I Posted on Open Source Theology:
I’ve been looking for a hermeneutic for some months now. About a year ago, I read a book by a respected leader in the denomination I came from, and he contrasted the “new hermeneutic” to the standard Church of Christ hermeneutic (not International, Disciples, or Christian church, another one). To summarize the hermeneutic I was taught:
-We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent. The problem, of course, is that the Bible leaves way to much to be silent about, so we don’t really follow the second part of this one.
-In the NT, we are to follow direct commands, necessary inferences, and apostolic examples. The problems, of course, are many:
-We follow some apostolic examples, but not all (e.g. baptism but not anointing with oil)
-People may disagree on what constitutes a necessary inference
-Direct commands may not have been made for us, and may have been intended for a specific context only, the story having been recorded for us only as an illustration of church life.

In short, this hermeneutic is useless in addressing the actual text of scripture, and is more useful for defending beliefs against change and outside influence. If a different interpretation is presented, it can be refuted by quoting the hermeneutic catch-phrases above. So, it is not really a hermeneutic at all.

It occurs to me that this discussion is like a parallel discussion my science classes are having: how can we define life so that plants, animals, and microbes are considered alive according to hard and fast rules, but rocks, stars, rivers, and robots are not? I think Andrew has hit upon the problem earlier in mentioning that we have erred not in making the wrong definitions but in trying to define in the first place.

I would like to assert that hermeneutics is not an endeavor that can be done and considered finished. Rather, it is an ongoing process that must be carried out in community. The only reason to carry out hermeneutics privately, by elite committee, is to exclude certain people from the process and decide who is orthodox and who is not. Once it has been decided that a particular viewpoint is orthodox and another is not, and the issue is considered closed (e.g. the Arian controversy), we lose any critical engagement in and dialogue with the text that we may have had. If we just accept as dogma that Athanasius was right and Arius was wrong, and teach others the same, we will fail to search the depths of scripture for the seeds of truth in both sides that are to be found.

So, with you all, I am not interested in a defining hermeneutics, that will enable us once for all to decide what is true and correct, and what is wrong. This was an Enlightenment project, and it has failed; all that resulted was denominational divisions, which, thankfully, seem to be breaking down now that we realize the arrogance of claiming perfection for our own hermeneutic and its theological results.

What I am interested in is in learning HOW to do hermeneutics as the Body of Christ. How can we be engaged seriously and constantly and personally in the text, to see how it speaks to our individul lives and our life together as the church?

First, we can acknowledge the value of traditional interpretations, for we are in community with the whole church throughout history, not just those in our local fellowship at the current time. It will be helpful to understand why different parts of the church have believed what they did at various points in history.

Second, we can teach by asking questions rather than providing bullet-point answers. This is good pedagogy as well as good hermeneutics. The very act of getting the whole church involved in interpreting and applying scripture will be a tremendous learning and growing experience, far more powerful than a series of sermons or delivered lessons. We need to develop ways to do this corporately, and not just in small groups. The know-how for this exists in the education world; teachers are led in critical engagement with a text by trained facilitators…