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.