Theological Education

Foundations, Practices, and Future Directions

Bain, Hussey

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781532640681
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This volume draws upon historical and theological sources and empirical research to provide a unique and diverse perspective on theological education in the twenty-first century. The volume develops and promulgates the best thinking about theological education by drawing upon the breadth of expertise represented by the faculty of colleges within the Australian College of Theology. This volume not only produces crucial insights for the future of theological education around the world but gives the Australian theological sector a voice to make its own unique contribution to the global dialogue about theological education.

Part I

Biblical and Theological Perspectives

1

Theological Interpretation in Theological Education

Teaching Old Testament Studies

Kit Barker

Abstract

Our essential beliefs about what the Old Testament is should inform how we interpret it and teach it. Thus, the fundamental conviction underlying this chapter is that ontology should determine praxis. While the advent of theological interpretation has helped to clarify the presuppositions and goals of evangelical hermeneutics, the practice of evangelical hermeneutics, particularly with respect to the Old Testament, is often at odds with such beliefs. Broadly, evangelical hermeneutics need to moderate the influence of historical criticism and embrace a consistent and explicit application of our convictions within Old Testament interpretation and pedagogy. Speech act theory is proposed as a helpful means of achieving this objective.

Introduction

In writing on the topic of Old Testament perspectives on theological education, it is possible to understand the matter in two ways: 1) What (if anything) does the Old Testament say about theological education? or 2) How should theological education be undertaken in the field of Old Testament studies? My primary interest lies with the latter question, though, of course, the two are fundamentally related. Rather than examine how various texts in the Old Testament might inform our pedagogy, I offer my reflections on how an evangelical understanding of what we are teaching should shape how we teach it. Put simply, ontology should inform praxis, but I am not convinced that, within evangelicalism, such consistency is always maintained.1 I believe that recent discussions of theological interpretation provide a helpful platform upon which we can evaluate the relationship between our ontology and praxis.

Ontology

The Presuppositions of Theological Interpretation

The legacy of the Enlightenment has dominated construals of Old Testament ontology. For many within the academy the Old Testament is viewed as varying combinations of history, myth, and political propaganda with no recognition of divine agency. Consequently, the widely accepted hermeneutics of historical criticism are often formed from presuppositions at odds with evangelical convictions.2 This renders them an inadequate tool for those desiring to engage with Scripture on its own terms. Murray Rae comments,

Despite the biblical imperative, quite properly insisted on by Kasemann and Pannenberg, to be attentive to God’s action in history, it will be argued in what follows that the historical-critical method is incapable of discerning where and how God is at work in the world and that it is unable therefore, to facilitate a faithful reading of biblical texts. This is so, first, because adherence to the standard canons of historical inquiry renders a historical-critical method incapable of reading Scripture on its own terms and of hearing through Scripture the Word of God; second, because the biblical account of the divine economy requires us to rethink what history is; and third, because God is wholly Other, which is to say that God’s being and action cannot be detected through the same methods of inquiry that we use to investigate created realities.3

Unfortunately, the influence of higher-critical ontology and praxis has often been met with little critical reflection. Practices in biblical and theological studies will always reflect the broader cultures in which they occur, but as John Goldingay notes, without a critical engagement with this culture we may find that our pedagogy fits our times better than it does the subject of our teaching.

We need to reflect on the way developments in biblical interpretation are inclined to mirror developments in the study of English literature and the wider critical environment. The literary turn, post-structuralism, post-colonial study, reception history, and so on, did not start as developments within biblical interpretation. They were brought into biblical interpretation from the cultural context. The fact doesn’t in itself make them wrong, and those approaches to interpretation make fruitful contributions to our hearing the voice of God in the Scriptures, but the dynamic of the process raises questions about the ease with which we sell our souls to the latest hermeneutical idea. This consideration might suggest another angle on the importance of the question, how do we hear the voice of God from the Scriptures. While hearing may happen in part because approaches that emerge from our context are ones that speak to us, it will also happen because we are not confined to such approaches but are open to ones that correspond to the nature of the text.4

The recent “resurgence” of theological interpretation reflects such an attempt to connect our ontology with our praxis. While theological interpretation is defined in a variety of ways, I suggest that Craig Bartholomew’s definition in terms of telos is most helpful. If we believe that Scripture—and specifically the Old Testament—is the word of God, then the telos of theological interpretation must be hearing God’s voice.5 Even so, Bartholomew will note that despite the recent discussions of theological interpretation, there remains little evidence that Old Testament scholars are demonstrating the practice.

. . . the renaissance of theological interpretation of the Bible is still in its early years, and it remains rare to find scholarship on the Old Testament that embodies the kind of integrated theological hermeneutic that retains critical rigor while aiming throughout to hear God’s address.6

Divine Rhetoric and Speech Act Theory

If Scripture is the word of God then the best way to describe its canonical genre is divine rhetoric. Scripture is God’s communicative act through which he continues to speak. That rhetoric is the best descriptor of this communicative act acknowledges that the information conveyed is intended to be both persuasive and transformative. It is not simply a compendium of truth claims waiting to be arranged and systematized—though it is at least that—but constitutes complex, interpersonal communication intended to impose itself upon readers. It is not abstract or incidental but is inhe...