Ok, kids, a thread, on one of the things that they teach clergy in seminary, but clergy are often afraid to teach you: the Hermeneutics of Suspicion.

Nothing I’m about to say is unique to me, or even terribly controversial in a seminary or divinity school setting.

And I might get some of it wrong, which will be embarrassing with at least some of my seminary profs watching.

(If the Rev Dr @WilGafney gifts us with a correction, believe her over me.

She’s also one of the teachers who most strongly encouraged us to teach seminary stuff to our congregations.)

This is also one of those concepts that curious congregation members tend to intuit, but don’t believe they have permission to actually think.

Ta-da! I’m here not not only give permission, but to teach you how many scholars agree with you.

So, “Hermeneutics” means “method of reading something.” And I bet you know what Suspicion is.

It’s applied to all kinds of texts, but for our purposes, we’re talking about reading the Bible, and maybe sometimes theology books.

Scholars who read this way generally assume that at least parts of Scripture are Divinely inspired, and other parts are culturally determined. Inserted by humans. Maybe even sinfully added.

And we’re trying to figure out what is what, especially in places where Scripture contradicts itself.

Scholars have noted that its often the case that one passage upholds the interests of the most powerful group in a culture, and another passage undermines it.

So, which is more likely to be Divinely inspired, and which is more likely to be a human invention?

We’re acknowledging that we are unlikely to be *sure* here.

We also assume that the most powerful members of a particular community were the ones with the greatest influence in what stories get told, which get preserved, and which get assembled as Scripture. Even if the group itself might experience oppression relative to other groups.

So, when the powerful men of a community are assembling Scripture, are they going to be more likely to include the parts that preserve the status quo, and thus their power, or the parts that undermine it?

The Hermeneutics of Suspicion is a way of reading that says the passages that uphold the status quo are more likely to be the parts added by powerful men, and thus we regard those parts with suspicion.

And that it’s fairly miraculous that passages that undermine the status quo, the authority and power of the men who assembled Scripture, and are therefore the ones more likely to be Divinely inspired.

So we lend more weight and authority to passages in Scripture, and theology, that subvert the dominant power structures.

All of which is to say, I believe in a Liberating God.

And there’s lots of liberation in Scripture! And you’re allowed to pay less attention to the other parts! Isn’t it a beautiful miracle that the Liberating parts are preserved!

Also, you can ask your clergyperson to teach you this stuff. You deserve to have the knowledge about your faith too.

How’d I do? Questions?
Corrections?

(Corrections from my teachers. Ima laugh at the first mediocre man who comes in here to try to correct me with an unformed opinion expressed in bad grammar.)