hermewhat?

i was looking for a few entry level hermeneutics textbooks to compare when i stumbled across an interesting article. In it was the following quote:

One’s hermeneutics is, after all, determined finally by the view one takes of inspiration. How did the Bible come into existence? That it is the Word of God almost no one within the mainstream of evangelical thought will deny. That God used men to write the Scripture is also too obvious from Scripture itself to contradict. But when the question arises concerning the relation between God’s work and His use of men in writing the Scriptures, there is a great deal of disagreement. The larger the role given to the human instruments, the more reliance one places on higher criticism with its various techniques. (source)

This issue will ultimately be at the root of most, if not all of the issues that we will address.

I brought up the issue of inerrancy with a good friend of mine today and she seemed appalled at the fact that I am interested in questioning the doctrine at all. I threw out an ignorant blanket statement just to see how she would handle it (i’m so bad!) I said to her “no where in scripture does it claim inerrancy for itself.” Her reply was to quote 2 Timothy 3:16 to me: “Every scripture is inspired by God and useful…”

There are two doctrines being discussed here. Inspiration refers to the ultimate “guiding hand” of God in the process of the formation of Scripture. A “high” view of inspiration will say that God penned the book letter by letter, guiding the hand/mind of a human scribe. A “low” view of inspiration would say that the human author was very, very much involved in the writing process, with their personality, linguistic skills, and individual beliefs coming out in the text.

Inerrancy refers to the belief that the Bible as it was originally written was 100% without error of any kind. The idea is a logical second thought if one was to hold a “high” view of inspiration coupled with a rigid view of God. (i’m showing my colors already.)

In the above quoted article, the author takes the conversation to a place that i believe was an inappropriate place to take it: he made the argument a personal one. You’ll see how here:

the debate is finally one concerning the authority of Scripture.

Now that in itself is something of an academic question, of course. But the point is that when one begins to speak of the authority of Scripture, one is confronted with the fact that Scripture is unlike any other book. It does not come to us for verification. It does not present its case to be examined on evidence outside itself as to whether or not it ought to be believed. It is not a text on the philosophy of history which presents startling views on how one must explain history, views which are open to examination and questioning. It is the Word of God which comes to man with the “Thus saith the Lord.” It carries with it the authority of the sovereign God Himself before which all men are required to bow in humility. Upon this hangs the issues of heaven or hell. It is this spiritual question which is the basic and underlying issue at stake. Will you bow humbly before the authority of God? To a certain extent, hermeneutical issues are smoke screens to cover the more basic issue. Or, to put it differently, various theories are proposed in the field of Hermeneutics and inspiration to escape the compelling and inescapable authority of the Word of God.

In essence, he argues that those who are interested in “higher criticism” are in fact actually attempting to “escape the compelling and inescapable authority of the Word of God.” By this, he is implying that only those with a “high” view of inspiration have a “high” view of the authority of Scripture. This anecdotal evidence is worse than just “incorrect.” It is offensive and inappropriate.

(more to come.)

Choosing a First Topic

I’m in the process currently of choosing which topic listed below (or maybe even one not listed below) will be discussed first.

Setting a hermeneutical standard will be terribly vital to the process through which we analyze and discuss every topic on the list. If we were to jump blindly forward without having the hermeneutics conversation, our readers (and even writers) won’t have the privilege of understanding where we are coming from when we argue.

I teach by what I call the “Rational Bridge” method.

:Step 1: Determine the Destination
:Step 2: Determine the Launching Point
:Step 3: Build the Rational Bridge

Basically, when I have a concept that I am going to teach, I start developing the the lesson by determining what I want my audience to know/believe/do when I am done teaching. Then I figure out where they are starting from on the topic, so as to unveil the “Rational Gap.” When I discover the difference between the Launching Point and the Destination, I am then able to create a Rational Bridge between the two.

But before any of that, we need to do our research, and our research will always be shaped by our interpretive method. Therefore, choosing a standard interpretive process will be necessary to ensure that it’s always clear how we came to any conclusion.

And before we do research, we have to decide on topics that are worth our time. I’m still unsure about a lot of my ideas for possible articles. The KJV Only Movement, for starters, has been discussed in detail in many places. I’m sure that I could not add any content to the argument. But what I think I can add is improved presentation,  coupled with precision and concision. And those are things that I value personally. I’ve yet to see a concise, precise, academically researched, and professionally designed article on discussing the KJV Only Movement.

For example, this is a an example of a rather poor article (with no original thought), coupled with terrible presentation, and no formal style. The organization of thought was not clear. The black text on grey background made my eyes hurt.

Likewise, this one also has lots of problems. The main problem is the presentation. The facts are that we live in a world that values presentation as much (or more) than it values content. That doesn’t mean that believers should value them in that order. But it does mean that if we care about our message, we need to package it professionally. If this wasn’t important, Jesus wouldn’t have used farming analogies so much, and Paul would not have gone to Athens and talked about their idols.

Purpose

The purpose of this blog is to establish a dialogue among truth-seekers in an attempt to ensure that none are led astray by half-truths. In particular, our goal is address issues present in American Christian culture in an attempt to influence said culture towards right-thinking. E-Dictionary.com defines orthodox as “sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, esp. theological or religious doctrine.”

If this idea vibes with you in any way, we invite you to contribute articles to further the cause. We don’t expect perfection, nor will we follow a universal debate format, such as those discussed on iidb.org . However, as a group, we will present our ideas without sarcasm, personal attack, or obscenity. (As tempting as it is to fall into these patterns, bringing in said tactics will muddy our message, and we value our message more than the feeling of “pwning” some one.)

Among our first topics of conversation will be the following:

The King James Only Movement
Literal Six-Day Creationism
The “Bible-Only” Hermeneutic
A Study of Worship Which Honors God
Forgiveness, In Two Parts
- As It Relates To Interpersonal Conflict Management
- As It Relates To Church Discipline
American Christian Culture -vs- Christ
Bumper Sticker Ethics
The Responsibility of Christians in Politics
An Appropriate Response to the Abortion Issue
A Christian Response to Global Warming
Addressing the Use of Magic in Fantasy
Stem Cell Research
An Honest Look into the Doctrine of Inerrancy
Christians Using Alcohol
The Effect of Addiction on Spiritual Development
The “Problem” of Evil

Many more issues such as these will be discussed here. If you are interested in discussing these ideas, please leave a comment here, and we will look into adding a discussion forum for the formulation of articles. Such a group will be formed by invite only, and the articles posted here will be posted after review, discussion, and modification/ratification by the group.