Postmodern Exegesis (Or is it Eisegesis?)

Below is a response to a prompt for a paper in the class I am taking right now. The class is focusing on postmodernism and how it should or should not influence the church. Overall, postmodernism within the church allows for a plurality of theologies that are all viable and valid interpretations of what Scripture teaches. According to postmodernists, truth is articulated via language, and language is always interpreted. The interpretation of all language is tainted by cultural and historical perspectives that allow for different yet valid interpretations of the same truth. I hope that my response to the prompt does an adequate job of showing how the postmodern approach to Biblical interpretation validates all interpretations as acceptable eisegetical interpretations because purely exegetical interpretations are impossible. If this is truly the case, then how are we to know what "sound doctrine" is?

In what respect does a pure intratextuality tend to domesticate the biblical worldview to one’s own spiritual experience?

            Greer (2003) explains that Volf sees a problem with conservative theology's tendency to define theology in intratextual categories. The problem of using the Bible as the hermeneutical control, according to Volf, is that, "Reality is thereby interpreted in terms of the Bible" (Greer, 2003, p. 107). Volf argues that it is impossible to let Scripture interpret Scripture, and that those who insist upon pure intratextuality do not recognize, "The influence of one's culture taking on a clandestine role in one's interpretation of Scripture" (Greer, 2003, p. 107).

            Volf continues to argue that, "We can look at our culture through the lens of religious texts only as we look at these texts through the lens of culture" (Greer, 2003, p. 108). We can never strip the cultural lens from our eyes, and therefore, at best we can only interpret Scripture with Scripture through the cultural lenses we wear. Greer (2003) explains that, "This does not mean that we are condemned to our own culture and can never make contact with the biblical culture, but rather that we must admit that everything we see is always colored by the seer" (p. 108).

            The conclusion that Volf reaches is that, "exegesis and...eisegesis are inseparable compatriots as one studies the Bible" (Greer, 2003, p. 107). That is to say, one cannot help but read into Scripture some of the cultural predispositions that they possess even when trying to exegete Scripture with Scripture. Volf maintains that, "The notion of inhabiting the biblical story is hermeneutically naive because it presupposes that those who are faced with the biblical story can be completely 'dislodged' from their extratextual dwelling places and 'resettled' into intratextual homes" (Greer, 2003, p. 108).

            Therefore, Volf argues that a pure intratextuality tends to domesticate the biblical worldview to one’s own spiritual experience. Greer (2003) argues that, "A sense of foolish arrogance naturally develops (e.g., the flat-earth society) as we insist on interpreting our social environments from only our intratextual perspectives" (p. 109). If our intratextual perspectives are actually shaped by extratextual categories then we are subconsciously reading our own spiritual experiences into what we believe to be a biblical worldview.

            To some degree, I can agree with Volf's thought process as a warning to every theologian seeking to exegete a passage of Scripture. However, I do not agree that pure exegesis is an impossibility. I do recognize that every exegetical hermeneutic must guard against eisegesis, but I do not believe that every exegesis is subject to subconscious eisegesis stemming from the interpreter's cultural lens reading into Scripture his or her own spiritual experiences.

            Given, some passages of Scripture are more prone to subconscious extratextual interpretation than others. For example, investigating the narrative of Jesus' birth, Bailey (2008) ponders, "Have the centuries added meanings to our understanding of the text that are not there?" (loc. 210). Bailey (2008) argues that the source of the misinterpretation of the account of Jesus' birth stems from a novel written two hundred years after the birth of Jesus titled The Protoevangelium of James. Bailey (2008) explains that, "The average Christian, who has never heard of this book, is nonetheless unconsciously influenced by it" (loc. 240). Due to extratextual interpretations of the biblical account of Jesus' birth, many Christian today believe that Jesus was born in a stable because there was no room in the inn for Mary and Joseph. However, Bailey (2008) shows how the intratextual-cum-extratextual approach to the passage actually demonstrates that, "Jesus was born in a simple two-room village home such as the Middle East has known for at least three thousand years," and that this can be seen by stripping away, "layers of interpretive mythology that have built up around it" (loc. 369).

            However, not every Biblical passage is laden with cultural nuances that must be discovered, researched, and interpreted before the passage can be understood in a pure exegetical sense, devoid of eisegesis. For instance, consider Romans 7:24: "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (ESV). Volf maintains that, "We always see the biblical story through the lens of culture" (Greer, 2003, p. 108). However, many passages, like this one, are not tainted or obscured via our cultural lens. What does Paul mean in this passage? Am I subconsciously infusing my cultural lens and spiritual experiences on this passage if I maintain that Paul recognizes that he is spiritually dead and in need of a savior? Am I reading myself into Paul and missing Paul's point completely? Is there enough wiggle room in the cultural variation between Paul and myself that the meaning of his words here are no longer perspicuous to me?

            It seems to me, Volf is seeking to excuse pluralism in our theologies by blaming his perceived inadequacies of timeless languages to convey truths across generations and cultures. However, how do I know he is not just reaching this conclusion by subconsciously reading into Biblical exegesis his cultural predisposition to postmodern thought concerning semiotic languages? How do I know that his position on, "the inevitable role of extratextualities upon our interpretation of the Bible" (Greer, 2003, p. 109) is not reached by a subconscious influence of his own spiritual experiences? In the postmodern world, everything is suspect and there is no concrete foundation on which to build upon. Paul's language in Eph. 2:20-21 turns us to Scripture as the foundation on which to build the household of God. 
          Therefore, I am willing to reject Volf's assumption that, "No single theology is categorically correct" (Greer, 2003, p. 109) and rest by faith that Paul directs us to Scripture because its teachings are perspicuous. Why would Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, direct us to Holy Scripture as our foundation if it would lead to a plurality of "diverse, changeable, and individual" (Greer, 2003, p. 109) cultural interpretations that were all equally valid? Paul exhorts Titus to, "Teach what accords with sound doctrine" (Tit. 2:1). Therefore, we can assume that Titus was to avoid teaching doctrine that was not sound. How was Titus to know if his teaching was sound or not? If he met Volf, he would be in a constant state of worry, wondering if he is subconsciously interpreting Paul's words extratextually rather than intratextually and eisegeting rather than exegeting Scripture. I, therefore, maintain that Scripture is to be our guide and that Paul's exhortation to Titus to teach sound doctrine implies that theologians can exegete sound doctrine from Scripture intratextually without completing obscuring the meaning with their own cultural and spiritual experiences in a way that renders acceptable theological plurality.

References:

Bailey, K. E. (2008). Jesus through Middle Eastern eyes: Cultural studies in the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Greer, R. (2003). Mapping postmodernism: A survey of Christian options. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.