Comments on: ‘Reading Scripture in Congregations: Towards an Ordinary Hermeneutics’

By: Mike McNichols

Mike McNichols — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:08:58 +0000

Also check out a new one by John W. Wright: Telling God’s Story (IVP). I’ve only looked at it briefly, but I met with John recently and think he might be a worthy addition to the conversation on narrative.

By: Andrew Rogers

Andrew Rogers — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:12:28 +0000

There are a number of such ‘big story’ books / courses. One I’ve heard of is a workbook by the Good Book Company called Bible Overview. The reason we went for The Drama of Scripture was partly because of all the free downloadable resources (worksheets, ppt presentations, articles) which match chapters in the book - on the website mentioned. You need to assess which is right for your church.

By: Chris E

Chris E — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:54:29 +0000

Adrian –

I’ve been trying to get my church to do something similiar - albeit using the Vaughan Roberts book “Tracing God’s Big Picture’. Is there reasons you’d recommend one over the other ?

–
chris

By: Mike McNichols

Mike McNichols — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 02:37:04 +0000

I am with you, Andrew. A movement from certainty does not necessarily require an embracing of relativism. Relativism says that truth changes and is dependent upon circumstances and preference. Perhaps our certitude (a great distinction by Ramm) rests, then, not in our firm and objective grasp of the text but rather in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Certitude in the veracity of the biblical narrative draws us into communal dialogue and then we are summoned by the Spirit to live, act and respond missionally.

By: heather lee

heather lee — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:26:47 +0000

The Newspeak for Rule of Faith is story. A good preacher knows the story of the congregation and uses the sermon to remind or teach or correct that story.

My method of sermon prep includes a bible study (i am partial to lectio divina of some sort) about the upcoming Sunday’s scripture. People who are at least ready for a bible study seem to get a lot more out of sermons, perhaps because they see themselves in the story(i.e. the ‘i said that’ phenomenon). My favorite result, however, was how frequently the sermon was the topic of conversation at coffee hour, and I wasn’t in the conversation.

By: Andrew Rogers

Andrew Rogers — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:14:39 +0000

Thanks for your comments Rupert. I agree with you that hermeneutical ‘working out’ needs to be more visible in the church – for integrity in our engagement with scripture. Sermons may not be the place for the most explicit hermeneutical discussion, but allowing key guidelines to emerge is important – it is a bit of a balancing act. So last Sunday I included some brief comments about a historical approach to Revelation 1-3, in contrast to other allegorical approaches. However, in another sermon on Leviticus 25 I put in quite a lot of hermeneutics-talk regarding moving from the concept of Jubilee in the OT to the present, which in retrospect was probably too much to hold interest.

In congregational meetings I think there is a place for an occasional special focus on hermeneutics – perhaps something like Bible Sunday in the UK (from the Bible Society) who this year are looking at ‘Going Large’ – the Big Story of scripture. And the church I studied in the book had one sermon during the fieldwork detailing an explicit Christological hermeneutics, based on Matthew 5:17f.

But if hermeneutics in the church is an apprenticeship in reading scripture wisely, then hermeneutics is a co-operative exercise. So housegroups and bible studies can be places for more explicit hermeneutical discussion. With this in mind, we had a study day for housegroup leaders on ‘The Drama of Scripture’ which was essentially hermeneutical teaching (see http://www.biblicaltheology.ca). I think this Big Story approach can be one of the most useful frameworks to communicate – and the narrative form is shared by the Rule of Faith and the Apostles’ Creed.

By: Rupert Ward

Rupert Ward — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:59:53 +0000

Yes I agree … but i think that is harder than actually explaining or teaching the scriptures…
It seems, often, people want the food prepared for them, rather than willing to the work themselves…

By: Andrew Rogers

Andrew Rogers — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 09:28:35 +0000

In the book I talk about the ‘relative indeterminacy’ of hermeneutics – in other words, hermeneutical method is no guarantee of different interpreters arriving at the same results. In recognising that the ‘horizon’ or tradition of an interpreter contributes to text understanding, however, I want to avoid falling into the pit of relativism. Resonant with Polanyi’s thought is a critical realist approach, which recognises the provisional nature of knowing, yet emphasises a ‘spiralling’ dialogue between the knower and the thing known – as Tom Wright puts it (good material on Wright’s position at opensourcetheology.net). Another interesting aspect of critical realism is the idea of alethic truth – when knowledge of something is considered to be virtually settled. Not that it could never be overturned, but it marks ‘due diligence’ in terms of justifying a particular interpretation. Similar idea that I have only just come across is from Bernard Ramm who makes a distinction between ‘certainty’ and ‘certitude’ – rejecting the former term, but proposing the latter as a proper form of biblical confidence.

I mention this because of your comments about humility, tension and ambiguity. The ‘but’ for me is that the provisionality of our knowing can be overemphasised. Interpretative choices in the life of the church can (or should!) carry a lot of weight, affecting church practice and members’ lifestyle. How loosely can we hold our interpretations of scripture that inform our doctrine that shape our lives? How minimal can our alethic truths be? Perhaps this is where the Rule of Faith comes in…

By: Jason Reid

Jason Reid — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:35:47 +0000

Good post Rupert. Isn’t ‘getting the hermeneutic’ part of the gift of the preacher (in an Eph 4 styly)?

By: Rupert Ward

Rupert Ward — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:27:40 +0000

I really agree Andrew. It took me 4 years of theological training to finally get the idea that we don’t come to the text objectively. I was very resistant to the idea, and I have found that people in the congregation sometimes are equally resistant. There is is desire to know what the text means, but not how we got to that interpretation!

So I believe it is my responsibility as a preacher to bring the hidden work of hermeneutics into the public domain, if only to prepare people for the day when they aren’t satisfied with the answers (sometimes trite) given from the pulpit. But this is, I think, harder to do than teaching the scriptures…

I once met up with a friend who i had lost touch with for a few years, and he had been through a period of questioning about faith, and especially the Bible. When i told him how i understand scripture and some of the principles i use for interpretation his response was: “why didn’t you tell me this years ago?”

“Because you wouldn’t have heard it, you weren’t in the place to. And i would have probably alienated you.” I replied.

There is our dilemma…

Any thoughts on how to gently help people see the underwear and not be offended?