Concerning Exegesis
Last week I received a double epiphany. It resulted from the overlap of a Bible study and a short errand that turned into a conversation. At the request of a church member, I led a Bible study on the Epistle of James. We noted similarities and differences between James and Paul, and wondered to what degree their differences were real or contrived by later interpretations.
I left the Bible study with my mind already on my next task. I had to deliver a check from the ministerial alliance to another church in town. I like the pastor of the church where I made the delivery. We may be from very different traditions, but we get along really well. When I noticed aloud that he had Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy among his books, we entered into a discussion about the Emerging Church Movement. I’m 43 and my colleague is probably only ten years older. We both expressed the same concern: we’re out of our depth when it comes to the emerging culture. We commiserated that, no matter what we do to keep up with innovations in technology and culture, we know we’re falling behind. That’s when my friend spoke the first half of the epiphany. He said, “When I went to seminary, the emphasis was on exegesis of scripture. I think that’s very important and seminaries should continue to do that. But I wish someone would have taught us how to exegete culture.” What a marvelous way to put the need in terms “classically” trained clergy can understand: Would someone please teach us how to exegete culture?
The conversation continued as we discussed what our two congregations think about the ECM. My input was brief because the ECM isn’t on the radar of most of the congregants I serve, no matter how often I raise the issue. We’re too rooted in institutional Presbyterianism to do much but grumble about “the loss of loyalty and respect for the Church.” My friend’s congregation, however, has many members deeply interested in — and concerned about — the ECM. They met with him, studied current literature (like McLaren), and discussed emerging issues. When it came down to it, they were comfortable with missional emphasis to a point, but were nervous about relativism.
After comparing notes, we confirmed that we each have a fair number of members who believe that converting to the Christian faith includes converting to the dominant culture of the congregation. That means that outsiders are required to do most, if not all, of the work, while the congregation critiques the results. “It’s their job to change, not ours.” That’s when I spoke the second half of the epiphany. I said, “It’s Paul and James all over again. Paul was willing to reach outside the tradition to include people in the gospel. James was willing to include others, as long as ‘we remain true to the faith’.” The Church has never been a monolith. I now think of the emerging movement as Paul to the conventional Church’s James. Is the Church willing to accept that the tension currently experienced between conventional and emerging perspectives has been with us since the early Church? I ask, as someone who lurks on the margins of Presbymergent, if the “loyal radicals” can and will teach people like me to exegete culture? Perhaps with proper training we could help the Church learn to recognize and balance the tension between James and Paul.
Comment by Neal Locke on 18 February 2008:
Wow, Mark — I think you may have accomplished the near impossible, here: You made me appreciate Paul (at the expense of James, one of my favorites). I guess that’s what I get for putting the bible (or its authors) in a box.
You’ve hit on something with the concept of culture exegesis. Unfortunately, the parallel term we’ve been using in the Emerging Church conversation –deconstruction– comes from the literary/philosophical world, and seems to really frighten or distance people from theological backgrounds.
Comment by Mark B.-G. on 19 February 2008:
Don’t I know it, Neal. Deconstruction has been a dirty word for many people, for many years. During my time in seminary (1989-1993), none of the faculty used the word very often. We even had a professor of Constructive Theology (a damned good one, too), as if to make the point that deconstruction wasn’t a good idea. I never heard or read the word in college, and I was a Liberal Arts major who took more than a few lit courses.
I’m talking more in terms of exegeting current culture than biblical culture. Case in point, the text file for this article sat on my computer for a week before I got up the guts to post it. It took me over an hour to format it on WordPress, and the paragraphs still did not break where I wanted them to break. I feel foolish, like I can’t put together a well presented thought. The frustration alone has frightened me away from communicating electronically, which makes me feel even more behind the 8-ball. If things like WordPress stymie me, what am I going to do about more pressing matters like paradigms shifts and cultural innovations?
How can I pastor effectively with people whose culture has left me in the dust? How can I come up to speed quickly without spending my time in constant study? There are only so many hours in the day. I don’t want to shortchange older members in order to relate with younger and potential members.
Grrr! Is there an emoticon for tearing one’s hair out?
Comment by Don on 21 February 2008:
Mark, you raise a great point and one that I think isn’t asked enough. How do we exegete culture? Better yet, how do we exegete our own culture? That’s the real rub and it reminds me of one of the guys behind the whole Emerging/ent Church, whether he’s recognized or not: Lesslie Newbigin.
Newbigin was a missionary to India from England. He engaged Hindu culture and sacred texts so well that he actually became a respected authority on them in India. He also became a bishop in the Church of South India, an ecumenist and former president of the WCC, he believed denominationalism was the greatest sin of the church. But one of the interesting turns of his life came after “retirement” when he returned to a culture (UK) he didn’t know and a church he didn’t know - and it was during this time (’74-’98) that he wrote most of his most compelling work, including “Foolishness to the Greeks,” “The Open Secret,” and “The Gospel in a Pluralist Society.” Here’s what his biographer (Geoffrey Wainwright) says:
“For the last quarter century of his life, from his return to Britain in 1974 until his death in 1998, Lesslie Newbigin devoted himself principally to the diagnosis and treatment of the crisis of the Christian faith in the modern world. He sought by the Gospel to remedy both the Church and the culture. It is as an apologist to the doubting and to the unbelieving that he now became chiefly known.”
If you’re truly interested in “how” to exegete Western culture, I’d begin with Newbigin. This guy blew my socks off in more ways than one.
Comment by Mark on 21 February 2008:
Don,
Thank you! I read The Gospel in a Pluralist Society years ago in seminary, shortly after it came out in 1989, and still have the copy. My concerns and perspective were different at the time, so I didn’t absorb him well. Also, I’ve slept since then, and my memory ain’t what it used to be. I’ve put it at the top of my book pile.
Pingback by Episode 02: Vera White, Pittsburgh Presbytery : presbymergent on 25 February 2008:
[...] episode (…please pray for me that future episodes take less time to complete…) the post Concerning Exegesis put words to something I couldn’t quite explain. Why are there natural ties between [...]