I teach fairly often for the masters' program at IWU. Most of our current students are 1) people in ministry who 2) would not normally get seminary training. I believe the students in these classes are very representative of the preachers in America. Some are excellent; most are, as I've said, very representative.
I have been trying to put my finger on the key "missing pieces" in the Bible use of the average student I come across. I just turned in the grades for an online class today, so some of these are fresh on my mind. I have identified in my mind four key "missing pieces," each of which (why didn't I think of it before) corresponds with what I identify as the key skills of the hermeneutical process:
1. Corresponding to a "missing piece" in observation, pastors regularly read the biblical text not in terms of what it is actually saying but in terms of their own theology.
This is not necessarily bad in itself. The problem is not so much in the theological reading of Scripture but the failure to see the difference between that reading and the inductive observation of the text.
For example, one assignment in this recent online course was to identify the "key point" of Genesis 3. Almost everyone put "the fall of humanity." Now if by "fall of humanity" you mean the fact that Adam and his descendents no longer live in the Garden of Eden and do not live forever, that men have to work the soil for food, that women undergo painful childbirths and are subject to their husbands, that snakes do not walk and are the enemy of humans, if these things are what you mean by "fall," then okay.
However, this passage is very instructive in assumptions as well. For example, from an inductive standpoint, listening to the text of Genesis 3 alone, Satan is not mentioned and the snake is not equated with him. There is no mention of a sin nature or of the corruption of the creation in general.
Sin is not mentioned, nor disobedience nor condemnation. You will find no doctrine of universal sinfulness inductively in Genesis 3. These are all theological overlays first from Paul in Romans and Corinthians and then secondly by St. Augustine.
So from an inductive standpoint, we probably would not identify the Fall as a primary purpose of Genesis 3. But from a Christian theological standpoint, we probably would.
The first missing piece is the need for pastors to be able read the text for what it actually says rather than in terms of their own theological presuppositions.
2. Corresponding to a missing piece in interpretation, pastors regularly try to answers questions in the biblical text that the text itself is not trying to answer.
For example, no biblical text is addressing the question of abortion. From the standpoint of intepretation, we cannot ask this question of the biblical text. We can ask related questions that we then use to construct an answer to our question--when do the biblical texts seem to presuppose human life begins, etc...
The second missing piece is the need for pastors to be able to distinguish between our questions and questions that the biblical text itself was addressing.
3. Corresponding to a missing piece in integration, pastors regularly jump straight from a "pet passage" to today without taking seriously passages that stand in tension with the conclusion they wish to preach.
The biblical texts are very diverse in context and message. There is a tendency to flatten this diversity out in favor of our own positions and traditions. At the Wesleyan General Conference, for example, one pastor argued against buying and selling on the Lord's Day from Nehemiah. Another wanted to leave the question open because of Romans 14. A third missing piece is the need to be able to weigh Scripture against Scripture with the necessary sophistication given the diversity of biblical texts.
4. Finally, corresponding to a missing piece in appropriation, pastors regularly jump from "that time" to "this time" without any consistency. Without reflection, some passages are consigned to "that time" while others are directly applied to today. This is done without any developed theology of why one tact is taken with one topic and another with another.
The final missing piece is thus the need to be more aware of the forces that work on us behind the scenes in making these sorts of decisions.
All of this amounts to owning up to the charade of thinking we are just following the Bible alone. If anything, dare I say, the Bible probably plays the smallest role of all in what gets preached from the average pulpit in America each Sunday...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Dr. Schenck,
This is one of the best pieces I've seen on this. It really speaks to the problems that most pastors have in dealing with Scripture. And, if I may say so, I don't think that these problems are necessarily solved with any degree in theology, but only with the awareness of that "I" am an interpreter and the role this plays in the way that reading takes place.
Ken, it seems that being inductive means approaching the text as authoratative, first and foremost. The problem I think is maintaining "biblical authority" while using reason's "understanding", means that the "I" still "submits" to a tradition's text, which is affirming tradition's "role" or function...which is???? (the "need" for an authoratative stance via Church interpretation for "moral behavior" in a diverse and pluralistic "context"? And this argument gets into the "justice" and "power" debate, in regards to individual and community).
I am not being pendantic, but I see two problems with this approach,
1.)reading only within the text (inductively) assumes a "universal" when it is only traditional (perhaps this is what you are "standing against" in anachrostic readings, and theologizing beforehand.)
2.)reading, as Nathan has pointed out, is "contextually bound" within our own individual frameworks...(the disciplines we "use" to understand the text, in studying it...not to mention the "reader-response" rendition of approaching the text.)
Does this mean that there is not value in doing work in hermenuetics? No, but, understanding our own bias (discipline) in approaching the text and then taking a broader view by interdisciplinary discourse/learning from one another's academic discipline....
This is the WHOLE of the discourse in the Science/Religion debate....Science, being the determinor of "truth" universal...that being the disciplines in academia...
Nathan, you graduated far too long ago still to be calling me Dr. Schenck. In blogland, I'm Dufus to all :-) (or Ken is fine as well).
Angie, I would actually say that an inductive approach makes no assumptions whatsoever with regard to the authority of the text. You read the text in terms of what it says and claims to be in context.
It is what is commonly called theological interpretation that presupposes certain things about the text.
By the way, I continue to smile when I read your posts. They make me think of Heidegger or Hegel--it takes me great effort to penetrate your thoughts! It seems to me they presuppose so many connections that are not made explicit...
Ken I would be curious to hear your take on what type of effect--if any--the "demand of the lay people" has on such sloppy approaches to reading and interpreting scripture. It seems to me that most pastors don't really have the time or simply don't put in the time to read inductively because the congregation is concerned with things like the following:
1. What can I learn from this passage about God
2. How does this passage point to Jesus
3. What I should do practically because of this text
And then, of course, all of this is to be wrapped up in a nice, neat three-point sermon on sunday morning. It seems to me that this is the acceptable paradigm of "how we do/should understand scripture" as far as lay people are concerned, and if that is the case then that type of expectation needs to change. So, is it the way pastor's present scripture that leads to this type of thinking or is scripture presented that way because it is the most effective for the lay people? Or both? :)
If the problem lies with pastors then I guess we should expect the lay people to follow suit in their understanding. However, if the pastors' methods are stemmed in the needs/wants of the lay people, then it appears we need more professors teaching sunday school classes on inductive bible study.
If this question is hefty enough to warrant a thesis or dissertation a simple "maybe" would probably suffice. :D
I'm sorry if I came off sounding like sloppiness is my issue. I tried to word it in terms of what is missing rather than what has gone astray. These are paradigmatic issues as much as anything.
And our pastors serve our laypeople well--our laypeople look at the Bible in much the same way, but usually without as much knowledge of the Bible content and less in touch with their own traditions.
No, I think "sloppiness" was just the wrong word to use on my part.
In your opinion, is the Science/Religion debate one of a dichotomy? Or is it imperative to integrate "our knowledge" into our understanding of Scripture? It seems that you are saying that we can understand the text without any presuppositions...When we read it critically, which we should do, then, we recognize areas that are "suspect" to re-interpretation (like flesh/spirit). But, if we read the text with "faith", then, we approach the text, as if it is "speaking' in the present. But, this is not a critical approach, which I find troubling. Why? because we read into the text without realizing our bias...and that leads to all kinds of trouble. I find that Scripture is only useful if one's world-view is an ancient one, where God controls history and chooses "special people". Salvation is understood as a supernatural deliverance from enemies or a promise of future redemption. This is pie in the sky, when the political scene can be changed. Passivity (accepting "God's will") is not political activism.
Excellent piece in your continuing thinking about the “end use” of the Bible in a local church. Thanks!
As for me…here’s my take:
1. I prefer that preachers do a theological interpretation of Scripture than a purely inside-the-text literary one. [i.e. How do we know what the Bible says and means? The church tells us so.] However, I would hope this would be done knowingly as a “confessed approach.” The need (for your discipline) is to “be able read the text for what it actually says rather than in terms of their own theological presuppositions” however, for me, to move beyond a Bible scholar to a “Christian” preacher one must (eventually) escape the text and original setting (and the literary approach to Scripture) and preach the theological meaning of the text according to the Rule of Faith. Do you disagree with this?
2. I admit that “pastors regularly try to answers questions in the biblical text that the text itself is not trying to answer” but I think they should answer these questions for “this present age.” Is abortion right or wrong? Is gambling Ok or not? Is drinking alcohol or smoking a cigar or watching soft porn OK? How should we respond to immigration, or CreationCare or the rights of women? Is divorce or homosexual marriage wrong or acceptable? These are questions that a pastor must ask and try to answer. While the Bible may not address all of them “in the text” the Bible is still the playing field on which these discussions occur. A literary approach that locks up the discussion to a single book or a single paragraph of Scripture that does not help preachers find a whole-Bible approach to these pressing questions may be great inductive Bible study, but it does not help pastors spiritually form a holy people in this present age. While these questions may not even have been on the mind of the Bible’s writers they are on the mind of the church, and we expect Bible study to aid us in answering them—which is one more argument in my opinion for a whole-Bible approach to study. It may be interesting for preachers to know the issues addressed in a first century church but it is more useful to know how to address the issues in a 21st century church and we hope the Bible has some guidance for that and where it doesn’t then we turn to theology, the Rule of Faith and practice” or perhaps when the Bible fails to help us we turn to Shawn Hannity Rush Limbaugh?
3. I fully admit that preachers too quickly “jump straight from a "pet passage" to today without taking seriously passages that stand in tension with the conclusion they wish to preach.” I applaud your attempt to hold preachers back in Bible times a bit longer. And, as mentioned above, they must learn form the “Bibleheads” the skill of “weighing Scripture against Scripture with the necessary sophistication given the diversity of biblical texts.” To do this, however, may question a solitary course in Hebrews or the gospel of Mark since a whole-bible sophisticated approach is what pastors need to develop for the questions they face. The tension is a good one—Preachers knowing they have a sermon deadline this Sunday morning and thus need to get to the 21st century, and the Bible scholar saying “not so fast Johnson.” I think you agree that the preacher must get beyond giving a “National Geographic sermon” on the first century and must eventually get to the “how shall we then live” question… --they feel the need to get there every Sunday. But I fully agree that we preachers need to develop this whole-Bible approach to get there (or at least use the “Rule of faith and practice” in interpretation of the narrow passage.)
4. As to preachers “jumping from ‘that time’ to ‘this time’ without consistency” I agree your charge is fair. We have been taught that the Bible is the basis of our stances… [we even use verses for every one of the Articles of Religion” in the Wesleyan Church]. And reformed writers constantly use parentheses for Scripture references peppered throughout their writings. I agree that “this is [often?] done without any developed theology of why one tact is taken with one topic and another with another.” You have pulled down the pants of our weakness in making positions out of one passage while we ignore others." Once again the whole-Bible approach (and ignorance of the Rule of Faith and practice?) is missing and theologians don’t always fill in the blanks because they give the short end to issues facing today’s church while delving deeply into the God-questions of the first 5 centuries. A consistent approach to ‘that time’ 'this time’ (and perhaps all time’?) is needed desperately and from what I see in the entire field of Biblical studies instead we dive deeply in one text of one book of the Bible and coming to today's world is rules out of order. Perhaps all this is beyond Biblical studies and theology too? Or a revised approach to bblical studies is in order?
Finally I think I agree with your bombshell conclusion—“the Bible probably plays the smallest role of all in what gets preached from the average pulpit in America each Sunday.” But I lay some of the blame this on the educational approach to the Bible we experienced. When many of us were finished with our course in “Corinthians” did we knew better how to pastor a first century church in Corinth than we do in preaching to a 21st century church in Michigan?
What am I missing here in my understanding? Is any of this on track or is it my practical theology bent rearing its head?
The conservative Protestant traditions use the text, just as the sacraments were used before the Reformation, by the Catholic Church. It is a social control issue for organizational structures and not necessarily the place (the text) to develop the individual. For the text has become the "product of the Church" and is useful for producing a "product", i.e. "the people of God"...according to what measure or standard...individuality is limited within these contexts...
Keith, as always I agree with your priorities. I would say that you are arguing for the need for a "second naivete" in our use of Scripture, a focus on what is actually important about Scripture--a living voice rather than a dead one, God's word to us rather than God's word to them.
I also agree that Bibleheads and Bible teaching in ministerial curricula are far too focused on skills and knowledge that has proportionally minute payoff in actual ministry (Greek, Hebrew, etc). Evangelical scholars are master voodoo artists who spend the vast majority of their time cooking in an ancient pot and then abrakadabra pull a contemporary point from the stew to the amazement of those looking on. How did they do that? I can't do that.
I hope no one will think that I am arguing for "more of the same" in the way we teach Bible. Years of the approach you critique have failed to "educate" most pastors out of their first naivete!!!
In my mind, this list actually can help shape future teaching. What if for most ministers in training (I assume there will always be pastors who want to lean more toward being Bible experts) we spent less time on the 1, 2, 3, do this, do that, draw this chart, do this word study.........
What if we allotted most of our "skills training" time to these key principles (and any others I haven't thought of)? Target the weak points with clarity rather than hope they get the basic points in the middle of so much confusing noise.
1. Make our Christian glasses explicit as something different from reading the books of the Bible in the flow of historical revelation (as when each book is inductively located in the flow of history).
2. See the distinction between our questions and the text's questions--affirming both as valid and the first as what they need to connect the Bible to.
3. Helping them see the need for the church as the tie breaker between the diversity of Scripture. This increases the need for us to dialog and work together to overcome our individual and traditional myopia.
4. Helping them see the rule of faith and the law of love as the underlying principles of all time and thus for connecting the biblical world with our world.
Alas, you've all heard me argue these things before.
I think you would agree with most of what I say here. I think the difference is that you are focused on what is out of sync in Bible teaching and at least in this post I'm focused on what is still missing from most preaching despite it. Would you agree?
It is deeply ironic to me that Bible teaching in so many contexts has hit these issues so hard with so much time in the curriculum... and yet has failed to convey even these most basic principles!!!
As a layman with only a little theological training and limited biblical scholarship let me respond from the pew.
1. I too favor a theological interpretation of scripture that is rooted in a whole bible approach. Lately, I have grown very weary of preachers who "proof-text" their way through a sermon giving little regard for context.
2. I favor the humble broad approach to scripture. I like it when my pastor tells use "this is what reformed people think about this passage, here is what Wesleyans think, this is what the Catholics think. Now, without taking anything away from our brothers and sisters in the Lord, here is what I think and why..."
3. I like to hear the original context. It helps me understand more about the people who were originally hearing this message. A little National Geographic is fine with me. But then I go with Keith: How shall we live? What does the sweep of scripture say about this particular issue? What does the tradition of the Church say? I don't think one person (either me or my pastor) has apprehended the meaning of the Word of God. I place more trust in the larger Church. Of course the problem here is that the church has changed over the centuries. What do we do when we are on the cusp of a change? How do we know we are sitting on the precipice of change?
4. Unfortunately, I agree with Ken : the "Bible probably plays the smallest role of all in what gets preached from the average pulpit in America each Sunday..." This may be because of training (I leave that to those designing a seminary to discuss) but it may also be related to Jonathon's comment. So much of American religion has become so highly politicized that there are significant demands placed on what preachers can and cannot talk about.
Am I wrong, or did the Wesleyan Church avoid a creation care statement largely because environmentalism is generally thought of as a political issue on the left?
My uncle's church in Michigan is embroiled in a huge controversy at present because a large church family believes that another family in the church should leave because they are not staunchly republican. This topic has even become the subject of debate on the church board. I realize that this is a separate issue, but it goes to Jonathon's case about pressure from the pew.
We are still human - flawed and frail.
In the end, I think this is where the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is so very strong. Scripture, tradition, reason and experience - pure genius! Someone needs to really flesh that out in a systematic way. (They probably already have, I am a theological neophyte.)
KEN.....I think you would agree with most of what I say here.
KEITH... I agree with all of it--well said!
KEN...I think the difference is that you are focused on what is out of sync in Bible teaching and at least in this post I'm focused on what is still missing from most preaching despite it. Would you agree?
KEITH... Well put... I think we are after the same outcomes... well put.
I think the ideas floating around here are really great! I'm glad to see them coming out more and more - especially from people designing a seminary curriculum.
Adding my two cents (it maybe just a pence) as a theologian, I think that much of what is said here is easier said than done. I think that what is being argued for here is a correlationalist approach to the Scriptures - doing good historical study of the Bible but realizing that the issues in contemporary society are not the same issues being addressed in Scripture. So, the question becomes how do we correlate the answers given in Scripture (or, I would say, the way that Scripture asks certain questions) with the way that we go about giving answers and asking questions? Here becomes the real rub. It means developing a "second naivete" (it's good to see some philosophical hermeneutics coming from a Bible guy:)) that allows for the ability to allow the text to open up a world wherein the pastor can lead the congregation. (If you can't tell, David Tracy and Paul Ricoeur have consumed me for much of the past few months).
Now, coming to the development of how one then teaches others to approach the material, it becomes necessary to show that Scripture is not about finding right answers, but living a certain way of life. Pierre Hadot has really shown that for ancient philosophers (and theologians), the goal of thinking was not to have the right answers, but to be virtuous people - see Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics or Plato's Socrates for examples. Augustine (and Wesley) saw this way of life as being built around love, love of God and love of neighbor. Anytime that Scriptural interpretation strayed from the idea of love, the interpretation and the interpreter had to be questioned because his teaching of the Christian way of life had been misconstrued.
I have much more to say on this - your post really jogged some stuff in my mind - but I'll stop here. No need to rewrite my dissertation here.
Love to read your dissertation when it's done, Nate. Ricoeur was meaningful to my dissertation too--although I have since realized that I had misunderstood him a little :-)
Here! here! Nate Crawford!!!
viz... " the goal of thinking [is]not to have the right answers, but to be virtuous people"
Well said!
(Please hurry and finish that dissertation--we need to read it this weekend)
Piggybacking on Jonathan's comments, the lay people generally like for these pieces to be missing, especially the one where we forget to put aside our theological biases. I'll never forget what Joe Dongell said on the first day of class in my Pauline Epistles class - Write down what you think it means and don't pretend it's not there. I also appreciate the things I learned at ATS about trying to make sure these pieces don't remain missing. When I tried to include these pieces, the folks in my last church did not like it. I am now pulpit-less.
>"For example, no biblical text is addressing the question of abortion."
FYI: The prohibition against abortion is found in The Didache. The Didache is a 1st Century scripture that was widely circulated and followed by the early Christian Church. The Christian doctrine that abortion is wrong stands on very sound historical and theological ground and has been the continuous teaching of Christ's Church from the earliest days. There should be no dispute ever.
Personally, I wish more Christians would take some time to read the wealth of scripture, commentaries, and Sunday school lessons penned by early Christians. Most, like the Didache, are short and are far more interesting to read than the latest bestseller at one's local religious bookstore.
God bless...
+Timothy
Thanks Timothy. I was aware of the comment in the Didache. In my opinion, it bolsters my point that it would have been possible for the New Testament to mention abortion--words existed to make such a comment.
I am not suggesting that the biblical writers approved of abortion, only that we often talk about the Bible as the basis for our convictions when in fact much more is actually going on beyond the Bible.
Post a Comment