Chapter 6 – Hot Words about Biblical Interpretation

1. In Chapter One, Dan seems intent on pigeonholing Neo as a “liberal Episcopalian” until Neo reminds him that “liberals can be fundamentalists, too.” In this chapter, Dan asks Neo to distinguish between how “postmodern Christians” respond to various issues, as compared to “traditional Christians.” Neo bristles at the labels, challenging Dan about his use of language. Why are labels so appealing? What is the function of a label? In what ways are labels part of modernity? Why is Neo so wary of them? What are the alternatives to labels?

2. Neo contends that all the debate in the church takes place on a line. In this mode of debate, the issue becomes finding the right point on that line and defending it. What does he mean that all debate takes place on a line? Is Neo right to assert that point-defending is pointless? Why or why not? What points have you defended or do you feel compelled to defend? What has the result been? This mode of debate can also lead to a view that those to the right of us are fundamentalists and everyone to our left, liberals. Do you agree or disagree?

3. According to Dan, one of the biggest “points” of debate is the Bible, especially between “conservatives” and “liberals” (p. 48). Characterize the caricatures of conservative and liberal debates about and approaches to the Bible (pp. 78-79). How does Neo put context around these approaches?

4. Dan states that the Bible is the foundation for everything and that liberals sift and sort through the Bible, picking and choosing that which suits them. Neo’s response is not to disagree, but to point out that evangelicals do the same thing. Thus the argument, according to Neo, is less about the Bible and more about the superiority of one grid over another. How do you respond to that?

5. Neo refers to the use of the Bible to defend slavery in the nineteenth century. How would you respond to the question, “How are you sure that some of your ironclad interpretations today aren’t similarly fueling injustice?” What could posterity judge Christians today with justifying or “overlooking”?

6. Issues of authority are enormous in Neo and Dan’s conversation. Neo says that conservatives look at the Bible the way medieval Catholics looked at the church and the Pope: infallible, inerrant, and absolutely authoritative. He claims that liberals approach the Scriptures as a dated collection of artifacts that, while inspiring, are not authoritative. Why is the issue of authority so problematic? Respond to Neo’s question: “What if the issue isn’t a book that we interpret with amazing creativity but rather the will of God, the intent of God, the desire of God, the wisdom of God—maybe we could say the kingdom of God?”

7. Neo says that approaching the Bible as the story of God and his people is better than the “answer book” approach. Do you agree? What do we risk losing when we relinquish the answer-book approach?