Michael Barram - Bible Mission and Social Location Hermeneutic

The Bible, Mission, and Social Location: Toward a Missional Hermeneutic

MICHAEL BARRAM Assodate Professor of Religious Studies Saint Mary's College of California

Despite a long-standing rift between missiology and biblical scholarship, current trends in both disciplinessuch as a con-verging emphasis on the significance of social location in biblical interpretationsuggest that the time may be ripe for a "missional hermeneutic" that would privilege the missiological "location" of the Christian community in the world as a key to a critical and faithful approach to Scripture.

How do we read the Bible faithfully? Whether or not this fundamental question is consciously articulated, the Christian community confronts it in every age and context. The question has inspired fierce hermeneutical debates of all sorts; indeed, much of the church's history could be traced by paying attention to the many answers that have been proffered in response to this deceptively simple question. The task of biblical interpretation in the church is always ongoing, under the continuing guidance and direction of the Spirit of God. In other words, the hermeneutical enterprise is never completed.

Given the always-unfinished nature of biblical interpretation, the pressing question the Christian community must continue to ask is, "How do we read the Bible faithfully today?" This essay offers reflections on this particular question by focusing on a potentially fruitful intersection between biblicalespecially NTstudies and missiology, two disciplines whose relationship has often been characterized more by mutual suspicion and neglect than by cooperation and reciprocal instruction. As a NT scholar, I believe the church has benefited greatly from the input of critical biblical scholarship. At the same time, I am increasingly convinced that biblical scholars who care about the health and vitality of the faith commu-nity have much to gain from a conversation with those whose academic focus is the mission of the church in the world today. Ultimately, I am persuaded that faithful biblical interpre-tation in our day will require a missional hermeneuticthat is, an approach to biblical

JANUARY 2007 Interpretation 43

texts that privileges the missiological "location" of the Christian community in the world as a hermeneutical key.

MISSIOLOGY AND THE NEW TESTAMENT: AREAS OF CONVERGENCE

The call for a missional reading of the Bible has been gaining momentum among missi-ologists for years.1 My comments on the intersection between biblical scholarship and missio-logical research attempt to understand and enter into an ongoing discussion. I will focus rather synchronically on some of the issues that have arisen over the last two decades or so. My approach will be thematic and topical rather than bibliographic. I find at least three significant and welcome areas of convergence in recent discussions pertaining to the Bible and mission.

God, Church, and Scripture in Missiological Perspective. There seems to be widespread agreement that "mission," biblically understood, is first and foremost about the nature, character, and purposes of God. Whatever else may be said about mission in terms of theology, strategy, or any other aspect of human participation, biblical mission originates with divine, not human, initiative. The source, motivation, character, and ongoing vitality of the church's mission is rooted ultimately in the missio Dei. God's purposes and activity are fundamental. God is understood as a "God who sends" the community of faith into the world. Simply put, God is a God of mission. And, conversely, mission is ultimately about God.2

A pivotal implication of this emphasis on the missio Dei is that the language of mission has been increasingly linked to the identity and vocation of the church itself. Missiological discussions suggest that the Christian community, inasmuch as its raison d'etre reflects divine purposes, is in a very real sense missional by nature. Thus, mission cannot be consid-ered merely one component of the church's activity, despite a widespread tendency to relegate "mission" to the purview of a particular congregational committee, outreach program, or budgetary line item.3 When mission becomes a mere subset of the church's vision, the com-munity risks substituting its own priorities for the larger purposes of God.

Finallyand closely related to both the missio Dei and the corresponding missional character of the churchone finds a growing tendency in recent missiological discussion to view the Bible itself as missional at its heart, inasmuch as it is understood to function as the word of a missional God to a community defined by the divine mission.4

There was a clear tendency in a previous eraand it is still evident occasionallyto

^ee, for example, Darrell L. Guder, ed., Missional Church A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 10-12.

2See Guder, Missional Church, 4; Beverly Roberts Gaventa, "*You Will Be My Witnesses': Aspects of Mission in the Acts of the Apostles,'' Missiology 10 (1982): 415; and Lucien Legrand, Unity and Plurality: Mission in the Bible (trans. Robert R. Barr; Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1990), 5,37, and 152.

3See, for example, Guder, Missional Churchy 6; cf. James A. Scherer, Gospel, Church, and Kingdom: Comparative Studies in World Mission Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1978), 244; Karl Mller, "Missiology: An Introduction,'' in Following Christ in Mission: A Foundational Course in Missiology (d. S. Karotemprel; Boston: Pauline Books & Media [Daughters of St. Paul], 1996), 27.

4See, for example, David W. Porter, "'Spreading the Word': Aspects of the Biblical Basis of Mission," Christian Brethren Review 36 (1985): 20.

44 Interpretation JANUARY 2007

conceive of the church's mission in terms of a relatively limited number of specific "mis-sionary texts," such as the so-called "Great Commission" in Matthew (28:16-20).5 Often, the validity and character of the church's vocation were linked almost exclusively to these passages.

The recent shift toward viewing the Bible as missiological in character offers a correc-tive to a reductionistic emphasis on a few putative "mission" texts. Many are now beginning to recognize that the church's mission hangs not on a few scattered passages, but on a much broader appeal to the activity of God as revealed in Scripture as a whole.

Such affirmations have significant implications for the Christian community, as it seeks to read the Bible faithfully today. Emphasizing the centrality of the missio Dei as a key to understanding both the church's vocation and the Scriptures encourages us to examine our presuppositions, our perspectives, and even the kind of questions we ask.

The Church's Holistic Mission. Such questions have inspired a second area of conver-gence in recent discussions. There is a relatively broad, if not universal, recognition among missiologists that from a biblical perspective, the church is called to address a range of needs facing the contemporary world. That is, the church's missional vocation is more holistic than, for example, a set of strategies for rescuing as many sinners as possible from eternal perdition. To be sure, narrow and formulaic visions of Christian salvation continue to be propagated through various media and by numerous evangelistically minded groups. As scholarly missiological discussions have progressed, however, it has become more and more common to view issues of socio-cultural, political, economic, and environmental jus-tice as essentially inseparable from the church's evangelistic outreach to unbelievers.6 In other words, injustice of any kind is increasingly understood as a missiological problem. In view of the relatively checkered story of the church in mission, this recent emphasis on the holistic nature of biblical mission is heartening.

Mission and Social Location. A third area of convergence pertains to the growing recog-nition that all biblical interpretation is based on "located" readings. Scholars in various fields now recognize the significance of "social location," the crucial postmodern insight that human beings never enter an interpretive process as entirely impartial observers.7 Every interpretation comes from a "place" to the extent that no interpreter can fully avoid the influences of personal history, gender, ethnicity, race, nationality, place of residence, educa-tion, occupation, political perspective, economic status, religious views or commitments, and so forth. As we read the biblical text, therefore, what we see, hear, and value is inevitably colored by our own situations, experiences, characteristics, and presuppositions.

5See David J. Bosch, "The Why and How of a True Biblical Foundation for Mission," in Zending op weg naar de Toelaomst: Essays aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. J. Verkuyl (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1978), 34. See also Michael Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection in Paul (New York: Peter Lang, 2005), 5.

6See Bosch, "The Why and How"; Gaventa, "Aspects of Mission," 424; and John S. Pobee, "Mission From Below," Mission Studies 10 (1993): 150.

^ote the emphasis on "context" in Guder, Missional Church, 11,18-45; cf. Bosch, "The Why and How," 33; and Willem A. Saayman, "Biblical Insights on New Creation and Mission in Power and Faith," Mission Studies 10 (1993): 172-73.

CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS Interpretation 45

As an inevitable result, individual readers and ecclesial traditions tend to emphasize favorite passages and themes that reflect and legitimate their own particular stories, characteristics, perspectives, and proclivities.

This focus on the context and role of the reader is having a major impact on biblical scholarship.8 Interpretive insights from literary and philosophical hermeneutics as well as from voices formerly marginalized by the scholarly establishment are raising serious questions about traditional hermeneutical assumptions and methods. The modernist attempt to find a single universally valid interpretation of an author's intention by means of precise and meticu-lously applied methodologiesthe approach underlying much of traditional historical-critical biblical interpretationis now widely considered hermeneutically nave and misguided.9

Perhaps it should not be surprising that sensitivity to social location is evident in recent missiological studies concerned with the character and function of the Bible. Given the historic and geographic scope of missionary activity, practitioners have explored issues of contextual-ization and pluralistic readerships for years. For that reason, missiological conversations regarding the process of multilateral and intercultural dialogue may be significantly more developed and sophisticated than analogous developments in biblical studies. In any event, by paying attention to social location, biblical scholars have begun to do, at least in theory, what missiologists have learned to do in practice.

To summarize observations to this point: I have identified three broad areas of conver-gence, centering on 1) the missio Dei and its relationship to both the church's mission and the missional character of the Bible; 2) the holistic scope of the church's evangelical task; and 3) the role of social location in biblical interpretation. To be sure, developments in these areas do little to simplify the interpretive task; indeed, these insights may actually add complexity to our understandings of the church's vocation in the world. Nevertheless, these areas of con-vergence are to be celebrated inasmuch as they acknowledge and address a number of persis-tent and troubling reductionisms characteristic of earlier "mission" perspectives and work.

THE BIBLE AND MISSION: SOME CONTINUING CHALLENGES

There are at least three areas, however, that seem less settled and thus merit serious, continued discussion. The first issue concerns the very definition of the topic itself.

Terminological Imprecision. About a decade ago, I began reading material on the mission of the apostle Paul for my dissertation research and was struck by a lack of congruity in the

8See, for example, James V. Brownson, Speaking the Truth in Love: New Testament Resources for a Missional Hermeneutic (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1998), 8-11.

9See, for example, Justin Ukpong, "Interculturation Hermeneutics: An African Approach to Biblical Interpretation," in The Bible in a World Context: An Experiment in Contextual Hermeneutics (ed. Walter Dietrich and Ulrich Luz; Grand Rapids; Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 2002), 17-32; Brownson, Speaking the Truth in Love, 15-19.


relevant literature with regard to terms related to "mission." Though some writers take pains, at least initially, to define and distinguish terms such as mission and evangelism, typical usage of mission language can seem idiosyncratic. It appears that "mission" is most commonly invoked in relation to the expansion of the Christian faith, usually numerically or geographi-cally. In the secondary literature of both missiological and NT scholarship, mission quite commonly refers narrowly to evangelistic outreach among non-Christians; indeed, mission often appears to function as a synonym for initial evangelism.10 From this perspective, mis-sion language is used appropriately in relatively limited contextsnamely, when evangelistic outreach to those outside the faith community is in view. The benefit of such usage is its familiarity to many in the church. Mission understood as efforts to reach outsiders has a lengthy track record. Not insignificantly, the Latin root of mission implies "sending," and the term has thus been commonly associated with those who venture beyond the boundaries of the faith community.

A very different trend is gaining currency in missiological scholarship and reflection, however. As noted above, those influenced by these discussions often use the term mission to refer to the church's overall vocation or purpose as defined by the missio Dei. Again, from this perspective, mission is constitutive of the church, not merely one activity among others in which it mightor might notengage. Such an approach has obvious strengths. For example, it reckons more adequately than the "mission as outreach" perspective with the pivotal missiological insight that the church's existence and task are ultimately rooted in the divine mission. Moreover, linking mission with "purpose" parallels common usage; note, for example, how an institutional "mission statement" is used to articulate a given organiza-tion's core purpose and vision. To describe a narrowly evangelistic approach using the lan-guage of mission risks implying that the church's entire purpose in the world can be defined in terms of converting non-Christians to the faith. Such a perspective can easily degenerate into a fixation on "winning souls," to the neglect of other pressing human needsan approach that finds scant support in Scripture. By contrast, using mission in a holistic way to invoke the overarching purpose of the church appropriates the recognition that the church's mission is, in fact, God's. Understood in this overarching sense, mission is not incompatible with the notion of the church's being sent; the church is indeed sent forth into the world, but not simply to convert non-believers to a reductionistic gospel.

Again, to the extent that a holistic approach to mission terminology attempts to take its cues from God's own purposes in the world, it is undoubtedly preferable to any definition that renders mission a mere component of the church's activity. Too often mission has been

10See Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection, 2-3.


defined by the church's proclivities, rather than by divine purposes. By defining mission as little more than evangelistic outreach, the church ironically assumes that what it does is what God wants it to do.11

To resolve the meaning of mission in its nominal form does not fully address current terminological imprecision, however. Though many seem inclined to define the noun in terms of the church's overarching purpose or vocation, the corresponding adjective "missionary" is almost always used in a far narrower fashion. Pauline scholars, for example, often use the adjective almost exclusively in reference to evangelism.12 In feet, this practice is so common as to suggest that it will not be easy to reclaim a more holistic understanding for the adjective "missionary." In the absence of a separate adjective that corresponds to mission, holistically construed, readers end up struggling to understand how a given author is using commonplace vocabulary. Regrettably, many writers seem to proceed as if everyone knowsand agrees aboutwhat particular terms mean. In the end, terminological imprecision may hinder efforts to discern and articulate a biblically sensitive understanding of the church's vocation.13

For this reason, many have begun to experiment with alternative adjectives, such as the term "missional." Though something of a neologism, missional has been gaining currency among writers concerned about the Bible and mission.14 And it seems to be used in the broader, more appropriately holistic sense of mission as purpose or vocation, inclusive of the church's evangelistic outreach, but not limited to it.15 It will likely be some time, however, before NT scholars adoptor even recognize the need forsuch terminological precision with respect to mission.

The Disciplinary Divide. The second area of difficulty involves something of a rift between missiologists, on the one hand, and biblical scholars, on the other. Generally speak-ing, missiologists have tended to disdain both the academic sterility of biblical scholarship and a perceived lack of pragmatic evangelical engagement by many of its practitioners. One senses a deep frustration among some missiological writers toward a discipline that is seen as having drained much of the life out of the gospel message. Not surprisingly, missiological research until relatively recently has tended either to ignore or to interact only superficially with serious biblical scholarship.

"Compare Bosch ("The Why and How," 33): "It has become customary, in writing on the 'theology of mission', to begin with a chapter on the 'oiblical foundation of mission.' The argument seems to be that we already know what mission' is and that, once we have established the validity of mission, we may proceed to the exposition of mission theory and methodology."

Perhaps such assumptions begin to explain the debates about whether there is mission in the OT or not. If we simply assume that mission means cross-cultural evangelism of the type we see, for example, in the Acts of the Aposties, it becomes difficult to find much in the way of "mission" in the OT. Still, the chosen people of God were not without a purpose in view of the missio Dei (e.g., Gen 12:3). Our predetermined definitions may often fore-close discussion about what God's mission involves. So, e.g., Legrand, Unity and Plurality, 3: "... if we have the notion that mission consists in going out to the pagans to lead them to the true faith or convert them to the true God, we shall find that, apart from rare exceptions (such as the Book of Jonah), the Old Testament knows nothing of mission."

12Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection, 3-4. "Compare Scherer, Gospel Church, and Kingdom, 243-44. 14See, for example, Guder, Missional Church, and Brownson, Speaking the Truth in Love. 15In any case, that is how I have begun to use the term; see Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection, 177-79.


Biblical scholars, of course, have returned the favor. By and large, they have ignored the input of missiologists.16 To be sure, when biblical exegetesfor obvious reasons, usually NT scholarsfind mission vocabulary germane to the particular topic or passage under exami-nation, they readily employ such terminology. Again, however, mission is narrowly associated with initial evangelism in biblical scholarship. (Think of Paul's efforts to proclaim the gospel among non-believing Gentiles, for example.)17 For this reason, mission has rarely been under-stood in biblical scholarship as an especially fundamental issue or rubric meriting serious attention. Biblical scholars continue to ignore missiological research, perhaps to an even greater extent than their missiological counterparts have ignored critical biblical scholarship.

There are, to be sure, encouraging efforts being made to bridge this disciplinary fault-line. Some biblical scholars have begun wrestling in more thoroughgoing ways with the kinds of questions and insights that have engaged missiologists for years. Likewise, much of recent missiological literature indicates increasing awareness of critical biblical scholarship. Nevertheless, it would be a bit premature to describe the dialogue between the two disci-plines as much more than a discussion among the "converted." Most of the sympathetic and thoughtful treatment of mission issues by biblical scholars seems to appear in missiological journals such as Msiology and the International Review of Mission.19 Certainly that is the case with regard to the vast majority of work on the Bible by missiologists.

Is there a way to encourage more interdisciplinary conversation and cooperation? Or to frame the issue more directly, what are some preliminary steps that might be taken to press toward a missional hermeneutican interpretive approach that would benefit from the col-laborative efforts of biblical scholars and missiologists alike?

What follows are reflections intended to move the conversation forward in light of such questions. My comments should be construed as suggestive and illustrative rather than conclu-sive or prescriptive. I would suggest that there are two essentially methodological factorsone in relation to each disciplinethat contribute to the current situation of mutual disregard.

First, from the perspective of missiology, biblical research tends to proceed from an inadequate methodological point of departure. Traditional biblical scholarship regularly privileges the antiquarian historical issues pertinent to understanding the text in its original context. Though such research is both necessary and valuable, too little interest is paid, from a missiological perspective, to the question of the ongoing purpose and vocation of the Christian community and, by extension, to the impact such a question would have upon the processes and products of biblical research. I sense that missiologists are often profoundly

16See, for example, Johannes Nissen, New Testament and Mission: Historical and Hermeneutical Perspectives (2d ed.; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2002), 1; and Charles R. Taber, "Missiology and the Bible," Misnobgy 11 (1983): 231.

17See Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection, 5-6. 18For example, Gaventa's "Aspects of Mission," which appeared in Missiology, as cited above.


dissatisfied with the primary questions that animate wider biblical scholarship, especially given the determinative influence those questions have on the kinds of answers researchers find.19

Missiologists would suggest that at least two kinds of methodological questions merit greater emphasis in biblical research. On the one hand, they would like biblical scholars to ask how biblicaland primarily NT documentsfunctioned missionally in their original contexts. From the perspective of missiology, it is actually anachronistic to avoid the ques-tion of mission for at least two reasons. First, the communities to which NT documents were written owed their existence to a missional impulse in early Christianity. God was active in the world, and the fledgling Christian communities found themselves caught up in that activity. Of course, the doctrinal struggles we find would never have arisen apart from a process of early Christian outreach. Second, the NT texts themselves are in some real sense missiological, inasmuch as they equip their original addressees for the community's vocation in the world.20 Put simply, from the perspective of missiology, a biblical text does not have to be focused on outreach to non-Christians in order for it to have an inherently missional character. To marginalize missiological questions is therefore methodologically reductionistic, even in the context of historically focused biblical research. Missiologists would encourage biblical scholars to incorporate "mission" as a valid and consistent rubric for studying NT documents in their original contexts.

On the other hand, missiologists would also like to see more biblical scholars begin their research projects by asking how biblical documents inform and equip the contemporary Christian community for its mission. Studies focused primarily on antiquarian concerns often fail to deal adequately with the ways biblical documents function for living communi-ties of faith in very different contexts.21

From an ecclesiological perspective, biblical scholarship is healthiest when the processes and products of interpretation are rooted in the ongoing life of believing communities that value the text as Scripture. As Lesslie Newbigin has argued, "the congregation" is properly understood "as the hermeneutic of the gospel."22 All too often, pastors and their parishioners consider the typical interests and pursuits of the academic guild to be almost completely irrelevant, if not inherently detrimental, to the continuing vitality of the Christian commu-nity. This perception is not overly surprising; the functional hermeneutic operative among biblical scholars often owes more to the concerns and hubris of the university culture than to the lived experience of the congregation.

19As missiologist Darceli L. Guder notes, "Studying God's Word is always a process of posing questions to Scripture. The questions that we ask will control the answers we receive." See Unlikely Ambassadors: Clay Jar Christians in God's Service": A Bible Study for the 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), (Louisville: Office of the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.], 2002), 5.

^IbidoS. 21Ibid.: "There is a basic question that concretely opens up the Bible for us as the written testimony that God

uses to shape us for our faithful witness and service. As we approach the text, we are always asking: 'How did this text equip and shape God's people for their missional witness then, and how does it shape us today?'"

MSee ch. 18 in The Gospel in A Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Geneva: WCC Publications, 1989), 222-233.


At the same time, however, it must be acknowledged that non-Christian scholars have often contributed very helpfully to the church's understanding of the biblical text. To under-stand the community of faith as the locus of biblical interpretation does not necessitate that the input and insight of others be rejected out of hand.

Even if much of contemporary scholarship is not rooted in the living community of faith, many who are engaged in academic study do work from a social location within the church. These interpreters, representing varied ecclesial, cultural, and theological perspec-tives, engage in the full range of scholarly inquiry and debates. Although their scholarship may appear no less dauntingly esoteric and irrelevant to non-scholars than anything else that emanates from the academic guild, a self-consciously Christian perspective does tend to influence how and why a reader approaches the biblical text. Most importantly, Christian scholars bring a sensitivity to and consciousness of the issues and concerns of the believing community.

In the end, the point is that the primary methodological problem in terms of "mission" is not that biblical scholars approach the Bible from a coldly analytical, arm's length perspective, whereas missiologists approach the Bible from the vantage point of active faith, reading it as Scripture and finding in it the revealed Word of God. Many competent and respected biblical scholars enter their work as persons of deep faith and yet do not put any significant emphasis on mission. The primary problem, from a missiological perspective, is that biblical scholars have yet to be persuaded that mission can and should serve as a fundamental rubric for biblical interpretation.

Let us turn now to consider a different methodological issue, in this case from the per-spective of biblical scholarship. While there may be a variety of reasons biblical scholars have been less than enthusiastic about missiological concerns, I suspect that one obstacle to progress in bridging the biblical/missiological fault-line may be a lingering perception among biblical scholars that those who focus on mission-related topics are significantly more conservative than the scholarly mainstream, both theologically and methodologically. Given the traditional association between "mission" as a topic of research and contemporary efforts to convert non-Christians, many biblical scholars may tend to equate concern for mission with narrow and reductionistic expressions of evangelistic fervor. In effect, missiology may be viewed as a suspect discipline, guilty by association if not in deed. While such perceptions may be accu-rate in certain cases, recent missiological discussions suggest that many missiologists have moved well beyond such reductionisms. Even so, biblical scholars may be sorely tempted to throw the missiological baby out with the theological bathwater.23

23This may be true with regard to "mission" despite a recent resurgence of exegetical interest in theological mat-tersexemplified, for example, by the work of the Society of Biblical Literature's Pauline Theology Seminar. See Jouette M. Bassler, ed., Pauline Theology, Volume I: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); David M. Hay, ed.,Pauline Theology, VolumeII:1&2 Corinthians (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson, eds., Pauline Theology, Volume III: Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); and . Elizabeth Johnson and David M. Hay, eds., Pauline Theology, Volume IV: Looking Back, Pressing On (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997).


In fact, given the depth of these discipline-related suspicions, missiologists may end up having to do the lion's share of bridge building, at least initially, between the two disciplines. The reason is clear: Whereas missiologists are convinced they must reflect on the Bible, bibli-cal scholars are by no means convinced that they must reflect on mission.

The best way to convince biblical exegetes that a given topic merits sustained attention is to demonstrate that it is germane to the text itself. Well-intentioned assertions regarding the importance of mission will not suffice. Traditional biblical scholarship recognizes and values methodological rigor. I suspect that by giving increased attention to methodological concerns, missiologically oriented studies of the Bible could begin both to infuse biblical studies with more of a missiological consciousness and demonstrate to biblical scholars that concern for mission need not be equated with theological or methodological conservatism.

I offer the following as an example of the issue. In general, missiological writings use biblical materials in a far less critical manner than do the majority of biblical scholars.24 Perhaps ninety percent of scholarly interpreters assumein light of some rather weighty evidencethat the apostle Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles.25 Significant questions have also been raised, of course, with regard to Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians. Nevertheless, missiological writings often fail even to acknowledge the issue of authorship in reconstructions of Paul. In order to move the hermeneutical conversation forward, missi-ologists may need to work proactively to counter the widespread assumption that only con-servatives concern themselves with mission. Mission will not become a major topic in bibli-cal research as long as it is seen as the pet project of a few adherents who begin with narrow presuppositions and use relatively uncritical methods.26

Although some conservative biblical scholars have been known to utilize 1 Timothy, for example, in a determinative way in reconstructing an understanding of Paul, they represent a decided minority in the field. In order to infuse biblical studies with a healthy missional consciousness, those concerned about mission and the Bible could choose to use biblical and other sources as judiciously as do the majority of critical biblical scholars. At the very least, writers would do well to acknowledge that they are aware of critical issues of widespread concern. Likewise, scholars should avoid the relatively common missiological tendency to gloss over the diversity of the biblical canon. In short, rather than avoiding or dismissing the methodological concerns of biblical scholarship, mission-oriented studies might try employing the tools of critical biblical exegesis in an intentional way as a means to demonstrate the exegetical importance of mission for biblical interpretation.

^See, for example, Taber, "Missiology," 229-230, cited in Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection, 11: "Charles R. Taber laments the dismaying fact that... missiologists have far too often used the Bible in naive and superficial ways.' They 'have too often lacked a solid grounding in the scholarly methods of Bible study* and are thus 'not infrequently... guilty of grotesque harmonizations, of taking texts out of context, of proof-texting, of ad hoc and ad hominem exegeses, and especially of reductionism.,w

25Some scholars have begun to argue that 2 Timothy, however, should be considered authentic. See, for exam-ple, Michael J. Gorman, Apostle of the Crudfied Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).

^Compare Gaventa's comments in "Aspects of Mission" 413-14.


I do not intend to suggest that anyone casually sacrifice personal theological convictions. Missiologists and others need not endlessly pander to the conceits of biblical scholarship. Nevertheless, a consciously strategic move may be appropriate and warranted. Indeed, methodological conservatism may well be more an obstacle to a wider exploration of mission than theological conservatism.

Missiological readings of the Bible appear unduly and uncritically eisegetical to many biblical scholars. Exegetes will not be convinced that mission is a significant topic for research if the mission-focused work they see remains methodologically suspect. Missiological readings conducted according to the most exacting standards of biblical research may help show that mission is a rubric intrinsic to the biblical text itself and thus that missional reflection is not an inherently conservative activity, methodologically or theologically. At that point, biblical scholars may begin to take notice. In the end, lamenting a lack of emphasis on mission will not convince biblical scholars to take up the task. Convincing them that good scholarship necessitates missional reflection just may.

Biblical Authority and Mission. One final area merits brief attention. It can be charac-terized best as the thorny and perennial hermeneutical question of biblical authority. Specifically, how does Scripture guide the community of faith in its mission? This question is slightly different than the one highlighted above, where the concern was how biblical texts might inform the Christian community about its mission in the world. That question focuses on the nature, scope, and practice of the church's vocation. Here, the question has more to do with the motivation for enacting that ecclesial mission. How, exactly, does the Bible serve as the church's authority for mission? Ultimately, the question is, "How shall the church read the Bible dthfully today?"

Of course, a lengthy continuum would be required to map the wide variety of possible responses to such questions. At the risk of oversimplification, though, let us posit two general approaches as plausible examples. For some, the biblical text provides fairly specific mandates and concrete commands for the contemporary Christian community. In many instances, readers anticipate a nearly one-to-one correlation between the biblical text and what the reality of the church should look like today. The role of the interpreter is to determine what the biblical text says so that the contemporary community may attempt to approximate it in a new situation.

For others, of course, the biblical text offers something much less concrete. Rather than specific directives to be replicated exactly, the Bible is understood to provide more general


guidance for missionsuch as principles or paradigmsthat would require significant interpretive reflection as the community seeks to discern its missional vocation. To be sure, these approaches are not mutually exclusive. In practice, most of us probably find direct and specific relevance reflected in passages we like, whereas we see abstract, general principles in texts that make us uncomfortable.

In any case, reflecting on such approaches raises a host of questions regarding the meaning, function, and authority of the biblical text. Consensus on the missiological import of the missio Dei may eliminate certain options, but it does not solve hermeneutical riddles. Despite certain areas of convergence, widespread disagreement remains concerning the Bible's authority as the church seeks to discern its mission in the world. Recent discus-sions in literary and philosophical hermeneutics only add further layers of complexity. In short, further progress on the Bible and mission will require serious and sustained attention to such difficult and perennial hermeneutical questions.

To summarize my observations to this point: With regard to the Bible and mission, I have focused on three areas of ongoing difficulty that merit further discussion. In particular, I noted 1) the problem of terminological imprecision; 2) the disciplinary rift between biblical scholars and missiologists; and 3) the need for ongoing and sophisticated hermeneutical reflec-tion, especially with regard to issues of biblical authority. Such issues are daunting. Forward progress will require hard work, dialogue, and sustained interdisciplinary cooperation.

TOWARD A MISSIONAL HERMENEUTIC

Pressing toward an increasingly holistic and faithful reading of the Bible today will necessitate both the kind of careful reflection on the missio Dei with which missiology is associated as well as the skill and sensitivity biblical scholarship continues to develop toward the biblical text that testifies to divine purposes. I have already suggested that biblical scholars and missiologists could both play a significant role in such a process by consciously adopting insights and approaches from the other discipline. Biblical scholars could contribute by asking missional questions of any and every passage in the NT as an inherent part of the exegetical task.27 And missiologists could work to demonstrate methodologically that mission is a valid rubric for biblical interpretation that need not be associated with either conservative or sub-standard scholarship.

An Exegetical Experiment. In the recently published Mission and Moral Reflection in Paul,281 attempted to test these methodological considerations myself. Although academically

27Guder suggests the following: "'How does this text . . . evangelize us (the GOSPEL question)? . . . convert us (the CHANGE question)? . . . read us in our setting (the CONTEXT question)? . . .focus us on God's mbreaking reign (the FUTURE question)? . . . send us (the MISSION question)?"'

He adds the following caveat: "All five of these 'missional questions' may not be equally helpful in every text, and sometimes they will overlap. But with these questions in mind, we may discover in these texts how God's Spirit continues to form and equip us for God's mission" ("Clay Jar Christians,'' 5).

^Published by Peter Lang, New York, 2005. The text is a slightly revised version of my 2001 doctoral disserta-tion in the field of NT studies, completed at Union Theological Seminary-PSCE (Richmond, Virginia).


trained in NT exegesis, I had become convinced that the questions missiologists were bringing to the text were not only exegetically significant, but also no more inherently eisegetical than the inquiries made by any other interpretive methods. I decided to do an initial exegetical experiment by placing the insights of missiology and biblical scholarship into dialogue in studying Paul's letters.

In this case, my main interests were textual and historical. I made no attempt to articu-late a fully developed missional hermeneutic; if anything, the study serves to clear the way toward that end by offering a sustained reflection on some prolegomena relevant for a mis-sional hermeneutic. Methodologically, I began with a basic missiological question: What was the apostle Paul's understanding of his vocation, and what implications might that under-standing have for interpreting his letters as a whole? The bulk of the book focuses narrowly on Paul's own sense of purpose or mission and how that vocational self-understanding comes to expression in the letters. Most importantly, the study centers on Paul's epistolary statements throughout his letters, allowing the apostle to define his mission on his own terms.

At the outset, in contrast to nearly every study of Paul's mission,291 made a strategic and methodological choice to restrict the data for my research to the so-called "undisputed" letters of Paul (i.e., Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon). This decision was advisable for at least two reasons. First, a minimalist approach to the sources would ensure that the data under examination reflected Paul's own self-presentationand, thus, his self-understandingrather than that of a putative Pauline or Lukan school of thought.30 Second, an exclusive focus on data culled from universally accepted documents might help challenge the perception that studies of mission and methodological conservatism are necessarily linked.

Basing Paul's understanding of his mission on his statements of purpose and claims of intentionality clarifies how he conceives of his vocational responsibilities and tasks. Too often, descriptions of Paul are rooted in contemporary understandings of what an "evangelist" looks like. The apostle is often viewed as "the prototypical and quintessential evangelist, with [Billy] Graham as one of his most successful students."311 suspected, however, that Graham's evange-listic ministry does not provide an entirely apt analogy for understanding Paul.

Indeed, the apostle's letters demonstrate that initial evangelism and church planting crucial and even primary components of his apostolic ministrydo not exhaust what he

29Almost every study appeals to Acts of the Apostles and/or the "disputed" Pauline letters (i.e., Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus), often in a determinative manner.

30I am not claiming that the "disputed" letters must never be used. Even though such documents may well con-tain valuable information about Paul, I found it methodologically prudent to establish Paul's understanding of his mission on the basis of indisputable sources, especially given the ways in which traditional studies have been beholden to debatable materials. My use of non-controversial sources was aimed at identifying an initial baseline of data, upon which subsequent studies could build by utilizing additional sources as necessary and appropriate.

31Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection, 1.


sees as his mission. The thesis of the book is that "the ongoing nurture of established Christian communities is as constitutive of [Paul's] missional vocation as are initial evangelism and community formation."32

The central argument begins with a lengthy exegetical examination of two fundamental texts that illuminate Paul's understanding of his mission, namely, 1 Cor 9:19-23 and 10:31-ll:l.33The first of these passages is typically understood as a description of Paul's willingness to manifest flexible behavior in service of evangelism among non-Christians (see, e.g., 9:20: "To Jews, I have become as a Jew, in order that I might win Jews"). Paul's emphasis on "accommodation" is not his onlyor even his primaryconcern in 1 Cor 9:19-23, however. A careful examination of the passage reveals that the apostle is no less concerned with the universal scope of his behavioral choices and those to whom they are directed (e.g., the six-fold repetition of "all"). To the extent that Paul makes behavioral choices to assist his missional work among "all people"including Christians34the passage does not merely reflect initial evangelism. The same thing is true of 1 Cor 10:31-1 hi.33 Paul's summary and recapitulation of the entire "idol food" discussion (1 Cor 8:1-11:1) specifically refers to both Christians and non-Christians alike as those to whom appropriate behavioral choices must be directed (i.e., Jews, Greeks, and the church of God; 10:32). Paul's behavioral choices can be described in terms of "missionary accommodation" only if the term "missionary" is not restricted to evangelism.35

Perhaps the most significant concern for Paul in 1 Cor 9:19-23 and 10:31-11:1 is the salvific intentionality that calls forth his behavior (see, e.g., the seven purpose clauses in 9:19-23). The apostle makes behavioral choices with the salvation of everyone in mind. Indeed, in 1 Cor 10:31-33, this concern for motivation becomes the key to appropriate behavior. "The salvation of others [Christians and non-Christians alike] is the primary criterion that Paul considers with respect to his conduct. In 11:1, he calls upon the Corinthians to make salvation their primary criterion as well."36 Ultimately, the data in 1 Cor 9:19-23 and 10:31-11:1 indicates that ongoing nurture of the Christian community is a fundamental and integral component of Paul's apostolic mission.

The next section of the book further substantiates this conclusion through an extensive survey of many other passages in the "undisputed" letters that testify to Paul's constant and inextricable concern for the nurture of established Christian communities.37 The evidence is

32Ibid., 10, and passim. The initial assertion of this thesis appeared as one section of an unpublished 1976 Cambridge Ph.D. dissertation by W. Paul Bowers ("Studies in Paul's Understanding of His Mission''); it was later published as "Fulfilling the Gospel: The Scope of the Pauline Mission," IETS 30 (1987): 185-198.

33On the treatment of 1 Cor 9:19-23 and 10:31-11:1 sketched in these paragraphs, see Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection, 35-77.

MNote that the "weak" in v. 22 are best understood as members of the Corinthian Christian community (Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection, 54r-55; 59-60).

35See Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection, 63. **,75. 37Ibid., 79-133.


clear: Paul understands ongoing nurture to be an inherent facet of his apostolic commission. That is, follow-up efforts with communities of faith are by no means an afterthought for Paul, as Acts 15:36 might imply. Nor was he "irked" by such work, as biblical scholar John Knox once suggested.38 Visits, letters, and other forms of nurture are part and parcel of his task as an apostle. Paul's understanding of his mission is holistic. He is charged with initial evange-lism, the formation of churches, and the kind of attentive and ongoing nurture necessary to see those communities grow and mature, even to "the day of the Lord."39

The last major chapter of the book begins to explore the implications of Paul's missional self-imderstanding in order to illustrate the significance of allowing the apostle to define his ministry in his own terms.40 If Paul's apostolic purpose is not limited to initial evangelism and church planting, then his efforts to nurture communities of faith must be understood as mis-sional work. The letters are clearly intended to provide such nurture; as such, they should be understood as missional documentstools of missioneven though they are not narrowly evangelistic in character. Moreover, every passage in the letters functions in support of the apostle's mission, whether or not it relates in any way to evangelism. Indeed, from this perspec-tive, every passage in the letters has a missional context, thrust, and import. Ultimately, then, to equate mission with evangelism is to truncate Paul's own understanding of his vocation. Mission, as missiologists have been suggesting, becomes an inherently valid interpretive rubric.

Paul's moral reflection provides an apt test case for a missional reading given that scholars have occasionally understood his "ethics" as one of the least integrated facets of his thought.41

To be sure, Victor Paul Furnish and many others in recent years have rightly rejected the notion that Paul's moral thought is separable from his larger theological reflection, and they have clarified a wide range of issues pertaining to Pauline ethics.42 Nevertheless, even though scholars have often illuminated how Paul reflects on moral issues, scholarship on the apostle's ethical thinking has generally failed to explain why he does so. That is, on what basis does Paul continue to assert his moral authority over established communities, if his apostolic mission is narrowly construed as an evangelistic and church planting endeavor?

A comprehensive mission is key for a fuller understanding Paul's moral reflection and his continuing desire to nurture communities of faith. "Simply put, the apostle theologizes and reflects on appropriate behavior in order to fulfill the terms of his apostolic commission. Inas-much as Paul's thoughttheological, moral, or otherwisecontributes to the fulfillment of his apostolic vocation, it is fundamentally missional reflection. Paul's mission provides the crucial link between his theology and ethics."43

38Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection, 16. Cited originally by Bowers, "Fulfilling the Gospel," 191. 39See Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection, 131, n. 204. ^Ibid., 135-73. 41According to John Knox, for example, Paul's understanding of the law in view of Christ "left Paul... with-

out an adequate theoretical basis for the practical ethical demands he does not fail to make upon his congrega-tions" {The Ethic of Jesus in the Teaching of the Church: Its Authority and Its Relevance [Nashville: Abingdon, 1961], 99; cited in Barram, Mission ana Moral Reflection, 136).

^See Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection, 137-39. 43Ibid., 140.


Beyond the general hermeneutical insight that Paul's moral reflection is "missional," even if not explicitly evangelistic, the study goes on to illustrate the evangelistic import of certain Pauline texts concerned with appropriate Christian behavior by using 1 Cor 9:19-23 and 10:31-11:1 as a "hermeneutical lens." Some of these texts emphasize the "negative effect of inappropriate behavior,"44 whereas other passages emphasize the "positive effect of appro-priate behavior."45

Mission and Moral Reflection in Raul establishes the importance of mission as an inter-pretive key for the "undisputed" Pauline letters, demonstrating that attention to Paul's sense of purpose clarifies what he means when he refers to his apostolic vocation. Of course, the interpretive relevance of mission (understood in terms of purpose) is by no means limited to the articulation of Paul's understanding of his ministerial task; the apostle and his addressees are not the only ones called into and caught up by the larger purposes of God. The church in every age must continue to ask questions about its calling and task in light of the missio Dei.

This book-length experiment merely provides an initial attempt to poke around the edges of a missional hermeneutic. Thoughtful and more comprehensive studies have been appearing with some regularity.46 Beyond individual scholarly projects, one of the most promising signs of progress comes in the form of group conversations focused on the Bible and mission. Congregations and other ecclesial bodies have begun to ask missional ques-tions of the biblical text.47 And scholars have increasingly shown interest in collaborating on the topic of missional hermeneutics. The Bible Study and Mission (BISAM) project of the International Association for Mission Studies is one example.48 This past November, for the fifth consecutive year, a special session on missional hermeneutics was held at the Annual Meetings of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) and the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL). Suffice it to say that annual sessions involving scholarly presentations and discussion related to mission and the Bibleattended by as many as 30-40 personsare notable in the context of the AAR/SBL meetings.49 Collaborative discussions in many contexts will be crucial as we seek to read the biblical text faithfully today in light of the divine mission.

SOCIAL LOCATION AS A KEY TO ONGOING WORK TOWARD A MISSIONAL HERMENEUTIC

Current trends in both missiology and biblical studies suggest that the time may be

"See 1 Cor 5:1-13; 6:1-12; 14:16-17,22-25; consider also 1 Cor 15:34; Ph 2:14r-16; 1 Thess 4:5; 5:6-7; cf. some of the statements in Rom 12:14-21 (see Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection, 152-64).

45See Rom 12:14-21; 1 Cor 7:12-16; 10:27-29a; Gal 6:10; Phil 4:5; 1 Thess 3:12; 4:10b-12; 5:15 (see Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection, 164-73).

"See, for example, Brownson, Speaking the Truth in Love and Richard Bauckham, Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic; Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K.: Paternoster, 2003).

47See for example, Guder, "Clay Jar Christians." ^John S. Pobee ("Mission From Below") and Willem A. Saayman ("Biblical Insights") have been part of the

BISAM project. 49Tyndale Seminary (Toronto, Canada) sponsored the first three sessions (2002-2004); the Gospel and Our

Culture Network began to sponsor them in 2005. An early form of this article was presented as a paper during the 2003 session. I am grateful to Tyndale

Seminary for providing a forum in which to explore some of these ideas with colleagues, and I would also like to express my appreciation for the financial support I received from the Office of Faculty Development at Saint Mary's College of California, funding which enabled me to present the paper at the session.


especially ripe to explore hermeneutical issues in earnest. In particular, the ongoing conver-sation regarding the Bible and mission would do well to exploit the recent emphasis on social location. In light of postmodern developments, biblical scholars recognize that research can never be fully disinterested. And missiologists naturally advocate "interested readings" of scripture. Indeed, widespread agreement on the contextual "locatedness" of all biblical interpretation may prove to be the pivotal prerequisite for fruitful collaboration between biblical scholars and missiologists. Those who are concerned about the vitality and faithfulness of the churchbiblical scholars and missiologists alikefind themselves in an ecclesial context defined by and caught up in the missio Dei.50

Ultimately, a viable missional hermeneutic will not be characterized by a set of unique exegetical methods, nor will broad sketches of the missio Dei as revealed in Scripture end up being its primary contribution. Rather, a missional hermeneutic will self-consciously, intentionally, and persistently bring to the biblical text a range of focused, critical, and "located" questions regarding the church's purpose in order to discern the faith communit/s calling and task within the missio Dei. Such questions will be inherently contextualrooted in the fundamental conviction that we read the biblical text as those who have been drawn into the larger purposes of God. Ultimately, to read the Bible from a missional perspective is not an eisegetical enterprise but merely an honest acknowledgment of our primary interpretive location as we seek to read the Bible more faithfully today. In that sense, the "social loca-tion" of the people of God is at the very heart of a missional hermeneutic.

^Given the global and local realities in which the church finds itself today, I am personally convinced, for example, that a responsible missional hermeneutic will have to ask difficult questions about contemporary economic inequities and injustice.

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

Michael Barram - Bible Mission and Social Location Hermeneutic

Documents

Transcript of Michael Barram - Bible Mission and Social Location Hermeneutic