Hermeneutical circles

The motivation behind Tom Wright's Five Act Play
It is not clear when Wright first thought of the idea of the five act play but a driver was his frustration with people who claim that Leviticus says that we should not mix fibres and hence setting aside bits of the OT justifies our setting aside parts  of the New. This should not be so.Wright started to think about the way that drama works. There are a lot of true doctrines and ethics in the Bible but they are communicated in the framework of a story from the garden to the city.

He is happy to concede that there is a sixth act, but the early acts must not be collapsed. We must not miss out the story of Israel, if we do, we will not understand the allusions to it in the New Testament. Wells and Young have also written about this idea of a five act play: it is a good heuristic tool.

We watch Tom Wright saying these things on the interactive Time-line being produced by Tim Hull at St John's college. It helps us to engage with different theologians over time.

In our module, we are looking at how the narrative idea of scripture has been eclipsed by the enlightenment. We have turned the Bible into a series of propositional statements. Frei's 'The Eclipse of the Biblical Narrative' redeems the sense of scripture as narrative. Balthasar's 'Theodrama' explores this as does Van Hoozer was influenced by Balthasar.

And so systematic theology is rescued, in a sense, from the enlightenment demands for certainty. Balthasar says Barth's Christological concentration was too heavy at the cost of our own role in the story.

What we bring to the story triggers interpretation.

Hermeneutical circles

There has to be a something in a text to which we can relate. We come with our presuppositions.

"Any interpretation is never a presuppositionless apprehending of something presented to us. " Heidegger 191 (Being and Time)

We are living in a culture of interpretation. our lives our a process of interpretation, says Heideggar. Hermeneutics impacts all disciplines, not just theology.

D A Carson
Instead of a straight line there is a hermeneutical circle as the text makes an impact on me and its impact upon me changes. The objective truth evades us because we do not have access to it, only interpreted truth.

Our lecturer wondered, on hearing Carson say this whether he was on a slippery slope to relativism. He asked him in person if this was the case and it did not go down too well.

It is refreshing to hear D A Carson say this. However, Carson does put a hedge around hermeneutics.

I understand our Epistemological modesty and I often think of 1 Cor 13:12 when I am writing up my thoughts about what the Scriptures might mean here.

For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

We often have this in mind when we engage in theological debates in the biblioblogosphere. I have also found it freeing to discover that there might be something inherently 'good' about our interpretations.

I am wrestling now to shake off life in the old paradigm where the hermeneutical task seemed somehow the natural task for a fallen people, if it is instead the natural task for a people all made unique, then this seems much more positive.

Heidegger (the 20th century philosopher) describes how we have inherited a world-view but then we are dragged along by the crowd and their hermeneutic. This is violent. Derrida says that there is violence done to the text too. There is also a dominant hermeneutic which does violence to the more marginal hermeneutic. I had not thought about this before and I am considering now whether some of own feminist theologies both do a violence to the text and suffer violence from the more dominant hermeneutical models and I wonder which is the bigger violence.

The return to Reason at the turn of the Enlightenment was a reaction to people claiming that divine truth was theirs when claims conflicted.

Smith reflects on the interpretation of interpretation and 'The Fall of Interpretation' is a brilliant book which I would buy if it didn't cost £38. I Must look out for a second-hand copy.

We have been asked to read Sanders who writes about the classical background: the influence of Aristotle and Plato. Greek thought has polluted the way that we do theology. Open theism seeks to liberate Christianity from the dominance of Greek thought.


We have also been asked to consider Bray's argument, defending the Greek philosophical approach.

Carson ('Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church') believes that the emergent church has left the enlightenment behind and has become very frustrated at the extent to which we are arguing for interpretative difference. He believes we need not choose between a meaning that is wholly determinate and a meaning that is wholly indeterminate. If we travel too far in the direction of relativism, then we are going to have chaos.

There is the idea that the traditional arguments for the existence of God are not valid in a post-modern but this is a fallacy says Craig. Relativism does not pollute all things. There are texts that we trust at first-hand. Our culture remains deeply modernist in terms of its science and technology. We read the Headache tablets packet and the Rat poison packet and we do not confuse them.

Craig believes the the idea of sharing our narrative brings us to a place of postmodern uncertainty which will be the death of the church because there is no objective truth. This sits uneasily when scientific investigation sits more confidently with its declarations of truth. He wonders whether we should not instead reaffirm apologetics and the rational if we want the Church to remain.

How does it work for us? Can we not defend a middle way? There is truth and there is uncertainty as there is with any relationship we have.

Learning to lament

I was affected in a very unexpected way by tonight's worship.

We sang a service of lament. We listened to a lecturer share his life-story and it did many things for me. It taught me that it is okay what I do here. I record my story. It gave me a kind of permission to keep doing so. We need each other's stories. We need to share in the experiences of our shared humanity.

But moreover, this evening taught me that I am not very good at lamenting. I wonder if I ever learnt to do this. i wonder if I have ever really allowed myself to do this. My upbringing, with a very pragmatic mum and a very positive dad, my Britishness handed down by a very victorianesque grandfather of the stiff-upper-lip variety, my parents-in-law, whom I have known since I was 16, who have survived a world-war, hard labour in Siberia and the struggle of setting up lives in a land that is not their own, working in factories when they could have had professional jobs back in Poland, a husband who is also not prone to lamenting and complaining because he is made of strong stuff, me being the eldest in the family - all these things mean that I have never really learnt to lament.

I returned tired. I stood in front of my fire at home and the sadness of everything really hit me, the complications, the messiness of the church and particularly the Church of England in the present climate, human messiness, that we can all tell a version of our story, just like my lecturer did in the first third of his sermon and we rejoice in all the good things that God has done, where he has worked in our lives heaping such blessings and bringing us more closely into his presence and then we tell the rest of our story, we also have those parts we haven't laid bare and so we expose them just a little, as my lecturer did, and he wept, and we feel very cold and vulnerable but there is a place and a time to do this and we have to help each other to do this, to lament a little, to complain just a bit, to cry out like the psalmist and wonder where God is in all of this.

And as I sang my lament standing in the choir, I fixed my eyes on my little girl, my youngest, looking so pale on her daddy's knee. She has a stomach upset and I carried on singing and he went out with her to the toilet and then came back again, out again and back again and then I was free so that I could be with her, and I know this is all a strange application of her discomfort, but as I stood holding her in the bathroom, as she cried on the toilet because her body was not behaving as it should have been, I thought of the whole people of God, this groaning body, not behaving as we should, out of control and needing comfort and I thought about how every now and then we need to free ourselves from the singing and run to each other instead, not so that we can necessarily tidy up the messiness and flush it away, (although I did this for the sake of the St John's cleaning staff), but so that we can just hold each up, as I held onto her as she sat on the toilet, and be just prepared to be there, to share in the groaning, the pains, the discomfort and lament with one another a little.

Buses and Bishops

If our bishops won't fly in, our buses will fly out!

I've been talking at college today with my very good friend who is part of an FIF church. It is lamentable to see his struggles over what might happen next and he suspects that when it comes to ordinations and confirmations over where he worships, they will all just simply get on a bus and these ceremonies will occur in another church where a male bishop presides and is willing. I must say I imagine them all getting on that bus, some are unaware why they are being transported out from their own church but others are fully aware, some care and some do not. For some it is very necessary and for others the confirmation or ordination would have been equally valid if it had been performed by a female bishop. Thus are our churches, there are all sorts of people of all sorts of theological persuasions on board.


Fulcrum does not articulate what the solution might be but they are praying into it and affirm the latest developments from the Revision Committee. You can read their statement here. Personally, I am glad that Fulcrum exist because they express conservative open evangelicalism as I see it and at least give me a 'body' with which I can identify, which is rather an unfortunate image to use really considering the only body to which I really belong is the Body of Christ. I suppose, as with earthly bodies, there are some bits which trouble us and some bits about which we feel comfortable, but even so the whole body must remain united in order to be whole and holy, let's just hope there aren't any nasty dismemberments no matter how much some of the limbs cause us pain. I think I would rather my friend stayed home than got on his bus!

Why can't I be a conservative female priest?

How is it that' liberalism' is banded about like a dirty word? What is liberalism anyway? To me a liberal is someone who does not believe in the authority of the scriptures and perhaps the virgin birth and the resurrection are not a part of their professing faith at all, which is hard to relate to. I do not want those who believe in women priests to describe themselves as liberals, surely it does us no favours? It muddies the waters. If you are a liberal, explain for me what that means, please. Don't tell me Jesus was a liberal, because I understand the use of the word in that context but it doesn't seek to unmuddy what these distinctions mean today, because in the political church climate, they mean something else altogether.

Virtueonline describes how:
The facts are these. Women bishops are at least 10 years away. More and more women are being ordained but confined to the house of clergy. They can only vote as clergy in the synodical structures, but the laity represents the broad mass of the C of E which is strongly conservative. The point is women priests will not swamp the church and will not ultimately make or break it. All the major seminaries and theological colleges are filled with next generation evangelicals, the product of seeds sown by faithful Anglican evangelicals like John Stott, Jim Packer, Michael Green, Alistair McGrath et al some of whom are now octogenarians.




So why are these things exclusive of one another? I am an evangelical, one of those 'filling the theological colleges'. I adhere to the 39 articles and the Book of Common Prayer....okay, some of these things need proclaiming afresh for our context. For example, I aim to resurrect services in which we give thanks for the safe arrival of new babies in my future parish but what I will not include is that section from the BCP where women declare how they repent for having thought that all men are liars when they were in the throes of labour. I mean, come on, let's be sensible about things. But, my faith is orthodox.


VOL declare that
The churches will not be filled by women priests or women bishops either. There is simply no evidence for it. Bending to the culture will only make churches orphans in time. Confronting the culture with the Good News of Jesus, as difficult as that might be, is England's only hope.

The thing is I never set out to either make or break the church and I agree with VOL that 'Bending to the culture will only make churches orphans in time.' It's just that the church has bent to a patriarchal culture for two thousand years and even more recently to a culture which believed that one human being could declare another its property because of their misreading and manipulation of St Paul. So why are some parts of the church lamenting a future more representative of God's justice, without first inspecting the incongruities of their own past? Why are they making crass generalisations about the motivations of one half of the human race? Why is all so blinkingly exasperatingly sad?


Maranatha!

Talking on facebook

Facebook is proving quite useful for networking. It's a strange kind of place because unlike a blog you have no control over your page in the sense that you can not filter out that which might cause you to gasp and bristle although you do not, of course, have to accept all friendship requests. I've live-chatted with Pete Broadbent whom I think was very gracious to give me five minutes and I have spoken in Italian to an Italian deacon who I do not know but by using google translation tools, we decided we had Jesus in common and after that the conversation flowed. A few of my lecturers are facebook users, as are other students so it can prove quite useful. As with anything, you also need to ensure that you don't let it distract you from other things but it really is the friend of every social animal and like everything in life it can be used to build or distort God's Kingdom. It has been criticized by many but essentially, it is about communication. It is about saying, 'this is what I am thinking, do you ever think like that too?' and if people do not, there is the chance to grow and learn and if people do, then there is the chance of fellowship. It is not meant to compete with a hug and a coffee in one-to-one interaction, that is not its claim, it is just another way us human beings have invented in an attempt to connect with one another and that can be no bad thing.

Breaking news on revision committee progress reaction

Super and flying or not super and flying? Super? Flying?

It would seem that there might be flying bishops but there will not be super-bishops, in fact, from what I can understand, it would seem that 'headship' (yes, that rather misleading term), could be invested in a woman: (remember though that this is only the story so far, which will be played out in meetings until a final decision in 2012)

I quote:
After much discussion, the members of the Committee were unable to identify a basis for specifying particular functions for vesting which commanded sufficient support both from those in favour of the ordination of women as bishops and those unable to support that development. As a result all of the proposals for vesting particular functions by statute were defeated. The effect of the Committee’s decision is therefore that such arrangements as are made for those unable to receive the episcopal ministry of women will need to be by way of delegation from the diocesan bishop rather than vesting.

...so if the diocesan bishop is a woman and she decides that another bishop can be flown in to confirm or ordain those for whom she, by her gender, presents problems, then is not the fact that she has assented to this arrangement a sign of her authority over the situation and thereby does she not pollute the chain for traditionalists, remember this:

To test the purity of a church for a traditionalist, he would need to ask the priest:

(1) - have you ever received communion from a woman?
(2) - were you confirmed by a female bishop?
(3) - were you confirmed by a male bishop who:-
(a) - was confirmed by a female bishop?
(b) - was ordained by a female bishop?
(c) - was ordained at a service where women were also being ordained?
(d) - was consecrated at a service where a female bishop was present or laying hands?
(e) - has ever received communion from a female priest or bishop?
(f) - has ever ordained a female priest?
(g) – has ever participated in the consecration of a female bishop?
(4) -If you answered 'no' to (3(a) to (3)(g)) above, repeat each step (a) to (g) in relation to:-
(i) the bishop who consecrated the bishop who confirmed you
(ii) the bishop who ordained the bishop who confirmed you
(iii) the bishop who confirmed the bishop who confirmed you

Is there a point to be inserted at the top:
Are you confirming/ordaining me after receiving permission to do so from your diocesan bishop? Is that bishop a woman?

And if she's a woman, then they are scuppered, aren't they?



I wonder what the end result will be for those who cannot tolerate the episcopal oversight of a woman? There are three more meetings to go before February and I think the next few weeks are going to prove a very interesting time. Christina Rees does use a persuasive subtlety in her affirmations, for how can a Bishop represent unity if some of the functions are transferred to someone else. She is pleased that thus far "the Church of England can proceed to opening the Episcopate to women in such a way that the nature of the Episcopate is retained". It is retained because a consecrated woman will represent unity because she will make decisions about the 'protection' of those for whom her ordaining and confirming presents problems. If I understand things correctly, she will get to make the decision as regards bringing in a man for these functions.

Anglo-Catholics have an offer on the table from the Vatican but what about Conservative evangelicals?

For Anglo-Catholics going to Rome, will they need to be certain that they fulfil some of the Magisterium's rulings? For example, can a divorced and remarried Anglo-Catholic take communion in the Catholic Church (Catechism para 1665)? What will happen to priests who join the ordinariate? Will it really all be so easy for them?

Will Conservative Evangelicals take up membership of Reform and support all things GAFCON, FOCA and Jerusalem Declaration? Will we have the creation of a church within a church?

Someone over at Thinking Anglicans describes how 'There will, therefore be 3 "anglican" provisions in England: The CofE; the Ordinariate; and some form of evangelical anglicanism under the umbrella of GAFCON. What needs to be addressed now is the relationship between those 3 bodies and the means by which folk align themselves to them.' Someone else describes how 'God's rain falls wetly on the Anglican evangelicals, the Anglican Catholics, and the Anglican progressives, no matter.' ;-) (of course this betrays a limited understanding of what it means to be an 'Anglican evangelical', but we all know what he's getting at).


See Thinking Anglicans and included below is the statement from Christina Rees, who always manages to communicate what everything means in essence, without all the jargon!

WATCH PRESS STATEMENT

Saturday, 14th November 2009 – for immediate release

WOMEN BISHOPS LEGISLATION NOW ON RIGHT TRACK

WATCH is delighted to hear that the Revision Committee on Women in the Episcopate has decided that legislation for women bishops will no longer include proposals for the mandatory transfer of authority - the vesting of particular functions by law – in bishops who would provide oversight for those unable to receive the Episcopal and/or priestly ministry of women.

WATCH commends the recent work of the Revision Committee, which met yesterday to explore how the previous proposed arrangements could be made to work. WATCH is aware of the huge outcry from members of General Synod and from other Church members to the earlier announcement of the Revision Committee to make changes in law that would have resulted in a two-tier episcopate.

WATCH Chair, Christina Rees said: “This is a real breakthrough. I am delighted that now we can look forward to having women as bishops on the same terms that men are bishops. Women will bring valuable different perspectives and ways of doing things and will also bring a sorely needed wholeness to the Episcopal leadership of our Church. The House of Bishops will cease to be the ‘men only’ club it has been and will be more representative of the people whom the Church exists to serve. Now the Church will be able to draw on the experience and wisdom of many gifted women. We know from 15 years of having women as priests that they are often able to reach people and approach situations in ways that are creative and empowering for many others.”

WATCH is pleased with the outcome on two counts: first, and most importantly, the new proposals express the theological understanding of the Church about the status of baptised Christians and about the relationship between men and women and God. Secondly, the Revision Committee has shown that it has heeded the will of General Synod to draft legislation that would not have arrangements in law that would differentiate between male and female bishops.

WATCH continues to urge to Revision Committee to bring proposals to General Synod in February 2010 which adopt the simplest possible legislation, so that the Church of England can proceed to opening the Episcopate to women in such a way that the nature of the Episcopate is retained and the Church can best communicate its belief that women and men are equal in the eyes of God.

Reading about Pinnock and Grenz and finding it most illuminating

As you know this blog is not a member of the Wayne Grudem fanclub, in fact it took a great deal of resistance on my part to avoid signing this blog up for membership of the facebook page lamenting his contribution to women's discipleship programmes. I am not sure if that group still exists.

Anyway, I have not come across much academic wrangling with Grudem. I've read Bilezikian and Giles Fraser but I think, if I have time I would like to explore in greater detail the thinking of Grenz and Pinnock.

Roger E Olson explains:

There is very little dissonance between Grenz's basic approach to theology and Pinnock's. Together they serve as postconservative evangelicalism's twin theological giants. Both embody the narrative approach that demotes rational propositions and systems to second place in favor of the biblical narrative. Both insist that God communicates himself to humans via stories that transform more than inform, and that doctrine, though necessary and valuable, is open to revision as more light breaks forth from the Spirit speaking through the Bible. While they both pay lip service to the inerrancy of the Bible, neither one elevates that concept to the status of a litmus test of evangelical fidelity. Both regard Scripture as authoritative, theology's norming norm, while admitting that it could function that way even if it contains minor errors that do not affect the main story line.

Wayne Grudem's Systematics has a huge following, which I think is the result of humanity's desperation to know so certainly what is ultimately unknowable.

And Olson again:

As we have seen, postconnservative evangelical thinkers desire to move away from a focus on propositions in revelation and in theology to a more dynamic understanding of revelation that makes use of narrative or dramatic action (e.g., speech acts). They do not discard or neglect propositions, which they regard as part of the larger picture of revelation and theology. But they believe evangelical theology will be better off-that is, more biblical and contextually relevant-by shifting the center of understanding away from communication of information to action that draws persons into participation with God in transforming action. Revelation, then, aims at something more than knowledge and understanding. It goes beyond authoritative information to absorbing story and dramatic action. Theology goes beyond repetition and translation of past information to ongoing participation in the action of revelation. The anchor for all of this is God revealing himself in and through the canon of Scripture understood not as a set of propositions to be systematized but as a narrative or drama that sets in motion a performative process that continues through the church until the consummation.

I think that this kind of thinking has huge implications for the Church's decision-making process over women bishops and I haven't thought through all of its implications as yet, only that I suspect that operating within this kind of framework, the Church would find less and less reasons for delaying the consecration of women.

I positively whooped today and was a bit surprised at myself as a consequence, when I heard on the radio 4 news that news was looking more positive on the women bishops front. I obviously care more about this issue than I had realsied and I wonder if I am moving to a place where I seek less the protection of those for whom the move to consecrate women would be a stumbling block to their ecclesiological security. I have more thinking to do about why I might be shifting in my thinking and I am sure it does perhaps have something to do with my exposure to a different kind of theology and the very personal testimonies of some of those involved in the process.

First year introduction to hermeneutics

Our lecturer is teaching us about hermeneutics. All the first years gather into a cramped lecture room (cramped indeed, I was told off for upsetting the projection equipment – whoops!). I think I also come with a lot of stuff in my head too, which might upset my acceptance of some of the models which we will be exploring. I can not help but interpret the interpretation too and I sometimes wish I could look at things less critically. Hence whatever my lecturer projects will be slightly shaken by my own thoughts.

I think a basic way into understanding hermeneutics begins with Tom Wright and his 5 act play theory. It is not hard to get your head around, in fact it could probably do with being more particular and less general but it works.
This is exactly what we are introduced to. I was hoping for more analysis of Smith's 'The Fall of interpretation', but I don't mind looking through that on my own.

We are told about how Scripture shaped the people of Israel who longed for the kingdom and Tom Wright explains how narrative is dynamic. It is not going to be like an instruction manual because a manual is not dynamic. I will read 'Scripture and the Authority of God' by NT Wright.

Our lecturer points out how theologians like John Stott will often use Matthew's exhortation that not a jot or tittle has been removed from the law to show how authoritative are the scriptures. We might ask ourselves whether Jesus Christ regarded the Scriptures with the same degree of authority? His fulfilling of the Scriptures means that a new paradigm has been initiated and we see now how commands to honour your mother and father are nuanced by his practices and preaching, for he refused to listen to his own siblings and mother when they called him and instead he believed that fellow believers were his family. When Paul meets the Judiazers he meets people who are being more literalistic about the Old Testament than he is. He rebukes these people.

The story is moving on.

I wonder whether we are being taught to practice a kind of redemption-hermeneutic? I wonder about all of this. It's all more complex and nuanced but I also appreciate that we are only being introduced to hermeneutics.

We are told that there is discontinuity from the rules under the Old Covenant. The sacrifice rituals and the mandatory sabbath are no longer insisted upon. The divide between the Jews and the Gentiles have been left aside. The scriptures have been summed up in Jesus Christ and so there is a new mode. Richard Burridge says that the most distinctive thing about Jesus is that he had a very high moral vision but mixed with everyone.

As an aside we are asked to wonder whether evangelicals wanting to guard their distinctiveness, unhelpfully preach for separation out from others? This is an interesting question to ponder over. I often wonder how unlike Jesus we are being in our claims to follow Jesus.

The Tom Wright 5 Act play analogy

The final act in Tom Wright's play is unfinished, this is where we are. The characters called to produce the play are asked to improvise the ending so that the play can come to conclusion successfully. We might want to stop the play because it seems to share nothing with what has come before. The play might be stopped if it copies by rote scenes from before, when we need the old reinterpreted for the new act. These two examples of where it goes wrong have happened and are happening - those that lose the plot are heretics and those who learn by rote are fundamentalists.(!)

Improvisation is a deeply faithful model.

The first act is God's good creation and there are multiple genres to it but we tell of it legitimately if we convey that God's order is good and beautiful.

In Act 2 this world is flawed by sin and our fall.

In the third act of the story we have the story of Israel and we tell the stories of the prophets. So that we do not become dejudiazed, we understand our call to be salt and light in the context of these first people for whom that was their function.

We are no longer under the law, not because it was odd but because it has all been fulfilled and we live in a narrative that has moved on into Act 4, which is the story of Jesus and we are not there now, we are in the fifth act and we need to interpret how Act 4 has resonance for us today. The cross and the resurrection of Jesus are the climax of the narrative in which we are living.

From Pentecost onwards we are the people of God in Christ, we are the redemptive people of Christ. We see the end is in sight and we are called by the Spirit to improvise the remainder of the story. We do not repeat the same speeches but we must act in character and this is quite a challenge and the Christian debates about how we do this must be constant through this drama. We do not reconstruct the drama or follow the Bible literally: we are a different people and yet we are the same people.

The notion of improvising is important but sometimes misunderstood. There is a careful and needed listening to render faithful the entire dramatic performance. We are called to continue in obedience to the music which we have heard so far and move forward in fresh expressions which will lead us to a full and complete redemption. We have the parameters for the appropriate announcement and we are free to take the music forwards but we are not free to play out of tune.
To return to the 5 Acts analogy, all the actors (us) and the travelling companies (the churches) are free to improvise but we are in the same play and in this way we are more healthy if we act in harmony with one another.

I am not concerned by this model. It makes me think of all things 'indaba' and Lambeth. I think it conveys the flavour of Anglicanism I am serving from within. It is all very Tom Wright and Rowan Williams. It is all very 'listening process', it is all very careful and Christian and I do not mean for my tone to seem cynical. It is our via media, humble and careful expression that attracts me to this denomination. This is all very 'open' evangelical. I am aware at the same time that there are other voices out there too and I expect to hear those voices. I like the messiness, it's exciting so I ask for some challenges now to the 5 Act play. Are there any other paradigms holding sway and in what way do they challenge this wise Durhamesque advocate of all things open and evangelical?

Interpretation 'good'

"The Fall then destroyed the pristine perspicuity of Edenic immediacy, where "knowing" was not hindered by the space of interpretation. Of course, the story doesn’t end there: redemption is a restoration of this interpretive paradise (at least for these evangelical readers) by the illumination of the Spirit coupled with the perspicuity of Scripture. Hermeneutics is a curse, but it is one from which we can be redeemed in the here and now; we can return from mediation to immediacy, from distortion to "perfect clarity" and from interpretation to "pure reading."

So yesterday, I put up this quote and wondered how many of us resonate with it. I made very little comment about it but did identify that it is a paradigm with which I have found myself sympathetic. So it is refreshing to meditate on this and wonder if there might be something more intrinsically good about hermeneutics than we think.


I first became fascinated by hermeneutics, although I didn't know what it was called then, when I realised that I was approaching the scriptures very differently to people with whom I studied the Bible who were conservative evangelicals. I had far more uncertainty than they had but if I was certain about anything it was about my uncertainty. They seemed to recognise little that in their supposed 'knowing' they were actually promoting very much an unknowing about the human condition and our struggle for meaning.

With a degree in English literature in which my analysis of texts, particularly the 19th century novel, had been very much ensteeped in reader-response theory and deconstruction, involving myself in the study of God's word meant that I had to navigate pathways of truth. There was God's truth but then there was a truth that was being declared by my friends' interpretation which somehow I was being asked to swallow as unmediated truth. Yes, the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth but how 'all' is the truth and is it not compromised by our baggage? Can we attain a place of pure truth whilst we are here.

My wrestlings with the text were construed as a result of me being a product of my post-modern generation where all truth and authority is compromised. I had to discover for myself that what I was engaging in was not a liberal expression of the faith. In fact, i felt I was really rather conservative when it came to the resurrection and the virgin birth and the truthfulness of scripture but i was also conscious of meaning shifting due to genre, history and context and that whilst something is true it can also exist at a level that is not best described by the word 'truth', which in itself carries the baggage of the Enlightenment and our Aristotelian preference for all things rational. 

So last night I read about how,

We never have the "crisp, unadorned voice of God" because it is always heard and read through the lens of our finitude and situationality. Even when someone purports to deliver to us the unadorned voice of God, or "what God meant" , we always receive only someone's interpretation, which is wearing the badge of divinity. 

(Smith) 

and

Thus "a genuine biblical theology will strongly affirm that humans (Christian and non-Christian) are inevitably influenced by their own culture, tradition, experience. Until and unless the evangelical community wrestles more seriously with this fact, they will not overcome the unreflective biases that characterize the evangelical appropriation of the Bible"

So can we live knowing that in our 'unknowing', we are more legitimately being the creatures that God has called us to be. In our claim to 'know' so certainly we might be attempting to out-God God! 

It is painful when you are deemed as rebellious for not falling in with the dominant interpretation.

If being human necessarily entails our having expectations and presuppositions and if being human means being God's creatures, then why should such expectations and filters be descnbed as "distortions" that "color" our understanding? Is that not to make being human a sin? 

The dominant interpretation within the Church of England is no longer one which silences women or prevents them from exercising their leadership gifts but it has not always been that way. It is still an interpretation and possibly one which General Synod in February will make significant allowances for. There are still going to be both men and women who feel compromised and hurt by a hermeneutic which silences one half of the human race and says that they somehow can not represent Jesus in his humanity. If we could perhaps embrace the messiness of this pain so that we fight not against it but rejoice instead in humanity's creative bent, understanding that all claims to 'know' are but interpretations and rethink those which restrict and wonder if they are something else altogether.

Hermeneutics is about the messiness of being human in its diversity and splendour, something which God also declared good, for he made us each unique and he reaches us all differently but is our acceptance of a semiotic slipperyness enabling us to practice a redemptive-hermeneutic for the sake of the whole of human-kind?

Hermeneutics and perspicuity

I have many a time battled with postees here, protesting that their interpretation is just interpretation as is mine. I can't accept that they have a 'plain reading' anymore than I am purporting that what I am doing is by any means 'plain'.

I have often lightened the tone, so as not to alarm, by reminding fellow bloggers that one day it will all be clear when we see him face to face and so I too have seen hermeneutics as very much a by-product of the fall.

Well, tomorrow I might be just introduced to a way of thinking that will redeem this way of reading which I have considered somewhat cursed and begin to wonder whether there might be something intrinsically very 'good' about our Christian pluralism and denominational difference.

More tomorrow, but for now a little of my reading from  The Fall of Interpretation: Philosophical Foundations for a Creational Hermeneutic by James K. A. Smith

The Fall then destroyed the pristine perspicuity of Edenic immediacy, where "knowing was not hindered by the space of interpretation. Of course, the story doesn’t end there: redemption is a restoration of this interpretive paradise (at least for these evangelical readers) by the illumination of the Spirit coupled with the perspicuity of Scripture. Hermeneutics is a curse, but it is one from which we can be redeemed in the here and now; we can return from mediation to immediacy, from distortion to "perfect clarity" and from interpretation to "pure reading." 

Fascinating stuff!