Doctrine -- How do we do it?

That book is on the top of my 'Summer Reading' pile. I wish I had time during the semester to dive into books that aren't assigned by professors. I really like points 2 and 3. I'm looking forward to seeing how he develops those points.

Two Horizons has long been my favorite book on hermeneutics....the close second is Vanhoozer's "Is There A Meaning in This Text?"

Had to read Thiselton's "New Horizons" for Intermediate Hermeneutics this last Fall. The guy is an absolute beast with names and ideas. Never before have I read a more complete volume, or "tome" as you rightly call his writing. Readers be forewarned though, if you haven't interacted with much philosophy (especially linguistics), you will be up the creek without a paddle. It's expected that you will know quite a bit before you come to his text. Perhaps this highlights another difference in theological education across the pond?

I've been thinking about interpretation for a long time. somthing I long for is that some of this material to be made available at the everyday reader level.

I minister in a context in which attenders are very blue collar, factory workers, mail deliverers, farmers, mechanics. I try to give the 2 horizons in sermons with the hope that they return home and read the text for themselves. But my ultimate longing is that they become the prieshood of believers able to discern meaning for themselves.

Then there is my own longing for security... in my contrext Biblical literalism reigns -- not a literal interpretation but literalism. A reading of the text that is more often reader response and more reletivistic than a thoughtful study using good biblical interpretation method. The irony is that such "literalists" think they are reading the Bible as "the" word of God, when they are often reading themselves into it.

I hear time and again that using good interpretaion method distorts the plain meaning of scripture and that it is the educated ones who are most heritical. And I can't bust through that cemented understanding.

Soooo.... my plea to theologians and academics is to consider some of your writing time to be writing that reaches different types of readers. (I know it is my job to translate but then I become their knower and they are not empower to know for themselves).

Thanks for this overview, Scot. I once spent a memorable seminar with Colin Brown and other students reading and discussing our way through Thiselton's The Two Horizons . . . well worth the (considerable) effort! Sean, you are concerned that Thiselton never "moves out to praxis"? Check out his article "Understanding God's Word Today" in the John Stott edited Obeying Christ in a Changing World, Vol. 1, The Lord Christ (Fountain Books, 1977), or his more recent First Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary. Thiselton once told me, quite emphatically, that the whole reason we do all the hard intellectual work, ultimately, was pastoral: it should result, he stressed, in the building up of the church.

ron,

I may not understand what you mean - but if God acted in history, if there is any truth to the Christian story – then there are some "doctrines" that are absolutely essential. Those doctrines related to the fact that there is a God and that he acted in a concrete fashion in human history are non-negotiable. So – the incarnation is one of those doctrines. If the incarnation is not true – there is no timeless Christian story. Without the crucifixion and resurrection as concrete atoning acts, the Christian story is hogwash.

Ah – but how to understand these events, maybe this is what you mean by doctrine. The interpretation of these events – these data - these acts of God – has varied somewhat throughout history, influenced by culture and situation. We can and should step back and interpret the acts – and much of the interpretation is negotiable. I am dead certain that no dogmatic statement of interpretation has ever gotten everything right.

How can one have any confession of faith without some level of doctrine?

ron,
Speaking from a U-U perspective, there is only one thing that is absolutely essential and non-negotiable: the Jesus creed. Any doctrine or interpretation of doctrine that compromises or diminishes the centrality of the Jesus creed is suspect and unnecessary. It may well be that John, Paul, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, etc. would find fault with this perspective. However, IMHO, Jesus would bless it.
Doug