In my opinion scripture consists of entirely human thought and it is a fiction that God (whatever is meant by that word) inspired its authors. The ideas/concepts etc in scripture are of human origin alone and no, they have not been planted in human minds by some metaphysical/ anthropomorphic force/entity. We should read scripture as we read any other texts. Why should we grant scripture special status or veneration? Of course many do; not only do they accord scripture preferred status, they act upon it to guide/structure their own lives and the lives of others. In other words subjective opinion as to the meaning of a text is cloaked with the fiction that it is divine, infallible, objective fact. We may find the content of scripture of interest or even persuasive, but it is not immutable, not a catalogue of instructions/commands/orders to be followed. This is my opinion, many demur.
Theologians have developed jargon as a shorthand to indicate how they reach their understanding of texts namely: exegesis, eisegesis and hermeneutics. A very brief description of each of the terms.
Exegesis: Consideration of a passage of scripture by looking at its historical context, examination of literary elements (poetry, plain text, metaphor, symbolism etc), comparison with other passages, application to current issues. In other words seeking to draw out the author's intended meaning.
Eisegesis: Reading into the text an individual's own ideas, biases or agendas. In other words the opposite method of exegesis.
Whereas exegesis might be claimed to result in an objective interpretation of the text and is faithful to the intention of the author (as if), eisegesis may result in an interpretation based upon the subjective opinions of the reader. To my mind what matters is not the process but the purpose to which any interpretation is put.
Hermeneutics: The theory and methodology of interpretation namely: literal, moral, allegorical and anagogical (mystical).
My thinking is that detailed analysis and understanding of each of these terms is unnecessary. What does matter is how, in relation to a specific passage, an interpretation has been determined and the consequences that flow from it.
Without going into detail, examples of lives being affected by intepretation include:
* What is the scriptural definition of marriage? Can gay couples be married in church? Some denominations approve of such marriages, some are vehemently opposed. The issue has the potential to tear the Church of England apart.
* Is homosexuality a sin or not? Again, there is diversity of opinion based upon scriptural interpretation. In The Salvation Army it is not permitted for gay couples to become officers.
On a wider scale there are Christians who understand scripture as a textbook, indeed an instruction manual, to gain a passport to heaven. There are those who perceive scripture as setting out a command to engage in campaigning for social justice. Some have a foot in both camps. The variety of approaches to interpretation leads to a pick-and-mix scenario and leads me to wonder what does it mean to state you are a Christian? Do you understand the creeds in a literal or a metaphoric/symbolic sense, or reject them entirely? Is it any wonder individuals leave and deconstruct?
So, what is my position? I consider the teaching attributed to Jesus in scripture to be persuasive in relation to how we should treat people and tackle causes of injustice. My approach is eisegesic. I have little time for any material outside of the synoptic gospels particularly the 'cosmic' texts. I understand the creeds in a metaphorical/symbolical sense. Deep down I am agnostic as to whether there is an underlying reality that is unknown and indescribable and not the metaphysical anthropomorphic god of human creation. Indeed a melange of radical, liberal, progressive and deconstructivist ideas, or may be just a mess.
No comments:
Post a Comment