A Primer on Hermeneutics (7) Hermeneutics is the science of the interpretation of texts. Like all sciences it is constantly learning and changing. Science is the advancement of knowledge through the assessment of evidence and the formulation of hypotheses to account for the results of the study of the evidence. Thus in hermeneutics, research has gone through many phases, various hypotheses formulated, theories erected, new evidence discovered, hypotheses critiqued and new theories proposed. Hermeneutics, like all science, is evolving. It has not reached the end. In these posts I have seeking to articulate that, like all of life, those of us who have chosen to use the Bible as a text by which to understand reality, are also changing. This change is occurring at an ever faster rate. This acceleration of knowledge has contributed to the crisis of modernity. It has also posed a threat to those who are still embedded in a first naiveté or critical distance. In both first naiveté and in critical distance there is an illusion that must be overcome, a reality that seeks to break forth. When challenged by this new reality those in first naiveté (who are challenged by critical distance) and those in critical distance (who are challenged by second naiveté) often retreat to a bunker mentality seeking to defend the box which they inhabit. I want to suggest that the illusion of both first naiveté (the pre-modern) and critical distance (the modern) is one and the same thing: the quest for certainty. Certainty on a rational level is but the intellectual form of religious self-justification, the making sure that we are right, the justifying of our selves, the ability to make sure we can fit everything into the paradigm of ‘reality’ we inhabit. Certainty is the holy grail of the human; we believe it exists and so we set off on innumerable fruitless quests to find it. Every time we think we are close, it eludes us. Some quit the quest in frustration; others resume it with greater zeal. In the end, however, it eludes all because it is the quest for an illusion. Some may object that this leaves us mired in pure subjectivity. This objection holds true only if one has bought into the Cartesian dualism of the subject-object split. The problem here is that intellectual certainty, whether religious or secular, is done all in the mind, by the mind, for the mind. What is lacking is the awareness that life is lived, not in the mind, but in relationships. If we take the quest for certainty out of the mind and place it instead into the realm of the relational, we find that certainty is no longer about cold hard logic but about the messy reality of our human interactions which are always changing. Change is built into the universe. One might say that the only certain thing is change, growth, evolution. In our quest for a knowledge based security we sell ourselves and those with whom we interact short. We interact with one another based, not upon certainty, but upon trust. Trust is not an intellectual category, it is a relational one. We trust persons to keep their promises, to be who they say they are, to be open, honest and transparent. Some may object that trust is often violated. Everyone of us has had occasion to experience the pain of a trust violated. Does this invalidate trust? What is trust? Is trust not taking a person’s word seriously? If our trust is violated are we not then hesitant to trust another again? Most would reply affirmatively. Have I not then gone round in circles and having disavowed certainty, and replacing it with trust, which when violated, makes it harder to trust? Yes I have. On purpose. And this is where the over-arching meta-narrative of the Bible plays a significant role in the development of the human species. The big question in the Bible is “Can God be trusted?” And if so, what can God be trusted to do?” The way this question is answered in first naiveté will be very different from the way it is answered in critical distance and both are still light years from the way this question is answered in a second naiveté. There are several Christian ways to speak of trust in the Christian tradition from the perspective of a first naiveté. One can appeal to the authority of the tradition. This is the way of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. The former has localized trust in the bishopric, the latter in an appeal to antiquity. The Protestant way has two dominant contemporary expressions of trust, one appeals to the Bible as the inspired Word of God, the other in “the anointing of the Holy Spirit.” Each of these in their own ways has its merits. But they all contain the same debit: they all believe that it is God speaking to them and through them and that what they hear linguistically comes from God. The person in critical distance has up-ended this process. They have seen the contradictions, errors, misjudgments and fallacies of their first naiveté experience. For the Christian in critical distance God may speak, but there is no clear voice. A person caught up in critical distance with its thousand million questions can become so enamored with the questions themselves that they begin to think that God is little more than a great big question. Talk of God is either completely eschewed or is reduced to the amorphous category of ‘mystery.’ Language in critical distance is the endless play of words upon words (Derrida and Deconstruction) or language is fraught with power-plays and manipulation (Foucault and Habermas) or both, and so modernity ends. In both critical distance, as well as first naiveté, what is sought is certainty, the ability to linguistically articulate God. Can this be done? Or is this just pie in the sky dreaming? There are several things we must take into account when we interpret the Bible (or the tradition) which I will elaborate upon in coming posts: 1. Language is bloody. Sacred violence gives rise to symbolization which is the backbone of human language 2. Because of this, we must recognize our propensity for self-deception. 3. If we are going to affirm in any way, shape or form that God speaks, we must take into account the first two theses. 4. The critical question then, to be asked, is what is God’s relation, not to language as such, but to violence. 5. The question behind the question is this: when God reveals God’s self, or when God speaks, can it be in any other way than through the ‘sacred’ victim? 6. Does this God-talk (revelation) constitute that which is different or totally other and if so, how? 7. Is there a way to hear God speak so that we may be assured it is God who is speaking? 8. How does God speak in or through sacred violence? That is, how does God transform the problem of ‘bloody language’ so that real truth in communication can occur?
Posted on: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:47:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015