January 14, 2013
-
Using Gadamer as a filter to study Mormon hermeneutics.
(Much insight gained from Merold Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation? (GrandRapids: Baker, 2009)).
In approaching the massive, complex world of Mormonismand how they interpret sacred texts, it is possible that German authorHans-Georg Gadamer may be “illuminatingly” and “clarifyingly” helpful. WhileGadamer doesn’t offer a “way to interpret” or a “hermeneutical method,” he doesdescribe the process in a helpful way that enables us see what is really goingon in the interpretation process (there are good reasons he does not offer sucha method). In this age of overwhelming numbers of competing worldviews andreligious perspectives, it may be time for the serious study of what isinvolved in the act of “interpretation.” Possibly the rigors of philosophicalhermeneutics, espoused by authors such as Gadamer, may help the evangelical churchbe a faithful community amidst a swirling, fiercely disputing marketplace ofideas (See Westphal, 11).
Presuppositions.First, Gadamer emphasizes the reality of “presuppositions.” We all have them,though many do not realize this, or even acknowledge it. Specifically, ourtheologies are shaped by philosophical traditions that we are a part of (SeeWestphal, 13). It is crucial to acknowledge the wrong-headedness of thefollowing idea (not necessarily explicit, but implicit in many people’sworldview): “Well, that may be your interpretation, but my Bible clearly says…”(See Westphal, 17). Furthermore, an important starting point is that everyinterpretation is guided by some preunderstanding. For instance, at the risk ofquoting a Mormon author without thorough dialogue with whole context of hisquote, it is interesting to see this apparent “just read and you’ll have theright interpretation.” One Mormon author states: “Mormons take very seriouslythe New Testament promises that “when (Christ) shall appear, we shall be likehim; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2), and that “then shall I knoweven as also I am known (1 Cor. 13:12)” (Benjamin Huff in Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theologies, Editedby David L. Paulsen & DonaldW. Musser. MercerUniversity Press (December 2007), 484). This statementcauses an eruption of reactions—is he claiming that Mormons are the only ones “takingseriously” these texts?; is he confidently proclaiming that he knows what “weshall be like him” really means?; does he take into account his own presuppositions:specifically the Mormon doctrine of eternal progression? (Of course, while askingsuch questions, I must also ask myself: when I am reading Scripture, do I takeinto account my own presuppositions? When I read Mormon authors, do I take intoaccount my own presuppositions about what I think about Mormonism?).
While one potential positive of Mormon hermeneutics isits goal to be “actualizado” (Spanish for “up-to-date”) and its desire to knowwhat the text says to us today (for we are not merely uninvolved, curiousobservers), we cannot ignore our own “lens” with which we view our world (SeeWestphal, 93). Such an emphasis of Gadamer helps us study not only Mormon hermeneutics,but evangelical hermeneutics as well (as do the following two ideas).
Community.Second, Gadamer emphasizes the reality of “communities.” We are part ofdiffering communities, and such communitiesinfluence the way we interpret our world, and any text we interact with. We areimmersed in different traditions, and such traditions often take the form ofcommunities. We can attempt to take a step back from our tradition and attemptto objectively observe it, yet a complete distanciation is impossible, since weare embedded in our particular communities/traditions (See Westphal, 70, 84).As a matter of fact, we can even say the “church” is a context of an “ongoinghermeneutical conversation” (See Westphal, 125). As Westphal states: “Gadamer’shermeneutics, with its emphasis on our embeddedness in particular traditions,is a reminder that we never see things from either everywhere or nowhere. Weare always located somewhere” (Westphal, 141). The connectedness with the previouspoint is obvious: each community/tradition has presuppositions.
Important questions to pursue: what are Mormonpresuppositions? What is exactly the Mormon community? How has the Mormoncommunity perpetuated their presuppositions? Are such presuppositionsdefensible from Scripture? (Of course, my own presupposition is obvious in thisvery question: that presuppositions need to be defensible from Scripture). Istheir emphasis on the “Living Prophet” and the trumping of the past by thepresent one such defensible presupposition?
Application.Lastly, Gadamer emphasizes the reality of “application.” Such application to the“present” is crucial part of interpretation (See Westphal, 108). This idea ispositively stressed in Mormonism. They constantly strive to “live out” theirfaith, and proclaim its importance. They would resonate with Gadamer’s thought that“The goal of biblical interpretation is holy living” (See Westphal, 112). Gadamerwould also say that “application” makes meaning concrete, giving specificmeaning to abstract language. (See Westphal, 109). He would even say that the “authordoes not give final meaning” but that the reader is essential, and that meaningis codetermined by author and reader (See Westphal, 81).
Yet, given this emphasis on modern application of the ancienttext, does that mean that for Gadamer the “author” does not matter? No, forGadamer would say that authorial meaning is not primary, just preliminary (SeeWestphal, 112), and that real meaning is always co-determined, being acombination of the original author/audience along with historical situation ofthe interpreter (See Westphal, 78). So, do we just use some method to know howto interpret correctly, taking into account the author along with anacknowledgment of our modern presuppositions/communities? Gadamer wouldemphatically deny we could ever use a fool-proof method, given our verypresuppositions and communities.
Thus, does the idea of “the author and reader giving themeaning” lend credence to Mormon hermeneutics? (That is, does the apparent ideaof “just look at the text with our Mormon lens” make sense?) Not necessarily, sincesaying that “author does not give final meaning” does not automatically meanthe “reader can and does give final meaning.” Again, both the author and readerdetermine the meaning. Interpretation must be faithful to the past and the presentif it is to bring meaning from latter to former (See Westphal, 108). Animportant question will be if Mormonism or if evangelicalism remain faithful tothe past in the process of interpretation.
Finally, to combat the idea that there is “one method” tointerpret Scripture, Gadamer touches on the idea of hermeneutics as being more an“art” than a “science” (See Westphal, 87ff.). Not only that, but that interpretationinvolves a “performance.”
Thus, if there is no “method” we can confidently use tointerpret Scripture, does that mean we should look to the “spiritual” side ofthe issue? If there is no faithful “system” that we can use to correctlyinterpret Scripture (given our presuppositions skewing any possibility to objectivlyuse such a method), do we just capitulate to the perspective of “just listen tothe Spirit”? No, because life itself, the reality of the human mind, and the processof study and reflection are much too complex to allow for this limited andlimiting perspective. For example, most would admit that no amount of just “listeningto the Spirit” would give us answers to the challenging interpretations of the identityof the “sons of God” in Gen. 6:2; or the meaning of “preaching to the spiritsin prison” (1 Pet. 3:19; cf., 4:6); or the meaning of who or what is “holdingback” the man of lawlessness (2 Thess. 2.6, 7). Serious study of context,language and 1st century realities are needed along with dependingon the Spirit. It is, as is the case in many areas, not an “either/or” but a “both/and.”Knowledge of the world of the author and our own world are necessary to (tentatively)arrive at possible meanings.
At the same time, as Westphal reminds us, it is “necessaryto listen for and to hear what the Spirit says (present tense) to the churches.Word and Spirit. As this slogan becomes practice and not just theory, thedivinely transcendent voice of Scripture will become incarnate in humanlanguage, and we will hear the very voice of God in our finite and falleninterpretations” (Westphal, 155-156).
Two massive and complex worlds: Mormonism andhermeneutics. Much study is needed in both in order to continue the dialogue…
