I’m up today at the Tapestry blog: I Love a Good Myth about how we read our Bible.
An excerpt: "The Bible is a story, or a collection of stories, that define a
people, that give the people identity."
You are here: Home / Archives for hermenuetics
Tapestry: I Love a Good Myth
Filed Under: bible, hermenuetics, interpretation, Joseph Campbell, myth, story, theology
Tapestry: What's the Fuss? Tell Me What's A-Happenin'
I’m up today at the Tapestry Blog continuing the conversation about contextual theology.
A taste:
"Contextual theology not only recognizes that we approach the Bible through our own cultural understandings or lenses,
it recognizes that the Bible was written in particular cultures. God
expressed and revealed himself through these different cultures. His
chosen people glorified and honored him in their cultures.
This is not to say we relegate everything in the Bible to being
merely cultural and therefore not applicable to us today. It is to say
that transforming our culture does not mean returning to any of the
cultures seen in the Bible, including the culture of the first-century
church.
This gets messy. How do we understand God’s revelation of himself and how we are to live as Christians today?"
Read the rest here.
Filed Under: contextual theology, culture, hermenuetics
The Mad Hatter's Tea Party
The Church and Postmodern Culture blog has a post up about interpretation. I’d love to get some of your thoughts about it.
Basically, it seems to me that they’re arguing that the method we’ve been using is determined by/tied to modernism. In fact, the notion that interpretation is a method (implying scientific method) is modern terminology.
The method of which they speak is the one in which I’ve been trained–getting to the author’s intent. You approach it this way: (1) observation, (2) interpretation, (3) application. You cannot have application without interpretation. Or another way to put it is (1) exegesis (what the author meant to his congregation), (2) theology (the transcendent meaning to all cultures), and (3) application (the significance for us). I think what they’re arguing is that approaching it with solely the author’s intent in mind both reduces Scripture to a science rather than living (in fact, I’ve heard others refer to it as taxonomy of doctrine) and is essentially egotistical (the idea that my interpretation over yours is right).
They don’t mean to completely abandon the idea of author’s intent, but to balance it with the idea of entering into the Scripture, of seeing it as a diaolgue. (You can’t get rid of cultural and sociological studies any more than you can claim that we all just pick up our Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek books and understand what’s being said.) It reminds me of N.T. Wright’s "epistemology of love" (in Surprised by Hope).
For me, this problem is partly (mostly) resolved by seeing the Bible as myth–not as untrue legends or stories but as the story (and stories) of my identity. It shapes me, defines me. It explains my worldview. These are the stories of my people. These are the stories of my God. This is the story of origins and hope and future. I enter into this story. I’m part of it.
I do have a question though (a question with many questions): I agree that the method in which I’ve been trained arises from Enlightenment. My question is how does our interpretation now arise from postmodernism? Is that okay? Should we try to transcend it? Is that even possible? Or do we trust that God works within cultures?
What are your thoughts in how we approach the bible?
Filed Under: bible, hermenuetics, interpretation, Scripture
It's All about Context
Taking verses out of context. Bad habit.
Pet peeve: memorizing a verse out of Job only to find out it was from one of Job’s “comforting” friends. God chided them. Said they were wrong. Yet here we are, committing their words to memory as a testimony to the character of God. Sometimes using their very words to comfort hurting friends. Not so good, if you ask me.
What about the “God’s word will not return void”? That verse is from Isaiah where God is prophesying destruction. His word, or His promise as to the fulfillment of this destruction, will be accomplished. Is this what we really want? Yup. His word will not return void. Mayhem. Destruction. Can’t wait. Sometimes I think we use it as an excuse. Well, I quoted the verse. My job in evangelism is done. God’s word will not return void. Not up to me anymore. Don’t have to worry about being loving or sensitive to that person’s situation or culture. God’s word will not return void. I just have to say it exactly how I see fit.
Or the "where two or more are gathered" section? That’s in the middle of church discipline. When carrying out church discipline, the people of God represent God. It’s risky business, this church discipline, so God wants a gathering of His people. I think sometimes we use this verse to mean this feel good, yeah, man, snaps all around in beatnik fashion, we’re in church. And we forget the verse when we want to correct someone in their ways. It’s up to me. They need help. Good thing I’m here to save their day.
And Jeremiah: I know the plans I have for you, to prosper you, etc., etc., etc. Insert name here. God wants to prosper me. God knew the plans he had for Jeremiah, like to leave him at the bottom of a cistern or run naked through the street. Personally, I’m not really into the whole cistern thing. But, I know the plans I have for Heather, to prosper her with a publisher and astronomical book sales. Now that, I like.
But to be honest, my theology covers most of this. Like the two or more or gathered. Side note: I do think we need to take more seriously “correcting others,” as in with much prayer and the wisdom of gathered people, not something to be done lightly. Back to point: I also think that the church is the people of God. Where God’s people are gathered, there His presence is. Of course, I also happen to believe that God is omniscient and His presence happens to be everywhere, whether we’re there or not.
And the Jeremiah thing. I believe in God’s sovereignty (those He predestined, He called). I believe that for those who love God, he works everything to good. As C.S. Lewis said, we’re a little afraid of how painful that process will be. The good may not look how I want it to look.
And then there’s the whole free will question and the intricacies of these two ideas working together, free will and God’s sovereignty. How does that effect God’s plan for me and my responsibility?
Don’t even get me started on praying to be “in the center of God’s will.” So being in God’s will is different than being in the center of God’s will? How much more stress can you add to my Christian walk? Is it okay for me to serve God here or there? Do I have to pinpoint everything? Or just love the Lord my God with all my heart, soul, and mind, and love my neighbor as myself no matter where I am or what I’m doing? But that’s a different rant for a different day.
A lot of mixed up ideas. All from a pet peeve.
Pet peeve: memorizing a verse out of Job only to find out it was from one of Job’s “comforting” friends. God chided them. Said they were wrong. Yet here we are, committing their words to memory as a testimony to the character of God. Sometimes using their very words to comfort hurting friends. Not so good, if you ask me.
What about the “God’s word will not return void”? That verse is from Isaiah where God is prophesying destruction. His word, or His promise as to the fulfillment of this destruction, will be accomplished. Is this what we really want? Yup. His word will not return void. Mayhem. Destruction. Can’t wait. Sometimes I think we use it as an excuse. Well, I quoted the verse. My job in evangelism is done. God’s word will not return void. Not up to me anymore. Don’t have to worry about being loving or sensitive to that person’s situation or culture. God’s word will not return void. I just have to say it exactly how I see fit.
Or the "where two or more are gathered" section? That’s in the middle of church discipline. When carrying out church discipline, the people of God represent God. It’s risky business, this church discipline, so God wants a gathering of His people. I think sometimes we use this verse to mean this feel good, yeah, man, snaps all around in beatnik fashion, we’re in church. And we forget the verse when we want to correct someone in their ways. It’s up to me. They need help. Good thing I’m here to save their day.
And Jeremiah: I know the plans I have for you, to prosper you, etc., etc., etc. Insert name here. God wants to prosper me. God knew the plans he had for Jeremiah, like to leave him at the bottom of a cistern or run naked through the street. Personally, I’m not really into the whole cistern thing. But, I know the plans I have for Heather, to prosper her with a publisher and astronomical book sales. Now that, I like.
But to be honest, my theology covers most of this. Like the two or more or gathered. Side note: I do think we need to take more seriously “correcting others,” as in with much prayer and the wisdom of gathered people, not something to be done lightly. Back to point: I also think that the church is the people of God. Where God’s people are gathered, there His presence is. Of course, I also happen to believe that God is omniscient and His presence happens to be everywhere, whether we’re there or not.
And the Jeremiah thing. I believe in God’s sovereignty (those He predestined, He called). I believe that for those who love God, he works everything to good. As C.S. Lewis said, we’re a little afraid of how painful that process will be. The good may not look how I want it to look.
And then there’s the whole free will question and the intricacies of these two ideas working together, free will and God’s sovereignty. How does that effect God’s plan for me and my responsibility?
Don’t even get me started on praying to be “in the center of God’s will.” So being in God’s will is different than being in the center of God’s will? How much more stress can you add to my Christian walk? Is it okay for me to serve God here or there? Do I have to pinpoint everything? Or just love the Lord my God with all my heart, soul, and mind, and love my neighbor as myself no matter where I am or what I’m doing? But that’s a different rant for a different day.
A lot of mixed up ideas. All from a pet peeve.
Filed Under: hermenuetics
I Love a Good Myth
The Bible is not a book of moralities. The Bible is the ultimate myth. Now, before I am misquoted and extracted from context (although, to be honest, I am not famous enough to warrant quoting or misquoting), let me explain what I mean; let me define myth.
Merriam-Webster defines myth as “a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.” Joseph Campbell says in his work, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, that “throughout the inhabited world, in all times and under every circumstance, the myths of man have flourished; and they have been the living inspiration of whatever else may have appeared out of the activities of the human body and mind. It would not be too much to say that myth is the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestation.”
Everything in life, our philosophies, our behaviors, our arts, is couched in the myth we believe of our world. I do want to clarify that while I have learned much from Campbell’s work, I do not go to the extreme of interpreting all of our dreams as an Oedipus syndrome. I also believe that God did historically and literally meet His people, that the accounts of the Bible represent historical occurrences. That being said, I believe that the oral tradition before Moses, the written account of Moses, the judges, the prophets, the kings, the poetry, the wisdom, the gospels, and the letters, are important to us because they are our myth, our story that marks us.
Think of the stories that define the United States: the tales of George Washington, Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln. From them, as Americans, we understand what it means to be brave, courageous, patriotic, American.
The Bible is a story, or a collection of stories, that define a people, that give the people identity. It explains their worldview. It delineates how they see the world around them. It answers the questions, “Why is the world like this?” and “What is my purpose?” The Bible is the story that explains the world around us (as created by God and fallen, corrupted by sin and evil), the direction of the world (redemption and recreation as seen in Rev. 21 & 22), and our purpose in the world today (glorify this Creator and Savior God, enjoy His presence, and participate in His victory over sin and evil in our lives and in the world by embodying His Truth and love). In the collection of stories, there is nothing special about the people except that they have encountered God. (This perhaps is different than other Ancient Near East stories or Greek and Roman mythos which tended to inflate the heroes.) We read the encounters with God. And we experience the encounters of the holiness of God. We are an extension of this metanarrative.
Filed Under: hermenuetics, theology
On Hermenuetic
A fundamental question among the church right now: how do we interpret the Bible? How do we approach the Bible?
Interestingly enough, this very question was examined at the shift between the Medieval world and the Modern one. In the Medieval era, truth was passed on by God through clergy, kings, and nobles. If you studied science, you did not experiment, you read the authoritative text on science (i.e. Aristotle). Suddenly, authority was doubted. The clergy was doubted in the midst of the Protestant reformation. The kings and nobles were doubted when the rising Parliament and Ministers began to run the nations and the rising bourgeois class, through individual enterprise, ran commerce. Led by Descartes, philosophers began to consider the question of how do you know something to be true? They were rethinking the knowledge authoritatively passed on in textbooks (especially since some of this knowledge was being disproved and displaced by new science through experiments). Amongst this, even the text of the Bible was doubted as being authoritative. Thus, enter Galileo in attempting to shape a new way of thinking by affirming that the Bible is true in the things God meant it to be true, but not always scientifically – i.e. they were beginning to understand that the sun no longer “rose” or “set.” This caused controversy in the church because they began to fear that the bible would be doubted, that it would no longer be the standard for knowing God and knowing truth. Even Luther, with his claim of “Sola Scriptura” approached the Bible in a different (and scandalous at the time) manner. Each person could individually approach the Bible (the evidence) and understand it for themselves. They did not need the priests to authoritatively interpret it for them. Danger, danger! thought the priests, how do we protect the flock from heresies and from wrong interpretations? N.T. Wright points out that the Latin translation read, “Do penance and believe in me.” During Luther’s time, this took on a different load as people viewed their salvation as paying penance and as doing specific actions that the church deemed necessary for salvation. Luther went back to the original writings and researched the original understanding to unveil the meaning of “Repent and believe on me.” This transformed the understood meaning to be a personal relationship with God. Now, by the same token, many are going back to the original understanding to find out what we are missing. How has our culture informed our understandings? N.T. Wright continued to point out that Josephus used this same phrase to call on someone to leave their allegiance to fight and live with him, a political nuance that we have been missing. It is a personal relationship, but it is also a political allegiance. Mind you, I am not arguing that we need to add a requirement for salvation, but what in our life are we missing by not participating in Christ’s victory over death and evil, by not demonstrating this as we live in God’s kingdom, by neglecting the Christus Victor model of the early church?
Proverbially enough, history is repeating itself. In these shifting cultures, Christians are approaching the Bible in a different way, and other Christians, fearing that the Bible will no longer be seen as authoritative, react. Sound familiar? Here’s the question: will we create irreconcilable differences when men and women are being branded as heretics (not because of their belief about Christ but because of their approach to the Bible), when each side, hurt and attacked, retreats to their own churches and bulwarks their fortress?
Missiologically, we are told to go to the ends of the earth, to every nation, to every people group (and I might interpret, to every culture) to share Christ’s love and truth. I want to recognize that not every so-called “retreat” is away from hurt but towards a mission of love. Paul went to the Gentiles. But can we be reconciled so as to support and love each other despite (because of?) our differences?
According to the stories, Luther did not originally desire to disband from the Catholic Church but sought to address some of its weaknesses. Will we leave and form our own Christendom or will we look to be united with our brothers and sisters in Christ, showing a supernatural love that portrays Christ’s love and truth to the world? Will we end with our own American/French Revolution?
Filed Under: hermenuetics
