In my last post on Theological Hermeneutics I put forth the understanding that our reading of Scripture should not presuppose that the text can ‘speak’ on it’s own. I also asserted that the Biblical scriptures therefore remain silent until they are read, and that the meaning of the text ‘appears’ when the reader’s mind responds to it. I believe that this event is properly described by the theologian Werner Jeanrond as a ‘collision of two realities’ – the reality of the text and the reality of the reader. Today I will continue my ‘train of thought’ on this subject and talk about how the Bible effects us as we experience this collision.
First it needs to be established that no human being can experience the world objectively, that is to say that we are all particular individuals with our own, unique, finite perspectives of reality. However, this is not an apologia for some kind of absolute relativism, far from it! What I’m asserting is simply that we all carry with us our own understanding about reality and that this understanding effects how we interpret our own, unique experiences. Thus, new experiences results in new interpretations that are added to our previous understanding, and this leads consequently to a re-evaluation of what we believe to be a correct understanding of reality in the light of the new interpretation that we have absorbed into our minds. This is all very simple and absolutely not controversial at any level, so lets move on.
The second point I would like to make is that we as individuals do not exist free from other individuals. We are interconnected with each other whether we like it or not. As Christians we are obviously part of the whole of humanity but we have also accepted our belonging in a specific community – the Sanctorum Communio. As we exist together as one ‘body of believers’, we participate in a communal life, which entails that we search for a common identity in Christ. The Scriptures are not the sole source in this communal search but it is absolutely fundamental.
As you read the Bible – when you let your reality collide with that of the Scripture – I believe that new meaning is created. I believe so because no one like the ‘present’ you have ever read the Bible before, thus no reality like yours have ever collided with the reality of the Scripture before. Now, if it is true that we as Christians have a communal identity, it must be asserted that this identity is made up of all our particular perspectives. Hence, when the Christian individual read the Biblical texts, he or she adds something new to the communal identity since no one can interpret it in the same way as someone else. This is why I believe that the theological conversation is immensely important to the church. You can never interpret the text through my eyes and I can never interpret it through yours, but when you and I take our unique perspectives of what the meaning of Scripture is and let our realities collide with each others, then new meaning that takes the ‘other’ into consideration appears. This, I believe, is one of the most important things that we can do because it adds new meaning into our communal identity that makes us relevant as a critique of the world where power and exclusion dominate how things functions.
If reading the Bible simply means to receive the author’s intentions, then the Bible would not be particularly relevant today. If our interpretation of the text was absolutely normative for its message, then why read it at all? But if my understanding is correct, then the message of the Scripture that we consider holy expands every time we read it and by reading it we also make its message relevant in our contemporary world as both a critique and a message of love, hope, forgiveness and reconciliation. I consider this practice holy, not simply because of the text itself, but because by reading and discussing the Scripture, we contribute to the continuation of the Biblical narrative itself.
Thank you for your thoughts. I believe we ought find what it meant first, J.P. then creative power of how does it apply today comes in. Objective in meaning the subjective in application.
If you and I come with two different meaning on a give passage, then either one of us is right or all wrong. We can never both be right.
Let me know your thoughts, J.P.
I do think that we can both be right. One of the most beautiful features about the Judeo-Christian tradition, according to myself, is that we believe that truth is to be found in ‘narrative’. Consider any narrative text that involves more than one person in the Bible and than think about how the story is being presented. You will for one reason or another interpret the text to mean something but there will always be another perspective. Say you read the story about Joseph and his brothers. One perspective could be that of Joseph’s, another could be that of one of his brother’s, a third could be that of his father’s, and so on… If you read the Bible this way you will see that there are a lot more to it than simply one voice leading you trough various events. You will most likely relate to the one person in a story that you feel the most connection to, but a woman, for example, might relate to someone different than you. I think you get the point but please tell me if you don’t because this will transform your entire understanding of the Scripture if you get it.
But then this is just one example. Another would be that one and the same text can have both a literal and a metaphorical meaning.. and it might all look different if you read the text eschatologically. That doesn’t mean that one interpretation is the correct one, rather the narrative form gives you a multitude if interpretations that can all be true.
Thank you for your reply J.P. I am afraid that we cannot all be correct.
Do you agree with Jehovah Witnesses, Mormon or Christian Science understanding of John 1:1? If no? Why, if both Orthodox Christians and Cults can both be correct?
When the authors of the Scriptures wrote God-breathed words, they wanted their listeners to understand what God was objectively saying.
We need to learn the art of knowing the original message in its context before we move to our creative subjectiveness.
Let me know, J.P. , your thoughts.
As I wrote in both the post and in my comment, we can both be right, but that doesn’t mean that we both must be. In the end, I think none of us have got it all right or all wrong, rather I believe that we can all learn from one another.
And as i stated in the post. We are finite beings and will never grasp anything objectively. (The objective truth is not one that simply overlooks everything, it is a one that knows all the particular perspectives.)
Yes I do agree. To put it another way my experience suggests that our experience of God is not “either/or”, rather it is “both/and” which embraces us all within the One that we are parts of. I feel to take the either/or stand reduces God-boxes God into a corner really; and does not take account of the Infinte ways that Spirit reaches lovingly out to us.
Hi Daniel, one of the greatest misstakes of western thought (scholasticism) is that it claims that two things never can be right at the same time. Eastern thought claims that two (or more) things can. That truth is often revealed in what seems to be paradox. Consider Christ Himself being both 100% human and 100% divine, at the same time. Have a blessed Sunday!
He Jakob,
Thank you for your reply. I would kindly disagree because your own comment(your reply) is base on the western thought(that two opposite things cannot be right at the same time). I said that because if you were correct then both western thought and eastern thought claims are correct.
Thus you can not, Jakob, say that western thought is mistaken. Since both can be right.(which I find absurd) .
Paradox are not contraction, Jakob. May the love of Christ hold us.
Be blessed, Jakob.
Prayson
As I have written here elsewhere. The fact that Christianity understands truth to be found in narrative opens up for the possibility of reading the text from more than one perspective, hence, the Biblical understanding of a specific event doesn’t necessarily eliminate the possibility of using what Hannah Arendt described as an ‘enlarged way of thinking’, that is, taking the perspective of ‘the other’ into consideration. This doesn’t mean that every truth statement is true, just simply that the truth can be perceived in different ways by different people.
Daniel. I think you should read the discussion I have with Bill Gnade a bit further down. Maybe it will put this issue in a new light for you.
Hej J.P.
I do agree with you. I believe you are correct that there are more than one perspective. But that is not the issue, I believe, that I wanted to point to Jakob.
The issue is when we have to contradicting perspectives. According to the law of non-contradiction, both views cannot be correct. Either one is right or both false.
We are indeed to enlarge our way of thinking. Objective truths has nothing to do with our subjective personal perspectives. The question we ought to be asking is, is our perspective correct and if there are two contradicting perspectives, which one is correct or are they both false? One thing we ought not do is fall into self-defeating eastern school of reasoning.
May the love, joy and grace of Christ abound in you, J.P.
Prayson
I cannot speak on Jakob’s behalf since I don’t know if you have understood him correctly. However, I can say that the Western respons regarding truth has been governed by a structure of power and that this appears as deeply troubling for me. Therefore, when you say that ‘objective truths has nothing to do with our subjective personal perspectives’, I must conclude that I understand you to be wrong. We can only perceive objective truths subjectively and therefore we should, I believe, strive for an understanding that incorporate the voices of those who have been silenced by the power structure I’m referring to. This is to a large extent what the original post is about and to say otherwise, I claim, is to continue to support the Western oppression of those who lack power in our culture. Further, to actually use an ‘enlarged way of thinking’ would be to relate to truth by using the lens of Christ who crushed the refereed to powers through his life, death and resurrection.
If you haven’t read my previous posts I suggests that you do so because they put this discussion in its proper context.
Thank you J.P. and Jakob,
I do agree with much that is being said. You two have put a stone in my shoe, I will walk with it in prayer and reflection.
Thank you for challenging and building me up and helping see what could be beyond my reformed foundations.
I dearly love you two as Christ loved me. Grace, love, and mercy of the one who hold us and keep us in Himself be upon you, my brothers in Christ.
J.P. I am always looking forward to your new articles. Thank you for being you.
Prayson
New article is out.
Hi Daniel and thanks for your reply. I did not say that western thought was/is wrong in its totality. I do believe that investigating things in detail and systematics are a part of revelation as a whole. But I think the west took it a bit to far on occasion and forgot the eastern (mystical) side of revelation. I do believe both east and west holds truth but if we push one of them to far the “cracks” will start to show. I still maintain that the scolasticism of the west did a lot of pushing things into the extreme. I realize that it is easy to refute my first comment becuase it is so general. But I guess with some details and explanation (western
I will get my point across… I think both schools of thought can be right but only if they stay in a somewhat close proximity to eachothet.What do you think about holistic revelation?
In Christ,
Fr. Jakob
Though I cannot say that I totally agree with everything you said today in the post, I will say two things:
1) I agree more than I disagree
2) I cannot tell you exactly where I disagree
Well done. I enjoyed the read and the cognitive experience.
Scott
I sadly and kindly disagree, J.P. Example I believe Jesus is very God of very God. JW believes Jesus is a created angel Michael. I sadly think they got it all wrong.
I do agree with you that we can learn from each other.(e.g. I am moved by JW courage to knock on my door to share her faith, O I wish we also did that)
I don’t believe that they have got their Christology right either. All I’m saying is that you will never grasp truth objectively, but that doesn’t mean that you cannot grasp objective truth subjectively. The same was obviously true for the biblical authors.
Dear J.P. I am sorry that I am not in agreement with you on this ground. Please do know that its out of love that I reply. I pray that you keep knowing that I do love you even though I disagree.
Would you, J.P. agree that subjective means not- objective?
You don’t need to agree with me but to be honest I think that you just don’t understand my point. And the definition of subjective and objective isn’t really up for debate. Subjectivity is obviously not objectivity.
J.P. I wanted to show you the following. You said “All I’m saying is that you will never grasp truth objectively, but that doesn’t mean that you cannot grasp objective truth subjectively”
Lets give subjectively the definition agreed. You will be saying: “All I’m saying is that you will never grasp truth objectively, but that doesn’t mean that you cannot grasp objective truth [not-objectively].” which I believe is not correct.
Let me know your thoughts, J.P. And thank you for your gentle and kind spirit.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at. It’s obviously not possible for finite human beings to grasp truth objectively. You have a blog dealing with philosophy and apologetics, you should now that.
Is “It’s obviously not possible for finite human beings to grasp truth objectively” J.P. objectively true?
From my subjective perspective it seems clear that it’s objectively true. (stop playing games, you’re not making any sense)
How come then did I grasp your subjective persective if its not possible for finite being like me to grasp truth objectively? ( I am asking out of love, J.P., rain on me your mercy and grace in answering)
Okey, this is my last answer. Because you understood what I wrote from your subjective point of view.
Peace be upon you, my brother. I am sorry for asking much from you.
My feeling is that at times trying to evaluate another person’s perspective as “right” or “wrong” is a familiar stance in contemporary discourse, but not always helpful in understanding reality. I find it helpful to consider the exploration of Holy Text with others as collectively moving forward in our understanding, rather than being at odds regarding a detail that someone has about it.
This is obviously hard in a social environment where expectations are that a very concrete understanding will be had by all at the “end” of the study or exploration. The Bible contains many mysteries that the reader can unlock for themselves and with others, if a lack of imposed values is the foundation of such reading.
Good stuff, and thanks for opening up this discussion!
Cool, thanks man.
God is the same yesterday, today and forever. He never changes. His message transpires time as we know it! His message does not change! When we subject emotion or person perspective not inferred by scripture we have to beware of possibly subjecting change to original content of the message! It is possible to learn valuable information. If we are in the profession of preaching or teaching we should express that it is our own opinion! And it should at the very least be a supported value already stated thru the course of scripture! For instance I recently heard a sermon on the pros of Tolerance based on scripture just as you described! This is also the same doctrine Jezebel tried to indoctrinate the nation of Israel with! odd thing is it was a Jewish rabbi offering the sermon! That tells me Jezebel succeeded in her mission! Guess what I am saying is there are many techniques in which to rationalize the interpation of scripture today what ever you like!
Grace and love of Christ be upon you J.P.
I believe some of my comment went missing. I was reviewing our discussion and I cannot see them any more. Is it a system error?
In Christ,
Prayson
Maybe. WordPress marked a number of authentic comments as spam and when I tried to retrieve them, some other comments went missing.. Sorry.
Update: I was able to retrieve the comments.
Thank you J.P.
Be blessed.
I read your Interesting article above, but am still not sure I grasp the full significance of it. I think one’s view of the divine inspiration of scripture factors into how one hears God’s voice. Here’s a link to a good theological book on the subject: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Bible-John-R-W-Stott/dp/185999640X Your writing is food for thought.
Interesting post. I must admit I also thought Prayson Daniel’s comments a bit amusing.
When we read scripture, generally speaking, to properly interpret it we must begin by trying to understand it as its original audience understood it. However, there are exceptions, and these exceptions do relate to our different point of view. For example, when consider prophecy, we often have either the advantage of hindsight or the “advantage” of being closer in time to the day the prophecy will take place. Consider the Book of Revelation. We live a great many years past the time John wrote the Book of Revelation. Unless we make the effort to understand that book as its original audience did, the book will make no sense to us. Nonetheless, because we are much farther from the First Coming and because we can see events that look very much like harbingers of the Second, what the Book of Revelation means to us must be somewhat different.
In addition, because of our individual differences we will each perceive scripture differently and apply scripture to our lives differently. In fact, even as we grow older we will gain a different understanding of passages we thought we understood. I think that is why some people view God’s Word as a sort of kaleidoscope. Even though we are each unique, the Bible always offers each of us just what we need.
Here’s what I concluded after reading this post (please note that this comes from more than just what I read here):
There are passages in the bible where a single interpretation is the most important, or the most correct, or the most true. Then there are those where many interpretations are correct and true, but some are more important than others. The only way we’re going to know which is which is by reading the Bible and talking about it. In this way, we bring new views to the discussion and revisit old ones, all with an aim toward both expanding and solidifying our understanding of the Gospel.
For example, is Jesus Christ the some of God? This shouldn’t be an issue. He is, the Bible makes that very clear, and there isn’t room for discussion. But what was the meaning behind Matthew 22:20-22? That we pay our taxes? Obey the law? Give up our possessions to the state, because they provided them to us in the first place? Share our wealth with a socialist society? These three verses contain many different meanings, and there are many ways to interpret them; there might be one that’s more correct or important than any other; or they may all be equally valid.
I believe there is an objective truth, but I’m inclined to agree with J.P. that the only way we can know that truth is by reading God’s word and talking about it in a community of believers. (And by praying to God for wisdom and guidance. And, in some cases, by discussing it with non-believers.) However, I think we should also be cognizant of… danger… of this approach (I tried to find another word but I just can’t think of one): that we’ll get so bogged down discussing some issues that we’ll miss the more important ones.
I would claim that if this type of reading is applied, then our understanding of what actually is important will change. So to say that this is a dangerous approach is simply to be trapped by an ideological power structure that suppresses the voices who is not heard today. I’ll write more about this in my next post.
What I find interesting is that through your interpretation, you are essentially saying that the path to God is personal, and is something that each person, through scripture, can interpret for themselves. But that contrasts greatly with the Church’s position, both present and historical. Where Western monotheism tends to contrast with Eastern philosophical religions, is that the believer needs a medium in which to understand and ultimately reach God, as compared to something like Buddhism, which says that enlightenment/God/whatever, is within us all and that there is no medium needed to reach it. The answers and the paths are within.
The medium of course, in the Western religious tradition, is the church. I’ve always found it confusing that one man, or a group of men, could somehow possess the power to express for me, or could somehow teach me, what my own thoughts are about God. It’s interesting to read your assertion that essentially, the medium might not be as necessary as advertised, because of the subjectivity of human interpretation.
I wouldn’t claim that the path to God is strictly personal, rather I would say that it’s relational. The medium, I believe, is the church, but not as a structure of power but as community of believers. Hence, ‘where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.’
Right, but that’s your thoughts. That has not been the stance of the Church. The church, and the so-called annoited ones called the clergy, in any and all of their incarnations, have…shall I say, “frowned” upon the idea that people could find God without them.
I wouldn’t use the term ‘Church’ as you do since various churches has appropriated different understandings, but in a ‘general’ sense I fully agree with what you are saying. I will develop a thought that springs from this observation in my next post.
I mean, “The Church” was furious when scripture began being translated into different languages that allowed people of all walks of life, to read and interpret them for themselves. The clergy, for the longest time, held the monopoly on this by conducting mass, and translating the Bible, in Latin, during a time when the majority of the population couldn’t read or write. As that began to change, so too did the Church attempt to suppress that change.
That change also brought with it, the inevitable subjectivity of human interpretation and therefore we have to consider the different translators’ “liberty” with the language. That too introduces an entirely different set of problems to consider if we are to discuss authenticity of meaning.
What I’ve always found interesting too, in relation to the Church trying to assert that they were the necessary medium needed to reach God, is that isn’t there somewhere in scripture, where Jesus says, “The Kingdom of Heaven is within.”? That’s always struck me as decidedly Eastern in meaning.
Luke 17.20-21
Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”
The word that translates ‘in your midst’ is ἐντός, it can also be taken to mean ‘within you’. I believe ‘in your midst’ is more accurate.
Interesting. What to you think “in your midst” means?
Well, I think that it’s closely connected to the Bible verses we just talked about. I’ll most likely elaborate my thoughts on the subject in a post fairly soon.
Thank you, J.P., for extending savvy realizations for the benefit of others. This world could never have too many people of reason like yourself. I’ll be back for more- I happen to be collecting voices of reason for my own benefit and that of others.
Thanks.
Some years ago I began to work with a community research methodology called, “Fourth Generation Evaluation” which was essentially hermenuetic in process. The text, however, rather than a scripture, become the problem expressed as word. I found the methodology intriguing as a community problem-solving approach, where the aim was to incorporate the greatest range of ideas into the process, rather than the average idea. Then, by reiterations of interpretation and solution-based idea, the diveristy of view gradually becomes resolved into at least a 90% solution. Sometimes I think we forget that the issue is not to be right but to forge loving unity, and sometimes we can allow ourselves to be wrong. In that humility, the application of any truly wrong answer will be revealed by its practice.
Greetings, Mr. Gustafsson!
I feel like this is all reducible to the difference between exegesis and hermeneutics. Exegesis seeks to state what WAS meant, if you will; hermeneutics seeks to apply that meaning to the present. For example, exegesis might tell us that in the church in Corinth Paul expected women to wear head-coverings; while hermeneutics would tell us that head-coverings are strictly a cultural expectation and hence something we need not emulate.
But there are very objective things we see in scripture that we don’t, in a sense, “interpret.” We don’t interpret — and surely the gospel writers did not expect us to — whether Jesus died on a cross. The writer of Jonah did not expect us to interpret whether it was a whale that swallowed Jonah; and the writer of the Exodus did not mean for us to interpret whether the Israelites were freed from slavery. The fact is that, even in the case of Jonah, the whale IS a whale. It might be a metaphorical whale; it might not be a REAL whale, but it IS a literal whale. The distinction, I know, is subtle, but it is not without import: We’d all laugh if someone — anyone — insisted that Jonah was swallowed by a vinyl garbage can that had been tossed over the side of a cruise ship. And we’d laugh even if someone INSISTED this was his “personal” interpretation.
Of course, any man is permitted to do with the whale, the exodus, or the crucified Christ, whatever he or she wishes. He just can’t expect me to follow him. Nor can he expect me to transform what is objectively real — Jesus rose from the dead, AS it is written — to something that is subjectively false, or, possibly, subjectively true to that man.
The gospels clearly show Jesus as a teacher. Is this not objectively true? The gospels show Jesus walking around Palestine. Did he not walk? They show him eating, speaking, weeping. Did he not do these things — according to the texts? They show Jesus as a man; was he a woman? They show Jesus as a Jew; was he a gentile, or a Buddhist monk? You get the picture: there IS an objective reality that is presented throughout the gospels. What matters, though, to you, since this is about hermeneutics, is how to translate what is ACTUALLY and OBJECTIVELY being taught or reported into the language of our PERSONAL lives.
Also, I would challenge one thing you claimed was “absolutely not controversial”, namely, that “no human being can experience the world objectively, that is to say that we are all particular individuals with our own, unique, finite perspectives of reality.” How could you describe such a bold assertion as uncontroversial? Right off the bat it’s problematic, because it assumes the statement you’ve made IS objectively true and that we all therefore ought to accept it as such. How do you know no human being can experience the world objectively? How do I know you’re right? These questions are important.
What do I know objectively? Well, I KNOW I just wrote this sentence. Also, I know I am responding to something you wrote — a sentence you intended I’d take as an objective fact — and that I am responding according to my own “personal” interpretation. And the statement to which I am responding is the one statement you did not want me to interpret personally, and that is why you described it as uncontroversial.
Does any of this make sense? Should it? Am I truly crazy?
I will end with this: I DO think we can know some things objectively, I just don’t think we can know every thing objectively, and this merely because some things, like the origin of the universe, cannot be objectified. But that the gospels report that Jesus rose from the dead, well, that’s an objective AND literal fact. Is it a historical and ontological fact? That’s a VERY different question.
Peace to you, and thanks for your patience.
It seems to me that a lot of people share your concern regarding the message of this post. This is a bit surprising to me because as I say, the understanding that we all are finite beings is not at any level controversial. But maybe I overestimate the philosophical knowledge of my readers so let me explain this once more.
You are absolutely wrong when you say that ‘this is all reducible to the difference between exegesis and hermeneutics’. It is more fundamental that that. To be perfectly clear, I’m not saying that there is no objective truth and, as you point out, to say the opposite would be to contradict one’s own statement. However, the actual, real, objective reality cannot be perceived objectively by finite human beings. Consequently, we experience the objective reality from our various subjective perspectives.
That ‘lack of imposed values’ is pretty well the big challenge, isn’t it?
I’m not really sure to what you are responding.. Could you clarify what you mean?
Dear Mr. Gustaffson,
It should not surprise you that not all of your readers are as philosophically sophisticated as you. But it does seem to me that you are moving considerably closer to solipsism than I think helpful; and it seems that, at best, you are something of a phenomenologist.
And it also seems you are bringing a sort of poststructuralist idea to knowledge. That’s fine, of course, but it is hardly unproblematic.
I guess, too, that one of the underlying assumptions in your post with which I might quibble is that the Bible is worth reading at all. What is the Bible and why should I read it? What are we hoping to find within its pages? Is it filled with divine truth? Is it revelation? If so, then is this not objectively true? If not, then why bother? Or does something magical happen: is it divine revelation only when I read it, especially in a certain way? Do I, as a reader, transform it from mere text to something important? If that’s the case, does it produce any serious effect on those who are illiterate? Can it mean anything to those who simply hear rather than read it? Is there nothing for the “deaf, dumb and blind kid”? (I think it could be argued that you’re suggesting that the act of reading the Bible is not about finding something in the text but rather what is inside ourselves.)
My initial concern, in part, was with your rather seeming oxymoron, i.e., that there is no objective reality and that this fact does not portend a universal relativism. It seems very unlikely, though not impossible, that you can maintain such a tension. Well, maybe it is impossible.
How does finitude preclude us from apprehending the real, the ontologically real? How does it prevent us from seeing something objectively? (Maybe we need to define our terms better.) I am not suggesting that the finite can divine the infinite; I am not saying that I can objectify God. But I surely can objectify at least finitude; and, according to your own argument, I can objectively know that finitude can’t know something objectively.
I know 2+2=4. I just don’t know the consummation of π. I know my left hand, I just know everything there is to know about my left hand. I know how to spell this word, and this one, too. I just know how to spell every word. There REALLY are words, and they really do have meanings. I may not know all their nuances; I might not be able to list every possible definiens, or how a word is always being used. But I know some of them. And when I read the Bible I know that there are some things I can know prima facie: the text DOES speak for itself. Jesus was a bi-ped. He was male. He was a Jew. He was circumcised. He wasn’t drowned to death. He wasn’t a nuclear physicist fixated on quarks (though he may have been a man fixated on quirks). When Paul asks Timothy to bring his cloak because winter is approaching, it takes nothing technical in an academic or theological sense to know what the Bible “means” here. When I read that Jesus spoke to one woman, I do not have to do any gymnastics to ascertain whether he’s actually speaking to three women. The text is plain.
Granted, there is STILL some sort of cognitive element involved in knowing; a sort of physiological act that must occur. But this is to state the obvious about ANY perception. Is this what you mean? Are you suggesting that perception is not simply direct, but filtered through one’s nervous system? OK. But that does not mean, does it, that we can’t KNOW something objectively? I surely can objectively know that my knowledge is filtered through my nervous system, right? (If not, are we not reduced to being phenomenologists, even solipsists?)
I am going to guess that my confusion has to do with the terms used here. Maybe you are more precise than I see; perhaps you have left me a step or two behind. I am sorry to have pressed you for language that is a bit more colloquial. Are you simply saying that a thing can’t be known in its totality? If so, that still doesn’t mean it can’t be known objectively, or so it seems to me.
Peace to you.
PS. And I surely will not argue whether we bring “things” to our interpretations or perceptions.
Peace to you as well brother! You really took your time to give an answer and I appreciate that, thank you! I don’t think that we are in very much disagreement with each other, rather I think that you have somewhat misunderstood me. However, I will try to spell out some thoughts anyway.
First I can assure you that I am not a solipsist, neither am I a post-structuralist, although I think that the latter sometimes can be useful as a theory. As for the Bible, I value it very much and I don’t really understand why you don’t think that I do. When I say that it must be read for it to speak, I simply point out that a text doesn’t speak if it is not read, not that it doesn’t contain any intrinsic meaning. I think I make that fairly clear when I describe the act of reading as a collision between ‘two’ worlds. In the end my attempt here is not to take away from the Bible, rather I want to express that it contains a remarkable power to transform its message and make itself more relevant in todays world. When truth is understood to be revealed in a narrative form, the message of that narrative will never be limited but always have the potentiality to expand and talk into situations it’s authors could have never anticipated (I’ll probably expand on this in a post later on). If I haven’t stated it clearly before, let me try again, I believe that when you read the Bible you are allowing your life to collide with the revelation of God and this will create something new and highly relevant. So, I’m not saying that the act of reading the Bible is about finding something inside ourselves, rather I say that the text is able to speak into our unique lives in a world that is far different than the ones it was written in.
As for your assertion that I have claimed that there isn’t any objective reality, I must say that it surprise me since I wrote ‘However, the actual, real, objective reality cannot be perceived objectively…’ This statement clearly indicate that I believe there to be an actual, real, objective reality. My statement is simply that we perceive this world from our subjective perspectives, or as you yourself said it, by bringing ‘things’ to our interpretations or perceptions. And just to be clear, I’m not saying that there isn’t any correspondence between the understanding we gain and the world outside of ourselves.
If I have understood you rightly, you take ‘objectively perceive reality’ to mean ‘perceive the objective reality’. This is where I think our misunderstanding lies. My claim is that we only can ‘perceive reality subjectively’ and that simply means that we see the world through a ‘lens’ that is unique to ourselves. The only one who have an objective perspective, or untainted if you will, is God. And as Miroslav Volf points out in ‘Exclusion and Embrace’, God’s perspective isn’t simply one perspective from above, his perspective includes knowledge of all his creatures subjective perspectives as well.
Did these thought clear things out?
As soon as I discovered this internet web site I went on reddit to share some with the enjoy with them. 739727
i cannot read the comment sjust now but Thank you for thinking! It is refreshing . I am sick of ideaological Chritians either over or underliteralaising scipture!
Reblogged this on johndwmacdonald and commented:
Look into this thinking! Christ deserves moe thsan those who over literalise and those who underliteralise him and his word. This man tries to pierce beyond the slave and the rebel.. this I feel strongly!