A Phenomenological Approach To The Scriptures

The goal of this post is to present a (seminary) model, an environment that allows scripture to speak for itself.  In other words, one which would take a “phenomenological approach” to scripture.

            I began thinking about this model a few months ago while reading some works by Edmund Husserl, the name most associated with phenomenology. So I want to give credit where credit is due. However I must admit that Husserl, and probably any phenomenological purist, would probably frown on my use of the term. We might say that I am borrowing the spirit of his philosophy and not the details.

            Husserl’s method of phenomenology can only be understood in light of a greater modern concern: certainty.  We might refer to it as the modern quest for certainty.  In the modern mind knowledge obtains only if it is accompanied by a particular feature: certainty. Without certainty, one does not have knowledge. Without certainty, one has only mere belief. Under this condition, it would seem that knowledge is extremely limited.            

            Descartes kicked off the modern quest for certainty with his method of radical doubt. He would only settle for a foundation of certainty. With that in mind, he doubts anything doubt-able. He even tries to doubt his own existence. Happily he discovers cogito ergo sum…I think; therefore I am. How can I not exist, and yet simultaneously doubt my own existence? I must exist to do such a thing. So now Descartes has an indubitable foundation, a foundation that is certain. The idea that he exists is so clear and distinct that Descartes cannot doubt it.

            If Descartes set off the modern quest for certainty, Emanuel Kant led it. Kant’s influence on western thought, with his distinction between the noumena and the phenomena, cannot be overestimated easily.

            Kant points to a difficulty that we are all well acquainted with in our everyday experience. I walk outside and perceive my dog Thor. I am the subject perceiving Thor. Thor is the object of my perception. I perceive Thor with my senses. I see and hear him. He comes to me and I pet him. He smells like a dog smells. I have no idea how he tastes, because normal people don’t do that.

            Now, there is no way to perceive Thor in any way other than through my senses. I cannot step outside of myself and experience Thor as he is in himself.  Nor can I experience the world in the way that Thor experiences the world. And here we find the problem. First, there is me and my experience in here.  Then there is the world (Thor and all other objects) out there. I can never know with certainty the way things are out there. I can never know with certainty things as they are in themselves.  I can only know the way things are as I experience them via my perception. The way things are in themselves is the pneumena. The way things are as I experience them is the phenomena. This leads to considerable skepticism about what we can be know with certainty. Do my cognitions accurately represent what is in fact the case in the world?

            Husserl recognizes Kant’s distinction, and decides to revisit Descartes’ cogito ergo sum. I may not be certain about the world out there, but I am certain about my cogitationes.  I am certain about my cogitations: perceptions, thoughts, memories, ideas, etc.  Of course what I am thinking, perceiving, or remembering may be not be an identical representation of what is in fact the case in the world. Nonetheless the thought, perception, or memory as I experience it is certain.

            I walk outside and see a dog shaped object in the distance. I am not certain that the dog shaped object I see is my dog Thor, but I believe it is him. Now, my belief may be wrong.  The object in the distance may be my neighbor’s dog.  Even so, I am certain of my perception: I see a dog shaped object in the distance. The relative fact may be wrong, but the perception qua perception is certain.

            Husserl argued that we can know (i.e. be certain of) things as we perceive them, and in some sense this is all that matters. He proposed a method of phenomenology, a method of experiencing phenomena. One purpose of the method is to perceive things as they are presented to us as phenomena in hopes of coming to the essence of things. There are several steps to Husserl’s phenomenological method.  For our purposes we will only address the initial and fundamental step of his method: the phenomenological reduction.

            Husserl’s method seeks to reduce our attention to phenomena as they are presented to us. The phenomenologist is to intentionally focus on the presented phenomena. In order to do this, she must “bracket” or set aside particular presuppositions, assumptions, questions concerning existence/non-existence, the subject/object distinction, and so on. Once bracketing has occurred, the phenomena can be experienced as it is presented.

            I walk outside and perceive Thor. I bracket questions concerning the existence or non-existence of Thor. I set aside the distinction of me as the subject and Thor as the object. Whatever presuppositions or assumptions I have I set them aside in order to allow the phenomenon (i.e. my perception of Thor) to present itself as it is.

            Of course, this statement of the phenomenological reduction is very simplistic and certainly does not do justice to all the related particulars of Husserl’s method; however, what has been stated does reveal the spirit of his method that I wish to employ. Before turning our attention to scripture it should be noted that Husserl’s intention was not simply to experience pure phenomena as if those bracketed assumptions do not matter.

            By employing a phenomenological reduction the perceiver is able to better attend to those bracketed dichotomies and assumptions. In allowing phenomena to be presented without encumbrance, the essence of said phenomena can be observed. In this way the individual is equipped with pure experience. This experience functions as a framework (Husserl might say ‘foundation’) for addressing (for returning to) questions concerning existence, knowledge, and value. That being said, we now will begin to put forward a phenomenological approach to scripture.

            What is meant by speaking of scripture as a phenomenon? I do not mean the sensate experience associated with a book (e.g. the way is looks, feels, sounds, tastes, and smells). I mean that scripture is a phenomenon when it is experienced in a certain way.  It is important to distinguish between scripture and the form in which it is found. The experience of scripture occurs when the text is read as scripture, as writings intended to relay some information about God, humanity, and the world. At its most basic level, a Bible is not scripture until it is actually read in a particular way. Simply reading a Bible does not mean the reader is experiencing scripture.

            The historical critic who reads the Bible as a historical text is not reading scripture. The student who reads the Bible in search of various literary devices and forms is not reading scripture. There is a particular disposition needed by the reader in order for the text to be experienced as scripture. What disposition is needed? In order for scripture to be experienced as scripture the reader needs to have a disposition of expectation. The reader who experiences scripture expects to hear “a word from God”; she expects to hear something about God, humanity, and the world. One more thing, in order to experience scripture as a Christian the reader needs to expect a word from God as revealed in Jesus Christ.

            It is my opinion that most Christians who read scripture have this disposition of expectation. We might add other dispositions such as: a worshipful disposition, a reverent disposition, or a humble disposition. However, it seems that all of these other dispositions entail a disposition of expectation. In sum, without expecting a word from God; the Bible remains simply a book.

            So the goal in reading the biblical text is to come to a place where the text is experienced as Christian scripture. And, most Christians who take the biblical text seriously approach it in this manner. What we need (in my opinion) are church leaders who do the same. At the very least, we need church leaders who understand what it means to approach scripture as scripture. To encourage such an approach in future church leaders it may be helpful to take a phenomenological approach to scripture.

            In order to take a phenomenological approach to scripture it will be necessary to make a type of phenomenological reduction. In the spirit of Husserl’s phenomenological reduction, it will be necessary to bracket assumptions, presuppositions and anything else that prevents the text from speaking for itself, from presenting itself. What exactly must be bracketed?

            The primary assumption to be bracketed needs to be any questions or conclusions regarding the veracity of scripture. “Is this true?” is not a question that is to be entertained when taking a phenomenological approach to scripture. Keep in mind the goal at this point is to allow scripture to speak for itself. We set aside questions of veracity in order to experience scripture as it presents itself.

            By bracketing concerns of veracity we automatically bracket historical concerns as well. “Did Moses actually write the Pentateuch?” As important as this question is, we must set it aside for the sake of the scriptural experience. “Did Jesus really feed five thousand people?” It is not necessary to determine this question in order to understand what is being presented. In fact, a conclusion one way or the other might prevent full disclosure.

            Second, all prior theological, metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical understandings need to be bracketed. It is important to keep in mind that this bracketing is in relation to what is presented in scripture. The intent is not for the student to abandon her belief system, only that she set it aside when approaching scripture. The necessity of this aspect of the reduction will be in proportion to the level and amount of these types of understandings the individual brings to the experience. As an example, someone who has an intimate history with scripture, Christian doctrine, Christian history, and so on will have much to struggle against in setting aside prior theological understandings.

            On the other hand, the reader with no scriptural experience (or very little experience as a Christian for that matter) will not have much to contend with as far as scripture is concerned; nonetheless, she will still have some theological and metaphysical assumptions to be aware of and keep at bay (when attending to scripture).

            Third, all expectations of what will be obtained in reading the biblical text should be bracketed. This third aspect of the reduction may seem in tension with my claim that the experience of scripture requires a disposition of expectation, in particular an expectation of some word from God as revealed in Jesus Christ. However, we do not want to feign a disposition that does not arise from experiencing the phenomena.

            Like Husserl’s method, the experience of reading scripture via phenomenological reduction is not an end in itself. Once this type of experience has obtained, then attention may be directed towards that which was previously bracketed. It is not as if questions of veracity are lacking importance  It is not as if our theological, metaphysical, and ethical assumptions are not vital. In fact the opposite is true. We enter this reduction in hopes of being better equipped via pure experience to address concerns of veracity, ultimate reality, and expectations.     

            In short the critical tendency and assumed dogmatism we all have is to be bracketed for the sake of understanding. And understanding is to be arrived at unencumbered by a-priori assumptions. It is important to clarify that these bracketed assumptions run both ways. It will not work to enter into a phenomenological reduction of scripture with the intent of shoring up pet doctrines. This will only encumber pure experience. The practitioner of this method must put forth every effort to be open and available for scripture as it presents itself.

            The question arises as to what extent is it even possible to practice a phenomenological reduction of scripture as described above. Can we really set aside questions of veracity? How are we to ignore assumptions concerning the great questions of human existence? Admittedly this is not an easy task, yet it seems possible by degree.

            Another pressing question is how long must one sustain such a method? Both of these questions are important, but I would like to address them in the presentation of the model I promised. This will give us a context that may help in seeking answers to these questions.

            Let me begin by saying that the model I am proposing does not really call for across the board changes in existing models, regardless of the previous model employed. In fact, it doesn't necessarily call for any changes. One added year to most seminary models will suffice. This added year should come first, in preparation for whatever follows. We will refer to this year as the Pre-Seminary Year (or PSY).

            During PSY the seminarians will concentrate their attention to three general areas: a phenomenological approach to scripture, spiritual disciplines, and logical/critical thinking. I will attempt to give very general guidelines for each area. The details can be filled out according to the tastes of the seminary in question.  

A Phenomenological Approach to Scripture:

            For our purposes a phenomenological approach to scripture is the primary focus of the PSY. This focus will give students a thorough exposure to a potential experience of scripture. The duration of a year is important in this respect (by a year we mean a typical school year, e.g. two semesters).  It is necessary that this approach is sustained long enough to allow a thorough understanding of the relevant themes, people, events, and so on of scripture. One must live with the text, so to speak.

            Initially the students will become familiar with the method to be used. The three areas of bracketing will be explained, and the students will identify areas in their own understandings that are to be bracketed (e.g. their personal: primary worldview assumptions, dispositions towards the biblical texts, prior understandings of the truth of the biblical texts, and so on). Each student will make public these bracketed areas for future accountability.

            The scriptural experience of each student will be related by the student to experienced guides (i.e. professors) and the larger community of fellow students. The professors who guide the students’ scriptural experiences are to have completed the same experience of a year approaching scripture phenomenologically. They will not teach but rather guide the students.

            As guides, the professors will provide dialectical assistance instead of didactic instruction. Ultimately scripture will present itself, and thus function as its own instructor. However, the professors will guide the students by asking well intended questions. Having experience in the phenomenological approach to scripture, the professors will know what questions to ask.

            Any didactic instruction should be avoided. It is not the professor’s function, at this point, to tell the students answers. The students must struggle with the text in order to “give birth” to answers. This brings us to the only interpretative “key” that will be employed during the phenomenological approach to scripture.

            It should go without saying that Jesus Christ is the interpretative key to scripture as far as Christianity is concerned. What do I mean by using the term “key”? Metaphorically speaking, Jesus Christ is the key that unlocks the meaning of Christian scripture. It is important to differentiate a Christian’s approach to scripture from that of others.

            Both Christians and those of the Jewish Faith read the Hebrew texts, but they do not agree on the meanings of some of these texts.  The difference is ultimately Jesus Christ (at least for the Christian). It is important in this respect that the Christian reader acquire a good grasp on how scripture presents Jesus Christ, before moving on to texts that do not explicitly mention Jesus Christ. This is a very different approach than that used by some seminaries.

            Some seminaries are very adamant that the Hebrew texts are to be read in isolation from any reference to Jesus Christ. The Hebrew texts are to be read as Hebrew texts. They are not to be treated as specifically Christian texts that may or may not speak symbolically or prophetically of Christ. I have never agreed with this approach.

            I read the first few chapters of Matthew and find that the Hebrew texts are used over and over again in order to show Jesus is the expected Messiah. I read Paul’s epistle to the Romans and find he constantly refers to the Hebrew texts in order to show his understanding of the good news is in fact what he received from the risen Lord. As a matter of fact, I see Jesus doing the same thing.

            “And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up” (John 3:14). Jesus states an event found in the Hebrew texts and interprets this event in terms of his death and resurrection. Given the interpretation that Jesus offers, one might say that the event of Moses lifting up the serpent can only be fully understood in light of Christ (at least for a Christian understanding).

            So Christ is the interpretative key that will be used by the students in understanding Christian scripture as it presents itself. Keep in mind that this experience is ultimately aimed at training Christian leaders, not generic biblical scholars or rabbis. This being the case, the initial focus of the PSY will be the gospels. Then the rest of the New Testament will be approached phenomenologically in company with what has been understood about Christ. Moving through the epistles will provide a deeper understanding of Christ than was given in the gospels. At this point scripture begins to unfold itself as a guide. Finally, having experienced Christ as presented in the New Testament, the students will approach the rest of the Christian scriptures (i.e. Hebrew Scriptures) with their interpretative key in hand.

            The students’ scriptural understanding will be guided by both the professors as well as scripture itself. In other words, during this process scripture will be understood in light of the rest of scripture (not a new idea). If the student is struggling with a portion of scripture, the professor may guide the student to other areas in scripture for clarification (again by asking questions like, “Where in scripture might you find some help in coming to understand this portion of scripture?” Now, this particular question is somewhat banal, but it makes my point. Much better questions are available. But, for the sake of brevity we will not pursue that area). This will 1) prevent the student from seeking clarification outside of scripture, 2) teach the student to look for clarification within scripture, and 3) foster a holistic understanding of scripture (We have not said anything about the analytic/atomistic approach often embedded in the historical critical method. Suffice to say, making an analytic/atomistic approach primary in one’s method can make it easy to miss the forest on account of the trees).

            One more point as regards the phenomenological approach itself. I will not spend much time on this here because I will return to it in a moment. It will be necessary for the student to approach the text prayerfully and contemplatively. For instance, if the student encounters a scriptural passage that is difficult to understand; immediately the student should pray and seek divine aid. In fact, the whole experience should occur in the midst of prayer. It is not necessary, of course, that the student understands everything she reads. The focus will remain on what in fact is understood. More will be said on this in a moment.

            It may be helpful to address a few details before moving forward. For instance, are the students reading alone or in a group? I think both would be beneficial. Maybe even silent reading in a group should be used. First, the students must have strong exposure to the New Testament. A thorough reading and even re-reading of the gospels and epistles should occur. This is not a survey course. This is immersion in the Christian scriptural experience.

            Second, dialogue is a must. The students are to be held accountable in terms of their bracketed assumptions. And again, if a student brings up councils at Nicaea or Alvin Plantinga’s response to the logical problem of evil, then she is to be gently reminded that those prior understandings are to be set aside. Or if the student complains that she knows for a fact that a few fish cannot feed thousands of people, she is to be directed to the meaning she finds in spite of that conclusion. What does the text say without it? Forget what you think you know, what you bring to the table. This can only happen in a dialogue environment. So, when in the midst of discussion a student is found to be relying on some prior assumption (that everyone else knows he has) that is not revealed in the text, then this should be pointed out. If a student is struggling, this should be shared and the appropriate questions asked.

            These dialogue sessions could be categorized according to intent. One session can be aimed at simply allowing the students to express their experience. Another session can be aimed at reading and commenting on the text together. It may be optimal, if resources allow, having one-on-one(s) sessions between the student and the professors (professor must be plural here). In this way, personal experience can be better observed and dialectically directed. Of course these are just examples. The main point is that the student be provided with every opportunity to experience and understand scripture as it presents itself.

            I will not concern myself with how one might “grade” this experience. The fact is most of the responsibility depends on the student. And, I find it difficult to determine how a grading system might be established. Maybe a pass/fail approach is best. Ultimately we care less about grades as concerns this area of the PSY.  The main point is allowing for the possibility of an unencumbered experience of scripture as scripture.

Spiritual Disciplines:

            If scripture has anything to say about spiritual matters (we assume it does), then it may beneficial to develop the spiritual sense (a possible corresponding sense to the phenomenon of scripture…phenomenologically speaking). I believe spiritual disciplines can go a long way in developing said sense.

            Certainly the disciplines of prayer and meditation are good candidates for developing the spiritual sense. Meditation in particular, may help in focusing the mind and intention. There are various Christian approaches to meditation that have been developed and are in good standing. I will avoid particular suggestions.

            Let me return to prayer in relation to employing the phenomenological approach to scripture. It seems to me that prayer is a helpful aid when approaching scripture in this manner. The future church leader is urged to ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit. Yet, someone will ask the obvious question. How is one to pray while approaching scripture in a phenomenological manner as described above? Isn’t doing that going against the purpose of the method?

            The phenomenological reduction is to occur in relation to scripture, not in relation to one’s particular worldview as it is lived and experienced. I am not asking the seminarian to engage Husserl’s reduction.  That is a matter of personal preference. My suggestion is that the seminarian bracket the three areas stated above while attending to scripture. If the student is a believer, then prayer is to be encouraged.

            In the few cases where the student is an atheist, it would still be beneficial to “go through the motions” of seeking God in prayer. In the case of the atheist or even the unconvinced seeker, they may want to approach prayer with a phenomenological reduction much like what has been offered as regards scripture. Keep in mind that the phenomenological reduction (as I am employing it) is meant to purify the scriptural experience, to empty the scriptural experience of controlling assumptions. We want to understand scripture as it presents itself, not empty the seminarian of her beliefs.

            That being said, there will be need of spiritual guidance when attending to scripture. What better aid than divine aid? The seminarian is to actively seek divine aid when understanding scripture. This experience in prayer may also be a point of discussion in groups. What are you learning in prayer? Has anything been revealed to you?  What does scripture say about your experience in prayer?

            Of course, there are many spiritual disciplines and reasons for practicing them. Some models may use fasting, simplicity, solitude, silence, service, worship, manual labor, what-have-you.  The overall intent during PSY is to provide the student with every chance to encounter scripture, embrace the spiritual life, and be prepared for what comes next.

Logical/Critical Thinking 

            What I would really love to see is for the students to receive a thorough grounding in philosophical thought.  In this case the seminarian would study metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of science, philosophy of history, the history of philosophy, and social/political philosophy. But, that may be too much.

            At the very least, a lot can be accomplished if there is thorough grounding in logic and critical thinking. In fact, this grounding is necessary for preparing the student to navigate the information that will obtain in the years that follow. The student should gain the ability to see unspoken assumptions, entailment, implication, and so on.  The student needs confidence in her ability to reason and make judgments, without appeal to authority. This concludes my general statements regarding the three areas of concentration during the PSY. After the PSY then the student enters into the normal course of study.

           

Conclusion

            What is the outcome of the PSY? The outcome will depend on the extent that the student is able to carry out the phenomenological reduction of scripture, nurture the spiritual sense, and obtain critical thinking skills. The ability to carry out the phenomenological reduction will be by degree, depending on the personal effort of the student and guidance of the professors.

            As stated, the purpose is not to abandon prior understandings, but to set them aside for the sake of understanding. Nonetheless, there is no guarantee that a particular understanding or experience of scripture will obtain in the end. And this is a good thing. We do not want to indoctrinate the student, but we do want to enable the student. By attention to these three areas, I believe the student will be well equipped to engage scripture responsibly.

            Also, with this experience and training (as provided during the PSY) the student will not be susceptible to the unreasoned acceptance of dogmatic (and unsupported) claims offered by professors in the years that follow. Even if a very naturalistic approach to scripture is offered in the years that follow, the student should be able to responsibly accept or reject these offerings without sensing she is unqualified to do so.

            I mentioned that in order to experience scripture as scripture a disposition of expectation is needed. Thereby, the Christian approaches scripture with an expectation that a word from God as revealed in Jesus Christ will be heard. This expectation cannot be feigned; however, I do believe a phenomenological approach to scripture can be a preparation for acquiring a  legitimate scriptural expectation. This is the best we can do: prepare the way for the Lord. It is up to God to move.

            This brings me to one last finishing touch. I would recommend that there be a policy of “worldview openness” at every seminary on the part of the professors. Each professor should offer a presentation of his or her worldview assumptions and how they relate to the material being presented. The PSY already asks this of the student, and transparency from the professor is invaluable.