Conclusion

Abstract

In proposing this Pauline hermeneutic I have remained (albeit somewhat precariously) within the rule of ‘logocentrism’, working towards the positing of a transcendental signified. This however, is a learned, deliberate and critical logocentrism with a deconstructive sense of its own jeopardy, but with an equally distinct appreciation of the power of faith, hope and love to disrupt deconstruction’s negative semiology. The demand for interpretation which arises along with language, enforces this logocentric choice but never reduces the risk involved. It is precisely the hermeneutical risk that I take in the process of self-divestment which allows deconstruction to appear as a negative hermeneutic. I might say: ‘I put my trust in the work of language, and deconstruction reveals my folly.’ I can leave it at that and become a committed poststructuralist, or I can claim that the revelation of my folly is also the uncovering of the strength of my faith. The point that I am trying to make is that there is a choice to be made, not for or against deconstruction, poststructuralism or postmodernism, but for or against language, faith and understanding.