The New Religious Intolerance
By Martha C. Nussbaum
Harvard University Press, 2012
Review by John L. Ng
November, 2012
In a post 9-11 world, religious intolerance has become national policy and social practice. Martha Nussbaum, a professor of law and ethics, in "The New Religious Intolerance: Overcoming the Politics of Fear in an Anxious Age," writes of these disconcerting trends. Because those terrorist acts were perpetrated by Islamic extremists, this new intolerance is aimed primarily toward Islam. But it seems all religions, mainstream or sectarian, are not tolerated.
She cites two cases of religious intolerance, one in Europe the other in America. The banning of the burqa, a loose dark robe worn by Muslim women, in public by several European countries is indicative of national intolerance. Attempting political correctness, governments refer to reasons such as national security, objectification of women or public health as the rationale for the ban. But Nussbaum finds their reasoning inconsistent. The actual reason is that secular nationalism rejects all public display of religion. The other case cited has to do with ground zero, where the World Trade Towers once stood. A realty developer proposed building a Muslim cultural center, including a mosque, several blocks from there. Politicians, pundits, bloggers and even a stripper chimed in against or for this center. Once again, Nussbaum finds their reasoning unconvincing. Mostly, their opposition is based on bigotry, disinformation and extreme politics.
A liberal thinker like Nussbaum expectedly embraces inclusive tolerance. She concludes that intolerance is often based on fear, insecurity and
ethno-centricity. To ensure religious freedom, three pre-conditions are explored: one, freedom of conscience must be guaranteed by state policy; two, national policies regarding religion must be consistent and fair; and three, sympathetic imagination must be cultivated among its diverse citizenry. She cites Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island and victim of intolerance, as illustrative of these pre-conditions. Williams' treatments of the Narragansett American natives demonstrated his sympathetic imagination, fair treatments and acceptance of others who were different from him. Nussbaum also notes that Williams' tolerance did not seek to converse of his Puritan Christianity with the natives. This alerts us to a collateral weakness of social tolerance. In religious pluralism, tolerance may evolve into a form of intolerance for public expression of religion. When everything is tolerated, without meaningful public expressions, conscientious convictions are stripped of its personal significance.
Wrestling with the religious nature of 9-11, political blogger Andrew Sullivan wrote that religion provides meaning and purpose in a disorienting world. The transformative character of religious convictions can bring future hope and present comfort to their adherents. In that sense, truth is mutually intolerant - if something is true then its opposite must be rejected. Every religion has a worldview, a set of convictions that defines the world. If we believe these convictions to be true and pertinent, we are compelled to express them. We would want these pertinent truths to influence the way we live engagingly in public places as well as in private homes. When encountering other religions in a pluralistic society hostile intolerance is, of course, always wrong. But blind and muted tolerance is unrealistic and disingenuous. It may be mistaken for apathy and passivity. A genuine practice of tolerance makes allowances for freedom of conscience and public expression of personal convictions within the cordiality of civic intercourse. Otherwise, religion has no inherent meaning or purpose.
Harvard University Press, 2012
Review by John L. Ng
November, 2012
In a post 9-11 world, religious intolerance has become national policy and social practice. Martha Nussbaum, a professor of law and ethics, in "The New Religious Intolerance: Overcoming the Politics of Fear in an Anxious Age," writes of these disconcerting trends. Because those terrorist acts were perpetrated by Islamic extremists, this new intolerance is aimed primarily toward Islam. But it seems all religions, mainstream or sectarian, are not tolerated.
She cites two cases of religious intolerance, one in Europe the other in America. The banning of the burqa, a loose dark robe worn by Muslim women, in public by several European countries is indicative of national intolerance. Attempting political correctness, governments refer to reasons such as national security, objectification of women or public health as the rationale for the ban. But Nussbaum finds their reasoning inconsistent. The actual reason is that secular nationalism rejects all public display of religion. The other case cited has to do with ground zero, where the World Trade Towers once stood. A realty developer proposed building a Muslim cultural center, including a mosque, several blocks from there. Politicians, pundits, bloggers and even a stripper chimed in against or for this center. Once again, Nussbaum finds their reasoning unconvincing. Mostly, their opposition is based on bigotry, disinformation and extreme politics.
A liberal thinker like Nussbaum expectedly embraces inclusive tolerance. She concludes that intolerance is often based on fear, insecurity and
ethno-centricity. To ensure religious freedom, three pre-conditions are explored: one, freedom of conscience must be guaranteed by state policy; two, national policies regarding religion must be consistent and fair; and three, sympathetic imagination must be cultivated among its diverse citizenry. She cites Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island and victim of intolerance, as illustrative of these pre-conditions. Williams' treatments of the Narragansett American natives demonstrated his sympathetic imagination, fair treatments and acceptance of others who were different from him. Nussbaum also notes that Williams' tolerance did not seek to converse of his Puritan Christianity with the natives. This alerts us to a collateral weakness of social tolerance. In religious pluralism, tolerance may evolve into a form of intolerance for public expression of religion. When everything is tolerated, without meaningful public expressions, conscientious convictions are stripped of its personal significance.
Wrestling with the religious nature of 9-11, political blogger Andrew Sullivan wrote that religion provides meaning and purpose in a disorienting world. The transformative character of religious convictions can bring future hope and present comfort to their adherents. In that sense, truth is mutually intolerant - if something is true then its opposite must be rejected. Every religion has a worldview, a set of convictions that defines the world. If we believe these convictions to be true and pertinent, we are compelled to express them. We would want these pertinent truths to influence the way we live engagingly in public places as well as in private homes. When encountering other religions in a pluralistic society hostile intolerance is, of course, always wrong. But blind and muted tolerance is unrealistic and disingenuous. It may be mistaken for apathy and passivity. A genuine practice of tolerance makes allowances for freedom of conscience and public expression of personal convictions within the cordiality of civic intercourse. Otherwise, religion has no inherent meaning or purpose.
God is not One
By Stephen Prothero
Harper One, 2010
Review by John L. Ng
July, 2012
The rapidity of technological advances and people migrations has shrunk our vast world into a virtual global village. No time in history have we shared our homeland with so many strangers of strange cultures and beliefs. No where in history has been a place like New York City whose citizenry speaks more than 150 languages. Religious diversity is a great part of cultural pluralism. These different world views are conflicting rivals. Religion is perhaps the single most significant influence in the way we live, move and have our being. Yet those who seek political correctness like us to believe that all religions share a similar passage toward the sacred. They are different paths to the same mountain top. They are different parts of the same elephant
touched by the blind men.
Indeed, if we think all religions are alike, we are blind. “God is not One” is Stephen Prothero’s polemics against this notion. A lapsed Christian and a professor of religion at Boston University, Prothero, with subjective experiences and objective critiques, shows how the major world religions are essentially rivals. He explains how these eight religions influence their adherents and seek to shape the ways of the world. The chapters’ titles show their varied ways: Islam – the way of submission, Christianity – the way of salvation, Confucianism – the way of propriety, Hinduism – the way of devotion, Buddhism – the way of awakening, Yoruda Religion – the way of connection, Judaism – the way of exile and return, Daoism –the way of flourishing, Atheism – the way of reason.
To claim that all religions are the same is naïve and unrealistic. When we blur their sharp distinctions, we negate their conflicting responses to the most basic of human dilemmatic questions. Truth is uncompromisingly intolerant. If something is true then anything that contradicts it is false. Politicians and economists do not practice tolerance. A democrat and a communist may sit down at the same table but they do not agree that their politics are equally sound. A capitalist may have civil dialogues with a socialist but they will never walk away thinking that the other’s economic philosophy is well funded.
In a pluralistic society, blind tolerance may be politically correct but unhelpful, and dangerous. We need not confuse intolerance with social bigotry. Living our faith requires active intentionality. No doubt, first, we must know our own religious traditions and how they are different from our neighbors.’ (In his previous book “Religious Literacy” Prothero notes how little Americans, including Evangelicals, know their religious traditional tenets) Second, we need to make allowances for others’ religious differences with humility and grace. Third, however, making allowances does not mean we ignore that our conflicting differences have profound political, cultural, social, economic and spiritual consequences in the way we live and live together. Living out our convictions requires us, at every opportunity, to speak up and speak out without timidity regarding the rationale of our faith.
Harper One, 2010
Review by John L. Ng
July, 2012
The rapidity of technological advances and people migrations has shrunk our vast world into a virtual global village. No time in history have we shared our homeland with so many strangers of strange cultures and beliefs. No where in history has been a place like New York City whose citizenry speaks more than 150 languages. Religious diversity is a great part of cultural pluralism. These different world views are conflicting rivals. Religion is perhaps the single most significant influence in the way we live, move and have our being. Yet those who seek political correctness like us to believe that all religions share a similar passage toward the sacred. They are different paths to the same mountain top. They are different parts of the same elephant
touched by the blind men.
Indeed, if we think all religions are alike, we are blind. “God is not One” is Stephen Prothero’s polemics against this notion. A lapsed Christian and a professor of religion at Boston University, Prothero, with subjective experiences and objective critiques, shows how the major world religions are essentially rivals. He explains how these eight religions influence their adherents and seek to shape the ways of the world. The chapters’ titles show their varied ways: Islam – the way of submission, Christianity – the way of salvation, Confucianism – the way of propriety, Hinduism – the way of devotion, Buddhism – the way of awakening, Yoruda Religion – the way of connection, Judaism – the way of exile and return, Daoism –the way of flourishing, Atheism – the way of reason.
To claim that all religions are the same is naïve and unrealistic. When we blur their sharp distinctions, we negate their conflicting responses to the most basic of human dilemmatic questions. Truth is uncompromisingly intolerant. If something is true then anything that contradicts it is false. Politicians and economists do not practice tolerance. A democrat and a communist may sit down at the same table but they do not agree that their politics are equally sound. A capitalist may have civil dialogues with a socialist but they will never walk away thinking that the other’s economic philosophy is well funded.
In a pluralistic society, blind tolerance may be politically correct but unhelpful, and dangerous. We need not confuse intolerance with social bigotry. Living our faith requires active intentionality. No doubt, first, we must know our own religious traditions and how they are different from our neighbors.’ (In his previous book “Religious Literacy” Prothero notes how little Americans, including Evangelicals, know their religious traditional tenets) Second, we need to make allowances for others’ religious differences with humility and grace. Third, however, making allowances does not mean we ignore that our conflicting differences have profound political, cultural, social, economic and spiritual consequences in the way we live and live together. Living out our convictions requires us, at every opportunity, to speak up and speak out without timidity regarding the rationale of our faith.
Bad Religion: how we became a nation of heretics
By Ross Douthat
Free Press, 2012
Review by John L. Ng
May, 2012
It is not unusual that every generation has its bell ringers who toll to warn that faith in God as we knew it is in decline. Ross Douthat’s “Bad Religion” warns that we have become a nation of heretics. His good old days were back in the middle of the last century, when Protestants and Catholics flourished in faith and practice. American Christianity was at the height of its spiritual, cultural, social and political vibrancy.
Since then a precipitous decline has occurred. Mainline Protestant denominations lost members by the millions. Only some conservative churches sustained growth. At the turn of this century, even these churches plateau. For the past decade, my own denomination has experienced
statistical decline in church planting, membership, conversion, baptism and financial giving.
Douthat, a New York Times columnist, contributes this serious decline in American Christianity to the dissipation of “the Christian center.” Once upon a time, America has a religious center that engaged the nation in spiritual, cultural, social and political discourses. This languishing center implicates various social movements: The “death of God” of the 1960’s; the “Jesus Seminar” of the 1980’s and the “the Secular City” of the 1990’s. I agree that they play a role in Christianity’s decline in America but am not entirely convinced that they march in the main parade. They are only side shows of a more pervasive force that has impacted western civilization. Secular culture has morphed from modernity to post-modernity. In a post-modern cultural environment in which the church lives and does ministry, it has two options – to resist or to accommodate culture. Many church leaders opt to accommodate in the worst ways. So mimicking society, the churches have replaced individualism for community, psychology for theology and existential experience for liturgical confession.
This “Bad Religion” can be outlined by three heretical movements. The first is the “Pray and Grow Rich” movement. The likes of Joyce Meyer and Joel Osteen preach health and wealth and their many adherents buy into this good news of name it and claim it. The second is “the God Within” movement. Quasi-religious personalities, like Oprah Winfrey and Elizabeth Gilbert re-brand narcissism as true spirituality. For these converts, faith in God is therapy to help them find happiness within. The third is “the City on the Hill” movement. Its proponents as diverse as James Dobson and Glenn Beck wed religion with politics. Their followers seek to change people’s beliefs and practices by changing their nation’s political policies.
Like all books of this genre, “Bad Religion” is long on critique and short on reform. The author spends 290 plus pages documenting what is wrong and only 15 pages on how to right it. Douthat at times may cut and paste to fit his arguments. Nevertheless he is worth a read. Any conscientious Christian who is concerned about being and doing church will find this account of Christianity’s serious decline in America informative and convicting.
Free Press, 2012
Review by John L. Ng
May, 2012
It is not unusual that every generation has its bell ringers who toll to warn that faith in God as we knew it is in decline. Ross Douthat’s “Bad Religion” warns that we have become a nation of heretics. His good old days were back in the middle of the last century, when Protestants and Catholics flourished in faith and practice. American Christianity was at the height of its spiritual, cultural, social and political vibrancy.
Since then a precipitous decline has occurred. Mainline Protestant denominations lost members by the millions. Only some conservative churches sustained growth. At the turn of this century, even these churches plateau. For the past decade, my own denomination has experienced
statistical decline in church planting, membership, conversion, baptism and financial giving.
Douthat, a New York Times columnist, contributes this serious decline in American Christianity to the dissipation of “the Christian center.” Once upon a time, America has a religious center that engaged the nation in spiritual, cultural, social and political discourses. This languishing center implicates various social movements: The “death of God” of the 1960’s; the “Jesus Seminar” of the 1980’s and the “the Secular City” of the 1990’s. I agree that they play a role in Christianity’s decline in America but am not entirely convinced that they march in the main parade. They are only side shows of a more pervasive force that has impacted western civilization. Secular culture has morphed from modernity to post-modernity. In a post-modern cultural environment in which the church lives and does ministry, it has two options – to resist or to accommodate culture. Many church leaders opt to accommodate in the worst ways. So mimicking society, the churches have replaced individualism for community, psychology for theology and existential experience for liturgical confession.
This “Bad Religion” can be outlined by three heretical movements. The first is the “Pray and Grow Rich” movement. The likes of Joyce Meyer and Joel Osteen preach health and wealth and their many adherents buy into this good news of name it and claim it. The second is “the God Within” movement. Quasi-religious personalities, like Oprah Winfrey and Elizabeth Gilbert re-brand narcissism as true spirituality. For these converts, faith in God is therapy to help them find happiness within. The third is “the City on the Hill” movement. Its proponents as diverse as James Dobson and Glenn Beck wed religion with politics. Their followers seek to change people’s beliefs and practices by changing their nation’s political policies.
Like all books of this genre, “Bad Religion” is long on critique and short on reform. The author spends 290 plus pages documenting what is wrong and only 15 pages on how to right it. Douthat at times may cut and paste to fit his arguments. Nevertheless he is worth a read. Any conscientious Christian who is concerned about being and doing church will find this account of Christianity’s serious decline in America informative and convicting.
Three Free Sins: God’s Not Mad At You
By Steve Brown
Howard Books, 2012
Review by John L. Ng
March, 2012
Before the title of this little book caught my eye, I have never heard of Steve Brown. Where have I been? Dr. Brown is a well known radio broadcaster, seminary professor, author, inspirational speaker and former pastor. As preface to this review, I have a few gripes I would first like to get out of the way. It is obvious that Dr. Brown tries to be cute and funny. He spices his pages with funny antidotes, clever one-liners, humorous quips, and hilarious lines. He wants to make me laugh out loud in the worst way.
On the one hand, the book is entertaining; on the other, it is annoying that he is trying so hard to do so. While I’m at it, he is also trying too hard to impress me with his many friends. Almost everyone referenced is his good or long-time friend. Many are well known in and outside the church. OK! I’m impressed. But can anyone really have that many good friends? And what’s with the many blank pages, large font and generous line spacing! Someone in the publishing house is trying to pull a fast one by making this slim monograph look fat.
Now that these annoyances are out of the way, I have to admit that the book is engaging. On one warm, sunny day, I finished reading it in two
sittings. Its introduction confesses that “too many books are written by experts sharing their expertise. This is not one of them.” That is probably a false humility because it is not true. Although he reminds me often that he does not know or is not sure of anything, his writing belies such a claim. No one can write so lucidly without a deep sense of knowledge and experience. His succinct phrasing, sprinkled with humor, is disarming. While I am busy giggling, he whacks a 2x4 truth across my numbskull.
Despite his many credentials, Dr. Brown is a pastor at heart. He writes as if he is chatting with me in his living room by a fire place. “Three Free Sins” is not a self help book for Christians. Nor is it an apologetic book for not-yet Christians. Frankly I don’t know what genre to assign it. I do know his intentions are to trade thoughts with moral morons and sinful saints like me. Above his title on the cover page is a tag line: The reason we’re so bad is that we’re trying so hard to be good. This is his synopsis. He explains – after years of trying to show his congregants and radio audiences how to live without sinning, he came to the realization that such a life is not possible.
Being Christian is not the same as being holy. Being human, whether we are Christian or non-Christian, means we are flawed with unflinching sins, unwholesome desires and unhealthy fears. With airy titles, the chapters wrestle with the weighty tenets of the Evangelical faith as they apply to our daily lives. Issues like human depravity, salvation in Jesus, sanctification, repentance, forgiveness, evangelism, prayer, the problem of evil and being a faith community becomes meaningful and practical. He wants us to stop struggling in our dark corner of pretense, rid our guilt and step out into the light of God’s grace. God is not mad at us he reassures us, so enjoy the love of Jesus responsibly in our imperfection.
Howard Books, 2012
Review by John L. Ng
March, 2012
Before the title of this little book caught my eye, I have never heard of Steve Brown. Where have I been? Dr. Brown is a well known radio broadcaster, seminary professor, author, inspirational speaker and former pastor. As preface to this review, I have a few gripes I would first like to get out of the way. It is obvious that Dr. Brown tries to be cute and funny. He spices his pages with funny antidotes, clever one-liners, humorous quips, and hilarious lines. He wants to make me laugh out loud in the worst way.
On the one hand, the book is entertaining; on the other, it is annoying that he is trying so hard to do so. While I’m at it, he is also trying too hard to impress me with his many friends. Almost everyone referenced is his good or long-time friend. Many are well known in and outside the church. OK! I’m impressed. But can anyone really have that many good friends? And what’s with the many blank pages, large font and generous line spacing! Someone in the publishing house is trying to pull a fast one by making this slim monograph look fat.
Now that these annoyances are out of the way, I have to admit that the book is engaging. On one warm, sunny day, I finished reading it in two
sittings. Its introduction confesses that “too many books are written by experts sharing their expertise. This is not one of them.” That is probably a false humility because it is not true. Although he reminds me often that he does not know or is not sure of anything, his writing belies such a claim. No one can write so lucidly without a deep sense of knowledge and experience. His succinct phrasing, sprinkled with humor, is disarming. While I am busy giggling, he whacks a 2x4 truth across my numbskull.
Despite his many credentials, Dr. Brown is a pastor at heart. He writes as if he is chatting with me in his living room by a fire place. “Three Free Sins” is not a self help book for Christians. Nor is it an apologetic book for not-yet Christians. Frankly I don’t know what genre to assign it. I do know his intentions are to trade thoughts with moral morons and sinful saints like me. Above his title on the cover page is a tag line: The reason we’re so bad is that we’re trying so hard to be good. This is his synopsis. He explains – after years of trying to show his congregants and radio audiences how to live without sinning, he came to the realization that such a life is not possible.
Being Christian is not the same as being holy. Being human, whether we are Christian or non-Christian, means we are flawed with unflinching sins, unwholesome desires and unhealthy fears. With airy titles, the chapters wrestle with the weighty tenets of the Evangelical faith as they apply to our daily lives. Issues like human depravity, salvation in Jesus, sanctification, repentance, forgiveness, evangelism, prayer, the problem of evil and being a faith community becomes meaningful and practical. He wants us to stop struggling in our dark corner of pretense, rid our guilt and step out into the light of God’s grace. God is not mad at us he reassures us, so enjoy the love of Jesus responsibly in our imperfection.
Inspiration and Incarnation
By Peter Enns
Baker Academic, 2005
Review by John L. Ng
January, 2012
I taught Basic Preaching in seminary for many years. The course purpose is to provide students a process through which they seek to understand the Biblical text and from it speak an understandable sermonic text. It is easier said than done. Most students, including seasoned pastors, struggle with hermeneutics (the methods of interpretation). Some treat the Bible as a formulaic manual for the Christian life; others treat it as a proof text for their personal bias. Many read it out of context. Few understand it as divine revelation given within its grammatical-historical contexts.
Peter Enns’ “Inspiration and Incarnation” provides a good introduction to hermeneutics. The book focuses on the Bible’s uniqueness, integrity and
interpretation. Each concern presents challenges in how we read, understand and interpret the Biblical texts. First, the Bible is unique but not as a timeless book codified magically in a historical and culture vacuum. Rather it is divine revelation in which God expressed himself through human agents and human circumstances. Any student of the Bible must appreciate its human, as well as, divine nature.
Second, the Bible has an integrated theological framework. However, this does not mean that all sixty-six books share a common purpose and singular concern. Instead, the Bible is also a book of great diversity which, at times, can appear contradictory. Any student of the Bible must understand and accept these diversities not as contradictions, but as God speaking over a span of centuries to people living within the historical, cultural and theological contexts of their times.
Third, we Evangelicals have at least two hermeneutic concerns. First, any engagement of the Bible must be within its grammatical-historical context. The text must be understood in its literary syntax and historical context. Second, following the apostolic practices in the New Testament, we also need to ascertain the text’s understanding in its Christotelic purpose and meaning.
Christotelic is not to be confused with Christocentricity. Christocentricity sees Christ in every word, line and verse of the Bible. For example, a preacher turns to Genesis 31.22 and sees the resurrection of Christ because of its three days reference. Christotelic hermeneutics is not Christ-centered but Christ-purpose. The New Testament authors read the Old Testament (their Bible) in light of the reality of Christ’ life, death and resurrection. They recognize that all Scripture finds its completion in the person of Christ. To be sure, the tension in Christotelic hermeneutics is between the text’s grammatical-historical rubrics and its intended purpose of fulfillment in Christ.
Any earnest student of the Bible would value “Inspiration and Incarnation” as an adequate start as we grapple with the Bible’s purpose and meaning. Hermeneutics is messy and hard work. No student should approach it casually. We enter the words of God with humility, respect and longsuffering, engaging both our cognitive and emotive faculties. Ultimately we must ask: what difference does Christ make in how I understand the Bible and make it understandable to the faithful?
Baker Academic, 2005
Review by John L. Ng
January, 2012
I taught Basic Preaching in seminary for many years. The course purpose is to provide students a process through which they seek to understand the Biblical text and from it speak an understandable sermonic text. It is easier said than done. Most students, including seasoned pastors, struggle with hermeneutics (the methods of interpretation). Some treat the Bible as a formulaic manual for the Christian life; others treat it as a proof text for their personal bias. Many read it out of context. Few understand it as divine revelation given within its grammatical-historical contexts.
Peter Enns’ “Inspiration and Incarnation” provides a good introduction to hermeneutics. The book focuses on the Bible’s uniqueness, integrity and
interpretation. Each concern presents challenges in how we read, understand and interpret the Biblical texts. First, the Bible is unique but not as a timeless book codified magically in a historical and culture vacuum. Rather it is divine revelation in which God expressed himself through human agents and human circumstances. Any student of the Bible must appreciate its human, as well as, divine nature.
Second, the Bible has an integrated theological framework. However, this does not mean that all sixty-six books share a common purpose and singular concern. Instead, the Bible is also a book of great diversity which, at times, can appear contradictory. Any student of the Bible must understand and accept these diversities not as contradictions, but as God speaking over a span of centuries to people living within the historical, cultural and theological contexts of their times.
Third, we Evangelicals have at least two hermeneutic concerns. First, any engagement of the Bible must be within its grammatical-historical context. The text must be understood in its literary syntax and historical context. Second, following the apostolic practices in the New Testament, we also need to ascertain the text’s understanding in its Christotelic purpose and meaning.
Christotelic is not to be confused with Christocentricity. Christocentricity sees Christ in every word, line and verse of the Bible. For example, a preacher turns to Genesis 31.22 and sees the resurrection of Christ because of its three days reference. Christotelic hermeneutics is not Christ-centered but Christ-purpose. The New Testament authors read the Old Testament (their Bible) in light of the reality of Christ’ life, death and resurrection. They recognize that all Scripture finds its completion in the person of Christ. To be sure, the tension in Christotelic hermeneutics is between the text’s grammatical-historical rubrics and its intended purpose of fulfillment in Christ.
Any earnest student of the Bible would value “Inspiration and Incarnation” as an adequate start as we grapple with the Bible’s purpose and meaning. Hermeneutics is messy and hard work. No student should approach it casually. We enter the words of God with humility, respect and longsuffering, engaging both our cognitive and emotive faculties. Ultimately we must ask: what difference does Christ make in how I understand the Bible and make it understandable to the faithful?