On the Role of Imagination in Biblical Theology
The brief review, Walter Brueggemann and the role of imagination in Biblical theology , challenges how we approach Scripture for the purpose of interpreting its message and its meaning to us and consequently how we should live our lives. The article rightly states that "traditionally there has been no place for the open recognition of imagination in theological writings, since it was seen as subjective fantasy, and unworthy of serious rational thought." I referred a friend onto this article and he replied, "imagination is a necessity for good understanding of what God says. But others will smuggle in more than this if we don't listen carefully to no more than what God says." Below is my take on the subject of our imagination in the interpretation of Scripture as guide for our lives.
According to the article, Bruegmann's own definition says: “Imagination clearly means in evangelical terms the capacity to think beyond our taken-for-granted world to a world that is promised of God.” I find MY imagination, when exercised, works in several ways. It expresses the possibility of the real (one may say, ‘a real possibility’) within the bounds of possibilities organised according to known facts and data that are “taken for granted” (eg, a new machine using known mechanical principles). My imagination also explores what could be real (eg a new machine based on yet to be figured mechanical principles, ala HG Wells’ space vehicles), as opposed to the fictional ‘possibilities’ (eg Harry Potter type of invention).
When it comes to imagining the possibilities of “a world that is promised of God” this is where, I believe, the Church (we) often fails, for we do not tend to think beyond our experience. Our expectation for the future is bound to principles that we already ‘take for granted’ in a closed system. It is quite probable that the prosperity-thinkers and preachers function along these lines, especially if prosperity is bound to material goods and a well-being dependant on such things. What if we believed God beyond what we have already experienced, beyond what we may “ask or think?”
Could this mean handing over, of giving up our rights to exercising our rational faculties and allowing ourselves to become fully informed about our future direction by God? This is not about prophetic vision as commonly understood (ie. prophets prophesying the future) but about God’s vision for us however he may convey it to us. This may mean, of course, that our regular ways and means of perceiving and believing matters about our future may be seriously flawed. Even our preferred method and practice of Biblical interpretation may need to be radically revised. Did not the scribes and the Pharisees, and even the disciples and people of Israel, have their understanding about WHAT IS and WHAT SHALL BE radically overhauled by Jesus? The whole ‘Jesus thing’ blew their mind.
What my friend says is true. Our trouble is in HOW we listen and, obviously, WHAT we listen to. All sorts of filters can come into play through our interpretation of what God says in his word and into our heart. An overwhelming “literal” method of interpretation is a good example of such a filter -- it can filter out some good stuff, which then becomes lost to us, if we do not appreciate the range of literary forms used in the Scriptures. Yet, I think the thing that is lost, above all, is our lack of appreciation of the Holy Spirit within us as THE true and totally reliable interpreter of ALL truth. In denying Holy Spirit his rightful place we are bound to end up with the situation where our interpretation of the “this” (in my friends quote) is dependant on intellectual faculties (or lack thereof) and an associated and overtly rational approach that does not allow God to be the doer of new things. Let us imagine sitting ‘between’ the Father and the Holy Spirit, as an observer, during an inner ‘conversation’ in the Godhead. What would happen of we blocked one, or the other from what we hear?
Primarily, I tend to think in ideas and concepts and possibilities-to-explore, and not in simple mechanics -- my inclination toward experiment and exploration is inbuilt, I cannot escape its influence within my life. And that influence applies to the way I read, understand and appreciate the Scriptures. Those activities, after all, are a search for meaning and life. Even so, my particular preferences need to be both tempered and informed by the work of Holy Spirit. What does it mean -- what is the full range of possible meanings connected with -- for Zacchaeus to have to climb the tree to see Jesus, for example? What could we imagine was going on in his mind? What can we imagine his life was like? What can we imagine he felt when Jesus said he was going to dine at his house? To what extent may he have been a marginalised person in society? Is the Biblical story of Luke 19 only just for us to know, in simple mechanical terms, that Jesus had dinner at McZacchaeus, or something about the identity and character of Jesus, or that Zed coughed up the moolah because he was caught out and/or felt embarrassed and guilty? Or, does it reach to our heart and show something of the intentional, confrontational and transformational possibilities that exist within God’s scheme of things that he is set on accomplishing? Of the later it certainly does, and says as much, but we must come to terms with who Zacchaeus is -- that he could have been just like us, and us like him, is as necessary to our understanding of the passage as anything else. Here is the transformation: "8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount." Without the appreciation of who he is (or could have been) we are left high and dry in appreciating the extent of the transformation. In such things, I suggest, we need to apply our imagination and draw on our experience of life to understand people like Zacchaeus -- but we don't stop with our experience for we must consider the possibilities of what a life God promised by and in God.
In asking such 'imaginative' questions we push the boundaries of what it means to understand the possible nature of the process of the impact that Jesus had on Zed’s life, as much as the end result. It has everything to do with the dynamics of belief and how God brings about faith in our lives. It also has everything to do with the limits of what God ‘says’. Is it possible, I ask, that God may speak to us through his Word and also bring to light more truth than we can ever read in the ‘text’ of his word? It is a dangerous question, for it asks if God’s revelation to us is static or dynamic; is it textually limited or is his Word en toto, to us, mediated through or via the text, in a living way that encompasses all truth?
To be sure of one thing, the text is not the goal of our searching, nor is an intellectual assent to its truthfulness and reliability in all matters of faith and life. I think the text wakes us up the possibilities of life in God, ie. the world that is promised of God. The text is very much about giving us a memory of what God has done and about the future of what God will do based on his past mighty acts. In both cases we trust God because of the past and we place our hope in Him because of our future. At the end of the day we come up with an interpretation that we believe true to the Word. Is it about being true to the word literally? Or, can it be also true to what we may imaginatively perceive is God’s intention for us: to understand about what he can and will do in our lives; of which we can be confident because it is consistent with -- but not identical to -- what he has done in the past, as revealed in his Word. There is much to be thought through and considered in this regard and I have much homework to do.
Sermons and teaching that do not touch and transform lives today are simply a dry orthodoxy – and may well be approaching a puffed-up and good-for-nothing body-of-knowledge. (I have the same issue about history; a passion of mine). All this makes me ask, what temptations MAY Jesus have experienced in the wilderness (Luke 4), before the last three mentioned in the text? To answer this hypothetical question we have to access our own experience of life and postulate the possibilities. It leads us to examine ourselves, and in doing so expose ourselves to interrogation and the possibility of seeing that of which we are in need. What is the answer to our need as people tempted? The same as Jesus’ answer:- trust and believe God no matter what is offered and walk in the light of his what he has said. And so, I believe, it is good to ask such questions as what temptations may Jesus have experienced, but not what temptations DID Jesus experience. The difference between these two variables, in favour of the former, is what I think to be a healthy exploration of our past (memory) and our present (life), with an eye on the future (hope) using our imagination, opposed to an abuse of the written word through an smuggling stuff into the text. We need to make a distinction between what is a fair handing of the broad issues raised in the text and that which seeks to puff the text out to meet our own ends, or compress it to such a limited degree that there is only one idea in the text. [I have long questioned the validity of searching for the alleged, singular "Big Idea" in the text in favour of opening our understanding up to the many possibilities that may be offered in the text. If the text was about the one Big Idea then why, I ask, has not the one big idea been authoritatively and consistently identified for us?]
The bigger problem that concerns me is not so much whether some may try and smuggle something in on us as we explore the many possibilities of meaning within the text, but whether we shut God out of our understanding in favour of a closed, mechanical and unimaginative approach to God’s word because we are fearful of being led astray. To be sure of one thing, if we DO understand God’s message to us correctly then we will be able to identify and refute those who smuggle stuff into the Biblical story. It is futile to think that we can construct a hedge of safety around the Word of God -- He and what he said says is much bigger than that.
According to the article, Bruegmann's own definition says: “Imagination clearly means in evangelical terms the capacity to think beyond our taken-for-granted world to a world that is promised of God.” I find MY imagination, when exercised, works in several ways. It expresses the possibility of the real (one may say, ‘a real possibility’) within the bounds of possibilities organised according to known facts and data that are “taken for granted” (eg, a new machine using known mechanical principles). My imagination also explores what could be real (eg a new machine based on yet to be figured mechanical principles, ala HG Wells’ space vehicles), as opposed to the fictional ‘possibilities’ (eg Harry Potter type of invention).
When it comes to imagining the possibilities of “a world that is promised of God” this is where, I believe, the Church (we) often fails, for we do not tend to think beyond our experience. Our expectation for the future is bound to principles that we already ‘take for granted’ in a closed system. It is quite probable that the prosperity-thinkers and preachers function along these lines, especially if prosperity is bound to material goods and a well-being dependant on such things. What if we believed God beyond what we have already experienced, beyond what we may “ask or think?”
Could this mean handing over, of giving up our rights to exercising our rational faculties and allowing ourselves to become fully informed about our future direction by God? This is not about prophetic vision as commonly understood (ie. prophets prophesying the future) but about God’s vision for us however he may convey it to us. This may mean, of course, that our regular ways and means of perceiving and believing matters about our future may be seriously flawed. Even our preferred method and practice of Biblical interpretation may need to be radically revised. Did not the scribes and the Pharisees, and even the disciples and people of Israel, have their understanding about WHAT IS and WHAT SHALL BE radically overhauled by Jesus? The whole ‘Jesus thing’ blew their mind.
What my friend says is true. Our trouble is in HOW we listen and, obviously, WHAT we listen to. All sorts of filters can come into play through our interpretation of what God says in his word and into our heart. An overwhelming “literal” method of interpretation is a good example of such a filter -- it can filter out some good stuff, which then becomes lost to us, if we do not appreciate the range of literary forms used in the Scriptures. Yet, I think the thing that is lost, above all, is our lack of appreciation of the Holy Spirit within us as THE true and totally reliable interpreter of ALL truth. In denying Holy Spirit his rightful place we are bound to end up with the situation where our interpretation of the “this” (in my friends quote) is dependant on intellectual faculties (or lack thereof) and an associated and overtly rational approach that does not allow God to be the doer of new things. Let us imagine sitting ‘between’ the Father and the Holy Spirit, as an observer, during an inner ‘conversation’ in the Godhead. What would happen of we blocked one, or the other from what we hear?
Primarily, I tend to think in ideas and concepts and possibilities-to-explore, and not in simple mechanics -- my inclination toward experiment and exploration is inbuilt, I cannot escape its influence within my life. And that influence applies to the way I read, understand and appreciate the Scriptures. Those activities, after all, are a search for meaning and life. Even so, my particular preferences need to be both tempered and informed by the work of Holy Spirit. What does it mean -- what is the full range of possible meanings connected with -- for Zacchaeus to have to climb the tree to see Jesus, for example? What could we imagine was going on in his mind? What can we imagine his life was like? What can we imagine he felt when Jesus said he was going to dine at his house? To what extent may he have been a marginalised person in society? Is the Biblical story of Luke 19 only just for us to know, in simple mechanical terms, that Jesus had dinner at McZacchaeus, or something about the identity and character of Jesus, or that Zed coughed up the moolah because he was caught out and/or felt embarrassed and guilty? Or, does it reach to our heart and show something of the intentional, confrontational and transformational possibilities that exist within God’s scheme of things that he is set on accomplishing? Of the later it certainly does, and says as much, but we must come to terms with who Zacchaeus is -- that he could have been just like us, and us like him, is as necessary to our understanding of the passage as anything else. Here is the transformation: "8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount." Without the appreciation of who he is (or could have been) we are left high and dry in appreciating the extent of the transformation. In such things, I suggest, we need to apply our imagination and draw on our experience of life to understand people like Zacchaeus -- but we don't stop with our experience for we must consider the possibilities of what a life God promised by and in God.
In asking such 'imaginative' questions we push the boundaries of what it means to understand the possible nature of the process of the impact that Jesus had on Zed’s life, as much as the end result. It has everything to do with the dynamics of belief and how God brings about faith in our lives. It also has everything to do with the limits of what God ‘says’. Is it possible, I ask, that God may speak to us through his Word and also bring to light more truth than we can ever read in the ‘text’ of his word? It is a dangerous question, for it asks if God’s revelation to us is static or dynamic; is it textually limited or is his Word en toto, to us, mediated through or via the text, in a living way that encompasses all truth?
To be sure of one thing, the text is not the goal of our searching, nor is an intellectual assent to its truthfulness and reliability in all matters of faith and life. I think the text wakes us up the possibilities of life in God, ie. the world that is promised of God. The text is very much about giving us a memory of what God has done and about the future of what God will do based on his past mighty acts. In both cases we trust God because of the past and we place our hope in Him because of our future. At the end of the day we come up with an interpretation that we believe true to the Word. Is it about being true to the word literally? Or, can it be also true to what we may imaginatively perceive is God’s intention for us: to understand about what he can and will do in our lives; of which we can be confident because it is consistent with -- but not identical to -- what he has done in the past, as revealed in his Word. There is much to be thought through and considered in this regard and I have much homework to do.
Sermons and teaching that do not touch and transform lives today are simply a dry orthodoxy – and may well be approaching a puffed-up and good-for-nothing body-of-knowledge. (I have the same issue about history; a passion of mine). All this makes me ask, what temptations MAY Jesus have experienced in the wilderness (Luke 4), before the last three mentioned in the text? To answer this hypothetical question we have to access our own experience of life and postulate the possibilities. It leads us to examine ourselves, and in doing so expose ourselves to interrogation and the possibility of seeing that of which we are in need. What is the answer to our need as people tempted? The same as Jesus’ answer:- trust and believe God no matter what is offered and walk in the light of his what he has said. And so, I believe, it is good to ask such questions as what temptations may Jesus have experienced, but not what temptations DID Jesus experience. The difference between these two variables, in favour of the former, is what I think to be a healthy exploration of our past (memory) and our present (life), with an eye on the future (hope) using our imagination, opposed to an abuse of the written word through an smuggling stuff into the text. We need to make a distinction between what is a fair handing of the broad issues raised in the text and that which seeks to puff the text out to meet our own ends, or compress it to such a limited degree that there is only one idea in the text. [I have long questioned the validity of searching for the alleged, singular "Big Idea" in the text in favour of opening our understanding up to the many possibilities that may be offered in the text. If the text was about the one Big Idea then why, I ask, has not the one big idea been authoritatively and consistently identified for us?]
The bigger problem that concerns me is not so much whether some may try and smuggle something in on us as we explore the many possibilities of meaning within the text, but whether we shut God out of our understanding in favour of a closed, mechanical and unimaginative approach to God’s word because we are fearful of being led astray. To be sure of one thing, if we DO understand God’s message to us correctly then we will be able to identify and refute those who smuggle stuff into the Biblical story. It is futile to think that we can construct a hedge of safety around the Word of God -- He and what he said says is much bigger than that.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home