Reader-Response Criticism: The Most Recent Form of Biblical Criticism

The most recent form of biblical criticism is reader-response criticism. This form of biblical criticism basically makes the interpreter king, and the God of the Bible at best, unknowable, and at worst, non-existent, depending upon the reader's reaction to the text. Those who practice this form of criticism argue for the impossibility of an objective interpretation of the Scriptures. Thus, every interpreter is biased, and unable to understand the Scriptures as the author(s) intended.

The reader response critic is correct at least in his or her estimation of the impossibility of absolute objectivity when interpreting the Scriptures; but instead of seeking to diminish subjectivity, and getting as close as one can to objectivity, he or she dismisses biblical truth altogether; or simply says that all interpretations are valid (Erickson 110-111).

If one intrinsically examines the Scriptures, looking at the simple make-up of the text itself, one will easily find this form of criticism to be wanting. When God spoke in the Old Testament, He expected His hearers to understand and to do what He commanded, or to face the consequences. The half-reform of Josiah is another good example. The law of God had been virtually lost; when it was found, Josiah had it read and he sought to do what it said. This pleased the Lord (2 Kings 22-23). One must ask how Josiah could do such a thing and it please the Lord, if the interpretation was simply subjective? Furthermore, Aaron's sons offered "strange fire" to the Lord and were killed. God obviously did not think how He was to be worshipped was open for interpretation. The entire Bible seems to communicate objective truth as well. The Apostle John in 1 John says that he "wrote these things so that his readers would know"... The list can go on and on.

The problem first of all with this mentality is the impossibility of proving it wrong. If I tell you that there are pink fairies and these pink fairies are invisible, that I have no proof for them, but I know they exist, what are you going to say? How can you possibly prove that pink fairies do not exist? The answer is that you can't. Likewise, when someone says that objectivity is impossible, and you ask them "why", and they simply tell you that one must interpret as one reads, and understanding the author's intent is impossible, how can one prove them wrong? No one can prove them wrong for they have absolutized a subjective opinion that argues for their own objective interpretation of how all people read/interpret the Scriptures, though it is founded on nothing. 1) Have they examined every human being who reads the Scriptures? No, so they assume this. 2) Have they talked to the original authors to see if they expect an objective interpretation? No, so they assume all interpretations are subjective. In other words, their argument is built on faith; and their object cannot be proven.

This brings me to the second problem. In order to argue for the reader-reaction approach, one must ignore applying the reader-reaction approach to one's own formula for the impossibility of objectivity. For, when one person believes that objectivity is impossible, one must realize that he or she has just made an objective statement; and thus, his or her argument for a relative interpretation is open for interpretation as well. It is a circular argument; which means that there is a foundation the critic holds as objective that he or she has built his or her argument upon. NOTE: This fact however defeats the critic's original argument; for there is an object he or she assumes that holds up his or her argument.

Third, if objectivity is impossible, one must ask if an individual should question his or her own opinions as well. Are the individual's opinions open for interpretation by him or herself as well? If so, the knowability of truth is called into question. Let's say, "I went to the store today." It's an objective statement, but if I am incapable of objectively communicating with others, maybe I'm incapable of objectively understanding myself as well. Maybe I didn't go to the store today, maybe I should reinterpret this? Of course, this gets silly, but one must understand exactly what the reader-reaction critic is saying. We cannot give him or her the luxury of making objective statements about communication in and through the Bible that he or she is not willing to make about communication in all reality; for, what separates communication in the Scriptures from communication in everyday life? God wrote words, and people use words every second of every day.

Fourth, this critical approach is unlivable in real life. One cannot live as if the laws of logic, gravity, governmental laws, death, conception, bank accounts, etc. are open for interpretation. So, if there is no other area of life that one would apply the philosophical framework for reader-reaction criticism, one must question the validity of applying it merely to literature. One cannot apply it to all of literature without applying it to all of communication as well. They argue for the impossibility of objectively receiving communication; this is an epistemological statement; and therefore, it must be applied to everything that epistemology touches.

The sad reality is that much of Evangelicalism interprets the Scriptures subjectively. One time on Liberty's blackboard, I questioned a student's interpretation of a text, and he said, "I usually don't ask for permission when interpreting the Bible". We struggle with saying, "my interpretation is king!" Instead of interpreters seeking the objective answer, the author's intent and original application, we often seek our own application first, disregarding the context. At least the reader-reaction critic argues that it's all subjective; for most Evangelicals say that Jesus objectively rose from the dead, but they then seek to subjectively claim passages for themselves that God the Holy Spirit never intended to apply to them. The reader-reaction critic is inconsistent, but sadly, so are many Evangelicals.

Bibliography

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1998.