Interpretation and Obedience: From Faithful Reading to Faithful Living

Rating:
Summary: Even when I disagree with him, I like him
Review: Walter Bruggemann seems to have succeeded William Barclay as the man without an unpublished thought. Fortunately, these thoughts are so engrossing the reader is thankful. In this book Bruggemann indicates that for the church to be faithful in the modern world it must engage in obedient interpretation within the context of our world. Borrowing from the story of the Assyrians seige of Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah, he suggests we engage in a conversation at the wall with our community, and a conversation behind the wall with people who understand the language and purpose of faith and speak it into our context. The interface of these two conversations is the basis for evangelism.

Often I disagree with Bruggemann when he draws unassailable political conclusions from the text. However, he makes me question my own biases, because his argument is so engaging. I agreed strongly with him in his analysis of the current state of pastoral care (not informed enough by faith therefore not very pastoral) and his prescription (moving from Rogerian detatchment to engagement).

Rating:
Summary: Even when I disagree with him, I like him
Review: Walter Bruggemann seems to have succeeded William Barclay as the man without an unpublished thought. Fortunately, these thoughts are so engrossing the reader is thankful. In this book Bruggemann indicates that for the church to be faithful in the modern world it must engage in obedient interpretation within the context of our world. Borrowing from the story of the Assyrians seige of Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah, he suggests we engage in a conversation at the wall with our community, and a conversation behind the wall with people who understand the language and purpose of faith and speak it into our context. The interface of these two conversations is the basis for evangelism.

Often I disagree with Bruggemann when he draws unassailable political conclusions from the text. However, he makes me question my own biases, because his argument is so engaging. I agreed strongly with him in his analysis of the current state of pastoral care (not informed enough by faith therefore not very pastoral) and his prescription (moving from Rogerian detatchment to engagement).