Fostering Imagination in Evangelism

Excerpt from How Not to Evangelise by Stephen Parsons 
at Surviving Church (my own emphasis added):

The second word I brought forward as being always needed in any attempt at communication is the word imagination.

The ability to use the imagination effectively is sadly something not always encouraged in the schooling process. It does however develop as a by-product of certain disciplines within the curriculum which are labelled under the title of creative arts. These are not always the ones most valued in a system that places science, maths and verifiable information at the top of the educational tree. While imagination is hard to teach, it is nevertheless naturally built into every growing child and parents and teachers can do much to encourage it.

Tweet

On Street Evangelists

Excerpt from How Not to Evangelise by Stephen Parsons 
at Surviving Church (my own emphasis added):

Without this capacity to imagine that things elsewhere in the world are sometimes radically different from what we know, we can find the rest of the world to be a place of darkness or even threat. [. . .] It goes without saying that it is important to know something of where another person is coming from in any attempt to communicate with them. Expecting them always to understand our words and our point of view because we are shouting a bit louder, is demeaning and insulting.

Those of us who claim to be Christian realise, on reflection, that our faith is a complex combination of thinking, feeling and knowledge as well as experience. In a subtle way faith binds together all these elements of personal experience with a body of knowledge which we call the Christian Tradition. If someone tried to persuade me to express my Christian hope in a few sentences, I would probably try to refuse.

My position would be that any verbal expression of the totality of the Christian faith as I understand it, would do violence to its integrity. The few words that I might eventually use to explain my faith would be words that never tried to enclose or define anything. They would always be words that pointed beyond themselves to hint at a deeper, wider and broader reality than I could possibly convey only through the use of words. It is because of this that I instinctively shudder at the sight of the street evangelist with his uncompromising message of repentance or destruction.

Tweet

Overcoming Distrust of Emotions from Scandalous Ideas (A Response to Rachel Held Evans' Scandal of the Evangelical Heart)

I'm amazed at how moved I was this morning by the words of two great women of mercy and strength. Of Rachel Held Evans' latest blog post, Cindy Foster wrote:

Can't help but admire a woman who will ask these kinds of questions publicly and in writing for the entire world of faith to read. Takes more faith and guts than most of us will ever have. Gotta read this!!

Cindy is a the loving mom of many that she raised with her husband who co-pastored a Fundamentalist church. She chronicles her journey out of the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement through honest and moving posts at Baptist Taliban and Beyond.

Tweet

Journaling for Personal and Spiritual Growth

 A good counselor will tell you to keep a daily journal. There are many articles online that talk about the new data which shows the mental and physical health benefits of the practice, in addition to the sage old advice about the benefits of the discipline. Google puts them right at our fingertips, so I won't spend much time here on that subject.

Tweet

Problems with Proper Context And Misreading the Bible

A few months ago, I wrote a post about the problems of context when an author uses a common term but applies and uses the term with a different definition than is commonly understood. Redefining a term and clearly communicating your new definition (without changing the term) does not constitute an informal logical fallacy in itself, but it does set one up for slipping into a linguistic booby trap and sets up a high probability for falling into an error of equivocation and ambiguity. The listener tends to slip back into a common understanding of the term. James Sire touches on this issue in his book "Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible," though Orthodox or Evangelical Christians with the highest view of Scripture can also fall prey to these same pitfalls and errors as well.

Tweet

“The Biblical Hook” (Using Nancy Campbell’s Ontological Subordination of Women as an Example of Sloppy Rhetoric)

From pages 41 -42 of “Scripture Twisting" by James Sire:

When Scripture is quoted, especially at the beginning of an argument which turns out to promote a cult doctrine or point of view, it may be that it is being used primarily as a hook to grasp the attention of readers or listeners. “The Bible says” gets the attention, but what follows the quotation may be far from traditional Christian teaching and far from the intention of the Bible itself.

We use shortcuts to help us sift through the tremendous amounts of information that we are bombarded with every day, and we do not have time to search out the truth about every fact. Cialdini’s book “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion” presents one of the best reviews and descriptions of this “rule of thumb” we use to help us get through daily life. For instance, when we see a person in a police uniform, we tend to assume that the person wearing the uniform is actually a policeman. This is a reasonable assumption to make, and we automatically respond to the person in the uniform as though they are with the police, but we may learn that they are only wearing the uniform as a costume or could be trying to be deceptive.

Tweet

Does The Bible Really Say That?

Often, doctrinal errors arise from inaccurate translations of the Bible, or sometimes merely because verses are misquoted or misapplied. This is actually a common and sometimes an easy error to make. Mixing up a word or two can form a whole new doctrine or an unrelated Scripture can be used to form a new doctrine, merely based on a bad quote or misapplication. Recently someone brought the verse “I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me” to my attention (Philippians 4:13), but they stated it as “Christ who strengthens me.” The first statement implies that doing things through Christ makes one stronger. The second misquote means that Christ gives strength first so that all things can be done, something not necessarily contingent on being “in Christ.” It’s a simple mistake that leads to serious doctrinal error. It might also be misapplied to state that Christ will strengthen a Believer as they commit a sin, for example.

Tweet

More on Black and White from Steven Martin

A little reminder about what Steven Martin has to say about Lifton’s “Doctrine over Person”:

Fitting the Rigid Mold ( from Pg. 109)

Doctrine Over Person consists of fitting everything under the leader’s dominating control into a pre-conceived mold.

This involves:

• Human experience and the interpretation of those experiences.

• Human feelings and the interpretation of those feelings.

• Disregarding one’s feelings or sensitivities.

• No appreciation of someone’s talents, individuality or creativity; the only goal is to fit everyone and their personalities into the dominating vies and influence of the one in control, opposing diversity and individual differences.

• The rigidity of the doctrinal mold resists adaptation even when adaptation may prove to be best.

• The rewriting of history to fit the system of the doctrinal mold.

Stating it another way, the controller reinterprets the personal feelings and experiences of the group members to fit his own dominating views and influence. He disregards and remolds past events, individual differences and capabilities to fit his own preconceived mold. In essence, the controller rejects everything that does not fit into his preconceived mold or framework.

-Summary & paraphrase of Dr. Lifton on Doctrine Over Person

Read more from Steven Martin HERE.

Tweet

Thinking Only in Black and White

It’s interesting living in a family where we have a great number of drug allergies and idiosyncratic (unusual, odd or unexpected) responses to medicines. Doctors hate it and some have become angry with us, the patient because our bodies don’t elicit the “correct” response. There’s a particular class of medicines that causes a life-threatening asthmatic response and my tongue and face swell. I went to a new doctor, seeking an alternative to the medicine to which I was allergic, and he recommended that since “I had not taken it in awhile,” I should try an injection of it there in their office. I told him that he would have to phone the local emergency room in advance to plan for my arrival and have epinephrine ready there in his own office. The last time I took the medicine orally, my lung capacity dropped to less than 50% of normal and my tongue and airway started to swell shut. He was actually offended that I refused the medicine Needless to say, I left that doctor and never went back.

Tweet

More on Spiritual Abuse: Reasons Why We Get Drawn into the System

The Problem of Shame

As mentioned in the previous post, all people share a common trait: we all bear a certain degree and potential for shame. The Christian explains this by putting this in spiritual terms. This shame derives from our separation from God which occurred in the Garden of Eden at the time of Adam’s fall from grace. This shame over our separation from God and our fallen nature (sin nature) serves as the foundation of all of our other shame.

Tweet

Converging Thoughts and Divergent Thinking (Speculations on the Tension Between Divine and Human Agency)

My husband and I think in different ways, but we often come to so many same conclusions independently and even say the same things at the same time. If a week goes by when we fail to utter the same unexpected comment simultaneously, I wonder if there is trouble in our relationship. So it's odd to consider how I comprehend things in terms of global perspective (borrowing a term from Cynthia Ulrich Tobias – Remember her of FoF fame, Moms?) and he comprehends best by looking at the finer details first. I quickly become uncomfortable without the overview when I am handed too many fine details, not knowing where to put them.

He needs the specific, objective details first, as they help orient him. I'm all about framing out the house and getting the plywood on the roof before I can begin to worry about shingles, and he is all about the shingles and the budget. So far, we have been a wonderful match for one another, showing complementary strengths.

When it comes to this discussion of faith and works in the circles of all those claiming Reformed Christianity, the general overview provides me with comfort. For that, I believe that certain writers appeal to me more than others. Throw in the changes in Reformed Theology, Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction that have occurred over the past 15 years. Greg Bahnsen and Rousas Rushdoony graduate to Glory. Those men commanded much due respect that others don't seem to carry in the ways that they did, and in their absence, many different groups of folks lay what often seems like exclusive claim to their ideas. Throw in N.T. Wright, Norm Shepherd, New Perspectives on Paul, John Robbins, things Westminster (both East and West coast), the ever-growing Federal Vision weirdness and what Karen Campbell calls “patriocentric voodoo” that comes out of those who profess things patriarchal and family integrated. The regulatory principle of worship is another detail rich conundrum for me that does not hold my interest, though I also know some details people who become bogged down in what seems like minutiae. Many varieties and numbers of unique and common shingles lay in bundles and in the fray, many of which do not interest me. I'm concerned about where the shingles go, not the fine details of the specifics unless it is vital to my faith and worship. Thus far, it has not been too critical, though it seems those who are interested in these issues tend to be detail oriented as opposed to the over-view-type of thinker.

Human agency versus “faith alone” also confronts me as I write more about the similarities between the patriocentric and the Roman Catholic view of infused grace through ongoing works as a means of ongoing sanctification. As stated many times before, if you are Roman Catholic, the idea that patriocentrics believe that every household creates what is, effectively, an autonomous priest, creating sacraments out of wholesome agrarian living, ought to be offensive. Reformed Protestants should be offended because the patriocentrists (Federal Vision followers included) claim staunchly to be Reformed when they follow a Catholic-like form of government (via their patriarchal priesthood) and a view that differs little from the sanctification process of infused righteousness that Aquinas described. 

This denies the central tenets of all things Protestant and Reformed Christianity in particular. Roman Catholics should be offended because their view of priesthood becomes diminished, particularly when there are so few available priests worldwide. They should also take issue with patriocentricity's creation of countless family-oriented sacraments of wholesome living because they cheapen the significance of the seven sacraments established by the Roman Catholic Church. And as I've stated before, if you want to be Roman Catholic, that is your decision and we still have fellowship in Christ, just not in the specific mechanics of the mediation of justification and sanctification, etc. as it relates to patriarchy. My personal issue concerns these who claim a Reformed faith and Theonomy when they are actually closer to Roman Catholic Theology in their beliefs regarding sanctification. Create a new label, but be honest. Do not claim the Reformation (and likewise, do not claim Roman Catholicism, as they would not readily lay claim to these beliefs either).

Within the realm and ranks of Reformed Protestantism, I also contend personally, practically, and theoretically with what seems to be the natural and inevitable tension between faith and works in the Christian life. I inadvertently stumbled upon another discussion of this on a blog, all while Sandlin's “Faith That Is Never Alone” along side Elliott's “Christianity and Neo-Liberalism” stare at me from my bedside. They lay beside a copy of “Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment.” I also think of those who clearly follow Theonomy with grace and balanced Christian love in the Spirit of the Law as they pose a striking contrast against the “other supposed Theonomists” who I imagine Robbins would call the ersatz Calvinists. I've been using this term recently because it is shorter than “brave, new angry Calvinists” who recommend stoning of wayward teens and legalism the likes of which seem could only come from one who has never been to the Cross of Calvary. These are those who turn Calvinism into pagan karma through their works-based love of the letter of the law, as if their TULIP was short at least one petal (as if total depravity really never applied to them personally).

I inadvertently wandered into another minefield of what seemed like thousands of individual shingles laying around when I found “Professor Clark's” recent blog post about Theonomy and Federal Vision being identical twins that were separated at birth. Many single details presented there seemed quite valid and reasonable, and other conclusions regarding those and other facts presented seemed either murky or like minutiae. I lack the specific knowledge of those individual shingles that would enable me to rightly lay them in the right place in the right way so as to make a water-tight theological roof. From my global perspective style, the conclusions seemed off even though I did recognize the truth in some observations and facts.

Within a few hours after commenting there (which went unrecognized), many ready answers came to me with both completed framing and shingles in place for me from a source that I don't always agree with implicitly on all matters, but one I hold as most trustworthy and faithful. I am also aware that these are matters that he has studied at great length and one who actually had personal relationships and direct knowledge of the views of others referenced [in the blog theory of the supposed displaced theological twins]. This, Sandlin's response, adds more confidence to my speculations that the discontinuities between the Shepherd and Robbins camps are issues of articulating unique perspectives. But that's a Right-brained thinker with good Right-Left Integration at work, and the Lefties may not “get it,” even if I've articulated this all well. That's okay, as I am comfortable to leave some things obscured through the glass we see through darkly. I'll see it clearly one day when we shall be changed and be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is – the ultimate goal behind and bearing up the purpose for all of these debates.

Here is a portion of Andrew Sandlin's response to Clark, “Reversing Revisionism (on Theonomy, Shepherd and Federal Vision)":

Contrary to what we read on Professor Clark’s blog, I do not support and have never supported the FV. It’s odd that the critics of the FV do not grasp this readily documentable fact, because the FV’ers themselves do. They all know that I cannot agree with and in fact criticize their ecclesiology, their sacramentalism, their liturgy, their covenantalism and much else besides. The fact that I have defended — and will defend — them against historically misguided charges of heresy and “denying the Gospel” no more suggests that I embrace the FV than the fact that R. C. Sproul may defend John MacArthur against charges of heresy and “denying the Gospel” for being premillennial makes Sproul a premillennialist. Such (il)logic is just plain silly, as any thoughtful, dispassionate person must acknowledge.

I embrace the doctrine of justification precisely as it appears in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The exclusive instrumental cause of justification is faith. That faith rests entirely on the redemptive work of Jesus on the Cross and from the empty tomb and grasps hard on Jesus as Savior and Lord. The issue is not sola fide, which Scott and I both heartily affirm, but the nature of saving faith. Scott, like his colleague Mike Horton, has made clear his position that justifying faith is exclusively passive (trusting in and resting on Jesus) and never active (submitting to Jesus as Lord and as his disciple). I affirm that it is both simultaneously (in the distinct senses I have stated), and that a faith that is merely active is moralistic while a faith that is merely passive is antinomian. On this point, I dissent from Clark and Horton and I agree with J. I. Packer in Evangelical Affirmations:

There is an evident confusion here between faith as a psychological act, that is, something that you do (in this case, “closing with Christ” as the Puritans used to put it), and faith as a meritorious work, that is, a means of earning God’s favor and inducing his acceptance. When it is argued that to call for active commitment to discipleship as a response to the gospel is to teach works-righteousness, the confusion is clear. The truth is that every act of faith, psychologically regarded, is a matter of doing something (knowing, receiving, and trusting are as much acts in the psychological sense as is resolving to obey); yet no act of faith ever presents itself to its doer as other than a means of receiving undeserved mercy in some shape or form. This is as true of a trustful commitment to follow Christ as it is of a trustful resting on the Saviour’s [sic] promise of pardon. There is no need to restrict faith to passive reliance without active devotion in order to keep works-righteousness and legalism out of the picture.

Packer believes what Clark and Horton do not: a saving faith defined only passively lends aid and comfort to antinomianism, and a saving faith defined both passively and actively does not lend aid and comfort to a moralistic works-righteousness and legalism. Justifying faith is both passive and active, and this is precisely what James denotes when he demands justification by works, which in no way violates sola fide but, rather, protects it.

This also is what NS believes and teaches, but agreeing with NS on this issue is not tantamount to support for the FV, just as RJR and GLB agreed with NS on this issue, and did not agree with JBJ’s views that eventually became known as the FV.

Reversal
This account, all-too-brief, is an accurate summary of the genealogy of the FV. One hopes that it will help to reverse some of the historical revisionism (or just plain ignorance) parading under the guise of thoughtful commentary.

Read the whole post HERE.

Tweet

An Example of Lifton's "Doctrine Over Person" at Work

The Doctrine Over Person technique of thought reform requires that members of the group subjugate their own experiences to fit the desired group model, and they often will redefine their own histories in order to comply. Usually this takes place through social mentoring, pressure and the direct/indirect requests by leadership, but it can take place in other ways as well.

Watch Derren Brown use a technique of NeuroLinguistic Programing to convince a subject to redefine his own perceptions, wants and desires through use of a technique called "anchoring." This is perhaps one of the most powerful techniques used in hypnotherapy and is often referred to as a type of "waking hypnosis." Watch how Brown grabs the subject's right wrist to establish his authority and then "anchors" his subtle suggestions by touching the subject's left arm repeatedly as he speaks to him.

This technique may not be used by the patriocentrics to "anchor" their moral imperatives and their doctrines, but this demonstrates how easy it is for a skilled person to surreptitiously influence their thinking. In this example, one can see "Doctrine Over Person" at work. The manipulator influences the subject to accept his "doctrine" by one of many available techniques that manipulators and salesmen have done since the beginning of time.

Resisting manipulation starts with knowledge about the techniques of manipulation.

Tweet

Troubling Teachings About the Trinity on St. Patrick’s Day

I recently spoke at the 2008 EMNR Apologetics Conference, and I received some criticism over the nature of the Trinitarian teachings of some Evangelical Christian groups. I was pressured to state that the teachings of specific individuals were taken out of context by the patriarchy movement in order to support their views concerning gender. I was unwilling to make that statement. 

Whether the gender debate fostered this view of Trinity (one my husband terms a “sub-Christian” view of Trinity) or whether these views of Trinity came first and just conveniently support some contemporary gender arguments, I believe that Christians should be very concerned about the ramifications of the teachings. They argue that the Trinity is a hierarchy, quibbling that Jesus does not hold the “primacy” or an equal level of authority within the Godhead. In terms of authority (but also in function or “role”), Jesus is not co-equal with the Father.

Tweet

A Deeper Understanding of Sanctification

More on my ongoing vacation in Lutheranism,

a place that I do like to visit,

through Eric's shared links posted at

"On the Wittenberg Trail"

Here's a topic that I always assume needs no explanation for the Protestant and the Reformed, and, then, I realize that this is a false assumption. This is a subject of great debate within many circles in Evangelical Christianity, far beyond my wildest imagination. Though I rejoice in our commonalities in Christ and know many Catholic brethren that share a deep love for Jesus and the deep love of Jesus in their hearts, on the topic of sanctification, we do not agree.

From my traditional understanding, it was just this issue of justification and sanctification that moved Martin Luther to hang his famed Ninety-Five Theses on that famed door in Wittenberg in protest of Catholic Doctrine. The Catholic church essentially sold salvation through indulgences and works, teaching that sanctification was a process of "infusion" of grace into the life of the believer over the course of his life through compliance with the law and through obedience to the clergy. Salvation depended more upon compliance with standards and works than it did with faith, but one day, Luther had an epiphany. Reading that we were saved by grace through faith and not by works or PIETY in Ephesians chapter 2, Luther realized that salvation was of God and not through man's merit nor through the merit of his works.

This is truly a miraculous thing to understand, because I believe that comprehending this in our human understanding is truly impossible. Salvation by grace through faith is impossible, and God works this miracle of impossiblity into our hearts through faith in Him! Not of works do we boast, and we don't maintain our sanctification or the process of being made holy in Christ through our own effort but by the inner work of the Holy Spirit.

I was overjoyed to read the following. I will hope that you will click on the link and read the entire passage because it is wonderful, though I especially loved the lyrical statement, copied here from that blog entry on Weedon's Blog:

On Sanctification The danger is in thinking that the holiness given you in Christ is not whole, perfect, complete. * It IS. *
It is not at all so much the case that holiness grows in you, but that you grow in holiness.
The gift is given: now we make progress in learning to live from it, so that love becomes ever more our life.

Tweet

More on Matthew 18

Thanks again to Eric's "On the Wittenberg Trail," I took notice to this post regarding the use of Matthew 18 and the ever growing trend in so many Evangelical churches to use this Scripture, designed to bring unity and foster communication between the bretheren as an invitation to discipline. Read another post from the "Cyber Stones" blog. (Apparently this isn't just a trend found only within patriarchy and Presbyterianism.)

From "Misunderstanding Matthew 18"

It is the sad reality of our synod that the most quoted passage at any casual gathering of pastors is Matthew 18. This portion of Holy Writ contains part of Our Lord's instruction on Holy Absolution. You'd think this would make me happy. It would if that was how it was quoted, but it is not. In our circles "Matthew 18" is not invoked as a gift for repentant sinners anymore than "Matthew 28" is invoked as the institution of the Office of the Holy Ministry. 

Rather it is cited as an ecclesiastical Miranda rights which if not followed to the satisfaction of the critics (and it is impossible to follow this to the satisfaction of the critics for such are the criteria that it cannot be done except by looking the other way) then the 'accused' gets off scot free, the accusation is removed - without the absolution. I know this probably sounds insane. It is insane. But such is the case in our synod at the casual level. We just want to get along. We dislike those who rock the boat. We are so fearful of debate, or disagreeing, of struggling through the issues that the precious Words of Our Lord are used as a threat and club to end discussion before it begins. If is quite likely that if you dare to question, to accuse, to complain, you will be shunned and looked down upon for "violating Matthew 18." 

Click here to read the rest of the post and the comments that follow.

This is reminiscent of another excellent blog post from November and a subject that I also addressed on this blog a few months ago as well.

From Thatmom's Blog on slander, libel, and gossip, oh my! understanding the difference between Matthew 18:15 and Galatians 2

...Several times I have been personally (and have seen others as well) admonished to go to those with whom I disagree and begin a Matthew 18 process with them. I have been asked numerous times if I did that with any of those whom I have critiqued and if I have discussed my differences with them, seeking reconciliation.... This has been a strange suggestion to me, since what I have always understood that passage of Scripture to mean is that when another brother or sister in Christ has sinned against you, you are to go to them and tell them how they did so, hoping that they will confess that sin and make it right with you... Just because someone has offended you does not mean that that person has sinned against you, no matter how angry they have made you. 

It does not mean that you can read their hearts, their motives, or assign sin to them, allowing feelings about them as a person to override the truth of God’s Word. And the sin must be worthy of taking all the way to the end process if necessary... And this brings us full circle to the reason why understanding the differences between applying Matthew 18 and Galatians 2 is so crucial within the homeschooling community. You see, those who are currently raising the subject of “online gossip and slander” of late are within the patriocentric camp. They know that they cannot win their debate in the arena of public discussion. They think if they can make a case for privately talking, one on one, where they can say anything they want, free from public accountability, they can continue to teach what they teach. Those of us who are challenging these teachings MUST keep the discussion within the sphere of public discourse, where each and every word can be seen and heard.... 

Please read the full post (without my many omissions in copying only a small portion of it) HERE.

We can use the Gospel and the Word of God to work reconciliation, but many use it as a means to browbeat the sheep into submission and compliance. God have mercy on us!

Tweet

Theology and Experience

From the February 2008

"Trinity Review"

Number 274
pg 4:

The Fruit of Biblical Theology

The old paradigm taught that if you had the right teaching, you will experience God. The new paradigm says that if you experience God, you will have the right teaching. 

This may be disturbing to many who assume propositional truth must always preceed and dictate religious experience. That mindset is the product of systematic theology and has much to contribute... However, biblical theology looks to the Bible for a pattern of experience followed by proposition" (Leith Andersen, "A Church for the 21st Century").

Like the Biblical Theology movement, the "Emerging Church" movement is based on the irrational and Antichristian notion that event/experience/history someohow precede propostitional truth/theology.

The Bible alone is the Word of God.
The Trinity Foundation hereby grants permission to all readers to download, print, and distribute on paper or electronically any of its Reviews, provided that each reprint bear our copyright notice, current addresses, and telephone numbers, and provided that all such reproductions are distributed to the public without charge. The Reviews may not be sold or issued in book form, CD-ROM form, or microfiche.

Copyright (C) 1998-2008 The Trinity Foundation

Post Office 68, Unicoi, Tennessee 37692Phone: 423.743.0199 Fax: 423.743.2005

Tweet

How Does Heresy Happen?

Christians who believe that the Bible is God’s inspired and infallible Word of God believe that the instruction in the Bible is sufficient for all of our human needs and has the ability to transcend our times and culture. The difficulty presents when we try to diligently and faithfully apply the proper meaning of Scripture to the specifics of our lives today. 

At this point, without a wise, clear, broad and well-informed perspective, we could easily fall into error. How can we keep from branching off from what God teaches us in the Word into error, be it misguided, false teachings or heresy, especially concerning central and critical doctrine.

Harold O. J. Brown has this to say in Heresies (pg 150):

“The spiritual contrast between these variant views and what we now call orthodoxy lay first of all in the goal that each sought to accomplish: the heretical positions had in common a desire to understand the mystery of God; the orthodox sought to preserve the salvation Christians find in Christ.”

Intent has a great deal to do with whether we descend into heresy. If our goal is to develop and formulate a clear doctrine about a mystery, then we are branching off into dangerous territory. Intent to meet a goal dominates and governs our actions. If our approach however concerns intent to clearly discern what the Word of God teaches us about a particular issue, then we are less likely to fall into error or predispose ourselves to error. Our primary commitment must be to the preservation of the integrity of the Word of God, following a sound hermeneutic.


Paul Elliot, in Christianity and Neo-Liberalism points out several pitfalls resulting from departure from sound hermeneutics into ones that are poorly informed or very narrow in understanding. 

“First, it is not a fixed set of principles or a defined methodology for the interpretation of Scripture.” 

In our postmodern world, truth is determined by experience and meaning is imparted by the person who deems a thing truthful, so it is not an objective measure of truth. Concerning the group that Elliot discusses in his book, these religious leaders stated that as long as their group agreed on the basics of the creeds, they were willing to tolerate the inconsistencies on other levels, sacrificing objective truth in favor of what Elliot calls “artificial confessional unity.” (Pg 248-249)

“Second, notice that the primary focus of the hermeneutic of trust is not on correctly interpreting the words of Scripture at all. It focuses instead on interpreting the words of the church’s confessional standards, and on construing them in ways that are elastic enough to permit the OPC to fit diverging doctrinal views under one big confessional tent… So the hermeneutic of trust is at least one step removed from Scripture. It focuses not on the Scripture itself but on human perspectives on Scripture… It is not only significant that the hermeneutic of trust draws attention away from Scripture, but also that it draws attention to something called the “animus imponentis”, or the intention of the imposing body.” (pg 249)

Elliot goes on to point out an example where Charles Hodge (a mid 19th century seminary instructor at Princeton) argues for the use of “animus imponentis” to maintain denominational unity and prevent a type of pluralism. Elliot says

“But with all due respect to Hodge, to use the animus impotentis as the fundamental guiding principle in establishing conformity to sound doctrine is to adopt a fatally flawed benchmark… By this logic, Rome’s doctrine of justification and the Protestant doctrine of justification have equal standing. In fact, any competing doctrines that bear the stamp of approval of their respective “imposing bodies” would have equal standing. Each imposing body is after all, its own ‘community of interpretation.’” The problem with this method is that the standards will change over time.” (pg 250-252)

Elliot concludes this section stating:

“[A]t the end of the day, what is important is not what men say the Bible says, but what the Bible actually says. For that reason, our starting point in sound doctrine must never be the secondary standards of the church, but always Scripture. It is Scripture that gives meaning to the words of the confessional standards, not vice versa. The hermeneutic of trust perverts this fundamental order." (pg 254)

Tweet

Origins of the Hermeneutic of Trust

Another Excerpt from

"Christianity and Neoliberalism"

by Paul Elliott

(pg 245 -246)

The term “hermeneutic of trust” is not new, and the concept originated not in the field of theology but in the secular field of language philosophy. The “hermeneutic of trust” was popularized by the German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) in his books Truth and Method and Philosophical Hermeneutics.

Gadamer, though not a theologian himself, was a close associate of the existentialist theologian Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976), a main spokesman for modern liberal/skeptical methods of Biblical interpretation. [Host Note: Bultmann has been very influential in the development of the philosophy embraced by the Emergent Church.]

Gadamer asserted that the hermeneutic of trust applies to any area of society, not just theology. Gadamer denied the existence of objective truth. Correctly interpreting a text, he asserted, does not mean correctly understanding the original intention of the author. Rather, Gadamer argued, interpreting any text – whether it is a piece of literature, a nation’s constitution or the Bible – involves what he termed a “fusion of horizons.” In this “fusion,” a “community of interpretation” made up of scholars and other so-called experts decides what that community’s view of “truth” will be. Each participant contributes his perspectives to this mix. According to this bankrupt philosophy, a community standard of “truth” is the best that men can hope for. There is no objective truth.

[This reminds me to the Federal Vision concept of hermeneutics as an "intuitive art" versus the traditional view of a serious discipline. Is this Federal Vision "intuitive art of hermeneutics" actually an hermeneutic of trust? Hmmm.]

Tweet

More About Hermeneutics: The Grammatico-Historical Method

So how does one go about all of this?

I prefer the grammatico-historical method (also called the grammatical-historical method, depending on whom you ask) over a literal interpretation of text. 

Tweet

On Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics: "The theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of scriptural text." (American Heritage Dictionary)

How do we properly understand what the Scriptures Mean? I find the fact that the Word of God can speak to me on so many levels throughout so many years of my life one of the most wonderful things about study of the Bible. Though the foolish things confound the wise and the wise things are made simple through the Spirit, certain texts require a great deal of discipline. How do we go about determining what the Bible meant when it makes a certain statement in a particular way?

I believe that it is the great challenge of the Christian to rightly discern the truth about what the Word actually says (and means). If we use sound methods to investigate the truth, we are more likely to arrive at a sound doctrine and sound meaning. Just to put some of this into perspective, let me offer two examples of why a good hermeneutic bears importance to accurate meaning of a text. One of the more telling examples in literature came to me while attending a Catholic college as a born-again Christian. 

I took a literature class called “The Theological Quest” wherein we read a great deal of the existentialist writers as well as the Russian moralists. We read a book called “The Fall” by Albert Camus, an atheist who hated God, but I found in that book more references to Scripture than I find in most Christian books today. The class was taught by a former Baptist minister turned philosophy professor, so it was an interesting experience.

In reading Camus, the protagonist is named Jacques le Baptiste, though I doubt if I’ve spelled it correctly here, wherein the he laments the fact that he is subject to sin and subject to the Scriptural standard of righteousness. Any Evangelical Christian could pick up the symbolism: that of John the Baptist, but one without a savior to for whom to prepare the way—a man without purpose in life. Each page of the small paperback had at least three direct references to a Scripture, indicating the deeper meaning of the text. My previous knowledge and study of the Bible set me apart in that class because of my understanding, so the literature was easier to interpret and held deeper meaning. 

Most of my classmates lacked understanding of the Word and did not comprehend the meaning of the text without additional instruction from the professor and without considering informed commentaries on the book. 

 Fast forward a couple of years to a missions trip I took to Russia. On the plane ride home, I spoke with a Russian with whom I discussed the Karamazov. I loved the book, and I still refer to it as one of the best pieces of literature ever written, so complex and concerned with the deeper meaning of life. I barely started talking about the book, and this Russian gentleman explained to me how my limited understanding of Russian life made my deeper understanding of the text very difficult. The names of the characters were well chosen, and he spent a great deal of time with me, discussing why a particular name was used and the specific meaning it conveyed. I felt rather like those other students in my class where I first read Camus and Dostoevski! 

I lacked the cultural understandings that conveyed deeper meanings to the characters. (For very obvious example, if I wrote literature and I named a character Clinton or Lewinski, it would take on deeper meaning and would convey and connote meaning beyond my actual words.) Such is true when we study the Bible. When I studied Greek in seminary, I had the wonderful advantage of learning the language from a believer who grew up as an orthodox Jew. In addition to learning the language, I also learned how the Jews of the day used the Greek language from a unique and broad perspective. I developed a great appreciation for the perspective that this understanding brought to the text. 

I found that aspects of this study were much like my experience in medical research, following a logical and well-informed process of investigation so that one can have the broadest perspective and understand the most accurate information about my life’s greatest passion: the study of the Word. 

Stay tuned for a review of the principles of the grammatico-historical method of hermeneutics

Tweet