«Ecumenical
Hermeneutics for a Plural Christianity: Reflections on Contextuality and Catholicity»
Continue reading «Ecumenical
Hermeneutics for a Plural Christianity: Reflections on Contextuality and Catholicity»
Literalism is the lowest and most narrow
hermeneutic for understanding conversation in general and sacred texts in particular.
It is possible to speak of their phenomenology and to describe them, but not to identify a possible
hermeneutic for them, since hermeneutics is restricted to proclamation.
It no longer can be used as
a hermeneutic for understanding the good news.
Not exact matches
You can dance and spin and «
hermeneutic» it all you want but the dude you choose to worship is an immoral prîck, and you're a reprobate
for not being able to see that or to chalk it up to «he's god he can do what he wants.»
Even the various forms of theological activity can be redescribed in narrative terms, as when Newbigin writes of «the congregation as
hermeneutic of the gospel»: interpretation of Scripture
for Newbigin is not so much what a particular scholar writes as what a particular community of believers enacts.
Of course, that would be a lot to ask
for, given the serious gap between
hermeneutics and philosophy as practiced and taught today» the breach between the Gadamer who told us that philosophy is «the conversation of the soul with itself» and the Gadamer the academy is equipped to bring us.
, which argues
for «a
hermeneutics of mercy» in the interpretation of canon law, so that mercy «sweetens» the law, in part by taking into account individual circumstances when applying a general law might be unjust.
For myself I have found that using a multitude of
hermeneutics, the more diverse the better, on each text helps me to see a wider picture of who God may be than I would otherwise be able to see.
But you won't hear it in what the experts tell you about Gadamer's greatness»
for instance (to sample recent tributes), that Gadamer has revealed «the structure of
hermeneutic understanding» and «described the way in which human beings come to terms with themselves.»
In her review, Keller says, «You began your project by ignoring (actually, by pretending you did not know about) the most basic rules of
hermeneutics and biblical interpretation that have been agreed upon
for centuries.»
In the book, I make a brief but impassioned case
for reading the text with the prejudice of love, a
hermeneutic I believe was employed by Jesus, and, as many reviewers have pointed out, a
hermeneutic that Augustine also favored.
We all «pick and choose» but most of us try to do so
for good reasons, grounded in thoughtful
hermeneutics and guided by tradition.)
This
hermeneutic of love is not mere sentimentality, but one that looks to Christ
for its definition — Christ, who did not consider power a thing to be grasped, but humbled himself and became a servant to the point of death on a cross.
You now have a foundational
hermeneutic («interpretive key»)
for interpreting all of Scripture wisely.
The framework which forms the foundation and basis
for all theology is Bibliology (and the accompanying
Hermeneutics, which are the rules of interpreting Scripture).
Being a Dallas Man and knowing first - hand and even personally some of the writings of many of the great dispensationalists (past and present) I do not need to tell you that
hermeneutics is important but not always
for the reasons (or conclusions) some attribute to it.
Unfortunately, historical criticism and
hermeneutics combined seem still not to have brought us closer to Jesus, but rather to have drawn us away from him, focusing attention more and more on the church of later generations, in which and
for which the Gospels were composed.
Heuristic theology is distinct from theology as
hermeneutics or as construction but has similarities with both.8 The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines heuristic adjectivally as «serving to find out» and, when employed as a noun related to learning, as «a system of education under which pupils are trained to find out
for themselves.»
One's view of Scripture (Bibliology) and one's rules
for interpreting Scripture (
Hermeneutics) form the foundation on which the rest of theology is built.
for example, MLK did not convince Southern conservatives that the Bible is wrong or that they had to radically change their method of interpreting the Bible (
hermeneutics).
Then we discussed Smith's case
for a Christocentric
hermeneutic as an alternative to Biblicism.
Three: If these essays are written to deepen process theology as a mode of systematic theology on the supposition that a theology is truncated if its rootage in Scripture is not clear, then it is crucial to be clear — in ways in which these essays do not make it clear — how process
hermeneutics warrants any judgments about what is normative
for Christian theology.
On the other hand, if the pluralism is simply an ad hoc collection of exegetical tools, then,
for all their several excellencies, these essays do not show much of anything about whether there is a useable process
hermeneutics.
But the problem is far more acute
for political
hermeneutic.
Of course, process theology can not fulfil this responsibility without interpreting Scripture, and the separation of process theology in recent decades from the close involvement in Biblical scholarship of the earlier Chicago school has led to critical weaknesses which are only now being addressed.1 Nevertheless,
for process theology the appropriate relationship to the Bible can not be exhausted by
hermeneutic.
The political
hermeneutic of the gospel is
for the sake of the salvation of the whole world.
If we ask whether the Bible is better understood by a
hermeneutic of external relations alone or by one that allows
for internal relations as well, I,
for one, have no doubt that the latter answer is correct.
The structure of the report, combined with these explicit statements, indicates clearly that what is called
for is biblical
hermeneutics.
It is not surprising that it should be the post-Bultmannian, Dorothee Sölle, who develops the case
for a political
hermeneutic most clearly, since it has been the Bultmannians who have discussed the topic most fully.
For prayers based on specific biblical texts and events, this pattern of interconnections also fosters a theocentric
hermeneutic which resists any supersessionism.
It's simple enough, and although the American Rorty and the Italian Vattimo have been formed by different philosophical and religious traditions (pragmatism and red - diaper communism
for Rorty,
hermeneutics and cradle Catholicism
for Vattimo), they agree on most of its elements.
Some of the insights provided by the first phase of liberation theology seem too important to let slip between the cracks —
for instance, the centrality of the category «the poor»
for biblical interpretation; the awareness of structural, not just individual, evil; the use of the social sciences as dialogue partner
for theological discourse; and the need to apply a
hermeneutic of suspicion to theology itself.
This is not the place to draw out the implications this view has
for our practice of
hermeneutics and biblical interpretation.
for there are other ways to maintain Boyd's cruciform
hermeneutic without turning God into an absentee parent when we need Him most.
See,
for more details, R.S. Sugirtharajah, Asian Biblical
Hermeneutics and Postcolonialism: Contesting the Interpretations (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1999).
Whereas the various perspectives discussed so far under the rubric of cultural
hermeneutics are distinctively Christian, the same can not be said
for feminist biblical
hermeneutics.
This suggestion of Eliade is vital
for NT
hermeneutics too as we seek to intermingle Western and Eastern modes of inquiries to acquire a holistic vision.
The biblical text was strictly defined, there were no subtexts, and
hermeneutics was more like a home repair manual than an intuitive art, a set of rules
for applying textbook formulas to problematic situations.
Here, then, is my proposal
for a «process
hermeneutic.»
A trusting
hermeneutic is essential
for who believe the word of the resurrection but do not yet see death made subject to God.
For hermeneutics lives or dies by its ability to take history and language seriously, to give the other (whether person, event or text) our attention as other, not as a projection of our present fears, hopes and desires.
Too many people are affirming its authority by claiming its support
for interpretations which a more adequate
hermeneutic will reject.
In the midst of all this, it is perhaps a little odd to say that my own theology has two principal foci: a
hermeneutics in which the «other,» not the «self,» is the dominant focus; and a theological insistence that only a prophetic - mystical form of theology
for naming God can help us now.
Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza,
for example, writes that «a feminist critical
hermeneutics of suspicion places a warning label on all biblical texts: Caution!
Uniting so many of these new voices, it, seems, is not a theory of
hermeneutics, much less a revised correlational method
for theology, but a new hermeneutical practice that actualizes that theory and that method better than many of the theorists do.
While the
hermeneutics of suspicion — rightly employed — occupies a proper place in any attempt to interpret the Bible
for our time, I want to argue that a
hermeneutics of trust is also both necessary and primary.
The full - fledged arrival of historical consciousness in theology, best viewed in the often tortured, always honest, reflections of both Troeltsch and Lonergan, only heightened the need
for new reflection in
hermeneutics.
Since the Bible is written in androcentric, grammatically masculine language that can function as generic inclusive or as patriarchal exclusive language, feminist interpretation must develop a
hermeneutics of critical evaluation
for proclamation that is able to assess theologically whether scriptural texts function to inculcate patriarchal values, or whether they must be read against their linguistic «androcentric grain» in order to set free their liberating vision
for today and
for the future.