Towards an ethics of interpretation:
The use of scripture
in three recent Christian documents
M J O osthuizen
U niversity of Port Elizabeth
A bstract
T h ree docum ents have recently ap p eared w hich all a p peal to Scripture in their elaboration o f a vision for the
church’s involvem ent in society. This p ap er assesses the
m anner in which the Bible functions within the b ro ad er i n t e r p r e t a t i v e s t a n c e o f e a c h d o c u m e n t, n a m e ly
C hurch a n d Society, R o a d to D am ascus and R elevant
Pentecostal Witness. In order to achieve this, atten tio n is first p aid to th e estab lish m en t o f criteria w hich should
fo rm p a r t o f a c o m m o n e x p la n a to ry c o m m itm e n t to
w hich all po sitio n p a p e rs should a d h e re . It is arg u ed
th a t th e ideological stance o f both the in te rp re te r and
S cripture should be acknow ledged, so th a t the relative
m erits of the various docum ents can be intersubjectively
tested.
1. IN T R O D U C T IO N
R ecently, the ongoing process o f reflectio n by C h ristian groups on socio-political
an d o th e r m a tte rs, has w itnessed the p u b licatio n of, am ongst o th ers, th re e signi
ficant docum ents. I refer to Church and Society, the statem en t which was approved
by the D utch R efo rm ed C hurch in its original (1986) an d revised form (1990), as
well as to R oad to D amascus and Relevant Pentecostal Witness.^ T hese publications afford a crucial insight into the perspectives of at least som e o f the interest groups
lithics of inlcrprctation
w hich a re involved in the d ialo g icai an d co n su ltativ e se a rc h fo r g re a te r u n d e r standing w ithin o u r deeply polarised society.
T he specific concern which inform s the p resent p a p e r is th a t such dialogue can only be m eaningful if all p a rtn e rs in the d e b a te a re p re p a re d to clarify the status
which they accord to Scripture as the prim ary source of their respective societal an a
lyses. W hile this concern has received much attention in theological circles (V orster
1984:204-219; G o b a 1986:61-65; L o ad er 1987:3-18), the obfuscation which may be generated by an unreflective appeal to biblical w arrants rem ains a persistent threat.
T he point is th at each docum ent may be regarded as a model, which eith er functions
in a considered m anner o r quite simplistically in establishing a relationship betw een
Scripture and socio-political reality (cf V an Huyssteen 1989:179).
T he first aim of this p ap er is therefore to address the issue o f an ethics o f inter
pretatio n . In using the term ‘ethics’, it is contended th at all participants in the cur re n t d eb ate have a m oral responsibility to provide verifiable grounds for the know
ledge w hich th ey claim to g lean from S c rip tu re (cf D eist 1979:16-21). Such an
explanatory com m itm ent cannot avoid the issues which pertain to the b ro ad er in ter
disciplinary conversation in which theology has becom e inextricably involved during recen t years. T he im pact of perspectives from fields such as recep tio n theory, the
sociology o f know ledge and also the philosophy o f science has th e re fo re forced
theologians to be far m ore articulate in the form ulation of their beliefs.
Clearly, considerable atten tio n must be paid to certain basic in terp re tativ e and explanatory criteria to which all m odels may reasonably be expected to conform . In
the second place, how ever, the specific m odels which form the focus o f the present
p ap er will be assessed in the light of these theoretical considerations. My own inte
rest in this m a tte r is not m erely academ ic. As a practicing m em b er o f the D utch R efo rm ed C h u rch , 1 re a c t from a position of solidarity with a church w hose past
involvem ent in u n accep tab le racial policies has bedevilled th e possibility o f c o n structive dialogue in the South A frican context.
2. A SPEC TS O F AN E X PL A N A TO R Y C O M M IT M E N T
2.1 B etw een utilitarianism and essentialism
In the light of the complexity o f the m odern herm eneutical debate, it is only possible
to explore a few facets o f an explanatory com m itm ent th a t has far w ider ram ifica
tions. T h e p o sitio n w hich is ad v o cated by the p re se n t p a p e r c o rresp o n d s to the o p in io n o f B off (1987:135-139), w ho, discussing th e co n cep t o f the h erm en eu tic
circle, w arns against the two dangers o f h erm eneutical im provisation and sem antic
positivism.
M J Oosthuizcn
T he dialectic betw een Scripture and the reading com m unity points to a relatio n ship of invitation and response, or question and answ er, which is constitutive o f the
realisation o f m eaning. Sem antic positivism dissolves this dialectic by attem pting to d e te rm in e th e m eaning o f the text in a definitive an d final m an n er. T h ereb y the
role o f th e in te rp re te r is reduced to th a t o f a n eu tral a p p lic a to r o f in te rp re ta tiv e technique. F or its part, herm eneutical im provisation entails a thoroughly utilitarian
use o f Scripture as a m ere confirm ation o f predeterm ined positions. T he realisation
th a t all in te rp re ta tio n is innovative and personal, and th e re fo re m o re o r less arb i trary, does not a b ro g ate th e necessity for serious en g ag em en t w ith th e text (B off
1987:136-138).
B o ffs argum ent am ounts to a refusal to dissolve the dialectic tension betw een the text and the re a d e r into an accom m odation to th e claim s o f eith er a full-blown
subjectivism o r a positivistic essen tialism (B off 1987:136; cf R ow land & C o rn er 1990:67-68).2 His stance provides a useful basis for reviewing a n u m b er o f im por
tant insights th at are endem ic to the discussion o f interpretative criteria.
2.2 T he interested n atu re o f the interpretative enterprise
W hatever else it may imply, the criticism of sem antic positivism dismisses the notion
o f objectivism which is inh eren t to the assum ption o f both a fixed textual m eaning
and a d isin terested exegesis. W ithin the p aram eters o f the presen t discussion, it is
only pro p o sed to sketch a few insights from th e fields o f recep tio n theory and the sociology o f knowledge in o rd er to dem onstrate the extent to which the act o f in ter
p retation is linked integrally to the interests by which it is inform ed.
Two p ro m in en t m em bers o f the K onstanz school, nam ely Iser an d Jauss, both developed theories o f reception which point to the creative interaction betw een the
re a d e r and the text. F o r Iser (1978:34-37) th e production o f m eaning consists o f a
com plex in teractio n betw een the textual structure, or, in o th e r w ords, the text as a
netw ork o f response-inviting strategies, and the structured act o f reading. By m eans
o f its strategies, the text develops a specific rep erto ire by invoking socio-historical
n orm s an d literary conventions, and p resen tin g th em in an in tern al com b in atio n
which leads to th e ir defam iliarisation and the resulting suspension o f th eir validity
(Ise r 1978:69-85). As a result the re a d e r is c o n fro n te d w ith a seq u en ce o f p e rs
pectives which are full o f indeterm inacies (Iser 1978:169, 182-185, 202-203, 212-213;
1980:111-112).
TTie read er responds to these indeterm inacies by providing a specific configura
tion o f the textual schem ata, and therefore participates in a creative actualisation of
m eaning. Iser (1978:135-159) typifies this productive process as one o f ‘im age-buil
Ethics of inlcrprctalion
ding’, thereby pointing to the role of the read er’s im agination in the continuing te n sion betw een new and previous horizons o f understanding.
W h ate v er the criticism s levelled at Iser (cf E agleton 1983:79-86),^ his theory
holds im portant im plications for the interpretation o f not only the m odern novel but also th e Bible. In the first place, it is clear that the m eaning o f the text can only be
fulfilled in th e read in g subject, and th a t it is im possible to conceive o f the act of
reading as a one-w ay process which involves a d irect internalisation o f pre-existent textual truth (Iser 1978:107, 146-152; 1980:119; also Long 1990:348-349). Secondly,
this consideration leads to the further conclusion th at the read er becom es a sem iotic topic in his own right (V orster 1989:58-61). In oth er words, the re a d e r’s production
o f m eaning m ust be ev alu a ted in sociological term s with reference to the specific
interests by which it is guided (Iser 1978:151).
T he realisa tio n th a t the act o f reception necessitates a critical exam ination of the social praxis from w hich it e m a n a te s is also endem ic to th e w ork o f Jauss (cf
Schiissler F ip ren za 1990:367). By pointing to the shifting horizons o f expectation
which accom pany the reception o f the literary work, he clearly dispels the notion of
a direct m ediation of tim eless textual truths (Jauss 1982:21, 28-29). Indeed, the p re sent experiential horizon may lead to fresh actual isations of significance which could
not be realised w ithin the horizonal lim itations o f past recep tio n s (Jauss 1982:34- 35). C learly, then, m eaning is produced through a continual process o f reception,
and any in terp re tatio n invites analysis of the influences, both literary and socio-his- torical, by which it is inform ed (Jauss 1982:29-32, 39-41).
T he insights o f recep tio n theory converge with those o f the sociology of know
ledge to highlight the ideological p red isp o sitio n w hich inescapably in flu en ces all th eo lo g ical reflectio n in its use o f S crip tu re (cf L ockhead 1976/1977:81-82; Kim
1978:72-76).“* T he m atter o f ideological com m itm ent rem ains an evocative issue on
at least two counts. Firstly, the diffuse connotations with which the concept o f ideo
logy is invested, seriously im pair its clarificatory capacity. Secondly, the reality of
ideological com m itm ent may too easily assum e the force o f a slogan which facilita
tes h erm en eu tic im provisation, by legitim ating the adoption of any p red eterm in ed stance. It is im portant, therefore, to explain the significance which is attached to the
concept w ithin the present analysis of interpretative interest.
In this respect, it is useful to refer to G euss (1981:4-26) who argues th a t the con
cept o f ideology may enjoy three broad connotations, nam ely pejorative, descriptive
and positive. A gainst scholars who wish to delim it the usage o f the term to its pejo
rative co n n o tatio n s (e g K ern 1980:96-97), its w ide-ranging currency in the present d e b a te ra th e r suggests th at all th ree senses should be retained in the consideration o f an ad eq u ate explanatory project.
M J Ooslhuizcn
T he pejorative understanding points to the p h enom enon of false consciousness,
which may be based on incorrect epistem ic, functional o r g enetic properties (G euss
1981:12-22). T he contribution of the Frankfurt school, which G euss proceeds to dis cuss at som e length, lies in the developm ent o f a critical theory which possesses the
reflective ability of m aking agents aw are of hidden and even self-im posed coercion
by m eans o f a consistent program m e of ideology critique (G euss 1981:26,55, 74-75). Ideology criticism forces all in terp reters to reject the dichotom y betw een know
ledge and in terests which is im plicit in the notion o f a p u re an d v alu e-free theory (H a b e rm a s 1978:301-317). In p articu lar, H a b e rm a s’s id en tificatio n o f the e m a n
cip ato ry cognitive in te re st p rovides a pow erful tool fo r freein g the subject from
hypostatic relations of dependence (H ab erm as 1978:309-311). A d h eren ts o f lib era tion theology, am ongst others, m ake use of such insights in th eir developm ent o f a
p rogram m e o f conscientisation, which not only dism isses the notion o f a value-free
exegesis but also unm asks the interests which are legitim ated by such an appeal to
neutrality (cf B onino 1986:348-351; Segundo 1977:126-138).
G euss identifies an ad d itio n al aspect o f the p rogram m e o f ideology criticism ,
which holds im p o rtan t im plications for th e p re se n t discussion. T h e p o in t is th a t th ere are two senses in which the reflective responsibility o f th e critical theory ex
ceeds its em an c ip ato ry function from bondage an d delusion. Firstly, it should be
able to give an explicit account o f its own context o f origin and its context o f appli
cation (G euss 1981:55-56). Secondly, it should be able to c o u n ter false conscious ness by pointing to the agents’ ‘re a l’ or ‘rational’ interests, in o th er w ords the values
which they w ould espouse and actively pursue u nder ideal circum stances which were
free of coercion and delusion (G euss 1981:44-54, 57-58, 75-88). W ith G euss (1981: 63-69), it should be accepted that the determ ination o f such real interests rem ains a
thoroughly contextual issue.-''
The im plication o f the preceding remark.s, is th at the issue o f ideology entails
m ore th a n th e exposée o f the false consciousness w hich a p a rtic u la r theological
m odel may claim to identify in o th er m odels. R ath er, its explanatory com m itm ent
extends to the clarification of the specific context in which it advocates its own posi
tion, as a situ atio n al response which is g eared to providing its p a rtic u la r audience
with the m ost rational possible resolution of its interests.
In h eren t in such a responsibility is the co nsideration o f ideology as both a d e
scriptive and positive concept. As M annheim (1936:57-62, 68-69) has definitively indicated, the term ideology transcends its pejorative connotations, to enjoy a total-
gen eral sen.se which recognises the situational determ ination of all thought (cf also
Kim 1978:61-63; R icoeur 1981:239-240).* All knowledge is therefore relational, and reflects the position o f the interested subject (M annheim 1936:70-71, 76).
Ethics of intcrprctatioa
Now, it is possible for such a reco g n itio n to function in a purely descriptive sense, and therefo re to content itself with the m ere non-evaluative acceptance that a
c ertain social cultural system will be ch aracterized by a p articu lar constellation of
beliefs, a ttitu d e s an d dispositions (G euss 1981:4-9). A lternatively, how ever, ideo logy may be a p p ro ach ed as a positive project, involving the deliberate construction
o f a p ro g ram m e o f action which aim s to facilitate the reorganisation o f society in
o rd e r to fulfil specific needs and in terests (G euss 1981:22-26). M annheim (1936: 173-177) refers to such a pursuit of realisable transform atory goals as ‘u to p ia’.
T o my m ind, theology’s accep tan ce o f the reality o f ideological com m itm en t
m eans m ore th an a passive, or even nonchalant, resignation to th e inevitability of situationally d eterm ined interpretation. R ather, it implies a dialogue with Scripture
which em braces the search for an optim al ordering o f a specific social context, while
fully recognising the contingency th a t ad h eres to such an endeav o u r (cf Kim 1978:
66). Such an e n te rp rise also involves a critique o f form s o f false consciousness, a m a tte r w hich obviously raises th e q u estio n o f ev alu ativ e c rite ria w hen, as in the
South A frican context, com peting theological models vie for acceptance. As will be discussed shortly, it is the co n ten tio n o f this p ap er th a t it is possible to engage in
such an e v a lu a tiv e e n te r p ris e , in th e sen se th a t som e m odels m ay lay claim to
g reater rationality than others.
2 3 T he ideological determ ination o f the Bible
T he reality of ideological conditioning extends beyond the in terp re ter to include the
oth er p artn er in the dynamic interaction betw een Scripture and the receptive agent,
namely the text itself. W ith Segundo (1977:112, 116-118), it may be m aintained that
the Bible contains diverse traditions and bodies of m aterial which preserve the ideo
logical interests of the different contexts in which they w ere form ed, and which w it ness to quite different portrayals of the relationship betw een G od and society. The
en su in g rem ark s will m erely sk etch a few insights with resp ect to the increasing
scholarly reco g n itio n o f th e diversity o f th e O ld T e sta m e n t (cf G oldingay 1987:
passim). Sim ilar insights could be developed with respect to the New T estam ent.
O ne pro fitab le m an n er of exploring this diversity is by m eans o f the m odel of trajectories, according to which a particular them e o r concept is exam ined along the
axis o f its historical developm ent (B rueggem ann 1979:161-162; G oldingay 1987:40-
43). O n the analogy of Steck’s (1977) typification of a stream of tradition, a trajec
tory can be undersrtiod as an extensive intellectual or notional sp h ere which is ex
pressed by m eans o f ch aracteristic conceptual and linguistic categories, and which
exercises influence for an appreciable historical period (Steck 1977:191-198). Thus
M J Oosthuizcn
Steck (1977:183-214), even though he d oes not use the term ‘trajecto ry ’, points to
the diverse stieam s of tradition which characterized the m ajor epochs o f Israel’s his
tory.
T he analysis of trajectories affords an insight into the tensions betw een som e of
th e m ajor O ld T estam en t traditions. B rueggem ann (1979:161-185; 1985:303-325), for instance, points to the conflicting ideological presuppositions w hich inform the
M osaic tra d itio n , w ith its e g a lita ria n and rad ical social e th o s, in c o n trast to the Davidic tradition with its structure-legitim ating tendency. Significantly, however, he
m oves beyond th e m ere identification o f tra je c to rie s to th e m a tte r o f th e a d ju d i cation o f th eir relative w eight (B rueggem ann 1985:315-321). A ccording to B rueg
gem ann, the thrust of the O ld T estam ent, both in its shaping o f the canon and in its
depictions o f G od, points to the prim ary n atu re of the M osaic trad itio n . This p ri mary em phasis m ust em erge in conversation with contem porary dialogue p artn ers
such as the p o o r and disenfranchised, who share the sam e ethical o rien tatio n . In
passing, it may be noted that B rueggem ann’s concern for the M osaic trajectory p a rallels the w ork o f C ro atto (1981:passim) on the developm ent o f the Exodus trajec
tory throughout the O ld and New T estam ent as the authentic biblical axis o f libera
tion.
B rueggem ann’s reference to the m atter o f adjudication raises at least th ree is
sues in connection with the ideological conditioning of the Bible. Firstly, the accep tance o f diverse biblical ideologies should not en g en d er a type o f herm en eu tic im provisation which sanctions any pred eterm in ed position.7 W hile one m ust acknow
ledge the difficulty o f the evaluative en terp rise (cf G oldingay 1987:97-133), and the thoroughly con tex tu al n atu re o f any en g ag em en t with Scripture, th ere are certain
focal biblical em phases which cannot be ignored. Perspectives such as G o d ’s identi
fication w ith the p o o r and the m arginalised a re so pervasive th a t they co n stitu te
challenges which the biblical text issues to all o f its read ers (cf Sanders 1984:54-56).
T he m anner in which any m odel m ediates betw een these central them es will in
variably reveal the in terests o f a specific socio-historical tran sactio n betw een the re a d e r and the text (cf S an d ers 1984:67, 77-78). T his lead s to the second point,
nam ely th at any situational adjudication betw een biblical ideologies should rem ain open to em phases which may be less germ ane to the in te rp re te r’s perception of the
th ru st o f S cripture itself (cf B arr 1973:156-161; S anders 1984:37; G oldingay 1987:
129-133; Jodock 1990:377).** B rueggem ann (1985:316-318) him self insists th a t the
M osaic and D avidic trajecto ries should be upheld as trad itio n s in tension. A sen
sitivity to such fundam ental scriptural polarities is vital for a theology which is p re p ared to acknow ledge the provisional n atu re o f any com m itm ent to a specific p ro
gram m e o f social action.
Ethics of interpretation
Thirdly, any m odel should explicitly clarify the reasons which lie behind its es
pousal o f c ertain biblical ideologies. M ore specifically, the m odel should m otivate the status which it accords to the focal ideologies, both in term s o f its perception of
the th ru st o f S cripture and w ith resp ect to the socio-historical context in which it perform s its evaluative activity.
2.4 Establi.shing an ethics of interpretation
The preceding m ethodological discussion has highlighted a num ber o f aspects which
are integral to an explanatory com m itm ent. However, fundam ental as it may be, the
acknow ledgem ent o f the in terested n atu re o f all in te rp re ta tio n only form s p a rt of th e larg er eth ical issue. P aradoxically, it could even be arg u ed th a t such an a d
mission is not particularly helpful, for in destroying the illusion o f objectivity it may o p en the d o o r for a ra th e r com placent relativism . As has been contended with re
spect to both the in terp re ter and the text, the concept of ideology should not be used
as a m eans o f legitim ising virtually any exegesis o f Scripture. Some m odels may lay claim to g reater rationality than others.
In support o f this contention, it is instructive to note recent attem pts to define a
theory o f rationality which dism isses the rigid positivistic distinction betw een truth and falsity,^ in favour of a m ore flexible approach which recognizes th at beliefs and a ttitu d es can be m ore or less rational (G euss 1981:30-31; V an H uyssteen 1989: pas
sim). F or V an H uyssteen (1989:143-197), rationality becom es a thoroughly contex
tu a l an d also in te rsu b je c tiv e o r re la tio n a l e n te rp ris e , in w hich a d e te rm in a tiv e
w eight is accorded to criteria o f in n er co h eren ce and consistency ra th e r th an to a
notion o f correspondence to a body of so-called ‘objective facts’.
T he notion o f coherence which Van H uyssteen (1989:163-177) develops can be
profitably applied in considering the rationality o f the various docum ents which are
u n d er discussion. A m odel’s claim to rationality is integrally linked to its ability to
address the i.ssues which confront a specific com m unity as it reflects on its religious
e x p erien ce in d ialogue with th e C hurch, theological tra d itio n an d c o n tem p o rary scientific reflection. W ithin the p resen t discussion, the category o f religious expe
rience m ust be u n d ersto o d in a com prehensive m an n er so as to include the socio
political reality of which it is inevitably a part. T he various m odels may therefo re be
assessed by their problem -solving ability, in o th er w ords by th eir capacity to present
a contextually relevant and theoretically legitim ate account o f the im portant ideolo gies which they discern in Scripture.
M J Uoslhiúzen
T he salient aspects of an ethics o f in terp re tatio n may now be reviewed, by way o f a n u m b e r o f c rite ria w hich may be a p p lied in assessing the cred ib ility o f the
m odels which are presented in the various position papers.
* T h e re sh ould be an aw aren ess th a t th e in te rp re ta tio n o f S crip tu re p ro ceed s
from an in te re ste d or ideological perspective, which inevitably reveals the in
fluence of, am ongst o th er factors, a specific socio-historical matrix. Such an ap preciation has at least three im plications:
•* Any m odel should ab an d o n the absolutist and a u th o rita ria n claim s which
result from an unreflective appeal to a pure and unbiased herm eneutic; • • A m odel which exposes the false consciousness which it detects in negative
or destructive ideologies, but which refuses to recognise its own ideological
com m itm ent, is both misleading and dishonest (cf D eist 1983:37).
•• It should be accepted that the m eaning which is derived from any scriptural pas.sage is a variable phenom enon. This realisation does not imply th a t all
attem pts at ‘objectivity’ in exegesis are futile. R a th e r it confronts any m odel
with the exigency o f clarifying the m ethodological and ideological perspec
tive from which its interpretive stance proceeds (cf Schiissler F iorenza 1986; 380), in o rd er to facilitate dialogue and intersubjective testing.'0
* T he m odel should display a sensitivity to the diversity an d th e re fo re possibly quite conflicting ideologies which are contained in Scripture itself. This asser
tion again has a num ber o f facets:
•• C on sid eratio n should be given to the criteria which d eterm in e th e relative
w eight th a t should be atta c h e d to a c ertain sc rip tu ral th em e o r ideology.
A re certain scriptural ideologies m ore pervasive than others?
** T he selective processes which lead to the use o f certain scriptural ideologies
in a given m odel should be m ade the object o f con.scious reflection. H ere
m ore is im plied than the m ere acknow ledgem ent th at Scripture is invariably
used as part of a theological argum ent (cf L oader 1987:13-15). It is perhaps
m ore im p o rtan t to realize th at the diversity o f S cripture contains an in h e
ren t corrective against th e absolutisation o f any o f its ideological them es.
Any contextual theology should th erefo re adm it its prejudicial nature, and e n te rta in an o p en n ess to less g erm an e biblical accen ts w hich m ay b e tte r
equip it to deal with the com plexites of its own situation.
* A m odel is accountable to the concrete situation in w hich it develops its in ter
p retation o f Scripture. T he recognition that any society contains diverse interest
groups, w hose analyses of reality by no m eans coincide, only heightens this re
sponsibility. At the very least, any m odel should clarify the specific interests
Ethics of interpretation
which guide it in its problem -solving a p p ro p riatio n o f Scripture. A t best, how ever, the practical processes o f intersubjective testing should lead to a situation
in which the relative m erits o f various m odels may be w eighed with a view to re
solving the b ro ad er problem s th at face th at p articular society as a whole.
In my o p inion, the c o n sid eratio n o f such c rite ria could in crease th e p o s sibility o f m eaningful discussion and reflectio n am ongst the diverse C hristian
groups w hose perspectives are p resen ted in the various statem ents. This pros
pect stands at the h eart o f the ensuing evaluative com m ents.
3. T H E U S E O F S C R IP T U R E IN T H E T H R E E D O C U M E N T S
3.1 C hurch an d Society
Church and Society (1990) (CS) presents by far the most extensive o f the th ree docu
m ents, an d is the only sta te m e n t which provides the read er with a clear conception
concerning its view o f the role of the church in society. T he docum ent will be dealt w ith a t som e len g th b ecau se it re p re se n ts the type o f stan ce o f right-w ing C h ris
tianity against which both the Road to D amascus (1989) (R D ) and the Relevant Pen
tecostal iVitness (1989) (R P W ) so vehem ently inveigh.^ In the ensuing discussion of m a tte rs p e rta in in g to its use o f S crip tu re, re fe re n c e will be m ade to th e revised
(1990) version, which was unfortunately only available in A frikaans. W here sections
o f th e original and revised versions correspond, excerpts will be q u o ted in English
on the basis of the translation o f the 1986 docum ent.
3.1.1 Eixplication and application, o r the illu.sion o f ideological neutrality
CS o p e ra te s from a naive realistic fram ew ork, which ap p ro ach es S crip tu re from a
thoroughly a-historical stan d p o in t (cf V an H uyssteen 1987). T he docum ent clearly assum es th at it is possible to divorce the process of interpretation from the m atrix of
contextual influences in which the read er is situated. In seeking to extract abstract
tru th s a n d n orm s from S c rip tu re , it p re se n ts a classic ex am p le o f w h at V o rste r
(1988:43) refers to as a herm eneutical, rath er than a contextual, theology.
This p roblem atic stance is already ap p aren t in the division w hich the docum ent
draw s b e tw e e n its th e o re tic a l and p ractical sections. T h ereb y it is im plicitly a s
su m ed th a t th e p rocess o f exegesis can be divided into two logically co n seq u en t
step s o f exp licatio n and ap p licatio n . TTie first step consists o f a n objective distil
latio n o f scrip tu ral p rinciples from th e text, w hile th e second step co n cern s itself
with their application to a p articular context. In the light o f reception theory’s insis
M J Oosthuizen
tence on th e dynam ic an d changing tran sactio n s betw een the re a d e r and the text,
the validity o f such a procedure must be seriously questioned.
By virtue o f its im plicit exegetical m ethodology, CS is able to m aintain the illu sion o f ideological n eu trality , and can insist th a t in th e fo rm u latio n o f p rinciples
from Scripture it is illegitim ate to read o n e’s own problem s and circum stances into
the text. T hereby, so we are inform ed, the W ord o f G od w ould be reduced to the status of ‘a contem porary recipe book with instant solutions to all hum an problem s’
(§ 15, 18).
Exam ples o f this stance p erm eate the w hole docum ent. Thus statem en ts such
as those th a t are found ir. paragraphs 231, 275 and 304, as well as the w hole section
w hich d eals w ith biblical norm s for in terp erso n al and group relationships (§ 123- 221), create the im pression that clear and unfalsified principles are being identified
which stand quite loose from the contextual com m itm ent of the in terp reter. Indeed,
paragraph 26 categorically states that in contrast to the thought p attern s o f this old,
passing w orld, the only criteria which may be applied to the evaluation o f the church ‘are those which are revealed to us under the guidance o f G o d ’s Spirit’.
T o the extent that CS w arns against an uncontrolled herm eneutic im provisation, it utters a legitim ate word o f caution. N evertheless, in the wake of reception theory,
it can no lo n g er be d en ied th a t it belongs to the very fabric o f in te rp re ta tio n th at
c o n tem p o rary p ro b lem s are read into the text (C ro a tto 1987:66; Long 1990:349-
350).
O ne o f the clearest exam ples of CS’s failure to clarify its own situational com
m itm ent is surely provided by its consistent refusal to identify the D utch R eform ed
C h u rch w ith any existing o r o th e r po litical id eo lo g ies (§§ 21, 274-275). As the
d o cum ent itself reveals, the rationale behind this concern for ideological neutrality seem s to lie in the c h u rch ’s sincere em b a rra ssm e n t a t its own scrip tu ral e n d o rs e
m ent o f ap arth eid and racism (§ 282-287). N evertheless, the belief th at the church’s
responsibility is lim ited to the critical evaluation o f all political m odels in the light of
sc rip tu ral norm s such as love, justice and hum an dignity, b elies its own roie as a
social actor on the South A frican stage.
It could be contended that paragraph 276, in which the subjective nature o f the
evalu atio n of all political m odels is accepted, p oints beyond the d o cu m en t’s id e a listic herm eneutic. U nfortunately, this recognition of subjectivity has not b e e n ex
ten d ed to include the specific interests th a t m ust inform any identification o f scrip
tural norm s. T h e po in t is th a t the m an n er in which any church derives principles
from specific context-bound biblical passages, must inevitably reveal its own involve m ent in a concrete praxis. F urtherm ore, the m anner in which the church or a C hris
tian group envisages the practical im p lem en tatio n o f such values form s p art of its
Ethics of interpretation
ideological com m itm ent, and th erefo re ipso facto reflects a p red ilectio n for a c e r
tain political ideology. In this regard, the following rem ark o f B off (1980:265-266)
seem s particularly apposite:
Theologians do not live in clouds. They are social actors with a p a rti
cular place in society...The them es and em phases o f a given C hristo- logy flow from w hat seem s relevant to the theologian on the basis of
his o r h er social stan d p o in t...T h at holds tru e as well for theological discourse th a t claim s to be ‘purely’ theological, historical, ecclesial and apolitical. N orm ally such discourse adopts the position o f those
who hold pow er in the existing system.
3.1.2 Church and Society’s ideological commitment to nationalism
D espite its claim to neutrality in the interpretation o f Scripture, CS o p erates from a
definite ideological prem ise. This com m itm ent is very clear in the 1986 docum ent, which contains num erous references to the D utch R eform ed C hurch’s intim ate bond
with the A frikaner people, and which envisages the organization of society along na tionalistic principles (cf K inghorn 1989:125). T hrough rew ording and the reform u
lation of various sections, the revised version creates the im pression th at it is trying
to move away from a nationalistic concern.
T o my mind, however, CS still allows the concept o f national groups to operate
as a d eterm in ativ e principle. Its influence is clear in both the selection and in te r p re ta tio n o f m aterial which should receive atten tio n in the theoretical section, and
also in the statem en ts concerning the D utch R eform ed Church and various aspects o f society in the practical section. C are is indeed taken to reject racism and an abso-
lu tizatio n o f o n e ’s own nation (§§ 110, 273) and it is also stressed th a t th e D utch R efo rm ed C hurch is not a ‘national church’ (§§ 117, 271). N evertheless, the docu
m ent conveys the distinct im pression th a t the reality o f different national and cul
tural com m unities form s the principle according to which the practical contextuali-
sation o f the church is envisaged (cf §§ 116, 122, 254, 273, 281).
T he m an n er in w hich c ertain p ro m in en t texts are di.scussed in the theoretical section, lends legitim ation, albeit implicitly, to this viewpoint. R eferring to Acts
2:1-11, the d o cu m en t rem ark s th a t the New T e sta m e n t is realistic w ith respect to the
p ractical p roblem s which arise from the pastoral n eeds o f d ifferen t groups (§ 32),
A lthough it is stated that such practical considerations should enrich the unity o f the church, the clear im pression is th at Acts 2 provides scriptural w arrant for the accom
m o d atio n o f th e m inistry o f the gospel o f d ifferen t language and cu ltu ral groups.
M J Oostbuizcn
In d eed , it m ay be asked w h eth er th e p assag e d oes not b eco m e p a rt o f a fu rth e r
argum ent which legitim ates the organization o f the church along nationalistic lines.
F rom my own com m itted perspective, Acts 2 presents a celebration o f the unifi
c a tio n o f th e church th ro u g h th e tra n sc e n d e n c e o f lin g u istic an d o th e r b arriers, ra th e r than a w arran t for its cultural and linguistic diversification (cf M artin 1988:
23).
In sim ilar vein, it may be asserted that CS’s naive realism allows it to appeal to texts such as G enesis 10 and 11:1-10, D euteronom y 32:8 and Acts 17:26 to sanction the view th at w ithin the one fundam ental humanity (cf § 96-97), th e organization of
society along natio n alistic principles accords w ith th e will o f G o d (cf § 104-109).
How else can o n e explain the statem en t in p arag rap h 105, nam ely th a t ‘th e m ulti
tude o f nations and their distribution over various territo ries are described as a his
toric reality which occurred by G o d ’s providential o rd e rin g ? ’ Such considerations surely indicate th a t nationalistic anthropology rem ains the societal structuring p rin
ciple which underlies the thought of CS (K inghorn 1989:121-125).
3.1.3 T ensioas betw een scriptural principles and practical im plem entation
Both the use of th e explication-application dichotom y as its exegetical m ethod, and the weight th a t is given to the concept of the nation, lead to various tensions in CS.
Thus one finds th a t biblical p ronouncem ents which refer to the regulation o f in ter personal relationships are merely transposed onto the regulation o f inter-group rela
tionships (e g § 123). T he p otentially radical im plications o f som e o f CS’s s ta te m ents on m atters such as justice, charity, neighbourly love, tru th and dignity, which
take up a considerable part of the docum ent, lose their im pact because o f the social
reality to which they have to conform.
T he concept of justice may serve as an exam ple. In the theoretical section ju s
tice is related to the structure of hum an society (§ 140), and it is stressed th at doing justice to the poor o r oppressed is no optional m atter, but rath er a case o f restoring
the right (DgiffO) o f those who have b een deprived of th eir rights (§§ 148-149, 152).
W ith reference to the G ospel o f Luke, it is also stressed th at G od is p ar excellence
the one who in terced es to take up the cause o f the oppressed and suffering (§ 149-
150),
O ne cannot help asking how CS can reconcile such and o th er sim ilar statem ents on hum an dignity and charity with a de facto situ atio n in w hich th e natio n alistic
organisation o f society is experienced as deeply hurtful by many fellow believers. It may also be asked how, in the discussion of the D utch R eform ed C hurch and the go
v ern m en t, all form s o f violence can be roundly condem ned, while the p roblem of
Etliics of interpretation
Structural violence is never addressed a t all. H ow m eaningful is it to appeal to the
biblical d o ctrin e o f reconciliation to advocate orderly ch an n els o f com m unication betw een the governm ent and the different national groups in South Africa, w hen the
concrete experience of disenfranchisem ent and oppression has ren d ered such a con cept red u n d an t (cf Smit 1986:88-89)?
T hese rem arks on CS will have to suffice. As is evident from the preceding dis
cussion, CS’s adherence to the ‘explication - application’ m odel seriously im pairs its
ability to m eet th e dem ands o f an explanatory com m itm ent. As a result of its exe- getical m ethodology, it fails to address the internal complexity of Scripture, and it is
arguably also insensitive to the complexity o f the historical situation in which it is to be ap p lied (cf B off 1987:142-143).12 F u rth e rm o re , by disclaim ing the ideological
and neces.sarily situational n atu re o f its in terp re tatio n , it invests its own analysis of
scriptural norm s with an authority which raises them above the level o f considered and reflective debate. Because CS does not consciously reflect on its own interests,
it becom es virtually im possible to establish a basis for a reflective d e b a te in which the explanatory m erits o f the docum ent can be intersubjectively tested.
3 2 R oad to D amascus and Relevant Pentecostal Witness
Both R D and R PW are protest docum ents, w ritten from a concrete situation o f o p
pression an d d isenfranchisem ent. T hus R D presen ts a p en e tra tin g critique o f the
effects o f colonialism and W estern im perialism upon the TTiird W orld, and id en ti fies the rise of the m odern security state as the fram ew ork w ithin which the ideals of
co n su m e rist m aterialism a re p u rsu ed a t th e expense o f the p o o r an d oppressed.
W hilst far less extensive in its social analysis, R P W p oints to political oppression
and econom ic exploitation as well as the justification of ap arth eid through the n atio
nalistic theology o f th e R eform ed church, as the context which th e m ajority o f ex
p lo ited C h ristian s in South A frica experience. D espite th e ir com m on contextual points o f d ep artu re, the two docum ents reveal differences in their herm eneutic p re
suppositions.
3 ^ .1 R oad to D amascus
A positive aspect o f R p is certainly its conscious reflection on its own ideological
com m itm ent, as is evident from its thesis th at the class struggle presents the d e te r
m inative facto r w hich influences the use o f S cripture. Insisting on the ideological
d eterm in atio n o f all in terp retatio n , the docum ent recognizes th a t C hristianity is in
voked by both sides o f the socio-econom ic and political conflict (§§ 26, 27).
M J Oosthuizen
As can be expected the docum ent devotes a g reat deal o f atten tio n to a ruthless
exposure o f right-w ing C hristianity, w hich is lab elled u n d er the various rubrics of
idolatry, heresy, apostasy, hypocrisy and blasphem y (§ 44-82). T h e only legitim ate expression o f C h ristianity is one w hich identifies itself w ith the p o o r an d th e o p
pressed and p roceeds to discover the tru e face o f G o d in th e Bible from this com m itm ent. It may o f course be asked w h eth er R D ’s typification o f right-wing C hris
tianity is not too m onolithic and grotesque to ring true. A t least th e docum ent p ro vides the re a d e r with a very clear delineation o f its perspectival position, and th e re
by p rep ares the ground for furth er debate.
As fa r as th e use o f S c rip tu re is c o n c e rn e d , R D p re s e n ts a co g en t critiq u e
against the selection and distortion o f certain parts of the Bible to legitim ate the sta tus quo. It p o in ts out th a t th e Bible has b een su b jected to a sp iritu al and o th e r
w orldly in te rp re ta tio n , in o rd e r to paint a picture o f a G od who can speak no rele vant w ord into a concrete situation o f exploitation and suffering (§ 30-33). F u rth e r
m ore, it arg u es th a t fundam entalism has b een used to fo ster a spirit o f blind o b e
dience to a prevailing in terp re tatio n o f Scripture which sanctions the aspirations of the ruling class (§ 66-67).
U nfortunately, R D contains far less evidence of its own assessm ent o f the Bible
than CS. F rom the lim ited available m aterial, it is how ever ap p aren t th at the doca-
m ent is flawed by its failure to adm it to the very practice it so roundly condem ns in
right-wing Christianity, namely the selective use o f Scripture. T he p o rtrait which the docum ent paints o f G od and Jesus is based on a m ere handful o f texts, notably from
Exodus and Luke (cf §§ 36, 37, 40-41). T he G od th at em erges from this eclectic use
o f texts fits R D ’s social analysis perfectly. Thus we are inform ed th at ‘the true G od is th e G o d o f th e p o o r w ho is angry a b o u t injustice in th e w orld, v in d icates the
poor...pulls down the mighty from th eir thrones and lifts up the lowly’ (§ 40). Simi
larly, it is a sse rte d th a t ‘We no lo n g er believe in the G od o f the pow erful and we want no gods except the G od who was in Jesus’ (§ 41).
T h e q u e stio n th a t the d o c u m e n t fails to ad d ress co n cern s th e G o d to w hom
th ese sta te m e n ts appeal. T he in terp re tativ e criteria th a t have been considered in
this p a p e r w ould suggest th a t R D has re c o u rse to a G od w ho em erg es from the ideologically shaped textual w orld o f specific biblical passages. R D should recog
nise th a t Scripture contains diverse ideologies, and th a t th e re is no single biblical view on a m atter such as G od and poverty (V orster 1984:212).
Such conscious reflection would enable R D to adm it th at its interaction with the
text is guided by th e horizonal lim itations o f its ro o ted n ess in an oppressive situ a tion. C onsequently, it could assert th a t it is exercising a p referen tial option to a p
p ro p ria te m odels o f G o d ’s activity which it perceives to be relevant w ithin the spe
Ethics of interprctatioo
cific crisis th a t confronts South A frican society. F urtherm ore, it could insist th at the liberative trajectory w ith which it identifies enjoys a pwrvasive influence in Scripture.
Such q ualifications w ould not deny the po ten tial significance o f o th e r biblical tra jectories for fu rth er reflection on the needs o f a changing society.
In sum , it is argued th a t R D only m eets certain req u irem en ts o f an explanatory
com m itm ent. W hilst it elucidates its own ideological bias, it is insensitive to the se lectivity w hich m ust inevitably accom pany any adjudication betw een diverse scrip
tu ra l voices. As a resu lt, th e d o c u m e n t c re a te s th e e rro n e o u s im pression th a t it sp eak s with th e full w eight o f the Bible b ehind it, an d th ereb y fru strates the pos
sibility o f c o n stru ctiv e in tersu b jectiv e d ialo g u e on th e re la tiv e m erits o f its own interpretative choices.
3 2 2 Relevant Pentecostal Witness
A ddressing itself to the specific situation as it exists in the P entecostal church, RPW
is as critical o f statu s q uo C hristianity as R D is. It also declares its solidarity with, those w ho suffer op p ressio n as a result o f the unjust socio-political and econom ic
system which has been im plem ented by the ruling class in South A frica. As a result,
th e d o cu m en t condem ns th e disto rted m an n er in which key aspects o f P entecostal b e lie f have acco m m o d ated th e p rev alen t ideology of a p arth eid , an d thereby b een
effectively robbed of any contextual relevance.
F or all its brevity, the potential significance of R PW is th a t it moves beyond the clarification of its own com m itted stance to give lim ited consideration to the ideolo
gical conditioning of Scripture. Thus the docum ent insists th at the divisive situation
in South A frica legitim ates the preaching o f a differentiated m essage o f repentance and salvation. R em ark s concerning the tradition o f Jo h n the B aptist and the Zac-
chaeus tradition indicate that Scripture contains a variety o f traditions, o r m odels of
action, an d it is at least im plied th a t in a c ertain context it is legitim ate to lend a
g re a te r w eight to certain traditions. T he docum ent also points to the variable con
te n t o f both Jo h n the B aptist and Jesus’ m essage o f rep en tan ce, an d thereby in d i
c a te s th a t in th e Bible itself th e re is alread y an in sep arab le co n n ectio n betw een
‘doctrine’ and context.
In my opinion, R PW is the only docum ent which recognizes, how ever implicitly,
th at Scripture contains the deposit of various ideological expressions of faith. In the
interests o f an ad eq u ate explanatory com m itm ent, this acknow ledgem ent should be
d ev elo p e d fu rth e r into a m ore conscious reflectio n on the relative significance of certain traditions for the present context. N evertheless, the g reater flexibility o f the
d o c u m e n t holds o u t th e possibility th a t as societies u n d erg o rad ical p rocesses of
M J Oosthuizcn
change, the Bible can rem ain a relevant p a rtn e r in the continuing dialogue concer
ning the role of the church in society.
4. CX)NCLUSION
T he foregoing analysis has highlighted the urgency with which C hristian groups from
all sides of the d e b a te should m eet the needs o f an ad e q u a te explanatory com m it m ent. In d eed , the positions which a re a d o p te d by the various docum ents suggest
th a t th ere is currently little basis for constructive and intersubjective engagem ent.
W ith the possible exception of RPW , the p artners in dialogue may too easily indulge in m utual accusations concerning the distortion of Scripture, w ithout recognising the provisional nature of their own m ediation betw een th e Bible and the socio-political
context. A m ore m odest advocation o f th e ir views could lay the g roundw ork for
g reater openness in the search for an appropriation o f Scripture which would lead to
an optim al resolution of societal problem s.
T he prospect for such an im proved understanding is certainly no trifling m atter. G iven the key role which the churches should play in the developm ent o f new atti
tudes, their ability to move tow ards a g reater consensus concerning a relevant m odel
for C hristian involvem ent in society holds out the hope of a m eaningful peace in our
conflict ridden country.
E ndnotes
1. Church and society is o f course a revision of the D utch R eform ed C hurch’s 1974 policy docum ent en titled Ras, volk en nasie en volkereverhoudinge in die lig van
die Skrif. As for R oad to D am ascus and R elev an t P e n te c o sta l W itness, they
follow in the wake of the K airos docum ent and o th e r recen t condem nations of
the pre-valent injustices in South A frican society (cf W alker 1989:51-52).
2. R ow land and C o rn er (1990:67) define subjectivism as the process in which the
text is d e n ie d to the ex ten t th a t it is m erely allow ed to confirm th e p re-esta- blished position of the interpreter. Essentialism , on the o th e r hand, overvalues
the text by p reten d in g th at its m eaning can be established for all tim e quite in
dependently of the interpreter.
3. E a g le to n ’s criticism s are d irected , in ter alia, against Iser’s tendency to reduce
th e p o ly sem an tic p o te n tia l o f th e text by insisting on a co n sisten t an d stable m eaning, an d also against the objectivist illusion th a t th e text can exercise a
c o n strain in g function upon the read er. A gainst this la tte r point o f critique, I
find m yself in ag reem en t w ith Iser’s insistence on the co -p artn ersh ip betw een
Ethics of interpretation
text and read er (cf also Jodock 1990:372; M organ & B arton 1988:256-259). The
m atter has been vehem ently debated by Iser (1981:82-87) and Fish (1981:2-13).
4. Interestingly, Jauss (1982:40) illustrates the com m on ground betw een reception
aesthetics and sociological m ethods, by pointing to the role which th e concept of the ‘horizon o f expectations’ has also played in the social sciences since M ann heim.
5. G eu ss (1981:63-69) p o in ts to th e d ifferen ce in th e F ran k fu rt school betw een
A dorno who adopts a historicist o r contextual approach to the construction of a critical theory, and H aberm as who pursues a transcendental approach to th e de
term ination o f real and rational interests. T he difficulty in this aspect o f H a b e r m as’s view is th a t he seem s to accept the existence o f universal norm s w hich
w ould be accep ted by all agents, irrespective o f th e ir co n crete historical con ditions, in circum stances o f perfect freedom and knowledge.
6. T h e te rm ‘to ta l-g e n e ra l’ e m a n a te s from M an n h eim ’s d istinction b etw een the
special and the g eneral form ulation o f the to tal conception o f ideology. In its
special form ulation, the total conception m erely refers to the critique o f the o p p o n e n t’s com plete ideational structure. By contrast, the gen eral sense im plies
th e a d d itio n al reco g n itio n o f o n e ’s own ideological p o in t o f view (M annheim 1936:57-62, 68-69).
7. Bonino (1986:345) neatly pinpoints the dilem m a w hen he rem arks th at ‘the text
o f Scripture and tradition is forced into the Procrustean bed o f ideology, and the theologian who has fallen prey to this procedure is forever condem ned to listen
only to the echo o f his own ideology’.
8. B arr (1973:161), S anders (1984:37) and G oldingay (1987:129-133) all criticize the tendency to elevate a certain them e o r aspect o f the canon to such a status
th at it cannot be qualified in th e light o f o th er canonical perspectives.
9. V an H uyssteen (1989:3-10) provides a lucid explanation o f the approach o f logi cal positivism.
10. D eist (1983:38-40) m akes a sim ilar p o in t w hen he argues th a t the decision to
a b a n d o n an idealistic epistem ology in favour o f an ideology critical approach does not imply a lapse into a full-blown relativism . R ather, science becom es a
radically arg u m en tativ e e n te rp rise in which the in te rp re te r has to supply re a
sons for the m eaning w hich he attach es to a historically conditioned text from his own historically conditioned situation.
11. F o r discussions o f the p h en o m en o n o f right-wing C hristianity in South A frica and elsew here, see the articles by W annam aker (1989:17-27) and G ifford (1989:
28-39). T h e stan ce o f the D utch R efo rm ed C hurch is not n ecessarily as
M J Oosthuizcn
nuanced as som e of the m ovem ents and tendencies which are discussed in these papers.
12. B off (1987:142-143) is addressing the problem o f w hat he calls the ‘gospel-poli-
tics’ m odel, in which the gospel is merely seen as a code o f norm s which is to be
ap p lied to any context. T his m odel is un ab le to a p p re c ia te b o th th e d ifferen tia te d re la tio n s h ip b etw een v ario u s biblical significations, an d the changing
n ature o f various historical contexts.
Works cited
Barr, J 1973. The Bible in the m odem woríd. London: SCM.
Boff, C 1987. Theology and praxis: Epistemological foundations. TransI by R R Barr.
Maryknoll: Orbis.
Boff, L 1980. Jesus Christ liberator: A critical christology o f our tim e. T ransI by P
H ughes. London: SPCK.
Bonino, J M 1986. Hermeneutics, truth and praxis, in Mckim, D K 1986:344-357. B rueggem ann, W 1979. T rajectories in O ld T estam en t lite ra tu re and the sociology
o f ancient Israel. JB L 98, 161-185.
— 1985. O ld T estam en t theology as a particular conversation: A djudication o f Is
rael’s socio-theological alternatives. ThD 32, 303-325.
C roatto, J S 1981. Exodus: A hermeneutics o f freedom . M aryknoll: O rbis.
— 1987. B iblical herm eneutics: Toward a theory o f reading as th e production o f
meaning. TransI by R R Barr. Maryknoll: O rbis.
D eist, F E 1979. G ed ag tes o o r die aard en m o ra lite it van w eten sk ap lik e kennis.
ThEv M j l & 3, 16-21,
— 1983. B ibelinterpretation u n d /a ls Ideologiekritik in Burden, J J (ed). Old Testa
m ent Essays, Vol 1, 26-48. P retoria: U nisa.
Eagleton, T 1983. Literary theory: A n introduction. O xford: Blackwell.
Fish, S 1981. Why no on e’s afraid of W olfgang Iser. Diacritics 11/1, 2-13.
G euss, R 1981. The idea o f a critical theory: H aberm as a n d the F rankfurt school.
Cam bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press.
Gifford, P 1989. Theology and right wing Christianity. JTSA 69, 28-39.
G oba, B 1986. T he use o f scripture in the K airos docum ent: A Biblical ethical pers
pective. JTSA 56, 61-65.
G old in g ay , J 1987. Theological diversity a nd the authority o f the O ld Testam ent.
G ran d R apids: Eerdm ans,
H aberm as, J 1978. Knowledge and h um an interests. TransI by J J Shapiro. 2nd ed. London: H einem ann.
Ethics of intcrpretaliofi
H artin, P J 1988. A partheid an d the Scriptures: T he contribution o f A lb ert G eyser
in this polem ic. JTSA 64, 20-33.
In stitu te o f C ontextual theology 1989. The Road to D am ascus: Kairos a nd conver sion. Johannesburg: Skotaville.
Interim com m ittee 1989. A relevant Pentecostal witness. C hatsglen.
Iser, W 1978. The act o f reading: A theory o f aesthetic response. London: R outledge
& K egan Paul.
— 1980. Interaction betw een text and reader, in Suleim an, S R & C rosm an I (eds).
The reader in the text: Essays on audience and interpretation, 106-119. Princeton:
Princeton University P r e s s .
— 1981. T alk like whales: A reply to Stanley Fish. Diacritics 11/3, 82-87.
Jauss, H R 1982. Toward an aesthetic o f reception. T ransI by T B ahti. Brighton: H arvester.
Jodock, D 1990. T he reciprocity betw een Scripture and theology. Interp. 4 4 /4 , 369-
382.
K ern, W 1980. W as ist Ideologie? S tZ 198, 89-97.
Kim, D S 1978. Religion, theology and ideology. Encounter 39, 59-76.
K inghorn; J 1989. T eologie en sosiaal-antropologie, in T heron, P F & K inghorn, J
(eds), Koninkryk, kerk en kosm os: Huldigingsbundel ter ere van Prof W D Jonker, 112-129. B loem fontein: Pro-Christo.
L oader, J A 1987. Exodus, liberation theology and theological argum ent. JTSA 59,
3-17.
Lockhead, D 1976/1977. H erm eneutics and ideology. The Ecum enist 15/6, 81-84. Long, T C 1990. T he use o f Scripture in contem porary preaching. Interp. 4 4 /4 ,3 4 1 -
352.
M annheim , K 1936. Ideology and Utopia. New York: H artcourt, B race & W orld.
Mckim, D K (ed) 1986. A guide to contemporary hermeneutics: M ajor trends in bibli
cal interpretation. G ran d R apids: Eerdm ans.
M organ, R & B arton, J 1988. B iblical interpretation. O xford: O xford U niversity
Press.
N ederduitse G erefo rm eerd e K erk. A lgem ene Sinode 1990. Kerk en Samelewing: 'n Getuienis van die Nederduitse Gerefeformeerde Kerk. B loem fontein: Pro-Christo.
R icoeur, P 1981. H ermeneutics an d the h um an sciences. TransI by J B T hom pson.
C am bridge: C am bridge University Press.
Rowland, C & C orner, M 1990. Liberating exegesis: The challenge o f liberation theo
logy to biblical studies. London: SPCK.
Sanders, J A 1984. Canon and com m unity: A guide to canonical criticism. P hiladel
phia: Fortress.
M J Oosthuizen
S chiissler F io ren za, E 1986. T ow ard a fem inist biblical h erm en eu tics, in M ckim 1986:358-381.
— 1990. T h e crisis of S criptural authority: In te rp re ta tio n and recep tio n . Interp. 4 4 /4 , 353-368.
S egundo, J L 1977. The liberation o f theology. T ransl by J D rury. D ublin: G ill & M acmillan.
Smit, D J 1986. T he symbol o f reconciliation and ideological conflict in South A fri
ca in V orster, W S (ed). Reconciliation and reconstruction: Creative options f o r a rapidly changing South Africa, 79-112. P retoria: U nisa.
Steck, O H 1977. T heological stream s o f trad itio n , in K night, D A (ed). Tradition and theology in the Old Testament, 183-214. Philadelphia; Fortress.
V an H uyssteen, W 1987. The realism o f the text: A perspective on biblical authority. Pretoria: U nisa.
— 1989. Theology and the justification o f faith: Constructing theories in system atic
theology. T ransl by H F Snijders. E erdm ans: G rand Rapids.
V orster, W S 1984. T he use o f Scripture and the NG kerk: A shift o f paradigm o r of
values? in H ofm eyr, J W & V o rster, W S (ed s). New fa ces o f Africa, 204-219. P retoria: Unisa.
— 1988. T ow ards a post-critical paradigm : P rogress in New T estam en t sch o lar
ship?, in M outon, J, V an A arde, A G & V orster, W S (eds). Paradigms and pro gress in theology, 31-48. Pretoria: HSRC.
— 1989. T he in/com patibility o f m ethods and strategies in reading o r interpreting
the O ld T estam ent. O TE 2 /3 , 53-63.
W alker, D 1989. Evangelicals and apartheid: An enquiry into som e predispositions. JTSA b l, 46-61.
W annam aker, C 1989. Right wing Christianity and the Bible in South Africa. JTSA 69, 17-27.
