quote:

---

So instead of getting no where through rational argument (which really only goes to the head as Greg said above, “Hey look at the two stories, this one sounds better!” as if we are disassociated dispassionate viewers of the stories. This too is a modernistic rationalistic category) truth will be embodied (though this does not entail radical relativism either). Simply stated then, all meta-narratives are believed by faith. It becomes "faith against faith in opposing stories." Believers and unbelievers are people of faith.

---

quote:

---

Also, it should be noted that just because there is a focus on narrative that that means that all rationalism goes out the window. It does not. Postmodernists Christians (which narrative theology gels nicely with) would not say that they are being irrational but rather trans-rational or “surpra-rational” as Empiress stated one time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starkman

Moon asked Brandon:
Thank you for the expanded explanation on narrative theology. Sounds like it is more important to focus on the narrative (on being in the narrative), than on theology? On the other hand, they do go hand in hand right? I can see where a theology that is "off" can distory the main story. How do you balance the two?


I'll jump in here and say that the first thing you DON'T want to do when you're readig narrative is to make the narrative didactive, UNLESS that's the author's intention. In other words, the "story" of the narrative should be read with the objective of finding the "intent" of the story. Try to get the main jist of the story, but don't try and create doctrines out of the story. The intent is what the author is trying to convey.

As an example, say you're listening to a story teller tell a story about, oh, Huck Finn. Well, you're goal as the listener is to get the point of the story. What you wouldn't do is start formulating doctrine on anything noted in the story; you'd get the point and work from there.

Anyway, that's something to be aware of when reading Biblical narrative.

Starkman

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

In fact, in a post there that I made but didn't send, seven times I wrote "Let the text speak!" But it strikes me that Acts-Niners bring a SYSTEM to the text and that system itself becomes the "entire council" and not the text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moon_river_j

Forgive my ignorance about this, but is "Let the text speak!" Exegesis?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starkman

Hello Moon...

Look at the book of Romans as the epitome of Paul's teaching from a doctrinal perspective. There is instruction and specific teaching. He is teaching specifics and is teaching them in a manner where the teaching itself is the doctrine.

Now look at, say, the opening verses of the book of Luke. He tells Theophilus, the person to whom Luke wrote, that what follows is a carefully investigated account of those things that had recently happened (the life, death and resurrection of Jesus). So, Luke begins his work with narrative about the conception of John the Baptist, the conception of Jesus and the details that surround those events. In chapter 3, we Luke records some of the ministry of John the Baptist (this is all narrative). There is specific instruction given by John to those people to whom he preached: don't collect more taxes than necessary; be satisifed with your wages, etc. Now, is this the main point of John's message? Are we to take what John said and make "doctrine" out of his instruction to no collect more taxes than necessary? I suppose it certainly wouldn't be out of order to not collect more taxes than we should--if you're a tax collector--but this isn't John's point. It isn't Luke's point. The main point, or intent, is that John is preparing the way for the Messiah, and John's doing it in such a manner so as to arrest the attention of his listeners (one should read the whole account of John's ministry to get a larger grasp of his ministerial work).

The narrative Luke gives us of the Baptist is not with the intentions of teaching "doctrine" to his readers about tax collecting and being a good soldier. His intentions are to tell a story that is within a certain framework. It is our job to see his techniques and style in order to properly discern what Luke's message is. This is what hermeneutics is all about; the science of discovering a text's meaning by employing the proper and appropriate tools towards an accurate interpretation.

So, you can see that narrative has an intent, but it's not like the teaching Paul does in Romans.

Got to go!

Starkman

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

quote:

---

Originally posted by moon_river_j

Forgive my ignorance about this, but is "Let the text speak!" Exegesis?

---

Yes.

As opposed to inserting ideas or systems upon the text, which, pardon my spelling , is "issogesis."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moon_river_j

Thank you! So, is "issogesis" proof text?

---

quote:

---

http://forum.desiringgod.org.uk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=858


"...looking to find what the text is saying, what the author intends to be said, authorial intent. These are some ways of describing exogesis.

inserting my own ideas into the text, reading into the text what is not there, allowing my own definition of words to usurp the intended meaning of the words. These are some ways of describing isogesis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

quote:

---

Originally posted by moon_river_j

Thank you! So, is "issogesis" proof text?

---

I'll look up the spelling. isogesis

quote:

---

http://forum.desiringgod.org.uk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=858


"...looking to find what the text is saying, what the author intends to be said, authorial intent. These are some ways of describing exogesis.

inserting my own ideas into the text, reading into the text what is not there, allowing my own definition of words to usurp the intended meaning of the words. These are some ways of describing isogesis.

---

---

quote:

---

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end.

And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starkman

Hello Jo-Anne (do you know if you move your left hand over, you spell Jo-Anne Jo-Snn?!! OK, well, never mind that!)

Get a hold of a book called "Reading the Bible for All it's Worth by Gordon Fee and Donald Stuart. It's available in local libraries...usually. This is an excellent book! Read and re-read it if you must, but by all means learn from it. It's an all-around great standard. Everyone knows about it. Fee is a wonderful writer and a very well respected author.

Next, you should consider some classes if you can. Consider distant learning: Moody Institute--http://mmm.moody.edu/GenMoody/default.asp (Go to the "Distant Learning" section) or London School of Theology--http://www.lst.ac.uk/home.php (same thing: go to the Distant Learning section) in the UK. These are very respected Bible colleges and you'll learn vast amounts.

Eisegesis, by the way is based, I believe, off the Greek preposition Eis, which means "into"; hence, one reads "into" the text when they don't let the text speak for itself. Exegesis, on the other hand, is from the Greek preposition Ek or Eks (help you, you Greek folk); it means "out of" or "out from"; hence, one should let the text send its own message "out of" its own. In other words, one should not read into the word (exegesis) but let it the meaning that was intended come out of (exegesis) the text.

Got to run,

Starkman

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BBBCanada

I am on a response to your equiry about balance Jo-Anne and to AlyoshaKaramazov as well.

Sister's of Cain? Let's do the boogey!!! Spiderman was awesome. The pyschology of Spiderman (Peter Parker) intrigued me throughout the movie.

Later...

---

quote:

---

From the above quotation it seems to me that you believe the dichotomy between "narrative truth" and propositional truth is a valid one--this is where I find myself in tension with "narrative theology." It seems clear to me that truth is both something that is propositional, and to use your term, "embodied."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BBBCanada

With regard to what Starkman is talking about--didacitive and historical hermeneutics is a given within narrative theology. So this is really not in question here. Sorry Stark my boy.

Now to Jo-Anne's question about the balance between the story and the teachings/doctrines of scripture and what AlyoshaKaramazov says,

quote:

---

From the above quotation it seems to me that you believe the dichotomy between "narrative truth" and propositional truth is a valid one--this is where I find myself in tension with "narrative theology." It seems clear to me that truth is both something that is propositional, and to use your term, "embodied."

---

First, as a side-bar,(and addressing some of what you are saying Jo-Anne) let me go back on to what I said about when our theologies distort the story I used the word to "extreme" to judge these kinds of theologies. However, a more fitting word would be "heresy." We can readily identify heresy when we have abstract propositions (I would call them "witch-hunts" in this context, that is, if one doesn't believe some of the teachings of scripture [which have been worked out by the church] then one could be considered to be on the "outside of the inner circle"). Usually the reasoning goes along the lines of, "Well if we don't have abstract propositional statements wouldn't theology fall into chaos (Pinnock)?" However, one CAN LIVE UNDER the liberating story as well as respect the other sources of authority (tradition, reason and experience) that the "radical departure" or heresy as characterized by both the fundamentalist and modernist would not be a problem. Know what I mean?

Now, as I said and this bears repeating, according to narrative theology, abstract propositions are secondary to the "the story" or the "main thing." To say otherwise would be the same as saying, that the INTERPRETATION of Shakespeare's "Hamlet" is better than the play itself. Truth is the story itself.

The reflection on the story will not be PRIMARILY concerned with doctrines, ethical absolutes, etc. It will, as Pinnock says be concerned with the reflection of the story and of it's mission. Viewed from this perspective, theology, like the Church, exists for the sake of world mission and needs to be oriented towards (the unfinished, which has not yet taken place in its fullness) renewal of all things. In other words, narrative theology is evangelical. Abstract propositions keep theology before the Church. Abstract propositions are less concerned with the rich interplay of meanings that speak wholistically to our needs than it is with right orthodoxy and certainty. This means that we (as narrative theologians) will be more concerned with the liberating message from sin than say with a theory of biblical inspiration.

In terms of "truth as embodiedment," I remember Modes saying one time that one of the greatest testimonies (or ways of witnessing to the world) that the Christian could have was what Christ has wrought in a person's life. Apologetics hardly saved anyone. It only invites a head or intellectual response as Greg has said (we really are repeating what Greg has said here). Propositional theology will concentrate on "true or correct" doctrines. Narrative theology tells and retells stories that cannot be captured within that kind of system. Propositions will invite us to debate concepts. Narrative theology "stirs us to participate and summons us to FOLLOW Christ." (Pinnock) Faith would be the human response to the promises of the story.

Again, within narrative theology there is interpretation (the story needs to be interpreted, doctrines, propositions)? However, there is greater freedom to interpret. Where should the emphasis be, which dimensions should we pick up on, how to render a point and how to apply it, and so forth. There will not be one lone voice but a choir of voices. This is so because the story itself is complex and rich. In a rational system there is no justice done to the story. One will try to create harmonies where they don't and can't exist (in one sense, let the Bible speak for itself). Theology will therefore play a servant role. We should be aware that there are multiple expressions of the story, hence we should resist fixed formulas and static concepts (Pinnock). What this means is that the story is original, but the dogma, however useful, is always a historically and culturally conditioned interpretation. That is, theology or anything for that matter cannot be studied from "nowhere," but must be studied from "somewhere." What this means is that Christian doctrines are not "absolute truths" free of contextual factors in formulation or infallible in and of themselves. Theology will be the never-ending search for the intelligible meaning of the story so far as the story can be known. Which means that it will be more dynamic and flexible propositional theology.

On this I would recommend for starters, "20Th-Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age" by Stanley J. Grenz, Roger E. Olson

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830815252/qid=1089829298/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/103-6063515-9382255?v=glance&s=books

When I speak of "trans-rational" or "supra-rational" I don't mean to imply irrationality. I am being rational in this post. However, I think that truth if is to be genuinely understood, will not remain rational. It will not stay there. It eventually moves from the head to the heart to the hand. It is an enlightenment dichotomy that separates these things. It is hard to imagine Philippians 1:20-21

"My eager expectation and hope is that I will not be ashamed about anything, but that now as always, with all boldness, Christ will be highly honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For me, living is Christ and dying is gain."

to be merely intellectual. I was just saying to guy at a church I visited this weekend that good preaching moves from orthodoxy to orthopraxis. From exegesis to hermeneutics. We really are meant to ENCOUNTER God rather than simply learn about Him.

In terms of what I was saying about "faith," I am saying that there are competing views of ultimate reality. As I said on another thread, one view says the world was made by chance, it is materialistic, hence there is no God or God is far removed (deism). This is "their story" or "metanarrative" aaaand they provide their evidence for such a view. The Christian evidentialist tries to prove the Bible is right (innerrant), that God exists, that the resurrection took place, etc and he/she provides their evidence for their view. The problems are:

a) They both reach a stalemate. That is, they both get wrapped up in arguments and really "heady concepts" that seem to go no where. Both have their evidences.
b) Both maintain rationalistic categories. That is, both use reason and science to "prove" their metanarratives.
c) Ultimately both are believed by faith (not a problem). It becomes "faith against faith in opposing stories." Believers and unbelievers are people of faith.

Christians are fond of talking about "the Christian world view" but it may be that there is no such thing as a Christian world view in that Christianity is an all encompassing metanarrative which is ultimately believed by faith (not only intellectual assent but moving further toward committment).

I hope this helps some.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BBBCanada

Jo-Anne,

Some good stuff there. I'm on it, but you know me, we could be looking at a couple of days, weeks or years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moon_river_j

quote:

---

Originally posted by BBBCanada

Jo-Anne,

Some good stuff there. I'm on it, but you know me, we could be looking at a couple of days, weeks or years.

---

Thanks Brandon. I'll look for your response. A couple of days sounds great. Days should be fine. Weeks...we might be able to hang on to this thread for that long, and years; well, if this thread is still here years from now, I think we've set some kind of record, and the board should issue some fantastic reward to both our families; like an all expense paid trip to...?

Jo-Anne

---