Towards an ethics of interpretation : The use of scripture in three recent Christian documents

Three documents have recently appeared which all ap­ peal to Scripture in their elaboration of a vision for the church’s involvement in society. This paper assesses the m anner in which the Bible functions within the broader in te rp re ta t iv e s ta n c e o f each d o c u m e n t, nam ely Church and Society, R oad to Damascus and Relevant Pentecostal Witness. In order to achieve this, attention is first paid to the establishm ent o f criteria which should form p a rt o f a com m on explanatory com m itm ent to which all position papers should adhere. It is argued that the ideological stance of both the in terpre ter and Scripture should be acknowledged, so that the relative merits of the various documents can be intersubjectively tested.

T he specific concern which informs the present p ap er is th at such dialogue can only be m eaningful if all p artn ers in the d eb ate are p rep are d to clarify the status which they accord to Scripture as the primary source of their respective societal ana lyses.W hile this concern has received much attention in theological circles (V orster 1984:204-219; G o ba 1986:61-65; L oader 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 that each docum ent may be regarded as a model, which eith er functions in a considered m anner or quite simplistically in establishing a relationship betw een Scripture and socio-political reality (cf Van Huyssteen 1989:179).
The first aim of this p aper is therefore to address the issue o f an ethics o f inter pretation.In using the term 'ethics', it is contended that all participants in the cur ren t debate have a m oral responsibility to provide verifiable grounds for the know ledge w hich they claim to glean from S crip tu re (cf D eist 1979:16-21).Such an explanatory com m itm ent cannot avoid the issues which pertain to the bro ad er in ter disciplinary conversation in which theology has becom e inextricably involved during recent years.T he im pact of perspectives from fields such as reception theory, the sociology of 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 attention must be paid to certain basic in terpretative and explanatory criteria to which all models may reasonably be expected to conform.In the second place, however, the specific m odels which form the focus of the present paper will be assessed in the light of these theoretical considerations.My own inte rest in this m atter is not m erely academ ic.As a practicing m em ber of the D utch R efo rm ed C hurch, 1 react 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 of co n structive dialogue in the South African context.Two prom inent m em bers of the K onstanz school, nam ely Iser and Jauss, both developed theories o f reception which point to the creative interaction betw een the read er and the text.F or Iser (1978:34-37) the production of m eaning consists of a complex interaction betw een the textual structure, or, in o th e r words, the text as a network of response-inviting strategies, and the structured act of reading.By m eans of its strategies, the text develops a specific rep erto ire by invoking socio-historical norm s and literary conventions, and p resen tin g them in an in tern al com bination which leads to th eir defam iliarisation and the resulting suspension o f th eir validity (Iser 1978:69-85).As a result the re a d e r is co n fro n ted with a seq u en ce o f p ers pectives which are full o f indeterm inacies (Iser 1978:169, 182-185, 202-203, 212-213;1980:111-112).

ASPECTS O F AN E X
TTie reader responds to these indeterm inacies by providing a specific configura tion of 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 ISSN 0259 9422 -ITTS 4 9 /1 A 2 (1993) Ethics of inlcrprctalion ding', thereby pointing to the role of the read er's im agination in the continuing ten sion betw een new and previous horizons o f understanding.
W hatever the criticism s levelled at Iser (cf E agleton 1983:79-86),^ his theory holds im portant im plications for the interpretation of not only the m odern novel but also the Bible.In the first place, it is clear that the m eaning of the text can only be fulfilled in the reading subject, and th a t it is im possible to conceive of the act of reading as a one-way process which involves a direct internalisation of pre-existent textual truth (Iser 1978:107, 146-152;1980:119;also Long 1990:348-349).Secondly, this consideration leads to the further conclusion that the read er becom es a semiotic topic in his own right (V orster 1989:58-61).In other words, the read er's production of m eaning m ust be evaluated in sociological term s with reference to the specific interests by which it is guided (Iser 1978:151).
T he realisation th a t the act o f reception necessitates a critical exam ination of the social praxis from which it em an a tes is also endem ic to the work of Jauss (cf Schiissler F iprenza 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 within the horizonal lim itations o f past receptions (Jauss 1982:34-35).Clearly, then, m eaning is produced through a continual process o f reception, and any interpretation invites analysis of the influences, both literary and socio-historical, by which it is inform ed (Jauss 1982:29-32, 39-41).
T he insights o f reception theory converge with those of the sociology of know ledge to highlight the ideological p redisposition which inescapably influences all theological reflectio n in its use o f S cripture (cf L ockhead 1976/1977:81-82;Kim 1978:72-76)."* T he m atter of ideological com m itm ent rem ains an evocative issue on at least two counts.Firstly, the diffuse connotations with which the concept of 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 of a slogan which facilita tes herm en eu tic im provisation, by legitim ating the adoption of any pred eterm in ed stance.It is im portant, therefore, to explain the significance which is attached to the concept within the present analysis of interpretative interest.
In this respect, it is useful to refer to G euss (1981:4-26) who argues th at the con cept of ideology may enjoy three broad connotations, namely pejorative, descriptive and positive.A gainst scholars who wish to delim it the usage o f the term to its pejo rative connotations (e g Kern 1980:96-97), its w ide-ranging currency in the present d eb ate rath er suggests that all th ree senses should be retained in the consideration o f an adequate explanatory project.

M J Ooslhuizcn
T he pejorative understanding points to the phenom enon of false consciousness, which may be based on incorrect epistem ic, functional or genetic 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 of a critical theory which possesses the reflective ability of making agents aw are of hidden and even self-im posed coercion by m eans of a consistent program m e of ideology critique (G euss 1981:26,55, 74-75).
Ideology criticism forces all interpreters to reject the dichotomy betw een know ledge and interests which is im plicit in the notion o f a p u re and value-free theory (H ab erm as 1978:301-317).In p articular, H ab erm as's identification of the em an cipatory cognitive in terest provides a pow erful tool for freeing the subject from hypostatic relations of dependence (H aberm as 1978:309-311).A dherents of libera tion theology, am ongst others, make use of such insights in their developm ent o f a program m e of conscientisation, which not only dismisses the notion of a value-free exegesis but also unm asks the interests which are legitim ated by such an appeal to neutrality (cf Bonino 1986:348-351;Segundo 1977:126-138).namely the text itself.With 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 were form ed, and which wit ness to quite different portrayals of the relationship betw een G od and society.The ensuing rem arks will m erely sketch a few insights with respect to the increasing scholarly recognition of th e diversity of th e O ld T e stam e n t (cf G oldingay 1987: passim).Similar insights could be developed with respect to the New T estam ent.
O ne profitable m anner of exploring this diversity is by m eans o f the m odel of trajectories, according to which a particular them e or concept is exam ined along the axis o f its historical developm ent (B rueggem ann 1979:161-162; G oldingay 1987:40-43).On the analogy of Steck's (1977) typification of a stream of tradition, a trajec tory can be undersrtiod as an extensive intellectual or notional sphere which is ex pressed by m eans of ch aracteristic conceptual and linguistic categories, and which exercises influence for an appreciable historical period (Steck 1977:191-198).Thus Thirdly, any m odel should explicitly clarify the reasons which lie behind its es pousal of certain biblical ideologies.M ore specifically, the model should motivate the status which it accords to the focal ideologies, both in term s o f its perception of the thrust o f S cripture and with respect to the socio-historical context in which it perform s its evaluative activity.

Establi.shing an ethics of interpretation
The preceding methodological discussion has highlighted a num ber of 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 terp re ta tio n only form s p a rt of the larger eth ical issue.Paradoxically, it could even be argued th a t such an a d mission is not particularly helpful, for in destroying the illusion of objectivity it may open the do or for a rath er com placent relativism.As has been contended with re spect to both the interp reter and the text, the concept of ideology should not be used as a m eans of legitimising virtually any exegesis of Scripture.Some m odels may lay claim to greater 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 dismisses the rigid positivistic distinction betw een truth and falsity,^ in favour of a m ore flexible approach which recognizes that beliefs and attitudes can be m ore or less rational (G euss 1981:30-31; V an H uyssteen 1989: pas sim).For Van H uyssteen (1989:143-197), rationality becom es a thoroughly contex tual and also intersu b jectiv e or re latio n al e n te rp rise , in w hich a d e te rm in ativ e weight is accorded to criteria of inner coherence and consistency ra th e r than to a notion of correspondence to a body of so-called 'objective facts'.
T he notion of coherence which Van H uyssteen (1989:163-177)  which guide it in its problem -solving ap p ropriation of 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 models may be weighed with a view to re solving the bro ad er problem s that face that particular society as a whole.
In my opinion, the co n sid eratio n o f such c riteria could in crease th e p o s sibility of m eaningful discussion and reflection am ongst the diverse C hristian groups whose perspectives are presen ted in the various statem ents.This pros pect stands at the h eart of the ensuing evaluative comments.T he m an ner in which certain p rom inent texts are di.scussed in the theoretical section, lends legitim ation, albeit implicitly, to this viewpoint.R eferring to Acts 2:1-11, the docum en t rem arks th at the New T estam en t is realistic with respect to the practical problem s which arise from the pastoral needs o f d ifferent groups ( § 32), A lthough it is stated that such practical considerations should enrich the unity o f the church, the clear impression is that Acts 2 provides scriptural w arrant for the accom m odation o f the m inistry of the gospel o f differen t language and cultural groups.

T ensioas betw een scriptural principles and practical im plem entation
Both the use of the explication-application dichotomy as its exegetical m ethod, and the weight that is given to the concept of the nation, lead to various tensions in CS.
Thus one finds th a t biblical pronouncem ents which refer to the regulation of in ter personal relationships are merely transposed onto the regulation of inter-group rela tionships (e g § 123).T he potentially radical im plications of som e of CS's sta te m ents on m atters such as justice, charity, neighbourly love, truth and dignity, which take up a considerable part of the docum ent, lose their im pact because of the social reality to which they have to conform.
T he concept of justice may serve as an example.In the theoretical section ju s tice is related to the structure of hum an society ( § 140), and it is stressed that doing justice to the poor or oppressed is no optional m atter, but rath er a case of restoring the right (DgiffO) of those who have been deprived of th eir rights ( § § 148-149, 152).
W ith reference to the G ospel o f Luke, it is also stressed that G od is p ar excellence the one who intercedes to take up the cause of the oppressed and suffering ( § 149- These 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 the dem ands of an explanatory com m itm ent.As a result of its exegetical m ethodology, it fails to address the internal complexity of Scripture, and it is arguably also insensitive to the complexity of the historical situation in which it is to be applied (cf Boff 1987:142-143).12F u rth erm o re, by disclaim ing the ideological and neces.sarilysituational n atu re o f its in terp retatio 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 eb ate in which the explanatory m erits of the docum ent can be intersubjectively tested.
ents have recently ap p eared which all ap peal to Scripture in their elaboration o f a vision for the church's involvement in society.This p aper assesses the m anner in which the Bible functions within the broader in t e r p r e ta ti v e s ta 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 oad to D am ascus and R elevant Pentecostal Witness.In order to achieve this, attention is first paid to the establishm ent o f criteria which should form p a rt o f a com m on e x p lan a to ry co m m itm e n t to w hich all position p ap ers should a d h ere.It is argued that the ideological stance of both the in terp 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 reflection by C hristian groups on socio-political and o th e r m atters, has w itnessed the p ublication of, am ongst o th ers, th ree signi ficant docum ents.I refer to Church and Society, the statem ent which was approved by the D utch R eform ed C hurch in its original (1986) and revised form (1990), as well as to R oad to Damascus and Relevant Pentecostal Witness.^T hese publications afford a crucial insight into the perspectives of at least some of the interest groups ISSN 02399*21 = HTS 49/1A 2 (1993) lithics of inlcrprctation w hich a re involved in the d ialogicai and co n su ltativ e search for g re a te r u n d e r standing within our deeply polarised society.
PLA N A TO R Y C O M M IT M E N T 2.1 Betw een utilitarianism and essentialism In the light of the complexity of the m odern herm eneutical debate, it is only possible to explore a few facets o f an explanatory com m itm ent th at has far w ider ram ifica tions.T h e position w hich is ad v o cated by the p resen t p ap er co rresponds to the o pin io n o f Boff (1987:135-139), who, discussing the co ncept of the h erm en eu tic circle, w arns against the two dangers o f herm eneutical im provisation and sem antic positivism.T he dialectic betw een Scripture and the reading comm unity points to a relation ship of invitation and response, or question and answer, which is constitutive of the realisation of m eaning.Sem antic positivism dissolves this dialectic by attem pting to d eterm in e the m eaning of the text in a definitive and final m anner.T hereby the role of the in te rp re te r is reduced to th a t o f a neu tral ap p licato r o f in terp re tativ e technique.For its part, herm eneutical im provisation entails a thoroughly utilitarian use of Scripture as a m ere confirm ation of predeterm ined positions.T he realisation that all in terp retatio n is innovative and personal, and th erefo re m ore o r less arb i trary, does not abrog ate the necessity for serious engagem ent with th e text (B off 1987:136-138).B offs argum ent am ounts to a refusal to dissolve the dialectic tension betw een the text and the read er into an accom m odation to the claim s of eith er a full-blown subjectivism or a positivistic essentialism (B off 1987:136; cf R ow land & C o rn er 1990:67-68).2His stance provides a useful basis for reviewing a num ber o f im por tant insights that are endem ic to the discussion of interpretative criteria.2.2 T he interested n ature 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 inherent to the assum ption o f both a fixed textual m eaning and a disinterested exegesis.W ithin the p aram eters of the present discussion, it is only proposed to sketch a few insights from the fields o f recep tio n theory and the sociology of knowledge in ord er to dem onstrate the extent to which the act o f in ter pretation is linked integrally to the interests by which it is informed.

G
euss identifies an ad ditional aspect o f the program m e o f ideology criticism, which holds im portant im plications for the p resen t discussion.T he p o in t is th at there are two senses in which the reflective responsibility of the critical theory ex ceeds its em ancipatory function from bondage and delusion.Firstly, it should be able to give an explicit account o f its own context of origin and its context of appli cation(G euss 1981:55-56).Secondly, it should be able to co u n ter false conscious ness by pointing to the agents' 'real' or 'rational' interests, in oth er w ords the values which they would espouse and actively pursue under 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.-''Theim plication of the preceding remark.s, is that the issue o f ideology entails m ore th an the exposée o f the false consciousness which a p articu lar theological m odel may claim to identify in o th er models.R ather, its explanatory com m itm ent extends to the clarification of the specific context in which it advocates its own posi tion, as a situational response which is geared to providing its p articu lar audience with the most rational possible resolution of its interests.Inh erent in such a responsibility is the consideration 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 totalgeneral sen.se which recognises the situational determ ination of all thought (cf alsoKim 1978:61-63; Ricoeur 1981:239-240).*All knowledge is therefore relational, and reflects the position of the interested subject(M annheim 1936:70-71, 76). is possible for such a recognition to function in a purely descriptive sense, and therefore to content itself with the m ere non-evaluative acceptance that a certain social cultural system will be ch aracterized by a p articu lar constellation of beliefs, attitu des and dispositions(G euss 1981:4-9).A lternatively, how ever, ideo logy may be approached as a positive project, involving the deliberate construction o f a program m e o f action which aim s to facilitate the reorganisation of 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 topia'.To my m ind, theology's accep tan ce of the reality o f ideological com m itm ent m eans m ore than a passive, or even nonchalant, resignation to the inevitability of situationally determ 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 at adheres to such an endeavour(cf Kim 1978:   66).Such an en terp rise also involves a critique of form s o f false consciousness, a m a tte r w hich obviously raises th e questio n of evaluative c riteria w hen, as in the South African context, com peting theological models vie for acceptance.As will be discussed shortly, it is the conten tio n o f this p ap er th at it is possible to engage in such an ev alu ativ e e n te rp rise , in th e sense th a t som e m odels may lay claim to greater 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 reter to include the other partner in the dynamic interaction betw een Scripture and the receptive agent, :183-214), even though he does not use the term 'trajectory', points to the diverse stieam s of tradition which characterized the m ajor epochs of Israel's his tory.The analysis of trajectories affords an insight into the tensions betw een some of the 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 which inform the M osaic tra d itio n , with its eg alitarian and radical social ethos, in co n trast to the Davidic tradition with its structure-legitim ating tendency.Significantly, however, he m oves beyond the m ere identification of trajecto ries to the m atter o f th e ad ju d i cation o f their relative weight (B rueggem ann 1985:315-321).A ccording to B rueg gem ann, the thrust of the O ld Testam ent, both in its shaping o f the canon and in its depictions of G od, points to the prim ary n ature of the M osaic trad itio n .This p ri mary em phasis m ust em erge in conversation with contem porary dialogue partn ers such as the poor and disenfranchised, who share the sam e ethical orien tatio n .In passing, it may be noted that B rueggem ann's concern for the Mosaic trajectory p a rallels the work o f C roatto (1981:passim) on the developm ent of the Exodus trajec tory throughout the Old and New T estam ent as the authentic biblical axis of 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 of diverse biblical ideologies should not engender a type of herm eneutic im provisation which sanctions any predeterm ined position.7W hile one must acknow ledge the difficulty o f the evaluative enterprise (cf Goldingay 1987:97-133), and the thoroughly contextual n atu re o f any engagem ent with Scripture, th ere are certain focal biblical em phases which cannot be ignored.Perspectives such as G o d 's identi fication with the p oo r and the m arginalised are so pervasive th a t they co nstitute challenges which the biblical text issues to all o f its readers (cf Sanders 1984:54-56).The m anner in which any model m ediates betw een these central them es will in variably reveal the interests of a specific socio-historical tran sactio n betw een the re a d e r and the text(cf S anders 1984:67, 77-78).T his leads to the second point, namely that any situational adjudication betw een biblical ideologies should rem ain open to em phases which may be less germ ane to the in terp re te r's perception of the thrust of Scripture itself(cf Barr 1973:156-161; S anders 1984:37; G oldingay 1987:   129-133; Jodock 1990:377).**Brueggem ann(1985:316-318)  him self insists th a t the M osaic and D avidic trajectories should be upheld as traditions in tension.A sen sitivity to such fundam ental scriptural polarities is vital for a theology which is p re pared to acknow ledge the provisional n ature o f any com m itm ent to a specific p ro gram m e of social action.ISSN 0259 <M22 = HTS 49/1 & 2 (1993) develops can be profitably applied in considering the rationality o f the various docum ents which are under discussion.A m odel's claim to rationality is integrally linked to its ability to address the i.ssues which confront a specific comm unity as it reflects on its religious exp erien ce in dialogue with the C hurch, theological trad itio n and co ntem porary scientific reflection.W ithin the present discussion, the category o f religious expe rience must be understood in a com prehensive m an n er so as to include the socio political reality of which it is inevitably a part.The various m odels may therefore be assessed by their problem-solving ability, in other words by th eir capacity to present a contextually relevant and theoretically legitimate account o f the im portant ideolo gies which they discern in Scripture.The salient aspects of an ethics o f interpretation may now be reviewed, by way o f a n u m b er o f c rite ria which may be ap p lied in assessing the cred ib ility o f the m odels which are presented in the various position papers.* T h ere should be an aw areness th a t the in te rp re ta tio n o f S cripture proceeds from an in terested or ideological perspective, which inevitably reveals the in fluence of, amongst other factors, a specific socio-historical matrix.Such an ap preciation has at least three implications: •* Any m odel should abandon the absolutist and au th o ritarian claims 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 at all attem pts at 'objectivity' in exegesis are futile.R ath er it confronts any m odel with the exigency of clarifying the methodological and ideological perspec tive from which its interpretive stance proceeds (cf Schiissler F iorenza 1986; 380), in ord er to facilitate dialogue and intersubjective testing.'0* T he m odel should display a sensitivity to the diversity and th ere fo re possibly quite conflicting ideologies which are contained in Scripture itself.This asser tion again has a num ber o f facets: •• C onsideration should be given to the criteria which determ ine the relative w eight th at should be attach ed to a certain scriptural them e o r ideology.A re certain scriptural ideologies m ore pervasive than others?** The selective processes which lead to the use of 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 that Scripture is invariably used as part of a theological argum ent (cf L oader 1987:13-15).It is perhaps m ore im portant to realize that the diversity o f Scripture contains an inhe rent corrective against the absolutisation of any o f its ideological them es.Any contextual theology should therefore adm it its prejudicial nature, and en te rta in an openness to less g erm an e biblical accents w hich may b e tte r equip it to deal with the complexites of its own situation.* A m odel is accountable to the concrete situation in which it develops its in ter pretation of Scripture.The 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 ISSN 0259 9422 = HTS 4 9 /1 A 2 (1993) D O C U M EN T S3.1 C hurch and SocietyChurch and Society (1990) (CS) presents by far the most extensive o f the th ree docu m ents, and is the only statem en t which provides the reader with a clear conception concerning its view of the role of the church in society.The docum ent will be dealt w ith a t som e length because it re p resen ts the type o f stance o f right-w ing C hris tianity against which both the Road to Damascus (1989) (R D ) and the Relevant Pen tecostal iVitness (1989) (R PW ) so vehemently inveigh.^In the ensuing discussion of m a tte rs p ertain in g to its use of S crip tu re, referen ce will be m ade to th e revised (1990) version, which was unfortunately only available in A frikaans.W here sections o f the original and revised versions correspond, excerpts will be q uoted in English on the basis of the translation of the 1986 document.3.1.1Eixplication and application, o r the illu.sion of ideological neutrality CS o p erates from a naive realistic fram ew ork, which approaches S cripture from a thoroughly a-historical standpoint (cf V an H uyssteen 1987).T he docum ent clearly assum es that it is possible to divorce the process of interpretation from the matrix of contextual influences in which the reader is situated.In seeking to extract abstract tru th s and norm s from S crip tu re, it p resen ts a classic exam ple o f w hat V o rste r (1988:43) refers to as a herm eneutical, rath er than a contextual, theology.This problem atic stance is already apparent in the division which the docum ent draw s betw een its th e o re tic a l and practical sections.T h ereb y it is im plicitly a s sum ed th a t the process o f exegesis can be divided into two logically consequent steps o f explication and application.TTie first step consists o f an objective distil lation o f scriptural principles from the text, while the second step concerns itself with their application to a particular context.In the light of reception theory's insis tence on the dynam ic and changing transactions betw een the re a d e r and the text, the validity of such a procedure must be seriously questioned.By virtue of its implicit exegetical methodology, CS is able to m aintain the illu sion of ideological neutrality, and can insist th at in th e form u latio n of principles 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 would be reduced to the status of 'a contem porary recipe book with instant solutions to all hum an problem s'( § 15, 18).Exam ples of this stance perm eate the whole docum ent.Thus statem en ts such as those that are found ir.paragraphs 231, 275 and 304, as well as the whole section w hich deals with 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 interpreter.Indeed, paragraph 26 categorically states that in contrast to the thought patterns of this old, passing world, the only criteria which may be applied to the evaluation of the church 'are those which are revealed to us under the guidance of G o d 's Spirit'.To the extent that CS warns against an uncontrolled herm eneutic improvisation, it utters a legitim ate word of caution.N evertheless, in the wake of reception theory, it can no longer be den ied th at it belongs to the very fabric o f in terp retatio n that co n tem porary pro blem s are read into the text (C ro a tto 1987:66; Long 1990:349-350).O ne of 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 hurch w ith any existing o r o th e r political ideologies ( § § 21, 274-275).As the docum ent itself reveals, the rationale behind this concern for ideological neutrality seem s to lie in the church's sincere em b arrassm en t at its own scriptural e n d o rse m ent of apartheid and racism ( § 282-287).N evertheless, the belief that the church's responsibility is lim ited to the critical evaluation o f all political models in the light of scriptural norm s such as love, justice and hum an dignity, b elies its own roie as a social actor on the South African stage.It could be contended that paragraph 276, in which the subjective nature of the evaluation of all political m odels is accepted, points beyond the d o cu m en t's id e a listic herm eneutic.U nfortunately, this recognition of subjectivity has not b een ex tended to include the specific interests th at must inform any identification o f scrip tural norm s.T he point is th at 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.Furtherm ore, the m anner in which the church or a C hris tian group envisages the practical im plem entation of such values form s p art of its ISSN 02.S9 9422 » HTS 4 9 /1 A 2 (1993)ideological com m itm ent, and therefo re ipso facto reflects a p redilection for a cer tain political ideology.In this regard, the following rem ark ofBoff (1980:265-266)    seem s particularly apposite:Theologians do not live in clouds.They are social actors with a p arti cular place in society...The them es and em phases o f a given C hristology flow from w hat seem s relevant to the theologian on the basis of his or her social stan d p o in t...T h at holds true as well for theological discourse th at claim s to be 'purely' theological, historical, ecclesial and apolitical.Norm ally such discourse adopts the position of those who hold power in the existing system.3.1.2Church and Society' s ideological commitment to nationalism D espite its claim to neutrality in the interpretation of Scripture, CS o perates 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 Kinghorn 1989:125).Through rew ording and the reform u lation of various sections, the revised version creates the im pression that it is trying to move away from a nationalistic concern.T o my mind, however, CS still allows the concept of national groups to operate as a d eterm inative principle.Its influence is clear in both the selection and in te r p retatio n o f m aterial which should receive attention in the theoretical section, and also in the statem ents concerning the D utch R eform ed Church and various aspects o f society in the practical section.Care is indeed taken to reject racism and an absolutization o f on e's own nation( § § 110, 273)  and it is also stressed th a t the Dutch R eform ed C hurch is not a 'national church'( § § 117, 271).N evertheless, the docu m ent conveys the distinct im pression th at the reality of different national and cul tural com m unities form s the principle according to which the practical contextualisation of the church is envisaged(cf  § § 116, 122, 254, 273, 281).
may be asked w h eth er the passage does not becom e p art o f a fu rth er argum ent which legitim ates the organization of the church along nationalistic lines.From my own com m itted perspective, Acts 2 presents a celebration of the unifi cation of the church thro u g h th e tran scen d en ce o f linguistic and o th e r barriers, rath e r than a w arrant 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 that within the one fundam ental humanity (cf § 96-97), the organization of society along nationalistic principles accords with the will o f G o d (cf § 104-109).How else can one explain the statem ent in paragraph 105, nam ely th at 'th e m ulti tude of nations and their distribution over various territories are described as a his toric reality which occurred by G o d 's providential o rd erin g ?'Such considerations surely indicate that nationalistic anthropology rem ains the societal structuring prin ciple which underlies the thought of CS (K inghorn 1989:121-125).
help asking how CS can reconcile such and other sim ilar statem ents on hum an dignity and charity with a de facto situ atio n in which the nationalistic organisation of 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 vernm ent, all form s of violence can be roundly condem ned, while the problem of ISSN 02.W <M22 = UTS 49/1 <t 2 (1993) Etliics of interpretation Structural violence is never addressed at all.How meaningful is it to appeal to the biblical d octrine o f reconciliation to advocate orderly channels o f com m unication betw een the governm ent and the different national groups in South Africa, when the concrete experience of disenfranchisem ent and oppression has rendered such a con cept redundant (cf Smit 1986:88-89)?

3 2 R
oad to Damascus and Relevant Pentecostal Witness Both R D and R PW are protest docum ents, w ritten from a concrete situation of o p pression and disenfranchisem ent.T hus R D presents a p en etratin g critique of the effects of 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 framework within which the ideals of co nsu m erist m aterialism are p u rsued at the expense o f the p o o r and oppressed.W hilst far less extensive in its social analysis, R P W points to political oppression and econom ic exploitation as well as the justification of apartheid through the natio nalistic theology of the R eform ed church, as the context which the m ajority o f ex ploited C hristians in South A frica experience.D espite th eir com m on contextual points o f departure, the two docum ents reveal differences in their herm eneutic p re suppositions.3^.1 Road to DamascusA 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 that the class struggle presents the d ete r m inative factor which influences the use o f Scripture.Insisting on the ideological determ ination of all interpretation, the docum ent recognizes th at Christianity is in voked by both sides of the socio-econom ic and political conflict ( § § 26, 27).As can be expected the docum ent devotes a great deal of attention to a ruthless exposure o f right-wing C hristianity, which 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 hristianity is one which identifies itself with the p o o r and th e o p pressed and proceeds to discover the true face of G o d in the Bible from this com m itm ent.It may of course be asked w hether R D 's typification o f right-wing C hris tianity is not too m onolithic and grotesque to ring true.A t least the docum ent p ro vides the read er with a very clear delineation o f its perspectival position, and th e re by prepares the ground for further debate.As fa r as th e use o f S crip tu re is c o n c ern e d , R D p re se n ts a cog en t critiq u e against the selection and distortion of certain parts of the Bible to legitim ate the sta tus quo.It points out th at the Bible has been subjected to a spiritual and o th e r worldly in terp retatio n , in o rd er to paint a picture o f a G od who can speak no rele vant word into a concrete situation of exploitation and suffering ( § 30-33).F u rth er m ore, it argues th at fundam entalism has been used to foster a spirit o f blind o b e dience to a prevailing in terp retatio n of 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.From the limited available m aterial, it is however ap p aren t that the docam 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 of Scripture.The portrait 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).The G od that em erges from this eclectic use of texts fits R D 's social analysis perfectly.Thus we are inform ed that 'the true G od is th e G od of th e p o o r w ho is angry a b o u t injustice in th e w orld, v indicates the poor...pulls down the mighty from th eir thrones and lifts up the lowly' ( § 40).Simi larly, it is asserted th at 'We no longer believe in the G od of the pow erful and we want no gods except the G od who was in Jesus' ( § 41).T he q u estio n th a t the d o cu m en t fails to address concerns the G o d to whom these statem en ts appeal.The in terp retativ e criteria th at have been considered in this p a p e r w ould suggest th a t R D has reco u rse to a G od w ho em erges from the ideologically shaped textual world of specific biblical passages.R D should recog nise that Scripture contains diverse ideologies, and th at th ere 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 that its interaction with the text is guided by the horizonal lim itations of its rootedness in an oppressive situ a tion.C onsequently, it could assert th at it is exercising a p referen tial option to ap p ropriate m odels o f G o d 's activity which it perceives to be relevant within the spe ISSN 02.S9 <M22 -flTS 49/1 <t 2 (1993) 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)NCLUSIONThe foregoing analysis has highlighted the urgency with which Christian groups from all sides of the deb ate should m eet the needs of an ad eq u ate explanatory com m it m ent.In deed , the positions which a re a d o p ted by the various docum ents suggest that there is currently little basis for constructive and intersubjective engagem ent.With the possible exception of RPW , the partners 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 the Bible and the socio-political context.A m ore m odest advocation of th eir views could lay the groundw ork for g reater openness in the search for an appropriation of Scripture which would lead to an optim al resolution of societal problems.T he prospect for such an improved understanding is certainly no trifling m atter.G iven the key role which the churches should play in the developm ent of new atti tudes, their ability to move towards a g reater consensus concerning a relevant model for C hristian involvement in society holds out the hope of a meaningful 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 entitled 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 en teco stal W itness, they follow in the wake of the K airos docum ent and o th er recent condem nations of the pre-valent injustices in South African society (cf W alker 1989:51-52).2. Row land and C orner (1990:67) define subjectivism as the process in which the text is denied to the extent th at it is m erely allow ed to confirm th e p re-established position of the interpreter.Essentialism , on the o th er hand, overvalues the text by pretending that its m eaning can be established for all tim e quite in dependently of the interpreter.3. E ag leto n 's criticism s are d irected, in ter alia, against Iser's tendency to reduce the polysem antic p o ten tial o f the text by insisting on a consistent and stable m eaning, and also against the objectivist illusion th a t th e text can exercise a constraining function upon the read er.A gainst this latter point o f critique, I find myself in agreem ent with Iser's insistence on the co -partnership betw een ISSN 0259 9422 UTS 49/1 <t 2 (1993)