Shane Roach said:
The problem isn't the use of hermeneutics, the problem is that your arguments don't hold any water compared to the examples you've given. So far I haven't seen your argument, just several promises to get around to it eventually. I ask once again, demonstrate your argument. Why try to drag a half dozen other subjects into the mix?
The problem is the use of Scripture. No text interprets itself. Every text has a current reader, an author, and an original audience. Let's look at these one at a time.
1. The text itself as the determiner of meaning -- even though this sounds like the position Billy Graham is taking when he says "The Bible says..." I don't think this is what he really means. It is what literalists mean. The text means exactly what the translated English words appear to mean. With Webster's and the text, we have all we need to understand it.
There is also the idea that text has properties given to it by God that transcend what the author may have intended or what the original audience may have heard. God can use this text to mean something totally different to any person God choses to reveal meaning to. This makes the text a supernatural and mystical book and the process of determining meaning is similar to divination.
2. The reader determines the meaning. This isn't the same as saying the reader discovers or deciphers the meaning. This is the idea that the reader determines the meaning as he reads. He creates the meaning and therefore each text can have multiple meanings. The text is rather like an inkblot that the reader projects his own interpretation onto. We hear some Christians who say, "Well, this is what the text means to me...." or "I know the text means that to you, but to me it means ...." A text can have multiple applications of meaning, but can it have multiple meanings depending on the reader?
3. The author and audience as determiners of meaning. What the author consciously intended to say and how the audience understood the text is what the text means. God's inspiration was of a human author to write in contemporary languages to a contemporary audience using contemporary forms of literature. Therefore, we have to interpret the text as we would any literary work. We have to read poetry as poetry, for example.
Furthermore, we have to understand that the author wanted to communicate a principle or pattern of meaning. This level of meaning is essential. Paul wrote "do not get drunk on wine." Does this mean we can get drunk on beer? If we understand the cutural situation at the time, we know that "wine" for these folks was about 1/3 as potent as our present day wine. These guys had to drink quite a bit to get drunk. We can see that Paul's focus and intention was on the state of drunkeness, not the means used to get there. If Paul were to speak to us today, he would not consider drunkeness based on Rum or Vodka to be acceptable while drunkeness based on wine to be a sin.
This is the foundation of hermeneutics. We have to come as close as we can to the language, culture, and literary forms the author used in order to find the intention of the author. Sometimes, we see the intention in the response of the audience. When Jesus told Peter to "feed his sheep", he apparently intended this to be taken at least somewhat literally. We see Peter organizing the disciples and delegating to deacons the task of caring for the widows and orphans. But Peter didn't do it by multiplying loaves and fishes. He did it by helping others learn to give of their possessions to those in need. These are intentions we can be certain are still applicable today.
When we apply this process to the passages on homosexuality, it becomes clear that the authors are writing against something other than the kinds of committed relationships we see between same sex couples today.
Another point that must be understood, however, is that God's intentions are not the same for everyone. We can find more than adequate evidence that demonstrates women are to be the property of men. But we can also see that Jesus showed us a better way regarding the place of women. Slavery was acceptable at one point in Hebrew history, but no longer. Perhaps it would be better to say that as humans were able to understand the revelation of God more clearly, they saw that slavery is not acceptable. The writings of early generations must be read in light of the fuller revelation that came later. For Christians, this revelation is Christ, and there is no Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free, in Christ.
