I took a secular religious studies course on early christianity in college. One of the few courses I aced, actually. The textual analysis was fairly interesting. I felt like I could keep going, but, it was too secular for my taste and I felt it would have eventually led me toward making compromises between analysis and faith, given that there were some things we had gotten into that I just couldn't bring myself to accept. To pass the course, though, I had to learn to compartmentalize. It didn't take long before I found I had a fairly decent knack for putting on my secular humanist hat, then apply methodology as if only to ask the question "what does this method tell us?," and then put on a completely different hat as a believing christian, and compare the two. That process led me to some fairly good inspiration for my papers which got the grade. Hermeneutics is interesting.
That class you took does sound interesting, and I bet with the work you did in that class you became familiar with various nuances of Hermeneutics in the process.
I am wondering, though, was the class as a whole focused mainly upon 'textual analysis,' covering many of the aspects of the field of Hermeneutics, or was the class more of a survey of religions in general with a unit on interpretive methods being but one within a broader spectrum of topics that the professor covered?
I can very well understand the feeling that some things presented to you in that class seem to force to you compartmentalize in order to work through the lessons while, at the same time, keeping together your own Christian sensibilities. You're right to be wary of some of the theories that come forth from various Hermeneuticists, especially those promulgated by those who aren't (or have never been) Christian in the first place (like Derrida, for instance).
On the other hand, I might mention that within the field of Hermeneutics, there are different approaches, variations on theory, and disagreement as to the priorities we we value certain aspects and certain applications of method that are to be incorporated into our respective interpretive actions (i.e. our attempts at Exegesis).
In the world of christian religion, on the other hand, I don't really have the same impression. There's a bit of politicking wrapped up in it, and I guess it's understandable: to be an "interpreter" in christian religion is to hold a kind of position of prominence, even among protestants. We do need pastors and teachers after all.
Oh, I agree. There is some amount of politicking that goes with the claims of being a "special interpreter" of this, that or the other, and of the Bible especially. But even with that being the case, I think we can say that everyone interprets the Bible on some level and thereby derives how they think certain principles they've gleaned from their reading will apply in their lives. The upshot to this, though, is that we each do it well or we don't do it well. Personally, I've never assumed that I do it well, which is why I've been an ongoing student of Biblical exegesis and also of the larger theoretical categories of Hermeneutics.
The world of debate, on the other hand, is where hermeneutics reaches the level of absurdity. Frankly, pulling the "out of context" card really ought to be considered a formal fallacy. It's probably the most common trick in the book, and eventually, I began to resort to excluding my exegesis, interpretation, and to just throw the book at them, almost literally, and let scripture itself argue for itself.
This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that citing someone else's use of some text is out of context, whether that of a bit of Shakespeare or a verse from the Bible, is a fallacy. That's an interesting take on the issue, especially since we have so many competing denominations who disagree about what various portions and verses of the Bible actually "mean." I'd think that, logically speaking, someone, somewhere is wrong because we can't all be right when advocating for an interpretation of a verse of the Bible when, at the same time, other Christians disagree with our interpretation.
What do you mean when you say you "throw the book at others"? How does Scripture "argue for itself"? I could be wrong here, but it almost sounds like you're alluding to the principle of "Scripture interprets Scripture" as one of your own priorities in your own position on Biblical exegesis.
In the process though, I do seem to have picked up a knack and appreciation for harmonizations, and also, for the existence of a cohesive, spiritual truth -- I mean, because, let's face it, if there isn't one, well, then nobody but the secular humanists really have any business interpreting the text.
I'm not sure I follow your logic here. You might have to explain further the flow of your thinking on this point.
Moreover, I posted the video in the OP for a purpose in our discussion in this thread, so I'm wondering where you either agree or disagree with Jens Zimmerman and why?
Thanks!