We have been having a debate in my department about how to teach introductory Bible courses. The question centers on whether students should be taught to do theology in those classes or whether theology is something that should be done in other classes after they have a good introduction to the Bible.
My approach is to focus on the content and historical setting of the Bible, without any (or at least not much) mention of how the Bible is used in theology. Despite working with Brevard Childs, I am still not convinced that theology is something that is done at the level of interpretation (I think I just heard Steve Cook’s head explode). Theology, to me, is still something that is done with the text. Now, we can always interpret the text while planning to do something theological with it afterwards, but I don’t see how this changes the process of interpretation.
I may post some on this topic in the next few days before I head to Ukraine on Sunday. For now, however, I wanted to point to a blog I just came across that deals with theological interpretation. It is called Karagrapho and is written Chris Spinks, who just completed a Ph.D. at Fuller Theological Seminary. I found it interesting that on his About page, when he is discussing his dissertation, he says that his dissertation had more to do with readings of the NT than actually reading the NT. That is my point about how I teach my intro classes. I want the students to focus more on the text at this stage and worry later about theology. It is not that I take a non-theological approach, but more a pre-theological approach. Anyway, I encourage people to check out Dr. Spinks’s blog.
On October 26th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Kevin, thanks for the referral and for visiting my blog. It seems we could have a very lengthy and fruitful conversation. I would like to note that by leaving out a short phrase from my About page you have set up a dichotomy I would want to avoid (i.e. interpreting the NT vs. theology). This could open up the proverbial can of worms, but I said that my dissertation had “more to do with readings of the NT as Scripture”, not just readings of the NT. When we understand what we are reading to be sacred we cannot but help to interpret theologically. At least that’s part of my argument. I think part of the issue is how we have conceptualized the disciplines of “biblical studies” and “systematic theology”. These are modern constructs. I’d better stop before this gets too long. I would commend _Between Two Horizons_ ed. by Green and Turner (2000).
On October 26th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Thanks for the comment. I realize that this is a dichotomy you wanted to avoid, but it is the dichotomy I wanted to highlight. This is the debate we are currently having in my department, and I am championing the side that says theology comes after interpretation. I would argue that my view of the text as sacred dictates that I have to do something with the text after I interpret it but does not dictate my interpretation.
I hope we can have a good discussion on this. I hope in the next few days to post my thoughts on this, and I would appreciate your comments. I look forward to the dialogue.
On October 27th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Kevin, I hear you and I think I understand the impulse. But, I would be interested to know how your view of the text as sacred does not influence (maybe “dictate” is too strong here) your interpretive choices. And since, I would argue that the view of the text as sacred is a theological perspective, your theology has/does/will influence what you do as an interpreter. Though I am not terribly conversant in Alasdair MacIntyre’s ideas, I believe that his idea of traditions may speak to this debate. Let me say as well, that it thrills me that your department is even taking the time to discuss this issue. Whether you all come down where I do or not, the conversation is healthy.
On October 28th, 2006 at 12:11 am
Hi Kevin, Interesting discussion and thanks for the referal to Katagrapho. I just visited over there, and will definitely return. I had a question: when you say that you tend to focus on the “historical setting” of biblical texts, do you mean the first, primitive setting—peeling back the layers to get at the onion-core? If so, why prioritize the core? How do you know you want dive down to a pre-scriptural level? What if you peel away the onion, and there is no core?
—Steve
On October 28th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
[…] I wanted to respond to a question raised by Steve Cook in a comment on a previous post. Steve asked, [W]hen you say that you tend to focus on the “historical setting†of biblical texts, do you mean the first, primitive setting—peeling back the layers to get at the onion-core? If so, why prioritize the core? How do you know you want dive down to a pre-scriptural level? […]