Among one of the many ways one can identify a cult (sociologically, psychologically, theologically, etc.), the most telling is that of cultic tendencies of interpretation. In fact, these tendencies can often identify whether one has been brainwashed by a cult or has an inclination toward cultic thinking that will make him more susceptible to joining a cult.
These tendencies toward interpretation can be summed up in one word, "eisegesis." Eisegesis is a method of interpretation that reads things into the text that are not elements the text itself evidences as a part of the author's original intent. The reason why they are employed is because the cult is not really concerned about what the original text says, but how it can be used to advance the ideas of the cult itself. This is especially true when the text that has some authority given to it undermines the ideology of the cult. This is when eisegetical methods begin to multiply.
This can be anything from modern concepts read into words that are used, backgrounds that the text itself does not reference, or even psychological theories and motives assigned to the author when the author himself does not indicate these things by the text itself.
In short, it is an attempt to take the text out of its own context and replace that context with another in an effort to reinterpret or subvert the original intention of the text evidenced by the text itself apart from an injection of outside thought processes.
Yet, modern scholarship, that often pretends to be teaching and promoting exegesis, i.e., the method of drawing out from the text the authorial intent as evidenced by the text itself, often teaches and promotes eisegesis in the name of exegesis.
It is always looking for a new way to read a text which often puts the text in a foreign context of reconstructed backgrounds, postmodern political and social theories, and (let's just say it) liberal theology.
Deconstructionist ways of viewing historical documents, often with the intent on making the bad guys the good guys and the good guys the bad guys, read documents with an "oppressed-oppressor" mentality that causes the scholar to create a fictional scenario where the author's psychological motive subverts his stated purpose known from exegesis, and in what would make a great Netflix conspiracy theory documentary, ends up proving the author was a jerk who was lying or self-deluded, thus throwing shade at his text as unreliable and suspect in dealing with the angels the text likely paints with a crooked brush.
One is free, of course, to have this attitude toward texts, but it needs to be noted that it isn't exegesis, and therefore, it isn't genuine scholarship that the academy is practicing anymore. It's eisegesis rooted in philosophical and theological beliefs that no longer study texts but seek to undermine them in studies that are no more than apologetic pieces that support the cult of the Enlightenment and its postmodern, oppressed romantics who just want to save their fellow underprivileged bad guys from infamy.
In their cult, Jezebel was just a strong woman in an oppressive patriarchal society. The Gnostics were just another Christian sect that was just trying to follow apostolic teaching, as Arius later would. Pelagius doesn't really hold to all of the obnoxious doctrines that the wicked, politically motivated Augustine fabricates and assigns to him. Even the serpent in the garden is just trying to give man an upperhand when the jealous and petty God just wants man to remain under His kingship for selfish reasons. Yes, that's right, not even God makes it out as the hero in the deconstructionist paradigm. Of course, no one attempts to undermine any feminist or anticolonial thinking in ancient texts, as these are praised as the works of heroes.
Again, one can believe whatever he wishes, but this isn't scholarship because it isn't a study of these texts through an exegetical means that would interpret them in a way so as to advance our knowledge of the past. This is an apologetic use of texts for the purposes of supporting the cult and its need to undermine the past, the Bible, God, etc. That means the ones employing such a methodology are not scholars but cultists. But it's a much more prestigious cult to be a part of, so as long you pay your tithes, you'll ascend to the eighth level and become an operating thetan with a piece of paper that proves how great you are in advancing fictional conspiracy theories that recreate realities by ignoring the facts of the texts that would refute them. But since when does a cult really care about truth or the texts that witness to it anyway?
As someone particularly interested in apologetics, I often want to take am interpretive paradigm and a few practical examples, and just completely tear them apart (this is easier to do the realm of 'philosophy' moreso than 'biblical studies'). Sometimes though, I wonder how much I should engage w/ it and how often I should let it die its natural death. While I know every challenge that goes unchecked has potential disastrous consequences (such as whole generation thinking Christianity is intellectually weak), you can't fight every battle. And you cant dismantle every cult.
ReplyDelete