There are many interpretations for a single fact. E.g.:
You hear a loud bang.
It could be: a. Something big dropped. b. A gunshot c. Thunder d. A bomb exploding
Here, most would pick a. for the reason that it is most likely. That is often the case, in terms of probabilities. But that is merely an interpretation (i.e. saying that something big dropped as an explanation for a loud noise would not constitute objective validated truth). It might just as be that it was a gunshot, or a bomb exploding.
You hear a loud bang.
It could be: a. Something big dropped. b. A gunshot c. Thunder d. A bomb exploding
Here, most would pick a. for the reason that it is most likely. That is often the case, in terms of probabilities. But that is merely an interpretation (i.e. saying that something big dropped as an explanation for a loud noise would not constitute objective validated truth). It might just as be that it was a gunshot, or a bomb exploding.
Take a verse from the Bible; say, from the one of the Pauline epistles:
So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
This is from Romans 9:18. The Apostle Paul in turn, refers to Exodus 7:3 (as well as other similar verses) that refer to the Lord hardening Pharaoh's heart. Interpretations vary at this point, most of them centering upon whether the "hardening" referred to here is caused by God or by Pharaoh himself (in which God let him harden his heart as interpreted; see Exodus 8:15,32).
A few issues are faced here: First with an apparent logical contradiction (who hardened whose heart?), and a theological problem (does this not go against free will?).
An exegetical analysis is not my purpose here; rather, it is to bring to attention the varied interpretations that a single verse (among others) can bring. The interpreters come from different hermeneutical backgrounds (e.g. liberal, conservative) as well as theological backgrounds (case in point: Calvinists and Arminians).
Thus we see different paradigms altogether (very often contradictory), each obviously claiming to have the right, better or preferred interpretation to any given passage from scripture.
So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
This is from Romans 9:18. The Apostle Paul in turn, refers to Exodus 7:3 (as well as other similar verses) that refer to the Lord hardening Pharaoh's heart. Interpretations vary at this point, most of them centering upon whether the "hardening" referred to here is caused by God or by Pharaoh himself (in which God let him harden his heart as interpreted; see Exodus 8:15,32).
A few issues are faced here: First with an apparent logical contradiction (who hardened whose heart?), and a theological problem (does this not go against free will?).
An exegetical analysis is not my purpose here; rather, it is to bring to attention the varied interpretations that a single verse (among others) can bring. The interpreters come from different hermeneutical backgrounds (e.g. liberal, conservative) as well as theological backgrounds (case in point: Calvinists and Arminians).
Thus we see different paradigms altogether (very often contradictory), each obviously claiming to have the right, better or preferred interpretation to any given passage from scripture.
A problem is presented here, inasmuch as to who is right in their interpretation. Surely, one side would have the right answer. The tricky part here is knowing who and what is right.
Certainty, in all regards, remains a little elusive.
Historically this has presented a major (if not the) major problem to Christianity and ecumenical unity in so far as each individual (and groups of) Christians would have their own opinion and interpretation of what they think the Bible says.
This has been a problem since the Early Church, as documented in the scriptures themselves: we have had the Gnostics and Judaizers. A little further in history, we have the Arians, Marcions and what not. The Church Fathers as well, revered as the beacons of orthodoxy they were, were not spared from dissent (including their own differing opinions on scriptural interpretation).
Many solutions have been given: Roman Catholicism offers uniformity, supposedly an evidence that they are the one true unchanging church. Yet such uniformity is questionable, as the Catholic body of doctrine was very much changing throughout the years, with novel doctrines added continuously.
Apparently, the faith that was "once for all" delivered to the saints hasn't been kept that properly.
The scriptures offer no such guarantee of complete certainty. At least, not anymore than it is guaranteed that a Christian would be absolutely spared from evil and suffering. A question is asked here: Why would God allow such a thing to his precious Church?
This in essence is a rephrasing of the problem of evil, in which I do not intend to tackle in depth here. A common theme runs through (most) theodicies offered: That is, God has a higher benevolent purpose in allowing such. And one would suppose that answer is applicable to such a question.
There are other approaches at the other end. One example would be the Emergent Conversation, with (some would say) postmodernism as its guiding framework. A better way to state it is that it "has in mind" postmodernism when it approaches questions of truth and certainty.
What would be their response to the problem of certainty (or uncertainty, to frame it in other words)? The reality of such a fact is embraced, and accepted, which is commendable (but to qualify such by adding: to a certain extent). Thus, theology as such becomes not rather a stagnant, unchangeable, unquestionable body of ideas. Rather, it is "organic", changing (depending upon the context of the individual).
As such, absolutism is regarded as undesirable, and an "inclusive" approach to truth is held. Hence, a more practical approach to Church is followed, where claims to absolute truth in the sense of classic expositional, exegetical preaching and teaching has lesser salience, if any at all.
I have so far sketched the problem, and outlined a few what I consider improper answers (this is not to say that they are totally undesirable; on the contrary, there is much that we may learn and adopt from the differing perspectives).
In the next part I hope to lay out what I think to be a possible solution, that avoids the forced "certainty" of Catholicism and the embrace of the reality of uncertainty (not necessarily bad) which leads to a diminished regard of exegesis and exposition in the context of church worship (bad).
Feel free to comment or criticize on where I have gone wrong and misrepresented or missed out some things.
Certainty, in all regards, remains a little elusive.
Historically this has presented a major (if not the) major problem to Christianity and ecumenical unity in so far as each individual (and groups of) Christians would have their own opinion and interpretation of what they think the Bible says.
This has been a problem since the Early Church, as documented in the scriptures themselves: we have had the Gnostics and Judaizers. A little further in history, we have the Arians, Marcions and what not. The Church Fathers as well, revered as the beacons of orthodoxy they were, were not spared from dissent (including their own differing opinions on scriptural interpretation).
Many solutions have been given: Roman Catholicism offers uniformity, supposedly an evidence that they are the one true unchanging church. Yet such uniformity is questionable, as the Catholic body of doctrine was very much changing throughout the years, with novel doctrines added continuously.
Apparently, the faith that was "once for all" delivered to the saints hasn't been kept that properly.
The scriptures offer no such guarantee of complete certainty. At least, not anymore than it is guaranteed that a Christian would be absolutely spared from evil and suffering. A question is asked here: Why would God allow such a thing to his precious Church?
This in essence is a rephrasing of the problem of evil, in which I do not intend to tackle in depth here. A common theme runs through (most) theodicies offered: That is, God has a higher benevolent purpose in allowing such. And one would suppose that answer is applicable to such a question.
There are other approaches at the other end. One example would be the Emergent Conversation, with (some would say) postmodernism as its guiding framework. A better way to state it is that it "has in mind" postmodernism when it approaches questions of truth and certainty.
What would be their response to the problem of certainty (or uncertainty, to frame it in other words)? The reality of such a fact is embraced, and accepted, which is commendable (but to qualify such by adding: to a certain extent). Thus, theology as such becomes not rather a stagnant, unchangeable, unquestionable body of ideas. Rather, it is "organic", changing (depending upon the context of the individual).
As such, absolutism is regarded as undesirable, and an "inclusive" approach to truth is held. Hence, a more practical approach to Church is followed, where claims to absolute truth in the sense of classic expositional, exegetical preaching and teaching has lesser salience, if any at all.
I have so far sketched the problem, and outlined a few what I consider improper answers (this is not to say that they are totally undesirable; on the contrary, there is much that we may learn and adopt from the differing perspectives).
In the next part I hope to lay out what I think to be a possible solution, that avoids the forced "certainty" of Catholicism and the embrace of the reality of uncertainty (not necessarily bad) which leads to a diminished regard of exegesis and exposition in the context of church worship (bad).
Feel free to comment or criticize on where I have gone wrong and misrepresented or missed out some things.
No comments:
Post a Comment