Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
In complaining about Rizal’s suggestion that identical viewpoint is required to critique, I do not mean to say that we should be free to do as a postmodern might and dismiss what one has written, drawn, sculpted, etc., and “deconstruct” it by supplying our own interpretation as the actual interpretation of the object of scrutiny. The interpretation and meaning is what the artist has created and intended. Any interpretation can only be with respect to what the artist has actually created and any critique or critique can only concern the validity of the thing expressed or the success in expressing it.
|
I seem to be somewhat conflicted in discussing the "meaning" of scripture, because on the one hand, as a christian, I think that truth is objective, while on the other hand, also as a christian, I feel that we are being slowly led into the "reality", i.e. the subjective, unfolding, experience of truth.
Therefore I find myself in somewhat of a dilemma. I feel free to criticise the authors of the source texts of faith as being only partially in the reality. Just because someone did something in the first century church doesn't mean we should try to emulate it today. We may or may not cover our heads, as prescribed by Paul, and we may or may not pray with anointing oil when ill, as recommended by James.
On the other hand, I see others apparently reinterpreting texts away from original meaning, with the "light of history" as a guide, and I'm uncomfortable... I ask, "Fine, that's what the message is to you, today, but what was it originally meant when written?" I am thinking specifically of the enigmatic "revelations" of the apostle John which conclude the Bible.
Nee said, if I understant him & Lee correctly, that the seven Asian assemblies were meant to stand for the seven "stages of church history" that were to ensue. Well, that allegorical interpretation may look good from the 20th century, but do we really think John meant to convey that to the Asian assemblies?
And this goes as well for the many interpretations of "signs" to follow. "The woman on the beast is the RCC", etc. Is the truth so specific? Were John's words meant to be so enigmatic that only the centuries of ensuing history could unveil them?
The Nee approach, in this application, seems to be the worst of all possible approaches. He says there is only one right view, and this view has been obscured until he, or the Brethren, or some similarly enlightened person came along. This thinking might even surmise that John himself didn't know what he was writing about, or that he knew and deliberately hid the interpretation from his readers.
I argue that we can, and should, ask "What did John mean, and what did he intend it to mean to his readers?", because John uses the OT liberally. There is a shared basis of meaning, when he invokes one of the many OT visions, incorporated into his own message. I think that he is trying to "activate" certain "programs" or message strings, that those OT prophets had created in the shared understanding of 1st century jewish (believer?) culture.
Anyway, it is a knotty problem, that of perspective, and I find myself circling the truth continually, going back and forth from "now" to "then", from my experience to my suppositions about the experiences of others, and trying to piece it all together.
One thing I do know, is that I am profoundly distrustful of the "once and for all" interpretation of the truth as it came to me/us from Nee & Lee. They do seem to have a lot of "bonafides" in their claims, but the very fact that they trust them so implicitly makes me mistrustful of them. If they were more sceptical I would be less sceptical.