Hermeneutics 1.4.2024

     There is no simple way to define or even describe hermeneutics. To define it as the “art and science of interpretation.” Merely opens a pandora’s box of confusing notions of “art” and science.” Describing the discipline is in itself, an interpretive act. When presented with a text—any text, hermeneutics is a set of strategies for determining its meaning in a widening variety of contexts, because—to be absolutely honest here, unless we are reading for pleasure there is generally some kind of agenda at stake which requires applying the text(s) we are interpreting. 

    The basic question regards the locus of meaning. Does a text in its essential quality mean what the author intended for it to mean, or is its essential truth determined by the reader? Whatever conflict you might want to have about any text be it the Bible, the Constitution, or the meaning of Don McClean’s American Pie, the matter really comes down to this simple question, Who is “in charge of meaning?” You can either have the intentionality of the author or the intentionality of the reader. One will always be preeminent.  Every interpreter must determine how he/she will negotiate the truth out of the text—partnering with, marginalizing, or abandoning the author. 

    My concern is the reading and application of scripture, a task that many think should be wholly democratized. While it is true that everyone has a stake in the truth of scripture, not everyone has the equipment for accurately understanding and applying it. For many, the last 250 words are gibberish. “The Bible says what it means and means what it says!!” For this sort, there is no need for hermeneutical reflection. The text just is. 

    Except it’s not actually that simple. There are linguistic, social, cultural, and historical gaps in many people’s education. Particularly in the 21st century, there are once-known facts that have become esoterica or trivia. Many who subscribe to this simplistic hermeneutic (for that is what it truly is, though not called that) surround themselves with a selection of hermeneutical tools, from concordances to footnotes to favored authors who do all the heavy lifting for them so that they may pretend that they are not practicing hermeneutics—hermeneutics by omission, but nonetheless hermeneutics. 

    This battle for hermeneutical superiority transcends common theological categories. There are liberals, conservatives, fundamentalists, and neo-orthodox who practice an author-centered, text-driven hermeneutic. Similarly, the same groups have representatives for whom the text is simply a mirror reflecting the prejudices and preferences of the reader. 

    You, Oh preacher must decide. Where will your interpretive loyalties lie? Will you stand with the narcissistic mob who perennially sees its best self in the mirror of interpretation, or will you humbly listen for the voice of the author?

    The allure of all forms of “reader-centered” hermeneutics—whether in a seminar room or Sunday School class is the appearance of simplicity. Whether couched in the esoteric literary gibberish of structuralism, post-modernism, or deconstructionism. Or if it be asked in the pious question “What does this text mean to you?” It’s all the same group grope designed to disengage the text from any objective referent. It all comes down to the personal preference of the reader ascendant over the intent, design, and dignity of the author. 

    I hope I don’t need to explain what that does to any conception of authority in the Bible (or any other text), much less inspiration. Hermeneutics of this type is designed to ease the psychological burden of facing the fact that there is no “there, there.” If this is your hermeneutics, you have no need for my scrivenings.

    The other option, focusing on the authorial intention as the goal of interpretation takes work. It requires delving into culture, history, geography, philosophy, languages, theology, and spirituality. This method of interpretation assumes that the author (inspired if the text is from Scripture) knew what he wished to say and chose his words to that end. There may be some disagreement about how the apparatus of scholarship discerns what the author intended, but interpreters of this type agree that intent remains to be discovered. 

    This not only revolutionizes the process of study it makes a powerful impact on presenting the fruit of that study in a sermon or lesson. If the process of interpretation, as practiced by the reader-centered critic is only a reflection of what I bring to the text, it is somewhat presumptuous (even pompous) to declare “Thus saith, the Lord” when we know full well that the words are ours, not His.