Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic
I recently read a comment that was written by a well intentioned Christian that had some major concerns about a popular Pastor in West Michigan. She was pretty concerned that he was a "wolf in sheep's clothing." Much of her concern was based on a new type of Hermeneutic called the "Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic," she unfortunately miss took this for a new type of religious movement instead of a method of interpretation. So, for what it is worth here is my response, maybe it will clear up what may come to be mass confusion between a type of interpretation and a religious movement.
Nicole,
First let me thank you for writing us your note. Your compassion for the cause of Christ and your desire to see what is right, done is truly admirable and evident through the tone of your writing. Not to mention your boldness in speaking up to 68 of your peers whom you disagree with. So, thanks for that.
However well intentioned your note is (and I fully believe you had the most honest of intentions), I believe that you maybe a little mislead. First, the “Redemptive Movement” is not an organized movement per se. Rob Bell does use the two terms together, but when he does he is not referring to a religious movement of any sort, like Calvinism, Arianism, Monasticism, Monarchianism, Open Theism, Reformed Theology, or Dispensationalism. Instead, he is referring to the redemptive movement of God throughout history. This simply means that God, from the very beginning of time has been in the process of redeeming man back to Himself. That is to say, that God’s plan of salvation or redemption did not begin with Jesus’ physical presence on earth, instead it was planned from the beginning, from the time of Adam and Eve. Now, through Jesus’ life, death, burial, and resurrection humans are granted access to the kingdom of God. The course of time has brought us to where we are now, here, in the 21st century. That redemptive movement has not stopped or ceased, instead it is still in action and it is our part as followers of Christ to join in the movement and spread the word about the Kingdom. So when you hear Rob Bell or any other evangelical use the phrase “Redemptive Movement” know that this is what they are referring to.
Secondly, you maybe referring to the “Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic.” Now this is much different than a religious movement, instead this is a way of interpreting Scripture. This method of interpreting Scripture was developed by Dr. William Webb from Heritage Theological Seminary. He wrote a book entitled Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. And in his book, he suggests that in Scripture there are two different types of mandates or commands. First, there are transcendent mandates. These are commands that transcendent culture and time. This just means that those commands or mandates are timeless. An example of a transcendent mandate are the ten commandments. Next, there are cultural mandates that are not timeless and are relative to the culture and time in which they are written. For example, I am sure if you look at the clothes you are wearing right now, you will realize that at least one article of clothing is made up of more than one fiber, and I would be willing to guess that you have on occasion worn gold jewelry or even pearl. I would even be willing to guess that you may have even braided you hair or perhaps worn clothing that can be considered “expensive.” But according to 1 Timothy 2:8-9 which says, "I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes," women should not do such things right? Well no, of course not. Does this mean that Scripture isn’t true, authoritative, or inspired by God? Absolutely not! It is only acknowledging that Scripture was written BY GOD in a REAL TIME through REAL PEOPLE in a REAL PLACE. Paul was a real person who had real concerns for a real group of people that he really wanted to see follow Jesus. At the time, all the things listed in the above Timothy passage were indicative of either prostitution or excessive wealth. Is that still true today? By and large no! So is it ok for you to wear gold, expensive clothing (in moderation), and braid your hair? Yes, as long as you are not forcing someone else to sin by doing so.
Thirdly, in your note you suggest that the “Redemptive Movement” promotes re-interpretation of Scripture. This assertion presupposes that there is an objective interpretation. This is simply not true, everyone interprets Scripture, everyone. When you read Scripture you are reading it from the perspective of a college student, at Liberty University, in Lynchburg Virginia, on the east coast, of the United States of America, in the fall, of the year 2005. You can’t help it, and you may not even notice it. The New Testament was written by God through Jews from Jerusalem in the first century. We are worlds away from the original authors, the message has no doubt been preserved. But do not for one second believe that you are reading the Bible objectively, everyone interprets Scripture when they read it. The challenge is to acknowledge it and strive to understand what Scripture means in it’s context within the text and within the time period in which it was written.
There are basically three different ways that Scripture is interpreted…direct, implied, and then there is creative construct. Now direct interpretation is straight up passages that can not be more clear such as “Thou shall not kill.” Pretty clear right? Don’t murder. Then there are implied interpretations which are concepts that are not directly stated, but are identified among believers as implied within the text. The Trinity and the Rapture are good examples of implied interpretation. This is not to say that the Trinity and the Rapture are not Scriptural Concepts, it is only to say that they are not specifically mentioned within the text, but Scripture certainly bears witness to such concepts. Thirdly there is Creative Construct. These are interpretations by which we interpret Scripture. For example, are you Calvinist? Armenian? Premillennial? Pretrib? Amillennial? Reformed? Dispensational? Progressive? Are you a Creationist? Threshold/Theistic Evolutionist? Day-Age Theorist? These are all interpretations by which we interpret Scripture. They are Creative Constructs. Constructs by which you read Scripture. Now this is not to say that in terms of interpreting Scripture we are left to our own demise. Instead, after becoming a follower of Jesus we are provided with the help of the Holy Spirit to interpret what Scripture reads. Even Scripture teaches us that He is the great teacher who dwells within us to lead us to greater depths of truth that lies within God’s Word (however this is not a free ride away from research). The bottom line is this, everyone inherently interprets Scripture. No exceptions…everyone.
Finally, in your note you suggest that Rob Bell doesn’t apply Scripture to today’s culture and you suggest that Scripture is not sufficient. I would emphatically disagree and further argue that he probably, more so, then any other evangelical Pastor in the US today speaks from Scripture to where people are in culture today. Furthermore, I would also suggest that he most likely holds Scripture to a higher authority, than most evangelicals do as well. But the only way illustrate this to you, is to suggest that you listen to a few of his messages that are free to download (they are even mp3 files) direct from the church website at www.mhbcmi.org
As far as Bell’s view of Scripture you may want to read Mars Hill’s core beliefs and “directions.” Both are available through links on the home page.
Again I sincerely appreciate your willingness to speak up out of compassion and concern for fellow followers of Christ. May you never loose that willingness, and as Paul says “that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment.”
In His Dust,
Brian Lambert
Nicole,
First let me thank you for writing us your note. Your compassion for the cause of Christ and your desire to see what is right, done is truly admirable and evident through the tone of your writing. Not to mention your boldness in speaking up to 68 of your peers whom you disagree with. So, thanks for that.
However well intentioned your note is (and I fully believe you had the most honest of intentions), I believe that you maybe a little mislead. First, the “Redemptive Movement” is not an organized movement per se. Rob Bell does use the two terms together, but when he does he is not referring to a religious movement of any sort, like Calvinism, Arianism, Monasticism, Monarchianism, Open Theism, Reformed Theology, or Dispensationalism. Instead, he is referring to the redemptive movement of God throughout history. This simply means that God, from the very beginning of time has been in the process of redeeming man back to Himself. That is to say, that God’s plan of salvation or redemption did not begin with Jesus’ physical presence on earth, instead it was planned from the beginning, from the time of Adam and Eve. Now, through Jesus’ life, death, burial, and resurrection humans are granted access to the kingdom of God. The course of time has brought us to where we are now, here, in the 21st century. That redemptive movement has not stopped or ceased, instead it is still in action and it is our part as followers of Christ to join in the movement and spread the word about the Kingdom. So when you hear Rob Bell or any other evangelical use the phrase “Redemptive Movement” know that this is what they are referring to.
Secondly, you maybe referring to the “Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic.” Now this is much different than a religious movement, instead this is a way of interpreting Scripture. This method of interpreting Scripture was developed by Dr. William Webb from Heritage Theological Seminary. He wrote a book entitled Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. And in his book, he suggests that in Scripture there are two different types of mandates or commands. First, there are transcendent mandates. These are commands that transcendent culture and time. This just means that those commands or mandates are timeless. An example of a transcendent mandate are the ten commandments. Next, there are cultural mandates that are not timeless and are relative to the culture and time in which they are written. For example, I am sure if you look at the clothes you are wearing right now, you will realize that at least one article of clothing is made up of more than one fiber, and I would be willing to guess that you have on occasion worn gold jewelry or even pearl. I would even be willing to guess that you may have even braided you hair or perhaps worn clothing that can be considered “expensive.” But according to 1 Timothy 2:8-9 which says, "I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes," women should not do such things right? Well no, of course not. Does this mean that Scripture isn’t true, authoritative, or inspired by God? Absolutely not! It is only acknowledging that Scripture was written BY GOD in a REAL TIME through REAL PEOPLE in a REAL PLACE. Paul was a real person who had real concerns for a real group of people that he really wanted to see follow Jesus. At the time, all the things listed in the above Timothy passage were indicative of either prostitution or excessive wealth. Is that still true today? By and large no! So is it ok for you to wear gold, expensive clothing (in moderation), and braid your hair? Yes, as long as you are not forcing someone else to sin by doing so.
Thirdly, in your note you suggest that the “Redemptive Movement” promotes re-interpretation of Scripture. This assertion presupposes that there is an objective interpretation. This is simply not true, everyone interprets Scripture, everyone. When you read Scripture you are reading it from the perspective of a college student, at Liberty University, in Lynchburg Virginia, on the east coast, of the United States of America, in the fall, of the year 2005. You can’t help it, and you may not even notice it. The New Testament was written by God through Jews from Jerusalem in the first century. We are worlds away from the original authors, the message has no doubt been preserved. But do not for one second believe that you are reading the Bible objectively, everyone interprets Scripture when they read it. The challenge is to acknowledge it and strive to understand what Scripture means in it’s context within the text and within the time period in which it was written.
There are basically three different ways that Scripture is interpreted…direct, implied, and then there is creative construct. Now direct interpretation is straight up passages that can not be more clear such as “Thou shall not kill.” Pretty clear right? Don’t murder. Then there are implied interpretations which are concepts that are not directly stated, but are identified among believers as implied within the text. The Trinity and the Rapture are good examples of implied interpretation. This is not to say that the Trinity and the Rapture are not Scriptural Concepts, it is only to say that they are not specifically mentioned within the text, but Scripture certainly bears witness to such concepts. Thirdly there is Creative Construct. These are interpretations by which we interpret Scripture. For example, are you Calvinist? Armenian? Premillennial? Pretrib? Amillennial? Reformed? Dispensational? Progressive? Are you a Creationist? Threshold/Theistic Evolutionist? Day-Age Theorist? These are all interpretations by which we interpret Scripture. They are Creative Constructs. Constructs by which you read Scripture. Now this is not to say that in terms of interpreting Scripture we are left to our own demise. Instead, after becoming a follower of Jesus we are provided with the help of the Holy Spirit to interpret what Scripture reads. Even Scripture teaches us that He is the great teacher who dwells within us to lead us to greater depths of truth that lies within God’s Word (however this is not a free ride away from research). The bottom line is this, everyone inherently interprets Scripture. No exceptions…everyone.
Finally, in your note you suggest that Rob Bell doesn’t apply Scripture to today’s culture and you suggest that Scripture is not sufficient. I would emphatically disagree and further argue that he probably, more so, then any other evangelical Pastor in the US today speaks from Scripture to where people are in culture today. Furthermore, I would also suggest that he most likely holds Scripture to a higher authority, than most evangelicals do as well. But the only way illustrate this to you, is to suggest that you listen to a few of his messages that are free to download (they are even mp3 files) direct from the church website at www.mhbcmi.org
As far as Bell’s view of Scripture you may want to read Mars Hill’s core beliefs and “directions.” Both are available through links on the home page.
Again I sincerely appreciate your willingness to speak up out of compassion and concern for fellow followers of Christ. May you never loose that willingness, and as Paul says “that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment.”
In His Dust,
Brian Lambert
posted by Brian at 7:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home