debating performance
Posted by Paul | Filed under uncategorised
Apologies for being overly obvious and repetitive, but I wanted to link together two previous posts: not to interpret the text, but to perform it and hermeneutics and, umm, hermeneutics (and probably also interpretation and living and living proof — see what I mean about repetitive?)
The on-going thought is how we display the truth through the way we act when disagreeing. We noted that the modern view point focussed primarily on knowledge. If you take that as the key to everything, then there are limited constraints in the way you treat those who disagree with you. You primary goal is to ensure that they, and your listeners, end up with the correct knowledge in the heads at the end of the debate. So, the approach is not as important as the end result and there is no inherent need to take care and be respectful along the way. (I know, this is exaggerating and there are other constraints, but you get the point.)
On the other hand, if performance of the truth also matters, then the way we argue is as important as getting the information across. I guess we’re saying ‘the medium is the message’ in a conversational way as well as in a purely media sense. We need to be sure that our performance in the face of disagreement is honouring the the truth we follow.
An obliquely related point that has intrigued me for a long time: both Francis Schaeffer and Richard Dawkins(*) abandoned debates as a vehicle for their respective apologetics. For both, it seems that the problem with debates is the possibility of winning the argument, while losing, or having no impact on, the person…
–
(*) I realised after writing this that Dawkins has done debating of some sort recently. I was thinking of the story — I think in the introduction to ‘The Blink Watchmaker’ — where he debated someone on creationism, then found out that they didn’t believe in the position that they were defending. This apparently made him disillusioned with the whole debating process. My understanding is that he found he wasn’t really in a position to persuade others of his position, but was simply taking part in a sophisticated game. Possibly now that he is debating genuine opponents in a way that spreads his message, his view has altered.
Tags: apologetics, church, hermeneutics, provocations
Justification and football
Posted by Paul | Filed under uncategorised
A sort of informational post:
John Piper’s book ‘The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright’ is available free on-line as a pdf. I’ve only skimmed bits of it and I guess your view will depend on where you start out, but at the very least it is good to see that Piper & Wright had discussions before publication.
In the interests of keeping both sides in mind, remember that some of Tom Wright’s stuff on justification can be found on the ntwrightpage.
In between the two, Michael Bird has some useful perspectives (I was going to say ‘is a voice of reason’, but that would cast aspersions on the others!). He has an interesting paper on Incorporated Righteousness, which attempts for a middle way between new and old perspectives and makes a lot of sense. He also points out how these sort of debates arise in part from the difference between systematic theologians and New Testament scholars.
I also like this quote from Eugene Peterson, which seems appropriate to these exchanges:
Among those for whom scripture is a passion, reading commentaries has always seemed to me analogous to the gathering of football fans in the local bar after the game, replaying in endless detail the game they have just watched, arguing (maybe even fighting) over observations and opinion, and lacing the discourse with gossip about the players. The level of knowledge evident in these boozy colloquies is impressive. These fans have watched the game for years; the players are household names to them; they know the fine print in the rulebook and pick up every nuance on the field. And they care immensely about what happens in the game. Their seemingly endless commentry is evidence of how much they care.
Tags: hermeneutics, justification, theology
creeds and crampons
Posted by Paul | Filed under uncategorised
This quote from Alistair McGrath (in ‘A Passion for Truth’) has set me thinking this week:
Narratives need to be interpreted correctly; Christian doctrine provides the conceptual framework by which the scriptural narrative is interpreted. …
It is not an arbitrary framework, but one which is suggested by that narrative, and intimated (however provisionally) by scripture itself. It is to be discerned within, rather than imposed upon, that narrative. The narrative is primary, and the interpretive framework secondary.
It seems that, in our post-enlightenment view, we tend treat the biblical story as the source material for us to develop our doctrines and theologies from. Instead, we need to realise that the story is the most important thing — God’s working in history; our theologies are really the guidebooks or frameworks for us to find our way around the story.
Perhaps we can think of it in climbing terms: while a climber may be proud of his equipment, he should never make the mistake that the mountain is there as a suitable support for his ropes; in fact, his ropes are there as a way for him to navigate the mountain.
Interestingly, this makes me more sympathetic to systematic theologies. At one extreme they can be an attempt to construct an neat abstract system, but at their best they could provide a comprehensive guidebook to the story.
I wonder if thinking this way should alter how we assess our theological statements?
Tags: hermeneutics, story, theology
Schaeffer quote
Posted by Paul | Filed under uncategorised
I came across this quote from Francis Schaeffer’s letters. I thought it fitted well with a number of things I’ve posted recently, so…
Doctrinal rightness and rightness of ecclesiastical position are important, but only as a starting-point to go into a living relationship — and not as ends in themselves.
Tags: church, hermeneutics, L\'Abri/Francis Schaeffer
Hermeneutics and, umm, hermeneutics
Posted by Paul | Filed under uncategorised
There are currently a number of controversies bubbling around evangelicalism (e.g. atonement theories, ‘what is justification?’, etc.) At some level or another these are interwoven with issues of hermeneutics. Given the discussion in my last post, I wonder if we can ask ourselves the following question: Leaving aside the precise content, do the discussions themselves act as a good hermeneutic of the text? Does our performance/acting correctly interpret the Bible? The astute reader will, perhaps, guess from the fact that I ask the question that I wonder if we really handle disagreements well — especially now that the web allow us to wind one another up swiftly and with ease.
Given that we live with a text that includes the following…
Phil. 3:15 All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.Eph. 4:15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.
1 Pet. 3:8 Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.
…what do we think a good lived-hermeneutic is in the face of disagreement?
Or, on the other side, perhaps when we act we should ask ourselves which text our actions are interpreting?
Coincidentally, I’ve just started reading The Mission of God by Chris Wright — which also considers hermeneutics (for some reason, I’m suddenly surrounded by it!). He starts by considering the diversity of interpretation coming from the movement of the Christain centre away from the West. This emphasises our need to learn how to deal with differences between us. If we can’t do it well amongst western Christians, what are we going to do when we realise that 75% of Christians live outside the west — and not all see things the same way as us?
Wright:
The plurality of interpretive stances requires that we speak and listen to one another with respect and love, affirming our common humanity and out common commitment to the same biblical texts.
Not that we are saying anything goes. We need to find the appropriate centre. Wright also quotes James Brownson:
Once we have affirmed plurality, however, we need also to grapple with how the Bible may provide a centre, an orienting point in the midst of such diversity. What does it mean to speak the truth in love?
Tags: hermeneutics
Interpretation and living
Posted by Paul | Filed under uncategorised
As I said in my last post, I’ve been reading First Theology by Kevin Vanhoozer (on and off). I’ve particularly enjoy the essay ‘The World Well Staged? Theology, Culture and Hermeneutics.’ He ends this with a section on hermeneutics (i.e. interpretation of the text) as something that must be lived out. I almost want to quote the whole thing, but here are some highlights:
The community of biblical interpreters is, of course, the church. The church is a hermeneutical community, a community of interpreters constituted by the Word and enlivened by the Spirit. Indeed the Spirit is the enabling power that ministers the Word and renders it effective.
…
The most important interpretation of the Bible is the way we live our lives. We appropriate the meaning of a text when we let its world into ours, when we put its pages into our practice. We apply a text’s meaning to our lives when we perform the text. Our response to a text constitutes its “lived meaning.”
…
Ricoeur speaks of living in the “world” of the text. if we dwell in a text’s world long enough, it will begin to shape our vision and our values. This is the function of culture – the world of meaning – too. It is by faith that the community of biblical interpreters believingly enters the text; it is the Spirit who enables the Word’s world to cultivate the image of God that we bear and that we are. The church’s aim should be to render a faithful interpretation of Scripture.
I love the idea of interpretation being how we live out the text, rather than just a intellectual exercise. Of course, the idea that we should live out what we read isn’t so radical (at least in theory!), but somehow characterising it as interpretation adds depth to it, for me at least. It’s more than a few bullet points that we should abide by. Our whole lives interpret God’s word for those around.
Also, it is not just something I do as an individual — the interpretation is done as a community. It is our shared life that expresses the meaning of ‘the text’. And, hopefully, people seeing the community at-life will experience ‘the text’ directly.
Vanhoozer’s discussion makes a number of connections for me…
First, when Paul write to some of the early churches he effectively says ‘You are the message’. (I fact this is Eugene Peterson’s translation.) It seems to me that this captures the same idea.
Second, in ‘Velvet Elvis’ Rob Bell (notoriously) suggests that our doctrines are like springs on a trampoline. What I took from this (I’m not sure this is quite what he said) is that they propel us into action. Connecting this to the quotes above: perhaps we can say that doctrine is there to enable us to interpret correctly, to act in a way that presents a faithful ‘lived meaning’.
Finally, I was reminded of Tom Wright’s essay ‘How can the Bible be authoritative?‘ Wright pictures the Biblical Story as a 5-act play. We are in the fifth act and our performance must be consistent with those before, and our knowledge of the ending. Vanhoozer uses very similar imagery (possibly not coincidentally):
The community of faith continues the story, sustained by memory and hope. it lives in the second act commemorating the first, holding its breath for the last. Christian interpreters perform not gospel but apocalyptic when they contemplate that glorious Finale, when the world will indeed be well staged and all manner of things shall be well.
All-in-all a really interesting essay. One last quote to finish up with:
The community of believers represents a prophetic counterculture that challenges the gods and myths of the day with regard to which world and life view best fulfills humanity. The church’s challenge will only be as strong as its expression of the biblical world and life view. Again, this is not only a matter of correct doctrine but also a matter of faithful biblical performance. The church must be the cultural incarnation of the story of God in Christ.
Tags: culture, hermeneutics, story
A random walk over culture, art, christianity, etc. with occasional photographs...