« Calibration. | HomePage | Easter in Wartime. »
07 April 2007
A Priori Hermeneutics.
I wrote this a while back after a number of 2 A.M. arguments about Aquinas. Good times. Hope it’s useful. I don’t so much like the pseudo-academic tone I used, complete with awkward grammar. Whatever. I’m too lazy to rewrite an idea that I already wrote out.
When analyzing Scripture, as with any other document, what one sees in it has much to do with what one brings to it. When considering the authority of Scripture, we must be careful with our interpretations, especially when we seek to hold others to that authority. On one hand, we need to avoid blasphemy, to avoid claiming Scriptural authority for our own preconceived notions. On the other hand, we need to avoid idolatry, to avoid bending the authority of Scripture to make room for our preferences. Given that these reciprocal errors stem from the same source: the idea that ‘God says what I want Him to say,’ our solution must be one of humility in our approach to God’s Word, a realization that we have not cornered the market on knowledge of God (after all, if we could understand all of His mysteries, we would have to be Him.)
Central to our methodology is the concept of the ‘tabula rasa’ reasonable man. Imagine an individual equipped with rational thought and the ability to understand language, well intentioned but completely unencumbered by experience and unaware of any Theology. That individual then reads the relevant Scripture in the context of the entire work. (Context is assumed to mean directly relevant passages, not higher level extrapolations.) He then derives possible interpretations of a given passage and compares those interpretations to the doctrine in questions, and determines how much Scriptural authority that doctrine can claim.
Doing so, our observer can reach one of three conclusions about the Scriptural authority of a doctrine: 1) Indisputable, 2) Reasonable, or 3) Traditional.
The first of these, the indisputable standard, carries with it the highest degree of Scriptural authority. The indisputable standard is achieved when our observer approaches the passage and reaches the conclusion that there is only one reasonable interpretation of the passage. An example of this would be the teachings in Romans 3 about the fallen-ness of man. If our observer were asked ‘what do the Scriptures tell us about the sinfulness of man,’ he would answer ‘the only reasonable interpretation is that all men are sinful and fallen.’ The indisputable standard would be typical of a Creedal statement, and hence one who denies an indisputable doctrine is outside of the authority of Scripture. These are the ‘fight to the death’ truths.
The second standard is the locus of most of our theological arguments. The reasonable standard carries with it a degree of authority, but tempers it with a degree of humility. The reasonable standard is achieved when our observer analyzes a passage in context and determines that a given doctrine is a reasonable interpretation of a passage, although not the sole reasonable interpretation. Therefore, multiple interpretations can exist for a given passage within the larger context of Scripture, and hence one can only claim Scriptural support for the doctrine, not full Scriptural authority. This is not to say that one doctrine may not be a better explanation than another, only to say that both are reasonable. Hence, one may state their position emphatically, but must also take into account the possibility that they are the one who is wrong. Examples: transubstantiation, Calvinism, Gifts of the Spirit. Most Catholic/Ev/Pent disputes. One who disputes may be considered wrong, but may not be considered a heretic.
The third standard is the least restrictive, but grants the least authority. Under the traditional standard, the Scriptures say nothing a priori on a topic, either for or against. The doctrine is then a cultural tradition, around which verses may be built to enrich and sanctify the tradition, but no authority can be claimed, for it is only a tradition made by men. Our observer would look at the Scriptures and see nothing on the doctrine, and hence would not be able to make any authoritative statements on it. Examples include worshipping on Sunday/Easter, Free Markets, and Drinking. The standard of proof becomes prudential, rather than Scriptural, and the Spirit may lead in different prudential directions with different people. One who disputes is then neither wrong nor a heretic, although the charge of unwise may be leveled if justified. More than likely, it would not be, and the disputants would merely have different preferences.
Without such a framework (in essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity,) we fall into the two incarnations of the same sin of blasphemy. On the ultra-conservative side, when we claim authority for matters of tradition, we speak for God where He does not speak. I question how many of us would submit to God’s standard for proof of prophecy (100% right or death) as easily as we claim His authority. One the other hand, there is the liberal mistake of discounting the authority of Scripture and making all interpretations a matter of preferences. This is the same error, as it applies a ‘Thus Saith the Lord’ stamp to all the things people wanted to do anyways, in effect declaring oneself to be God. Only in approaching God’s Word with humility can we avoid error.
14:10 Posted in Boring Theories (Humanities) | Permalink | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this
Trackbacks
The URL to Trackback this post is: http://odb130.blogspirit.com/trackback/1243202