Placemat Notes
Margaret and I had a relaxing day in Halifax, mostly hanging out at
Second Cup. Toward late afternoon, we strolled through the buskers festival on the waterfront, then made our way circuitously to avegetarian restaurant that forms the ground floor of a Sri Chinmoy study centre. We had a wonderful dinner — a very savory stir-fry and tofu, and a vegetable stroganoff that might have benefited from a little more zip — and talked over the paper Margaret will be giving at the Society of Biblical Literature meeting in November.
She contrasts the relative prominence of Hans Frei in the field of the theological interpretation of Scripture with the relative obscurity of Henri de Lubac. Frei emphasized the importance of the “plain sense” of Scripture as a regulative principle for interpretation, where de Lubac proposed the continuing relevance of the medieval church’s appreciation of multiple senses for biblical interpretation. Margaret’s arguing that de Lubac offers the more productive and theologically-appropriate model for thinking through hermeneutical problems.
One aspect of the discussion involves the extent to which advocates of the “plain sense” often find that principle especially important when they’re trying to make a case that their own interpretation of Scripture is right (theirs is the plain sense), and their opposite number’s interpretation is wrong. If the plain sense always only favors “our side,” though, isn’t it in grave danger of functioning as a mere lever for forcing “our” way onto others? Is there a way to advocate a plain-sense interpretive theory without inscribing the discourse in an ideologically-determined control game? (Here Margaret’s paper runs a course parallel to the one I set out, on the biblical-studies side of the disciplinary divide, in “
Integral and Differential Hermeneutics.”)
It was a great, provocative dinner, as the placemat testifies, and it’ll make a terrific paper.
Posted by AKMA at August 7, 2004 08:36 AM
| TrackBack
-----------
If the plain sense always only favors “our side,” though, isn’t it in grave danger of functioning as a mere lever for forcing “our” way onto others?
-----------
Perhaps I'm not following (in fact, it's quite likely), but isn't that the whole point? That is to say, in the context of trying to convert others, as part of some missionary imperative.
2 cents from the cheap seats:
Frei's common sense approach to interpretation of scripture is obviously only as strong as any particular debater's skills. Lebeau's more middlin position ultimately cannot hold as whatever passes for a priori in theology can always still be argued from multiple "plain sense" perspectives.
I hope you guys continue. I don't think I get this at all which, of course, makes this utterly fascinating.
