The fear and the fallacy

Like many students graduating from a conservative Evangelical seminary, I was introduced to an exegetical approach that emphasized the historical context, the grammar of the text, and the original intent of the author. The idea of approaching the text with my own socially imbedded views as a legitimate tool in the process of interpretation was practically anathema. Later, during a hermeneutical course of study at Emory University, I was challenged by the works of Paul Ricoeur with the idea that it is practically impossible to really know the original intent of any author, and that frankly, the original intent is only of marginal importance. Furthermore, original intent implies that there is a single intent and not many intentions on the part of the author. The most important point, he argues, is what the text says to the reader and, on a larger scale, to contemporary society.

Enter, ideological texture, and one is confronted with an exegetical approach which posits that the interpretation of any text may never be absent of the socially/culturally imbedded worldviews of the interpreter. Interpretation, therefore, is not a statement or a declaration, but a conversation, a living and ongoing dialogue that explores the text as God’s word with others who offer unique perspectives, and ourselves as individuals who are conscious of our own inherent biases. If this is so, how does one read, understand, teach and proclaim the message of the Bible as the authoritative Word of God? In fact, is there “a word,” or are there “many words” that are equally valid? The fear of some is that ideological texture, as an approach to exegesis, will lead to subjective interpretations, the fallacy, is believing that there is no subjectivity.

Brian McLaren (Leadership,Winter, 2007) writes that he has recently been reading, studying, fellowshipping with, and listening to Latin Americans, Asians, and Africans. He is doing this, he says, “Because the U.S. can so easily become an echo chamber, Western voices arguing with other Western voices about Western topics from a Western perspective” (p. 110). McLaren goes on to say: “Many people in the global South see what we don’t see: how we have blended Christian faith with European-American culture” (p.%

Emergent Learning Models

In my recent studies, I am becoming familiar with various organizational learning (OL) models. One of the models that caught my attention is referred to as the “pure emergent” strategy, which lies at the other end of the spectrum from the “pure deliberate” strategy. An emergent strategy does not begin with any presumptions or “planned strategy.” It suggests that patterns and structures can take form in the absence of intentional strategy. It suggests that most of what is learned in an organization happens outside of the formal teaching models, and occurs in informal settings.

In church, we usually come to the worship service with a strategy. We may have a formal order of worship written in the bulletin, or we may only have it as a strategy that has taken form and is fixed in our ritual or our liturgy. Pentecostals often claim freedom from ritualistic religion, and yet most follow the same predictable pattern. The emergent strategy argues that these strategies form learning boundaries that inhibit or restrict learning to fit within the received framework.

We do this with our interpretation of Scripture, which is why Baptists and Pentecostals differ while both claim to be representing the same book, and both claim the inerrancy of Scripture, but neither claim that they are in error. What if we were to read the Bible without having to fit it into a Declaration of Faith or an Apostle’s Creed? What if we approached the Scriptures with a hungry heart, an open mind, and a seeking spirit? Are we allowed to learn things that lay outside the framework handed down from the Church Fathers?

What if a church gathered to worship God without expecting God to fit our formula? Is it possible to be the church and allow the liberty of the Spirit to direct the ebb and flow of a service? We claim that this is what we do, but such claims are empty in the light of most prefabricated forms and timetables.

If the emergent church is truly going to emerge, then it is going to take more than sitting in a circle and claiming that we are no longer following a hierarchical structure. It is going to take more than employing the arts and deriding traditionalism. It is going to take people with the courage to welcome the move of God on His terms, in His time, and as He wills. It is going to take leaders who are willing to challenge the received text of tradition and allow the Holy Spirit to speak in new tongues to a new generation.

THE PERSPECTIVE OF TIME

This past week (or was it last week) former President Ford passed away. The procession and the progression of the funeral and memorial have gone on and on. For almost two weeks, we have heard and seen new accounts of the funeral. One day I told my wife that I was tired of the constant news updates and reminders that Ford is dead. At this point, it would only be news if they told us that he had risen from the dead.

I remember Ford's presidency. At the time, he was reviled by Democrats for pardoning Nixon. They were eager to put Nixon on trial and further embarrass the Republicans. Conservative Republicans were lukewarm in their acceptance of Ford, in that, he was pro-choice and he seemed too willing to make nice with the Communists.

However, after much time has passed, and with some reflection, many now see the positives of the Ford presidency. They refer to him as a healer. In retrospect, we see that putting Nixon on trial would only have kept the wounds of the nation open longer, and may well have caused the cut to go deeper and the divide in the nation to become wider.

As leaders, we may find ourselves in a position where an unpopular decision has to be made. The question that we must ask ourselves is whether it is the right decision, at the right time, for the right reasons. If it is, then time will eventually reveal the wisdom of that decision. However, such decisions may come at the cost of personal sacrifice. Ford would lose the election to Carter largely because of the pardon of Nixon.

Now the country looks back on Ford's presidency and says he was a healer, a reconciler, a man of principle and wise in his decision to pardon Nixon. This is the mediating affect of time and perspective when the decision is right. When the decision is wrong, the motive is wrong, or it was the wrong time for the decision, time will prove that as well.

Typically, time softens the criticism, but sometimes, as with despots such as Hitler, time reinforces the critical assessment of the leadership of such men and women. As leaders, we do not need to weigh our decisions by public opinion at the moment, but according to principles, values, integrity, and time. At the same time, we need to be prepared to make personal sacrifice when the right decision is unpopular at the time the decision must be made.