An Unsolicited Response to Michael Gorman’s “A Missional Hermeneutic: Initial Thoughts”
Michael Gorman has published some short reflections on the topic of missional hermeneutics on his Crosstalk blog. The following is a brief response to some of his main points. I find myself in broad agreement with Gorman and hope to sharpen my own thinking in conversation with him.
1) There is a hermeneutical circle between missional practice and faithful interpretation. Reading the Bible apart from the active engagement in God’s mission will likely distort its message. This is the question of social location. The practical application is the necessity of the interpreter or interpretive community to embrace fully participation in God’s mission. Absent of missional engagement, we risk the misreading of the text.
2) Mission is comprehensive. Mission is the principal role of the people of God. It is the reason for the existence of the Church and the original creation of humanity (Gen 1:26-31). By mission, I mean living as God’s visible representatives in the world. I also understood mission to include two other elements: holiness and community. The people of God are a missional community that exists to reflect the character of God to/for/in Creation. Our understanding of mission and the practice of a missional hermeneutic are enhanced by thinking in terms of the triad of mission, holiness, and community.
3) The link between holiness and mission is a crucial one. Gorman uses the word “theosis” in a way that closes parallels my use of the word “holiness.” By theosis, Gorman means “participation in God and transformation into Godlikeness.” Mission involves holiness and true holiness involves mission. They are inseparable in practice. Apart from the reflection God’s character, missional acts are meaningless or at least they indicative of some mission other than the mission of God. Likewise, holiness separated from mission can never be true holiness. To reflect God’s character implies that one also embraces and lives out the missionary of nature of the Triune God.
4) Mission is not merely a Western vs. 2/3rds world problem. It is also a major issue within the Western world. As Christianity loses its hegemony, there is a growing suspicion of Christianity and the church within the culture. It is more pronounced in certain parts of the Western world than in others. The church is often identified with oppression, racism, sexism, and against scientific progress. The Bible increasingly is viewed as irrelevant at best and as a symbol of repression and naivety at worse. A missional hermeneutic not only speaks to a post-colonial reality around the world, but also is poised to unleash the Scriptures to a new hearing in the post-Christian West.
In my own thinking, the goal of biblical interpretation is conversion. This includes the conversion or (re)alignment of both insiders (Christ-followers) and outsiders. It seeks to hear the Scriptures and proclaim them as a call or invitation to (re)align with God’s mission in the world.
Gorman recently revised his Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers
© 2009 Brian D. Russell
Brian–
Thanks for the interaction and for the good insights. I like conversion (in the broadest) sense–transformation, participation/theosis, with a missional thrust–as the goal of biblical interpretation. I look forward to more conversation and to your book. Are you part of GOCN? They have focused a lot on post-Christendom mission.