More thoughts on Hermeneutics

As I've said before, the issue of hermeneutics (principles for Bible interpretation) is one over which I often part company with my emerging church friends. For those of you interested, I thought I'd discuss the two main (broad brush) methods of interpreting the Bible on the landscape right now. If you've ever wondered why some people interpret the Bible so very differently than others, this post will help you begin to create a framework for answering that question...

There are lots and lots of hermeneutical systems out there; I don't want to give the impression that there are only two. But in general terms, the systems out there can be classified in one of two ways:

Reader Response: This basic system of interpreting the Bible states that what is important in a given passage of Scripture is what the text means/says to you. That is, the response of the present-day reader is what is most important. This is not the same as asking the "how does this verse apply to my life" question. This is a system that believes the message of the Word of God will necessarily vary from reader to reader; God uses His power to guide each individual reader of Scripture to their individual interpretation. So an adherent of this system will freely allow that verse A can mean X to one person and Y to another and Z to a third, etc... Sometimes these different "meanings" can even be contradictory, or at least appear to be.

Here's a good example. I read a blog post recently defending the position that women can serve as pastors. This lady (a female pastor) made several points supporting her position, then came to the issue of Paul's view based upon his New Testament writings. She writes, "You know, I had the classes in seminary on the 'texts of terror' so often used to keep women from leadership in the church. Paul takes both sides of the issue, depending on where you look."

I presume that most people realize this is a logical impossibility. [Man, do I sound terribly Modern!] From my vantage point, it's simply not possible that Paul simultaneously believed that woman both can and cannot serve as pastors. He had to hold one view or the other, right? Or perhaps some third view. But he couldn't have held those two contradictory views at the same time, not if he was rational.

Reader response theory has little trouble rectifying this. What's important, they say, is how you (as the reader) understand Paul. So, most likely, this lady would simply note that people like me understand Paul one way and she understands him another. No problem.

Authorial Intent: Under this large umbrella sit all the people (myself included) that believe the key to understanding Scripture is to first decipher why the original (human) author wrote it in the first place. So you approach a given text trying to learn as much about the context and language as possible. [This is why I am so adamant that seminaries are doing a disservice to students by increasingly taking away their exposure to Greek and Hebrew, incidentally.] In the case of women in the pastorate, you try to honestly answer the "why did Paul write those verses?" question first. Then, and only then, can you begin to decipher what Paul's position was - assuming you believe he had a position on the issue (which I do, personally).

Since I've started down the "female pastors" road, let's use the example a bit more. Virtually everyone that supports women in the pastorate (and especially those that hold a reader response view) turns to Galatians 3:28 for support:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female – for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

An interpreter using reader response thinking will ask, "what does this verse mean to you?".

An interpreter using authorial intent thinking will ask, "Why did Paul write these words?".

Here's why this is important: nothing in the context of Galatians implies that Paul is even thinking about women in the pastorate. Not one verse. Nothing. Galatians was not written to address this issue. Paul is talking about people as Christ followers - it doesn't matter whether your skin is one colour or another, whether your male or female, or what your station in life is in terms of being a Christian.

But the reader response interpreter says none of that matters. Consequently, some of them also use this text to support complete egalitarianism within marriage and society. Please note that nothing in Galatians gives us even the slightest clue that Paul intended to address those issues either. But according to reader response hermeneutics, that fact doesn't matter.

So set aside this particular example for a moment and chew on these general questions: does it, or does it not, matter why a given passage of the Bible was written in the first place? If we can know, is it helpful to understand how the original audience of a given passage of the Bible understood it? Does original context determine meaning or one's personal, present context determine meaning?

For my part, I maintain that it does matter, it is helpful, and original context is determinative. My impression of most emerging church people is that they would disagree.

This is yet another reason why I consistently call myself "emerging-friendly", but not "emerging".

Hatushili