Word of the ten days

Reductionism

1. The practice of reducing an idea, theory, or system down to its sine qua non.
2. In a destructive way, reductionism removes so much that it erodes the original until the original lacks the qualities that it held as a whole.
3. Applied to systematic theology, reductionism removes or overlooks the whole picture in favor of seeing a part. E.g. considering only passages that support one's own position and neglecting conflicting passages.
   
   Mark Driscoll calls reductionism the largest producer of aberrant doctrine.

Word of the week

Continuing now with a theme of literary considerations surrounding interpreting the Bible, we come to an "-ism" we must grapple with.

Deconstructionism

1. Refers to the "deconstruction" of an author's original meaning. Authorial intent (whether in a biblical passage or not) is more or less lost immediately after text is recorded, thus making impossible the hope of "objective interpretation."
2. At least four factors contribute to the "deconstruction" (I think of it using erosion - certain powers gradually washing away the "river bank" of an author's intention). 1) Author forgetfulness or change in position. A given author cannot remember what he or she meant precisely by each statement he or she made in the past, thus authorial intent is lost. Or, an author may later shift in ideology and no longer support his or her original position and bend his or her own words to accomodate the updated position. (This first factor only applies to texts with authors who are still alive, obviously) 2) The mutability of words. Words change meaning constantly. Take the term "complacency." This term was used in the 18th century to describe William Wilberforce; however, it refered to his kindness and goodness instead of a lack of conviction, as it would be used today. Thus, authorial intent is lost to the evolution of language. 3) Reader bias. All readers purposefully (no matter how rigorously they pursue "objectivity") project their own beliefs and mental habits on a text. Thus authorial intent is lost to reader intent. 4) Words are only symbolically meaningful; they have no intrinsic meaning. The only way a reader can understand a set of spoken or written words is to put those words in other words - words that they know. This becomes unmistakably clear in translation work, but holds even within a given language. Words refer to other words, some of which have attached concrete meanings. These relationships and mental attachments differ from person to person so that no two people use a word in exactly the same way. Thus authorial intent is lost to differing apprehensions of the language tool.
3. Deconstruction says, at bottom, that one can only have a small degree of certainty regarding a given text or spoken word. It applies to everyday conversation, but to a lesser degree than to ancient documents. This pertains directly to biblical exegesis; time has compounded the affect of the four factors given in point #2.

Word (theological term) of the Week

Redaction Criticism

1. The critical study of how biblical authors/editors preserved and/or altered the text through history to present the text as we have it today.
2. This study can apply to any ancient document that was copied or transmitted orally.
3. This study has liberal connotations. When applied to a study of the gospels it assumes a few things: 1) Markan priority (thus the other gospelers were redacting what Mark wrote), 2) unhistorical accounts (anything supernatural carries no historicity; therefore accounts of anything supernatural were either made up by the redactor, or the redactor was convinced of it by people around him/her), 3) Redaction (the biblical texts were in fact changed as they progressed toward canonization)