Originally posted by epiphinehas
Let me be more specific.
Jesus once told His disciples, shortly before He was to be crucified, that where He was going they could not follow - at least not yet. (The disciples could not discern yet that Jesus was speaking about His impending death; they still hoped that God's plan was for Jesus to begin ruling the world soon as Messiah.) Jesus conti . Am I the only one who thinks that approach would be ridiculously self-serving?
Can anyone arrive at the truth, either experientially or rationally, that in God's house there are many mansions?
Of course.
Jesus is not speaking here metaphorically nor allegorically, for He says, "if it were not so, I would have told you."
(1) That does not follow at all; and
(2) strictly would commit you to the notion that God’s house is some kind of physical structure, like an actual building! With actual rooms (“mansions” )!
So, you must really mean to restrict the level of metaphor/allegory, not deny it altogether. But (1) still holds.
What you cannot bring is an experience of a heavenly mansion to this text, because only those who die and go to heaven will ever know what that mansion is exactly.
On the one hand, this is an example of coming to an interpretive conclusion about what Jesus means, and then insisting on your own “mapping” of the map. Now, perhaps your reading here is correct—since I am not committed to the proposition that Jesus (or the writers of scripture) had to be right about everything [I problem which I will try to address], I don’t have to take some all-or-none view. But—
You have stated or implied several
conclusions about the meaning of this text. One is that “heaven” (“God’s house” ) is
of the nature of a place (some actual existential dimension(s)), rather than a state of being. This commits you to the proposition that the kingdom is not inside us, but exists exogenously. And it is not only exogenous to us as individuals, it is exogenous to this life, since only those who die can experience it.
So, you study the texts (and perhaps commentaries on the texts), and arrive at a conclusion as to their meaning. Then you take the position (or so it seems) that no line of reasoning or interpretation, and no experience (spiritual, mystical,* or other) can confirm or disconfirm this conclusion—indeed, cannot be permitted to confirm or disconfirm. [Please correct me if I am misreading you!] This impermission itself is (I assume) based on some theory of inspiration/inerrancy of the scriptural revelation that closes the circle, so that it cannot be either confirmed or disconfirmed from any exogenous source.
[A variation: Some would claim that their reading is confirmed by the Holy Spirit; others, however, claim that any putative experience of the Holy Spirit can only be confirmed by its conformity to scripture. The first case, of course, raises the question of how one confirms that the experience was actually of the Holy Spirit… The second case raises the question of how one confirms that the scriptural revelation is inerrant…]
In the end, the formalist is committed to one of two propositions:
(1) Her/his
own mapping (with or without consideration of the conclusions of other map-makers: e.g., theologians) of the
map is exclusively correct; or
(2) Her/his
own mapping of the territory is exclusively correct.
There is no way at all—absent self-deception—that the formalist can escape that “his/her
own”. There is no source of confirmation that can absolve the individual of responsibility for her/his own interpretive decisions—in the face of either text or (existential) territory.
That aside, you seem to be arguing that the one’s (admittedly perspectival) experience of the territory cannot properly be used to judge the accuracy of the map, that the map must be sacrosanct. Further, you seem to arguing that this is so because
the map itself says so! That is no more reasonable than my saying: “I know I’m right because I said I’m right; I just told myself so this morning…”
On the one hand, such strict (
de jure) religious formalism strikes me as an illusionary attempt to escape from the weight of that “my
own”—correctly perceiving that, as you pointed out, a strict religious exclusivism based on that would be an idolizing of one’s own mental faculties. On the other, I do not see how it can escape idolizing the map.
In this instance the non-formalist would have to bring to bear preformed ideological content and assume that Christ was talking about something spiritual that we'd be able to discover for ourselves.
I don’t think that
how one thinks a text (or statement) is most plausibly interpreted—or the range of possible interpretations—has anything to do with formalism or non-formalism.
What “preformed ideological content” do
you bring to bear to conclude that Christ
cannot be talking about something spiritual that we’d be able to discover for ourselves? (Or, more appropriately perhaps, discover with the help of
other teachers, with
other maps, that might help us to dispel our acquired illusions?) Why that should be taken to apply only to non-formalists is beyond me.
I don’t think that you necessarily bring any preformed ideological content to the interpretive venture. You certainly bring some hermeneutical assumptions to bear when reading the texts; if you consider those assumptions to be somehow sacrosanct—well, then on what basis? As a strict formalist, you
might be imposing your conclusions as “post-formed ideological content” in order to foreclose all other possibilities—but that would just be, again, treating your mapping of the map as somehow sacrosanct.
Am I the only one who thinks that approach would be ridiculously self-serving?
“Am I the only one who thinks that the attempt to escape into the false security of strict religious formalism (or formalistic exclusivism?) is ridiculously self-serving?”
Hmmm…
_____________________________________
* I use “mystical” in a technical sense that does not imply the occult, the supernatural or visions and the like. Merton’s descriptions of Zen, for example, would be included.