Social Constructionism and Imagination as Applied to Biblical Hermeneutics

I credit my wife with making me a more learned and cultured person. In particular importance to today’s topic, she has opened my eyes through her studies of Constructionism. Today I’d like to attempt to explore how one might apply the philosophy of Constructionism to the science of Biblical Interpretation by examining an article by notable scholar Walter Brueggemann.  I will try to curb any profound exploration of epistemology at this time so as to not become bogged down in unwarranted discussion.

All of Walter Brueggemann’s quotes are taken from the article Biblical Authority: A Personal Reflection.

Constructionism – What is it? And what does it have to do with Biblical Interpretation?

1. Constructionism proposes that learning is an active process wherein learners are actively constructing mental models and theories of the world around them. Constructionism holds that learning can happen most effectively when people are actively making things in the real world (Constructionism in Wikipedia).
   
2. Social Constructionism – a psychological and sociological theory of knowledge. A social construct is a concept or practice which may appear to be natural and obvious to those who accept it, but in reality is an invention of a particular culture or society. (Social Constructionism in Wikipedia).

It is essentially “learning-by-making.” The learner is consciously engaged in constructing (Seymour Papert).

The definitions, I must admit may seem inadequate so I will attempt to expound upon them.  The philosophy of Social Constructionism concerns itself with the ways in which individuals and groups participate in the creation of their perceived social reality. This falls under the rubric “lingo creates realities.” Just by using speech we create an alternative reality- for better or for worse. What we do and what we say either favorably or adversely affects the world around us. We are constantly engaged in constructing. It goes beyond the more common philosophy ofConstructivism. An example of Constructivist thought is the Indian proverb of Blind Men and an Elephant. Essentially it recognizes our own interpretations, biases, and subjectivity, stating that their is a reality (truth), yet we can never truly wrap our hands around it.  Social Constructionism goes further in asserting that there is no elephant unless we bring it to reality by talking about it- everything depends upon language.  It is an extremist view of reality (or rather, the non-existence of reality).  For example (from my wife), if malnourished people do not have a construct for malnourishment does that not make them malnourished?  Or a more recent example:  You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.  However, I think it does well to inform us of how important our use of language is in constructing our realities.  Therefore change in language=change in our experience.

As for Biblical Hermeneutics:

[For a primer on Biblical Hermeneutics I would suggest you read Jack K. Willsey’s brief article: Current Trends In Biblical Hermeneutics.]

The onset of postmodern hermeneutics has made us aware of the strong subjective element that is inherent in the text. This has made available a new and vast array of interpretive mechanisms. Through Intertextuality studies it has been determined that the law was never meant to be a closed, static facet of life- it was always dynamic, open to interpretation and change by both the community and Yahweh in dialogue, especially with the onset of new social changes and unforeseeable circumstances.

Walter Brueggemann states:

“The Bible is essentially an open, artistic, imaginative narrative of God’s staggering care for the world, a narrative that will feed and nurture into obedience that builds community precisely by respect for the liberty of the Christian man or woman.”

Notice the word “build” that he uses. The Bible should be a tool that if used correctly, constructs alternative realities- realities that have at the center Yahweh’s intentions. This goes in hand with the creation motif that runs throughout the Bible. And “obedience,” could this be more than just loyalty to Yahweh? Could it be that loyalty to our Creator is not an end to itself, but that it furthers Creation? Loyalty or obedience creates new constructs, new realities- ones that operate contrary to the constructs in which we live, eat, and breath in everyday existence; these constructs sustain life.

One of Walter Brueggemann’s tenets of Biblical Hermeneutics (see article, Part IV) is imagination. . .

“Interpretation is not the reiteration of the text; it is rather the movement of the text beyond itself in fresh ways. . . Imagination is the vehicle for interpretation. This is what Moses was doing at the Jordan in Deuteronomy; this is what Jesus was doing in his rabbinic way, ‘You have heard it said of old’…And this is what the church always does when it risks moving the text to its own time and place.”

To accompany and flesh-out the above quote, the following is taken from Part III: Interpretation of Brueggemann’s article.

The process of interpretation which precludes final settlement on almost all questions is self-evident in the Bible itself. As Gerhard Rad spent his life making clear, Deuteronomy is the model and engine of an on-going interpretive dynamic in the Old Testament; Moses becomes the cipher for all those hermeneutists yet to come who dispute with the text of Moses, so that what we have in the text is Moses contra Moses. One can see in the text itself this dynamic, for even Deuteronomy acknowledges that its own tradition is not from Sinai, but it is a derivative form and an extrapolation as a “second,” (deuteros) reading for a new time and place (Deut. 17:18). Thus Moses enunciates the required interpretive principle: Not with our ancestors did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today (Deut. 5:3). After the reiterated decalogue of Chapter 5, the tradition of Deuteronomy proceeds to extrapolate from Sinai for many chapters at the Jordan for a new circumstance.

A stunning case in point is the Mosaic teaching in Deut. 23:1-8 that bans from the community all those with distorted sexuality and all those who are foreigners. In Isaiah 56:3-8 this Mosaic teaching is frontally overturned in the Bible itself, offering what Herbert Donner terms an intentional “abrogation” of Mosaic law in new teaching. The old, no doubt circumstance-driven exclusion in the mouth of Moses in Deut. 23 is answered by a circumstance-driven inclusiveness in Is. 56.

In Deut. 24:1, moreover, Moses teaches that marriages broken in infidelity cannot be restored, even if both parties want to get back together. But in Jeremiah 3, in a shocking reversal given in a pathos-filled poem, God’s own voice indicates a readiness to violate that Torah teaching for the sake of restored marriage to Israel. The old teaching is seen to be problematic even for God. The latter text shows God prepared to move beyond the old prohibition in order that the inherent evangelical claims of God’s graciousness may be fully available even to recalcitrant Israel. In at least embarrassment and perhaps in humiliation, the God of the poem in Jeremiah willfully overrides the old text in new circumstance of pathos. It becomes clear that the interpretive project that constitutes the final form of the text is itself profoundly polyvalent, yielding no single exegetical outcome, but allowing layers and layers of fresh reading in which God’s own life and character are deeply engaged and put at risk.”

As one of my undergrad professors would say, “The Scriptures are ever-new.”

“Circumstance-driven,” is a term that no doubt will cause some to cringe, saying, “Well, if we attribute everything to situational circumstance nothing sacred holds.” I would attempt to interject that what is paramount here is that we ask ourselves what was the purpose or function of the statutes that were set forth in the first place- what were they to accomplish? And of course it is situational- God is a relational God, God has gotten personal with us. As I have written before (quoting Terence E. Fretheim) “God works with the possibilities that are available to him. Nothing is a given except God’s promises- how we get to their fulfillment is between us and God.”

As the same professor has exclaimed: “God will accomplish God’s agenda in God’s world,” (See Isaiah in particular for God’s over-arching plan).

Do not think I am simply advocating an extremist version of the Reader-Response hermeneutic, rather I support one that extracts an intended meaning as read from an ‘as closely reconstructed original context as possible’; the interpreter responds to it; expands upon it; and makes it transmutable to the context in which the interpreter is in. In essence, an act of “creative imagination” as Brueggemann eloquently puts it.

I cannot imagine anyone that would today uphold the laws as found in Exodus 21, even in the light of Matthew 5:17. The Lex Talionus (Exodus 21:24-25) did not serve to exact punishment as equal to the crime, but rather to ensure equality of all classes of humanity before the law. In its context the Lex Talionus was revolutionary in regards to social ethics. To us today, if enacted, would be a retrograde of 3000 years, annulling all social advances. Today, our situation and circumstances have changed. We are now to extrapolate from God’s instruction, God’s Creation-serving intention- to create new constructs governed by the ethics that are ingrained in the commands from God.

Brueggemann further states that the goal of Biblical Interpretation should be that “the world may have access to the good truth of the God who creates, redeems, and consummates.”

One way of doing this is by acknowledging that we truly are co-creators with Yahweh; to own up to that responsibility. We should recognize that our duties are to create life-supporting / life-creating realities in this world. In respect to language, it can either make or break a person. Why should we then not create constructs that enable people- to empower them to live life to its fullest? How can the ‘Scriptures of old’ be transmuted to provide direction in such a task in our day and time?

The Ten Commandments were not simply prohibitions to test obedience, but were focused in the furthering of life– achieving quality life as viewed with “creational lenses.” If viewed positively, Exodus 20:16, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,” sends a message to always say things that will build one another up. It calls us to construct realities that deliver kindness; to use speech to advance another’s well-being. The heart of the matter is edification, not the bridling of painful words.

James in 3:1-18 and 4:11-12 expands upon an old command (as does his brother Jesus on countless occasions). They are going to infinity and beyond! What James did is interpret Exodus 20:16 positively. We have examples to go to infinity in creating healthy, life-supporting constructs out of the instruction that God has graciously given us. Just as society has an affect on us and our character, so too, we have the power to have an influence on society and its character.  Just imagine what we can do- and only with our toungues!

We must ask ourselves, what is our goal in interpreting the Bible? We must always strive to have Yahweh’s intentions for Creation as our intentions. In regards to Social Constructionism, we must confess that the “modern” meanings that we derive from the text are merely constructs composed out of our own experiential realities. Therefore we must try to inform ourselves of the cultural context in which the message was composed in order to regress to the particular worldview in question to better ascertain to what end was the text written (contra Social Constructionism there was a concrete message/reality). In regards to Constructionism in general, we must be conscious to what extent our actions have an affect on the realities around us (i.e. our violent speech and behaviors), and how we must take an active role in interpretation- not passive, but engaging the text and letting it breath new life into us (2 Timothy 3:16) so that we might play a God-given role in changing constructs that envelope us.

–MLW

The Word of our God stands forever. – Isaiah 40:8

I invite you to see some background information on The Biblical Theology Movement.