This is really a response to a discussion in a recent thread with tutal...

[triphicus]

But the questions interests me to the point where I would want some input from all y'all.

tutal: Science is the interpretation of observation... observation can be good, but it can also be misinformed...

Me: We could say the exact same thing about hermeneutics, btw; couldn't we?

tutal: In a way yes. There's orthodox hermeneutics and heretical hermeneutics

Comments

Human limitations need not invalidate profound spiritual experiences and insights

[susannah]

Thank you. Very balanced and well-expressed points

Re: Human limitations need not invalidate profound spiritual experiences and insights

[pastorlenny]

But you also throw out entire sections of scripture as mere barbaraism with no redeeming hermaneutical value whatsoever. So your position isn't just one of interpretation. You don't accept either the plenary inspiration or authority of the canon itself.

[sybbis]

Can observation be wrong? Can reading be wrong? I don't think so. It's the interpretation thereof in which there is the possibility for error. All orthodoxy and heresy really mean, as I understand, is "this is what this group officially believes" and "this is contrary to what this group officially believes." Seeing as membership of a particular Christian group is no longer mandatory and failure to toe the line can no longer get you executed in the developed world, at least, the two don't (or shouldn't) carry the same sort of weight as they once did.

Which doesn't make them unimportant; within a group I think it's important to ask why something is considered orthodoxy, whether that is appropriate, etc. But for example, yes, the Left Behind stuff would be entirely heretical to some people, but also entirely orthodox to others.

[triphicus]

So, are you saying, then, that the information is itself subjective, or just the interpretation thereof? It seems that if you want to grant an absolute truth to the former, then the latter should at least be inclined to coming to a positive reading of that.

[sybbis]

Well, even that belief is going to vary based on the group you ask. ;) I think that the raw information is not subjective. A thing that happens... well, happens, that's all. But it's been filtered once by the perceptions of the people it happened to, then filtered again by the people who wrote it down, then again by the translator, then again when you're interpreting it. Even if you say that the writings and translation were both divinely guided and therefore inerrant, the interpretation is still subjective. I'm not saying that there is no "right" interpretation, but so far as I'm aware nobody has yet figured out a way to determine that so conclusive that they've convinced all the other denominations of their particular interpretation, so while there may be a "right" nothing can be proven so wrong as to prevent some group or another from picking it up as their view, resulting in a multitude of different orthodoxies which are all heresies to each other but not to their own followers.

[essius]

Can observation be wrong? Can reading be wrong? I don't think so. It's the interpretation thereof in which there is the possibility for error.

All observation, and indeed all of thought, is interpretive. Only in sensation (the act of sensible features on our sense organs) are interpretations naturally determined. In all other cases (perceptual and intellectual) there is greater room for error. If you as an interpreter have a restrictive interpretantic structure, the your interpretations will be less likely to match up to reality.

All orthodoxy and heresy really mean, as I understand, is "this is what this group officially believes" and "this is contrary to what this group officially believes."

A better definition is given by Brian McLaren in the post to which I have provided a link in my first comment to this entry.

Which doesn't make them unimportant; within a group I think it's important to ask why something is considered orthodoxy, whether that is appropriate, etc.

Absolutely.

But for example, yes, the Left Behind stuff

[triphicus]

The actual post? It had absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand :P

[triphicus]

Oh, I thought you were talking about the actual post in which the thread occurred. What specific post (comment, actually) are you referring to? Or do you just mean the thread?

[pastorlenny]

I think it is worthwhile to differentiate between interpretations that are technically flawed, outright heretical, poorly contextualized in terms of culture, poorly contextualized in terms of narrative, etc.

The bigger question is probably "Who cares?" That is, are we in a relationship with those whose hermaneutic we critique such that they will actually consider that critique? Or are we not? What authority or peer relationships do we grant others concerning our own readings? And how many different levels of meaning will we allow any given text? Are we locked into a model that says "There is always the historical and Christological meaning?" with no more and no less because someone else said so? Who is that person? Have we bought into someone else's assertion that, for example, because David had Uriah killed, we can't teach any life application readings from II Samuel at all

[merny25]

So, where do we go from there?

You see the light that the dispensationalist reading of the apocalyptic is correct? :)

You do make a good point though; a flawed hermeneutic does not a heretic make. Or at least I would not go so far to call amillenialists heretics. But there certainly are bad hermeneutics. And there certainly are heretics that use bad hermeneutics, so in that regard, there certainly could be heretical hermeneutics as well. However, your own Spirit-informed and indwelt self and another's may come to a serious theological disagreement based on your understandings, and you can be sure one of you is wrong, but in this life there are some things that only God is going to know, and He hasn't made it plain enough to distinguish which one. In those cases I try to remember humility.