By Jonathan James O. Cañete
The German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer is often considered the father of philosophical hermeneutics. His work redefined the field, distinguishing it from biblical theology, which traditionally focused on interpreting sacred texts. Before Gadamer’s contributions, hermeneutics was primarily a method of interpreting biblical texts deeply intertwined with theology. Hermeneutics is the theory and methodology of interpretation, while Biblical theology studies the theological themes and doctrines within the historical and literary contexts of the Bible. The relationship between the two fields is evident in how hermeneutical principles uncover theological meanings and guide biblical interpretation (Bultmann, 2019).
Gadamer critiqued the purely technical approach to biblical hermeneutics, which focused on deriving meaning from texts through historical-critical and literary analysis (Fee & Stuart, 2014). He argued that these methodologies often confined interpretation to the text, neglecting the broader human experiences that shape understanding. In contrast, as Gadamer framed it, philosophical hermeneutics extends beyond religious texts to explore how interpretation is influenced by human experiences, culture, history, and language (Vandermause & Fleming, 2011). This approach is rooted in the belief that understanding is not a static, mechanical process but a dynamic and dialogical engagement between the interpreter and the subject of interpretation.
One of the key concepts in Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics is the “fusion of horizons.” He describes a person’s horizon as the frame of reference through which they understand the world. This horizon is shaped by historical, cultural, linguistic, and personal factors (Gadamer et al., 1960). Gadamer proposes that understanding occurs when the interpreter’s horizon and the text or subject being interpreted come into dialogue. The fusion of horizons refers to how these different perspectives merge to create new meanings, reshaping the interpreter’s understanding and the object of interpretation.
Gadamer’s notion of fusion extends beyond simply merging viewpoints; it is a productive encounter that leads to new insights. In lived theology, this process can be particularly insightful, as it provides a way to understand how theology is practiced and interpreted within different cultural and historical contexts. Lived theology involves the intersection of theological reflection with the everyday experiences of individuals and communities (Stark, 2010). Gadamer’s framework offers a way to understand how people’s personal, cultural, and historical backgrounds shape their engagement with theological concepts.
Historical and Cultural Contexts in Lived Theology
In applying Gadamer’s fusion of horizons to lived theology, it becomes clear that historical and cultural contexts are central to theological understanding. Gadamer emphasized that understanding is always situated within a particular historical moment and shaped by a person’s unique context (Gadamer et al., 1960). This idea resonates strongly within Filipino culture, where religious beliefs are deeply embedded in the nation’s history, traditions, and communal practices. In the Philippines, Christianity, particularly Roman Catholicism, has been a dominant influence on the lives of many Filipinos for centuries. However, significant regional and cultural variations exist in how these religious beliefs are understood and lived out.
For example, consider how Filipinos from rural and urban areas may interpret theological concepts differently. A rural Filipino Christian may deeply understand the concept of “grace” in a personal, relational, and communal way. In rural communities, faith is often lived out through close-knit relationships and acts of kindness. In this context, grace may be understood as the kindness and support one receives from others in times of need. In contrast, a Filipino living in an urban, secularized environment may interpret grace in a more abstract, theological sense, perhaps emphasizing divine Grace as a source of social justice or systemic change. The rural person’s horizon, shaped by their cultural and historical context, intersects with the theological tradition of grace, creating a unique understanding that reflects their lived experience. Similarly, the urban person’s horizon, shaped by different social conditions, encounters the same theological concept but with a distinct interpretation. In both cases, the fusion of horizons enriches the theological understanding of Grace by incorporating the lived experiences of both individuals.
The Filipino concept of Bayanihan, or communal cooperation, also shows how Gadamer’s fusion of horizons operates in Filipino theology. Bayanihan is a traditional practice where community members come together to help one another, often in times of need, such as when moving a house or organizing community events. This communal spirit can shape the understanding of theological concepts like love and charity. A Filipino theologian who experiences Bayanihan might interpret the Christian concept of agape (selfless love) through the lens of this practice, seeing love not just as a theological principle but as a lived, embodied reality that fosters community solidarity. When this personal experience intersects with the theological tradition of love, it leads to a deeper understanding of the biblical message of love, not only as a divine virtue but as a social and communal practice that brings people together in mutual support.
Personal Experience and Prejudices in Lived Theology
Gadamer’s notion of prejudices—preconceived beliefs and assumptions that shape our understanding—is also central to lived theology. Prejudices, for Gadamer, are not necessarily negative; they are the starting points from which all interpretation begins. These prejudices reflect a person’s historical, cultural, and personal experiences (Gadamer et al., 1960). In lived theology, a person’s religious beliefs, shaped by their upbringing, cultural context, and personal experiences, influence how they interpret theological concepts and sacred texts.
For instance, consider a Filipino who has experienced personal suffering or injustice. This individual may interpret biblical passages about suffering (e.g., Romans 8:18) through the lens of their own life experiences. A person who has endured hardship may read these scriptures with empathy and personal engagement, relating to the suffering of Christ in a way that someone who has not experienced such struggles might not. This interpretation, shaped by personal prejudice (in the Gadamerian sense), contributes to a deeper, more embodied understanding of theological concepts. In this way, lived theology integrates personal experiences with theological reflection, leading to new interpretations of scripture that resonate with the individual’s lived reality.
In Filipino culture, personal experiences of suffering and resilience are often linked to pag-asa (hope). Filipinos have faced numerous historical challenges, from colonization to natural disasters, yet they live with hope and faith. The fusion of horizons in this context occurs when Filipinos interpret biblical teachings on hope and perseverance, such as Romans 5:3-5, through their history of struggle and resilience. This process enhances their understanding of hope and allows them to see it as a communal and collective experience transcending individual suffering. Theologically, this enables a more robust understanding of divine hope intimately connected with Filipino life’s lived realities.
The Dialogical Nature of Lived Theology
Gadamer’s emphasis on the dialogical nature of understanding is crucial when applied to lived theology, particularly within Filipino faith communities. Gadamer argued that learning occurs in dialogue between the interpreter and the text and between individuals and their cultural and historical contexts (Gadamer et al., 1960). In Filipino religious communities, this dialogue is ongoing as individuals share their lived experiences and theological reflections, continuously reshaping their understanding of faith.
An example of this dynamic dialogue can be seen in Filipino church communities, where theological discussions often occur in small groups or community settings. These discussions are shaped by the participants’ individual experiences, who bring their personal, cultural, and historical horizons to the table. Participants might share personal stories of reconciliation or struggles with forgiveness when discussing a theological concept like forgiveness. Through this dialogue, their horizons interact with the broader theological tradition, leading to a more nuanced and communal understanding of forgiveness.
The fusion of horizons in this communal setting deepens the collective understanding of theological principles, allowing participants to reinterpret biblical teachings in light of their lived experiences. This process highlights the dynamic nature of lived theology, where theological insights are continually shaped by ongoing dialogue and engagement with personal and communal experiences.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Gadamer’s concept of the fusion of horizons provides a powerful framework for understanding how lived theology is practiced, interpreted, and reinterpreted through the intersection of personal experience, cultural context, and theological tradition. Gadamer’s hermeneutics enriches our engagement with theological concepts by emphasizing the historical and cultural dimensions of understanding, allowing for a more embodied, lived experience of faith. In the Filipino context, this fusion process creates a theology deeply rooted in the realities of everyday life, offering a dynamic, evolving understanding of theological principles that reflect the diverse experiences and histories of Filipino individuals and communities. Through the fusion of horizons, lived theology becomes a continuous process of dialogue, engagement, and transformation, deeply intertwined with the lived realities of Filipino life.
References
Bultmann, C. (2019). Hermeneutics and Theology. In Cambridge University Press eBooks (pp. 11–36). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316888582.002
Fee, G. D., & Stuart, D. (2014). How to read the Bible for all it’s worth (4th ed.). Zondervan.
Gadamer, H. G., Weinsheimer, J., & Marshall, D. G. (1960). Truth and Method. https://academic.oup.com/jaac/article/36/4/487/6338763
Moltmann, J. (1975). Theology of hope; On the ground and the implications of a Christian eschatology. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA24116841
Stark, R. (2010). Lived Religion: toward a constructivist approach to religion and religious experience. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 78–3, 777–796.
Vandermause, R. K., & Fleming, S. E. (2011). Philosophical Hermeneutic Interviewing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10(4), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691101000405
