A conversational hermeneutics?

I like what you say here. Yes we do spend more time talking to ourselves then we do talking to the world. I think in many ways we have lost a sense of what we call the great commission to proclaim the gospel. I do think we could have aspects of both of what you say here, hermenutics and exploration and conversation. I think there are things we can gain consensus on that would tie into a meta theology. Those would be the boundaries of our faith discussion not the limiter of it. In other words, there are some things that are distinct to the Christian message that have been validated by the saints and the church throughout the ages (our sin, the atonement of Christ, etc.). But within those boundaries or anchor points, there is room for speculation about how these things apply to our current context and how they are communicated. So our conversation and exploration would naturally lead to some kind of defintion in context. I am thinking out loud here so I don’t know if I even make any sense but it seems to me that we do need to engage in conversation if we are ever to reach any kind of contextual theology that is relevant to our culture yet remains faithful to the gospel proclaimed by the apostles and Jesus himself.

Since this site has borrowed the term Open Source, I’m going to borrow another term, “embedded”. Embedded Linux is popping up all over the place. Your future toaster may be powered by an embedded Linux software program. The amazing thing about embedded software is it shows up in places you wouldn’t expect to find software, like in toasters.

It seems to me that to make the great commission applicable to the twenty-first century, we need to embedded the church into our society. We have limited ourselves too long to doing church among ourselves (sort of the desktop approach of doing church). What we need to do is move off the desktop and out into the world - the “Embedded” Church needs to surface in all sorts of places where you wouldn’t expect the desktop church to appear.

It’s sort of like the academic discussion on sound: “If a tree fell in the woods and no one was there, would there be any sound?” If hermeneutics happens in the church, without any unchurched people to hear and take part, would there be a discussion?

Still keeping the faith,

Tom , in _ usually _ sunny_ balmy Florida’s First Coast.

When I was learned, I looked to the past: to have confirmed the set of beliefs I already had. Now that I’m a learner, I look to the future: to grow, be stretched, and remain open to what I don’t know. - Leonard I. Sweet __________________________________________________________________ Registered Linux user # 308709. Using SuSE Linux and enjoying the Penguin since May, 2000. web page: http://www.cntr4appldchristianity.com email: _____________________________________________________________________

Tom, great post. I agree with your embedded church idea. At my church we are working on a small group strategy that is community based at its core and is a major thrust of the church. Having these little churches pop up all over the community and actually engage their community could have great impact. The key of course is infusing the groups with a mindset that gets them outside themselves (quite a challenge at times). I wonder how your embedded church idea would relate to the theological conversation or missional hermeneutic we have been referring to? Could these things happen in a small group/house church strategy that is in the community? What other ways could this conversation be missional and embedded and what would it look like?

In London we have decided to get a regular meeting going in a pub as a place for all sorts of conversations. We’re calling it simply ‘Public Theology’ - talking about God in a public house - a bit like Holy Joes but with a different ethos. The hope is that we will be able to involve believers and non-believers in the conversations.

A missional, conversational hermeneutic

I’ve been looking for a hermeneutic for some months now. About a year ago, I read a book by a respected leader in the denomination I came from, and he contrasted the “new hermeneutic” to the standard Church of Christ hermeneutic (not International, Disciples, or Christian church, another one). To summarize the hermeneutic I was taught: -We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent. The problem, of course, is that the Bible leaves way to much to be silent about, so we don’t really follow the second part of this one. -In the NT, we are to follow direct commands, necessary inferences, and apostolic examples. The problems, of course, are many: -We follow some apostolic examples, but not all (e.g. baptism but not anointing with oil) -People may disagree on what constitutes a necessary inference -Direct commands may not have been made for us, and may have been intended for a specific context only, the story having been recorded for us only as an illustration of church life.

In short, this hermeneutic is useless in addressing the actual text of scripture, and is more useful for defending beliefs against change and outside influence. If a different interpretation is presented, it can be refuted by quoting the hermeneutic catch-phrases above. So, it is not really a hermeneutic at all.

It occurs to me that this discussion is like a parallel discussion my science classes are having: how can we define life so that plants, animals, and microbes are considered alive according to hard and fast rules, but rocks, stars, rivers, and robots are not? I think Andrew has hit upon the problem earlier in mentioning that we have erred not in making the wrong definitions but in trying to define in the first place.

I would like to assert that hermeneutics is not an endeavor that can be done and considered finished. Rather, it is an ongoing process that must be carried out in community. The only reason to carry out hermeneutics privately, by elite committee, is to exclude certain people from the process and decide who is orthodox and who is not. Once it has been decided that a particular viewpoint is orthodox and another is not, and the issue is considered closed (e.g. the Arian controversy), we lose any critical engagement in and dialogue with the text that we may have had. If we just accept as dogma that Athanasius was right and Arius was wrong, and teach others the same, we will fail to search the depths of scripture for the seeds of truth in both sides that are to be found.

So, with you all, I am not interested in a defining hermeneutics, that will enable us once for all to decide what is true and correct, and what is wrong. This was an Enlightenment project, and it has failed; all that resulted was denominational divisions, which, thankfully, seem to be breaking down now that we realize the arrogance of claiming perfection for our own hermeneutic and its theological results.

What I am interested in is in learning HOW to do hermeneutics as the Body of Christ. How can we be engaged seriously and constantly and personally in the text, to see how it speaks to our individul lives and our life together as the church?

First, we can acknowledge the value of traditional interpretations, for we are in community with the whole church throughout history, not just those in our local fellowship at the current time. It will be helpful to understand why different parts of the church have believed what they did at various points in history.

Second, we can teach by asking questions rather than providing bullet-point answers. This is good pedagogy as well as good hermeneutics. The very act of getting the whole church involved in interpreting and applying scripture will be a tremendous learning and growing experience, far more powerful than a series of sermons or delivered lessons. We need to develop ways to do this corporately, and not just in small groups. The know-how for this exists in the education world; teachers are led in critical engagement with a text by trained facilitators…

Quote: “I wonder how much of a difference it would make to how we think and speak about truth if we were to conduct this debate in public, in dialogue with non-believers, exposed to public scrutiny. What would a ‘missional’ hermeneutic look like?”

Do you really?

Here is a suggestion— surf over to www.eblaforum.org and respond to the un-answered post in “Theology and Philosophy of Religion.”

The person asks, “As far as I can tell, the Bible depicts God as an entity with ever-shifting feelings and knowledge. I’m wondering where the omni God concept comes from, and why anyone should think the Bible supports it.”

You might wonder, “Why doesn’t Ingalls do it?” The answer is that I prayed about it, and I believe God wants someone else to respond this time.

Grace and Peace through our Lord, Jesus Christ! O#8-D M.

Faith is not a euphemism for positive thinking.