On our quest for a missional hermeneutic we have so far avoided the "proof-texting" pitfall and the "cultural snobbery" pitfall. The Bible is more than a book which merely validates and authenticates our own activities or which only makes sense in a Western (aka the "right") context.
Despite the search for a context-less reading of Scripture, we must admit that who we are, where we are, and how we have been raised affects how we read the Bible. We cannot approach the Bible completely objectively. Nor should we want to. Our uniqueness as readers allows God to speak truth to different people in different ways. One of Jesus' most famous parables illustrates this point well. We can read the story of The Lost Son and identify with the run-away rebel, or we can read it and identify with the indignant older brother. Whom we identify with is a reflection of our own contexts. We bring ourselves to the table, and we allow Scripture to shape us as the Spirit sees fit. The Spirit may tell us to return to our Father, or to get back in the house and enjoy the party!
As a result of our contextual readings, we must also admit that we are "interested" readers. The question is, what are we interested in? There are many different interests which act as frameworks for reading Scripture -- feminist, racial, health and wealth -- some of which lead to good, some of which lead to disaster. To read the Bible with the mission of God as a framework is also an "interested" hermeneutic. But it is a hermeneutic interested in the interests of God -- a God who is committed to reclaiming a people for Himself and making His name known throughout the earth.
To read and understand the message of Scripture with this in mind doesn't destroy all of our own interests. William Wilberforce comes to mind. One wouldn't say to him, "Forget about liberating African's from oppression, William. The Bible isn't about that. You're supposed to read it with a missional hermeneutic, not a liberationist hermeneutic." Rather, as Wright puts it, a missional reading of the Bible "subsumes liberationist readings into itself". Wright asks,
Where does the passion for justice and liberation that breathes in these various theologies come from if not from the biblical revelation of the God who battles with injustice, oppression and bondage throughout history right to the eschaton? Where else but from the God who triumphed climactically over all such wickedness and evil (human, historic, and cosmic) in the cross and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ? Where else, in other words, but from the mission of God?
To most Christians the fact that the mission of God subsumes this kind of liberation is obvious. But where do we begin to exclude certain interested theologies? Can the Bible mean all things to all people, leading ultimately to it meaning nothing to anyone? Postmodernism affirms such relativism, rejecting as it does any kind of grand narrative that explains everything. In such a climate missio Dei is whatever we want it to be, depending on our particular needs (or what we think our needs are). While the inclusion of all of our unique contexts must be accepted, this relativism which is rampant in (if not the cornerstone of) postmodernity needs to be rejected in the light of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Here is where objective truth is found; objective truth which is relevant to all people in all contexts. It is objective because it points to a new, ultimate reality which began with the resurrected Jesus. It is relevant because it is the reality of a new creation available to everyone right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment