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. . .

Not Done Yet

For anyone that cares, this project is not over. The sight has not been updated for several months due to the birth of our baby in March and employment loads.

That Said:
This project will resume at some point in the near future. McClendon offers one of the most compelling portraits of what it means to actually live out in concrete ways the Gospel in our cultural and philisophical mileau, so I hope you'll return and at the least throw out some challenges, questions, or comments on his work.

Chapter 1:2 a. Doctrine, Scripture, and Narrative Community

Bible Reading As a Practice
1. "Teaching" is accomplished by all that Church does through practice, but Bible study is a central practice in larger practice of doctrine.
2. Despite all methods of interpreting scripture across history, the standard of meaning for most of the centuries has been the 'plain sense' of the text. ie. the story means what it says and says what it means.
3. Yet, the reader must also ask, 'what does this mean in light of the rest of God's history with humanity?" To answer that question is to say what the "spiritual sense" of a text is.
4. The bridge between the "literal" and "spiritual" sense of the text are various devices such as allegory and typology. Sometimes these devices help determine the connection between the literal and spiritual sense.

Rules of the Practice
1. Seeking the "plain sense" is suggested as a rule in the practice of biblical reading. (cf. Hans Frei: The Eclipse of the Biblical Narrative)
2. Frei suggests a Christological rule: "what scripture ascribes to Jesus must not be denied by the reading of other scripture"
3. Unity rule: no reading may deny the unity of the Old and New Testament or the congruence of the two in what is said about Jesus.
4. McClendon says there are two kinds of rules: upper level rules are those in accordance with the broad Christian convictions. Lower level rules are those guides that help with vocabulary, grammar, historical-critical readings and often are rules that Xtian and Non-Xtian alike agree upon. So, you can do lower-level practice, but if it violates upper level rules, McClendon would say that one has ceased practicing Xtn reading of scripture. Given the common use of lower level rules, JwM suggests that Xtians can benefit from the voice of those who do not claim Xtian convictions.


What's the Big Deal
In our post-modern age, we struggle with radical relativism. Can the bible be interpreted? By whom? Are all readings equal? Must we use historical critical readings to have an accurate "reading" of a text? Reading McClendon and Frei one is almost tempted to say either "Duh" or "no way man." In effect we are told that our worst fear is not true: that indeed we are able to read the bible by doing so 'plainly.' It says what it means and means what it says. It is not alien. It is not supernaturally coded. It is not a historical mystery uncovered only by the research of anthropologists, historians, and theologians.
The Church need not worry if its 'reading' isn't accepted by the 'academy.'

The Yeah, But Discussion
While I am willing to accept the above teaching based on a trust I have in JWM, I hear the multiple voices of modernity in my head that will still be hard to overcome in my reading of scripture. I assume this is partly a function of language. "Literal" has a lot of baggage attached to it. Was Job a literal person? Was the whale of Jonah literal? I assume that one can still read a passage and find the 'plain' sense without having to worry about accepting that whales can eat and spit people up.

McClendon's Approach to Doctrine: Doctrine as Practice

Chapter 1: a. iii The present approach
Again, a short summary: JWM describes doctrine as a practice. He notes elements of Catholic and Protestant notions of doctrine that are noteworthy, including first, that Christian teaching isn't arbitrary, a free invention of the teacher (postmoderns beware), but a response to God's authority. Even so, he says two, there is a reserve regarding our ability to communicate God's authority/truth. Comment: I think this is helpful. What we say about God has some meaning, but we should recognize the limits of our ability to communicate it. This should change our language in how we talk about doctrine. And three, there is a role for the Christian community in that it is both the setting and the
agent of Christian teaching. (28)

The Practice of Doctrine Defined
By definition, a practice has ends in mind, a telos, a goal toward which we move as we engage in the practice. It requires practitioners who use practice specific means in the pursuit of these ends. The practice isn't done so arbitrarily but involves sets of rules which help the practitioners reach these ends, using these means.
(see Alasdair MacIntyre in "After Virtue" for background on 'practice')

Some interesting notes on the above terms
Practitioner- one who is intentionally involved in the practice (not just a casual reader of the bible for instance). He notes that conversion is implicit in the practice. One cannot teach Christian doctrine apart from living this faith, different from teaching ABOUT religion.

MEANS- he grants the cognitive, referential role of convictions about numerous 'doctrines' like creation, atonement, etc., but notes that such doctrines often have narrative parable paradigmatic example as their origin.

RULES: What can meaningfully be declared in Christian discourse (see Lindbeck on doctrine as being language that follows the 'grammatical rules' of the Christian faith). Example, in baseball, there are rules to follow, the failure of which results in being called "out" or being told to leave the field because we're playing some other game. What we commonly refer to as a 'doctrine' is often the grammatical rule that tells us the boundaries we have in discussing the topic.

P32: Big debate with some ethicists like Stanley Hauerwas, who seem to accept McClendon's position on doctrine as a practice. The charge is that some are 'dualists' who see doctrine as one thing and action as another thing. McClendon (and I think Hauerwas too) sees himself as 'practical' whereby REAL doctrines constitute community life in such a way that they are LIVED OUT. This echos the Paulin/James debate on faith-works.

Comment: Thus, I understand this to mean that a doctrine partially proves itself to be a valid Christian doctrine to the extent that it visibly is lived out in the community and affects how it lives its life together.

Discussion:

What do you think about the idea that there are 'rules' of Christian doctrinal discourse?
What examples might we point to as 'rules of discourse.'?
George Lindbeck's "The Nature of Doctrine" might be helpful here.
What do you think the 'ends' of Christian doctrine are?

For my friend, Dr. Thompson, do you think such an approach is gender neutral?

Having Gotten a Little Ahead, Let's Back Up

The book under discussion here is part 2 of a 3 part systematic theology by James Wm McClendon. Jim was a teacher at Fuller Seminary for many years before his death a few years ago. He and his wife, Nancey Murphy, were powerful influences on my life and thinking. EthicsPart 1 of his set is on the topic of ethics and I don't have the time to get into this book now.

Witness This is part III of his series and it has all to do with the postmodern shift in thinking that has occured. Again, for anyone in Emergent who wants to see cutting edge thinking as it relates to the Church and faith, go here now.

Why Doctrine Now?
Frankly, there are a lot of people fumbling around this whole postmodern meteoric blast into the church which has spawned a great deal of energy into thinking anew. But it would behoove all of us interested in doing so to watch the masters do it, if there are masters in fact doing it. The 'doing it' I'm referring to, of course, is postmodern theological reflection. Jim McClendon is a heavyweight. He was working on these issues before most in emergent were even born. In Doctrine, he gives an example of someone who is putting pen to paper doing the very theology, in a very different way, than most people do today. It is important not only to listen to his voice, but to watch how he goes about his work.

In the words of a friend, "I'm tired of reading about theological postmodernity. I want to see someone do theology. I want to grapple with theological ideas."

So that's what this is all about for me, and hopefully for a few others.

Part 1: What is Doctrine?

This is a review of the 1st half of Chapter 1 only:

Chapter 1: What is Doctrine

1. JMc outlines catholic and protestant approaches to doctrine. Doctrine = a church teaching that must be taught for the church to be the church here and now.
2. Doctrine is a first order task; it comes first BEFORE theology. That is, theologians receive Church teaching/doctrine first, then study and interpret it. They don’t make up doctrine and market it to church. Ie. Mother comes before the child.
3. Catholic view of doctrine is closely associated with propositions, revealed to church, interpreted by church (cf. pope central role) to the people. Similar to foundationalism, all knowledge rests on these propositions, which is why the catholic church vehemently defends these propositions.
4. Liberal Protestant view in modern times: religion=feelings or awareness, but not = to knowing or doing, therefore, doctrine = accounts of our religious affections (Schleiermacher). Therefore, unity of the church is measured by its “shared awareness” of God.

Commentary:
The catholic view above is not dissimilar at all from fundamentalist protestants, and many modern evangelicals. Truth is seen as static and unchanging from generation to generation, or at any rate, extremely slow in changing. It seems to me that this accounts in large measure why some people see such incongruity with our context today and some church teaching. Cf. women in church, slavery in recent past, etc.

If the church is to emerge into the postmodern context with the rest of the world, this will be the primary ‘battleground’ or ‘love-ground.’ How can those of us within the large Christian tradition dialogue with those who believe with all their heart that truth is static.

Starting ideas:
1. take our faith and commitment to live a truthful life with all the seriousness that our fundamentalist brothers and sisters do. Short of seeing our seriousness, they won’t even engage in a conversation.
2. Allow ourselves to be persuaded by some of their heartfelt convictions, while modeling for them dialogue that is loving.
3. We are not from Mars and they are not from Venus. We do have commonalities and should start with those in conversation. Asking anyone to take great leaps or grand switches in their thinking is remarkably unreasonable. We wouldn’t do it. They won’t do it. Conversions are usually long processes of change and only appear to be dramatic at the point a switch in paradigms is made.