17 February 2006

Critical Realism and Justice continued

Follow the link to read some more on CR and Justice...

http://criticalrealism.blogspot.com/2006/02/critical-realism-and-justice.html

Tom

10 February 2006

Bibliography for CR and the Bible

When I talk about Critical Realism, I am referring to the work of Bernard Lonergan, Ben F. Meyer, and N.T. Wright. Here are some of their writings:

Lonergan, Bernard J. F. Method in Theology. Minneapolis : Seabury Pr, 1979.

In Method in Theology Lonergan lays out his proposed method for constructive, collaborative theological work based on his cognitional theory and critical realist epistemology which is laid out in his earlier work Insight: A Study of Human Understanding.

Meyer, Ben F. Reality and Illusion in New Testament Scholarship: A Primer in Critical Realist Hermeneutics. Collegeville, Minn : Liturgical Pr, 1994.

Meyer utilizes the thought of Lonergan and applies it specifically to New Testament scholarship. This book is a good introduction to Lonergan's thought as well as a good study of its implications for biblical study. Many of the ideas in Critical Realism and the New Testament are brought together in this book.

Meyer, Ben F. Critical Realism and the New Testament. Allison Park, Pa : Pickwick Pubns, 1989.

This book is a collection of essays and articles written by Meyer especially concerned with applying Lonergan's thought to New Testament studies.

Meyer, Ben F. The Aims of Jesus. [S.l.] : SCM Pr, 1979.

Ben Meyer's study of the historical Jesus. Many of Lonergan's insights have specific applications for Meyer. Meyer lays out many of the significant philosophical issues and shows how critical realism lays bare many unfounded enlightenment biases which have had a profound impact on historical Jesus studies. Critical realism provides a philosophical framework for his study of Jesus, whose principal aim according to Meyer was to gather the eschatological people of God.

Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis : Augsburg Fortress, 1989.

Wright's first volume in his series, Christian Origins and the Question of God. This work is devoted to Wright's methodology. Wright is strongly influenced by Meyer (and in turn Lonergan) although his critical realism is highly original. Wright posits critical realism over and against positivistic and phenomenalist epistemologies. His method utilizes 'story' (and metanarrative) as a fundamental category of knowing and proceeds as a combination of historical, literary and theological study of the New Testament.

Another Critical Realist approach (not influenced by Lonergan):
Vanhoozer, Kevin. Is There a Meaning in This Text? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

09 February 2006

Evangelicals and Scripture

The irony is this: a high regard for Scripture as the "Word of God" on the one hand and a low regard for Scripture when it comes to interpretation.

In avoiding the historical question of the Enlightenment (which was asked polemically in ways designed to undermine Scripture as the Word of God), the evangelical church has asserted the authority of Scripture (often in unhealthy ways) without doing the hard work in coming to understanding the historical and cultural context in which it was written.

Lack of serious reflection about how the Bible is Scripture and how it should be used in the life of the Church leaves many clergy without a way of doing satisfactory interpretation. (Tom Wright provides, I think a good way of answering the question "How can the Bible be authoritative?". See his article at http://www.sahs-info.org/articles.html)

This is to say nothing of the laity which is dependant on a poorly trained clergy which is ever tempted to choose which lexical meaning fits the theme of this week's sermon and interpretation turns into mere "projection." On the other hand, theological frameworks lurk beneath positivistic readings- reading the Bible in ways that only confirm what one was taught as if it was the most obvious reading of a text.

The fragmentary and highly subjective readings of Scripture each claim to be the most objective and obvious. The irony is embarassing for many of us remaining in the evangelical fold.

A Way Forward?
I think Critical Realism provides a way forward in asserting the truth of Scripture, first in its context, and only then for us in our context. To say Scripture is a disembodied a-historical truth for all times may seem to be a high statement of the worth of Scripture, but it does not help us interpret Scripture. Furthermore, it implicitly denies that Christianity (and Judaism as well) is a historical religion. The very idea that God is the author of history, creator and redeemer and was revealed in a cultural and historical figure, Jesus Christ, makes it possible that God is still at work within our present cultural and historical context. The importance of the New Testament for Christian faith cannot be underestimated and because of this, understanding its meaning within the context of First-Century Judaism is essential. This is a task almost all Evangelicals, clergy or laity are not trained for.

It is much harder, but is ultimately worth it.

05 February 2006

Interpreting Texts (Reading Scripture)

Most every day readers are either naive realists or phenomenalists. When it comes to the Bible, most evangelicals are a strange mix of the two. To say that the common church people do not know how to read Scripture is true, but it isn't their fault. To me, it comes down to a system that has disempowered people, fostered dependancy on the institutional church and catered to the consumer in the believer.

To say, "It's the word of God, I believe it, and that settles it" is a good example of navie realism- attempting to read straight off of the text. It's nice, but makes the Bible into something it is not. (It is the word of God, but first for its context)

Also, most evangelicals, when in their quiet time read a chapter of Paul for instance, are perfectly at home coming up with a very impressionistic understanding of its meaning, actually projecting a meaning onto the text. A sort of "what this means to me" style of reading.

To say that the book of Romans is God's word through Paul to the Church of Rome, for a specific purpose in the First Century does not diminish its role as Scripture. It does mean that if we want to learn from it, we need to let it be what it is. Only then, can it be a source of inspiration and teaching.

04 February 2006

Lonergan on Interpretation

For naive realists, reading of texts proceeds as if the meaning of the text is to be read straight off of the page without the need for interpretation. This leads to a tremendously impressionistic and naïve readings of texts.

The extreme which characterizes much postmodern thought sees reading a text as pure projection of the reader's horizon onto the text. Over and against this disparity (between naive realism and phenomenalism) Lonergan suggests that the meaning of a text is the intent of the author, in so far as the author successfully expresses it in the text. Gaining access to this is not like seeing (limited to the world of immediacy) but is achieved through a process. The interpreter begins with her own concerns, yet as she interacts with a text, and rereads it, holding off judgment, she can eventually arrive at a grasp of the reader's successfully embodied intent. For Lonergan, being an interpreter is an intensely difficult task which includes not only understanding the words or object of thought, "but of understanding the author himself, his nation, language, time, culture, way of life, and cast of mind" (Method in Theology 160).

Bernard Lonergan's Critical Realism

Lonergan’s epistemology gives us the resources to understand the shifting horizons of late-modern culture. He gives an account of the history of philosophy that is based on his cognitional theory. Many of our present conflicts have roots in philosophical conflicts that many know little about. Joseph Kroger compares Lonergan and Michael Polanyi showing that both see a basic shift in the notion of reason between classical and modern models and both offer a third notion of reason. For Lonergan this is transcendental method and is based on cognitional theory. His task is reconstructive in light of current philosophical trends. He does not despair in the face of postmodernism, but offers a way forward. He understands the notions of reason at work in classical and modern thought and offers an explanatory account while positing a better notion of reason.

We see Lonergan's approach in his treatment of theories of knowing. Lonergan shows that idealism and empiricism, though they are never able to speak meaningfully to one another, share an underlying notion of reality: that knowing reality is analogous to seeing. This idea of knowledge claims that “objectivity is seeing what is there to be seen and not seeing what is not there, and that the real is what is out there now to be looked at” (Method in Theology 238). In the case of idealism, what is contained in the mind is meaningful, it just in no way refers to the real. Lonergan claims that this overlooks the distinction between the world of immediate sense experience and the world as mediated by meaning (which is the real world). Lonergan's critical realism acknowledges this distinction and seeks to know the world mediated by meaning.

02 February 2006

Critical Realism and Justice

Isaiah, (the critical realist?), describing the righteous judge-

"He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear, but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth." (Isaiah 11:3-4).

There seems to me to be an inherent connection between the insight, that knowing is not like seeing, and the prophetic call for justice. Things, in society, are not as they appear- structures that are not seen, are not only real, they are meaningful, determinative and often unjust. There is no way to discern from the surface of things what is really happening, what forces are at work. To really work for justice then, requires an active engagement of the knower with reality.

Naive realism tends to construe issues of justice and poverty as merely matters of personal responsibility. The surface shows available opportunity (of some sort) and personal lack of initiative while not revealing underlying factors such as the lack of competitive education from an early age for certain sectors of society. This is what Isaiah calls to "judge by what [one] sees..."

The cynic despairs, justice is an impossibility- and really has no ultimate ground.

The critical realist recognizes that the drive to know (common to all) has an existential counterpart, the drive to the good. Despite the immense difficulty involved, to deny the drive to the good (justice) is to deny something that is essentially human. Critical realism is by far, the harder road. The naive realist and cynic are equally at home with their ability to maneuver out of responsibility. Neither, however, are satisfied, having suppressed something of what it means to be truly human.

All human longing is tied up with these drives, and to deny them is dangerous.

01 February 2006

Things Are Not As They Appear/ Seeing is Not Believing

"Seeing is believing" does not describe either our seeing or our believing. Seeing (or sensing of any kind) is really the beginning, the call to knowing- we see and we are drawn, called into the unknown. Our drive to know seeks to make the unknown known and make sense of the world- not as available to the senses, but as it is mediated by meaning.

Followers