We will be convening here at the ZigZag café, Suisse, on Thursdays for conversation and dialogue. I invite you to stop by every Thursday for the question of the day. Your thoughts and participation are most welcome. Pull up a stool, avec un café, un thé, ou un chocolat chaud, et un croissant, and join in here on Thursday at the ZZ café.
For today:
Biblical interpretation, in the best sense of the art and practice, has been rightly focused on God, the text, and the reader. Recently, culture has been fittingly added to this trio, but it seems to me that there may be at least one other consideration that may help us better interpret the biblical story. What do you think, and if you would suggest something else as necessary, what is it and why would it be valid?
8 comments:
Not sure what you mean by "culture"--are you referring to the historical and social setting of the audience to whom the particular book/passage was directed at the time it was written? Or by culture, are you referencing that we as the body of Christ need to put it in the context of the reader as the community of faith rather than the individual?
Carter,
Thanks. Good questions. I guess both - the culture/ historical, social, and economic views of the times of writing and those of our own day today as 21st century readers of ancient documents - and yes, the wider context of the community of faith.
Being a good Methodist (is that an oxymoron?), I can't help but think about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral where we bring to bear scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. Sometimes, I think that a skeptical, jaundiced eye brings out more from the scriptural context: test it. Weigh it. Balance it. And place it within the context of history as well as the entire flow of scripture.
Carter,
Excellent points. It seems to me that one of the other important elements to consider for better interpretation of the biblical text is the natural world. What we know about the world, including ourselves, has to bear on our understanding of the text.
As I tried to suggest in the papers I sent on Genesis, ignoring the natural world as a valid informer will result in a worse interpretation of the biblical informer.
I was assuming the natural with the references to reason and experience. Some might be tempted to equate the supernatural world with experience. I am not. It was that aspect of reason, however, the consideration of the natural world, which began my steady course away from taking the first part of Genesis literally.
And as I have said several times before, thank you for this blog.
Carter,
Oh right. By natural world I was thinking of nature, which of course we are part of.
But I wonder if by reason and experience we are still dealing with the reader, not so much with what the world is telling us about that reader, which the biblical text may not refer to simply because the writers did not have the level of information available to us today. That current information seems to need to have an impact on our interpretations of the Bible as you rightly point out with respect to Genesis.
Thanks for expressing again your appreciation for the blog. Not much of that around, so when it comes it is encouraging.
I know that often there is a temptation to make all things individualized, and therefore I agree about a danger that reason and experience can center on the individual. That is the balance that tradition brings. But also, we, as the body of Christ, are not to live lives of individual endeavor, but endeavor within the communal realm of the body. Please understand: I am telling this to myself, not just you or the ones who might read this blog.
Carter,
Indeed! The over-emphasis on individualism is unbiblical, yet it tends to be the reading strategy and form of spirituality that many embrace. Community reading and practice are essential, but moving away from - self-centeredness - is an ever present task, but ultimately a joy that will be richly productive.
Post a Comment