|
I'm not religious in any traditional sense, nor do I have much deep learning about religion, except for having studied some of Buddhism. I know you're looking for more traditional/authoritative responses, but I can't provide any, sorry. For what it's worth, your question seems to relate to something I find interesting. I was a bit baffled when I was flipping through the radio one day (traveling in Australia) and I heard a sermon railing against the evils of Deconstructionism. Having studied this in mostly a lit-crit context it was surprising and amusing to hear this abstract, dry, academic concept being pilloried as a great evil of our day. But as I thought about it and came across more discussions of the issue, I came to see how there is indeed a great war between competing paradigms of Biblical exegesis. There is a tradition that relies on the text of the Bible being perfect, with only our understanding being imperfect, often putting the Church in the role of providing the key to unlocking the meaning. Deconstruction, according to this view, is sinful because the reader is substituting an intuitive understanding of Biblical truth, obtained through self-interrogation and self-directed interpretation, for the correct reading, supplied exclusively by the traditions of the faith. The reciprocal position, taken by some atheists, is that if the Bible itself, and/or the interpretation of the Bible proffered by the Church, can be shown to be contradictory or imperfect or, especially, polyvalent, Christianity is disproven, revealed as a lie. This is the sense in which deconstruction is thought to be sinful: it appears to be a tool for negating faith, because deconstruction is all about polyvalence. It's harder to quantify intermediate views, but it seems to me that if you believe that Christianity is only valid if some form of revelation can lead you to a single Answer, to God's Word, you fall into some version of these opposing camps. An alternative view, which I personally find more satisfying, is that deconstruction is not the enemy of faith but rather its wellspring. It is only by tearing down assumptions, pondering apparently irreconciliable contradictions, confronting the possibility of radical indeterminacy that religious insight can be located. This is a view of Biblical exegesis, and by extension confronting any deep religious question, as focused on process rather than result. In other words, if you're asking for a specific answer that people will agree upon, an unambiguous Word, you will never be satisfied because your question is framed by a flawed assumption. The struggle for comprehension is not a means to the end, it is in some sense the end itself, leading to better and more compassionate interaction with the world beyond yourself. (I admit I like this because it conforms, to some extent, with Buddhist conceptions of enlightenment.) Interesting explanation along these lines here: http://timothy-beal.squarespace.com/thebibleisdead/ I would add that this last view of Biblical exegesis could well be construed as threatening to churches and religious traditions (rather than threatening to faith itself) because it condones questioning their authority as gatekeepers of meaning, interpretation, and indeed salvation. It is hard not to see such anxieties as reflecting essentially secular struggles for political influence.
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:38 |
|