Liberalism, “Hermeneutics”, and Interpretive Solipsism

hermeneuticsRecently, Richard Beck wrote a post about the practice of Sola Scriptura, reading with a hermeneutic, and our emotional awareness of the process. He notes that everybody reads with a hermeneutic, a set of intepretive principles, biases, and presuppositions that guide our understanding of Scripture. For Beck, though, the mark of a fundamentalist is that they alone believe they don’t have a hermeneutic, even when they do. This is why it’s a fundamentalist move to say something like, “Well, the Bible clearly says”, or “I’m just reading the text, here”–as if things were really that simple. Beck says that this signals a striking lack of self-awareness.

For example, saying something like “this is the clear teaching of Scripture” is similar to saying “I’m not a racist.” Self-aware people would never say either one of those things.

Self-aware people would say things like “I don’t want to be a racist” or “I try not to be racist” or “I condemn racism.” But they would never say “I’m not a racist” because self-aware people know that they have blind spots. Self-aware people know they have unconscious baggage that is hard to notice or overcome.

And it’s the same with how self-aware people approach reading the bible. Self-aware people know that they are trying to read the bible in an unbiased fashion. Self-aware people work hard to let the bible speak clearly and it its own voice. But self-aware people know they have blind spots. They know that there is unconscious baggage affecting how they are reading the bible, baggage that they know must be biasing their readings and conclusions. Consequently, self-aware people would never, ever say “this is the clear teaching of Scripture.” Just like they’d never claim to be unbiased in any other area of life, racism being just one example.

I have to say, he’s got a point. I’ve seen this happen. Many fundamentalists operate as if they don’t have a hermeneutic and it’s naive and unhelpful, precisely because we want to be subservient to the Word of God, not our own blinders.What’s more, as a couple of my progressive friends noted, this sort of fundamentalism isn’t restricted to conservatives. There can be progressive “fundamentalisms” with a similar lack of self-awareness in reading the Scriptures.

That said, I did want to register a few comments, that, while not entirely contradictory, may offer some nuance.

First, the statement “the Bible clearly says…” may have more than one reference point. In other words, I think Beck has put it a bit strongly when he contends than no self-aware reader of Scripture would ever say, “The clear teaching of Scripture is…” or some statement along those lines. I suppose my question is, after study, after prayer, after wrestling, what should they say?

“The Scriptures unclearly say…” Well, obviously nobody wants to be stuck with that.

“My hermeneutic leads me to believe that…” That might seem initially more honest, but the problem is that we’re now in the position where it seems the hermeneutic, not the Scriptures are doing all the work. More on that later.

Instead, it seems entirely possible that someone who is quite aware of their perspective, hermeneutic, and so forth, might read, study, struggle, and arrive at the conclusion that, “The Scriptures clearly say…” To deny that possibility is to bind God’s capabilities as a speaker to our capabilities as interpreters and hearers. It’s to restrict our doctrine of revelation within the confines of our anthropology, rather than our theology.

In other words, for some, the statement “The Scriptures clearly say…” is uttered, not so much in relation to our abilities as a reader, or our lack of hermeneutic, but a statement about God’s ability as a speaker. In acknowledging finitude, sin, and the need for interpretive humility, we need to take care not to chain the Word of the Lord our God with human fetters.

Second, as a friend noted online, there’s a bit of fuzziness as to what we mean by “a hermeneutic.” For some, having a hermeneutic means something along the lines of “proper principles of interpretation” like considering grammar, historical context, literary principles, and so forth. For others, it’s a bit thicker, including theological presuppositions about the nature of the text and what it says. And, for some, it’s about the unavoidable ideological tilt and finitude we bring to our reading of the text. In other words, there are “hermeneutics” as clarifying lens helping us engage the text, and for others, it speaks more of the unavoidable distance and subjectivity of our encounter with it. It’s not entirely clear which Beck means in this post.

Which leads me to my third comment. Earlier this week, I joked online that, if Beck is right and a fundamentalist is someone who believes they don’t have a hermeneutic, then a Liberal is someone who only has a hermeneutic. In other words, there’s a danger to interpretation in both directions.

Opposite Beck’s fundamentalist, it’s possible to end up with the sort of self-absorbed, interpretive, solipsist who thinks it’s interpretation and “hermeneutics” all the way down, with no actual encounter with the sort of Text, or Voice, or Word, that can break through the fog. We run the risk of thinking all we can ever speak of is our differing hermeneutics and not the Text we’re both trying to read. We’re “self-aware” to the point that all we’re aware of is our Self, or Social Location, or Gender, or Community. At that point, our interpretive discussions just become a form of philosophy with Scriptural vocabulary.

I’ll close by quoting one of my favorite passages from Vanhoozer, which, while not exactly speaking to hermeneutics but God-talk more generally, charts a helpful middle-course:

Those who would be honest to God must strive to avoid both pride and sloth in their God-talk. Theological pride overestimates the adequacy of human language and thought; theological sloth underestimates the importance of responding to the provocations of God’s self-revelation. The one goes before destruction; the other pre-empts instruction. Yet it is hard to miss the recurring biblical theme that God wills to communicate and make himself known: “The word of the Lord came to . . .”; “the Lord said . . .”. Theology is ultimately irresponsible if it fails either to attend to what God says or to think about the nature of the one who addresses us.

–Kevin Vanhoozer, Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship, pg. xvi

Soli Deo Gloria 

Tim Tebow Is a Hipster, and Other Things I Learned from Salon

That's a vest, right? That's totally hipsterish.

That’s a vest, right? That’s totally hipsterish.

Apparently Tim Tebow is a hipster.

I know, I was surprised at this too, but then I read this piece by Amanda Marcotte of on these 5 Christian “Hipsters” Trying to Make Fundamentalism Look Cool, by being young and hip and with it, despite their horribly conservative Christianity, and there he was, right smack dab in the center of it. I mean, if says so, it’s probably worth considering. Again, it doesn’t initially make sense, but maybe they’re offering up a new definition of hipsterism?

In the past, when I’ve thought “hipster”, sites like VICE come to mind. For Christian hipsters, it was Relevant. To me, Tim Tebow wasn’t a hipster. Tim Tebow plays football. Tim Tebow has arms the size of Wyoming. Tim Tebow is the face earnest, conservative, and Christian Midwest who just happens to be young. There is nothing ironic, faintly urban, indie music-loving, foodie-ish, or Wes Anderson about him.

But, you know, looking at Marcotte’s list is making me reconsider things, because, in surveying it, the only person on that list who kind of made sense to me as a Christian hipster is Brett McCracken. I’ve sat in a hip, urbane coffee shop with him in the Orange Circle (a quaint little old-town section in Orange County) and talked about Whole Foods, craft beer, and cultural consumption, and then ironically laughed at the cliche we were embodying right there–even down to the self-aware irony about our self-aware irony. That’s kind of hipsterish, right?

But then, when you try to fit that into the same category as Tim Tebow, ‘Merican football hero…I dunno. So, maybe I’ve been wrong this whole time.

Then again, McCracken’s being on the list at all, makes me a bit suspicious.  I mean, one of the main points of his book on Hipster Christianity, is that Christians shouldn’t try to make Christianity cool by shaving off the edges, or believing the myth that if we just packaged it properly, everybody would jump on board. In that sense, it’s kind of odd for him to be the poster boy for missing the point that “conservative Christianity is the exact opposite of cool”, when that’s kind of what he’s known for.

Of course, the other odd bit of the article that gives me pause is Marcotte’s fixation on sex and politics as if it were the defining characteristic of conservative Christianity, and the litmus test of it’s truth and morality. I mean, I thought that Evangelicals were supposed to be the ones making views on sexuality the boundary-line of social acceptability? But, in reading it, the whole thing kind of amounted to: “This guy seems cool, or tries to seem cool, but don’t be fooled, he’s just as sex-negative and intolerant as the rest of his conservative counterparts.” Cut, paste, & change the name. Repeat four more times. 

Honestly, given the level of hostility in the article, I was looking for a more damning charge against these types than just being “sex-negative” and holding “anti-sex judgmental attitudes” (and, from what I gather, that simply means holding a fairly traditional sex ethic), but I could find neither hide nor hair of one. Still a bit puzzled over that. It’s like that was the only thing she cared about. But that can’t be right. Conservative Christians are the ones who are obsessed with and intolerant of other people’s sexual beliefs and behaviors, right?

It’s just odd to think that in a article, there’s nothing to see here other than a confirmation of what we’ve known for a long time: people really don’t like what Christianity has to say about sex. I mean, this was true when Christianity first came on the scene in the Roman Empire and the pagan critics were lambasting it. It was true when C.S. Lewis wrote about the issue 60 years ago in Mere Christianity and the Freudians were still kicking about, talking about repression. And it’ll be true until Jesus comes back. That and the tired idea, refuted-by-history, time and again, that if Christians would just get with the times, shift up their sexual ethic, the kids would come back to church. It just seems so trite to keep writing about.

So, maybe now I’m wondering if Tebow’s really a hipster again.

Soli Deo Gloria