Paul Ricoeur between Theology and Philosophy: Detour and Return

6 Chalcedonian Hermeneutics

6 Chalcedonian Hermeneutics Here I attempt to cash in the wager I made in the introduction, that Barth’s theology and Ricoeur’s philosophy will prove compatible. In one sense, this is a natural pairing because of their similarities: they share not only a Christian faith, but also a background in the Reformed tradition, a dialectical method, an appreciation of narrative, and a concern for the integrity of both philosophy and theology. In another sense however, Barth may seem an odd choice for a pairing with Ricoeur. Barth’s massive influence on the postliberal theology and Ricoeur’s association with the home of revisionist theology at University of Chicago Divinity School place the two on opposite sides of a highly polarized debate. The postliberals are anxious that Ricoeur’s hermeneutics will colonize theology, and the revisionists are concerned that Barth’s Christocentric theology is too narrowly exclusivist . The polarization of this debate has led to falsely dichotomized options when considering the claims of both Ricoeur’s hermeneutic philosophy and Barth’s Christocentric theology. As we saw in the second chapter, David Tracy and Hans Frei have dominated the reception of Ricoeur in North American theology, characterizing the initial positive and negative responses to Ricoeur’s hermeneutics. Tracy goes so far as to say that hermeneutic philosophy should be the new ally 132 | Return for theology (replacing Platonism, which is now “in its twilight”), because it “provides the kind of contemporary philosophy needed by a revelational theology .”1 Frei registered strong objections to the “application” of philosophical hermeneutics to theology, which would reduce theology to a mere regional application of a general theory. Those who follow Frei’s interpretation tend to accept his projection of those methods onto Ricoeur as well. We have seen, however, that this rejection turns out to be a view of Ricoeur through the partially distorting lens of Tracy’s use of Ricoeur. Moreover, Frei and the “Yale School” are not the only representatives of Barth.2 Even if there is an incompatibility between Ricoeur and Frei, it need not follow that there is a similar incompatibility between Ricoeur and Barth.3 Ricoeur and Barth on Scripture Mark Wallace is the first to undertake a sustained argument in favor of the compatibility of Barth and Ricoeur.4 His contention is that Ricoeur and Barth have the same three phases in their “hermeneutical arc,” although they draw their terms from different traditions. Barth draws his three stages from the medieval formula of explicatio, meditatio, applicatio (updated to Beobachtung, Nachdenken, Aneignung),5 while Ricoeur opts for the terms naïve understanding, objective explanation, and appropriation. By examining Wallace’s treatment of how Ricoeur and Barth read, we will gain some insight into the similarities in their pattern of thought. Naïve Understanding, Observation For both Barth and Ricoeur, the first stage is to allow the text to unfold through a simple reading, with no limits on what the text can or cannot mean. The primary loyalty of the reader is to the text, not to any foreign system of meaning. Ricoeur calls this moment “naïve understanding,” referring to the fact that in this first, naïve moment of reading, the reader can only make a provisional “guess” at the text’s meaning. This is far removed from the process of determining the authorial intention of the text, for “correct understanding can no longer be solved by a simple return to the alleged situation of the author.”6 What the author may have meant to say is subordinated to what the author actually said, the verbal meaning of the text. The reader’s estimation of the meaning of the text can at first be no more than a guess because the whole can be known only through its parts, and the parts can be understood only in terms of the whole. There is no escape from this Chalcedonian Hermeneutics | 133 hermeneutic circle, but a provisional guess allows the reader to get into the circle in the right way.7 Likewise, Barth urges the reader to “stop and listen to what the New Testament actually says,” before we move to any judgment of its validity or decision regarding application.8 The impetus toward fidelity to the text is even stronger in Barth because the reference of the text in this case (the incarnate Word of God), is more real than we are, a point we will return to...