Engaging the Bible in Mission Theology Scholarship: A Biblical Theology of Mission or a Missional Biblical Theology? 3. Towards a hermeneutic for missional Biblical theology
Engaging the Bible in Mission
Theology Scholarship: A Biblical Theology of Mission or a Missional Biblical
Theology? 3. Towards a hermeneutic for missional
Biblical theology
Hermeneutics has to do with how
one approaches interpretation in the various tasks of theology. In this posting, I would like to present in
outline form how I believe we should approach a hermeneutic for missional
Biblical theology. While my proposal
will actually offer a perspective on hermeneutics beyond the task of Biblical
theology itself, this is necessary if we intend to relate mission theology and
practice to Biblical theology. While
this may read somewhat theoretically, it is intended to guide the practice of
interpretation for missional Biblical theology.
The Four Tasks of Theology
A fairly standard way to consider
the tasks of theology is to see them in terms of two tasks of Biblical interpretation
and two tasks of construction. I suggest
labelling these tasks as follows:[1]
1. the exegetical task, which
interprets texts in their context to understand their original meaning to the
author/s and their original audience/s;
2. the canonical task, which
interprets the Scriptures in their unity and diversity to understand its theological
and authoritative voice for believers;
3. the convictional task, which
interprets the Christian faith according to its Biblical and historical
expressions in order to define beliefs for the Church in a given context;
4. the pragmatic task, which
interprets Christian life according to its Biblical and historical convictions
in order to guide the practice of the faith in a given context.
Rival Versions of Enquiry
These tasks can be approached in
one of three ways, which might overlap in terms of methodologies used but which
are fundamentally incommensurable:[2]
1. a Modernist, Enlightenment
way;
2. a postmodern, deconstructive
way;
3. a postmodern, tradition way.
While a full description of the
differences between these three approaches requires considerable discussion,
one might associate the first approach with the anti-supernatural, scientific,
encyclopaedic notions and methods of Western, Biblical scholarship from the end
of the 1700s to the present. The second
approach came into prominence towards the end of the 20th century
and shares some assumptions and methods of interpretation with what came
before. However, it’s orientation is not
construction but deconstruction. It
champions diversity, is tentative or even playful with the use of methods of
interpretation, finds the locus of meaning more with the interpreter than the
author or text, and views truth as itself a construct of a particular community
rather than as uniform and universal.
Finally, a postmodern, tradition approach shares much in common with
pre-Enlightenment interests in interpretation, yet it now conducts itself in a
postmodern world. It approaches
interpretation from the perspective of faith seeking further
understanding. It does not see reason as
autonomous; rather, it functions within the framework of pre-understandings,
convictions, and tradition. It denies
both objectivity (Modernism) and diversity (postmodernism), seeking rather to
teach and explore further the received tradition.
Interpreters are pre-disposed to
one of these rival versions of enquiry.
These versions of enquiry show up in each of the four tasks of
theology. Hermeneutics entails
recognizing one’s presuppositions in interpretation when engaged in the tasks
of theology.
The Exegetical Task
Biblical theology, the second
task of theology, is built upon solid exegetical work. The interpretation of texts involves (a) behind-the-text
studies, such as historical-cultural, grammatical, and literary research, (b)
in-the-text studies that explore meaning within the text and according to the
genre of the text, and (c) in-front-of-the-text awareness, such as the history
of the use of passages and what presuppositions interpreters have as they
engage in exegesis. Each of these three
angles for viewing texts involve hermeneutical matters, from exegetical method
to our understanding of meaning with respect to the author’s intention, the
text itself, and readers’ use of texts.
If we are to speak of Biblical authority, our methods of interpretation
need to work towards hearing the text in this exegetical task.
While this gives preference to
the original meaning of the author, we need to be aware of three things. (a) First, interpretation geared towards
describing the meaning of texts will be helped if we keep in mind that there
are different kinds of meaning: (1) the author’s original, intended meaning; (2) the implications of an author’s meaning that may or may not be spelled
out by the author or even apparent to the author; (3) the significance of the author’s meaning for the audience or
individuals in the initial context; and (4) further adaptation of the original meaning of a text (e.g., typology,
analogical reasoning, applications).[3]
One might, for example, examine
the meaning of Mt. 28.18-20 in terms of the grammar (what type of adverbial
participles are these?) and vocabulary (what is the meaning of ‘ethnoi’—nations, people groups?). One might further examine the implications of
the text theologically, such as by noting that Jesus as Emmanuel at the beginning
of the Gospel (Mt. 1.23) continues to be with his disciples to the end of the age
in this text. One might also examine
implications intertextually. In my view,
the primary text behind the Great Commission is Isaiah 66.18-23, a text that
also concludes a book of the Bible and focusses mission on the inclusion of the
Gentiles as part of the restoration of Israel from exile. One might further explore the significance of
this text for the disciples, and the final question is whether this can be
extended from being a word to the eleven surviving disciples to the Church in
general.
(b) Second, interpretation is
text-dependent. That is, for Scripture
to function authoritatively in the Church, interpretation must not be guided by
readers’ agendas.[4]
(c) Third, authority is
genre-dependent.[5] Some genres are ‘closed’ in the sense that
meaning is intended by authors to be restricted to what they intended to
say. Examples would be historical texts
and letters. Other genres are ‘open’ in
the sense that the authors intended to let readers/hearers into the process of
meaning formation. Examples would be
proverbs and poetry. The reader must
decide whether this proverbial saying or that one is applicable to a given
context. Poetry is better the more a
reader can locate his or her own significance in the poem’s words—the author’s
meaning is open to the reader’s discovery of significance without understanding
the original use of the poem. Thus
communication can explore an author’s meaning without imagining what was in his
or her head but in terms of ‘speech-acts,’ which are made up of:
(a) locution, what is actually
said,
(b) illocution, the action that
the words perform (e.g., urging, promising, testifying, commanding), and
(c) perlocution, the purpose of
the communication (e.g., to persuade, teach, correct)
The Canonical Task (or Biblical Theology)
Without advocating what is known
as canonical Biblical theology, the canon is the assumption and focus of the
second task of theology, or Biblical theology.
The canonical task presumes exegetical work and is a synthetic effort
that seeks to explore the unity and diversity of the Scriptures. It involves addressing hermeneutical issues
in Biblical theology, such as:
(a) the role or relation of
history to theology,
(b) the relation of events in
history to the interpretation of events,
(c) the nature of synthesis (historical
reconstruction, thematic syntheses, narrative synthesis, canonical shaping by
communities of faith and the final form of the canon, or dogmatic convictions
guiding the reading of Scripture),[6]
(d) the unity and diversity of and
nature of the relationship between individual texts, authors, communities
(e.g., Jewish Christian and Hellenistic Christian), the corpora (e.g.,
Pentateuch, Synoptic Gospels, Pauline epistles), and canons (Old Testament and
New Testament) of Scripture,
(e) the incorporation of the entire
canon in a Biblical theology (e.g., what do we do with the Wisdom literature in
the Old Testament and the smaller General epistles in the New Testament),
(f) the possibility of change (e.g.,
food laws, circumcision) and development (e.g., doctrine of the resurrection) in
Scripture, and
(g) the continuing significance
and authority of theology and practices in Scripture for the Church today
(e.g., Old Testament cultic practices and New Testament regulations regarding
hair and dress).
The Convictional Task
This task is not to be identified
as necessarily a systematic theological or dogmatic task. Some will want to conceive of it in that way,[7]
but this is one choice among others.
Both a missional and a Biblical theological interest will naturally be
wary of any theological task that is conceived as contextless ideas that are
systematically related to one another around a central dogma. Both mission scholars and Biblical scholars
emphasise the importance of understanding and appreciating the context of
thought and practice.
The convictional task explores
how convictions have been and are developed or maintained. Hermeneutically, this task involves questions
of authority, the nature of doctrine, the use of Scripture and tradition, and historical
theology.
Authority and Convictions
Often, authority is discussed in
terms of the three legged stool of authorities for Anglicans or the Wesleyan
Quadrilateral, which differ only in whether the fourth item is included or not:
Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.
A Protestant approach to this ought to emphasise the primacy of
Scripture over other authorities, but this is clearly no longer the case in
practice in mainline denominations of Protestantism today.
Originally in Anglicanism, reason
was understood as functioning within a given tradition, which in turn was seen
as submitted to Scripture’s authority.[8] These were not three equal legs to a
stool! Today, postmodern interpreters,
whether deconstructive or tradition interpreters, would insist over against
modernist scholars that there is no such thing as independent reason. Moreover, science is really ‘reasoned
experience;’ it is the articulation of a theory based upon observation. Yet ‘experience’
might also be understood in terms of how one’s experience affects one’s
perspectives. A Western Evangelical may
be convinced of Cessationism (the teaching that miracles have ceased after the
apostolic era or, in some versions, where the Church is no longer encountering
cultures for the first time), whereas a third generation African Christian may
regularly encounter spiritual forces and God’s working of signs and
wonders. Their contexts may lead them to
interpret the Biblical text differently.
Thus, neither reason nor experience are absolute, and they might rightly
be spoken of as authoritative only in a subordinate role to Scripture and
tradition.
At times, the authority of
Scripture and the Church’s tradition or traditions have been seen as ‘totalizing,’
as within colonial expressions of the faith and mission practice. There is sometimes, instead, a celebration of
the diverse cultures, traditional religions, and practices, as though the
liberation spoken of in Scripture is somehow the liberation to be experienced
from Western colonial powers. Here we
simply note that this is a hermeneutical issue that has surfaced in
postcolonial and postmodern hermeneutics to be explored in mission hermeneutics.[9] It can also be explored Biblically as one
sees how God’s people engaged alternative religions and peoples within
Scripture.[10]
The Nature of Doctrine
The nature of doctrine has come
under discussion in recent years, thanks to George Lindbeck.[11] He asks whether doctrine should be construed
as (a) cognitive-propositional, (b) experiential-expressivist, or (c) cultural-linguistic? One way to grasp the difference between these
options might be to ask whether there was an historical Adam. The first approach would answer that what the
text says about Adam reflects what was objectively true about a real Adam. The second approach would seek the meaning of
the text in terms of an experience of reality, such as the struggle of humanity
with its will to power (so Reinhold Niebuhr).[12] A cultural-linguistic approach would speak of
Adam as history-like, shifting interest away from whether or not there was an
historical Adam and being content to see Adam as a character within the
Biblical story. Prior to such
distinctions, the Biblical theology of Gerhard von Rad explored Biblical
theology as salvation history (Heilsgeschichte),
using the word ‘history’ in terms of the interpretation of history rather than
the events (Historie).[13] Biblical theologians have since debated where
the actual history is critical for the interpretation. The three distinctions of Lindbeck should
not, in my view, be taken as exclusive, although that is what he intended. Rather, one should ask whether the Biblical
text intends to convey one or the other doctrinal view. The historical claims within Scripture may be
as strong as the theological claims, as in the case of the resurrection of
Jesus from the dead (cf. 1 Cor. 12.12-14).
Mission is itself enacted within
history, and a missional reading of Scripture will be concerned with both
history and theology in the text. When
the Gospel is proclaimed, it is a ‘real’ Gospel of the transformed existence
that God offers, not just through a powerful narrative but through God’s power
in human lives.
The Use of Scripture
A third matter in the
convictional task is how we actually use and should use Scripture. A tradition approach to Scripture through
most of Church history preferred an allegorical reading of the text. This allowed readers to find the theology of
the Church in the text—even texts such as the Song of Songs. A proof-texting use of Scripture has not,
however, been restricted to theology as, all too often, the ministerial fields
have also used Scripture this way or merely as an illustration of some point
derived on some other basis (perhaps from a social scientific field).
Ethicists often list four ways to
use Scripture, although the various types often differ.[14] I have suggested the following for ethics and believe
that the same categories might apply to mission theology as well:
(a) the specifying use of
Scripture, such as individual texts, rules, norms, actions, etc.
(b) the warranting use of
Scripture, such as in the use of principles, values, and virtues to warrant behaviour.
(c) the witnessing use of
Scripture, such as the stories and characters that offer a analogies for
practices today.
(d) the world-view use of
Scripture, which uses the Bible to describe God, humanity, the world, moral
vision, and so forth.
If we are to apply this to
mission theology, we might suggest that, in addition to specific texts of
mission such as Mt. 28.18-20, there are warranting texts, such as the Old
Testament covenants that direct God’s people to a missional existence in the
world, and missional values and virtues that override the specific application
of rules, such as mercy versus sacrifice (Hos. 6.6; Mt. 9.13; 12.7). Another example might be the use of Jubilee
as a missional practice in Is. 61.1ff and various New Testament texts and
practices. The third, witnessing use of
Scripture focuses largely on narratives.
An obvious example would be the book of Acts, telling the story of the
early Church engaged in mission. Andreas
Köstenberger and P. T. O’Brien suggest, alternatively, that Jonah does not
provide a missional narrative. Finally, the
fourth use of Scripture would involve a description of the character of God and
His missional purposes, the plight of humanity and God’s redemptive purposes,
and the missional role of God’s people in the world would provide a missional view
of the world.
Historical Theology
Convictions are also formed by
the Church’s teaching and practices.
Often, this is where a church or people begin: with the teaching and
practices of their local community of faith.
Scripture is typically engaged secondarily. While this is backwards hermeneutically for
those espousing the primary authority of Scripture, it is not at all
inappropriate to be aware of the history of the Church in missions. Quite the contrary, this is an essential and
exciting study for understanding the missional task at the present time. A Biblical emphasis in this task would ask
how the Scriptures have been used and should have been used in the Church’s
history of missions. One interesting
example is the understanding the Great Commission, Mt. 28.18-20, by the Church
at the time of the Reformation as Jesus’ word to his disciples, not to the
Church in general.[15]
The Pragmatic Task of Theology
If the convictional task is not
understood as a contextless system of doctrines, then the pragmatic task will
not be understood as an application
of (abstract) theory to practice.
Rather, this task will be approached as a faithful enactment of the Biblically
founded convictions and practices of disciples or communities of Christ,
including the extension of the early Church’s mission to the nations.
A challenge that developed in the
20th century for the Church was how the social sciences were to be
used in defining the pragmatic task of theology. How should Scripture be used and not used in
Christian counselling or mission practice, for example? Missions can be taught from an
anthropological starting point, whether a focus on inter-cultural engagement or
demographic studies. It can also be
understood first as a pragmatic extension of the convictional task of theology,
with the focus of study being theology and Church history. A missional Biblical theology offers a new approach
for how to relate Biblical theology to mission theology and practice.
Conclusion
I have intended to lay out a
broad outline in as short a space as possible for a hermeneutical study for missional
Biblical theology. The focus is, of
course, on the second, Biblical theological task of theology. Dimensions of this task have been listed, but
its primary challenge is to see to what extent ‘mission’ helps clarify the
unity of Scripture.
A hermeneutic for Biblical
theology is directly related to the first, exegetical task of theology. It should also be related to the constructive
tasks of theology, that is, the convictional and pragmatic tasks. To the extent that Biblical theology is
understood as directly relevant for our convictions and practices today, it
also needs to address hermeneutical issues for the convictional and pragmatic
tasks of theology.
[1] This is a slight alteration of my approach in Rival Versions of Theological Enquiry (Prague: International Baptist
Theological Seminary, 2005), where I labelled the third task as ‘dogmatic.’
[2] I adapted these three approaches in my Rival Versions of Theological Enquiry from Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 2nd
ed. (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984).
[3] This follows a fairly
popular distinction of types of meaning in hermeneutics since E. D. Hirsch,
Jr., proposed distinguishing meaning in the first three ways noted here. See his Validity
in Interpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967).
[4] This point was noted
in the previous point. See Christopher J. H. Wright, The
Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downer’s Grove, IL:
IVP, 2006), pp. 38-41.
[6] See Edward W. Klink, III and Darian R. Lockett, Understanding Biblical Theology: A Comparison of Theory and Practice (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012).
[7] See, e.g., Grant
Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A
Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, rev. and expanded
edition (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2010), pp. 374ff.
[8] See Christopher Seitz,
Word Without End: The Old Testament As
Abiding Theological Witness (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004), pp.
83ff.
[9] See one discussion of this matter in Richard Bauckham,
Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World (Carlisle: Paternoster Press and Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
2003).
[10] Covering Paul’s
engagement with other Jewish and Graeco-Roman cultures, I would recommend here
Eckhard Schnabel, Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008).
[11] George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age
(London: SPCK, 1984).
[12] Reinhold Niebuhr, The
Nature and Destiny of Man: A Christian Interpretation (1949).
[13] Gerhard Von Rad, Old
Testament Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001; orig. pub.
1962).
[14] Richard Hays, Moral Vision of the New Testament (New York:
HarperCollins, 1996).
[15] David Bosch famously interpreted the
history of the Church in terms of certain paradigms, each with particular
Scriptural passages that guided the paradigm’s view of missions. This is far too simplistic, both in terms of
Church history and how Scripture has been engaged, but it does offer an example
of exploring how Scripture has been used at different times in history to guide
the Church in its mission. See David
Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm
Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1991).
Comments