Hermeneutics: Alice, the "Final" Four and Barth

I am taking a requisite class in Hermeneutics, and I find myself surprisingly happy with the initial readings.

The class has opened with a delightful little read from David Jasper, "A Short Introduction to Hermeneutics". The book is really just a survey of, primarily, biblical hermeneutics, but branches to the issue writ large when appropriate. Jasper makes a persuasive case that hermeneutic shifts are leading indicators of theological shifts throughout Christian history.

During the work he betrays a predisposition to the reformation, and in doing so, he also given short shrift to Aquinas and Scholasticism. This would be my only grievance.

Yet, what was particularly appealing were the poems and excerpts that were craftily plotted throughout the chapters. Below I have recounted a few:

"Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on. "I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least - at least I mean what I say - that's the same thing, you know." "Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "Why you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see!"
-Alice in Wonderland

"The letter shows us what God and our fathers did;
The allegory shows us where out faith is hid;
The moral meaning gives us rules of daily life;
The anagogy shows us where we end our strife." - Nicholas of Lyra

"Both read the Bible day and night,
But thou read'st black where I read white." -William Blake

The last comes from Barth's "Commentary on the Letter to the Romans"
"The Historical-critical Method of Biblical investigation has its rightful place: It is concerned with the preparation of the intelligence - and this can never be superfluous. But, were I driven to choose between it and the venerable doctrine of Inspiration, I should without hesitation adopt the latter, which has a broader, deeper, more important justification. The doctrine of Inspiration is concerned with the labour of apprehending, without which not technical equipment, how ever complete, is of any use whatever."

Jesus is Not 'Real'

While driving on Interstate 70 outside of Columbus, Ohio I saw a number of Christian billboards lining the highway. One read, “Consider where you want to spend eternity! Repent!” Another read, “Avoid hell, repent. Jesus saves!” Wile I admonish both of these signs for using Christianity as an eternal hedge-bet (read Paschal) they did not disturb me as much as one black and white sign that said simply, “Jesus is Real.”

However, Jesus is not ‘real’.

Do not misunderstand me; this is not a sophomoric attack at the historical foundations of Christianity. Nor is it a rejection of the incarnational presence of Christ.

No, what makes the sloganized and simplified claim of ‘Jesus is Real’ so insipid is that it perpetuates the Enlightenment project that demands Cartesian certainty that begins with doubt and moves to belief only through reason. This leaves a Church that is merely empirical rather than confessional. Here, faith and reason are not only rent from one another but made antipodean – each placed against the other.

The God who gave his name as ‘I AM WHO I AM’ is not adequately – nor could be – properly understood by pure rationalism. All of this is part of the tired trek to fit God into an ontological equation. However, such rationalistic algebra will always fall short, unless we turn to the phrase from Ecclesiastes that states, “Only God is God.”

There is desire to make Jesus a magnificent historical quest, and at times there is a place for that. Certainly the particular and historical nature of the incarnation is a testament to the worldliness of the Christian message. However, the historical quest should also be held in tension with the spiritual quest. This quest shares the road with reason alongside faith.

Instead of the sign reading, ‘Jesus is Real’ it ought to read, “Christ is Lord.”