TIP of the day: Ideological and Advocacy Criticism

Many resources do not make a distinction between ideological and advocacy criticism. I have chosen to do so because I know several people who reject ideological criticism because of the "crimes" of advocacy.

From "The threefold world of using different methods in Bible interpretation history":

[quote]

An ideology is a set of attitudes and ideas, consciously or unconsciously held, that reflects or shapes uderstandings (and misunderstandings) of the social and political world, and that serves to justify collective action aimed at preserving or changing it. According t o G. A. Yee, the aim of ideological criticism is, in part, to enable the exegete to become conscious of personal ideological blind spots and constraints and to produce a more ethically responsible reading of the biblical text. Ideological Criticism investigates three elements of every text:

the ideological context in which an author produces a text,
the ideology reproduced within the text itself, and
the ideology of a text's readers or "consumers".

It asks questions such as,

What assumptions are being made about what is natural, just, and right?
What (and who) do these assumptions distort or obscure?
What are the power relations? How are they made to appear as if they are normal or good? What negative aspexts are excluded?

Advocacy criticism uses the methods of ideological criticism but with the specific focus on the ideologies that underlie oppression of specific groups. From the same source:

[quote]

Generally speaking, these approaches hold in common the view that all interpretation is conditioned by the social location of the interpreter and that the purpose of interpretation is to expose oppressive tendencies int he Bible and the history of its interpretation and, so far as this is deemed possible, to use the Bible as structures of oppression, whether social, political, religious, or academic. Questions that generally occur when using this method:

What is the "social location” of the text?
What is the "social location” of of today’s reader, and how does it influence the reading of the text today?
What resources for liberation and other human advancement can be found int he text?

Properly used, both ideological and advocacy criticism are exegesis not eisegesis as those made uncomfortable by them often claim. They are not complete methods but rather supplement socio-historical methods by turning a laser-focus on the underlying assumptions that are often ignored. I think of them as socio-historical x-ray to expose the bones of the socio-historical situation.

The supporting materials available in Logos are your cultural background resources. Some options for collections of these resources as given in the wiki (I personally depend more on tagging):

Bible Background

Library Size: 3,549

Collection Size: 28

Rule: (title:(manner,custom,background,archaeolog, archeolog) OR subject:(manner,custom,”New Testament—Background”,”Jews”, “Judaism”) OR (subject:(excavation,archaeolog,archeolog, antiquities) AND type:dictionary)) ANDNOT subject:(canon,doctrine,”Jews—Conversion”, “Hebrew Language”)

Manually Included Items: none

Manually Excluded Items: none

Jewish Background

Library Size: 2,546

Collection Size: 34

Rule: (title:jewish, title:judaism, title:jews, title:israel, type:(judaism, jews, jewish, israel)) -title:archaeology -type:commentary -type:bible -type:timeline -mytag:hebref -subject:(“bible o.t. theology”,”bible criticism interpretation”,”bible study and teaching”)

Manually Included Items: Israel’s Hope Encouraged

Manually Excluded Items: none

I find it useful to add a Collection Section to the Passage Guide that is limited to the cultural background collection.

While I think of Logos as light on ideological and advocacy criticism because of my favorite authors who are missing, there are a number of examples available within Logos although you wouldn't know it from Factbook:

Omitted are disciplines such as"

Cultural criticism
Feminist criticism
Marxist criticism
Postcolonial criticism
Socioeconomic criticism
Womanist criticsm
Gender criticism
Third-World criticism
. . .

However Logos does carry some resources with this as their primary orientation along with a number of works that use the methods in specific contexts.

Abraham, Joseph. Eve: Accused or Acquitted?: An Analysis of Feminist Readings of the Creation Narrative Texts in Genesis 1–3. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006.
Brenner, Athalya, ed. A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004.
Schroer, Silvia, and Sophia Bietenhard, eds. Feminist Interpretation of the Bible and the Hermeneutics of Liberation. Vol. 374. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. London;New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.
Kahl, Brigitte. Galatians Re-Imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010. ("Critical re-imagination is a method that supplements the traditional set of historical-critical and ideological-critical methodologies.")
Clines, David J. A. Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible. Vol. 205. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
Zenger, Erich. “Psalm 87: A Case for Ideological Criticism?” In Reading from Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines, edited by J. Cheryl Exum and H.G.M. Williamson, Vol. 373. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2003.
Jobling, David, and Tina Pippin, eds. Semeia 59 (1992).
Tolbert, Mary Ann, ed. Semeia 28 (1983).
Cannon, Katie Geneva, and Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, eds. Semeia 47 (1989).
Adeyemo, Tokunboh. Africa Bible Commentary. Nairobi, Kenya; Grand Rapids, MI: WordAlive Publishers; Zondervan, 2006.
Ngewa, Samuel. Galatians. Africa Bible Commentary Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Hippo Books, 2010.
Ngewa, Samuel. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Africa Bible Commentary Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Hippo Books, 2009.
Trible, Phyllis. Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives. Edited by Walter Brueggemann, John R. Donahue, Sharyn Dowd, and Christopher R. Seitz. Vol. 13. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Edited by Walter Brueggemann, John R. Donahue, Sharyn Dowd, and Christopher R. Seitz. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978.

Logically this form of criticism is judged in the same manner as any socio-historical criticism but with an added emphasis on verifying that the author's agenda in the present world has not bled into their interpretation of the world of or in the text.

If you own Tate, W. Randolph. Handbook for Biblical Interpretation: An Essential Guide to Methods, Terms, and Concepts. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012. then the following will open it to the following criticisms covered under this grouping.

Race, Class, And Gender Criticisms

1.1. African American Criticism

1.2. Asian / Asian American Criticism

1.3. Black Criticism

1.4. Feminist Criticism

1.5. Gay/Lesbian Criticism

1.6. Mujerista Theology/Criticism

1.7. Postcolonial Feminist Criticism

1.8. Womanist Theology/Criticism

Ideological Criticism

2.1. Cultural Criticism

2.2. Deconstruction

2.3. Feminist Criticism

2.4. Marxist Criticism

2.5. Psychoanalytic Criticism

2.5.1.Transactive Criticism

2.6. Postcolonial Criticism

2.7. Socioeconomic Criticism

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Hamilton Ramos

This is very interesting MJ, further research is needed to understand more and better the implications.

To me this re-opens a controversial topic:

Have persons that deliberately transgress God's order and moral rules got something meaningful to say?

In the evangelical conservative camp, many affirm that things of God are to be taken seriously, and to do right theology, ministry, etc. one must be holy, and following a moral life in conduct and thought.

Only in such state the Holy Spirit can be present to guide to all truth.

So the implication is that if you are transgressing the moral law: e.g. gays and lesbians, or violating God's order: e.g. going against private property e.g. marxists, you really have nothing meaningful to add to the discourse, because you are not led by the Holy Spirit, and thus most likely are far from the truth.

I understand the logic behind such reasoning. But then I notice how in the Bible, prostitutes, thieves, and all kind of sinners, sometimes were able to grasp better the truths of God than the religious leaders of the time.

Have you got any opinion on this? can you share it with us?

Blessings.

EastTN

Properly used, both ideological and advocacy criticism are exegesis not eisegesis as those made uncomfortable by them often claim. They are not complete methods but rather supplement socio-historical methods by turning a laser-focus on the underlying assumptions that are often ignored. I think of them as socio-historical x-ray to exposed the bones of the socio-historical situation.

This highlights what are, in my mind, a couple of the key questions about these approaches:

How do we use them appropriately?
How do we distinguish appropriate uses from inappropriate uses?
Is the "laser-focus" so narrow as to result in an unbalanced exegesis that distorts the ancient texts?

I also think that a snippet from one of the quotes you provide illustrates what is, for many of us, the most disturbing aspect of advocacy criticism (italics added).

[quote]

... the view that all interpretation is conditioned by the social location of the interpreter and that the purpose of interpretation is to expose oppressive tendencies int he Bible ...

I readily grant that the way I read the Bible is - despite my best efforts - conditioned by my background, experiences, personal biases and fallen nature. But for those of us who believe the Bible is the liberating Word of God, the assumption that the fundamental purpose we should have in mind when approaching the Bible is to expose its "oppressive tendencies" is not just unsettling, it's diametrically opposed to our understanding of the role of Scripture in the Christian life. We should constantly strive to allow Scripture to judge and transform us, instead of our judging Scripture.

I apologize if any of this comes across as combative - it's not intended to be. I'm just trying to articulate why some of us are hesitant about these approaches. I will say that you mention at least one thing I whole-heartedly agree with.

... an added emphasis on verifying that the author's agenda in the present world has not bled into their interpretation of the world of or in the text.

All of us need to guard against reading our own biases and personal preferences into the text, or assuming that they are somehow part of God's will for either ourselves or the world. It may not be fair, but it seems to me that explicitly linking one's exegesis to advocacy seems more likely to increase that danger than to reduce it.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/825955#Comment_825955

Have persons that deliberately transgress God's order and moral rules got something meaningful to say?

I can't say much without crossing into theology so the most I feel I can say is:

I have never met anyone who does not at least occasionally transgress God's order and moral rules nor am I sure it is achievable as humans.
It is inappropriate to assume that someone who uses these filters is any greater a transgressor than anyone else ... one does not need to be gay, Marxist, feminist ... to have an interest in what their perspective brings to the table. For example, the goal may be understanding for the purpose of proselytizing
One of the largest unacknowledged theological divides is over the knowledge of non-Christians ... a divide that has huge consequences in the field of interfaith dialogue.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/825961#Comment_825961

Is the "laser-focus" so narrow as to result in an unbalanced exegesis that distorts the ancient texts?

It would be if used in isolation but it is simply one tool in a much larger toolbox.

We should constantly strive to allow Scripture to judge and transform us, instead of our judging Scripture.

This would be precisely what many of the advocacy influenced commentators would emphasize. Their methodological language comes across as strident until one becomes familiar with their works. I often recommend the works of Renita Weems (AME) - perhaps Only a Sister Away as an entry way into advocacy criticism for Protestants and Leonardo Boff's Praying With Jesus And Mary: Our Father, Hail Mary as an entry way for Catholic and Orthodox.

I'm trying through a series of tips to cover how Logos can be utilized to interpret scripture in any of a major schools of criticism. I've not hit my personal favorites yet, but my attitude that all tools have some value or they would be considered tools will obviously bleed through. I also have a life bias towards that which makes me uncomfortable is most likely to be that which I fail to understand; that will always bleed through any posts.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/825971#Comment_825971

I'm trying through a series of tips to cover how Logos can be utilized to interpret scripture in any of a major schools of criticism.

And I do truly appreciate what you're doing; it's quite helpful, and I've learned a lot from you. No doubt some of my biases are bleeding through too. I have some serious concerns about any approach to scripture that uses a modern ideology as the primary interpretive framework for understanding scripture. Perhaps used as you suggest, as a tool for understanding how scripture spoke to specific groups in its own historical context, it may be more useful. Even with that limited purpose, though, I'm still leery of projecting modern ideologies back into an ancient setting. On a more personal note, I tend to be put off by stridency (perhaps it comes from being an introvert).

But setting all that aside, thank you for your gracious response - and for all the good information and analysis you've contributed to the community.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/826014#Comment_826014

I'm still leery of projecting modern ideologies back into an ancient setting

Unfortunately, we can't avoid it ... beginning with our understanding of grammar. At least I haven't seen many people using Dionysius Thrax [;)]

Hamilton Ramos

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/825962#Comment_825962

One of the largest unacknowledged theological divides is over the knowledge of non-Christians

This is so true. I do believe that all "true truth" comes from God regardless of where it originated here on Earth. But such notion at times seems to make certain traditions uncomfortable.

Also, to me majority does not make dogma right. Jesus and the Apostles were a tiny minority, yet they were the ones that were really promoting truth from God.

Thanks for your input.

I admire the God given gifts that you display in the threads, and that I can perceive from your input. Thanks for using the gifts to help us improve. If there is something that I can do for you, do not hesitate to ask. If is doable, I will try to help.

Blessings.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/826025#Comment_826025

I'm still leery of projecting modern ideologies back into an ancient setting

Unfortunately, we can't avoid it ... beginning with our understanding of grammar. At least I haven't seen many people using Dionysius Thrax

I would argue that there's a fundamental difference between the unavoidable limitations of our current understanding of ancient languages and cultures - which scholars are constantly working to overcome - and a conscious decision to adopt a modern ideology such as Marxism, deconstructionism or post-colonialism as our interpretive framework for understanding ancient writings. Certainly, we can't avoid projecting at least some of our current concerns and ideologies into the past. But I also believe we should strive to minimize it as much as possible, rather than making it the basis of our interpretive tools. However good our motives may be, it seems to me that the danger is simply too great that we'll end up reinterpreting the past in our own image.

That's not to say that we can't use newly developed analytic tools to help us in our efforts to understand scripture. But the past is the past, and we need to remember that the ancient world was different from today's world. And, for many of us, the point of the exercise is to understand and absorb God's "ideologies," so to speak - not to bolster or perpetuate our own.

Anyway, thanks for letting me get this out of my system. I do appreciate what you're doing here, and will plan on taking a look at some of the resources you've highlighted. And I apologize if I've misrepresented any of these approaches, or seemed to impugn anyone's motives. That wasn't my intent.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/826127#Comment_826127

And, for many of us, the point of the exercise is to understand and absorb God's "ideologies," so to speak - not to bolster or perpetuate our own.

I feel strange defending a method that I rarely read or use - partially because I can't easily obtain the Dahlit Commentary and because I've read nearly everything of Boff in English ... My interests are centered elsewhere. But I think you still are missing the ideal of the methods likely because of less than ideal practitioners you have read.

Look at it this way ...when the Centurion asks that his daughter be healed, for background isn't it appropriate to focus on the relationship between the Jewish community of which Jesus is a part and the occupying force of which the Centurion is a part. And isn't that an element teaching us something about God's "ideology"? In the Abraham story doesn't the story of Sarah and Hagar rely on the difference in social position between Sarah and Hagar and isn't that an essential element of understanding the context and motivations of the story. All I'm trying to say is that for this type of interpretative problem, advocacy criticism may provide the tools you need. But it is perfectly fine to say it is outside one's interest or expertise as long as you recognize it when you happen upon it. Why do you need to recognize it? So that you can use appropriate questions to judge its validity.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/826146#Comment_826146

... I think you still are missing the ideal of the methods likely because of less than ideal practitioners you have read.

That could well be - it certainly wouldn't be the first time I've simply missed the point of something.

Look at it this way ...when the Centurion asks that his daughter be healed, for background isn't it appropriate to focus on the relationship between the Jewish community of which Jesus is a part and the occupying force of which the Centurion is a part. And isn't that an element teaching us something about God's "ideology"? In the Abraham story doesn't the story of Sarah and Hagar rely on the difference in social position between Sarah and Hagar and isn't that an essential element of understanding the context and motivations of the story.

Absolutely! And that's why I do think it's critical that we make the effort to learn everything we can about the original setting of scripture, including how people lived, how they organized their society, how different groups related to each other politically and economically, and how they thought about a myriad of different things. We have to do that if we're going to avoid remaking the Bible in our own image.

It may well be that practitioners of these forms of criticism have developed tools that may be useful for this. If so, your point is well taken - I should be open to recognizing that fact, and willing to adopt and use those tools as and when appropriate.

I'm not really all that hung up on specific methodologies. What set my teeth on edge was the statement you quoted that "...these approaches hold in common the view that...the purpose of interpretation is to expose oppressive tendencies int he Bible..." What little I've read of some of these authors suggests to me that this is a fair representation of what many, if not most of them are attempting to do. If I've misinterpreted this, and that's not what they're trying to do, I apologize. But at core, that's what I disagree with - the idea that we should study the Bible with the purpose of exposing the oppressive nature of what it says. I simply think that's the wrong reason to study scripture.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/826173#Comment_826173

What set my teeth on edge was the statement you quoted that "...these approaches hold in common the view that...the purpose of interpretation is to expose oppressive tendencies int he Bible..." What little I've read of some of these authors suggests to me that this is a fair representation of what many, if not most of them are attempting to do

I agree with you on this except for the "if not most" ... there are many claiming to use this method who provide good examples of what NOT to do. I blame the practitioner not the method ... I consciously left in the offensive statement after nearly editing it out specifically because is does serve as a warning of the potential abuses.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/826177#Comment_826177

What set my teeth on edge was the statement you quoted that "...these approaches hold in common the view that...the purpose of interpretation is to expose oppressive tendencies int he Bible..." What little I've read of some of these authors suggests to me that this is a fair representation of what many, if not most of them are attempting to do

I agree with you on this except for the "if not most" ... there are many claiming to use this method who provide good examples of what NOT to do. I blame the practitioner not the method ... I consciously left in the offensive statement after nearly editing it out specifically because is does serve as a warning of the potential abuses.

Then perhaps I've simply been exposed to the wrong ones. What has put me off in the past has tended to be goals and presuppositions rather than specific methodological tools.

Beloved Amodeo

From "The threefold world of using different methods in Bible interpretation history":

MJ,

The link is a .php file. I googled to find an app to open this file and Notepad++ was one of the choices recommended bc it looked easy to install I chose it to open this file. There are some issues I encountered. The output is largely unreadable and suboptimally formatted. Do you have any recommendations? I have Windows 10.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/826208#Comment_826208

From "The threefold world of using different methods in Bible interpretation history":

MJ,

The link is a .php file. I googled to find an app to open this file and Notepad++ was one of the choices recommended bc it looked easy to install I chose it to open this file. There are some issues I encountered. The output is largely unreadable and suboptimally formatted. Do you have any recommendations? I have Windows 10.

Actually, it's a .doc file, and Microsoft Word will open it just fine.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/826209#Comment_826209

Actually, it's a .doc file, and Microsoft Word will open it just fine.

Thanks SineNomine,

I'll try that straight away [:)]

Edit: Well it worked like a charm. Thanks!

Quick Links

Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered