hermeneutics

I think that we need new ways of talking about God. Most of the imagery we use is taken from scripture. This makes sense, but I guess what I'm thinking is that the writers of the books in the Bible were creating their own images, and that we need to as well. Or, at least, there is precedent for it. It gets old hearing the same imagery repeated over and over. This is one of the reasons that I like mewithoutYou. Jesus seems pretty liberal with his own images of God, like comparing God to a judge that won't give someone justice until they bug him enough. I feel like maybe that frees me up a little.

I'm trying to figure out how to interpret the Bible, what an appropriate means of interpretation is, an appropriate hermeneutic. I don't know if I buy into interpretations where we can examine the conduct of, say, the early church or individuals (except Jesus), and then say that we should follow their example. For one thing, the early church was wrong. That is, the early church was not perfect. They had their own struggles and ways in which they were wrong. This applies to individuals as well. I am not convinced that someone's behavior in the Bible implies a precedent or guideline for how I should life my life and live my life as a Christian. The struggle is that I instinctively interpret the Bible in this way, perhaps because that is how I've always seen it interpreted. And I do believe that it is scripture (whatever that means), so in some sense it's going to be didactic and lesson-teaching.

We recognize on some level that we can't interpret the Bible so easily, because the Bible is about messed up people whose example we both can't follow and must follow. The funny thing is, I would use the very hermeneutic that I'm suspicious of to answer peoples questions and doubts, maybe because they would probably accept that type of answer.

I suppose the lessons I'm learning now are different. They are precedents, in a sense, but different precedents. I look at Job, and see that God wants nothing to do with existential dishonesty, that he wants nothing to do with me or anyone else making excuses for him, that he would rather I be honestly wrong than dishonestly right, that giving someone orthodox answers while ignoring and rejecting their experience and their suffering is wrong.

Another thing I was thinking of: one of the best things about the Message is that we recognize it as the interpretation of an individual human being. I guess the point is that all translation is interpretation, and that's useful to recognize when reading the Bible (or any other book translated into English). No matter how objective a translator attempts to be, they will interpret, and hopefully interpret in they way they think is most accurate. This requires interpretation.

Seeking a new way of interpretation, I feel like someone could easily point at me and quote verses which say to hold fast to the truth I was taught. There could probably be some validity to this, but I don't think it's very relevant since I have no way of knowing the difference between truth and not-quite-truths that were taught to me. That way of thinking implies that someone got it absolutely right. No one did, no one has, no one will. Paul didn't have it right (but hopefully we got the parts he did get right), and none of the writers of the Bible did. No teaching or interpretation has ever got "it" right. That doesn't need to make us feel afraid. God has it right, and I think that's enough.

God > Bible.

I don't need to try to fit absolute truth into every sentence. I decided this a little bit ago. Right now, I appreciate honesty more than accuracy.

Right now, I feel like I want more of the mystery of God and Jesus and Christianity. Less explicits, less explanation, less systematic interpretation. I don't want explicit songs, I want mysterious songs. I don't want simplistic explanations, I want to admit that for a lot of things, we don't have a clue. New images, same God.