"A hermeneutic of suspicion"

[Gnarwhal]

Even though I'm Catholic now I still tend to circle back every now and then to what Rob Bell is doing. Possibly one of the most controversial people in Christianity over the past 25 years, I was really into his work from about 2006-2010, then he came out with the book Love Wins that really ratcheted up the criticism and ridicule with claims that he is a universalist. Then he left ministry and has since focused on helping a broader demographic (Christian or not) with his work.

Obviously I take his stuff with a grain of salt because I know he's not coming from a solidly orthodox Catholic perspective, but I still think there is truth and wisdom that can be found in at least some of what he's putting out. And definitely in his older work from the aforementioned 2006-2010 period.

Anyway, I saw this video clip from when he went on The Minimalists podcast, and someone wrote in and asked if he was still Christian. He said he was, and went on to describe something he called the "hermeneutic of suspicion" I thought it was interesting. What do you think? It really struck a chord with me because I feel like that's where I've been at for the past year, maybe longer. I periodically have these internal realizations that I don't trust anybody, and I'm suspicious of everything whether it's religious, political, social or anything else.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

"Hermeneutic of suspicion” takes into account that "words may not always mean what they seem to mean."

Or I may be interpreting something in a way that it was never intended to be interpreted. So suspicion of my own bias.

The Hermeneutic of Suspicion

Abstract. The expression “hermeneutic of suspicion” is a tautological way of saying what thoughtful people have always known, that words may not always mean wha

academic.oup.com

But he has a point about "labels' AND "teams". We need to be very suspicious when clear cut labels and even answers are give.