realmealministries.org

Here is a draft of a book review that I did for the Review of Biblical Literature:

Methods for Exodus (Methods in Biblical Interpretation) (Cambridge University Press, 2010)
. Pp. xiv + 254. Paperback. 978-0-521-71001-5. $24.99.

Methods for Exodus, edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, is the fourth volume in the series Methods in Biblical Interpretation. Earlier volumes include Methods for Luke (Methods in Biblical Interpretation)
; Methods for Matthew (Methods in Biblical Interpretation)
, and Methods for the Psalms, edited by Esther Marie Menn. The Methods in Biblical Interpretation series from Cambridge University Press seeks to introduce students and general readers of the Bible to six distinct hermeneutical approaches to the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. Methods included ranged from traditional historical-critical “world behind the text” approaches to new “world in front of the text” methodologies influenced by the globalization and democratization of Biblical Studies. Each volume includes an introductory essay followed by six essays penned by a leading practitioner of a discrete interpretive method. Each essay introduces the student to a specific hermeneutical method by reviewing its history of development. The scholars then discuss each discrete method’s applicability to the given biblical book. Finally, the writers apply the methods to the same set of texts. By assigning each writer the same texts, Methods in Biblical Interpretation allows the reader to see the similarities and differences between the various approaches to the text. Moreover, the authors themselves attempt to point out connections between their approach and the exegetical lenses of others.

Dozeman’s Methods for Exodus offers a strong addition to the series. Dozeman is a leading scholar on the book of Exodus and has gathered an impressive band of exegetes to contribute to the volume. Dennis T. Olson writes the chapter on “Literary and Rhetorical Criticism.” Kenton L. Sparks covers “Genre Criticism.” Suzanne Boorer discusses “Source and Redaction Criticism.” Jorge Pixley describes “Liberation Criticism.” Naomi Steinberg illustrates “Feminist Criticim.” Gale A. Yee proffers an introduction to “Postcolonial Biblicial Criticism.”

Dozeman’s introductory essay (pp. 1-12) sketches out the aims of the book. First, Methods for Exodus seeks to introduce the above six methodologies that help readers to understand the book of Exodus. Second, Methods for Exodus hopes to show the ways that these discrete approaches relate to one another in terms of similarities and differences. Toward this second end, Dozeman notes that the divide between the approaches turns on how one understands the authority of the book of Exodus. Traditional historical critical approaches locate authority in the “world behind the text” of its authors and reconstructed social setting. More recent ideological methodologies locate authority in the “world in front of the text” rooted in the social location of its modern readers. Dozeman argues that these approaches find common ground in that both “behind the text” and “in front of the text” methods reflect critically on the historical setting of the literature. Moreover certain flavors of historical critical methods such as Genre criticism recognize the role of the modern reader in creating meaning. Dozeman then moves to describe the content of the book of Exodus in broad-brush strokes. He divides the book of Exodus into two sections: 1:1–15:21 and 15:22–40:38. The first division narrates the conflict between God and Pharaoh over the service of Israel. The second division describes the means and manner in which God will be present with God’s people as they move toward the promised land of Canaan. Next, Dozeman introduces the two texts that will serve as the common text to explore the various methodologies used to study Exodus: Exod 1–2 and 19–20. Dozeman concludes his introduction by providing a synopsis of the remaining chapters.

Dennis Olson’s chapter “Literary and Rhetorical Criticism” (pp. 13–54) offers a brief history of the rise of “text-centered” and “reader-centered” approaches as they emerged against the more traditional “author-centered” focus of historical criticism. Olson concentrates principally on “text-centered” reading methods over against “reader-centered” methodologies that deploy literary/rhetorical techniques such as feminist. Olson as will be true of all of the authors in this volume offers a strong survey of the literature as represented by its best practitioners. Olson offers the clearest example of how to practice literary/rhetorical criticism by adopting the Phyllis Trible’s step-by-step outline from her seminal work Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994). By describing and adopting a clear-cut methodology, Olson’s chapter may be the most helpful for students because it can easily be appropriated into their own exegetical work.

Kenton Sparks’ essay on “Genre Criticism” (pp. 55–94) describes the emergence of the discipline as a corrective out of Form Criticism. The goal of Genre Criticism is to achieve reader competence in terms of understanding the verbal discourse of a given piece of literature. Reader competence implies that a reader recognizes how a given type of literature works and as well as the ability to understand it. The advance that genre criticism makes over traditional form criticism is the recognition that ideal types of literature do not exist. Rather readers group types of literature together in terms of common traits rather than in relationship to an ideal type or form. Sparks demonstrates the necessity of a close reading of the text in ways similar to the other methods in the book as well as the importance of extra-biblical comparative literature in attaining reader competency. Part of this competency as it relates to the book of Exodus is recognizing the diversity of interests and concerns embedded in the final form of the text.

Suzanne Boorer writes on “Source and Redaction Criticism” (pp. 95–130). This is the most traditional approach in this collection of essays. Boorer rehearses the history of source/redaction criticism including its interplay with form and traditio-historical methods. There is not much new ground broken in this essay but her review of the literature is probably the broadest and most helpful in the collection. The complexity and subjectivity of identifying discrete sources as well as the vastly different conclusions reached by competent scholars applying the method will remind the reader of the reason for the rise of the newer text and reader-centered hermeneutical approaches.

Jorge Pixley’s chapter on “Liberation Criticism” (pp. 131–162) is a lively and compelling read. Pixley is a leading and well-respected liberationist whose commentary on Exodus broke new ground in the field (On Exodus: A Liberationist Perspective. New York: Orbis Books, 1987). Pixley emphasizes the importance of the social location of the reader. He notes the irony and artificial nature of introducing a “method” to Western academics when it originally developed among poor and marginalized persons of faith living in the remote villages or in the urban slums of Latin America. Liberation theology reminds the reader that the reader’s context matters profoundly in interpretation. Pixley demonstrates that the book of Exodus is foundational for developing a theology of liberation. He argues that the prophets drew their liberationist and justice centered themes from the book of Exodus rather than creating these themes that are so central to the Torah.

Naomi Steinberg covers “Feminist Criticism” (pp. 163-192) well. Her introduction to the discipline is brief. She traces the rise of feminism among North American Anglo women and its spread to more marginalized groups in North America and around the world. She focuses the bulk of her chapter on illustrating a feminist reading of Exod 1–2 and 19–20. Her engagement with these common texts is the most thorough in the book and helps the reader to experience the range of interpretive options and the diversity within feminist criticism in terms of class, gender, and ethnicity. Steinberg also complies the most extensive bibliography in this volume.

In the final chapter, Gale Yee introduces “Postcolonial Biblical Criticism.” Her chapter spends a significant amount of space on introducing the philosophical roots of postcolonial theory. Postcolonial method is jargon heavy and readers encountering it for the first time may find themselves lost in the array of new vocabulary. Yee however is an able guide and demonstrates the powerful lens that postcolonial theory provides for illuminating new dimensions in the text of Exodus. She notes that Exodus may be read in support of both liberation and oppression. This leads her to remind her readers to ask two questions of their own interpretations: Whom does my interpretation help? Whom does it harm? Good questions indeed.

Each chapter concludes with a bibliography of key secondary resources for further study. Methods for Exodus also includes a Glossary, Name Index, and Scripture Index. The Glossary is particularly helpful. The various hermeneutical approaches introduce a plethora of specialized jargon into the English language. These can be bewildering to the beginning student. The Glossary gathers the most common terms together and offers a brief definition.

Methods for Exodus is an excellent resource for advanced exegetical courses in colleges and seminaries. Its stated target audience is students, scholars, and interested clergy. I think that this may be overly optimistic. This is a book best suited for advanced students and scholars. It is well written, but assumes a solid grounding in the current climate of biblical hermeneutics. Methods for Exodus does achieve its goal of illustrating how six different methodologies read the book of Exodus.

Brian D. Russell
Professor of Biblical Studies
Asbury Theological Seminary
Orlando, FL

Here is a draft of a brief message on 1 Thes 5:1-11:
1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. 5 You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. 6 So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be awake and sober. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, get drunk at night. 8 But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet. 9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 10 He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him. 11 Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.

What is the difference between good teams and great teams? The best teams know the winning formula. In soccer, Manchester United is world renowned for coming up with huge goals late in games when lesser sides would have folded and accepted defeat. In the NFL, the New England Patriots have demonstrated consistently for more than a decade the ability to win the biggest games often by the slimmest of margins. In the NBA, the Los Angeles Lakers led by superstar Kobe Bryant have won championship after championship. All of these teams across the sports spectrum share a key trait that undergirds their success: they all expect to win. They play confidently. They know that they will experience challenges and adversity, but they face such times with the assumption that they will prevail. Basketball legend and six-time NBA champion Michael Jordan has said, “I felt that I had that winner mentality instilled in me….”

The key to courageous living for Christ is cultivating a deep-seated confidence that in the end love wins. God’s mission to establish his eternal reign of healing, hope, reconciliation, justice, and mercy is a done deal. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus has secured the future for good. But hardships and tribulations remain for the present. Paul’s message today is simple. We are destined to win. We need to believe this. We need to embrace this. We need to live this out before a watching world.

In our Scripture lesson, Paul moves to wrap up his First Letter to the Thessalonians by affirming our hope in Jesus Christ. Paul writes to remind the earliest Christians in Thessalonica that the future is securely in God’s hands. This truth is the grounding for living fully for God in our daily lives.

The future is absolutely secure. God will bring human history to a decisive and just end. The biblical promises and metaphors of an eternal era of peace and righteousness will come to fruition. God’s victory through Jesus’ death and resurrection has paved the way for the future of God’s dreams. Paul’s teaching in our Scripture lesson assumes this.

Perhaps surprisingly Paul opens his exhortations with a stern warning against the temptation to focus on trying to figure the time and season of God’s climactic actions. History has proven Paul’s words to be necessary and applicable throughout the ages. The security of the future is good news. But knowing the day and hour is unnecessary and irrelevant. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus said, “But about that day and hour no one knows neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (24:36). Yet rather than reflecting deep on the security of knowing that the God’s ultimate victory is a done deal, many focus instead on trying to figure out when the end will occur. The obsession with figuring out the times and seasons leads to disappointment when human predictions prove wrong and loss of focus on doings God’s work in the world today. It is enough for us as followers of Christ to know that human history is moving toward a remarkably good and just future.

So what is the purpose of Paul’s focus on the coming of Jesus at the end of days? Paul desires for us to live profound and courageous lives as his people before a watching world. The message of our secure future is meant for encouraging and building us up so that we can serve as vital witnesses to the power of the Gospel in the presnt. To this end he gives a two-fold positive exhortation.

First, in light of our secure future, Paul says, “Be ready.” Rather than working to figure out when the end will arrive, Paul suggests a different approach. We are to live each day with the assumption that Christ may come. How would our lives be different if we truly thought that today might be the last day of the present age? How would our priorities be different? How would we spend our resources? How would we divide up our time? Paul declares that our lives must be lived with a sense of urgency. Now is not the time for complacency or resting on our laurels. The Gospel is humanity’s only true hope. Each of us has a role to play in advancing God’s mission of extending his blessing, grace, and mercy to all. To be ready is to live each day with no regrets because we gave our all for the sake of the Gospel. Paul uses the metaphors of light/darkness and sobriety/drunkenness to capture the mood.

Second, Paul says, “Live well.” This is not a prosperity message. Paul is not calling us to affluence and security in the present. Paul is calling us to a life lived well for the sake of the Gospel. We are children of the day. Therefore Paul deploys the familiar triad of faith, love, and hope. In verse 8, Paul describes these as armor. Paul is under no illusion that the Christian life is easy. Yes, our future is absolutely secure¬—Jesus died for us so that we may abide with him now and forever. But we will continue to face hardships, persecution, and challenges. Such times serve as opportunities for offering a profound witness for the Gospel. We are not to shrink back in fear but to shine like stars on a dark night (Phil 2:15).

No matter the score, by the end of the fourth quarter, God’s love will prevail. This is the hope that Paul announces. Now is no time for clock watching or for computing how much time is left. Rather we are to be ready daily and live fully for God’s mission in our day. Let us live courageously by faith, be known to the world by love, and serve tangibly as voices of hope to others who desperately need what only the Gospel can provide. Amen.

Dr. Anna Carter Florence (Assoc Professor of Homilectics) of Columbia Theological Seminary came to the Orlando campus of Asbury Theological Seminary to participate in our Distinguished Preacher series.

She delivered a powerful sermon on Acts 12: “Out of Your Mind” (Listen to the message: March 25, 2010 Asbury Florida Chapel)

Carter is author of Preaching as Testimony. This is an excellent read and breaks new ground for thinking about the act of preaching as “testimony.” The language of testimony comes from women “preachers” who were excluded from “preaching” due to their sex and instead would stand up to give “testimony.” Carter skillfully thinks through the implications of the language of testimony, connects it to the hermeneutical work of Ricoeur and Brueggemann, and offers a new vision for the sort of preaching that both church and world desperately need to hear. She also reflects powerfully and movingly on the “calling” and “authority” of the preacher. I recommend this text for seasoned preachers or for those sensing a “call” to preach (male or female).

Here is a taste of her writing style (Parts 3 and 4 of her thesis):

3. Preaching in the tradition of testimony offers another view of the role of experience in proclamation. The preacher is called to engage the liberating power of God’s Word in the biblical text and in life, and then to narrate and confess what she has seen and believed in that experience.
4. Preaching in the tradition of testimony offers us a view of what it takes to become a preacher and to be a preacher: by rooting ourselves so deeply in text and context that we embody the Word we proclaim–and must testify to what we have seen and believed. Preaching in the testimony tradition calls us to live in and live out the Word of God.

Here is a draft of my forthcoming review of R. W. L. Moberly The Theology of the Book of Genesis (Old Testament Theology) (Old Testament Theology; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Pp. xxiv + 272. Paperback. 978-0-521-68538-2 $23.99

R. W. L. Moberly’s The Theology of the Book of Genesis (Old Testament Theology) presents a wise and informed reading of the book of Genesis for both Church and the World. Moberly is Professor of Theology and Biblical Interpretation at Durham University. He is the author of many scholarly books and essays.
The Theology of the Book of Genesis is the second volume to appear in the series Old Testament Theology edited by Brent A. Strawn and Patrick D. Miller. The series aims to provide an avenue for extended theological reflection on the individual books of the Old Testament. In the Preface, the editor’s note three developments that make the series important and welcome in today’s milieu. First, the reality of a “postmodern” hermeneutical climate opens new possibilities for theology. Second, the diversity of those practicing biblical interpretation has moved well beyond only Catholic priests and mainline pastors to include scholars of other Christian backgrounds as well as Jewish scholars and persons outside of confessing religious communities. Last, the series aims to participate in the growing trend of interdisciplinary studies that have brought the disciplines of biblical studies, ethics, and systematic theology together as conversation partners.

Moberly masterfully embodies the goals of the series and sets the bar high for future volumes. The Theology of the Book of Genesis (Old Testament Theology) contains twelve chapters. Chapter One “What is a ‘Theology of Genesis’?” allows Moberly to address contemporary issues confronting the discipline of biblical theology and to locate his own reading strategy within the discipline. Moberly’s approach is canonical. He reads the various texts of Genesis carefully within their literary and historical contexts but also with an eye to the wider canonical context of the Old and New Testaments. Moreover, Moberly takes seriously his own situatedness within a contemporary community of faith. He puts it this way: “It is in the meeting of biblical text with canonical context and the ongoing life of communities of faith that theology is done—and where one may hope to try to articulate a theology of Genesis.”(17) Thus, Moberly takes seriously the biblical text and brings to it all of the academic rigor and sophistication of a trained exegete, but he also comes to the text as a person located in the 21st century Western world and attempts to listen to the text through questions and issues raised by modern readers.
It follows from this that there is something intrinsically contextual and provisional about theological use of the biblical text. Theology is not a once-for-all exercise in finding the right words and/or deeds, but rather a continuing and ever-repeated attempt to articulate what a faithful understanding and use of the biblical text might look like in the changing circumstances of life. To be sure, philological and historical insights into the nature and meaning of the text should enter into these ever-renewed attempts, so that one does not say silly things willy-nilly; and one can always learn from the giants among earlier generations of commentators. So one does not start afresh each time, but in principle one has an accumulated wisdom to draw on. (19-20)

Moberly’s approach influences his selection of texts. A book of this size must be selective. He engages the expected texts in Genesis such as Gen 1, Gen 3, and Gen 12:3, but he moves into the exegesis of the texts through the interpretations of contemporary writers, many of whom are not biblical scholars. Often he begins with a controversial question or author such as Richard Dawkins who is both a scientist and public spokesperson for a resurgent and “evangelistic” atheism. This allows Moberly to read Genesis in light of questions generated often from a “hermeneutic of suspicion” and presses him to engage the text with issues confronting life in the 21st century. The resulting interpretations of Genesis are rich, thought provoking, and free of both simplistic Christian apologetics and academic reflection detached from engagement with the contemporary world. Chapters Two – Six focus on passages in Genesis 1-11; Chapters Seven – Twelve on Genesis 12-50.

In Chapter Two “On Reading Genesis 1—11”, Moberly confronts the historical-critical and literary challenges to interpreting these famously difficult passages. He finds wanting both historical-critical and pre-Modern methods of dealing with the tensions and questions raised by these texts. The purpose of this chapter is to further argue and describe the canonical method that he will apply throughout the book. Given the diversity of the material, Moberly stresses the vital necessity of reading Genesis in its final form with the assumption by the reader of its coherence.

In Chapter Three “Genesis 1: Picturing the World”, Moberly reads the Creation account of Genesis 1 against the challenges posed by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins argues that the world as it exists calls into question the alleged goodness of the God described in Genesis 1. For Dawkins, the world is amoral. There is no evidence of the hand of a good and moral God. Moberly engages Genesis 1 and argues that the issue at stake is “how one pictures the world” (42). Genesis 1 is clearly a powerful voice for the goodness of Creation. Moberly also affirms the weightiness of Dawkins critique that emphasizes the opposite of Genesis 1: evil, suffering, and the apparent randomness of creation. How does Moberly proceed? He appeals to other accounts of creation including those that affirm the conflict of God with evil, e.g., Pss 44 and 89. Moberly also engages Jon Levinson’s Creation and the Persistence of Evil. The end of this is not an exegetical attempt to sidestep Dawkins, but a reaffirmation of the good picture of Genesis 1 within a canonical portrait that is able to hold in tension the goodness of creation with the presence and conflict of evil.

In chapters Four “Genesis 2-3: Adam and Eve and “the Fall,” Five “Genesis 4: Cain and Abel,” and Six “Genesis 6-9: Cataclysm and Grace,” Moberly offers perceptive readings of these theologically vital but classically difficult texts. In each chapter, Moberly begins with a modern reading: James Barr’s The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) on Genesis 2-3, Regina M. Schwartz’s The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1997), and Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion (London: Bantam Press, 2006) on Genesis 6-9. In response to the issues raised by these authors and in conversation with the broader interpretive tradition, Moberly demonstrates how a canonical approach offers a in his view a better reading than those offered by his dialogue partners. These chapters are a model of exegetical precision, engagement with historical-critical concerns, and the importance of one’s reading strategy.

Chapter Seven “On Reading Genesis 12-50” serves to introduce the interpretive issues present in the Patriarchal narrative. Moberly rehearses material that he covered well in his earlier work The Old Testament of the Old Testament (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).

Chapters Eight “Genesis 12:1-3: A Key to Interpreting the Old Testament?”
and Nine “Genesis 12:3a: A Biblical Basis for Christian Zionism?” focus on the initial call and promises to Abraham. Moberly challenges a broad consensus that reads Gen 12:1-3 as a call for Abraham and his descendants to serve as agents of blessing for the nations. In his exegesis of 12:3a he disputes the Christian Zionist reading that argues for a foreign policy of unconditional support for the nation of Israel as the basis for a nation being blessed by God. In both chapters, Moberly models the tensions and hermeneutic finesse required by one who reads a text both in its literary and broader canonical context.

Chapter Ten “Genesis 22: Abraham – Model or Monster” presents perhaps the greatest exegetical challenge to Moberly. This text has challenged interpreters from the beginning. How could a good God test Abraham in this manner? How can Abraham’s willingness to offer his own son in sacrifice serve in any way as a model for future generations of believers? Moberly recognizes the long standing theological problem inherent in Genesis 22. Yet he ups the ante by offering commentary from contemporary persons who are horrified by the implications of Abraham’s obedience. Moberly argues that the problems arise principally with readers who do not take seriously its ancient cultural and literary context or how a religious community’s rule of faith helps to shape the understanding and appropriation of this passage. For Christians this text remains problematic, but it has always been read in light of the passion of Jesus. This is a blatant theological move, but Moberly demonstrates its warrant in light of the canon. Such a move does not remove all of the issues, but as Moberly reminds us about both Gen 22 and the passion of Jesus: “Nonetheless, Christians believe that, rightly understood and appropriated, these texts point to an entry into anguished darkness that can be a way into light and life” (199).

Chapter Eleven “Abraham and the ‘Abrahamic Faiths’” explores the interfaith dialogue between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam under the rubric of “Abrahamic faiths.” Moberly is critical of the approach for its shallow engagement with the text of Genesis but recognizes its popular appeal and attempts to suggest ways in which an exegesis of the Abrahamic tradition may move the conversation forward.

Chapter Twelve “Genesis 37-50: Is Joseph Wise?” closes the work. In the final chapter, Moberly uses Von Rad’s “The Joseph Narrative and Ancient” as a heuristic tool for reading the Joseph story as embodying a didactic function of teaching wisdom to the faithful. He does not try to resurrect Von Rad’s historical-critical hypotheses, but rather uses Von Rad’s insights as a reading strategy. Thus, Moberly ends the book with a creative reuse of traditional criticism for the purposes of his post-modern hermeneutic.

Moberly also includes a helpful annotated bibliography of commentaries, histories of interpretation, and theologies covering material in Genesis.

This is one of the finest works of biblical theology that I have read in some time. Moberly is a committed Biblicist who is fully aware of the present contested place of the Bible in the Western world. He courageously reads the text in the presence of some of the most trenchant critics. He brings all of his exegetical skills to bear on each text. Readers will not always agree with Moberly’s conclusions. I for one remain convinced that Genesis 12:3 describes the election of Israel for God’s missional aims of redeeming the nations. But no one can read The Theology of the Book of Genesis without being drawn into deep thinking about hermeneutics, the theological meaning of the Bible, and its ongoing conversation with humanity. Moberly demonstrates the power of a canonical hermeneutic rooted in a close and careful reading of the biblical text. He also shows the ongoing relevance of the enterprise when it begins with the questions and criticisms of contemporary writers and thinkers. This is Moberly at his best: independent thinking, clear exegesis, and theologically sophistication.

The Theology of the Book of Genesis (Old Testament Theology) is suitable for college or seminary courses covering the book of Genesis, Pentateuch, or Old Testament theology. Students will learn from a wise exegete about the theological possibilities that arise from a close reading of the biblical text with eyes and ears attuned to the conversations and challenges of the world. Moreover, Moberly is an excellent writer and the text is accessible to any reader interested in a sophisticated conversation between a Christian, biblical scholar, the text of Genesis, and life in the 21st century.

Brian D. Russell
Professor of Biblical Studies
Asbury Theological Seminary – Florida – Dunnam Campus

This is a longer version of the review. I found Moberly’s book to be an outstanding contribution to biblical interpretation and our understanding of Genesis.

There is no substitute for a careful and deliberate engagement with the biblical text. The Scriptures may be likened to the earth’s vast oceans. There are multiple levels and depths of meaning. If one only studies the seas from a single shoreline, one may observe and record accurate observations, but much will be missed. It is vital for interpreters to go as deeply as possible into the text and to read it carefully from a variety of angles in order to engage it in its fullness. This book focuses on a missional approach to the Bible, but such an approach assumes a deep engagement with the text. I will turn now to a brief introduction or perhaps refresher on good reading practices.
The primary determinant for the meaning of a text is its context. Lawson Stone, my first OT teacher, used to say coyly: “Any interpretation must be able to survive at least one close reading of the text.” It is vital to read the Bible in large chunks rather than in isolated verses. Reading Scripture is an intimate dance between the reader and the text. The wise reader must be acutely aware simultaneously of the broad movements of the wider Scriptures and the specific details of the portion of text being interpreted. To focus only on the big picture risks missing the nuances of the Bible, which fill out and unpack its larger truths in the lived lives of its original audience. The temptation is to flatten out the Bible by making its individual sections conform to our assumptions about the big picture. To focus only on the specific details runs the danger of missing the message of the whole. It is like having a closet without hangers or shelves. All of our clothing is scattered randomly without any discernible organizing principles.

What have you learned about reading the Bible that has helped you?

© 2010 Brian D. Russell

A missional hermeneutic seeks to read the Bible for both the church and world. The goal is a realignment to God’s mission. Here are some thoughts about the challenges of reading Scripture for the world. I hope that this makes a contribution to the wider field of missional hermeneutics.

Reading for the World
Religious/cultural pluralism. The lost of Christian memory in the post-Christian West has not been replaced by atheism. Instead, the Western world is thriving with religions. The hegemony of Christendom has ended. Now every world religion, syncretistic amalgamation, and cult stands on equal footing. This is a new given. There are more Muslims attending mosques in Europe today than Christians gathering for worship regularly in churches. All across the United States Christ followers are now coming into regular contact with adherents of all of the world’s religions as well as secularized Westerners. Culturally a generation has emerged in the United States that knows a little about religion but lacks a strong commitment to any particular creed. In his book, Uniqueness of Jesus (Thinking Clearly Series), Chris Wright offers the analogy of a trip to the supermarket cereal aisle as an insight into the popular conception of the question of the world religions. If one goes looking for a new cereal, the number of choices available is almost bewildering. Cereals today come in all shapes, colors, and sizes. Yet at their core, a cereal is a cereal. Each one has been vitamin fortified and most will provide a person a certain percentage of key vitamins and minerals. Wright argues that most people view religion in this way: all religions are essentially the same. Individuals then choose the one that best fits their personal and cultural preferences. Reading the Scriptures for the world invites the interpreter into this context of pluralism. The wise reader of the Bible must now be aware of other Scriptural traditions and forms piety found in other faith expressions. The audience for missional interpretation will no longer merely be women and men familiar with the Gospel, but not personally connected to it. Increasingly, we will be communicating the Gospel to persons who are more acquainted with other religions or with no religion. The starting point and assumptions that a communicator will need to make in the emerging 21st century Western context are vastly different than they were only a generation ago. It is vital for interpreters to study and reflect on the religious and philosophical assumptions of their audience.

Contested truth claims – avoid straw men. When we only preach to insiders, it is easy to paint the world in broad, brush strokes. We can make claims and blanket statements that may appeal to and be acceptable to insiders, but which will befuddle if not completely close down the communication of the Gospel to those who do not share the worldview and assumptions of insiders. It is always a temptation to oversimplify complex issues and problems. This does not mean that the biblical interpreter must somehow sanitize the Gospel. Scripture is clear, “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing…”(1 Cor 1:18). The issue is not a watering down of the Gospel; the issue is the needless offense of listeners with careless statements that are peripheral to the Gospel. A missional hermeneutic is all about presenting clearly and compellingly the biblical call to conversion. If the audience is to be offended, it must be the Gospel that does the offending, not the carelessness of the communicator.

Ignorance of the biblical message. Communicators must constantly strive to explain the biblical text clearly and cogently. This is an area in which we find a real overlap with reading the Bible for the Church. Preachers and teachers must embrace this reality as an opportunity to proclaim anew the Gospel of Jesus Christ for our generation.

Political correctness/sensitivity. The Western world of the 21st century is acutely aware of the abuses of past generations. Westerners have learned to be more sensitive about issues of social justice as related for example to race, culture, gender, and age. The Old Testament is the product of the Iron Age. The New Testament arose during the 1st century A.D. in the Roman Empire. Certain parts of the Bible sound barbaric in comparison to 21st century sensibilities. In the world of the Bible, slavery is commonplace. Capital punishment exists for a plethora of crimes. Women do not share equal rights with men. Animals are used for sacrifice. Outsiders may raise legitimate concerns about these elements. For an extreme example of a reading highly skeptical of Scripture and the God that it presents, consider the words of scientist and committed atheist Richard Dawkins:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadmasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Bantam, 2006), 31.)
Dawkins is guilty of anachronism and a deconstructionist reading against the grain and trajectory of the biblical story, but he does illustrate how an outsider may hear or read the text. This

Elephants in the room. Outsiders don’t know the rules. Outsiders aren’t afraid to ask tough questions. Outsiders are seeking honest answers. This means that interpreters can’t skirt around controversial texts or gloss over difficult words or phrases. This is a positive development. In our 21st century missional reality, the clear communication of Scriptural truth is a necessity. It places certain demands and expectations on the interpreter. If the Scripture is read in public, its content must be engaged. When outsiders hear a controversial text read and have a question, they will raise it. Thus, we as interpreters must learn to read the text through the lens of an outsider. Erwin McManus of Mosaic in Los Angeles calls this “reading the text in 360 degrees.” (Notes from Origins Regional Conference, Orlando 2006) He argues that too often believers have a tendency to read the Bible only through the eyes of the faithful protagonists in the story. We are always David and Israel rather than Goliath and Egypt. However if you are on the peripheries of the community you may sympathize with the antagonists in the biblical narratives more than the heroes. The sensitive interpreter needs to be aware of these counter-intuitive (from the insider perspective) ways of reading and recognize that many in our audience will be raising questions in their minds that need to be addressed. This means that interpreters must address any difficult or potentially controversial element in our texts rather than merely skirting around them. Ask questions such as these: What in this text is potentially offensive? What part of the passage do I wish was not present?

Necessities:
The interpreter must: 1) address the obvious issues, 2) answer objections, 3) not assume that the audience understands the contours of the Gospel, 4) make sense of the text within its Scriptural context, 5) be sensitive to the modern context, and 6) trust the Holy Spirit is working in the midst of the community

What do you think? I would value your feedback publicly or privately brian(dot)russell at asburyseminary(dot)edu

© 2010 Brian D. Russell