Reading the Bible as a Church.

"I am because We are." These are the words of John Mbiti, in his explanation of African Christianity, Culture and life. What can we learn from just one quote?

I wanted to put my paper on our blog for you to read. I hope you enjoy, think, critique, and contemplate the ideas in paper. It is my belief that African churches are on to something so important in the idea of Congregational Interpretation that we would be foolish not incorporate it in our churches. Its so easy and the benefits are numerous. I hope you enjoy the paper. I would be eager to talk with any of you more on the issue. The picture is John Mbiti, one of the most pioneering African Biblical Scholars.

Shalom,

Gregg

Exploring African Hermeneutics to Influence American Homiletics.

The era of Western Theological dominance is just about over. This does not imply that we have had a bad reign, or that we will not see ripples of Western theology over the next century of global biblical scholarship. By the reign being over, we simply mean that there has been a major shift in the last 25 years towards a much more two thirds world flavor of Christianity. The false missiological concept of the ‘west to win the rest’ has proved just as much a failure as its earlier cousin ‘colonialism’. To use an idea from Samuel Escobar missions in the 21st century is no longer the gospel coming from the west to other places around the globe. We are recognizing that the gospel is going from everywhere to everywhere. [1]

With this shift Africa has become, next to Latin America, the most densely populated Christian continent. By 1985, Africa was seeing over 16,000 conversions to Christ a day. This gave them over 6 million conversions a year. This revival has not slowed down and by the year 2025 Africa may have close to 500 million believers making it the most Christian continent. Lamin Sanneh points out that simultaneously in the west people are walking away from the Christian faith at 4,000 people per day.[2]

No longer can we only look at Africa as a place of mindless voodoo and ancestor worship, but rapidly Africa has become one of the most evangelized places in the world. This truth is no more evident than in the story told by an older woman in Ireland. She says that when she was a little girl growing up the missionaries told her to “give her pennies to save little boys in Africa. She then goes on to say, “Those little boys have grown up and are now coming to Europe to save me.”[3] Africans are developing theologies as well as highly skilled biblical scholars, and we in the West need to be ready to listen.

Sanneh also points out that, “One major factor (to the growth of African Christianity) is how this expansion has taken place after colonialism and during a period of national awakening. Perhaps colonialism was an obstacle to the growth of Christianity, so that when colonialism ended it removed a stumbling block.”[4] What this tells us is that the seed of Christianity has taken root in an African context and that seed is growing, not only in the area of massive conversions but also in the areas of theology and hermeneutics.

No longer are Africans faceless actors on the stage of biblical scholarship. They have become main actors and they have earned our attention. “We still see the West as the ecclesiastical center of the world, even though the vast majority of Christians are located elsewhere. What African’s or Asian Christians are doing and writing seems so marginal to us, and it penetrates our own theological discussion only in a vague, ephemeral way.”[5] Tennent is arguing to allow these voices to come into our thinking, our preaching, and our ecclesiology. If we are truly going to be ecumenical, democratic and dare I say Christian, we need to, not only listen to the voices of church history when it comes to our own hermeneutics but also to the voices of Global Christianity and in particular Africa.

If we are going to be responsible pastors, we need to listen to what the African church is saying and teaching. As we learn from our brothers we will become more and more in awe of the amazing God we are proclaiming. “As preachers of the gospel, we ignore this shift to our peril. We can no longer afford to preach in a way which assumes that the Western church represents normative Christianity and everything else is the ‘mission field’. Today we must allow our preaching to become more globally minded and to acknowledge regularly the global context in which we now live.[6] Tennent is right, only in the sense that globalization has forced the preacher to be more sensitive to other cultures and contexts. However, it is my belief that our preaching not only needs to become more globally minded, but globally shaped. Our preaching needs to become more balanced between exegeting the text and exegeting our audience and our African brothers and sisters have much to teach us, if we would only listen.

There is nothing more arrogant than for a pastor than to think that he has the market on biblical interpretation. Unfortunately this is what many pastors have been taught in the Western forms of hermeneutics. Many scholars and pastors in the West have concluded that the historical-critical method of hermeneutics is a universal imperative and that no other forms of biblical interpretation are worthy of our time and attention. This simply is not the case. “No culture is so advanced and so superior that it can claim exclusive access or advantage to the truth of God, and none so marginal or inferior that it can be excluded. All have merit. None are indispensible.”[7] In basic terms, Sanneh is saying that Western hermeneutics with its scientific theory and with its historical-critical excess does very little for Africans in their churches. He is also saying that even if a community of believers is thriving in the most remote place in the world, their understanding of the truth of God’s word should and must be listened to regardless of their geographical location or their financial ability to publish in the most prestigious scholarly journals.

There is a story that best illustrates what Western biblical scholarship can do for Africa.
A young man from a remote village in Nigeria had the amazing privilege to study theology in the United States. After completing his masters he went back home to his tribe to tell him the wonderful news that he had been selected to go on and do a PhD in theology at a Western University and wanted to know if they would give him their blessing. After completing his PhD he found himself back home. While he was surrounded by a group of men talking about his journey a young woman came up to them exhausted, begging the men to come and help take care of the new PhD’s sister for she had fallen suddenly ill. The men came and saw her writhing in pain on the floor of her home. The men concluded that the young man with all the biblical knowledge would surely know what to do. So they asked him what his suggestions would be. He concluded that they get a doctor. The problem with this was that it would be very expensive and the closest doctor was over an hour away. While the young theologian sat there befuddled, an elderly man came in with a few of the deacons from the church and shouted, “Come on its obvious this girl is demon possessed and needs prayer not a doctor.” So they all gathered around, laid hands on her and sure enough within minutes she was in her right mind and out of pain.[8]

This is a fictional story that highlights the actual problems for Africans who are told that theology and hermeneutics have more to do with scientific discoveries of dead German’s, rather than the issues that all Africans are dealing with from day to day. Unlike the Eurocentric biblical scholars who were preoccupied with the subject of inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, African Christians believe and respect the Bible without any attempt to defend it and apologize for it. The Bible to them is the Word of God and is powerful and that its power is relevant to everyday life. “They were dissatisfied with Western oriented churches self-imposition of the structure of Western institution at the expense of African culture. They recognized that many of the Eurocentric biblical interpretations and theologies nourished in the Western biblical intellectualist context had no root in the life of the African community.”[9] For this reason African Christians have had the great privilege of rediscovering the Word of God in a new, fresh, relevant way.

As we begin to fathom the revival that God is bringing about in Africa what can we hope to learn from our African brothers in the way of biblical interpretation? How could our congregations be transformed by the word of God if they were a part of the hermeneutical process? Do we have faith enough in God to implement African forms of interpretation which are very communal rather than individualistic? What could God do with a church committed to searching and reading the scriptures together? How should our preaching change to speak more into the lives of our congregations?

The goal of this paper is to explain and apply the African forms of Congregational and Inculturation Hermeneutics together with American forms of homiletics. In conclusion I will show how we can integrate Congregational and Inculturation Hermeneutics with Haddon Robinson’s “Big Idea” and Bryan Chapell’s “Fallen Condition Focus.”

Congregational Hermeneutics:
Two of the greatest gifts the Reformation gave us were getting the Bible back in the hands of the laity and reestablishing the priesthood of all believers. For some reason the laity of this generation in the United States has either willingly, or unwillingly, handed the Bible back to the scholars and allowed them to commence a general spoon feeding. No doubt there are several factors to this sad reality, but nevertheless, the church on very few occasions, is doing their own interpretation of the Biblical text. Paul Heibert recognizes this as a great flaw of the community when he states, “The priesthood of believers must be exercised within a hermeneutical community.”[10] What Heibert is alluding to, is the concept that hermeneutics happens best inside a believing community. It is irresponsible to base our interpretations alone on the wisdom of the scholars and the local pastors. However, it is equally irresponsible to rely solely on one’s own interpretations. So what is a reader of the scriptures to do?

As the Anabaptists before them, many of the African congregations concluded that the answer to this dilemma is found in the belief in, and the practice of, Congregational Hermeneutics. Africa is community. Africa knows itself by its family. Because of this, Bishop David Gitari from the Kenyan diocese of Mount Kenya East has come to new conclusions about how African Christians understand the Bible.

The African culture knows no isolated individuals. Man is man because he belongs. He is part of a larger family, a clan or a tribe. Hence, John Mbiti says, ‘I am because we are.’ As a member of a family, man cannot be left to his own. In some parts of Africa, the Christian gospel has been preached as if it were relevant only to an isolated individual. A person has to make an individual decision to accept Christ. This is an importation of individualistic cultural thinking of the West. Whenever an African person wants to make an important decision, he has to consult the whole family.[11]

In Africa, for an individual to come to concluding interpretive evidence on their own would be to subvert the mission and purpose of the local congregation. “No African would consider the individual alone as the interpreter. The dialogue, therefore, is not so much between reader and text as between community and text.”[12] In Charles Kraft’s book, Christianity and Culture he lists several hindrances to proper biblical interpretation. Two of these hindrances stem from doing hermeneutics in a vacuum. The first one is our cultural conditioning. “The fact that we are totally immersed in a given culture conditions us to perceive of all reality, including God’s revelation, in terms of that culture.”[13]

Secondly, Kraft acknowledges our individual psychological and experiential conditioning as a hindrance to proper understanding. For example, the way our father treated us often times gets projected on how God will treat us; even though this is not true. “Even within shared cultural boundaries, the life experience of every individual is unique. This likewise conditions one’s perception of the revelation. As receptors who are limited in these ways, we interpret the word and other data at our disposal, in terms of culturally organized models that incorporate and exhibit these limitations.”[14] Therefore it is clear how limited the individual is within their own ability to properly approach the text without bias.

This does not negate all together the purpose of the exegetical task. Clearly, we can never be rid of all our biases, but when we approach hermeneutics from a congregational standpoint with the voices of the local church combined with voices around the globe combined with the voices of the past (church history/creeds/saints), our likelihood of bias diminishes exponentially. Then we will be able to hear more clearly what God’s intended meaning for us may be from his word and then therefore its proper application to the church itself.

This mindset of clan, family, community has so permeated the African culture that one simply cannot miss it. The same is true of African hermeneutics. Africans are doing their biblical interpretation inside a spirit-filled congregation of believers. Their hermeneutics are from the church and for the church. This is one area where Western churches can really learn from the African form of Congregational Hermeneutics. First of all, much of our hermeneutics is done from the academy for the academy. This is not to diminish the value of weighty theological reflection, but when done outside the church, the likelihood of these ideas and thoughts getting into the church is very little. It does not take root because unlike African interpretation, it does not stem from a real life issue or problem. Too often biblical interpretation in the West has been simply a mind game for mind gamers.

Secondly, when Western hermeneutics is done in the church, it is usually done by one paid person with the responsibility to interpret the text for the rest of the congregation with all the wisdom and knowledge he has learned from an established seminary or denomination. This is where we unintentionally go back to pre-Reformation days where the Bible is out of the hands of the laity and our churches are sitting and ingesting whatever the priesthood feeds them. It is much more in line with Biblical theology that the single-mom, paperboy, pastor, farmer, truck driver, and politician all do exegesis together. None should be left out of the interpretive equation.

Not only do we see this principle working in Africa, the idea of an interpreting community stretches all the way back to scripture itself. The following examples give biblical precedent for reading and living the word of God in community.

3 Examples from Scripture:
God’s people have been for centuries a people gathered around a text. We will find as we look through the pages of the Bible clear examples of God’s people interpreting God’s word together. “Despite the differences of opinion regarding the precise role of the interpretive community, the communal focus is in keeping the emphasis within the Bible itself, which coalesce in the image of the faith community as a people gathered around a text, listening intently for the voice of God.”[15]

In Nehemiah we find all Israel gathered around the Law of Moses waiting expectantly for God to respond to their new understanding of the text. In Acts 15, it is important to see that several church members have gathered in Jerusalem to decipher and interpret God’s initiative in Jew-Gentile relations. Finally, we will see that in 1 Corinthians 14 a principle put in place by Paul for the whole congregation to “weigh carefully” what is said by the preachers. By looking closer at each of these passages we will see how helpful Congregational Hermeneutics can be.
The public reading of scripture is a historic Christian practices that seems to have lost its popularity in many churches today. However, the public reading of the word of God has always held an important place in the proper understanding of that word. In Nehemiah, we find just a scenario. In 7:73-8:18, Ezra is invited to stand up and read the law. Many of the Levites stand up and quite possibly, in between sentences from Ezra, the Levites explain the meanings of what Ezra is reading from the law.

The end result was a major revival in all of Israel which was followed by weeks of prayer, fasting, confessions, feasting and then finally culminating in a covenant renewal ceremony with Yahweh. It is important to notice that this revival stemmed from the congregation taking part in the interpretation. The text says that as Ezra read the text, men stood to his right and to his left and helped explain the meaning to the people so that the whole congregation stood as one man. What a picture of continuity and unity.

Evan at this point in redemptive history, scripture still needed to be explained. The Old Testament had been written down in the Hebrew language but, “since the people had lived in a foreign country all of their lives, they had lost some of their ability to understand Hebrew. Regardless, the Levites had the job of making sure the people knew what was being said. They were helping bridge the cultural gap between the last seventy years in Babylonia with their cultural heritage found in scripture.” [16] Although God’s word is authoritative for life and faith, it frequently takes hard work to understand the message God has given to us due to centuries of culture gaps and the fact that the original text is in a foreign language.

No matter how hard this task may be the church must be ready to respond. The community in Ezra’s day was not unlike the one at Pentecost, who were “cut to the heart.” They heard the interpretation and they believed. “This illustrates the truth that orthodox doctrine of the authority of scripture is not enough. If it is to be effective it needs an interpretation which is true to the tradition from which it derives. It also requires the reverent application of reason in working through its abiding relevance to the changed circumstances of any given contemporary community.”[17]

This is where African forms of hermeneutics can be helpful to us in the West. They have such a strong focus on current community needs and situations that it is impossible for them to find an interpretation of scripture that does not have current application. The word of God is not something to look at and then walk away from never to have any effect on the community. By using Congregational Hermeneutics we are inclined to be more sensitive to the current needs and situations of how the word of God speaks into the lives of our community.

One could easily offer the critique from the Nehemiah text, that it was the priesthood (Levites) who made the interpretive decisions, not the community itself. While this is a valid critique, one cannot, in an attempt at Congregational Hermeneutics, throw out giftedness and training in the process. As we will see later on through our discussion of Inculturation Hermeneutics the role of the Bible scholar is not diminished just balanced by the rest of the readers. We are not arguing for an anti-intellectual approach to hermeneutics, we are simply offering a voice to the marginalized (church) and adding that voice to the already dominate voice of the scholar. This means that the academician and the farmer will be put under the same rubric for biblical interpretation.

In the case of Nehemiah, it was the community’s repentance that was at stake, as we will see in Acts 15; it is ethnocentricity that was at stake. One of the wonderful benefits of listening to the voices of believers around the world is that our understanding of God expands and this was certainly the case for Peter and the Christians in Jerusalem.

One cannot fathom the missiological mess we would be in had Paul and Barnabas not stood up to fight for the total inclusion of the Gentile believers. In Acts 15:6 the Bible says that the Apostles and elders had gathered together to debate the matter of whether or not Gentiles needed to become circumcised first before they became Christians. The text says, “After there had been much debate” Peter stood up and recognized his mistake. Hermeneutics without the community never would have worked then and it does not work now. The audience fell silent and then Peter spoke about the way the Holy Spirit has clearly come to the Gentiles. He was wrong at the beginning of the interpretation but with help from the Holy Spirit and the body of believers, through communal hermeneutics, Peter, the pillar of the church was able to better understand the heart of Christ’s words.

How can we presume that we are beyond such mistakes when we interpret with such an individual approach? Peter was simply, as Charles Kraft would say “culture-bound in his understandings and interpretations of God’s truth.”[18] What we can understand in the relationship of culture to hermeneutics is absolutely crucial because it can lead us to a much more clear understanding of the word of God and into our severely limited perspectives on God. For example, the African culture is much closer than ours in every way to 1st century Palestinian culture. What do they understand about poverty and politics and servitude that can enlighten our understanding of God’s true nature?

It says in Acts 15:6 that the apostles and elders were present at the council. What we can deduce from this scene is that there was a large body of leadership at this council all representing different congregations throughout the known world. This council was made up of a conglomerate of people, each who walked away from the council enamored by the unity of the Spirit of God at work within the prayerful, spirit-filled believers who were seeking God’s wisdom and truth. Once again the Spirit of God reveals the true interpretation to a congregation of believers who take action, not just take notes.

The final example of the priority of Congregational Hermeneutics is found in 1 Corinthians 14:29 which says, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.” The others in this text must have been a combination of members of the Corinthian church. Paul didn’t care if Apollos or John Piper was preaching his command to the church at Corinth was for the body to weigh heavily what was said to see if it was in accordance with the gospel that he had given them. “In these gatherings, the believers were not merely silent recipients of the teachings of their leaders. Rather, when two or three prophets spoke the ‘others’ were to weigh carefully the messages being voiced. Above all, however, the goal of that weighing was to discern the voice of the Spirit speaking to the community.”[19]

It is vital to notice the difference in many of our North American congregations today who simply sit by as the preacher delivers “his” interpretation of the teaching that he has chosen for “his” church. African churches, not only in Africa, but also here in America, understand this much more than many other culture-based churches. Being a listener is the active part of interpretation. Our churches have the right and the responsibility to weigh the words spoken from the pulpit to see if they are the words of God and to see if they are the correct interpretation. Anthony Thiselton says, “In general this task is a corporate one undertaken by the congregation.”[20]

The passage in 1 Corinthians 14:29 is a reminder to all preachers that we need to be held accountable for our interpretations of scripture. Congregational hermeneutics is one way to find that balance. No preacher, regardless of his rhetoric, should be left to his own interpretations. By using a variety of church members in the hermeneutical process, the pastor becomes more understanding of the needs of the people. Many personalized points of view help the pastor be more aware of marginalized issues that can work themselves out as different people from the church read the text together.

The first step in rethinking hermeneutics and opening up our ears to global insight is to understand that there is no market on a correct hermeneutical method. Before looking at the African form of Inculturation Hermeneutics and to highlight our lack of monopoly on an interpretive method Desomond Tutu, Archbishop of the Anglican Church in South Africa, stated:

Too many of us have been brainwashed effectively to think that the Westerner’s value system and categories are of universal validity. We are too concerned to maintain standards which Cambridge or Harvard or Montpellier have set even when these are utterly inappropriate for our situation. We are still too docile and look to the metropolis for approval to do our theology.[21]

We could respond to Tutu and say that Harvard’s forms of hermeneutical methods do not work

for us either. But the reality is, we are much more like Harvard at times then we are like the New Testament church. We have grown stuffy. Our churches are individualized. We have forsaken the poor and the broken, and we have neglected the cultures around us to stay in our comfort zone.

The other alternative found in the United States is the over sensitive, seeker friendly churches. It seems that in America if you are an evangelical church and are not “seeker sensitive” then you are considered culturally irrelevant. This should not be the case. In the area of cultural sensitivity, we can learn from our African brothers to not water down the gospel and yet still be culturally relevant. One only needs to look at the African conservative stance in the Anglican ideas on homosexuality. Our preaching has to find that balance between the timeless word of God and the ever-changing realities of our world.

Bryan Chapell says, “Application is as necessary for sound exposition as is explication. In fact, the real meaning of the text remains hidden until we discern how its truths affect our lives. This means that full exposition cannot be limited to a presentation of biblical information. A preacher should frame every explanatory detail of a sermon so that its impact on the lives of its listeners is evident.”[22] Essentially, Chapell argues for a hermeneutic with action and until the action items are found in the text then the true meaning of the text remains obscure and therefore any other interpretation would be invalid. Osborne agrees when he says, “The final goal of hermeneutics is not systematic theology but the sermon.”[23] Therefore, as a community, believers are to interpret the text properly and this will lead to transformation.

African theologian, Justin Ukpong, has developed a form of interpretation called Inculturation Hermeneutics that does a very good job of bridging the need to honor the historic text and the need to be culturally aware of what people are bringing to the text. Ukpong looks at five essential elements to hermeneutics which he says allow the interpretive community to be less likely to overlook the meaning to the readers while doing historical justice to the authors intended meaning.

These five elements include the interpreter, the context, the text, the conceptual framework, and the procedure. These are the inner workings of Inculturation Hermeneutics. However before Ukpong defines each of these elements, he insists on the fact that we need to be “reading with ordinary people”[24] while doing our interpretation. It is here that we see the wedding between Congregational Hermeneutics and African forms or hermeneutics. Ukpong believes that is when we read the Bible with ordinary people that the issues, questions, and people in the text that we may pass over will be brought to light by the community. “Thus in Inculturation Hermeneutics the ivory tower mentality that sees the academy as remote from ordinary people is eschewed, and the readings of ordinary people are seen as significant in the production of the meaning of the text. Rather than making interpretation of the Bible the reserve of scholars, this method accepts the validity of the contribution of ordinary people in the process of biblical interpretation.”[25]

Essentially the process of reading with ‘ordinary’ readers can be an area of discipleship for the local church. When we humble ourselves to again understand that Western forms for hermeneutics are not universal, we allow others to teach us and at the same time come closer to an accurate reading of the text. “Reading with ordinary readers has meant creating critical reading masses and building communities of faith that read the Bible critically. It is a mode of reading that makes it possible to overcome the predominance of the elite ideology in biblical interpretation.”[26] By reading the text and developing a community of interpreters, local pastors become more aware of their own congregations as a whole and therefore even more aware of the needs of their people.

This process is best done when biblical scholars are reading alongside the laity. Ukpong never implies an all ‘ordinary’ form of interpretation. By reading with others in the church, the elders and pastors grow in their ability to see and hear thoughts on the Bible from outside their own circle. For the readers in the church who are not scholars, this process allows them to grow in their own critical ability and to glean wisdom from the scholars. Respect and time need to be given to each group so that the community as a whole can come away with a better understanding to what the Spirit is saying to the churches in a particular time and context.
Ukpong further explains this process of reading by saying, “Reading ‘with’ means that the reading agenda is that of the community and not that of the trained readers. The trained readers do not direct or control the reading process, or seek to ‘teach’ to the community the meaning of the text they have already known. Rather, they read as part of the community, and facilitate an interactive process that leads to the community producing a critical meaning of the text.”[27] What a joy it would be for both the clergy and the community to approach the text to determine what God is intending for them to understand and for them to do.

It is important to clearly state that Inculturation Hermeneutics does not imply a reader response form of interpretation. The text does not mean what the readers want it to mean, nor is the interpretation subjective to the culture. “The procedure involves interaction between academic and ordinary readers of the Bible, such that, the ordinary readers are helped to develop critical awareness and to identify and use local resources in their readings of the Bible. In developing the hermeneutics for this approach to Bible reading, the resources of the people’s cultural and historical life experiences are used as complementary to the conventional critical tools of biblical exegesis.”[28]

One of the greatest things about Inculturation Hermeneutics is that it in no way implies that Western forms of interpretations are irrelevant, only that they alone have a tendency to focus too heavily on the historical-critical method and not enough on the cultural issues of our day. Therefore, Inculturation Hermeneutics does not exclude Western forms of interpretation; rather, the argument is that Western forms alone cannot be universal for global Christianity.
So, as we arrive at the five elements of Inculturation Hermeneutics, the first piece of the puzzle is the interpreter. It is Ukpong’s understanding that the historical-critical elements are not the end goal and neither is the authors intended meaning the final goal. But, he realizes that the text itself was ultimately written for the readers themselves. He claims that the reader is a dynamic piece of the interpretive process. “According to Ukpong, however, the interpreter should not be understood as an isolated reader, but as a ‘reader-in-context.’ That is someone who is or has become an insider to the culture for whom the interpretation is given.”[29] It is crucial that the interpreter be able to be critical of both the text and the culture. It is the job of the interpreter to be as sympathetic to the culture in which they find themselves, as they are to the handling of the text itself. When the interpreter moves from one extreme or the other, then they are neglecting the power of the text to speak into any given situation.

Osborn picks up on the biggest danger found in Inculturation Hermeneutics and that is a “reader response” form of interpretation. He argues that “as readers, we want to place ourselves in front of the text (and allow it to address us) rather than behind it (and force it to go where we want). The reader’s background and ideas are important in the study of biblical truth; however, these must be used to study meaning rather than to create meaning that is not there.”[30] When done properly, the interpreter who uses Inculturation Hermeneutics is not steering the meaning of the text, rather he is placing the issues of the day on the text to see if the text speaks to the realities of a particular culture or not.

For Ukpong, the interpreter is a participant in the process of interpretation. There is no neutral detachment. Personal and social factors such as the reader’s race, gender, status in society, all give an interpreter an angle of vision that can be used in the process of understanding a biblical text.[31] When we combine this angle of each reader to a more democratic reading through Congregational Hermeneutics, we come at the text with open eyes and as few biases as possible. When we come to the text alone our biases are seldom exposed and the true meaning of the text can be missed. Therefore, it is vital that the interpreter understand their place in the process. Their goal is to honor the text and honor the culture in which the text is read in order to transform the culture to the likeness of Christ.

The second element of Inculturation Hermeneutics is context. To our Western ears, this should come as no surprise to be an essential element; however for Ukpong this does not mean the context of the historical text. Rather he places the context of the reader as the next step in the interpretive process. He states that “the interpreter can only be honest, therefore, if the concerns of his or her context are consciously brought into the hermeneutical dialogue.”[32] Essentially, for Africans, it is shameful to preach the theological implications of the widow offering her two coins without exhausting the realities of the poor and their offerings to God. This is the ‘so what’ element of Inculturation Hermeneutics.

If we are to approach the text to find its meaning without asking the question, ‘so what?” we are not doing the job of exegesis. As Osborn stated earlier, “The final goal of hermeneutics is not systematic theology but the sermon.”[33] This means that it is the job of the interpreter to come to conclusive forms of application for which people of God can respond to.
John Stott says, “The preacher’s task is faithfully to translate the Word of God into modern language and thought-categories, and to make it present in our day.”[34] The good news for American preachers is that we do not live in an age where little has been written on the subject of application. The truth is that from Karl Barth to Bryan Chapell, homoliticians have been stressing that as we understand our culture we will also see the relevance of Scripture to our times.

John Stott calls on German theologian Tholuck when he states that “every sermon should have heaven for its father and the earth for its mother.”[35] Stott concludes, “My plea is that we treat them (our congregations) as real people with real questions; that we grapple in our sermons with real issues; and that we build bridges into the real world in which they live and love, work, and play, laugh and weep, struggle and suffer, grow old and die. We have to provoke them to think about their life in all its moods, to challenge them to make Jesus Christ the Lord of ever area of it, and to demonstrate his contemporary relevance.”[36]
As preachers, it is essential that we listen to the voices of our teachers in Africa and the West and not neglect the context in which our people are living and struggling. “This means that one aspect of the scholarly task is to ask how a particular text or a particular reading of a text interacts with, responds to, and is reflective of the lives of those who read or hear the text.”[37]

Therefore, we should come to our sermons fully aware of the culture in which we live. Not

ignorant of its depravity nor its beauty. Then and only then will we be able to understand the meaning of the text for our present age.

The third feature in Ukpong’s method is the text. Inculturation Hermeneutics recognizes the text has three dimensions. First, the text is an ancient text that was written in a particular historical time and place, and therefore, ones understanding of that geopolitical timeframe is crucial to a proper understanding of the text. Secondly, the text is literally meaning that it was written in Greek and Hebrew with certain grammatical and syntactical nuances that must be understood for proper understanding of the written word. Finally, the text is transformative, meaning that scholars will fall short of the proper meaning of the text if they do not recognize the demands that the authoritative word of God has on the lives of its readers.

The goal of exegesis is theological meaning and “because it is the theological meaning of the text that is sought and not it’s historical context historical critical tools are used precisely as servants and not as masters.”[38] The goal of the interpretation of the text, as well, is to discover what Ukpong calls the “gospel message.”[39] By “gospel message” he means the particular word from God for the community of readers, as it emerges in the dialogue between the reader, his or her context, and the particular text under discussion. “As this message emerges, it may serve as a critique of the culture or the culture may throw light on the text.”[40]

What we are to gather from Ukpong’s form of interpretation is that every text or immediate context has a “gospel message,” an element of redemptive truth where God heals a people, saves a people, brings justice to a people, brings glory to himself or any other form of good news. This method is not unlike Bryan Chapell’s ‘Fallen Condition Focus’ principle where he argues that every text or immediate context of scripture reveals an element of mankind that is fallen and then reveals how God shows up in that fallen state to rescue mankind, every time.[41] This will be discussed in greater detail further on in this study as we attempt to integrate these principles into practical helps for us in America. But for now, it is good to recognize the similarities in biblical interpretation between our experts and Africa’s.

When we encounter the text with eyes wide open to find the ‘gospel message’ we cannot help but keep in perspective the fallen condition of man and in so doing, we keep in perspective the cultural application of the text to our current situation. However, when pastors focus entirely on the historical meaning of the text their sermons often come off just as dusty. Inculturation Hermeneutics attempts to refocus our thinking on the life which we are living here and now and to read the Bible in such a way and to preach in such a way that transforms a community.
The fourth feature of Ukpong’s inculturation hermeneutics is what he calls the exegetical conceptual framework.[42] The exegetical framework says Ukpong, is that “mental construct within which exegetes are trained. It is basically an orientation in biblical interpretation geared towards certain areas of concern about the biblical text.”[43] He says that historical criticism, literary criticism and liberation hermeneutics are all examples of conceptual frameworks. However, for Ukpong, his main concern is that in Africa, Western frameworks should not be seen as universally valid for all cultures. This is not to say that for us in the West we should abandon our framework entirely or even at all.

As pastors we have been taught to observe carefully the context, the grammar, the syntax, the historical background, and to observe democratically what other Christians throughout history have said about a text. This framework is not to be abandoned or even to be criticized as wrong. As we grow in our understanding of Inculturation Hermeneutics, we simply need to reemphasize the need to move from theology to doxology, from hermeneutics to homiletics. The hard chair study must soften our hearts and the hearts of the church to action.
For Ukpong the goal of exegesis is to actualize the theological meaning of the text in a contemporary context. Since the Bible is an ancient text, historical tools must be used. However, the task is not completed when the syntax, grammar analysis and historical background check are complete. Since the goal is finding the contemporary theological meaning, the historical tools must always be seen as servant and not as master.[44] “The present meaning of the text will emerge in the interaction between the ancient text and the contemporary context. This discovery of the present meaning, however, must be done from a perspective of faith. Inculturation Hermeneutics sees the Bible as a document of faith and therefore demands entry into and sharing the faith of the biblical community expressed in the text.”[45] Ukpong is a strong proponent of Biblical Theology and believes that the conceptual framework cannot be a proof-texting framework but must allow the whole of scripture to speak into a context.
The final element of Inculturation Hermeneutics is the procedure. According to Ukpong there must be a preliminary condition and a series of four steps of analysis. The preliminary condition is commitment to the Christian faith and to the process of actualizing the Christian message with the context of people’s lives.[46] “Inculturation Hermeneutics excludes those who are not engaged with the faith of the church and committed to the task of incarnating that faith in a particular place.”[47] Ukpong is adamant that commitment to the cause of Christ is essential for proper understanding of the text. So in all actuality the fifth and final step of his Inculturation Hermeneutics is the commitment to the historical convictions of Christian mission. It is fascinating to hear the words of Grant Osborn who also appeals to a form of enculturation in the conclusion of his monumental work on hermeneutics.

Finally, realize the necessity of praxis. Proper contextualization recognizes that right understanding ideally results in right practice. The Bible seeks not just to correct thinking or understanding but more the correct action that results. The equivalent Hebrew and Greek words mean both ‘hear’ and ‘obey’. Therefore, changed lives are the intended results of the enculturation of the Word.[48]

There is no doubt, that we, in the West, have heard this message before, this is really nothing new. It is more or less a practical reminder to be about the business of hearing and obeying. In Africa, the Bible is read to speak into current issues, struggles, plagues, illnesses, deaths, and joys. Basically it is used, not only to hear the good news of Christ’s salvation but also to speak to the turmoil that is found in this life and how to handle it. As we attempt in America to preach and teach to the same issues we can learn from our African brothers. We miss knowing the pain and the suffering of our parishioners due to having a less sensitive intuition of the culture. At times, we can be so caught up in preaching the correct doctrine and theology that we forget to exegete the congregation. By incorporating a combination of Congregational Hermeneutics with Inculturation Hermeneutics, our preaching takes on more of a practical essence. When our people can be motivated to listen and obey, we know for sure that the word of God is taking root among them and that it has been preached properly.

As we move away from the steps of Inculturation, it is important to see this method put into practice. The first step in the exegetical process is to identify a dynamic correspondence between the reader’s current context and the historical context of the biblical passage. The text that was chosen to use as an example is Matthew 1:18-25. This was chosen randomly to show how we can use this form of hermeneutics to further our homiletics. Keep in mind that we are working with the American culture, not the African. Therefore, as we read the words of this text, our final goal is to preach this passage in a way that bridges the gap between 1st Century Palestine and 21st century America.

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

As the exegete, it is important to find the direct correspondence between Joseph and Mary’s world and ours. For example, it is likely that many people in the church will have children and can relate to the stress and joy of birthing a child. Also, it is possible that many people in the church will have wrestled through forms of infidelity in their marriage. They will be able to understand the concerns that Joseph had when he took Mary home to be his wife. It will be important in this passage to explain the use of dreams from a biblical worldview, because this bridge is not crossed very easily in our modern world. This would be a good time to ask members of the church if God has ever spoken to them in an alternative form of communication. Again, the first step is for the exegete to create as much common ground as possible between the issues and people of the text to the people in the church.

Secondly, the exegete must weigh issues in the current context of America in light of the issues of the text. For example, there is a sad reality in America today where often husbands do not listen to the voice of God and are not taking responsibility for the families that they have promised to provide and care for. When Ukpong talks about context, it is important to remember that he is not talking about the context of the text, but rather the context in which the interpreter(s) find themselves. From Matthew 1:18-28 we see Joseph, a righteous man, willing to hear and obey the voice of God in caring for son that was not from his progeny. In America today, we have men from all races abandoning wives and children to seek their own narcissistic desires. For the middle class, they abandon their children to a world of business and leisure. The lower class men may abandon their children for a life of crime, drugs, and pleasure. Joseph had made a promise to Mary to be her husband. By listening to the voice of God Joseph chose to keep that promise knowing that she was impregnated with God Son, not his, Joseph however, he was able to see past the shame and do the right thing.

During this step of the process, all the questions for the text need to surface. For example, what does our culture say about husbands who raise children who are not their own? What does it mean that she was found to be with a child from the Holy Spirit? Is there even a need for a savior to be born? How will our post enlightenment thinking respond to the miracles found in this text, such as the virgin birth and a fulfilled prophecy? Why would Joseph wait to consummate the marriage until after Jesus was born? During this step, we are bringing all the questions that culture would ask.

Secondly, we are accentuating the issues seen in the text that are seen in our culture today. The reason that this step is put before the textual exegesis is that Ukpong has found the trend in Western interpretation that once the text has been critically looked at, exegetes often forget the sermon. They forget that the text is alive and should speak to a community. Therefore, he puts the step of context first so that we will always be looking for how the text can speak into our community and our lives.

The third step in Inculturation Hermeneutics is the one that we know very well. This is the step where the exegete devours the text from a scholarly perspective. It is the responsibility of the exegete to consider grammar, context, syntax, genre, cross references and historical background to decipher a proper understanding of the text.

These are the steps that we have learned at seminary and should never be avoided. “The

difference is that many North Atlantic scholars would consider exegesis complete after just this one step—an end in and of itself. For Ukpong historical analysis is important, but in his method it is relativized by being only a part of a larger process.”[49]

In looking at Matthew 1:18-25, the exegete will need to discover the nuances between 1st century betrothal and current engagement. They would also need to discover the scribal inclusion of the name Isaiah in verse 22. The original and earliest manuscripts simply say “the prophet”. The exegete would do well also to understand the importance of this text found just after Matthew’s genealogy. What importance do Jesus’ natural descendents have on his supernatural birth?

The fourth and final step of Inculturation Hermeneutics would be to form all the findings together by using a hermeneutical format that can be communicated to the community. Ukpong says that this final step is “to draw together the fruits of this analysis in a coherent fashion, but also to express a commitment to actualizing the message of the text in a concrete life situation. In other words, engagement with the text alone is insufficient. The scholar must also be engaged with the community.”[50] Because the Bible is living and active, it is the role of the pastor to communicate how God is speaking into our lives today. The Bible is not a book, but a revelation. It is not an ongoing revelation, but a transcendent word that speaks to all of life and to every situation. It is our job to determine how God’s word applies to our personal situations. By reading with the laity and practicing an Inculturation Hermeneutic, we get a step closer to knowing God’s will for our personal lives.

The following is a sermon written on the Matthew 1:18-25 text. Inculturation Hermeneutics was the main form of interpretation used to help illustrate how African forms of hermeneutics can influence our preaching here in America.

Sermon Title: Divorce in the Birth of Christ.

Text: Matthew 1:18-25

Outline:

I. Joseph is ready to divorce Mary when he finds out she is pregnant.
II. Joseph contemplates the scriptures and the angel of the Lord as he makes his decision.
III. Joseph wakes up from his dream and obeys immediately.

Big Idea: When we listen to scripture and the voice of God, we will conclude, like Joseph that obedience is the only option.

Fallen Condition Focus: Men are unlikely to stay committed to women who become pregnant from anyone else. Joseph has one foot out the door when God shows up. He reveals to Joseph his plan for Mary and Jesus and Joseph is transformed as a husband and a father.

You know there are a lot of things that can ruin an engagement, like finding out your fiancée has a double life as a spy. Or finding out your fiancée is addicted to video games and Star Wars conventions. That could ruin an engagement for sure. If you found out that your fiancée is marrying you to get to your coveted pez candy collection, (which includes Woody Woodpecker) that could cause you to call off the wedding. There are many things that would make you “get cold feet” before you marry someone. What was it with you? What was the biggest glitch in the matrix of your engagement before you got married?

For me, the glitches came after the wedding. Maybe you can relate more to that. Today, we are going to take a look at a couple who are on the verge of divorce and how they respond to their dilemma. This one takes the cake. The #1 for calling the marriage thing off—is what we find in the text this morning, finding out your fiancée is pregnant, only after she tells you that she wants to wait for her wedding night to have sex.

There’s no prescription strong enough that will fix this problem. Turn in your Bibles to Matthew 1:18-25. There, in Matthew, two star-crossed lovers are on the verge of divorce and it’s just about Christmas time. Mary and Joseph’s families had decided that these two should be married. Mary was probably between the ages of 14-16 and Joseph was between the ages of 18-22. We do know that Joseph would have paid Mary’s father a dowry or bride price for her hand in marriage.

We also know that they were legally married but in a stage of marriage where Mary would have still been living under her father’s roof. This phase lasted about one year and then, after that time, Joseph would have taken Mary to live with him. That is the time when normal marriages in Judea would have been consummated.

Joseph and Mary are legally betrothed/ married/ engaged. Call it whatever you want. If they are to break up, it would be considered a divorce and would require the assistance of the city judges to witness and legally undue this marriage. If they divorced, then Joseph would receive back the money, livestock, or other gifts that he gave toward the bride price.

Mary, on the other hand, would be marked as an adulterous woman and could have been stoned to death according to traditional Mosaic Law. Although this punishment was very seldom acted out, she would nevertheless been shamed, seen as immoral, and most likely, she would never have another opportunity to marry. Pretty tough for a girl so young. Like I said, Christmas was just around the corner. Talk about your family issues.

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

Joseph had been cleaning the house like mad to get it ready for Mary. He’d been watering the lawn, making a new table and chairs, and putting in a new bookshelf and yes, new cabinets as well, he knew Mary would appreciate them. He was in the process of getting everything ready for the girl he loved. They weren’t living together yet and he was making the house ready for his new bride.

As much as he detested housework, he found himself dusting the furniture and removing candy wrappers from behind the couch. It was important for him to place the lamp beside Mary’s chair allowing her the proper amount of light.

Do you remember the preparations you went through before you got married? All the little details Joseph is doing because SHE is getting ready to move it. And then she tells him the big news! “Joseph, I’m pregnant. And you are not the father.”

“Of course I’m not the father! We had committed to wait until you moved in and that night was going to be so special Mary. What do you mean you are pregnant?! Mary…I thought you loved me? Mary…you said you loved me. You said we could have children together and I could teach them to make you cabinets…just the way you like them. Mary…this is impossible. Mary…was it something I said, was it something I did…did you meet him online? How long have you been seeing each other…do I know him…Of course I know him…this town is so small…What’s his name, Mary…what is his name…I could kill him. And all this time…I thought you were saving yourself just for me.”

Joseph had one foot out the door just before Jesus was born. It’s almost Christmas and Joseph wants a divorce. Who can blame him? Men are unlikely to stay committed to women who become pregnant by someone else.

Actually, men and women both have a hard time staying committed for things much less. The truth is at Christmas time we all feel a relational tension much closer to home. What do you do when all signs are pointing toward divorce? When is the last time the word divorce came up in your marriage? Has it been this season? Where do you turn when all roads lead to more and more hurt?

Chaos is disorder, chaos is nowhere to turn. Chaos is that deep pain in your stomach as you are contemplating the ripping and tearing of a marriage that was, for one reason or another left…like a Christmas tree still up at Valentines. That to me is chaos. I have only felt it once we were at a stalemate. We needed help, we needed prayer and we needed to surrender to one another. We made it but only by the grace of God and a lot of hard work.

Many of you didn’t make it and have experienced it and live in a daily reminder of it as you raise your children. Others of you are wondering how to avoid it and if God has any wisdom to give you as you fight for your marriage.

As I have studied this passage this week I have found that Joseph was a pretty cool guy but God is an amazing God and can and desires to heal all wounds.

When Mary told Joseph that she was pregnant with a baby from the Holy Spirit he had enough love to divorce her quietly. What this meant was that with just a couple of witnesses, family even, they could be officially divorced. This would have helped, even if just a little the shame that Mary would have faced. However, without an official divorce from the city officials, Joseph was not eligible for his dowry back. Without the official documentation the bride price still belonged to Mary’s father. Not only was he compassionate, he was willing to take the financial hit for Mary’s sake. Here we start to see the heart of this man. The Bible says that he was a just and righteous man.

He’s thinking that it’s time for a fresh start…time to pick up the pieces and maybe in a few years the right woman would really come along. He was unwilling to consider the life of this boy who would grow up fatherless, and unwilling to look at the statistics that 80% of children from divorced families suffer from depression. He was unwilling to father a child that was not his.
Many of you in this room have had that opportunity and as hard as it is you are doing your best. Step dads, dads who adopt, you know the hard times that Joseph would have faced and maybe you have wondered at times…did I make the right decision? Joseph had one foot out the door, willing to pass this opportunity by when God got his attention.

Put yourself in Joseph’s shoes…what would it take for you to change your mind? Actually, put yourself in your own shoes…what will it take for you to reconsider your love for your spouse? In verse 20, the text says that Joseph was in the process of considering all these things. The paperwork had not been signed, the witnesses have not been gathered but Joseph was contemplating how he would end this marriage as quietly as possible. The God showed up. Verse

20.

20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived

in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).

God chose to speak to Joseph in a dream. This was a very common form of communication between God and His people. Around the globe, this is still considered a very important way that God talks to His people. This was not an ambiguous dream like Pharaoh’s that needed interpretation. The message was crystal clear.

Joseph, you are in the line of David. The Messiah is to come through that line. Your wife Mary has conceived miraculously by my Spirit. She is going to have a son and that son, is going to need a father. You are to give Him the name Jesus. You are his father. His job is to save mankind from their sin. Remember what the Prophet Isaiah said, “Behold the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son and his name will be called Immanuel (God among us)” --I am about to be among you, Joseph. Listen to my voice—listen to the scriptures. Joseph, don’t be afraid to take Mary as your wife don’t leave her, love her. I know it’s hard, but stay in this.”

We live in world where too often and too quick and for selfish reasons, fathers abandon their children and their wives. In America today there is a crisis in the family and democrats and republicans both acknowledge the problem.

Who’s to blame? The real question is who is not to blame? Blame the public schools, blame the universities, blame the legal system, blame the entertainment industry and the advertising industry, blame the church, blame your parents blame me…we are all to blame and nothing is going to stop this slide until we take responsibility for our own actions and allow the Spirit of God to change us like he changed Joseph.

Joseph is not the hero of this passage. Apart from a miraculous act of God, Jesus would have grown up like so many of us in America in a single family home. That is not God’s plan for any kid. God is the hero of this story and I beg that you allow God to be the hero of your story.
Joseph did something that you and I can do to help us in our marriages. Joseph listened to the voice of God and he listened to Scripture. In the dream, the angel of the Lord told him what he needed to do. The scriptural proof for this was found in Isaiah 7:14—the virgin will conceive and bear a son and he will save the people from their sins—his name will be Emmanuel.

We have the same opportunity in our relationships—no matter how much of a rut you are in, you have the exact same opportunity laid before us! Listen to the voice of God. We must pray and devote ourselves to knowing, memorizing, and living the scriptures.

The angel Gabriel explained to Joseph Gods plan for Mary. The Bible explains to you and to me God’s plan for our marriage. It is one man and one woman living in sacrificial surrender to one another. Paul said husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. He also said that wives are to respect their husbands. Paul and Moses indicate the importance of children obeying parental authority. God is clear from Genesis to Revelation that he wants to protect you. He tells us that marriage is covenantal like his love for us. We need to honor our marriages the same way that we honor all His other promises to us.

Listen, I am not trying to give you a Sunday school answer for the hard times that marriage brings. What I am telling you is that God saved Joseph and Mary’s marriage…God saved my marriage by this same principle…reading scripture and listening to his voice! He has the power and he will not let you down. Your spouse may let you down, you may let yourself down…but he will not let you down. He will be there the whole way back to recovery. He will be in the counseling office, he will be there in the tears and in the quiet places.

Joseph listened to the voice of God and he listened to scripture and God saved his marriage.

Verse 24.

24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
The conclusion of the story is that Joseph woke up and did exactly as the Lord commanded. Not only did he not divorce her; the text says that he took her home to be his wife. What this means is that he broke the year long waiting period and took her home as his wife. Though they were married, they did not consummate the marriage until after Jesus was born. He becomes a father to Jesus and he displays great respect to Mary by not sleeping with her until after Christ is born.

The main thing is that Joseph obeyed the word of God immediately. But the burning question is, and it makes you wonder why Matthew included this, is the very last line. “He did not sleep with her until she had given birth to a son.” First of all, it calls into question the eternal virginity of Mary—but that’s not my burning question. My question is how? How did Joseph, who was already married to Mary, wait to have sex?

My conclusions are random, yet reflective…
1. Joseph did not have the internet in his room as a teenager.
2. Joseph did not have cable TV in his house with all the trash on it.
3. Satan had not entered Hugh Hefner’s heart yet.
4. He’d never seen a Justin Timberlake video.
5. Victoria Secret had not yet sent their mailings to Nazareth.
6. Joseph’s father had taught him the proper respect for a woman.
7. Mary was not an object but a soul and a person with a heart
8. Joseph understood biblical manhood as sacrificial not dominating.
9. Bill boards in Galilee promoted marble columns and fishing boats not sex.
10. Joseph was a righteous man. He had a relationship with God and communicated with God and the spirit of God gave him the strength and the power to be holy. So regardless of the fact that we live in the culture we live it. We too can resist the temptations of premarital sex—and can show self-control when we too allow the spirit of God to take hold of us.

The Bible has a perspective on what fatherhood and manhood should look like. Joseph displayed many of these characteristics. He displayed compassion for Mary while thinking of divorcing her quietly. He was not overly concerned about money and was willing to lose his financial investment in order to honor her. He had a heart that was open to God’s voice. He knew the scriptures and obeyed immediately. He didn’t worry about cultural taboos but, did what was best for his wife by taking Mary home to be his wife. And finally, he had more concern for Mary’s temporary needs than his own sexual needs. Joseph was a man who exhibited great self-control.

Men, I’ve learned a lot in the one month that I’ve been a father. In the hospital, I learned that because of all the dead beat dads that went before me, I had no authority as the father of my son. I could not sign any papers; my signature to authorize our son’s circumcision was not even valid. Only the mother’s signature would do. When my wife got her epidural the nurses pushed me aside so they could hold her, when the nurses talked to us about taking care of the baby they never gave me a glance assuming that I’d do nothing. Don’t get me wrong I understand I was reaping what other men have sown. It is just sad.

Somewhere along the way, the men of this country have abandoned ship. Let the story of Joseph motivate you to a higher standard. In your quiet time, let the voice of God speak to you, in the deep places of your heart and encourage you to live a life counter culturally. Let the word of God penetrate your heart so that it convicts you to obedience and loyalty to your family and to God. But don’t bother reading the Bible unless you want your relationships to be changed.
Joseph heard God’s voice and obeyed. He didn’t divorce his wife and he became a father to Jesus. Remember, men are unlikely to stay committed to a woman who becomes pregnant by anybody else. Joseph had one foot out the door when God showed up. God transformed Joseph’s thinking and he became a husband and a father. What will you allow God to do in your relationships? I promise you he is willing if you are.

One of the questions that remains unanswered is how? How can a pastor and a congregation come together in this process to make inculturation hermeneutics work, and the body of Christ be built up? The benefits to the congregation seem to be endless and the credibility it brings to the pastor, to allow the congregation to be a part of the interpretation and therefore a part of the sermon process can be tremendous.

The first step in the process is for the elders and the pastors to pray. Pray and see if God is leading the church to a more inclusive form of Bible reading. Ukpong would agree that this form of hermeneutics should not be seen as a universal mandate for all churches, rather one way to bridge the truth of scriptures to an ever changing culture.

The second step is to select a rotation of elders to lead and facilitate the hermeneutical process. It would be counterproductive to select one pastor and one elder to the leadership of this process. By allowing all the elders and pastors to lead the group throughout the year creates teamwork, and a unity that cannot be achieved otherwise. It is important that the pastor or pastors who will be preaching the sermons be heavily involved the process. It is important to remember the scholar’s role in this is not to lecture, but to facilitate and empower the congregants to interpret the Bible properly and in a mature fashion.

The third step is to select members from the congregation. It is best to select a variety of people from different genders, socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnicities, and experience. The goal would be to select objectively and creatively. Leadership should not select only the most mature believers to be a part of this team, but a variety of committed disciples who are eager to contribute and who are filled with the Holy Spirit. Truck drivers, single moms, elderly saints, young activists, who ever makes up the church along with those who are marginalized in the church must be a part of this team. The leaders should commit to at least twelve months with one team and the next year expand it by starting new with a fresh group of readers.

The fourth step would involve developing the format for the meetings. Depending on how important a church feels this process is, should determine how many times a month the team gets together to read. The goal of this group should be to meet at least once a month. The scripture that is to be discussed should be handed out to each member of the team one month in advance so they can meditate, pray over, and let the text sink into their hearts. While they are dwelling on the scriptures, they should write down any thoughts, experiences, questions, concerns, or general knowledge they have about the text. Before ach meeting, each member should go through the steps of Inculturation Hermeneutics, in order to be prepared for the group’s time together. At the meetings, each member of the team should have ample time to present their findings and thoughts.

The fifth step of the integration process is for the group to determine the “Big Idea” and the “Fallen Condition Focus” of the text. By determining these two crucial elements in the homiletical process, the group is honoring the text (by finding the “Big Idea”) and honoring the congregation (by finding the “Fallen Condition” of man which drives our application). Once these two elements are discovered, the pastor can take the findings into his study. He or she should do their best to integrate the work of the congregation as much as possible. This process is not to say that the sermon belongs to the congregation. It is vital that the preacher own the sermon by writing, practicing, and delivering it with power and passion. The role of the team is the help bring insight to the pastor’s study.

The sixth and final step of the process is the evaluation process. This process is only effective if it both honors the text and builds up the people. If the sermons are still lacking either in the theological content or the life application, the group has the venue to speak openly and honestly to the pastor. The team needs to develop a rubric for each sermon to help evaluate the progress. This evaluation should be developed by the leadership of the church and the team of lay interpreters. This way, the laity will have a voice to encourage the pastor and to evaluate the messages so the members can grow spiritually.

The conclusion is that the American church has a lot to learn from the global church and in particular the African church. I asked a Kenyan man in our church what he misses most about African sermons and what we in America can learn from African preaching. He said,
I think American sermons are mostly exercises in theological discovery. It is both good and bad. On the one hand, it is good to investigate the history and the context of a certain verse. On the other hand, it robs the sermon of passion and emotion. I miss the passion. The preachers are usually very passionate. Most are not steeped in theology, but their blind faith and passion for God is amazing. I miss the passion.[51]

One way that we, as preachers in America can regain that passion is by understanding the pain, suffering, temptations, and realities of the community we are preaching to. Our churches need leaders and laity who come to the text together to be transformed. Western forms of hermeneutics and homiletics have taken the text away from the believing community and put in the hands of the clergy. This sounds all too pre-Reformation, when the laity was told what to do and the clergy held the keys to the kingdom. We live in a day in age when our passion is waning and our sermons are too cotton candy, seeker sensitive, or too theologically heady to make any earthly difference in the lives of the listeners.

Taking scripture away from the believing community, the exegete made it an object of historical investigation. Armed with the so-called historical-critical method, he thus engaged in an exercise in history, pure and simple, an exercise that appeared all too often to begin from a stance of doubt—indeed, sometimes of historical skepticism with an anti-supernatural bias. Using professional jargon about form, redaction, and rhetorical criticism, the exegete, full of arrogance and assuming a stance of mastery over the text, often seemed to turn the text on its head so that it no longer spoke to the believing community as a powerful word of the living God.[52]

Our mission as preachers is not merely passion alone. The Bible warns us clearly that zeal without knowledge is dangerous. Our mission as preachers is to speak God’s word clearly, correctly, and with zest to help transform the lives of the community. When a church adopts a form of Congregational Hermeneutics combined with Inculturation Hermeneutics the homiletics that are to follow will be focused and fresh. The sermons that will follow will be for the people and in a very real way, by the people. As the congregation learns to spot the “Big Idea” and “Fallen Condition Focus” they will grow in the passion and knowledge of God’s word, and therefore, will be discipled in the process. As the church grows in discipleship, so the mission of God will go forward into the community and around the globe.

As pastors, it is our job to open our ears and humble our hearts to the new ideas, theologies and hermeneutics of the global church. When we grow in this way, our personal biases of the text diminish and we begin to learn from the text in a whole new way. When we do this, our sermons are appropriately grounded in the scriptures while at the same time permeating the lives and hearts of the listeners. God’s word is living and we need to be responsible with this fact. For too long, pastors have grown stale and stymied the life of the text. As we commit to reading the text with those of different backgrounds and perspectives, then and only then will we see the height, breadth, and depth of God’s word for all people of all time in all places.

Bibliography:
Adamo, David Tuesday. Biblical Interpretation in African Perspective. Lanham, Maryland: University Press, 2006.
Adeyemo, Tokunboh. Africa Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.
Bosch David J. Transforming Mission. New York: Orbis Books, 2006.
Burton, Keith Augustus. The Blessing of Africa. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007.
Chapell, Bryan. Christ-Centered Preaching. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.
Davis, Ellen F. and Richard B. Hays. The Art of Reading Scriptures. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Dietrich, Walter and Ulrich Luz. The Bible in a World Context. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Donders, Joseph. Non-Bourgeois Theology. New York: Orbis Books, 1985.
Escobar, Samuel. The New Global Mission. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Fee, Gordon. The Spirit of the Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Gibson, Scott. Preaching to a Shifting Culture. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004.
Goldsworthy, Graeme. Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Academic Press, 2006.
Hiebert, Paul G. Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994.
Jenkins, Philip. God’s Continent. Oxford: University Press, 2007.
--The Next Christendom. Oxford: University Press, 2002.
--The New Faces of Christianity. Oxford: University Press, 2006.
Kraft, Charles. Appropriate Christianity. Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2005.
--Christianity in Culture. New York: Orbis Books, 1979.
Kihumba, Julius. Interview with Gregg Jennings: December, 2007.
Mbiti, John. Bible and Theology in African Christianity. Oxford: University Press, 1986.
Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Academic Press, 2006.
Ott, Craig and Harold A. Netland. Globalizing Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
Robinson, Haddon. Biblical Preaching. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004.
Sanneh, Lamin. Whose Religion is Christianity? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Spencer, Aida Besncon and William David. The Global God. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.
Stott, John R. W. Between Two Worlds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
Tennent, Timothy C. Theology in the Context of World Christianity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.
Ukpong, Justin. Reading The Bible In The Global Village. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002.
Vanhoozer, Kevin. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.
Walls, Andrew. The Cross-Cultural Process In Christian History. New York: Orbis Books, 2005.
West, Gerald and Musa W. Dube. The Bible In Africa. Boston: Brill Publishers, 2000.
Yamauchi, Edwin M. Africa and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.


[1] Samuel Escobar, The New Global Mission. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 12.
[2] Lamin Sanneh, Whose Religion is Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 15.
[3] Philip Jenkins, God’s Continent. (Oxford: University Press, 2007), 72.
[4] Lamin Sanneh, Whose Religion is Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 18.
[5] Timothy C. Tennent, Theology in the Context of Global Christianity. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), xvii.
[6] Timothy C. Tennent, Preaching to a Shifting Culture. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books), 203-204.
[7] Lamin Sanneh, Whose Religion is Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 106.
[8] Timothy C. Tennent, Lectures on Applied Anthropology for Missions. (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary), Fall 2006.
[9] David Tuesday Adamo, Biblical Interpretation in African Perspective. (Lanham: University Press, 2006), 19.
[10] Paul Heibert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 103.
[11] Samuel Escobar, The New Global Mission. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 140.
[12] Kevin Vanhoozer, Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 32.
[13] Charles Kraft, Christianity and Culture. (New York: Orbis Books, 1979), 129.
[14] Ibid 130.
[15] Kevin Vanhoozer, Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 128.
[16] Mervin Breneman, The New American Commentary Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther: electronic ed., Logos Library System: (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c 1993), 225.
[17] D.A. Carson, New Bible Commentary. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 328.
[18] Charles Kraft, Christianity and Culture. (New York: Orbis Books, 1979), 116.
[19] Kevin Vanhoozer, Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 128.
[20] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1140.
[21] Joseph Donders, Non-Bourgeois Theology. (New York: Orbis Books, 1985), 62.
[22] Bryan Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 84.
[23] Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 29.
[24] Justin S. Ukpong, Reading the Bible in the Global Village. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 23.
[25] Walter Dietrich and Ulrich Luz, The Bible in a World Context. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 21
[26] Ibid 22.
[27] Justin Ukpong, Reading the Bible in a Global Village. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 24.
[28] Gerald West and Musa W. Dube, The Bible in Africa. (Boston: Brill Publishing, 2000), 22.
[29] David Tuesday Adamo, Biblical Interpretation in African Perspective. (Lanham: University Press, 2006), 70.
[30] Grant Osborn, The Hermeneutical Spiral. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 29.
[31] David Tuesday Adamo, Biblical Interpretation in African Perspective. (Lanham: University Press, 2006), 71.
[32] Ibid 72.
[33] Grant Osborn, The Hermeneutical Spiral. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 29.
[34] John Stott, Between Two Worlds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1982), 149.
[35] Ibid 150.
[36] Ibid 147.
[37] David Tuesday Adamo, Biblical Interpretation in African Perspective. (Lanham: University Press, 2006), 72.
[38] Ibid 73.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Bryan Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 299.
[42] David Tuesday Adamo, Biblical Interpretation in African Perspective. (Lanham: University Press, 2006), 74.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Grant Osborn, The Hermeneutical Spiral. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 455.
[49] David Tuesday Adamo, Biblical Interpretation from an African Perspective. (Lanham: University Press, 2006), 77.
[50] Ibid 78.
[51] Julius Kihumba. Email Interview with Gregg Jennings on December 15, 2007.
[52] Gordon Fee. The Spirit of the Text. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 8.