Julie R. Neidlinger: Lone Prairie Studies Blog

Two languages.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 0 comments link this post

I don't have much to add, but I wanted to -- as much for me as anyone -- post and link to some comments that really got a point home that I was struggling with putting into words. The comments, from this post, are written by Chris, from Fishing the Abyss, and address the different ways of thinking between modern and post-modern, and how that affects interpretation and causes confusion.

Comment 1:

The method is not the message. In the modern era, systematic arguments were the most effective means to convey a message. In both the post-modern and the first century eras, it is stories/narrative forms which often are most effective means - the picture (whether real or figurative) carries much more weight than the words.

I think that criticisms of both PD and EC teaching methods miss this point.

Comment 2:

This is often the case with criticism of emerging authors (like McManus) and cutting edge authors (like Bell, who won't claim the emerging label for a number of reasons). Their writing style is a narrative one and not a logically-linear one.

In the systematic style, a hypothesis is first laid out. Then, evidence is brought forth to support it, finishing with a summation which may (or may not) contain a surprising or provocative application.

In a narrative style, an opening thought is often introduced which is surprising or provocative. Then, time is spent giving background and narrative in a way to deconstruct the opening thought. Finally, a summation is given which reflects the actual thesis of the story.

So, for example, when Rob Bell wanted to discuss how faith in God goes beyond just having faith in the Bible, and how we also have to have faith that those who canonized the Bible codified all of the correct writings (for instance), and that we have to have faith that God is leading us today, he started with a provocative statement (in VE):

This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that "Scripture alone" is our guide. It sounds nice but it is not true.

Then, he built a narrative around this:
In reaction to abuses by the church, a group of believers during the time called the Reformation claimed that we only need the authority of the Bible. But the problem is that we got the Bible from the church voting on what the Bible even is. So, when I affirm the Bible as God’s word, in the same breath I have to affirm that when those people voted, God was somehow present, guiding them to do what they did. When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true.

Then, he reaches a summation (which in modernist writing, would have been his thesis):
In affirming the Bible as inspired, I have to affirm the Spirit who I believe was inspiring those people to choose those books.65 Where they binding and loosing the Bible itself? At some point we have to have faith. Faith that God is capable of guiding people. Faith that God has not left us alone. Faith that the same Spirit who guided Paul and Peter and those people in a room in the 300s is still with us today. Guiding us, showing us, and enlightening us.

Now, when someone with a modernist mindset reviews this passage, they will read the opening statement and react as if it were the thesis of the argument. Thus conditioned, if they have allowed pre-suppositions to taint their review, they will ignore the remaining narrative, and cite only the first paragraphs to "prove" that Bell does not believe sola Scriptura, when a full reading of the section and chapter does not render the same conclusion.