[For Part One, click here]
Tradition
enquiry identifies four tasks of theology:
Exegetical
Task
Canonical
Task
Convictional Task
Pragmatic Task
When people
discuss theology, ethics, and ministerial practices, they may begin to examine
one or more of these tasks in any order.
This is typically what happens in the Church. However, from a logical, authoritative, and
Reformational standpoints, the order of the tasks is hermeneutically
important. Given the Reformational convictions
that Scripture is God’s authoritative and inspired Word and that the Church
needs reformation from time to time, the right order for theologising in the
Christian community is to begin with the exegetical task and then proceed to
the canonical, then convictional, and finally the pragmatic task. Each of these tasks builds on the previous
task, and the previous task can challenge convictions developed in later tasks. Thus, a canonical interpretation must not
contradict an exegetical interpretation, or a pragmatic interpretation must not
contradict the previous three tasks of interpretation.
Protestants, the
Orthodox Church, and Roman Catholics have different views about this, but all
three expect to find coherence and unity throughout the tasks of theology. The Orthodox may hold the early Church
fathers, particularly of the Eastern Church, in high esteem in their
convictional interpretations of Scripture (exegesis and canonical
readings). The Roman Church may hold the
present Magisterium’s interpretation of the faith as definitive, but the
Magisterium turns to Scripture and tradition to support its stated
convictions. Protestants are more open
to criticise the traditions that have developed in the Church, but they, too,
affirm in theory if not in practice the importance of all four tasks of theology,
and they set Scripture as the supreme and final authority for all matters of
faith and ethics (cf. 2 Timothy 3.16).
Stated in this
way, tradition enquiry is an ecumenical approach to interpretation. The orthodox believers in Orthodoxy,
Catholicism, and Protestantism share enough common ground to engage in
tradition enquiry together. Yet, in each
of these grand traditions will be found interpreters who are intentionally ‘liberal’
in their theologising. Liberal interpreters
reject the notion that Scripture is the Word of God and try to evade this
absolutism with such statements as Scripture ‘contains’ or ‘becomes’ God’s Word,
or that its authority lies merely in its historical primacy. Liberal interpreters sit loosely with respect
to the historical tradition as well, such as in claiming that orthodoxy is
nothing more than which group won the position of authority in the Church so
that it could declare the others heretical or schismatic. They reject the Church’s history as an orthodox
development of apostolic (Biblical) authority, and they introduce autonomous
reason, or reason and experience, as measures to guide the Church in its
convictions and practices. By so doing,
liberal interpretations, whether Modernist or Postmodernist, are anti-tradition
enquiry claims or suggestions.
Exegetical Task
Hermeneutically,
the exegetical task of theology claims that the meaning of a text is
established by the author. The author’s
intent is paramount in cases where the genre suggests this, such as history,
biography, and letters. It accepts the
view that the reading of texts requires an understanding of the historical and
cultural contexts in which the author and initial audience communicated. This often requires reading texts in the
original languages. It requires a
certain degree of familiarity with history, literature, and culture. Finally, it requires an understanding of
passages in light of the entire literary genre and flow of the author’s
writing.
When the author
chooses a more open text genre, meaning is located more in the prose than the
contexts of the author and initial audience.
This would include genre not meant to be taken literally, such as
poetry, hymns, and apocalyptic imagery.
Of course, the literary and historical context are very important to
understand in order to appreciate the genre.
Also, proverbs and wisdom literature are meant to be read as general
communication, not to be applied to every situation. All such literature locates meaning less or
not at all in the author’s specific situation, and meaning is therefore more
open than closed by the author. To this
end, the literature’s meaning is found more in implications and is therefore
not literal. Different readers may
therefore find different significance and application.
Canonical Task
The Christian
conviction that there is a collection of authoritative literature in Scripture
leads them to an additional task of theology.
This is the task of Biblical theology.
Even when the author intends a closed meaning, the canonical task opens
up the literature to further implications and significances for Christians
reading individual texts canonically.
The author himself may communicate in a closed genre (e.g., history) and
still impress his meaning on the implications and significances of the
literature. This is certainly the case
with Biblical histories and biographies, where the narrative is told in such a
way as to highlight implications and significances of events rather than just
the factual reporting of the events.
Thus, the author participates in the hermeneutical process for levels of
meaning.
Hermeneutically,
then, the canonical task is a claim of faith that is committed to the belief
that Scripture is the Word of God. This
belief leads to an expectation that the material can be synthesized and
integrated rather than read oppositionally.
Where there is difference, the difference can be explained in terms of different
contexts, purposes, audiences, and/or authors.
The exegetical task might highlight such diversity, but the canonical
task identifies unity in the meaning, implications, and significance of the
literature. Thus, Biblical theology is
the study of the unity and diversity of the canonical literature.
Convictional Task
Readers using
the canonical material in faith communities treat the canonical literature as
authoritative for their lives. The
present readers engage in a process of reading that links them to earlier
reading all the way back to the initial audience. Reading canonical literature to ground
convictions in the Word of God needs to take the exegetical and canonical tasks
into consideration, reading along the trajectory of meaning that they
establish. They are bound by the
meaning, implications, and significances within Scripture and guided by the
meaning, implications, and significances advocated by a tradition of interpretation. As this is a burgeoning task, readers come to
rely on established convictions about theology and ethics. All this is tradition enquiry.
Different
traditions develop due to different historical processes, contexts, and interpreters. This diversity calls for a coming together of
the people from time to time to establish where they agree. When agreement is established through time
(always), throughout the world (everywhere), and among every group (all), the
convictions are considered to be ‘orthodox’.
On essential matters of faith and practice, the Church is guided by its
orthodox teaching. Other matters may be
held differently and charitably. This
process is already seen in Paul’s own writings, where he finds some issues to
be matters of indifference between the churches and other matters to be
essential Christian teaching. Thus, the
hermeneutical process of establishing orthodoxy is already present in
Scripture, and the task of the later Church is not to undermine that reading
but to develop it in the same direction as new situations and issues
arise. What the Church determines beyond
the teaching of Scripture is always open to correction, whereas what is already
established within the canon of Scripture is closed. Only in this way can faith in the divine
inspiration of Scripture be maintained.
Pragmatic Task
The pragmatic
task extends the hermeneutical process of exegesis, canonical synthesis,
orthodox convictions to the present community.
The present community needs agents that are capable Biblical scholars,
theologians, and Church historians to guide it through the exegetical,
canonical, and convictional tasks, and it needs practitioners or ministers in
the present to consider how to apply the tradition to current theological and
ethical concerns in contemporary situations, practices, and plans. Once again, tradition enquiry is synthetic
and integrative rather than challenging and disruptive.
Comments