1:2 B. The Paralyzing Fear of Particularity

Does Particular Readings Equate with Relativism?
If we must do our readings in local Christian communions, does this not certainly lead to the end that all interpretations will be so determined by their context so as to make any "truth" relative to the context? This is the central question (41) addressed here and McClendon goes on to discuss historical options to the question, "what community is Scripture thus committed?"
1. The catholic option maintains that truth (authentic Christianity) is defined "institutionally."
2. The protestant option maintains that truth is found in "right teaching."
3. The current approach, a "communitarian" option maintains that the "essence of Christianity" is not found in a hierarchical body or "single theological tradition" but in the "faithful church," a community of practice whose text is the Christian Scriptures.

A Good Contest
Still this seems to reek of radical relativism, however, McClendon suggests that it is not only not a problem that the essence of Christianity is a hotly debated concept, but that such a contest is a good thing in that it produces growth. In the debates, we hear what issues are at stake and are in a position to realize "the goal represented in the concept." Admittedly this means we must be able and willing to listen to other's views of the faith so as to be open for change myself.

But how can anyone be happy knowing their position is particular and context dependent?
Option 1: it doesn't matter which side you are on within the tradition.
McClendon on Option 1: rejected because "true structure... and pure teaching... are alike inseperable elements of the constitutive practices of Christian community." (43)

Option 2: Pattern and structure of church life do matter, but that such patterns and structures may well change in the future by other generations as they engage in the practices of the faith.

Church, Bible, and the Baptist Vision
The church's self-understanding is strongly linked to its understanding of the Bible. There is a high degree of unity among Xtn traditions that the Spirit continues today in the church, thus the "Bible and the church compose one story, one realilty." (44) However, upon applying the point of Scripture to this day, that unity disappears among these various traditions.

McClendon proposes that the Baptist vision includes:
1. an acceptance that the plain sense of Scripture is its "dominant" sense and that there is a continuity between the story it tells and the church's story.
2. an acknowledgment that finding the point of the story leads to its application, and
3. that the past, present, and future are linked "by a 'this is that' and 'then is now' vision.

This baptist vision may seem sectarian, but unity comes via use of this method. To quote McClendon:

We may already see that this reading strategy incurs no obligation to reject everything others, employing other reading strategies, discover or believe. This is not a sectarian way, declaring all others wrong in order to be alone right. IT is rather an ecumenical way, confessing the fullness of its style of Christian existence and offering it to all in the hope that in that the conversation that ensues it will be adopted by all." (46) Doctrine

Notice: McClendon is suggesting a way forward for the church. He's not defining here the content of "what is to be believed," but a method of going about church teaching, and it largely relies on Hans Frei's work in "The Ecclipse of the Biblical Narrative.

Bible Reading: A Way Forward Through the Past

A Sure Confidence
The previous post suggested concrete ways to go about Bible reading that give those of us in the church today good reason to feel confident once again in our Bible readings. The church knows how to read its book doctrinally and knows how to interpret its own text because it has done so for nearly two millinea; only a recent historical detour hid from our view the ways that “we” have gone about this task.

The Bible is a book whose explanation centers in the one upon whom it centers--Jesus, and the God whose gospel Jesus preached. (38)

Nevertheless, the charge is made by some that when we interpret it, we fall victim to a viscious circularity. We see it “this way” because we are already “convinced” of it being “that way.”

McClendon seems to suggest that it could be no other way. Indeed, we do not approach the text in a disinterested way. When we read the Scripture, it does not ask that we be disinterested; it seeks for us to see the world as it is describing it.

So Which Way is Forward?
As suggested by Hans Frei, reading the Scripture requires us to re-learn how to read it “figurally,” which is to say, a way of seeing the past as figurally present now and the future in terms of the present and past joined. Later on, McClendon refers to this as the “baptist” vision. How does the Church do this?

If we see the bible as “a single, great story, united by characters, setting, and plot. . . .we may describe the church’s bible reading task as the”

1. identification
2. of its characters
3. the discovery of its plot and subplots
4. and the exploration of its setting

all of which brings us to the central question of the identity of Jesus Christ and through that to the identify of God and God’s people the Jews and Christians. McClendon goes on to point out that the implicit author of this grand narrative is none other than God’s self and the implied hearers of the story are you and me.

What if we get it wrong?
A paradox? The bible is “an objective norm. . .”which “. . .can only be read through convinced eyes.”McClendon suggests that we cannot merely assume that when the Bible is read in community, it is impossible to misread it because whole communities can have convictions which betray the Scripture. However,

“whenever it speaks, its story not only supports and conserves, but challenges, corrects, and sometimes flatly defeats the tales we tell ourselves about ourselves. God’s Spirit who breathed upon the writers of Scripture breathes also on us, sometimes harshly. . .this is not always immediate and is never without ugly exceptions; but it happens often enough to confirm our faith in the Author of the Book.”

Implications
1. If it is as Frei, McClendon, and many others suggest, then a “figural” way of reading the scripture is a skill that is most likely not very natural to many of us. We have all done it before, likely without realizing it, but to practice our reading in this way on a routine basis might require a great deal of practice.
2. Here’s the idea as I see it. As we live our life, we learn to see our present through the lense of the past. We might begin to see how some particular story of the faith bears a particular resemblance to a current situation and gain something in being able to say, “this is that” and “that is this.”
3. We quite literally no longer have to fear the charge "you see it this way because you are bias." Yes, it is true. We are, and the speakers of such a phrase are. In addition, this text, this Grand Story REQUIRES US to be in the position of one who cannot sit on the sidelines. It demands that we decide for or against the story. It seeks us out. Once we have been grasped, we can no longer claim an objectivity if this means that we must relinquish the One who grasped us. So we can read and interpret it as a CAPTIVATED community and need not feel shame in doing so.

Major Questions: let's see some good examples of figural readings today. . .