herme-who-tics?

oh blogger, though we have not known each other long, or even that well, how i have missed you,

sorry for that randomness.

i think i need one of those little mood icons like LJ offers, then i could just let you know right off the bat that i'm in a strange mood.

so i'm still trying to gauge what i think of seattle. i mean, i really love boston, and it's certainly not boston. i think i miss the T. the cultural atmosphere, in the sense of what people are like, is pretty cool. and there is certainly plenty of coffee, which is a wonderful thing. but the city itself isn't impressing me so far. even after seeing the famous wall of gum or whatever they call it. pretty gross but somehow mesmerizing.

one of the classes i'm taking now is intro to hermeneutics. i'll assume most of you (whoever you are) have no clue what that word means, it's the science (or art? of interpretation. i would surmise that most seminaries would teach it by either not teaching it, and focusing solely on exegesis - which has to do with the language and grammar of a text as well as its historical context while hermeneutics has more to do with content and contemporary application - or by taking a vastly different approach. i would guess that after much time spent in exegesis, that the focus on hermeneutics would still be quite exegetical by looking at the author and primary audience of the text before - if ever - considering the contemporary reader.

at mars hill though, the entire seminary process is quite different than the norm.

so for hermeneutics, the first thing we're focusing on is on the reader - that is to say ourselves. we're admitting that we don't come to a text without preconceived notions. we have our backgrounds that affect the way we read a text: our gender, socio-economic status, education, race, ethnicity, culture, family history, age, experiences, and those who've mentored or affected us in some way all contribute to our reading.

therefore the questions i'm mulling over for this course this semester will not only have to do with the authors of the texts, or the Author for that matter, or with the historical and literary context of the texts, but ones that affect the way i approach the things i read and see and experience. how do i, as a woman, who grew up in an upper-middle class home, has a college education (finally), who's white with a mixed hispanic-american background, has already hit an age i'd rather not think about, who's had the experiences that are uniquely mine, and who's been influenced by the individuals who've entered my life, how do i, as this particular person, in this time and place, approach a text? which of these things are most influential? are there any of these things (and untold others) that i can say do not create a bias when i read? how will this understanding of why i read the way i do, change the way i live, the way i minister, the way i interact with others?

i think this shall prove to be an interesting semester. i think my entire mars hill experience will prove to be quite interesting. i face this future with a fearful excitement, but excitement nonetheless.