I am well aware that my latest book Church, Gospel, & Empire is a serious academic approach to the subject and I am encouraged by the willingness of many to engage with it. If you are one of those, then please use the comment box on this page to resolve glossary problems over words you are not sure about, ask questions of clarification, offer corrections or enter into debate over the issues raised. Your involvement will be a great encouragement to me.
Click the link below for a pdf flyer
Hello Roger,
I was at Scargill on Saturday for the dedication of our grandson, Sam. Andy gave me a copy of your book for Christmas, and I am engaging with the chapter “Towards a kenarchic hermeneutic.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but you employ the “economy of response” model towards the Bible: in the book this means approaching the text from the kenarchic standpoint. You therefore risk, as we all do, finding in the text what we want to find. It seems to me that the only way to avoid that is pray and read in submission to the authority of the text whatever it truly says, and to let the Bible interpret the Bible. This is the hermeneutic of the Scriptures themselves, and also of Jesus, who both submitted to and authenticated their authority as the word of God. I was interested in your exegesis of the cleansing of the Temple, and I found much of it helpful. But I think your standpoint led you to read into the text three issues that are not there. Firstly, you linked the cleansing of the Temple with a stand against the Roman imperium, whereas Jesus’ controversy was clearly with the Jewish authorities and their apostasy: this is emphasised in the text by their response. Secondly, you see Jesus’ statement about giving Caesar the things that are his as a condemnation of the Roman empire, [and then interpret Romans 13 in the light of that]; but if Jesus were critiquing Rome at that point, he would be falling into the trap set for him, rather than avoiding it as the text clearly implies. Thirdly, you import a critique of “gender hierarchy” [a loaded phrase!] into Jesus’ reply to the Sadducees. Now it is clear from his statement that there will be no marriage in the resurrection: but that only establishes the temporary nature of marriage, it doesn’t critique the teaching elsewhere in the Bible about the different roles husbands and wives are to play.
You’ll gather from this that I think your hermeneutic is fatally flawed: it will lead you in the direction you have already decided to travel!
You may reply that I’m equally susceptible: in which case let’s both submit to the authority of God’s Word, which corrects, rebukes, and teaches us.
Yours sincerely,
Dan Young
By: Dan Young on January 9, 2012
at 4:49 am
Hi Dan,
Thanks for taking the trouble to interact. You rightly see that the heart of the matter is hermeneutical. The economy of response is the way I apply my hermeneutic, but the hermeneutic itself is the testimony of Jesus. This accords with how I came to know Jesus personally, and makes him the source of the authority of the rest of the scriptures for me. As a result I submit the OT and the rest of the NT to the gospel testimony. This seems to me to be definitively Christian, and what was happening on the Emmaus Road when Jesus “beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, … expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Lk 24:27).
I am, however, at a loss to understand what you mean by “the hermeneutic of the scriptures themselves and also Jesus.” You describe this as “pray and read in submission to the authority of the text whatever it truly says, and to let the Bible interpret the Bible.” But this is not a hermeneutic at all. A hermeneutic is the process, or means, by which we discover “what the text truly says” as you put it, and then we can get on with working out what it means to be a disciple of Jesus as a result. So can I ask you by what means you decide what the text truly says? And if you let “the Bible interpret the Bible” as you put it, can you explain how you avoid bibliolatry and what Paul describes as the letter that kills?
It is because I prioritise the gospel testimony and the context into which it was positioned in what Paul calls the fulness of the times (Eph 1:10), that I take so seriously the role of the temple authorities as the puppets of Rome and exegete the incident in the temple and the ensuing contentions as I do.
I don’t ask you to agree with me, but I do ask you to reflect over your judgement that my hermeneutic is “fatally flawed,” especially as you haven’t offered a more convincing one of your own yet.
Much blessing on you,
Roger
By: rogermitchell on January 9, 2012
at 7:16 pm
Hi Roger,
thanks for your reply. I entirely agree with you that the whole Bible points to Jesus: Luke 24 sprang into life for me when I became a Christian. Throughout the Bible we will find ” the things concerning Himself”. Hallelujah! So I should read the Bible carefully & submissively – I often don’t. But there must be a reason why we arrive at such different conclusions. I was going to include another example from your book, but let’s stay with hermeneutics for now.
Yours,
Dan
PS Surely in the trial of Jesus it’s the Jewish authorities who exert power over Pilate, rather than the other way around?
By: Dan Young on January 10, 2012
at 4:16 pm
In fairness, I should tell you have written a review of your book on Amazon. Let me know if there are any factual errors and I’ll correct them…
Dan
By: Dan Young on January 11, 2012
at 2:54 pm
Hi Roger,
Congrats on the book. Wipf and Stock sent me a copy. Looks really interesting. If you’d like to discuss introducing your book on our blog, please email me. Below are some recent examples.
http://www.politicaltheology.com/blog/?cat=129
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best wishes,
David
***********************************
David True, PhD
Associate Professor of Religion
Wilson College
1015 Philadelphia Ave.
Chambersburg, PA 17201
Editor, Political Theology
By: David True on January 13, 2012
at 6:40 pm
I am about two thirds through the book, Roger, reading it with a good dictionary within easy reach! Not having some of the contextual knowledge, since, alas, I lack both a good classical and church-historical background, it is turning me to other writers and helping round my general historical knowledge. It is, though, taking me ages to read, on a three-pages-forward-two-back basis – well, slight exaggeration there!
That said, it is for me a game-changer, complimenting and building upon much prior thinking, answering long-term unanswered questions, opening up new possibilities and raising salient further questions – particularly as to practical and devotional implications. In short, I was absolutely ready for this! It is already, both overtly and covertly, contributing majorly to most of my most interesting conversations about everything from faith to international banking….
I realise, having not got to Part III, you may yet address some of my questions in the book. However, there are certain areas coming to mind at this point, mainly about how we ‘reconfigure’ our understanding about devotional, communal and missional life. Worship for one. How do we worship this kenarchic God appropriately? How much of our corporate worship has been invaded by empire and perpetuates its nature? What about the words we say, pray and sing to God in this fresh perspective?
Then prayer. How does prayer fit in? Should we by praying any differently? You mention discipline in you most recent blog, and there seems some ‘reconfiguring’ to do there too. Mission: the originary gospel needs to be presented with an eye to the devastating effects of the ‘lapses’ over the millennia, yes, but how? (I realise these questions are ‘out there’ on the blog, and I’m trying to play my part there, but there is much more to unpack, I’m sure).
I need to finish the book, of course, but already I’m interested in how we can assimilate, disseminate and continue the particular journey the book has instigated.
Maybe: a popular version, study guides, glossary, seminars…. I’m just thinking aloud…! For one thing, do you have a promotional flyer for the book?
Thanks, Roger.
By: Phil Townend on March 20, 2012
at 10:42 am
Thanks for these considered reflections Phil, I’m encouraged by the amount of time and effort you are giving to the book. I am currently setting about writing some thoughtful but more popularly accessible booklets/ pamphlets covering some of the key issues, along the lines of The Fall of the Church, The Resilience of Sovereignty, Kenarchy and Relevant Hermeneutics. And yes there is a brochure that you can donload and print off, which I have now placed on the blog at the beginning of this page.
By: rogermitchell on April 2, 2012
at 2:37 pm
I forgot one other aspect. Somewhere in the midst of this new understanding is a way of reconfiguring the Lord’s table – a long time challenge for us, and we are desperate to square that circle…!
By: Phil Townend on March 20, 2012
at 10:45 am
Thanks for taking the book so seriously, for the desire to interact on the issues, and to be a part a collaborative effort to run with some of the implications. There’s a bunch of folk of a similar mind. How about we try and organise a Friary get together here to develop stuff further? And yes there is a promotional flyer for the book, which I will email to you today.
Others reading this who might be interested in exploring the implications of this kind of theological perspective, please get in touch.
By: rogermitchell on March 21, 2012
at 10:36 am
Would love an opportunity to get together around the implications of the book!
By: philthebridge on March 28, 2012
at 3:24 pm
There will a final theology weekend on the book in July to which you are very welcome. The date will be out soon and I’ll post it when I know.
By: rogermitchell on April 2, 2012
at 2:57 pm