tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2343277549128598933.post3863546313499188734..comments2023-08-10T09:38:07.159+01:00Comments on Revising Reform: Interpretation 'good'Rev R Marszalekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01831340057673771787noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2343277549128598933.post-73086879824886614272009-11-14T10:52:52.381+00:002009-11-14T10:52:52.381+00:00"I don't think the language of "inte..."I don't think the language of "interpretation" is overly helpful for us, indeed I think the concept itself is part of the problem - it places far too much emphasis upon the reader. Rather should we not be far more concerned to speak about the author and the authorial intent? That is not to say that we do no bring our own lens to bear as we read but, ultimately, the focus is not upon US as reader but upon the author."<br /><br />Yes but surely everything that comes out of my mouth about authorial intent is a response of the reader purporting to 'know' what the authorial intent might be. <br /><br />"Smith's approach betrays, I would contend, a reduced view of the Scriptures. God's voice comes to us unadorned in the Scriptures despite their finitude or situation. Indeed, on may occassions the situation is the means of revelation. So there is no filtering going on, as though the specific events of a particular revelation somehow obscure the universal truth - rather in those specific historical events we actually have God's revelation. Much of the time it is God acting in specific situations that IS the revelation - it actually clarifies the communication from the divine author to us."<br /><br />Yes and it is this that Smith promotes in his book, that there is a legitimacy to the truthfulness of this - God's communication to us in our messiness with messy results ie that God's actions to one person will mean something different for another person. <br /><br />This focus on the reader which you think is unhealthy,is it not overly-influenced by the paradigm that I began the post with: that hermeneutics is a curse from which we are seeking redemption? What Smith does which is so radical is to claim that there is something creational and even prelapsarian rather than postlapsarian about this - God made us diverse and declared it good. The fall speaks into this in the sense that it is in our overly confident attempts to know that we are fallen.Rev R Marszalekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01831340057673771787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2343277549128598933.post-40811767291716677892009-11-14T00:19:30.666+00:002009-11-14T00:19:30.666+00:00Rachel, many thanks for this. I love it when peopl...Rachel, many thanks for this. I love it when people write these personal accounts - it gives us all a better insight into each other.<br /><br />A few comments about what you wrote and quoted...<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />This strikes at the heart of one of the problems - we live in a culture that reads texts in a different way to our forebears. Some, in particular, have particular "training" in that way of reading - so no doubt your degree has affected the way that you read the Scriptures.<br /><br />I don't think the language of "interpretation" is overly helpful for us, indeed I think the concept itself is part of the problem - it places far too much emphasis upon the reader. Rather should we not be far more concerned to speak about the author and the authorial intent? That is not to say that we do no bring our own lens to bear as we read but, ultimately, the focus is not upon US as reader but upon the author.<br /><br /><i> 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. <br />(Smith) </i><br />Smith's approach betrays, I would contend, a reduced view of the Scriptures. God's voice comes to us unadorned in the Scriptures despite their finitude or situation. Indeed, on may occassions the situation is the means of revelation. So there is no filtering going on, as though the specific events of a particular revelation somehow obscure the universal truth - rather in those specific historical events we actually have God's revelation. Much of the time it is God acting in specific situations that IS the revelation - it actually clarifies the communication from the divine author to us.<br /><br />Again, it strikes me that what Smith ends up with is the focus upon the reader again. This is, I dare say, unhealthy for us - once more we are placed as arbiter of what God is actually saying.David Ouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622248017352143637noreply@blogger.com