PERSPECTIVE OR POSITION: Biblical hermeneutics of dialogue and definition

Paper presented to the 2012 Annual meeting of Aotearoa/New Zealand Association of Biblical Studies (ANZABS) at Laidlaw College, Auckland, New Zealand

John C. Douglas 11/12/2012

1

Abstract

Aotearoa New Zealand (ANZ) contemporary society continues to challenge Christian

engagement with public thinking, questions and questioning. Consequently institutional

leadership(s) and faith communities are “asked” to state or define positions; such asking-

sources are overt and covert, verbal and perceptual. In matters of public concern ANZ

Christianity, especially its conservative and evangelical elements, has generally been

disposed to expressing themselves through formed-position statements and definition. Today

a holding-and-stating-the-truth-styled-mentality is easily in conflict with “the zeitgeist” not

only that of contemporary ANZ society; also that of significant numbers of current

participants within Christian faith communities. The life-spirit favours “perspective and

dialogue.” This paper will consider possible contributions from Wolfgang Iser’s concept of

the “wandering viewpoint/wandernde Blickpunkt,” and Wilner Meijer’s applications of his

notion into the hermeneutics of textual reading. The presentation’s discussion will seek to

draw a contrast between “position and perspective” by considering that; sharing perspectives

enables dialogue; holding identifiable positions necessitates definition.

John C. Douglas,

Tauranga, New Zealand

jcd@sage.ac.nz

2

PERSPECTIVE OR POSITION: Biblical hermeneutics of dialogue and definition

Christian faith has always been subject to challenge in the public square. Though not

friendly territory, from early-days “the arena” has been familiar terrain. Aotearoa New

Zealand’s (ANZ) contemporary society continues to challenge Christian engagement with

public thinking, questions and questioning; 2012 has been a year of “upping the ante.”

Consequently institutional leadership(s) and faith communities are being “asked” to state or

define positions; such asking-sources are overt and covert, verbal and perceptual. In matters

of public concern ANZ Christianity, especially its conservative and evangelical elements,

have generally/historically been disposed to expressing themselves through formed-position

statements and definition. Today a holding-and-stating-the-truth-styled-mentality is easily in

conflict with “the zeitgeist” not only that of our contemporary ANZ society; but also that of

significant numbers of current participants within Christian faith communities. The life-spirit

favours “perspective and dialogue.”

In the paper’s discussion I seek to draw a contrast between “position and perspective”

by considering that; sharing perspectives enables dialogue; holding identifiable positions

necessitates definition. In seeking to achieve this we will briefly consider the connections of

doctrine/beliefs, the pursuit of theology in praxis, and emerging disciplines/philosophies of

hermeneutics. To address back-grounding concerns of preparing for dialogue in the public

square the Biblical hermeneutical activity of reading selected Biblical text(s) for an “aesthetic

response” will be outlined. In doing so I will consider possible contributions from Wolfgang

Iser’s concept of the “wandering viewpoint/wandernde Blickpunkt,” and Wilner Meijer’s

applications of his notion into the hermeneutics of textual reading.

3

Drawing Distinctions in Positions and Perspectives

In Christian faith, position has and continues to hold importance. Positions as formal

doctrines of tenets of belief are normalities within Christian community; they are products (in

large part) of hermeneutical endeavour within Biblical text, reason, tradition, and

experience.1 Such “positions” influence not only what is “held” by a faith-community, but

what holds it and when challenged, where it/they “stand” or “what it/they stand for.” These

exist as: creeds, doctrines, or confessions.

1. Creeds are minimalist adequate positions.

2. Doctrines are defined and supported (often comprehensive) positions.

3. Confessions are comprehensive Subscriptional positions.

As positions, beliefs possess both cognitive and affective connections with an authoritative

source (I.e. Scripture, confessional statement, ecclesial authority, or traditions).

When “put on the spot”- belief/value positions “mark the spot.” Luther was neither first nor

last to utter (and translate) “here I stand I cannot do otherwise.”2 Doctrinal positions are

generally developed as “internal language” cf. Public Square, and like Luther’s mix of

German and Latin do not aid public dialogue without contextualisation into common

“language”; itself a hermeneutical exercise. In such responsive interactions “position”

becomes the ground which a group takes in an argument or controversy; the point of view

from which they proceed to a discussion; a principle laid down as the basis of reasoning from

a defined position. Holding identifiable positions necessitates definition.

Christian individuals or groups seeking to respond in public dialogue do not come

without the value shaping influences of an historic and ongoing connection with “positions of

doctrinal belief.” While an all-too-familiar “internal starting reality” within faith-community

1Roger E. Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity ( Leicester,

England: Apollos, 2002), 52-57.

2Roland Herbert Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson

Publishers, 2009), 180.

4

it is not a common ground for effective public dialogue. This enterprise requires an approach

of connecting through a “framed perspective” - the call to do theology. Historically the

church has sought to hold formed doctrine, and do theology. Theology essentially is the

contemporary pursuit of Christian doctrine. The church does not merely hold doctrine;

historic creeds remind us doctrine holds the church. This takes me back to hermeneutics.

While hermeneutics is historically (at least in the seminary/ministry formation

academy) allied to homiletics, its natural allegiance is theology.3 Hermeneutics is founded on

theology, not a theology of definition; a theology of incarnation, encounter appropriating

God’s self-revelation.4 Our practices of hermeneutics must not only enable and influence the

formation of perspective; it must itself formed by perspective. What’s perspective? To scope

a perspectives on perspective, understanding must encompass several of the following;

analysis, affiliation, contribution, evaluation, integration, perception, synthesis, or viewpoint

ELEMENT ONE WORD

SUMMARY I.E.

COMMON REPRESENTATIVE

STATEMENT

1. The ability to perceive things in

their actual interrelations or comparative importance:

ANALYSIS

Being able to see various aspects of a

matter/issue and attribute the parts into some form of integration and interrelationship

I tried to keep my perspective

throughout the crisis

2. Coming from a social perspective AFFILIATION Socialization and “affinities” shape identity

and perceptions

I am very much a liberal,

although my economic policies are very conservative.

3. Having a particular way of

viewing things that depends on one’s experience and personality:

CONTRIBUTION

Perspective that is shaped by both ones’

relative experiences and personality affects/enables understanding

She brings a new perspective

to the dialogue.

4. A growing ability to consider

things in relation to one another accurately and fairly

EVALUATION

Life experiences and learning leads to

maturing in abilities of integration and evaluation

With more maturity and

experience, you will gradually acquire perspective.

5. Seeing matters in an integrated

outlook INTEGRATION

If something is in perspective, it is considered

as part of a complete situation so that you have an accurate and fair understanding of it:

Let's try to talk about both

sides of the issue and put it in perspective.

6. A subjective evaluation of relative

significance PERCEPTION The perspective of the displaced worker.

From where things are in my

situation I perceive . . .

7. The relationship of aspects of a

broad-matter to each other and to

a whole SYNTHESIS

One has a need to view an identified problem

in the proper perspective.

This is how I see the matter

8. A point of view VIEWPOINT A perspective of history From the standpoint of...... I

understand

3Werner G. Jeanrond, Theological Hermeneutics: Development and Significance (Macmillan, 1991).

4Jens Zimmermann, Recovering Theological Hermeneutics: An Incarnational-Trinitarian Theory of

Interpretation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004), 318.

5

In summary, “Perspective” is the views (generally underpinned by beliefs and values) we

identify, integrate and interact with others from in seeking to “do theology;” a theology

which has the qualities of dialogue and journey, yet speaks from an “uncertain certainty.”

Perspective empowers sharing, sharing perspectives enables dialogue.

Aesthetic Response Theory in Reading Biblical Texts

We are familiar with cognitive and volitional responses to biblical text(s), so what is

aesthetic response? Aesthetic response describes an affective or emotional response a

person(s) has/have to material, which is based on the individual's (or groups) background

knowledge, attitudes, and experiences; it is a coalesced perspective capable of grounding an

engagement in dialogue with other persons or groups.5 It can be analysed in terms of a

dialectic relationship between text, reader and interactions; it is brought about by interaction

with text.

Textual

structures

Structured acts of

comprehension Theory of

RESPONSE Theory of RECEPTION

It differs from a theory of reception which always deals with existing readers, whose

reactions testify to certain historically conditioned experiences with (often the same)

literature/texts. A theory of response has its roots in the text; a theory of reception arises from

a history of readers’ judgements.6 Textual structures and structured acts of comprehension

are two poles in the act of communication, whose success depends on the degree in which the

text establishes as a co-relative in the reader’s consciousness. Ideally this is an incarnational

5http://www.termwiki.com/EN:aesthetic_response (accessed 6/12/12).

6Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press, 1978), ix-xi.

6

synergism of text and reader’s processing faculties as activated (but not dictated) through

engagement within the text.7 Note: While the act and process of reading is influenced by

objective structures often considered to more descriptive and communally normative, it is

also subject to inter-subjective structures. Objectivity rests on subjective ground; not

necessarily solid, but ground nether less.

Aesthetic Reading in Biblical Texts Requires Wandering Not Rambling

A basic and sometimes forgotten perspective in doing hermeneutics is “read the text!”

We work with it, on it, at it, through it, around it, in it, or even from it using the literary

ability of reading; yet we can read without reading. We all can recall Mortimer Adler’s four

levels of reading (elementary, inspectional, analytical, and syntopical)8 knowing multiple

reading levels call for differing integrations of hermeneutical practices. To read, you don’t

just read. Reading is not a direct process of internalisation, because it is not a one-way

process; reading process is a dynamic interaction between reader and text.

When reading for position we generally work (consciously or sub-consciously)

through a theory of reception. Viewpoint and interpretation largely arise from our history of

judgement; not only of “past experience with present text” but that of biblical/theological

hermeneutical method.9 The reading drive is for objectivity.

7Ibid., 107.

8Mortimer Jerome Adler and Charles Lincoln Van Doren, How to Read a Book, Rev. and updated ed.

(New York,: Simon and Schuster, 1972).

9This may range from the basic rudiments of (1) biblical introduction, (2) grammatical exegesis, (3)

Christological exegesis, (4) allegorical inference, to (5) motifs, (6) semiotics, (7) philosophical and/or scientific

hermeneutics, (8) constituent norms and expectations, or (9) postmodern deconstruction hermeneutics of

suspicion, etc.

7

Iser on Reading and the “Wandering Viewpoint”10

In reading for perspective the journey is within the text, the viewpoint of the reader is

not set; it is wandering, but not rambling. Easy said, but not necessarily easily done. Seeking

to read for an aesthetic response to its voice involves the addressing of a series of problems:

1. The whole text can never be perceived at any one time; it differs from given objects

which can generally be viewed or at least conceived as a whole.

2. The object of the text can only be imagined by way of different consecutive phases

of reading; we always stand outside the given object, whereas we are situated inside

the literary text.

In short, the relationship between text and reader is therefore quite different from that

between object and observer: instead of a subject-object relationship, there is a “moving

viewpoint” which travels along inside that which it has to apprehend. This mode of grasping

an object is unique to literature.11

3. Literary texts do not serve merely to denote empirically existing objects. The text’s

selected objects are taken out of their pragmatic context, shattering original frames of

reference, resulting in revealing aspects (e.g. social norms) which had remained

hidden as long as the frame of reference remained intact.

This means the reader is given no chance to detach themselves, as they would if the text was

purely denotative. Rather than finding if the text is giving an accurate or inaccurate

description of the object, they have to build up the object for themselves – often in a manner

running counter to the “familiar world” evoked by the text.

10

Iser, 108-117.

11Ibid., 109.

8

4. The reader’s wandering viewpoint is, at one and the same time, caught up in and

transcended by the object by the object it is to apprehend. Apperception12

does not

occur holistically, it can only take place in phases, each of which contains aspects of

the object to be constituted, but none of which can claim to be representative of it.

5. Synthesizing is a continuous activity during reading. Therefore the aesthetic object

cannot be identified with any of its manifestations during the time-flow of its reading.

The incompleteness of each manifestation necessitates syntheses, which in turn bring

about the transfer of the text to the reader’s consciousness. The synthesising process

however is not sporadic – it continues throughout every phase of the wandering

viewpoint.

Iser notes:

While it is clear that throughout the reading process there is a continual interplay

between modified expectations and transformed memories; the text itself does not

formulate expectations or their modifications, nor does it specify how connectability

of memories is to be implemented. This is the province of the reader . . . a first insight

into how the synthesizing activity of the reader enables the text to be transferred into

their own mind.13

This process shows up the basic hermeneutic structure of reading;

Each sentence correlate contains;

o a hollow section, which looks forward to the next correlate, and

o A retrospective section, which answers the expectations of the preceding

sentence (now part of the remembered background).

Consequently every moment of reading is a dialectic of protension and retention,

conveying;

o a future horizon yet to be occupied, along with

o a past (and continually fading) horizon already filled;

12

Apperception is the process of understanding by which newly observed qualities of an object are

related to past experience. It also entails moving from the (1) known to (2) the unknown to make it known.

13Iser, 111.

9

The wandering viewpoint carves its passage through both at the same time and

leaves them to merge together in its wake.

o As the text cannot at any one moment be grasped as a whole, there is no

escaping this process.

What may at first sight seemed like a disadvantage, in comparison with our normative

modes of perception, may now be seen to offer distinct advantages, in so far as it permits

a process through which the aesthetic object is constantly being structured and

restructured.

Note: As there is no definite frame of reference to regulate this process, successful

communication must ultimately depend on the reader's creative activity.

Meijer on the “Wandering Viewpoint”

Wilna Meijer in her article on hermeneutics of religious education shows how the

concept of the wandering viewpoint (wandernde Blickpunkt) coined by the theorist of

reception-aesthetics Wolfgang Iser is applicable not only for literary fiction but for a wider

spectrum of texts:

Without an overall view of the entire text, the reader moves through the text and

gradually forms an image of the meaning. A ‘wandering viewpoint’: the eye of the

reader moves, travels through the text … What has already been read forms the

expectation of what is still to come. If the text that follows meets that expectation, the

reader will be able to follow the rest of the narrative and trace his course through the

text. But if something unexpected happens, if he experiences surprise at the course of

events in the story, he will then have to re-think the meaning of earlier passages which

have kindled the mistaken expectation. The ‘wandering viewpoint’ therefore, does not

merely refer to travelling through the text from beginning to end, but also includes

revisiting parts of the text read earlier in order to place them in a new perspective, to

see them in new ways, to interpret them differently.14

14

W.A.J. Meijer, "The Hermeneutics of (Religious) Education: Reading and Interpretation as a Model

for the Educational Process," Journal of Religious Education 55, no. 3 (2007): 36.

10

Doug Brent on the “Wandering Viewpoint”

In an evaluation of Iser’s wandering viewpoint Brent comments:

“Although a text is linear, the virtual work is not. The virtual work is not on the page

but is a construct in memory. We cannot attend to an entire work, even an entire

virtual work in memory, at the same time, so the reader's focus must continually

change depending on which segment of the growing work she is attending to at a

given moment. Iser uses the term "theme" for the view of the work that the reader is

involved with at a given moment; the other potential viewpoints, which continue to

affect the reader but are not currently focal, constitute the "horizon." As the reader's

viewpoint moves through the work, the present theme becomes horizon as another

view becomes focal.

The wandering viewpoint helps explain not only not only how interpretation varies,

but also how those variations are systematic. [It is important to] remember the larger

rhetorical situation in which the act of rhetorical reading is situated. The reader reads

not just for the proximate goal of evoking a meaning from the text, but for the more

long-term goal of updating knowledge and belief. When trying to decide what to

believe, the reader will actively search for specific pieces of material that relate to the

questions she is asking. The viewpoint wanders in response to the kinds of things the

reader wants to know.

Of course these questions are unstable. The act of acquiring answers, or partial

answers, to some questions throws up new ones. This is like the well-established

concept of the ‘research cycle’: [namely] the reader, armed with a very general

question, explores sources to find answers that modify and refine the question, which

leads him to different sources and back into the same sources with a new focus. But

the wandering viewpoint puts a new edge on this old idea. It suggests that the reader's

questions guide not just which texts he will go to, but how he evokes a virtual work

from those texts.”15

Is this just the Hermeneutical Circle by another name?

Good question. Hermeneutical circle16

as a process applied in understanding a

text expresses the idea that one perception of the text as a whole is established by reference to

the individual parts and one understands each individual part by reference to the whole.

15

Doug Brent, Reading as Rhetorical Invention: Knowledge, Persuasion, and the Teaching of

Research-Based Writing (Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1992).

16Bernard L. Ramm, "Biblical Interpretation," in Baker's Dictionary of Practical Theology, ed. Ralph

G. Turnbull (Grand Rapids,: Baker Book House, 1967), 102. Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A

Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.:

InterVarsity Press, 2006), 89-92.

11

Neither the whole text nor any individual part can be understood without reference to one

another, and hence, it is a circle. However, this circular character of interpretation does not

make it impossible to interpret a text; rather, it stresses that the meaning of a text must be

found within its theological, cultural, historical, and literary context. The hermeneutical-circle

process functions to integrate centred interpretation. Close, but different. The difference is in

the nature of horizon.

Iser’s reading dialectic functions between markers of protension (expectations) and

retention (experienced experience) that convey to the reader a future horizon yet to be

occupied, along with a past (and continually fading) horizon already filled. It is characterised

by “landscape” or experienced perspective enabled by the reading encounter with the text.

Such encounter which develops horizon for reader(s) is generally evaluated for consistency in

regard to existing values, beliefs and motivations.

Gadamer on “Horizon”

Gadamer defines horizon stating that:

“every finite present has its limitations. We define the concept of ‘situation’ by saying

that it represents a standpoint that limits the possibility of vision. Hence essential part

of the concept of situation is the concept of ‘horizon.’ The horizon is the range of

vision that includes everything that can be seen from a particular vantage point... A

person who has no horizon is a man who does not see far enough and hence

overvalues what is nearest to him. On the other hand, ‘to have an horizon’ means not

being limited to what is nearby, but to being able to see beyond it...[W]orking out of

the hermeneutical situation means the achievement of the right horizon of inquiry for

the questions evoked by the encounter with tradition.”17

Reading through being engaged in a “Wandering viewpoint” will show us our horizon has

holes, but keep reading; they are temporary, they will be filled – but not with Hobbits. Not

only do we have horizons, those we dialogue do also; as we exchange ideas, especially in

17

Hans-Georg Gadamer, Joel Weinsheimer, and Donald G. Marshall, Truth and Method, 2nd, rev. ed.,

Continuum Impacts (London ; New York: Continuum, 2004), 302.

12

response to “concerns in the public square” we are on the lookout for the possibility of “a

fusion of horizons.” Remembering we can read to form perspective or confirm position;

methinks it should not be one or the other, but both and.

Postscript: Yes, but How?

In seeking to engage in aesthetic reading as an individual or group/community the real

challenge of our fixed entry points/approaches to reading in often familiar texts requires

acknowledgement; simply because much of our hermeneutical praxis skills, though cognitive,

are operative subconsciously. Once acknowledged some perspectives and protocols to enable

a commencing into aesthetic response reading may then be adopted, especially those in

regard to engaging “wandering viewpoint(s)” and “horizons.” We cannot come to the text

empty, but we can come differently and therefore “more openly.” An example of coming to

the text openly, though not “empty” is to adopt a concept of “reading against the grain” or

“resistant reading”18

Clines illustrates the concept, commenting how most readers of the

Pentateuch have subscribed to an ideology of the text; consequently they have read through a

“perceived grain of the text.” He suggests to read from for the viewpoint [perspective] of an

Egyptian or Canaanite would be to approach the narrative against-the-grain19

(I.e. resistant

reading) causing the narrative-journey to flow quite differently, thus enabling wandering

viewpoint functionality and horizon perceptivity’s emergence.

To proceed as a group/community to read for “perspective formation” through the

corporate engaging with an identified text the process should firstly be undertaken as a shared

18

Judith Fetterley, The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction (Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 1978). David J A Clines, "Images of Yahweh: God in the Pentateuch," in Studies in

Old Testament Theology, ed. Robert L. Hubbard, Robert K. Johnston, and Robert P. Meye (Dallas: Word Pub.,

1992).

19Clines, 82.

13

act of oral/aural reading. Secondly, seek to recognize through discussion and reflection the

text’s voice and integration; identifying the varying reader’s affective or emotional responses

to the reading journey; an effective grounding question might be; “What did they see,

experience, engage and were engaged by?” Then through summarisation, identify, maybe

onto a whiteboard or large “A-sized sheets”; what do we see, how were we engaged? What

are the common aspects of our experience? What engages us that will enable/empower us to

engage with others? Hopefully such an exercise may enable the framing/formation of

coalesced perspective, capable of grounding engagement in dialogue with other persons or

groups; a perspective that could be analysed in terms of the groups' dialectic relationship

between text, each other, and their reading experience. Having a horizon brought about by a

corporate aesthetic interaction with text.

14

Reference Sources

Adler, Mortimer Jerome, and Charles Lincoln Van Doren. How to Read a Book. Rev. and

updated ed. New York,: Simon and Schuster, 1972.

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.

Bainton, Roland Herbert. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. Peabody, Mass.:

Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.

Brent, Doug. Reading as Rhetorical Invention: Knowledge, Persuasion, and the Teaching of

Research-Based Writing. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1992.

Clines, David J A. "Images of Yahweh: God in the Pentateuch." In Studies in Old Testament

Theology, ed. Robert L. Hubbard, Robert K. Johnston and Robert P. Meye, 79-98.

Dallas: Word Pub., 1992.

Fetterley, Judith. The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Joel Weinsheimer, and Donald G. Marshall. Truth and Method. 2nd,

rev. ed. Continuum Impacts. London ; New York: Continuum, 2004.

Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1978.

________. The Range of Interpretation The Wellek Library Lecture Series at the University

of California, Irvine. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000.

Jack, Alison. "Text to Praxis: Hermeneutics and Homiletics in Dialogue." Journal for the

Study of the New Testament 32, no. 5 (2010): 160-161.

Jeanrond, Werner G. Theological Hermeneutics: Development and Significance: Macmillan,

1991.

Jodock, Darrell. "The Reciprocity between Scripture and Theology: The Role of Scripture in

Contemporary Theological Reflection." Interpretation 44 (1990): 369-382.

Meijer, W.A.J. "The Hermeneutics of (Religious) Education: Reading and Interpretation as a

Model for the Educational Process." Journal of Religious Education 55, no. 3 (2007):

34-38.

Olson, Roger E. The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity.

Leicester, England: Apollos, 2002.

Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical

Interpretation. Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,

2006.

15

Ramm, Bernard L. "Biblical Interpretation." In Baker's Dictionary of Practical Theology, ed.

Ralph G. Turnbull, 99-107. Grand Rapids,: Baker Book House, 1967.

Ricœur, Paul, and Lewis Seymour Mudge. Essays on Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1980.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: A Study in

Hermeneutics and Theology. Cambridge [England] ; New York: Cambridge

University Press, 1990.

Zimmermann, Jens. Recovering Theological Hermeneutics: An Incarnational-Trinitarian

Theory of Interpretation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004.