“Did God Say??!!” The Hermeneutic of Suspicion versus the TruthXchange Hermeneutic

The term “worldview” populates a lot of evangelical conversations and there exist many fine ministries that engage the culture apologetically at various levels. Hardly any of them, however, pull back the veil of confusion at the foundational level like TxC does. The TxC hermeneutic functions as a set of glasses that brings clarity and connection to what’s really at root in the culture. This clarity provides the pre-conditions for effectively executing the Cultural Mandate and the Great Commission. Let’s get to the gist.

First, what IS a worldview? A worldview is a “network of presuppositions through which one interprets all human experience.”[1] As the TxC hermeneutic teaches, this means that, contrary to the popular slogan, “the facts DON’T speak for themselves.” Why? Because fallen man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, not ignorance. Man’s fundamental problem is not a data deficit; it’s an ethical rebellion. Accordingly, “brute facts” really do not exist.[2] Rather, as Thomas Sowell explains:

Evidence is fact that discriminates between one theory and another. Facts do not “speak for themselves.” They speak for or against competing theories.^[3]

TxC sets forth a cosmology of reality instead of firing factoids at folks: 3 arguments for the reliability of the New Testament; 6 arguments for the truth of the resurrection; 4 arguments for reconciling supposed biblical contradictions, et al. While these sorts of moves do have a place, the bottom line is that we should start with the bottom line: the narrative that reflects truth and thereby explains and delimits everything, that is, the operative worldview that sets forth real reality.

As Oxford’s Larry Sidentop explains, worldviews set the agenda for what comprises “proof” and the reasoning process itself:

Every set of beliefs introduces its own logic and its own constraints. This was certainly true of Christianity. We can see this if we ask about the impact of Christian beliefs on law and government in the two or three centuries after the end of the Western empire in 476.^[4]

It's therefore imperative that we utilize the right worldview. Otherwise, as theologian Tom Wright observes, we will be working at cross purposes with ourselves:

My point is this: if you’re trying to have a discussion about God’s involvement in the world in one area – creation, science, whatever – while living and breathing a system in which God has been disinvolved with the world by definition and by act of congress,there is an opposition set up, deep within the structure of how people think, that is going to make it very difficult. . . . They are desperately insisting on the truth of something that, at a structural and presuppositional level, has been ruled out of court, declared unconstitutional.^[5]

When we engage the culture and the unbeliever, what’s occurring at a foundational level is a “war of worldviews.” And accordingly, to honor and love the Lord in our thinking[6] and to speak the truth in love[7], we need to recognize this reality and develop strategies in terms of it. Merely blathering judgmental moral-McNuggets, pious platitudes, and tone-deaf tidbits cannot suffice and worse, fail to operate within the cosmology the Lord has created and revealed to us—the cosmology that makes sense of all of reality.

Second, we should become familiar with what the exchange of the truth for the lie fosters. At the outset, notice this tactic of the serpent: he inaugurates his conversations with the Image Deiwith skepticism: “Did God actually say . . . ?”[8] By this seemingly simple question, the serpent injected a hermeneutic of suspicion, to borrow Paul Ricoeur’s term, into the created order[9]. Thereby he then attacks God’s character, His command, and His consequence. Instead of God’s Image thinking God’s thoughts after Him, that Image by taking the serpent’s counsel, now subjects God and His Word to evaluation and judgement. Man’s gift of reason becomes a judge instead of a tool – he now places God in the dock, as C.S. Lewis put it.

This ploy, a pagan one, continues to operate today. Pressure and propaganda are used to attack normative boundaries: natural design and moral limits of sexuality for example. In addition, authorities that contain, temper, or question the Self’s supposedly independent authority likewise are attacked: God, religion, tradition, duty, faith, families, children, and of course, truth itself.[10]

And, not satisfied with suspicion directed at boundaries and authority, the past itself is attacked, all designed to promote the absolute autonomy of the Self and its choices – precisely what Paul describes as a consequence of worshipping the creation, instead of the Creator and thereby divinizing mankind just as the serpent tempted: “You shall be like God”.[11] Thus, we see a rejection of any norms outside of the autonomous[12] Self: God[13], biology[14], parents[15], customs, peers or society[16], commitments[17], etc. We become “lovers of self.”[18]

Another tension also flows from this exchange: The Lie seeks to both (1) Join what God has separated; and (2) Separate what God has joined. We see both in culture. This appears in same-sex “marriage” as well as in political efforts to join mercy and the State, such as the programs of Johnson’s Great Society and Roosevelt’s New Deal.[19] We also see this outside of the State in mundane cultural fashion trends trumpeting “gender neutral baby clothes[20], pushing toward androgyny, the pagan sexual ideal.[21]

And, simultaneously, we see efforts to separate what God has joined: “No fault” aka “any reason or no reason” divorce. This severs what God has joined, irrespective of the prior commitment the divorcing spouse had made and irrespective of the consent[22] of the non-divorcing spouse. Likewise, we see the separation of sex and “gender” as well as the obvious example: babies separated from their mother’s womb via abortion.[23]

All these comprise ongoing echoes from the fundamental exchange of the Truth for the Lie[24] – The gist is this: This exchange is neither passive nor static. Rather, the pagan worldview is aggressive just as the serpent was. It attacks hierarchies as well as seeks to obliterate creational distinctions and norms. Your church may not want the culture war, but the culture war wants your church.[25] How can a faithful Christian respond and remain faithful? One way is to read, listen, and stay informed by following TxC, including hosting TxC speakers at your church.

Another way is to join us in training the next generation of Christians to be motivated and informed to not simply make a living, but also to make a difference for the Kingdom. The Irenaeus Institute will be doing so via the TxC Fellowship program and its other programs. If you know a college or grad student who would benefit from intense deep theological training – a boot camp - with world class pious scholars instead of Drill Instructors, please let us know. Until then, be certain you answer the serpent’s cynical question with a resounding, “Yes, He did!”

[3] Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggle (2007), 6

[4] Larry Siedentop, Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism (2014), 126

[5] N.T. Wright, Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues (2014), 15-16

[9] Ricoeur, a Christian philosopher, conceptualized this terminology when analyzing the impact of Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche upon culture.

[12] “Autonomy” contains two root concepts: “auto – self” and “nomos – law”. In other words, no authority other than one’s Self.

[14] Gender ideology contends that biology is at best neutral and at worst, bigoted.

[15] Radical groups today seek to engineer children without the permission, let alone input, from their actual parents, contending that “the village elites” should supplant parental authority. See e.g., the innocuously named Community Schools effort https://www.communityschools.org/ and the Center for Children’s Law & Policy, https://www.cclp.org/ - both work to undermine parental input and authority.

[16] The historically untenable 1619 Project seeking to impose a Marxist narrative on America’s founding reflects this as does the activist career of Marxist revisionist historian Howard Zinn, not uncoincidentally referenced in the film Good Will Hunting. Profanity alert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt_L8gDfM98

[17] “No fault” divorce schemes empower the State to undermine legal commitments at the mere request of a dissatisfied spouse.

[23] Saying, as the current Administration is doing, that providing abortion is simply another form of health care just like labor and delivery, is like saying a fireplace and arson are simply different ways of heating a house.

[24] Most English versions inexplicably mistranslate Romans 1:25 as “a lie” but the Greek uses the definite article: ho pseudos: the lie, which parallels “the truth,” as Peter Jones has noted.

[25] The seven churches referenced in Revelation (chapters 2 and 3) demonstrate how pagan worldviews infiltrate, impact, and undermine congregations.

Like this article.

So few people are exposed to the hermeneutic (science and art of interpretation) of popularly available motivating media entities, let alone the Words of God as specially revealed in the languages of which they have been inscripturated.

The humans born as extensions of a single source of DNA, under the presupposition of entropy present and death of the flesh unavoidable, fail to recognize that man's ability to reason aAffirmation of a corrective external source wspart from external references is also fatally flawed.

Affirmation of a completely reliable external reference was given by the prophet Yeshua in His answer to the diabolic Tempter's implicit challenge of Eve's

γεγραπται ουκ επ αρτω μονω ζησεται ανθρωπος αλλ επι παντι ρηματι εκπορευομενω δια στοματος θεου

Translated by Fred Wittman in his freely available published volume The Gospels: A Precise Translation (click here):

It stands written^{Deut. 8:3},
A human shall absolutely live not on the basis of a bread loaf alone, but on the basis of every declaration^{spoken word} that proceeds out through God's mouth.

This is an answer, given by the original New Testament writings of the Bible, that purportedly comes from special revelation by Jehovah from the spiritual dimension to Moses in the temporal dimension, written by Moses in Hebrew, which writings are confirmed by The Incarnate God in His remonstration to His Enemy, joining the temporal and spiritual dimensions, in advancement of its as-yet unwritten report in the New Testament Greek.

Without an appropriate hermeneutic, this passage makes no sense, especially to a human who denies the existence of real entities in a temporally-intangible spiritual dimension.

I hope this TxC concept can work out to enhance the hermeneutical principles outlined by D. R. Dungan in the late Nineteenth Century and Rollin T. Chafer in the early Twentieth. Robert L Thomas in his paper BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS: FOUNDATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS (click here) has warned us of the creeping modernism that undermines the perceived certainties of a good basis for exegetical preaching that draws each of us nearer to personal communion with one's Heavenly Father.

Does your TxC scheme work to strengthen the foundations of a firm confidence in the Holy Scriptures?

What God have to say about this? I suggest that Isaiah can give us an answer to how one defines the problem, in Isaiah 1:18 (AV):

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

One of the greatest sins one can perpetrate against The God's Will is to engage in a reasoning activity to form conclusions, without The God being a part of the process being conducted solely internally with one's "alter ego," or corporately with other humans that are neglecting having God present during the process. The Bible text is rife with narratives describing what happens when God gives counsel that is implemented. when His Will and Word are "rightly divided" and shared as the guide for one's decisions.

That passage from Isaiah stands way above many others in how to approach hermeneutics, IMHO. Our nation as a whole has long abandoned such wise counsel from the God who stood behind us in our formula for governance, but is now not ignored as decades ago, but now wholly rejected.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

“Did God Say??!!” The Hermeneutic of Suspicion versus the TRUTHXCHANGE (TxC) Hermeneutic