There are two things I struggle with in the approach, and I think it comes out in your blog.
1. How can we do this sort of Biblical theology without being more contextual and aware of our own positionality in the way we read and interpret Scripture. Even with a high view of Biblical revelation we have the hermeneutical task of applying ancient words in the modern / postmodern world... And we two are both old white men. ???
2. Some things of your approach tend towards essentialism or cultures, ethnicities, people groups. We abandoned the idea of race as an essential (creational given?) category long ago.. If race is a social construct then culture, ethnicity and most identity categories (except those attached to human bodies.. e.g. sex, body size and shape??) are also social constructs, (including sender and sexulaity?).. While cultures (and languages) associated with ethnicity are different and need to be valued and respected , they do change over time, and especially with migration, and there is mixing and blending of cultural forms, and the gene pools of ethnic groups.
We would I think both agree that all who are in Christ form a new humanity, and that this is a primary identity for citizens of heaven... But in a not yet perfect church, living in a far from perfect society, navigating this is all very tricky.
As regards your observation 2, I would certainly want to avoid any essentialism. I think Paul's words in Acts 17 imply fluidity and change as regards ethnicity, so that identities are never static. But at any point in time we do use labels ('Tamil', 'working class') which indicate some sort of distinct reality or they would not be worth using. Certainly we need to be alert to the way that what those labels indicate can change, disappear, merge or emerge - but with all due caution and flexibility labels indicating ethnicity need to be used.
2. As regards hermeneutics, we learn as go along. Yes, I interpret scripture from my very particular age, social class, gender, cultural, educational, theological background - and therefore need to be open to correction; but that has to happen as we go along with discussion and correction over particular passages or themes that I have used. So it raises the question in what specific ways my background can be seen to distort my understanding? Answers very warmly welcomed.
In response to 1. If local churches are multicultural not culturally homogenous then the multi-positional readings of scripture is the means by which we are each transformed by the renewing of our minds as we bear with one another in love. The issue is not, positional interpretation, which is inevitable for encultured humans, but a lack of local diversity.
Interesting stud John.. thanks.
I have a lot of sympathy with the Reformed aproach to Scripture and it's implications for social life, economics and politics.. I reviewed Kaemingk's book sympathetically a few years ago https://williamtemplefoundation.org.uk/blog-review-christian-hospitality-muslim-immigration/
There are two things I struggle with in the approach, and I think it comes out in your blog.
1. How can we do this sort of Biblical theology without being more contextual and aware of our own positionality in the way we read and interpret Scripture. Even with a high view of Biblical revelation we have the hermeneutical task of applying ancient words in the modern / postmodern world... And we two are both old white men. ???
2. Some things of your approach tend towards essentialism or cultures, ethnicities, people groups. We abandoned the idea of race as an essential (creational given?) category long ago.. If race is a social construct then culture, ethnicity and most identity categories (except those attached to human bodies.. e.g. sex, body size and shape??) are also social constructs, (including sender and sexulaity?).. While cultures (and languages) associated with ethnicity are different and need to be valued and respected , they do change over time, and especially with migration, and there is mixing and blending of cultural forms, and the gene pools of ethnic groups.
We would I think both agree that all who are in Christ form a new humanity, and that this is a primary identity for citizens of heaven... But in a not yet perfect church, living in a far from perfect society, navigating this is all very tricky.
Dear Greg,
Thanks for this.
As regards your observation 2, I would certainly want to avoid any essentialism. I think Paul's words in Acts 17 imply fluidity and change as regards ethnicity, so that identities are never static. But at any point in time we do use labels ('Tamil', 'working class') which indicate some sort of distinct reality or they would not be worth using. Certainly we need to be alert to the way that what those labels indicate can change, disappear, merge or emerge - but with all due caution and flexibility labels indicating ethnicity need to be used.
2. As regards hermeneutics, we learn as go along. Yes, I interpret scripture from my very particular age, social class, gender, cultural, educational, theological background - and therefore need to be open to correction; but that has to happen as we go along with discussion and correction over particular passages or themes that I have used. So it raises the question in what specific ways my background can be seen to distort my understanding? Answers very warmly welcomed.
In response to 1. If local churches are multicultural not culturally homogenous then the multi-positional readings of scripture is the means by which we are each transformed by the renewing of our minds as we bear with one another in love. The issue is not, positional interpretation, which is inevitable for encultured humans, but a lack of local diversity.