If inspiration pressures mediation, canon pressures excess, authority pressures distributed voice, and hermeneutics pressures reflexivity, ambiguity pressures the entire interpretive field.
It is the point where all relational cuts converge — the moment when scripture, interpreter, community, and context resist closure simultaneously. Ambiguity is unavoidable. The intolerance of ambiguity is therefore the clearest signal of the limits of containment.
Suspension as Threat
Ambiguity manifests wherever meaning cannot be fully fixed:
-
texts suggest multiple interpretations,
-
ethical tensions cannot be resolved,
-
narrative threads resist harmonisation,
-
perspective conflicts cannot be eliminated.
Communities experience this as discomfort. Interpretation feels incomplete, unstable, and ethically pressing.
Intolerance as Protective Mechanism
The intolerance of suspension arises because ambiguity threatens the stabilisations established by prior cuts:
-
canon threatens to unravel,
-
authority threatens to fragment,
-
reflexivity threatens to expose interpretive labour,
-
ethical, perspectival, and textual tensions resist resolution.
Communities respond defensively: harmonisation, codification, doctrinal enforcement, ritual repetition, and moral rationalisation. These responses are not errors; they are structural protections against the field exceeding manageable bounds.
Suspension as Condition, Not Failure
Relationally, ambiguity is not a defect. It is the condition of interpretive life:
-
it signals where multiple perspectives intersect,
-
it preserves relational tension,
-
it enables ongoing engagement rather than static comprehension.
The field of constrained meaning is defined precisely by what cannot be fully contained. Suspension is the structural remainder that interpretation must negotiate.
Reading Ambiguity Relationally
A relational approach embraces suspension without demanding closure:
-
acknowledging tension rather than eliminating it,
-
allowing multiple ethical, narrative, and theological threads to coexist,
-
recognising the interpreter’s active role in shaping meaning,
-
understanding authority, canon, and mediation as containment devices rather than arbiters of truth.
Ambiguity is not chaos. It is the dynamic condition of relational intelligibility.
The Field of Constrained Meaning
Across this mini-series, a pattern emerges:
-
inspiration pressures mediation,
-
canon pressures excess,
-
authority pressures distributed voice,
-
hermeneutics pressures reflexivity,
-
ambiguity pressures all of them at once.
These intolerances are not anomalies. They are the edges of interpretive containment, the points at which meaning presses against the limits of what can be stabilised.
Intolerance as Signal
Intolerance is diagnostic, not pathological. Each discomfort, each attempt to harmonise, each defensive reading signals:
-
where relational tension is high,
-
where meaning exceeds containment,
-
where interpretive responsibility must be exercised.
Rather than erasing tension, relational reading tracks it, learns from it, and navigates it.
Conclusion
Scripture is not a repository of final, determinate truths. It is a field of constrained meaning, continuously negotiated through mediation, selection, authority, reflexivity, and engagement with ambiguity.
Faithful interpretation does not seek total resolution. It remains attentive to tension, open to plurality, and responsive to relational pressure.
No comments:
Post a Comment