Thoughts on Emerging Biblical Interpretation

Contrary to the claims of critics, those involved in the EC conversation do lean heavily on the Bible. But perhaps we do so differently than our predecessors (specifically our modern, mainline and evangelical forerunners). How is the Bible used and understood differently by you and others within the conversation? This is the question I posed to the particiapants in our local Central Oregon Emergent Co-hort. After a couple of responses I entered the fray to express a few of my own ideas. They are as follows:

1.) Even when we’re confident in our own perspective on biblical interpretation, I think it’s important that we in the EC set an example by not making strong pronouncements about what the Bible does or doesn’t teach- especially on what one might call secondary issues. With our postmodern lens we realize that not only does the Bible have its own cultural, political, literary, genre-specific issues to disentangle, but so too do we- the interpreters. So that should give us pause when we make our biblical pronouncements.

2.) One of the biggest misconceptions I see when looking at say, evangelical interpretations of the Bible, is this one-size-fits-all approach. The Bible may be one canonical work now (to us), but it is made up of numerous composite parts. And when reading and striving to understand each composite part we must pay attention to genre. If one begins without taking genre into account, one is already likely far off base in regards to the original author’s intended meaning.

For instance, the book of Revelation is written in the genre of Jewish Apocalyptic- a particular literary form that was only around, in that particular form, for a few centuries just before and after the time of Christ. Coded messages were necessary in an environment of intense religious persecution. When you don’t see this book in its correct genre, you end up with the strange interpretations the “Left Behind” series has *blessed* us with.

Of course, I have complaints about some mainline interpretations of the Bible as well. While evangelicals sometimes try and treat the Bible (mistakenly) as if it is an answer book or a science textbook, mainliners often go the completely opposite direction, drawing only the most vague, generalized meanings from the text. I understand the hesitance in getting too specific, but much of this arm’s length hesitance comes from modern assumptions that proclaimed that much of what the Bible recounts- “just couldn’t have happened that way”.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the OT or NT authors understood historicity just like we do (that would be an anachronism on my part), but I am saying that some events- in both testaments- are rejected outright (in terms of historicity) by mainliners, merely because they offend the assumptions of the modernistic mindset.

The Marcus Borgs and Jesus Seminars of the world claim that none of the “supernatural” events recorded in Scripture can be accurate, simply because they have no place in their logical positivistic grid. You know, people don’t raise up from the dead and all than jazz. The thing is, its not like first-century folks didn’t already understand that such events stretched the bounds of reasonability- even according to their paradigm.

So, with these incidents, I don’t see it as a worldview issue. Also, I think much more effort is required to try and explain away these "supernatural" events as later church additions/editions- as the Jesus Seminar and the Borgs of the world would have us do, than to take them at face value. In other words, on the issue of creative history, I think its the logical positivist theologians who should be under the microscope, not the NT authors.

And by the way, it seems to me that this historical hesitance often leads mainliners to keep other aspects of the Bible at arm’s length as well. Of course, I'm speaking in generalities here. Certainly not all mainliners are guilty of this kind of arm's-length, PC-inspired, hermeneutical approach.

It might sound like I'm coming down hard on the mainliners here. But believe me, I've spent plenty of time and energy filling cybersapce with concerns about evangelical misapplications and misreadings of the Bible. At the end of the day, I see both camps as having problems that need to be addressed.

So, I think you can see why I posed the original question like I did. The way I see it, many of us involved in the EC conversation are striving for a third biblical interpretive grid, that moves beyond assumptions made in both evangelical and mainline camps.

Bringing Tradition Down to Earth: Further Thoughts on Viola and Barna's Pagan Christianity?

How often have you stood amongst the faithful on a Sunday morning, at your typical Sunday church service, and thought to yourself: “Why exactly do we always do the same things? In exactly the same way? And where do these repetitive forms come from anyway?”

With that question comes the sense that it all seems so contrived. Not only contrived, but perhaps even manipulative.

Man. Movement. Monument. This is the way John Wimber, founder of the Vineyard, used to describe the typical trend in the formation and institutionalization of a Christian religious stream. It usually begins with one charismatic, magnetic individual following a sincere call from God. It then becomes a movement as others join the mission of the initial catalyst. And then, usually a generation or so later, it becomes a monument that sets up rules and regulations to protect and crystallize the movement’s “glory days”.

Of course, at issue is whether or not those initial days were meant as an expression for that time specifically. Maybe today needs a fresh vision? Perhaps many of the original founders of such movements would frown on the fact that what felt like a spontaneous response to call for them, had turned into another stream of organized, institutionalized Christian religion. Perhaps that’s what these founders were moving against in the first place. Oh, irony of ironies.

Frank Viola and George Barna have released an excellent book that deals with the issue of where these forms come from. The book’s title: Pagan Christianity?, gives away the premise- being the fact that many of our contemporary forms are actually derived from Graeco-Roman sources, not from early church as attested to in the New Testament.

I’ve written a review of the book here. As I allude to in the review, this book is not only a helpful resource, but it is timely. As we go about the process of reimagining Christian commuity in a postmodern, 21st century milleu, we would do well to pay attention to how our previous forms have come about. And beyond the specifics of the origins of the forms themselves, is a very telling account of human nature. Read the book and you’ll understand what I’m talking about.

For a book shy of 300 pages, Pagan Christianity? is very comprehensive in its examination of our present and historical church practices. Curious as to where a contemporary form derives from? There’s a very good chance this book will address it. Here are just a few of the forms/practices the book addresses:

*the origin of church buildings (dating to the time and initiative of Emperor Constantine).

*the emphasis of the pulpit in the order of worship (dating to the initiative of Martin Luther in 1523).

*the salaried clergyperson (originating with the declarations of Emperor Constantine, who gave priests the same authority and monetary compensation as Roman officials. Speaking of authority, bishops, believe it or not, were given more power than Roman governors).
 
*the contemporary Christian sermon (inspired by the orations of Greek sophists, who aimed for mastery in the art of rhetoric).

*clergy ordination, as seen primarily in Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant mainline circles, (an adaptation of the Roman custom of appointing men to civil office. The elevating of clergy as “holy men of God” was initiated by Augustine, Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom.)

Each of these points (as well as many more) is dealt with both in the body of the book, as well as in a short “summary of origins” section. Again, this is a wonderful resource. Like I say in my review of Pagan Christianity?, while I may draw some different conclusions than the authors as to what this all means, I applaud and welcome their effort to shed light on the origins of our religious reality.



Defining Personal Emergence: What Does "Emergent" Mean to You?

Labels have a tendency to stick once they land. Why? Well, because, as human beings, we like to categorize life in order to make it easier to comprehend. And, for that reason, labels and the categories they refer to are helpful. Life would be a discombobulated blur without them.

That being said, labels also have a tendency to make rigid aspects of reality that are often, in reality, much more fluid. I guess you could say that a label is like a metaphor- it works, but only to a certain degree. I wish that those who would like to toss everyone into the “liberal” or “conservative” categories would take heed of this point. As I’ve said before, being a follower of Jesus, I probably fit both these categories- depending on which question you asking. And sometimes, my perspective doesn’t easily fall into either one!

Now, speaking of labels, “emergent” is one we use an awful lot around here. Why? Well, because it fits- more or less. But, being a label referring to a phenomena borne out of postmodernism its not surprising that this label is perhaps, more fluid than most. That is to say, what defines “emergence” for one person, doesn’t necessarily apply for someone else. This is still a pretty broad conversation with voices from across the spectrum.

We recently started a discussion around these issues in our local, Central Oregon Emergent Co-hort group. The first question we asked our virtual round-table was: “What does Emergent mean to you?” These are the points I made:

1.) Marked by a desire to move beyond both mainline and evangelical models of faith and practice that both seem to be, above all else, a response to purely modern categories and modern questions.

2.) Being postmodernly informed- i.e.- being aware of the bankruptcy of some modern ideas of reality.

3.) Along similar lines, being willing to embrace questions that don't necessarily have clear-cut answers.

4.) Embracing the numinous nature of God- i.e. His transcendence, His mystery.

5.) Seeking to rescue the words of Jesus from a dualistic understanding of God's Kingdom. And this rescue mission comes as a result of an exploration of biblical studies, culture, etc, that suggest we have often heard the words of Jesus through platonic filters.

6.) Seeking to be brotherly with people who don't necessarily see everything the way we do- and not assuming they are bound for eternal punishment or the general disapproval of God as a result.

7.) Working from a hermeneutical understanding (via postmodernism) that we all bring colored perspectives to our understanding of the Bible. And that culture has a role to play in our conceptions of faith. Furthermore, that cultural filtering also existed for the biblical authors- and we need to uncover some of those cultural norms to better understand the text.

8.) Seeing that the good news is meant to be a blessing to all.

9.) Working from the perspective that Jesus called us to further the reconciliatory revolution he began, rather than simply ducking and taking cover until the second coming.

10.) Embracing various streams of Christian faith from across time and cultures and recognizing that no one group has the final word on what it means to be a Christian.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Just the ideas percolating near my cerebral surface. So, what does it mean to you to be emerging/emergent?

When A Word is NOT Just a Word: Thoughts on Context and the Inclusivism/Exclusivism Debate

Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed is doing a great favor to evangelicalism by delving into the teachings of Irenaeus. The topic being addressed: “Can we believe a God of mercy and love would not leave a witness to his saving graces to all?” I say Scot is doing a great favor because, unfortunately, many (*read: most*) evangelicals have never even heard of Irenaeus - or a host of other Church Fathers for that matter.  Which is of course highly bizarre and counter-intuitive for a movement (evangelicalism) that claims to value staying true to historical Christianity.

One of Scot's readers made an interesting point. She pointed out (biblical references in hand) that one can find two seemingly contradictory teachings about the afterlife in Scripture. Or more specifically, two differing views on the inclusivism/exclusivism debate (i.e. who’s in who’s out). To which I say, true enough. An inclusivist and more exclusivist position can both be defended “biblically”. To some, such a revelation is troubling. But this is only a problem- it seems to me – for he/she who begins with the assumption that the Bible is a linear answer-book.

But what if it is God's intention that we learn to wrestle and discern, and thus evolve (loaded word I know!) by encountering these various conceptions of God in Scripture. Is this process in itself not the sanctifying of our thoughts? Guided by the Spirit of God?

I certainly don't hold to a fundamentalist-style view of biblical inerrancy. Mainly because I don't believe such a view is - irony of ironies - "biblical", let alone reasonable. It seems strange and highly inconsistent to hold to a view of the Bible that goes beyond what the Bible says of itself. And this fundamentalist view certainly isn't in line with historical conceptions of “inspiration” and “authority” attested to by the Church Fathers.  

Speaking of which, I personally would like to see this topic addressed more by evangelical scholars. How do contemporary conceptions of inspiration and authority differ from those of the early Church? It seems to me that while similar terms might apply- then and now, the information encapsulated in these terms is quite different- then and now.

I would argue that, for we EC folk, a reading of the Church Fathers is an essential task. Why? Well, because we, being postmodernly sensitized, should already be aware that meaning is determined by context. And thus an immersion in that world (of the Fathers) is essential in order to get at the worldview that determined early Christian conceptions.

Because, in reality, a term is only as meaningful and representational as the information it encapsulates and symbolizes.

Precipice and the EC Conversation: Breaking New Ground in 2008

So… 2008 is upon us. As always I feel a fresh sense of expectation as this new year begins. Sure, January 1st is an arbitrary marker- but it still works for me. As human beings we need these rites of passage to help us navigate through life. In fact, if anything, our culture is seriously lacking these rites of passages. I’m talking about the ones demarcating different seasons in a life.

Ah, but I digress… So, 2008 for Precipice should be an interesting year. I say that because I think 2008 is going to be an interesting year for the emerging church conversation. Will this be the year that dialog moves more directly into new incarnation? I think so. By that I mean local conversations will form into more and more local experiments in Christian community. And, I think, this process will necessitate the forming of several identities within the larger conversation. I think the challenge will be: how do we form local communities with coherent identities while still remaining engaged in the larger, less-defined conversation?

On a note specific to Precipice, I think I will make a small editorial shift this year. Up until now I’ve published full length articles as individual pieces, and then used this “current” section for smaller editorial comments on issues relevant to postmodern Christianity and emerging culture. This year I think I will add posts of a more personal nature in this “current” section as well. In that sense, I suppose this section will take on more of the form of a blog.

So, while on that topic, I thought I’d give Precipice readers a bit more of a glimpse into the life of myself and my family. We four Kings (myself, my wife, Serena, and our two children, Autumn and Ezra) currently reside in the fantastical wonderland location of Central Oregon, USA. Serena and I run our own website and web template design company. You can see some of the pre-formatted templates we create at Christian Templates Online.

My current involvement in the emerging church conversation is two-fold. First and foremost is my writing for Precipice. Secondly, I am in dialog and relationship with a group of people here in Central Oregon, trying to navigate an emerging future that fuses together evangelical and mainline histories. That is to say, this group is made up of people from both backgrounds.

This post-evangelical/post-mainline fusion has been an interesting (and at times- perplexing) journey. Even after years of EC dialog, I still find there are some very different positions and assumptions these two groups (post-mainliners and post-evangelicals) bring to the table. I guess old ways die hard. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. Its just human nature I suppose. By the way, in case you’re wondering, my particular background is of the evangelical variety- specifically the Vineyard.

So anyway, here’s to a constructive, fruitful conversation in ’08. May it see the birthing of a plentitude of new communities of faith seeking to form values around the life and teachings of Jesus. That is to say, let’s hope and pray we grow new communities that further the causes of Jesus, as well as Jesus himself. Strangely enough - in the past - the evangelicals offered Jesus and the mainliners offered the causes of Jesus - with very little cross-over between the two. That may be an over-simplification. But I think there is much truth to this depiction of the two groups. Now its time to chart a course to higher ground- where this false dichotomy ceases to exist.

Current from: December 2007 - November 2007 - October 2007 - September 2007 - August 2007 - July 2007 - June 2007 - May 2007 - March-April 2007 - January-February 2007 - November-December 2006 - July-October 2006 - May/June 2006 - April 2006 - March 2006 - February 2006 - January 2006 - December 2005 - Christmas Current 2005 - November 2005 - October 2005 - September 2005