The Problem of Post-Modern Interpretation

I have long held that the Bible speaks to all people in all times. That is part of its greatness. In study groups I have seen it speaks to men and women, the intellectual and the unlearned, the poor and the rich, the young and the old. The Bible has the ability to transcend all aspects of humanity to communicate the Word of God to fallen mankind. And so to question whether we as readers can find objective meaning in a text seems to be a betrayal of the faith. It is the opinion of this writer that we most certainly can and must come to what Vanhoozer calls an “adequate interpretation” of scripture. For the purposes of this paper we will confine our examination to the Bible, as this class is about “Biblical” Hermeneutics, and it will show that meaning and authorial intent can be sufficiently recovered to provide an interpretation.

First, let us consider the question, “Can we find objective meaning and authorial intent in a text?” The question naturally lures us to extremes. Modernity has taught us that the objective meaning is an absolute truth; a truth which can only be obtained from long arduous study and deep scientific probing. Thus our response should be tempered with humility noting that we may only, at best, “sufficiently” understand the meaning and authorial intent of a given passage. “Interpreters…often know enough,” writes Vanhoozer, “We need not choose between a meaning that is wholly determinate and a meaning that is wholly indeterminate…we see through the text, darkly” (Vanhoozer, Is There Meaning in This Text?, 139). Picking up on Paul’s analogy from I Corinthian 13:12, Vanhoozer acknowledges that we cannot perfectly know the thoughts of another, but we can at least see a dark reflection (catch the general meaning).

Now having reworked the question, a new one appears: “Is there a single meaning to scripture and is it the author’s intended meaning?” Postmodern writers like Jacques Derrida would have us believe that such an end is utterly impossible since, in his opinion, language and words have no meaning attached to them and therefore the writer does not even know the intended meaning of his or her own work. This deconstructionalist model is not only frustrating but it is also hopelessly pessimistic. Granted, words do not have some transcendental/platonic form to which they point. However, we as “citizens” of the language have arrived at a common utilitarian understanding for most words. We have implicitly agreed to similar ideas for the words we use. Hence we can optimistically conclude that the although the author may have had intended a singular meaning, true and straight as an arrow, the reader was most likely able to ascertain such a meaning in a general and more broad sense, like the blast from a shot gun.

And so again our question evolves, “Can we recover the intended meaning, and is there a degree to which we can get it back?” In response, some postmodern writers have sided with pragmatists like Richard Rorty, who “understand truth as what works rather than what is theoretically correct,” (Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, 154). For Rorty, there is no need to recover the intended meaning. Rather he strives for the convenient meaning. Albeit this is a much simpler solution and more tempting, we cannot sacrifice God’s truth for our indolence. It is too important. Instead, we must continue to exegete and study and pray and discuss and reason and work with the Spirit and reflect on the narrative of our faith. New discoveries are made quite regularly that help us to better understand these ancient texts and it is because of this continuing work that we can say we are getting infinitely closer to the intended meaning. Only time will tell how close we actually get.

Eventually the question is asked: “Are all interpretations valid or are some not as valid as others?” This question, like the first one, is falsely dichotomous. Certainly if a reader perceives a certain theme within a text, the validity of the perception cannot be called into question. The reader clearly perceived such and such a theme. What can be questioned is the accuracy of such an interpretation. Upon academic review and prayerful reflection we can reasonably determine if an interpretation is accurate (we will later address this process of determination). Unfortunately, people like Walter Brueggemann would have us believe that, as a matter of pragmatic convenience, the church has thoughtlessly swept aside this process of determination and as such certain interpretations of particular scriptural passages have been deemed invalid (especially those that are contrary to the systematic theology of the Bible). In one section he writes, “Now it is my urging that modernity…has required and dictated the loss of many texts, or their necessary misreading.” He continues to argue, “That suppression has been in order that the rationalistic hegemony of modernity could prevail, or that the domination of church orthodoxy could control,” (Brueggemann, Texts Under Negotiation, 61). To correct this problem, Brueggemann suggests, “these texts do not need to be explained or justified,” (Ibid, 71).

Such accusations, though they may have validity within certain sects of Christianity, are unsubstantiated when considering the church universal. From the early church councils, to the protestant reformation, to the modern day free and independent church movements, the Body of Christ has resiliently pursued truth in whichever passage it may be found and at whatever cost may be charged. Brueggemann’s proposed solution, no matter how lay oriented it may be, is unacceptable. While there are occasions when texts can simply be laid out on their own merit and there are settings in which simply hearing the Word of God speaks to the soul, there are other times when the un-interpreted words of scripture can lead to confusion, false doctrine, and unchristian-like character. It is our duty as leaders of the church, to provide guidance and direction in the handling of scripture.

Of course, guidance and direction are best when provided during the process of determining the accuracy of an interpretation. By applying the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, we can easily determine accuracy. Revelation, tradition, reason, and experience is the four fold tests for accuracy. First, we must start with God’s revelation. Is our interpretation of a particular passage inline with the rest of God’s self-revelation? If not, why? Second, we should consider the tradition of the church. Petty denominational prejudices have no role in this part of the test. As a sort of check and balance, we must submit ourselves unto the tradition of the church. Is our interpretation inline with the thinking of the councils, the fathers, and the reformers? If not, why? History is a wise teacher if we heed its teaching. Third, we need to evaluate our interpretation on the basis of reason. Did we logically come to this conclusion? What are the implications of such an interpretation? Are those implications inline with God’s self-revelation and the tradition of the church? If not, why? Finally, we should consider our own individual and communal experiences. Is our interpretation inline with our faith experience? Does our faith experience shed any light on the discrepancies above, or does this interpretation tell us something entirely new about God. Although it is possible, that conclusion is suspect.

In the end, I argue that like-minded interpretation of every text is not the end-all-be-all of our faith. Most importantly, I believe that we need to pick our battles. Where will we stand our ground? What can we not sacrifice and leave open to less accurate interpretation? And on what issues are we willing to bend? Recovering the meaning and authorial intent of a text is difficult, but not impossible. With tenacious perseverance and faithful dedication, we can recover a working and sufficient interpretation of the meaning Bible and the intent of its original autographs. Amen.