) Discern what meaning the author intended (As best you can with an honest effort). As a part of that, determine what response the author intended to trigger/inspire in his audience.

2) Prayerfully think/meditate on that meaning, including the impact the author wanted it to have on their intended (or implied) audience.

3) Let that meaning move into your context. By this I do not just mean we should look for analogies between the original context and ours. I think the process should be more dynamic than that. We look at the story that is being told in the biblical narrative and identify ourselves within it; let it shape how we see the world. This will not be an application of an abstract contextual-less truth. Rather, it will be the meeting of our subjective perspectives with the authors. There are not equations and algorithms that will translate the meaning from the original context into the new in a neat nor, dare I say, objective way. Rather, the transfer will be something fluid and subjective.

The subjectiveness of this method does not mean that anything flies. Our re-contextualization must still be anchored in the authorial intent. It can and should move beyond their intent, but not too far. It has to stay true to that original contextual meaning, even while being something new. It is connected to the authorial intent, but it is dynamic. It is living and active.

To be honest, I am not exactly sure what this looks like, but I think it is headed in the right direction. It is a hermeneutic that will hopefully lead to more songs of praise than 3 step solutions. It is a method that will likely lead to a more dynamic conversation with God in the reading process than a commitment to pray twice a day. It is an approach to scripture that will likely lead to the re-shaping of our subjective perspectives than the discoveries of 'contextual-less' truths.

To give due credit, my formation on these views has in great part been influenced by Jeannine Brown's Scripture as Communication (though any flaws you find in my blog post are not necessarily shared by her). It is an excellent introduction to hermeneutics and a read that I would highly recommend.

Emergency Election Day Post

I was not planning to bring too much election politics into this blog, but some rhetoric today from those confessing to be Christians has thoroughly disgusted me. I have found too many words of hatred and slander to keep silent. Particularly, I have in mind the accusations of Obama being a terrorist. It is well known that multiple news agencies have investigated the allegations and have found no evidence of a serious relationship between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama. In the absence of any real evidence, it seems to me that the accusations, even implied accusations, are nothing but slander, an activity of which those confessing Christ as their Lord should repent.

I have also been vexed by the marriage between fiscal conservatism and evangelical Christianity. If a Christian finds herself in favor of conservative economic policies, that is fine. However, to suggest that someone who is in favor of policies that are most beneficial to the poor, the meek, the orphaned, and the widowed is somehow holding to an anti-Christian view seems nothing short of bizarre to me. I don't mean that a Christian cannot support fiscally conservative views, but to declare liberal economic policies apostasy seems disingenuous to me.

On the issue of abortion, I am in disagreement with Obama and the Democratic platform in general. I see pro-life to be the stance that favors a disadvantaged party and thus support legislating against abortion. However, this is not the only issue at stake. Christians must weigh all issues on the table. There are good reasons, congruent with Christianity, for voting Republican and there are good reasons, congruent with Christianity, for voting Democrat.

The Christian must remember that the ideology of neither party fully represents the gospel. As a result, the actions of the state will not fully manifest the Kingdom of God. This situation should not inspire a lack of hope in the Christian. Jesus, contrary to messianic expectations at the time, did not bring into being a new theocratic state. His kingdom is near, but has not yet arrived. It will not fully arrive until the resurrection of the dead and the enactment of the new creation (Rom. 8).

For now we ought to vote in the way that we think best favors the gospel, but we ought not vote in an attempt to create God's Kingdom out of our political institutions. Jesus is Lord and he will bring his kingdom. That is the foundational creed of Christianity.

Some Hermeutical Thoughts - Location of Meaning

For those of you not familiar with the term 'hermeneutics', it is the philosophy and method of interpreting a text. It is often used in reference to biblical interpretation and that is the subject of interetst for this post.

A few months ago I discovered that there was a movement within Christianity that opposed using sources outside of the Bible in efforts to interpret the Bible. Essentially they think the Bible should be read as it is and so there is no need to bring in any historical and contextual information from the time and place that a certain book of the Bible was written. I think that view stands on shaky ground. In this next series of posts I hope to explain my view on hermeneutics and in so doing refute the position that denies the value of extra-biblical information in the interpretative process.

Our discussion starts at the location of meaning. In other words, when we read the Bible do we look for the authors intent, do we just let the text speak for itself, or does the reader create there own meaning as they read?

Location of Meaning

Author

When we look to the author for meaning we ask the question, what meaning did the author have in mind when they wrote the text? What did they intend to communicate to their anticipated audience? When we look for meaning here we take into account the cultural and historical setting of the author in order to try to see the world through their eyes as best we can. Then we read the text from the author's perspective, trying to understand what they meant and intended to communicate in that text.

The challenge with this approach is that we can’t get into the full psyche of the biblical authors because they are no longer around to interview. On top of that, a reader cannot fully escape their own cultural and historical perspective. No matter how much I learn about Paul's world and his thought patterns, I will still not escpae my perspective. I can get closer to see the world through his eyes, but I will still be looking through my eyes before I look through his.

Text

This view says 'just let the text speak by itself.' Look at the literary structures and interpret it based on the text alone. According to this view you shouldn't worry about what the author intended because you will never be able to see the world from the author's perspective. Subscribing to this perspective might drive a hermeneutical approach that de-values information external to the Bible.

The problem with this is that meaning must be created by a person. There is no meaning to a text outside of a person’s assignment of meaning. So if we say we only look to the text as its own independent entity for meaning, then we really end up with the reader assigning meaning to the text. This ultimately leads to the same problems that a reader locus of meaning runs into as discussed below.

Reader

In this approach meaning is created by the reader. We do not need to be concerned about discerning what the author intended, because the only discernable (and some might say only valuable) meaning is that which the reader assigns as they read a text. This could also be described by the phrase, “whatever the text means to you.” This is another hermeneutical perspective that could de-value extra-biblical information.

This vew leads to a couple of problems. 1) It leaves the door open for multiple mutually exclusive interpretations since multiple readers will invariably assign different meanings to the same text. How then does a community of believers reconcile these contradictory readings? 2) It eliminates the possibility for communication because the reader is not actually receiving external information, but is regurgitation their own thoughts and experiences in their interpretation.

In terms of Biblical interpretation, there is no way for the Christian who locates meaning in the reader's response to be shaped and formed by external information (i.e. meanings), so then a person is only influencing themselves as they read the Bible. Certainly the Holy Spirit can still shape the reader, but then there is little special about scripture since the Holy Spirit can shape the believer when they read any text.

Looking to the Author through their Text

We Must acknowledge that our access to the author’s intent is limited since we cannot get into the full psyche of the author. However, Instead of ignoring the author, who is our only hope for finding meaning external to the reader, we need to look to them for meaning more carefully and with a sense of humility. We must acknowledge that we cannot fully enter their perspective, but be satisifed with getting as close to their perspective as we can.

Taking on the view of the author (as best we can) and reading their text is the only window we have into the author’s intent. Knowing that, we have to hold our interpretations with a degree of tentativeness appropriate for the degree of ambiguity in a text. Doing anything but looking to the author's intended meaning in the text leaves us looking into a mirror with little chance at being formed by a source external to our own minds. So, we look for the author’s meaning as it is inscribed in the text. That is the Bible student’s task.

Systematic Theology: It's Kind of a Big Deal

What is Systematic Theology and Why is it a big deal?

Systematic Theology seeks to form a coherent and cohesive understanding of reality from a theistic (or perhaps more specifically, a Christian) perspective. In my view, systematic theology has at its core a concern to understand God and how humans are to relate to him and their world in light of him. It also has, as a primary concern, how humans (and maybe more specifically, Christians) should understand themselves in light of God.

A helpful distinction in understanding Systematic Theology is contrasting it with Biblical Theology. The distinction isn't to say that Systematic Theology is not biblical, but to say that they are two different kinds of tasks. While they are distinct the two disciplines are still closely inter-related.

One way to see it is in the kinds of questions practitioners of the two disciplines seek to answer. The biblical theologian asks the same questions the biblical authors where concerned about and exegetes those authors’ responses to those questions. The systematic theologian asks the questions that are facing the world today and formulates creative answers. They do so by drawing on how the biblical authors answered the questions of their day and how past theologians and contemporary theologians of different contexts answered the questions they faced. The systematic theologian also draws on the work of other disciplines, such as philosophy, psychology, political science and sociology in responding to contemporary and contextual theological issues.

While Systematic Theology draws from multiple sources, biblical theology is its foundation (or at least it ought to be). The systematic theologian is not only responsible for avoiding contradiction with the theology of the Bible, but must also seek to develop a system that rightly brings to life the theology of the Bible in present day terms. It takes the message of God as understood in scripture and translates that into models and language that meets the cognitive framework of the context in which the theologian finds herself. In addition to that, it takes those concepts and informs Christians how to act and interact in their context.

While Systematic Theology is often viewed as a game of the ivory tower with little real world impact, in truth it plays a couple of critical functions in the mission of Christianity. First, it helps us make disciples of nations. It does so by essentially updating the gospel language. I do not mean that they change the gospel (though certainly some do), I mean that they couch the biblical message in terms that make sense to the world around us.

For example, Paul talks about justification, but what does that mean? First, the biblical theologian has to figure out what Paul meant by using that language in his context. Once the biblical theologian does that work, the systematic theologian takes the concept of justification in the Bible and fleshes out what that means with all of its consequences for contemporary people. Explaining such an elemental part of the gospel as justification to 1st Century Jewish and Greco-Roman people is a different task that requires different language and cognitive models than explaining the same truth to 18th Century Europeans or 21st Century Africans. As a result, as long as we are still awaiting the resurrection the Systematic Theologian will play a critical role in disseminating the good news.

The second critical function Systematic Theology has for Christianity is that it teaches Christians themselves. It is not just non-Christians who need theological truths translated into contextually meaningful terms, but Christians need the same service. This is not only important for understanding the reality we find ourselves in, but is also critical for encouraging biblical and godly ethics. Without the careful work of systematic theologians, we are bound to either melt into the surrounding culture, taking on ungodly ethics, or disengaging from our surrounding culture and giving up on the great commandment. It only takes a quick glance at church history and the present day Christian landscape to see both paths.

Given these two essential functions of the discipline, it is important that churches get back to appreciating and engaging in dialogue with the Christian academy. Just as well, the academy needs to effectively communicate their research to church leaders and laity. It is a symbiotic relationship, in which both parties need the other to effectively play their role. Systematic theologians need the churches to tell them what theological questions are facing Christianity today. Conversely, the churches need to value the work of the educated professionals dedicated to the task of thinking through those questions. In order to re-establish that relationship humility is required on both sides, but that is a small price to pay for the benefit that can be reaped for the glory of God.

Calling All Rob Bell Fans

I have to apologize. The title of this one is a little misleading. I am actually looking for someone to defend Rob Bell for me. I recently read through his book Velvet Elvis with some friends. I would say that 80-85% of the book is good stuff. The material included in that 80-85% is not incredibly innovative, though some of it (such as his chapter on hermeneutics/interpretation) is good stuff that ought to be talked about in popular circles more than it is.

Now despite that large chunk of good stuff in Velvet Elvis one major problem seems to plague the work leading it to an overall thumbs down in my account (There is another issue I have with his theology, but we'll leave that out of this post). One of Bell’s major stumbling points is his irresponsible use of scripture. I only double checked a couple of the passages that Bell used in this book, but in that small sample (probably less than half a dozen citations) I found two clearly mistaken interpretations. These weren’t muddy things that are debated about and disagreed upon, but the passages are very clear as to their meaning.

The first case was in his use of Matt 16:18. This is where Jesus calls Simon by the name of Peter (Petros in Greek, which means rock) and then says in the same breath, upon this rock (Petra in Greek) I will build my church. It is so clear here that Jesus is giving Simon the name which means rock and then saying upon this rock (referring to Peter) Jesus will build his church.

However, Bell lays out some interesting historical information about the local inhabitants worshiping goats on a cliff and then says that the 'rock' Jesus is referring to is the cliff on which these people worship goats. Bell’s interpretation is that Jesus is saying that his church will be built out of people like these goat worshipers. Yes, many of the disciples were not the cream of the crop and yes, Jesus reached out to people considered unclean and outcasts, so it is safe to say that those kinds of people will make up a part of the Jesus community. However, that is not what Matthew or Jesus is saying here. All of his historical work is for not because he failed to take a close enough look at the text itself.

The other example is from John 17:21, “You are in me and I am in you.” Bell takes that to mean that Jesus is in the believer and the believer is in Jesus. What Bell misses is that Jesus actually says, “You, Father, are in me and I am in you...” This is clearly about the unity between Jesus and the Father and is a part of a passage on the unity of the church. This particular quote is not about the dwelling of God in the believer. The text leaves virtually no room for doubt. Yes, God dwells in the believer, but that is not what this quote is saying… at all.

Now Bell could have looked at the next few words and verses and quoted one of those that actually talks about believers being in Jesus and about being in believers, but he he didn't. Even if he would have, I still wouldn't have been totally comfortable since the passage is about unity amongst Jesus followers and not the transformation from old person to new person of the believer which Bell is using this quote to support.

These mistakes seem huge and a result of oblivious scripture selection, where Bell was not looking to see what the text meant, but looking to find some words in the Bible that he could use to communicate his own thoughts. I don’t mean to be too harsh on Bell, but I was astonished to discover these kinds of errors made by someone who commands such a large audience. If anyone can see validity in his interpretations of these passages I would enjoy some discussion on it.