A ‘persistent interaction’ seems like a good idea to me. You seem to agree with me that reading and theologising are different approaches. Although we may differ on how they interact. I agree that, in creating theology, we often throw the narrative out after isolating themes. However, I still contend this is an important part of the process.

I certainly agree that we need to spend more time telling the story…I guess the question is which story? Which story did Jesus tell? and his disciples? That’s of great interest and that’s where developing theology is important. The assumptions we approach the text with change the text we read (eisegesis). These discussions seem to be a good place to develop a coherent approach.

Societies are shaped, and individual psyche’s are formed, by telling and being told stories. The function of spoken myth in oral communities and movies in our current culture demonstrate how narratives ‘create’ us. I’m sure directors and kaumatua (wise elders) alike will attest to the power of story to shape the speaker as well.

Telling the story brings out the themes in an accessable and subconscious way, rather than an intellectual and conscious approach. This skill has not been lost by our culture, but seems to be lacking (or poorly executed) in many places. I’m glad for the varied and creative ways artists have been attempting to tell the story recently.

I hope we can find a way to see the ‘correct’ story. I think that a narrative/historical reading will help us do that, but I want to hold on to other readings too. Putting on a different set of lenses (critical methods) at various times allows us to appreciate the mystery and unknown-ness of God.

I wonder if we are conceptualising ourselves using Shakespeare’s metaphor:

All the world’s a stage,And all the men and women merely players.They have their exits and their entrances,And one man in his time plays many parts,His acts being seven ages.’ -William Shakespeare, As You Like It