|
© Copyright - material in this site may not be reproduced in any media without the express permission of the Web Master. Care has been taken by this site to ensure that all necessary copyright permissions have been obtained. If this is not the case in any instance, this is an inadvertent error. Please contact the Web Master and this will be rectified. |
Orthodox Hermeneutics by Fr. Gregory Hallam "Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall Sometimes hermeneutics looks a little like Humpty Dumpty in the nursery rhyme. Below the unscaleable wall are so many broken shells, practitioners in fact, who after some now centuries of critical research are as little agreed as ever. "Q" or not "Q," early John or late John, Paul the Jew or Paul the heretic and so it goes on. Not having a firm foothold in exegesis how can we do anything other than expect Humpty to fall when attempting to straddle this hermeneutical wall? Perhaps Humpty was never in one piece in the first place! And, of course, Scripture itself contains only a rudimentary hermeneutic of its own. How then shall we navigate between the Scylla of fundamentalism and Charybdis of post modernism? Does the Orthodox Church have the same problem or does she approach biblical interpretation from a different angle? I must be honest and say that Orthodox are a little bemused by the so called hermeneutical "problem." It’s not that we fail to feel the tension between the world of the Bible and the modern age. We do. Arguably, from where we stand, we feel it more deeply than many! No, our bemusement arises from the fact higher criticism in the West has not been pursued to its most logical conclusion. It’s one thing for the exegete to recognise that the oral tradition preceded the text and that Spirit-filled Christian communities subsequently produced and edited collections of texts; it quite another to accept as a result of this the role of both the Church and Tradition in relation to Scripture.
It’s interesting perhaps that Orthodox can take on board the tools of higher criticism and come to radically different conclusions. The reasons for this mirror my own spiritual journey of which I must now speak a little. I trained at an Anglican theological college, initially for the Anglican ministry. My New Testament tutor, G.B. , was both brilliant and misguided. At least he was honest about his presuppositions and expected you to be as well. G.B. announced at the beginning of the course that his starting point was that God was rational. At least rational perhaps, (whatever that implied), but rational nonetheless. This effectively meant that God had to conform to our understanding of rationality, which in G.B.’s case was of the post-Enlightenment liberal Protestant sort. So there were certain other starting points some of which strike one as rather odd from the perspective of rationality:-
I mention this in some detail because it’s a very good example of how presuppositions radically affect hermeneutical conclusions. The filters of one’s own religious world view and spiritual journey are rarely factored in to hermeneutics, but as we have seen, they are often crucial, determinative. This is why theology may never be simply considered as a rational science. There is ample evidence that western biblical theology over the last 200 years has worked from this faulty premise with disastrous results. It’s a bit like trying to eat blancmange with a knife! In consequence, the coherence, realibility and usefulness of Scripture has been fatally undermined in many peoples’ minds. The intrinsic authority of the Word of God has all but disappeared. Anyone who appeals to this authority is branded a fundamentalist even when the authority is intrinsic and existential rather than extrinsic and revelatory. From an Orthodox point of view, the inspiration, authority and coherence of Scripture arises not from the alleged rationality of a deist God, (which is a doomed enterprise as we have seen), but from the ecclesiology of an interventionist God-in-the-community, revealing and inspiring the God-bearing human author-agents of Holy Writ. (He does a lot more than this of course, but first of all we are considering the formation of the canon). From our point of view, therefore, the contested authorship of biblical texts is scarcely a problem. For us, the test of Orthodoxy is catholic apostolicity with literary considerations only secondary and derivative. That God has spoken is more important for us than whom he has spoken through or in what language or genre. The canon emerges, therefore, under the Spirit-guided hand of the Spirit-filled community, the Church. It is customary now to receive the howls of protests of the new gnostics who claim petulantly that history belongs to the victors, (the naughty Church). Their revisionist agenda would have us open the canon to all sorts of interesting garbage and a few genuine nuggets. All the heresies have claimed divine inspiration of course. Indeed, it has been their hallmark. Remember St. Irenaeus’ question:- "Who is your bishop? What is his confession? What is his lineage?" This reminds us that Orthodoxy is intimately connected with standing in the true Church, the one, holy catholic apostolic church. If people don’t know whether they are doing that or not or indeed repudiate the question, then they are most to be pitied, particularly bearing in mind the stash of evidence that has built up over the centuries and the established criteria for delineating that one true Church of God. Orthodoxy reads these principles of apostolicity into its hermeneutic from the beginning, as we shall now see. The first stage of the hermeneutical task, the exegetical, and, indeed, every other stage may only be successfully engaged by the practitioner both standing within and fully connected to the worshipping catholic community of Christians. Orthodoxy insists that this makes the world of difference to hermeneutics. Only here, in the Church, can the biblical scholar, a saint in the making, (for there is no other test in Orthodoxy of a theologian), both hear and discern the Logos and find freedom in that clarity to proclaim lucidly and interpret wisely the transformative Word of God. This is possible neither because a magisterium has laid it all out beforehand nor because a faction has voted for it in Synod. It arises from the connections that are made to and from the exegete by the Holy Spirit from within the body of Christ, not just in this age but also in all ages and places. This is why the Vincentian canon (everywhere, always and by all) must prevail in any Orthodox hermeneutic. What of theological innovation then? What of that daring young man or woman at the frontier of theological research, bravely pioneering new and fresh approaches to Scripture not hitherto known in the Church? Orthodoxy reserves its judgement. That does not mean that we simply repeat the refrain of an ancient song, that we stifle creativity and freedom; far from it. However, that creative freedom comes from within the Tradition and is not extrinsic to it. Only someone who has listened first to the myriad of harmonious holy voices in the collective and accrued Christian mind over two millennia is fit to speak of holy things in an official or charismatic teaching capacity. When such a person speaks, the authentic voice of the Church is then heard in a new and attractive variation. The voice, however, still harmonises with the patristic testimony. Contrary to what the major sections of the western Church, both Catholic and Protestant have been saying for centuries now; the fathers and mothers of the Church do speak of our concerns, have wrestled with the problems we face, do share a common and unchanging humanity. Listening to them and learning from them is essential to an Orthodox hermeneutic that is simultaneously life enhancing and faithful to its roots. Moreover, it is the only hermeneutic that will hang together and make sense. Why? Because it’s foundation is wisdom and not knowledge! Wisdom begets wisdom. The divinely wise speak by the Holy Spirit. Fools, charlatans and propagandists merely reflect their own concerns. The mere knowledge of counterfeit carnal theology then drifts on the tide of ego because it is not anchored to God. There is no such thing as a free range, disconnected, Church-isolated academic theologian. He or she is a blind guide, a false prophet, a teacher of vanities and illusions. Avoid such. With one foot firmly anchored in the past, the Orthodox exegete now changes his hat for that of an interpreter. The literal or the historical has now to be complemented by the theological datum imparted by allegory, typology and discipleship. The unreadiness or fearfulness of exegetes of other traditions to make this jump, or at least to work with those better able to make the transition compounds the problems associated with the hermeneutical task. Although Orthodoxy resists any obscuring of the historical by theological insight not extrapolated from it, she also refuses to go down the road of radical historical scepticism as being both irrational and conditioned by faulty presuppositions about truth and the nature and action of God. As a former Anglican ordinand of conservative disposition, I used to joke with my friends about the Cheshire cat smile of Dennis Nineham’s disappearing historical Jesus. Now it’s the Jesus Seminar. The game is the same; only the players change. I think that the problem here in making the transition from exegete to interpreter lies in a faulty premise; namely that higher criticism is primarily a science and ought to be concerned only with empirically accessible data. It’s akin to the demur of the scientist when confronted with Dolly the sheep or a Trident missile. "I just do the research," he says. "It’s not my business what other people do with it!" And so it is with those stuck at the exegetical level. Not only do they deprive themselves of further insight, they also deprive the interpreters of historical rigour. Double failure then! However, biblical theology is not simply a science, at least not in an empiricist or positivist sense; it is what Fr. John Breck calls "theoria" … a spiritual vision and formation. If that is not agreeable to the "spiritually challenged" children of the Enlightenment then it’s best to be honest about it and not confuse the tools of one discipline with those of another. Dialogue and mutual enhancement do not require identity of purpose and method in these respective disciplines. Theology has its own rationale and its own self-understanding. In describing this three stage Orthodox hermeneutic, I am indebted to Fr. Theodore Stylianopoulos who has identified the final stage of the process, the transformative. Having considered what a scripture once meant and what it now could mean, the theologian, teacher or preacher must draw out those meanings so that the Holy Spirit through the Word may transform the lives of those who hear them. This is not homiletics as such; it is wider than that. It’s about connecting or reconnecting every level of reality back to God. It’s about seeing a difference in the Universe now that Christ has come in the flesh. It’s about the end of all things that ought, properly, to be the goal of all hermeneutics, a New Creation. Properly this is what all good hermeneutics should be aiming for. Now, if we trace these three stages back to the beginning, the text, we see that each and every stage incorporates the preceding stage or stages. Each succeeding stage adds something new but old, consistent with the original form but subtly changed in range and appropriateness. It is in this process that hermeneutics moves from a divine science to a divine art. Its creative potential is unleashed but without novelty or attenuation. Doctrine doesn’t develop then in Orthodox understanding; it unfolds from within the Church Tradition and engages with the culture is order to transform it. In so doing it purges those elements that are antithetical to our faith and embraces those elements that harmonise. This is a long and arduous process; well beyond the lifespan of any individual player; which of course, is another reason why theology has to be done within the Church! People forget. Anamnesis for our amnesia! So far I have contextualised Scripture in Tradition but largely dealt with it on its own ground. For a more accurate understanding of how the Scriptures are handled by the Orthodox Church, we need to look at the wider picture of how they fit into our sources of authority. Notice that please … sources (plural). There are many sources of authority in the Orthodox Church but none take precedence over Scripture, which is primary. However, the other sources are vitally important; all are interdependent and without them, Scripture cannot function properly. So, outside of Tradition, Scripture is like a fish out of water. Tradition gave it both birth and primacy as the apostolic rule of faith. Tradition is the living voice of the Holy Spirit within the community from which it emerged. To deprive Scripture of that community, the Church, to deny it that vivifying power, the Holy Spirit; all of this is to rob Scripture of its true majesty as the transformative Word of God. Worse still, the Church and Tradition then carry on regardless of Scripture, substituting philosophy, ideology or institutionalism for the Kingdom of God. Is it any wonder then that the both Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura and the Roman Catholic principle of Tradition as a parallel but not inclusive source for Scripture have all come to grief in various ways. (I don’t expect you necessarily to agree. I’m telling you what Orthodoxy honestly thinks concerning these important matters!) Orthodoxy on the other hand has always insisted that Scripture and Tradition are as wedded to each other as protons are to neutrons. Anyone who tries to split them had better watch out for a bit of loose destructive energy! If we now unpack what Orthodoxy means by Tradition, beyond the definition I have already given, "the Holy Spirit in the community," then we discover other rich veins of authority which are sustained by Scripture and which bring Scripture to life. I suppose the key words must be "icon" (in its widest and most generic biblical sense) and "doxa." "Icon" or "image" here means that which reflects God, bears His imprint. The material realm of which art is a part and humanity a cosmic microcosm functions in this way. Both art and humanity is iconic of God when consecrated to Him. These both reflect and refract the majestic grandeur of God His "doxa," His glory. The death and resurrection of Christ has restored brightness to this image. The one true Image of God, Christ, has made all things new. Now, in the Church, the Holy Spirit restores the image of God in all flesh and through humanity to the whole Cosmos. God’s glory, His "doxa" is also proclaimed in the worship and praise of His People. The contours of this worship are the contours of creation itself. Tradition, therefore, encompasses a very broad canvas in Orthodoxy from the saints in worship and service to the farthest star in science and poetry. Scripture-in-Tradition is thereby revealed in its full operational scope, not just the book of an individual that knows Jesus, although certainly that as well! This marks a radical difference between an Orthodox approach to hermeneutics and a non-Orthodox approach. For example, if someone were to ask us to explain how the Trinity connects with the Eucharist in Christian thought and to do it biblically, we would bring along not only our Bibles but also Rublev’s famous iconic representation of the Trinity, the Hospitality of Abraham. In that icon the contour of the inter-relation of the Three Persons is eucharistic. The shape of the chalice is delineated by the contours of the garments of the three angels. The icon establishes, not only in our minds but also in our hearts, the full significance of Pentecost, the Eucharistic Church and the Old Testament typological foreshadowing of these realities, of which, of course, the angelic visitation of Abraham and Sara is a key and important example. Having read the relevant Biblical passages and understood exegetically the promise of God in Isaac projected forwards, we then contemplate and venerate the icon which fulfils that promise. Beholding the icon we also, imperceptibly, enter the world of which Rublev was a part and from which and from whom we can still learn. Moreover, the saint himself who wrote that icon, may draw close to us and inspire us to become ourselves an eucharistic temple of God in the altar of our hearts. The levels involved here are numerous deep and rich. They always involve people, particularly the righteous. Professor John Romanides, therefore, rightly emphasises the role of the charismatic saint in Orthodoxy. This is someone who not only proclaims the Word of God but also lives it, gives it a human face. Without Scripture, Tradition, art and holiness working together holistically, biblical teaching fails to emerge coherently, balanced and consistently across the centuries. The hermeneutical problem now becomes the hermeneutical opportunity! That is how Orthodoxy does hermeneutics. It works because it all hangs together and travels well! There is yet one more issue to consider and it is the objective of the transformative stage, the culture that the message of the Scriptures in the Life of the Church aims to reach. Hermeneutics cannot hope to be successful until the shape and dynamic of the target culture has been clearly described, appreciated and judged against the gospel. Because this is a lump that has not yet fully received and benefited from its leaven, the task is difficult and demanding. It’s far easier but of course deadly to suspend discernment and launch into the culture with a warm embrace and a happy smile. If the third temptation of Christ in the desert means anything it is that the devil wants the world as his territory. It’s a war out there, and the sooner we recognise that the better. Much in the world is good and should be embraced as God-bearing. Much else reeks of death and must be ruthlessly exposed, even at the cost of martyrdom … which is always a good sign of the Church doing her job properly! Hermeneutics, therefore can never be merely an academic enterprise. If it degenerates like this it not only destroys itself in the process but it also robs the world of its hope. In this life and death struggle for the Kingdom of God, there are bound to be casualties, but Our Lord promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Brothers and sisters, our pens one day may have to be filled with blood not ink. Let us then write well! BIBLIOGRAPHY The New Testament, an Orthodox Perspective (Brookline, MA, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1997) Breck, John The Power of the Word (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood, NY, 1986) The Shape of Biblical Language (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood, NY, 1986) Sola Scriptura (Conciliar Press, Ben Lomond, CA, 1996)
|
