On this post I want to close out my discussion of Liberation Theology by looking at some of the weaknesses or the dangers of this school of thought. One of the dangers in liberation hermeneutics is that in the desire to liberate the text from the interpretation of those who seek to oppress others, liberators have in turn forced an understanding of Scripture that may not be any better than the previous view. In their efforts to liberate the Bible from their oppressors they may have enslaved the Bible to their own presuppositions. Janet Radcliffe Richards, a proponent of feminist hermeutics states this truth when she writes "the oppressed use the enemy's tools and thereby revert back to a new kind of bondage and oppression, perhaps with different victims." Instead of allowing the Bible to speak to the culture, they are making culture speak to the Bible. This technique is not a legitimate method of Biblical interpretation. There must be some control mechanism in the area of interpretation or we will be so liberated there will be no truth. The text has to mean what it means or the result would be biblical chaos. Without hermeneutical controls people would be free to interpret Scripture anyway they please to espouse their own personal agenda.
However the main weakness that I see in liberation hermeneutics is that they have perverted the primary teaching of Scripture. The Scripture is not about liberating people from classism, racism, or sexism, it is about liberating people from the power of sin and showing people how to have a right relationship with God through personal faith in a risen Savior. All the other teachings are secondary. As a matter of fact, what have we accomplished if we liberate someone from the supposed "oppressors" and do not liberate them from sin? It is interesting to note that one of the proponents of feminist hermeneutics states that one of the potential dangers is that feminists have the tendency to "accuse and blame external systems (patriarchy, capitalism, class structure) rather than our common participation as men and women in corporate human falleness." The truth is that "there is no difference, for all (black and white, male and female, rich and poor) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
Though the ambition of the liberators may be admirable, their method is faulty. The fact is that we cannot change society from the outside, but it must be changed from the inside, one person at a time. As individuals are made right with God, they will in turn be right with one another. Jesus taught this truth when He said the two greatest commandments are to love God with all our heart and love our neighbor as ourselves.
The desire of the biblical interpreter is to try to understand the original meaning of the Scripture then apply the timeless message to contemporary society. We want to be relevant and we should be relevant, but in our desire for relevancy we cannot be abusive of the original meaning of Scripture. We must allow Scripture to speak for itself and not try to put new words in the mouth of the original author.
I believe the problem we are experiencing today has more to do with application than with interpretation. For instance, if every Christian followed the principle of tithing as taught in the Scripture, the question of poverty could be solved in a relatively short amount of time. The same is true in the area of racism and prejudice that seeks to oppress another race of people. If every Christian took seriously the teachings that all are equal in the eyes of God that "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus" then there would be no discrimination, oppression or abuse, at least in Christian circles. So the primary problem is not the interpretation of Scripture, but the application of the interpretation.
Ultimately it is because of our sin. We must keep in mind that the Bible says there is no one that is righteous, none whatsoever. As a result of our sin, we fail to live up to the clear teachings of God's Word. When I was serving in Central America, an individual said that in Latin America when it comes to a choice between what the Bible says and what culture says, culture will always be chosen. This fact reveals one of the problems that we have in biblical interpretation. Interpreters of Scripture must rise above culture and strive to communicate the timeless truth of God's Word in our culture. Paul told his young protege Timothy, "for the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations. . ." Perhaps we too need to keep our heads in such situations and trust God's Word to communicate His timeless truth.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Liberation Theology 5
We have been examining the teachings of liberation theology in the last few posts and in this post I want to examine some benefits of this teaching. Even though I am not a proponent of this method of interpretation there have been some significant contributions made. Liberation theologians have prodded a social awareness that causes us to examine our own presuppositions when it comes to interpreting Scripture. Jesus did the same thing in His own teachings. When we look at the Sermon on the Mount, we see Jesus making a statement "You have heard that it was said . . . but I tell you. . ." and then Jesus goes on to espouse a non-traditional interpretation of an ancient teaching.
Was Jesus practicing liberation hermeneutics? Of course Jesus was not bringing a new teaching to Scripture, but restoring the original meaning, but the point is that mankind can sometimes pervert the original intention of the Scripture. As a result we must be careful that we do not bring our own bias when we interpret Scripture. We discovered this truth when working in Latin America as missionaries. Often, the truth we were trying to communicate had more to do with our cultural understanding of Scripture than an actual biblical view of Scripture.
The truth is that each person interprets Scripture through a hermeneutical lens, which brings us back to Ricoeur's hermeneutics of suspicion. Each one of us needs to be careful that we do not force the Scripture to say something it does not say and by so doing promote a teaching that may be more cultural than biblical. One of the benefits of liberation hermeneutics is that it helps the modern interpreter to ask the relevant questions such as: "how can there be racism and prejudice in the church in light of Scripture?" How can there be continued oppression of the poor in Christian circles in light of Scripture?"
Such questions challenge us to make sure that we have properly understood the teachings of Scripture. There can be no mistake that one of the primary teachings of the prophets in the Old Testament was the oppression of the poor and disenfranchised of the land. All we have to do is examine the words of Micah 6:8 and Amos 5:24 for an example of this teaching. The prophets saw this continued abuse and neglect as a sign that the people were indeed sinful and in need of punishment. Therefore, the teachings of the prophets still have relevance in the area of our ethics today. As such liberation hermeneutics constantly call us to be mindful of this aspect of interpretation.
It was Augustine, who initially said that any proper understanding of Scripture will lead to a proper communication of the truth of Scripture. If our communication, or application is faulty, then have we truly understood the teaching of Scripture? As one individual stated, what we are truly trying to do is communicate a heavenly culture that rejects our culture as well as the culture of the hearing audience. We want to transform culture by a clear communication and application of God's timeless truths. As interpreters we have a challenging task, to communicate the timeless message of the Bible through our own culture to another culture.
Even though there are some benefits to this method of interpretation in my next post we will discover that the weaknesses far out way the benefits. Looking forward to sharing with you tomorrow some truths that will help us combat this tendency in religious circles today.
Was Jesus practicing liberation hermeneutics? Of course Jesus was not bringing a new teaching to Scripture, but restoring the original meaning, but the point is that mankind can sometimes pervert the original intention of the Scripture. As a result we must be careful that we do not bring our own bias when we interpret Scripture. We discovered this truth when working in Latin America as missionaries. Often, the truth we were trying to communicate had more to do with our cultural understanding of Scripture than an actual biblical view of Scripture.
The truth is that each person interprets Scripture through a hermeneutical lens, which brings us back to Ricoeur's hermeneutics of suspicion. Each one of us needs to be careful that we do not force the Scripture to say something it does not say and by so doing promote a teaching that may be more cultural than biblical. One of the benefits of liberation hermeneutics is that it helps the modern interpreter to ask the relevant questions such as: "how can there be racism and prejudice in the church in light of Scripture?" How can there be continued oppression of the poor in Christian circles in light of Scripture?"
Such questions challenge us to make sure that we have properly understood the teachings of Scripture. There can be no mistake that one of the primary teachings of the prophets in the Old Testament was the oppression of the poor and disenfranchised of the land. All we have to do is examine the words of Micah 6:8 and Amos 5:24 for an example of this teaching. The prophets saw this continued abuse and neglect as a sign that the people were indeed sinful and in need of punishment. Therefore, the teachings of the prophets still have relevance in the area of our ethics today. As such liberation hermeneutics constantly call us to be mindful of this aspect of interpretation.
It was Augustine, who initially said that any proper understanding of Scripture will lead to a proper communication of the truth of Scripture. If our communication, or application is faulty, then have we truly understood the teaching of Scripture? As one individual stated, what we are truly trying to do is communicate a heavenly culture that rejects our culture as well as the culture of the hearing audience. We want to transform culture by a clear communication and application of God's timeless truths. As interpreters we have a challenging task, to communicate the timeless message of the Bible through our own culture to another culture.
Even though there are some benefits to this method of interpretation in my next post we will discover that the weaknesses far out way the benefits. Looking forward to sharing with you tomorrow some truths that will help us combat this tendency in religious circles today.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Liberation Theology 4
Today we continue our look at Liberation Theology and how it has shaped our current economic and political climate. In this post we will look at Feminist hermeutics which has some of the same desires as the other areas of liberation theology. For the feminist interpreter of Scripture the emphasis is placed on the dominance of the male population in the oppression of the female population. For female liberators interpretation "embodies a deep hermeneutic of suspicion that the conventional constructions of the history of biblical interpretation do not represent value-neutral descriptions of biblical history, traditions, and texts. All interpretation has been mediated through male dominated reading communities." When the Southern Baptist Convention issued their statement on the role of women in ministry and in general it created an enormous uproar. Many were led to decry this statement as nothing more than a male dominated hiearchy trying to force its ideology on the "weaker sex." In realty the SBC was simply trying to restore the proper understanding of Scripture in regard to women. The whole idea is that we are to allow Scripture to transform culture, not culture to transform Scripture.
For the female interpreter there must be an unmasking of patriarchal bias, because such bias has led to the view that women are inferior to the male race. When interpreting Scripture feminists enter with the presupposition that women are equal to men and as a result they have the right to accept or reject biblical texts, if it does not seem to promote the direction they have undertaken. One feminist interpreter has said that the Bible is "authored by men, written in androcentric language, reflective of male experience, selected and transmitted by male religious leadership. Without question the Bible is a male book." Because of this view, many have tried to eradicate the idea of male influence in the Bible and in the songs that we sing. Recently the NIV proposed a new translation that is gender neutral. Any reference to God as a father will be referenced as a parent so as to be acceptable by the feminist interpreter. Many of the traditional hymns that have been accepted for generations have recently undergone a change so as not to be offensive to feminists liberators.
The fatal flaw of the feminist interpreter is revealed in this gender neutral ideology. A true interpreter of Scripture recognizes that God is the author of all Scripture and that He used human instruments, inspired by the Holy Spirit to communicate His timeless truths. To say that the Bible is a "male book" is to eliminate the role God played in inspiring the Scriptures. For as God's Word says "all Scripture is God breathed" and as result we cannot minimize the role of God in the writing and preservation of Scripture.
Of course this discussion is insignificant if you start your whole premise with your own presupposition. When we go into Scripture with our own agenda or our own ideas then we can make Scripture mean what we want it to mean. However, this idea is not a legitimate interpretation of God's Word. In my next post I will examine some benefits to liberation theology and then we will look at the dangers of liberation theology. My purpose in doing this brief excursion into this theology is because if we will look at current events through this lens of understanding it will give us a better grasp of what is happening in our culture as we drift further and further from traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. I hope you will stick around for a few days longer as we take this journey of understanding together.
For the female interpreter there must be an unmasking of patriarchal bias, because such bias has led to the view that women are inferior to the male race. When interpreting Scripture feminists enter with the presupposition that women are equal to men and as a result they have the right to accept or reject biblical texts, if it does not seem to promote the direction they have undertaken. One feminist interpreter has said that the Bible is "authored by men, written in androcentric language, reflective of male experience, selected and transmitted by male religious leadership. Without question the Bible is a male book." Because of this view, many have tried to eradicate the idea of male influence in the Bible and in the songs that we sing. Recently the NIV proposed a new translation that is gender neutral. Any reference to God as a father will be referenced as a parent so as to be acceptable by the feminist interpreter. Many of the traditional hymns that have been accepted for generations have recently undergone a change so as not to be offensive to feminists liberators.
The fatal flaw of the feminist interpreter is revealed in this gender neutral ideology. A true interpreter of Scripture recognizes that God is the author of all Scripture and that He used human instruments, inspired by the Holy Spirit to communicate His timeless truths. To say that the Bible is a "male book" is to eliminate the role God played in inspiring the Scriptures. For as God's Word says "all Scripture is God breathed" and as result we cannot minimize the role of God in the writing and preservation of Scripture.
Of course this discussion is insignificant if you start your whole premise with your own presupposition. When we go into Scripture with our own agenda or our own ideas then we can make Scripture mean what we want it to mean. However, this idea is not a legitimate interpretation of God's Word. In my next post I will examine some benefits to liberation theology and then we will look at the dangers of liberation theology. My purpose in doing this brief excursion into this theology is because if we will look at current events through this lens of understanding it will give us a better grasp of what is happening in our culture as we drift further and further from traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. I hope you will stick around for a few days longer as we take this journey of understanding together.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Liberation Theology 3
In this post I want to talk about another expression of liberation theology which is known as Black Hermenetics. Black Theologians have some of the same concerns that Latin American theologians have expressed in the area of biblical interpretation. However, for the black theologian, the concern is the use of Scripture by the white establishment to oppress the black race. This oppression was clearly seen in the area of slavery in the United States and also in the practice of apartheid in South Africa. It was black theologians' interpretation of Scripture that prodded the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's. James Cone argues that "the black experience of oppression . . . provides the understanding through which to perceive the God of the Bible as the God of liberation." For the black theologian, any interpretation that does not free the black race from white dominance is not a legitimate interpretation. For this reason many black theologians have pushed for liberation from the traditional interpretation of Scripture.
There is a legitimacy to the black concern as many white believers have used their interpretation of Scripture to suppress and even oppress the black race. This oppression was clearly seen in South Africa where the constitution of the white minority stated that their practices were one "of obedience to Almighty God and to His Holy Word." No wonder black theologians look with suspicion on the white interpretation of Scripture. However, this practice today is only by a few who are out of the main stream of biblical thought.
The area where black theologians have made their biggest mistake is in their desire to have a "black Jesus." As one theologian stated, "if Jesus was not black, then the resurrection has no meaning to the black person." Recently we have heard the Reverend Jeremiah Wright state "I am so glad that I have a Savior who was black and can indentify with the oppression of the black race by the white majority." The idea is pressed further by black theologians with these words "when the poor of North America and the Third World read the passion story of the cross, they do not view it as a theological idea but as God's suffering solidarity with the victims of the world. Jesus's cross is God's election of the poor by taking their pain and suffering upon the divine person." (James Cone, Black Theology in America, Theology Today - Volume 43, #1 - April 1986, page 13).
The problem with such a view is that these individuals have forced an interpretive view of Scripture that has perverted the original intent of Scripture and as a result they have lost the true message. It is not the color of Jesus's skin that is important, but the work that Jesus did on the cross that merits our affection. In their efforts to liberate themselves from their oppressors, the black theologian has created a greater bondage to sin.
For the proponents of black theology, they believe that there can be no salvation of the individual, if there is no salvation of the black race as a whole. Therefore they work to free themselves from oppression from the majority so that there may be collective salvation of their own people. Black theologians have misinterpreted and misapplied the true meaning of Scripture.
Perhaps as we understand this particular view of the Bible it puts into perspective much of what we are experiencing in the world today. We can see why race and class warfare is on the rise and traditional teachings of God's Word are being questioned and often discarded. I will have more to say on this idea in the days to come, so hang in there with me for a few more days. In my next post we will look at the feminist method of interpretion and the impact it has on society today.
There is a legitimacy to the black concern as many white believers have used their interpretation of Scripture to suppress and even oppress the black race. This oppression was clearly seen in South Africa where the constitution of the white minority stated that their practices were one "of obedience to Almighty God and to His Holy Word." No wonder black theologians look with suspicion on the white interpretation of Scripture. However, this practice today is only by a few who are out of the main stream of biblical thought.
The area where black theologians have made their biggest mistake is in their desire to have a "black Jesus." As one theologian stated, "if Jesus was not black, then the resurrection has no meaning to the black person." Recently we have heard the Reverend Jeremiah Wright state "I am so glad that I have a Savior who was black and can indentify with the oppression of the black race by the white majority." The idea is pressed further by black theologians with these words "when the poor of North America and the Third World read the passion story of the cross, they do not view it as a theological idea but as God's suffering solidarity with the victims of the world. Jesus's cross is God's election of the poor by taking their pain and suffering upon the divine person." (James Cone, Black Theology in America, Theology Today - Volume 43, #1 - April 1986, page 13).
The problem with such a view is that these individuals have forced an interpretive view of Scripture that has perverted the original intent of Scripture and as a result they have lost the true message. It is not the color of Jesus's skin that is important, but the work that Jesus did on the cross that merits our affection. In their efforts to liberate themselves from their oppressors, the black theologian has created a greater bondage to sin.
For the proponents of black theology, they believe that there can be no salvation of the individual, if there is no salvation of the black race as a whole. Therefore they work to free themselves from oppression from the majority so that there may be collective salvation of their own people. Black theologians have misinterpreted and misapplied the true meaning of Scripture.
Perhaps as we understand this particular view of the Bible it puts into perspective much of what we are experiencing in the world today. We can see why race and class warfare is on the rise and traditional teachings of God's Word are being questioned and often discarded. I will have more to say on this idea in the days to come, so hang in there with me for a few more days. In my next post we will look at the feminist method of interpretion and the impact it has on society today.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Liberation Theology 2
In my last post we began looking at Liberation Theology so that we can better understand many of the events occuring in the world in which we live. In this post I want to examine Latin American Hermeneutics. Again hermeneutics is the art or the science of interpreting Scripture. Once we understand how people interpret Scripture it gives us a better avenue to dialogue with them.
For the Latin American theologian all Scripture must be read through the social context of Latin American society. In the words of one individual Scripture must be read "from the standpoint of what will help in their liberation, and through their eyes."
To facilitate a reading of Scripture through the socioeconomic situation of the poor of Latin America, liberation theologians have offered a fourfold method for interpreting Scripture. The first demand is that the interpreter must be empathetic to the plight of the poor in Latin America. The Latin American interpreter believes there must be a gross neglect in the understanding of Scripture because of the continual disparity between the haves and the have nots in Latin American culture.
The second criterion to be used in interpreting Scripture is an understanding of the societal structures that have created such a socioeconomic disparity. For the Latin American theologian the poor are poor not because they chose to be poor, but because someone has created a system to keep them poor. Juan Luis Segundo states "anything and everything is intimately bound up with the existing social situation in at least an unconscious way." This understanding of Scripture has been used to maintain dominance by the ruling class. As a result true interpretation of Scripture must offer a social critique of the institutions that have created the disparity in wealth in Latin America. In essence socio-critical tools are needed because poverty is not simply a matter of an individual's economic status, but the oppressive and alienating circumstances that have created such an environment.
The third criterion that must be applied in interpreting Scripture through the eyes of the Latin American is an understanding of the biblical texts that deal with liberation. For the Latin American interpreter, liberation from one's oppressors is central in the Bible. As a result the Exodus account takes on a new understanding as well as the prophets of the Old Testament who constantly spoke out against injustices in society. To truly understand the text, the interpreter must look at these messages as addressed to the modern day situation.
The final criterion of interpretation that must be applied is to understand the language of promise and eschatology as presented in the Bible. For the Latin American interpreter, the Scriptures offer hope from oppression not just in the future but in the present context as well. The hope offered is not just a hope for a better way of life in eternity, but an active hope which subverts the exisiting order.
The Latin American interpreter is not just looking to establish a new way of looking at the world, but is actually looking to transform the existing world. In order to so, it requires a total reorientation of biblical exegesis. The truth for the Latin American interpreter is that if one's interpretation of Scripture does not change the normal interpretation of Scripture then the interpretation has not succeeded.
This idea of interpretation has much to say about our current situation. It helps us put the border debate in a theological discussion. When we understand that for them the Bible has been used to oppress them economically, then we see why they are against any kind of prohibition against illegal entry into the country. If we enforce our laws to prohibit illegal entry it is just another use of our power to keep them economically oppressed. Liberation theologians from the Latin culture see liberation from economic oppression as the chief understanding of Scripture. As a result anything that keeps economic equality from happening is a tool of the oppressors.
There is much more that could be said about this idea, but I think you get the picture. This view of Scripture poses a threat to interpretation. When a person forces his personal situation or his cultural context into a biblical text he allows the Scripture to speak for him instead of allowing the Scripture to speak to him. This is a dangerous premise that cannot be accepted.
On my next post we will look at Black Liberation theology. This subject has been in the news lately as well and hopefully we can bring some light on this view that will help us understand the various discussions taking place in the world today. I look forward to hearing from you.
For the Latin American theologian all Scripture must be read through the social context of Latin American society. In the words of one individual Scripture must be read "from the standpoint of what will help in their liberation, and through their eyes."
To facilitate a reading of Scripture through the socioeconomic situation of the poor of Latin America, liberation theologians have offered a fourfold method for interpreting Scripture. The first demand is that the interpreter must be empathetic to the plight of the poor in Latin America. The Latin American interpreter believes there must be a gross neglect in the understanding of Scripture because of the continual disparity between the haves and the have nots in Latin American culture.
The second criterion to be used in interpreting Scripture is an understanding of the societal structures that have created such a socioeconomic disparity. For the Latin American theologian the poor are poor not because they chose to be poor, but because someone has created a system to keep them poor. Juan Luis Segundo states "anything and everything is intimately bound up with the existing social situation in at least an unconscious way." This understanding of Scripture has been used to maintain dominance by the ruling class. As a result true interpretation of Scripture must offer a social critique of the institutions that have created the disparity in wealth in Latin America. In essence socio-critical tools are needed because poverty is not simply a matter of an individual's economic status, but the oppressive and alienating circumstances that have created such an environment.
The third criterion that must be applied in interpreting Scripture through the eyes of the Latin American is an understanding of the biblical texts that deal with liberation. For the Latin American interpreter, liberation from one's oppressors is central in the Bible. As a result the Exodus account takes on a new understanding as well as the prophets of the Old Testament who constantly spoke out against injustices in society. To truly understand the text, the interpreter must look at these messages as addressed to the modern day situation.
The final criterion of interpretation that must be applied is to understand the language of promise and eschatology as presented in the Bible. For the Latin American interpreter, the Scriptures offer hope from oppression not just in the future but in the present context as well. The hope offered is not just a hope for a better way of life in eternity, but an active hope which subverts the exisiting order.
The Latin American interpreter is not just looking to establish a new way of looking at the world, but is actually looking to transform the existing world. In order to so, it requires a total reorientation of biblical exegesis. The truth for the Latin American interpreter is that if one's interpretation of Scripture does not change the normal interpretation of Scripture then the interpretation has not succeeded.
This idea of interpretation has much to say about our current situation. It helps us put the border debate in a theological discussion. When we understand that for them the Bible has been used to oppress them economically, then we see why they are against any kind of prohibition against illegal entry into the country. If we enforce our laws to prohibit illegal entry it is just another use of our power to keep them economically oppressed. Liberation theologians from the Latin culture see liberation from economic oppression as the chief understanding of Scripture. As a result anything that keeps economic equality from happening is a tool of the oppressors.
There is much more that could be said about this idea, but I think you get the picture. This view of Scripture poses a threat to interpretation. When a person forces his personal situation or his cultural context into a biblical text he allows the Scripture to speak for him instead of allowing the Scripture to speak to him. This is a dangerous premise that cannot be accepted.
On my next post we will look at Black Liberation theology. This subject has been in the news lately as well and hopefully we can bring some light on this view that will help us understand the various discussions taking place in the world today. I look forward to hearing from you.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Liberation Theology
For the next several days I am going to discuss a topic that many of you might not want to discuss. However, I believe it is relevant in light of our current situation. Perhaps the things I will discuss in the next few weeks will help us understand some of the dynamics that are taking place in our culture and the world in which we live. I am going to discuss what has been called by scholars as liberation theology.
The twentieth and now the twenty first century seem marked by a deep intellectual discomfort about the ways in which Western thought generally has framed its way of understanding the world. Because culture is rapidly changing around us, people are prone to look for answers to interpret their culture and often to justify their culture. With this attitude being so prevalent in society today one should not be surprised to see that one's approach to understanding God's Word is also suspect to rising changes. Today there are many scholars that are calling for nothing less than a paradigm shift in the interpretation of Scripture. These individuals believe it is time to do something new. So I want to use these next several posts to examine some current trends in the area of liberation theology and see if these trends have merit or concern for the modern reader today.
Let me start with a brief history of liberation theology. Liberation theology has taken on a new role in today's society as people are looking to be liberated from what is perceived as oppressive interpretations. The modern rise of liberation theology can be found in the teachings of Paul Ricoeur and what is called his hermeneutic of suspicion. Ricoeur himself was influenced by the writings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzche, and Sigmund Freud. These three individuals set the stage for Ricoeur's hermeneutic of suspicion. In remarking on their influence Riceour states, "all three clear the horizon for a more authentic word, for a new reign of Truth, not only by means of a destructive critique, but by the invention of an art of interpreting." In other words, these three men, in their own way, umasked a false understanding of the text by systematically applying a critique of suspicion, with the result that the true understanding may be found in the text.
Building upon the teachings of these three men, Ricoeur believed that every interpreter of Scripture must look at a text and be suspicious of presuppositions that are being read and have been read into a text. As a result, the interpreter must bring new meaning to the text to truly understand what the text is saying. This new meaning will liberate the reader from any preconceived ideas and allow the text to speak to the reader without any cultural bias. Though Ricoeur did not use the term liberate, his practice led to the rise of "liberators" who took his teaching the next step.
The advocates of liberation hermeneutics have a strong desire not only to liberate themselves from an oppressive situation, but also to liberate the text from those who have used the text to support their own ideologies. Latin American hermeneutics, black hermeneutics, and feminist heremeutics seek to liberate the biblical text from interpretations that have oppressed various segments of society throughout history. These strands of liberation hermeneutics "bring together fundamental questions about the framework of knowledge, language and understanding with specific practices of biblical interpretation and re-interpretation."
All of this serves as a background to what I want to write about the next few days. We will look at these three theological ideas so that we can better understand the dynamics that shape much of our culture today. Once we understand where they are coming from we will be better equipped to provide a legitimate rebuttal or defense of the authentic gospel of Jesus Christ. So hang in there with me these next few days as you will discover that much of what I will be talking about will have relevance to our current situation. It might help you understand what is happening in our country and our world today.
In my next post I will look at Latin American Hermeneutics and perhaps it will help us to understand the current situation we are experiencing in America today. I will report what I understand and then you can decide if it has relevance. God's blessings to you and I look forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas in the days to come.
The twentieth and now the twenty first century seem marked by a deep intellectual discomfort about the ways in which Western thought generally has framed its way of understanding the world. Because culture is rapidly changing around us, people are prone to look for answers to interpret their culture and often to justify their culture. With this attitude being so prevalent in society today one should not be surprised to see that one's approach to understanding God's Word is also suspect to rising changes. Today there are many scholars that are calling for nothing less than a paradigm shift in the interpretation of Scripture. These individuals believe it is time to do something new. So I want to use these next several posts to examine some current trends in the area of liberation theology and see if these trends have merit or concern for the modern reader today.
Let me start with a brief history of liberation theology. Liberation theology has taken on a new role in today's society as people are looking to be liberated from what is perceived as oppressive interpretations. The modern rise of liberation theology can be found in the teachings of Paul Ricoeur and what is called his hermeneutic of suspicion. Ricoeur himself was influenced by the writings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzche, and Sigmund Freud. These three individuals set the stage for Ricoeur's hermeneutic of suspicion. In remarking on their influence Riceour states, "all three clear the horizon for a more authentic word, for a new reign of Truth, not only by means of a destructive critique, but by the invention of an art of interpreting." In other words, these three men, in their own way, umasked a false understanding of the text by systematically applying a critique of suspicion, with the result that the true understanding may be found in the text.
Building upon the teachings of these three men, Ricoeur believed that every interpreter of Scripture must look at a text and be suspicious of presuppositions that are being read and have been read into a text. As a result, the interpreter must bring new meaning to the text to truly understand what the text is saying. This new meaning will liberate the reader from any preconceived ideas and allow the text to speak to the reader without any cultural bias. Though Ricoeur did not use the term liberate, his practice led to the rise of "liberators" who took his teaching the next step.
The advocates of liberation hermeneutics have a strong desire not only to liberate themselves from an oppressive situation, but also to liberate the text from those who have used the text to support their own ideologies. Latin American hermeneutics, black hermeneutics, and feminist heremeutics seek to liberate the biblical text from interpretations that have oppressed various segments of society throughout history. These strands of liberation hermeneutics "bring together fundamental questions about the framework of knowledge, language and understanding with specific practices of biblical interpretation and re-interpretation."
All of this serves as a background to what I want to write about the next few days. We will look at these three theological ideas so that we can better understand the dynamics that shape much of our culture today. Once we understand where they are coming from we will be better equipped to provide a legitimate rebuttal or defense of the authentic gospel of Jesus Christ. So hang in there with me these next few days as you will discover that much of what I will be talking about will have relevance to our current situation. It might help you understand what is happening in our country and our world today.
In my next post I will look at Latin American Hermeneutics and perhaps it will help us to understand the current situation we are experiencing in America today. I will report what I understand and then you can decide if it has relevance. God's blessings to you and I look forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas in the days to come.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Are you really free?
All across this great land of our people celebrated the 4th of July. There were many festivities to commemorate this historic day of the signing of our Declaration of Independence. On that day, a new nation was conceived. The American colonists sought to establish a nation which would uphold certain self-evident truths. The Declaration of Independence states "That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We Americans have been pursuing happiness ever since. But are we really free?
Prior to the political changes that came to Eastern Europe, those of us who lived in the free world often thanked the Lord for the freedoms we enjoyed. Perhaps today we thank the Lord for the freedom we enjoy compared to those that are in Muslim countries or a country controlled by a dictator. The testimonies of Christians that come from these regions inspire me as they grow stronger even in the face of persecution and even death. And because of their testimony it leads me to ask if we are really free?
Years ago I read an article by Phillip Hook who traveled in Eastern Europe before the Berlin Wall came down and the borders opened up. I recently found it again in my study and reread what he wrote. He mest some Christ followers and made these observations: "I sat in the midst of some Eastern European young people and was thinking how fortunate I was to be an American and free. As I watched them and learned from them, I realized that they were more free than I. I was seeing freedom as being free to travel, to own, to say; while they had given up the hopes that the world offers materially, and have become free to be God's people. I discovered that in reality they were far freerer than I."
Because of their deeper experience with Christ, those brothers and sisters remind us that the most important freedom we could ever have is spiritual, not political. It is freedom from obsession with sensual pleasures. It is freedom to know Christ. It is freedom to love God and love others in the strength of His Spirit.
We should learn this lesson in our own lives. We Americans have for so long been pursuing happiness and our own selfish desires that we have forgotten what it really means to be free. Paul writes in Galatians 5:13 "You my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather serve one another in love." There is a word here for each of us. In a country that has as much freedom as we have it is a shame that so many are still living their lives in bondage to their own sins and desires. How free are you?
Prior to the political changes that came to Eastern Europe, those of us who lived in the free world often thanked the Lord for the freedoms we enjoyed. Perhaps today we thank the Lord for the freedom we enjoy compared to those that are in Muslim countries or a country controlled by a dictator. The testimonies of Christians that come from these regions inspire me as they grow stronger even in the face of persecution and even death. And because of their testimony it leads me to ask if we are really free?
Years ago I read an article by Phillip Hook who traveled in Eastern Europe before the Berlin Wall came down and the borders opened up. I recently found it again in my study and reread what he wrote. He mest some Christ followers and made these observations: "I sat in the midst of some Eastern European young people and was thinking how fortunate I was to be an American and free. As I watched them and learned from them, I realized that they were more free than I. I was seeing freedom as being free to travel, to own, to say; while they had given up the hopes that the world offers materially, and have become free to be God's people. I discovered that in reality they were far freerer than I."
Because of their deeper experience with Christ, those brothers and sisters remind us that the most important freedom we could ever have is spiritual, not political. It is freedom from obsession with sensual pleasures. It is freedom to know Christ. It is freedom to love God and love others in the strength of His Spirit.
We should learn this lesson in our own lives. We Americans have for so long been pursuing happiness and our own selfish desires that we have forgotten what it really means to be free. Paul writes in Galatians 5:13 "You my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather serve one another in love." There is a word here for each of us. In a country that has as much freedom as we have it is a shame that so many are still living their lives in bondage to their own sins and desires. How free are you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)