An older term (“narcigesis”) has popped up again – from the root word narcissus mixed with eisegesis. Typically, any word ending in -egesis usually just boils down to “you believe something I don’t, so you are wrong because BIG WORD says so!” That is also the case with narcigesis, which I will copy this definition here for those that don’t want to click over to the link:
- The reading of one’s own life experiences and/or that of another’s life experience into the text of Scripture; the need to make the Bible all about themselves.
- An interpretation of Scripture based on the interpreter’s self-authority, particularly driven by self-esteem, self-actualization, mystical experiences and/or the interpreter’s “felt needs.” (See Sola Experientia.)
- A personal and/or mystical interpretation of Scripture based on the interpreter’s own ideas, biases, opinions, feelings, attitudes, beliefs, experiences, impressions, dreams, revelations, or the like, rather than based upon the plain meaning of the text.
- The reading of one’s own doctrinal theories into Scripture (as opposed to exegesis, which is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of biblical text), particularly as a result of personal experience. (See Sola Experientia.)
- Self-centered, self-defined and self-authenticating biblical interpretation, application and counsel.
- The reading of one’s own interpretation into Scripture based upon the egotistic belief that all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; and that only the learned, the elect, or the leadership elite (of which the interpreter considers himself), may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (See Plura Scriptura.)
- The egotistical drive to invent new theologies, doctrines, revelations, applications and philosophies about Scripture, often manifested in self-aggrandizement activities such as book publishing, conferences, setting up organizations and websites, money-making schemes and publicity drives.
As a very conservative Assembly of God Bible teacher once said, “anyone that claims that there is a ‘plain meaning of the text’ is not being intellectually honest about the complexities of translation.” Now, to be clear, It is not about having to be “learned, the elect, or the leadership elite” to understand, it is just that everyone that is not fluent in Greek and Hebrew has to rely on translators to know what scripture says, and those translators frequently disagree with each other even on key passages. And therefore, even if you know the languages, you still have to pick which of the various sides of these debates to go with on many scriptures.
In reality, what that means is 1 – 7 above are all relative. For instance, after college I took #4 seriously and set aside all the things the evangelical church had taught me, took a long, hard, exegesis / critical examination of the whole Bible, and ended up rejecting several evangelical teachings because of it. I had no desire to go that way, but exegesis led me to those positions. Yet many of my church friends from that time claim that I am reading my own experiences, stroking my self-esteem, self-centered, inventing new theories, etc. Current church friends of mine disagree – they think I am following the clear text. We usually label what we agree with as clear, and reject anything else as narcigesis or heresy or what have you.
In other words, Christians usually have to rely on their own feelings, their own understandings, their own theories, their own ego, etc in order to claim that others are doing the same. In order to prove that someone else is doing so, one has to pick a translation of the Bible first – one that is going to reflect the bias and ego of its translators and the side of various linguistic arguments those translators chose to follow. Then you are going to filter that translation through your own bias and feelings. Its pretty naive to say that we can get through all of these barriers and claim “plain meaning” as if all of these choices don’t exist and we speak as a direct conduit straight from God’s mouth.
In many ways, this link is like an organized list of how many of us have been judged, misunderstood, and ostracized for thinking critically about and ultimately leaving the realm of evangelicalism. Narcigesis is not the word we are looking for, it is a word that represents the last bits of modernism left in churches trying to judge postmodernist scripture interpretation even though it sorely misses the mark in doing so.
2 thoughts on “Narcigesis (and other obscure big words used to attack progressives) are all Relative”
This article does a good job of refuting your point about narcigesis by using the verse “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” – Philippians 4:13 in it’s context in Philippians vs. a bookstore trinket.
Its not really touching on what I was referring to here – in fact, it actually makes my point even stronger. Even the exegesis of Philippians 4:13 is filled with many points and extra thoughts that some theologians would agree with and others wouldn’t. Even in the exegesis it is filled with relative opinions about what it says, and the author chose one set of interpretations of the underlying words over others.
But this is what happens when people stick with one overall interpretative stance on the Bible and don’t get out of their comfort zone. Maybe they like one or two translations and they stick with those all the time. Maybe they just like one denominational or traditional scholarly approach. How knows. I have read through over two dozen different translations of the Bible from cover to cover – most from outside of my background – ad you start to see how vastly different translations end up becoming once different viewpoints influence their translation.
Of course, the quantity and quality of scripture that one looks at can make the difference on this as well To be honest, really short scriptures like Philippians 4:13 are a horrible place to prove anything, because it only contains seven words in the original Greek, many of which aren’t that heavily contested by Greek scholars. Try looking at a verse that has more words with at least 7 or more of them being highly contested by Ancient Greek scholars and then you will start seeing the problems. But even Phil. 4:13 has some different nuances to it – take a look at the various small and large ways the different versions translates it (and see how some of the Literal translations here differ from what was stated in the link above): http://biblehub.com/philippians/4-13.htm