If you are interested in the postmodern critique of modernist Christianity, then I recommend (based on my limited reading) starting with the first 5 chapters of Peter Rollins’ How (Not) to Speak of God followed by the first 9 chapters of this book, Merold Westphal’s Whose Community? Which Interpretation? In Whose Community?, Westphal applies Hans-Georg Gadamer’s thoughts to the church and biblical interpretation.
Coproduced meaning. It is common for people to believe that most texts (the Bible, for our conversation) contain one specific, clear, obvious meaning determined by the author. In that sense, the reader merely shows up, decodes the message, and understands fully the intended meaning of the author. However, Westphal, following the philosopher Gadamer, argues that the meaning of a text is “coproduced” (54) and “codetermined” (81) by the author and the reader. The text’s meaning is derived “at the site of conversation between author and reader” (61). Most importantly, “since there are different readers in different contexts, there will be different meanings, not the meaning of the text” (65). The meaning of a text (Romans 3 or Matthew 5, for example) is not singularly embedded (or set in stone) in the written words or in the intention of the author. When the text is read, the reader (with his own experiences, assumptions, and context) engages the written words (with its cultural/historical context and the author’s intention); it is in this interaction that meaning is determined. Each time the text is read new meaning may be produced.
The meaning of the text. Because people often assume a text contains one true meaning, they typically believe their interpretation is the meaning of the text. What I read in Romans 3 is obviously the meaning of Romans 3. In fact, many people do not even think they are interpreting: “I just read what it says.” Westphal repeatedly uses 4 groups--the desert fathers, the Geneva Calvinists, the American slaves, and today’s Amish--to point to the pluralism of legitimate interpretations. Even a scant knowledge of these 4 faith communities gives an awareness that they interpret various Scriptural passages in different ways. Which group is right? Which group possesses the meaning of the text? If there is only the meaning of a passage, and they disagree, then they cannot all be right. A typical response might be that they are all wrong and that my group possesses the meaning. To this, Westphal responds, “Must we assume that our interpretation is the only right one and that all believers throughout Christian history who depart from our party line are simply wrong?” (55).
Anything goes? Even if you are open to the thoughts above, you may still raise a concern that this could lead to an “anything goes” market of ideas, an interpretive anarchy, in which every individual and group has their say and every opinion is equal. However, this is not what Westphal, Gadamer, or even Nietzsche (dare I say his name in the presence of Christians?!) mean. Pluralism does not mean all ideas are equal. Think of a group of people looking at Edvard Munch’s painting The Scream. Those people, because of their different opinions, experiences, and tendencies, will interpret and respond to the painting differently. One might have an emotional response to the despair it invokes. Another, based on a recent article she read, may make connections to other paintings of the time period. A third ventures to put words in the mouth or thoughts in the mind of the figure. This is a pluralism of interpretation. All appear legitimate, though none is complete; in fact, these 3 might gain a good deal from listening to each other and engaging in dialogue. However, a fourth person declares, “This is the best painting of a duck wearing a bowl of fruit that I have ever seen!” This leads us to Westphal’s check on the “anything goes” anarchy that is so feared. He presents 3 levels of interpretation. First, some people get it completely wrong, like the guy who sees a duck in The Scream or someone who interprets John 3:16 as an invitation to invade Poland. Second, some interpretations succeed in capturing the basic meaning (“That Scream guy looks scared”) but lack depth or quality or genius. Third, the “best” interpretations get it right, not in a once-and-for-all sense, but in a way that speaks to us in our depths and compels us to wake up and listen. Even so, there is not one “best” interpretation, not one the meaning. Thus, Westphal advises that we consult a variety of “best” interpretations, theologies, thinkers, Bible translations, and doctrinal statements, and that we do this in community. This may not please someone determined to hold tight to his claim on having the corner on the God market, but it does adequately refute the “anything goes” threat. To think of it positively, maybe the Scriptures have so much meaning and depth in them that to even begin to grasp all that they have to offer we have to open ourselves to multiple voices and multiple meanings.
No comments:
Post a Comment