Why I am no longer a fundamentalist: Part IV: Hermeneutical Musings

The basic controversy between Higher Criticism and the Literal-Grammatical Method (fundamentalism) is how to approach the plain reading of the text and the cultural influences of the time. If we can consider these as two separate entities lets identify them as...

1. The plain rendering of the text

2. The cultural background.

Now both sides agree that these two entities exist, and both agree that an accurate interpretation of the Bible requires both these elements, but we disagree as to the order. Fundamentalists are willing and wanting to engage in studies which heighten their understanding of the cultural background, but such knowledge is never able to provide a breach upon the rendering of the plain and simple meaning. 

I believe this is because fundamentalists see the importance of a universally accessible Tome of sacred

writings, due in part to their belief that unbelievers must suffer an eternity in hell. Every unbeliever is informed of his fate in the Bible and those who still choose to disbelieve must suffer the consequences. Thus, fundamentalism is in many ways a self-confirming spirituality that allows the devotee the luxury of knowing that he is right regardless. If a person were allowed to justify their unbelief in hell based on the cultural background of the Jewish people then the reality of spiritual devotion seems to be in jeopardy  So again we see fundamentalists responding to a threat.

In a rather ironic twist which borderlines on paradox the fundamentalist accepts a rather ubiquitous double standard when it comes to his Scriptures. The fundamentalist derides reductionism as a perversion of science and claims that true knowledge must be able to be influenced by sacred scripture, but what the fundamentalist utilizes in approaching scripture is a reductionistic method of interpretation. If a text can only mean what the plain reading renders then you are reducing that meaning and limiting it regardless of the cultural depth we see in the past.

The reality is that fundamentalists only comfort themselves with superficial knowledge of the past only to appease themselves that they are interested in the "heritage" of the Bible. Such knowledge only accompanies what their preconceived interpretations are. They do not look to the past to be informed by it. They believe they are already informed by it. They look to the past to simply find confirming evidence of what they already know. This is understandable, but it is not justifiable. And it fits neatly into the model of fundamentalism that we are seeing. The fundamentalist fears that an honest look into the past will eradicate the Christian faith and because of this he creates a hedge around his beliefs which cannot be penetrated.

Fundamentalism arose during the Enlightenment by overemphasizing (1) the plain reading of the text, and I would say that it operated in tandem with Liberal Protestantism which also arose out of the Enlightenment by and overemphasis on (2) the cultural background. The Liberals were wrong. They wanted to remove the Bible almost entirely, because it was simply a myth, and they wanted to make a religion of rational morality. The fundamentalists were right to oppose them.

Neo-Orthodoxy does not fall into the trap of Liberal Protestantism. They do not remove (1) simply because it is a myth, and they do not focus on the moralizing qualities of (2). The cultural background does have a precedent when it comes to understand what the plain text means, and in this manner there is a priority to (2) over and above (1), but at the same time no text was ever written to simply convey its plain rendering. And Neo-Orthodoxy saves the plain reading of the text by provided a more amiable framework to accept it in. Liberal Protestantism derided the Bible because it was myth, but Neo-Orthodoxy embraces the use of myth in religion as a modicum of humans being able to express their experience of God. Many theologians along the tradition of Higher Criticism have found themes and models present in the Biblical narratives which arise as contrived insertions to make a theological and spiritual commentary upon the event itself.

For instance, Jesus' miracles are in many ways re-creations of Moses' or Elijah's miracles. The fundamentalist sees this as evidence that God miraculously engineered history so that Jesus would repeat the very same miracles Moses or Elijah performed, but the critic sees this as an insertion on the writers part to convey the message that the power or the God they saw in Jesus was the same God that empowered Moses and Elijah. The critic does not call the authors liars or deceivers  but he understands that cultural influences determine in many ways what a piece of work has to say. The message has to be received.

So the plain reading can guide the investigation into the cultural background, but the cultural background always sets the foundation for the plain reading. Neo-Orthodoxy is able to synthesize (1) and (2) together and though they work in a hierarchical structure they are united, unlike Liberal Protestantism and fundamentalism.

I propose that Higher Criticism through Neo-Orthodoxy can provide a more unifying experience of Scripture then Fundamentalism can do through the Literal-Grammatical Method. And I will do this in my next article.