culturology

The Philosophical Task of the Interpreter- Culturology

Sometimes it is difficult for people to equate the ministry with the head, since the essence of spiritual life seems to have a heavy bent to wards matters of the heart. Thus, when people think of biblical interpretation, whether for practical application or ministerial/teaching tools, the emphasis is normally outside the realm of philosophical thought. However, although Christianity is much more than an intellectual pursuit, it is certainly not less than such a pursuit! The interpretive task is performed and taught by humans conscious of the world they live in, which brings Christianity into the realm of philosophy and worldview.

Orientation

That introductory paragraph is something that I am quite confident of, but not something I have always been aware of. In recent months, I have personally been forced to walk within this philosophical awareness in my own transition from a life-long upbringing in a Free-will Baptist denomination to the Presbyterian and Reformed denomination. My transition to a new denomination was possible by two factors: biblical conviction, and a growing awareness of presuppositions and culture. In God’s providence, my own transition took place in tandem with enrolling with Moody Bible Institute. How this background experience relates and informs the philosophical task of the interpreter will be made evident in the following sections.

Connections

Interpreting Scripture has taught me a necessary question to ask in the interpretive process: Is there a true correlation between philosophy, culture and spiritual formation? The textbook “Everyday Theology” has been an excellent study in seeking an informed answer to the question. Kevin J. Vanhoozer implies that this is so: “describing culture as a process of spiritual formation is not to say that we are helpless and hapless victims but rather to call our attention to the fact that spiritual formation is happening to us and to our children all the time” (31). As this process of life happens, we all develop a worldview with a growing array of presuppositions. It is simply impossible to separate this reality of human existence from our processing of information, especially when it comes to biblical interpretation. This is the subjective element of philosophy that must be realized- that everyone who comes to the text of Scripture comes with presuppositions, or to put it strongly, biases.

This philosophical awareness has flourished tremendously in this class, but it has done so from the foundation of a previous class Story and Structure of the Bible in which the textbook “Introduction to Biblical Interpretation” introduced me to the concept of presuppositions, defined as preunderstanding: “preunderstanding may be defined as a body of assumptions and attitudes which a person brings to the perception and interpretation of reality or any aspect of it” (Klein et al. 154). While this concept was a minor point in that class, I can see that it laid a healthy foundation for the cultural aspect of this class.

Insights

The way that Vanhoozer builds upon that foundation of preunderstanding and connects it to the whole pursuit of the philosophical task is by calling readers to implement Romans 12.2 in a comprehensive way:

Christians must learn to read the Bible and culture alike […] ‘Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind’ (Rom.12.2). The apostolic exhortation confronts us with a question: In which cultural world of meaning do we dwell? (Van

If you enjoyed this episode and want to support the show, consider becoming a Patron!

Interpreting the Bible and Culture- Culturology

The interpretation of culture and the Bible are two disciplines which work to arrive at meaning. This represents a presupposition of an objective quality, both in cultural texts and biblical texts. That is to say, there is a tangible, definitive message in cultural texts and biblical texts that can be interpreted, else the disciplines of interpretation would be exercises in vanity and uncertainty. To understand both disciplines properly, they must be explored in their relative qualities, not only in the way that they are similarly performed, but also in the way in which they overlap in the interpretive process.

First, the terms should be defined. Cultural interpretation is that which seeks to uncover the worldview behind a cultural text, in the cultural text, and brought out from the cultural text (Vanhoozer et al. 45). Biblical interpretation consists of uncovering the meaning of the biblical text, both in content and context. This is normally performed by a step by step process, such as investigating the categories of culture, time, and situation (Duvall and Hays 41).

Since a cultural text is sometimes abstract, consisting of an icon or word, it is important to understand where it comes from, what it is, and where it is going. This lends to a multiperspectival interpretation, meaning that right interpretation occurs by utilizing multiple disciplines to uncover the thickness of what is occurring in any given cultural text (Vanhoozer et al. 45). In concise terms, a cultural text comes from a worldview of the author(s), contains a worldview in the text itself, and seeks to cultivate a worldview in the reader(s).

In like manner, biblical interpretation considers the content alongside the context of the author and the audience. Furthermore, the implications of the text are also explored, investigating the impact and significance upon contemporary readers, commonly defined as application. What can be noticed in both cultural and biblical interpretation is the presence of culture within the interpretive process. In cultural interpretation, culture is the object; in biblical interpretation, culture is the subject. Nevertheless, culture is that which must be dealt with if meaningful interpretation is to be performed. In the process of biblical interpretation, culture is an element of separation between then and today. Consequently, biblical interpretation does not understand meaning without understanding right application of the text, which can only be done when one properly understands their own contemporary culture. Thus, there is a front-end element of culture and a back-end element of culture, whereby the interpreter must do due diligence in understanding the original cultural audience and the contemporary cultural audience.

In like manner, cultural texts can only be significant if the meaning of the text is understood alongside the cultural context. The cultural icon of Walmart’s yellow smiley face is largely insignificant if the reader does not understand the cultural context that it represents and the world it promises to create in its customers (i.e. low-price purchase options). Conversely, the biblical text, “When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come out.’” (English Standard Version, John 11.43) is largely insignificant if the context of the statement is not understood, such as Jesus being the speaker, Lazarus being called to come to life, and the presence of a watching crowd. Contextual understanding is required both in the interpretation of culture and the Bible.

Whether pastors or te

If you enjoyed this episode and want to support the show, consider becoming a Patron!

Dynamic Diversity According to the Bible- Culturology

Dynamic Diversity, written by Bruce Milne, is based on the thesis that the church is meant to be a center of reconciliation. This idea of a reconciliation center is predicated upon the vast division in society, division which is normally comprised of the four major categories of class, age, race, and gender. According to Milne, a center of reconciliation is a place which seeks to reconcile the divides found in those four categories (Milne 14). In other words, a center of reconciliation is meant to either mend, bridge, or even transcend these categories of division and/or distinction, to borrow the verbs used by Milne. What follows is a brief summary of the book, interjecting some thematic and practical points related to Milne’s thesis.

Milne begins by noting that the way to bridge these points of division expressed in class, age, race and gender is first and foremost a conceptual approach to the global nature of the church:

This book is written in the conviction that the divine mystery, the diversity in unity of the people of God in Christ, need not be confined to the global stage, nor need it be deferred to the future age of glory. Rather it can be experienced today, in embryo, in every local Christian congregation on the face of the earth. (9)

Milne stresses that the church must recognize the diverse nature of Jesus’ new humanity on the global scale in order to bring about real change and conformity to this reality within their own congregations. He makes a strong case of why this is necessary by noting that this was indeed a reality among the early church across the Roman Empire and beyond (10). To be clear, notions of diversity expressed in church history are often followed with calls to abandon orthodoxy for the sake of ecumenical renderings. A refreshing point in Milne’s argument is that he opts not to abandon orthodoxy, but rather to follow it to the logical conclusion of unified diversity in the new humanity. He does this by savoring the truth of this among the people of God among the first two chapters, followed by suggesting the embrace of orthodox theology as necessary for unity: “this new-humanity, unity-in-diversity, together-under-Christ model receives significant support from primary Christian beliefs […] theology buttresses the exegetical conclusions reached in the first two chapters” (53).

Milne then goes on to speak of the contours found in the Apostle’s Creed, including the wonder of the Trinity, the atonement, and the church to name a few.  The next two chapters move to speak of the global approach of forming and structuring congregations, as well as a reaffirmation of the historical witnesses of global structures in the church. The argument is essentially, if the world around us is more globalized as ever (Ch. 4) and the early church was able to comprise itself in such a way before the globalization of the 21^st century (Ch. 5), then the church today has no excuse not to be diversified in its structure. While this is his argument, Milne admits that this is an argument from cultural trajectories and history, not from a mandate in scripture (73-74). Chapter six offers some transitional material, along with some practical considerations for how the church can more readily be unified along denominational lines. Perhaps the strongest point in that short chapter is his point on the usefulness of denominations: “Denominations are commonly seen today as having only a limited shelf-life; however, at the very least, they provide a sense of identity and belonging, a family of kindred congregations” (99). In many ways, the content in this chapter serves primarily as a

If you enjoyed this episode and want to support the show, consider becoming a Patron!

Unity and Diversity in Truth- Culturology

The book of Romans speaks of the universe as the created order which God displays and reveals Himself to His creation. It has often been the prerogative of theologians to stress that the teaching of Romans is that which is called natural revelation, in contrast to special revelation. Natural revelation, it is said, is the revelation of God which is manifest and accessible to all, regardless of whether someone has saving knowledge of God. One could say, natural revelation is the truth of God’s existence, but special revelation is needed to dive deeper into the truths such as atonement, and even the Trinitarian personhood of the Godhead. 

However, it is not a necessary consequence that natural revelation leads mankind short of a deeper knowledge of who God is. Take for example the passage in Romans 1 which is the predominant conversation piece in natural revelation: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Rom. 1.20). This passage emphasizes that God’s creation reveal not only the fact of His existence but even his divine nature. 

Working forward from this truth, consider the notion of the universe itself. The universe is so named because it represents a convergence of unity and diversity. If the creation is a display of unity and diversity together, does not the principle in Romans 1 imply that this display of unity and diversity in creation is also a display of the unity and diversity in the Creator? If so, the conclusion that God is both unity and diversity is something revealed to man in natural revelation. Of course, this notion of unity and diversity in God is perfectly displayed in Trinitarian theology- that God is one in essence (unity) and three in persons (diversity).

However, God is not only the highest example of unity and diversity; He is also the greatest representation of unity and diversity. This is because the created order which is meant to display the wonder and glory of God is tainted by sin. And while the wonder and glory of God is not lost in the unity and diversity of His created order, it is often distorted. As such, creation often displays diversity with a notable absence of unity. In the Godhead, there is never the absence of unity but rather, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are always operating in absolute unity, though they are diverse persons. 

What then does this mean for Christians in attempting to display a proper balance of unity and diversity in churches and as a witness to the world? A helpful passage to consider is Galatians 3:27-29, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise”. Of course the context of this passage is important, for Paul is dealing with various Gentile Christians scattered throughout Galatia and writing to them about their equal standing with God as Abraham’s offspring, just like the ethnic Jews. His point is to denounce the notion that God shows partiality in ethnicity, social class, and gender. Rather, Christian identity is founded upon belonging to Jesus Christ. 

Personally, this is something I must take

If you enjoyed this episode and want to support the show, consider becoming a Patron!

Centers of Reconciliation

In Bruce Milne’s book, he argues that the church is meant to be a center of reconciliation. This idea of a reconciliation center is predicated upon the vast division in society, division which is normally comprised of the four major categories of class, age, race, and gender. According to Milne, a center of reconciliation is a place which seeks reconcile the divides found in those four categories (Milne 14). In other words, a center of reconciliation is meant to either mend, bridge, or even transcend these categories of division and/or distinction, to borrow the verbs used by Milne. 

Where then are these centers located? What is the most appropriate place to see this reconciliation take place? The answer varies from person to person. Generally speaking, these centers are understood to be (or at least meant to be) the societal structures of nations, states, and cities. And the engine for the reconciliation of class, age, race and gender is legislation. While this is a popular opinion and legislation may indeed have some validity in contributing to fair and just societies, this is not the answer for true reconciliation. It is also not the answer Milne gives. 

Instead, Milne suggests that the most appropriate place to see this reconciliation take place is not in legislation, but in the church. Yet, his reason is not due to a moral argument that the church is the arbiter of truth, or that a theocratic society is the most preferred variety for considering the legislative process of reconciliation. Instead, his reason is due to the fact that the church is described as nothing short of a new humanity. That is an argument of transcendence, which is quite appropriate for transcending divides.

A reasonable follow up question to ask of Milne’s argument is, what does it mean that the church is a new humanity? The apostle Paul describes this to the Corinthians: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, that is in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5.18-19). And this whole discussion from Paul is predicated on the previous verse, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold the new has come” (2 Cor. 5.17).

Based on the testimony of scripture, the church is the heartbeat and center of reconciliation. It is to the bride of Christ that God has gifted and entrusted the ministry of reconciliation, and this means that anything short of the ministerial context of the church is short of the full realization of reconciliation. This is a profound answer offered by Milne, especially as issues of class, age, race and gender are primary issues that legislation and political science seeks to solve. 

It could well be argued that the church is overstepping her bounds when she seeks to enter into the realm of state by assuming that she hold the key to solving these issues. But according to the apostle Paul, the whole idea of reconciliation is a heart issue, one which requires a new humanity altogether. And if the stakes of reconciliation are high enough to require a new heart, no one would argue that such a problem could be fixed by legislation. New hearts do not come into being by legislation, new hearts come into being in a new humanity. 

With th

If you enjoyed this episode and want to support the show, consider becoming a Patron!

Having previously considered naturalism as a worldview, we now look to another worldview that it regularly leads people to embrace: postmodernism. This worldview is especially difficult to define, because it rejects the notion of absolute truth and objectivity. Because of this, we have to break the rules of postmodernism in order to define it. We will now briefly consider postmodernism both as a worldview and an interpretive method. This is Culturology, an edition of the Better Bible Reading Podcast with Kevin Morris. 

If you enjoyed this episode and want to support the show, consider becoming a Patron!

Today we preview a new edition coming to the Better Bible Reading Podcast in 2021 called Culturology- The Word and the World. This segment will focus on the Christian worldview along with culture, politics and philosophy. This show is more 'newsroom' in nature, and it's presented to you in a way that makes you stop, listen and think. Our discussion today is entitled, "Christianity and Identity Crisis". This is episode 82 of the Better Bible Reading Podcast with Kevin Morris!

https://betterbiblereading.com

If you enjoyed this episode and want to support the show, consider becoming a Patron!