If there was ever a forum in which someone could be misunderstood or misinterpreted , surely Twitter or Facebook would head such a list. It occured to me this week that Facebook and Twitter (Twitter more so) are prefect examples of why a reader response approach to reading scripture does not work. As I understand it, a reader response approach to reading scripture focuses the entire meaning on the readers experience of the text with little to no regard for original context and meaning.
Twitter is the perfect example of why this does not work. When people read a tweet they are free to interpret the quote from their own world view and stand point. The meaning of the quote lies in its reception and not its original intent. What can happen, as it seems to with many celebrities, the quote is misunderstood when divorced from its orginal meaning and context. The amount of offense that is taken by people saying the wrong thing is incredible even when the offense was not intended. This is no less true with Holy Scripture.
When we divorce scripture from both God (which can easily happen in the Biblical studies field) and the authors original meaning (as often happens in preaching) the meaning of the text is left in the hands of the recipient. It is my developing view that Scripture cannot be Holy Scripture apart from its original meaning and nor can it be The Word of God apart from the God who reveals it. Scripture becomes the Word of God as we listen and discern its meaning within both its historical and theological contexts. Any form of Scripture reading that ignores this is surely no more than a golden calf constructed because on is bored with their own experience!
Just my 2 cents…
the archives near Emmaus 
@Mark: Yes and no. I agree that full sway toward the position of those who advocate a complete “reader response” hermeneutic is misguided for very self-evident reasons. Likewise, I affirm your desire to understand the original “intention” of the authors of Scripture. That being said, I don’t think it is true that “Scripture can’t be Scripture apart from the original meaning” unless you nuance what you mean by that.
The early church authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, et al.) seem very aware of the message of Scripture but more than willing to bend it to make sure it speaks to the moment. That is not license for the tirades we hear from pulpits on TV and in many of our churches, but it is also a warning against a strict historicism.
If we are asking “What did the Psalmist mean when he wrote Ps. 2?” we may have a discussion about early Israelite kings and the enthronement ceremony. If we ask “What does Ps. 2 mean now that Christ has resurrected?” we will get something like Rom. 1.1-7.
Thanks for posting this, this is always an important topic to think about when we think of hermeneutics. I also think what Brian said above is important, that there is a nuanced stance that we must take in light of the Christ event. But for the most part, I agree that “reader-response” seems to crumble under its own tenets. I’m not very familiar with all the arguments for it, but how do these reader-response critics expect us to take seriously their original intentions and words regarding “reader-response criticism,” when their own system seems to free us from doing so? I’m assuming they have some answer, but I’m not interested in the subject enough to hunt down particular resources…
@Mike: I assume (thought I do not know) that “defenders” of reader-response (if any remain) would say that you read into their statements what you want to understand but you may (for one reason or another) come close to reading into the text something similar to what the author put into the text. When you do this you come closer to saying what the author says, but you are still the one giving the text the meaning you want to give it.
From one of my literary theory classes, reader-response was a school of criticism that focused solely on how the words in the text (how they’re put together and what then also what they say) made one feel. My understanding of this school is that nothing else really matters except for what the text says specifically in combination with how it makes one feel/think. Historical context, other works of the author, original intent, etc. didn’t matter.
Applying this to Scripture, however, is different. We’re not dealing with a piece of fiction drawn up some 10, 20, or 30 years ago; we’re dealing with an actual reflection of an entirely different time period and culture. Reader-response is useful (mostly to the lay reader, I think), but it cannot take precedence – not even close.
Jeremy: In your class was it presented that advocates of reader-response hermeneutics understood it as a way to address the hermeneutical problem or the way?
@Brian – It is my view that scripture is only scripture in context. The Word of God however, is when God reveals himself through his word (in this case the scriptures (this sounds better in my head).
I still am not convinced by a christological hermeneutic… 😉 When the NT authors are quoting authors I would argue (as would Wright I believe) that they are invoking stories as much as anything.
I would also argue reader response is different to lectio divinia etc
I like your definition Mark. Check out James K.A. Smith’s book “The Fall of Interpretation”
If I understand correctly, James K.A. Smith (one of the hottest topics in Christian philosophy right now) received this as his dissertation topic in a pretty intense encounter with the Holy Spirit.
I think I might also agree with goldingay also but I’d have to check…
@Brian: It was presented as the way of understanding for reader-response advocates, but we studied it as one way of looking at each text. To me it seemed like an emotionalized version of formal-criticism; it wasn’t just text alone, but more importantly how it made one feel. So in a sense, reader response criticism (as I understand it) adds meaning to the text that definitely isn’t there in the context, but is only able to be there if one were to look at just the words on the pages and consider only how they felt while reading it.
We did some practice runs at this where our professor put up some poem without the author and title to see if we could really be an advocate of reader response and consider only our emotions. It’s not that easy, really. I was inclined to ask, at least at the back of my mind, where did it come from? Who was it originally speaking to? A lot of the time, I do care about how texts make me feel. But I include the context with the text 😉