Franzoni & Communal Interpretation
February 22, 2005
We’re reading Rosemary Radford Ruether’s “Sexism and God-talk” this semester for Systematic this semester, and I ran across a passage that actually reminded me of something from Doug Pagitt’s “Reimagining Spiritual Formation” book, concerning preaching and the preparation that goes into it, communally. Where does the responsibility of hermeneutics belong? Is it within the senior pastor, the Minister of Word and Sacrament? I think that’s what many of our seminaries today (including Princeton) would still like us to leave thinking. Who helps to determine what scripture will speak to our local communities? The national organization of our denominations? But they don’t know the specifics of all local congregations. What if the job of interpretation is left to the local church congregations? Where will that lead us? Will we end up with too many dissenting opinions? But aren’t those actually living in those local communities the ones who will know their context the best? Like Pagitt, Franzoni met with his congregation together to help determine the direction the Sunday sermon would go - the interpretation and message was determined within the context of community. I like that. All questions I’m wrestling with. Below is the section from Ruether’s book that tells the story of Franzoni and his model of a liberation Church.
“What I have described is a clergy-led revolutionizing of a local church. The difficulty with such a top-down transformation is that the clergy are seldom willing to let go of their own clerical prerogatives at the appropriate moment and really begin to share power for shaping the preaching, teaching and social action with the people. The people remain dependent for liberating theology and programs on the clergy and are not being trained to take responsibility for defining these themselves.
“There are instances where a clergy-led revolution is able to transform itself into a genuine liberation Church. In the Italian Basic Christian Community of St. Paul‚Äôs Outside the Walls in Rome, the revolution began with the vision of the abbot of the Benedictine community of this historic basilica, Dom Giovanni Franzoni. In the early 1960s, during the Second Vatican Council, Franzoni began inviting the laity to reflect with him on the Scriptures every Saturday night. He then preached his Sunday homily from this shared reflection. Gradually those who gathered with him came to number in the hundreds and those who came to hear him on Sunday in the thousands. Franzoni became radicalized by this shared reflection about both the nature of the Gospel and the mission of the Church. A core community of several hundred people began to reshape the liturgy in a more participatory way and also to engage in direct political action on such issues as war and unemployment.
“The Roman hierarchy then moved to strip Franzoni of his office as abbot. The community, together with his abbot, decided to leave the basilica and to move into an independent location. Franzoni and other priests in the community gradually decentralized themselves and became simply members and resource persons for a community organized around shard ministry. The Roman hierarchy then stripped Franzoni of his priest‚Äôs orders. The price of creating liberation community was the loss of all official institutional ties, although the group understands itself theologically and culturally as a renewal movement within Catholic Christianity.” (203-204)
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
February 22nd, 2005 at 9:21 pm
adam, that’s excellent — and it truly is a connection between doug and a catholic feminist theologian! In the words of Bono, “She [God]moves in mysterious ways.”
For more along these lines, I refer you to postmodern philsopher/literary critic Stanley Fish and his book, “Is There a Text in this Class?” in which he argues for communities of authoritative interpretation.
February 23rd, 2005 at 9:57 am
After reading Doug’s book, I was encouraged to hear about the communal hermenutic that SP engages in. I’m all for getting away from the “Bible Answer Person” minister and having the entire community comment on their own findings which happen to be shaped by their own pilgramage.
February 23rd, 2005 at 10:20 am
the caution that i’d add to this, though, is that each community needs, and i’d say MUST, be open to other communities and their movements. volf argues this much better in his In Our Image, but essentially, for a church to be a church, it can’t be on pilgrimage with Christ by itself, but must necessarily be in communion with the other churches. this is the counter-balance to self-contained meanings which may or may not be valid or have any relation to Scripture or Tradition or the Spirit.
February 23rd, 2005 at 10:45 am
I agree with Myles. I think communal interpretation and exploration of the text is essential and an important aspect of being able to share good news through a sermon - if you don’t know your context, it is harder to speak to people. Yet, I think you have to push further. There is a context beyond any one congregation that too often we lose sight of. For our preaching class, we are required to at least some dislocated exegesis, where we have to go somewhere out of our comfort zone and encounter the text. It has had powerful results and insights already.
February 23rd, 2005 at 2:06 pm
There is a great biblical example of communal authoritative interpretation. It is found in Revelation 3:14-22. Look up the meaning of the Greek word Laodicea.
What is the difference between bad exegesis by an individual or bad exegesis by a body of believers. The answer is; there isnt any difference at all. We already have what what you all desire in the church today; men who preach whatever the people want to hear. 2Tim 4:3-4
Is something better simply because the group does it in contrast to individual effort? No one ever thinks things through.Romans 12:2
February 23rd, 2005 at 2:15 pm
“No one ever thinks things through.”
Well, we all can’t be as smart as you, Chris.
February 23rd, 2005 at 5:10 pm
You are right; you are not as smart as I am. I have found it to be a general rule among the ec folks to never really respond to the comment.In lieu of trying to insult me, why don’t you address the topic, as I did?
February 23rd, 2005 at 8:00 pm
chris, i agree that bad interpretation can happen as easily with a community as without, but knowing your community is valuable not because you preach what they want to hear (which I agree happens frequently) but also because you will be able to know what they need to hear that will challenge them. You’ll know them well enough to be able to see where they are blind to the Gospel and where their lives don’t miss out. There is an advantage in knowning your community and context AND in letting everyone practice interpreting and feel like their voice is heard and counted.
February 23rd, 2005 at 8:32 pm
Sarah
I believe that a lot can be avoided if we recognize that the “five-fold” gifts are still active and that we are not all called to be prophetic, or teachers or ?? To me, community exegesis will never really work,as the Body of Christ is not, and never was,a democracy. If Scripture isn’t the foundation, then the work is invalid.
February 23rd, 2005 at 11:49 pm
adam, reading your posts make me long for the “good old days” of seminary and my fellow students…long conversations that allowed deep thinking, challenging staid beliefs and traditions that deparately needed challenging, listening to and learning from each other…thanks;)
February 24th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Chris, there is always risk involved as far as interpretation is concerned. Why does a leader working with and in community for exegesis negate the 5 fold ministry? I don’t think it does. I didn’t understand your pointing out the reference to Revelation and don’t think it fits the topic.
February 24th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
The reference to Laodicea is this. The name in Greek means the place where the people speak. It is the church of the people’s opinions. They are also arrogant in that. Arrogance is a hallmark of all liberalism in theology, politics or whatever. They know better than the poor masses. God could care less about what we think. Isaiah 55:6-11 HE is sovreign GOD all knowing and foreknowing, having predetermined and predestined a perfect plan for His glory alone. WE shouild always be on our faces thanking Him for grace, because we deserve nothing. Acts 4:23-31; Isaiah 46:8-11;Ephesians chapters 1-2 and 3 etc.
One man’s opinions or the whole groups’, there is no difference as it is more than possible that we aren’t understanding it all. So how do we understand His ways and thoughts? Only throught the Scripture. Exalting any and all ideas as valid is neither scriptural nor Godly. When a group is in control what they create is generally worse than any one man’s mistake. Let all do their job in what they are called and stay out of each other’s way. Communal exegesis has no scriptural backing so why should I care that you think it’s a good idea? It’s not God’s good idea. Post modernism has no standard of truth or morality to measure anything by so it is to be avoided. Act’s 17:11 clearly shows all things are to be measured in the light of the revelation of the Holy Spirit first and then backed by the Word which will always prove or disprove Godly authenticity. This is why the liberal pomergent churches try to destroy and slander the Scriptures. If they are the Word of God written by the Lord through men, and inerrant and infallible, their little marxist kingdom crumbles. Post modernism worships at tyhe altar of mankind as much if not more tha modernism. It’s just covered in the flowery poison of “the good of the many”.
Dialogue is not the goal.
February 24th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
“They are also arrogant in that. Arrogance is a hallmark of all liberalism in theology, politics or whatever.
…God could care less about what we think…
…why should I care that you think it’s a good idea?…”
February 24th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
All of the above are true. Stick to the word and quit offering the world the God you’ve created in your own image, which is what you justifiably accuse modern evangelicalism of doing. The truth is both sides are exactly the same and the true Gospel is not present in either. The facty of the matter is none of us has any concept of God without the revelation of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures that HE authored. The rhythm of GOD is the Spirit and the Word. If what you are saying has no validity in light of the Scriptures, why should I listen? It is a waste of my time which is really His time. 1 Cor 6:12 Quit humming and read the Scripture cites. They are His words not mine. At least I go to Him for permission before I speak.
February 26th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
(I know you have moved on in the blog world, but I liked this post)
Gutierrez and, who we are reading for Systematic as well, also value the wisdom of the everyday Christian experience of the downtrodden. Quoting Matt. 11:25, a prayer of Jesus, Gutierrez points out that the “small and ignorant people” are contrasted with the “learned and the clever” and the so called children are the ones who God has been revealed to. Is it that interesting. We are all trying so hard to be so educated and clever, but God reveals God’s self to ordinary and particularly poor people.
This is especially driving me crazy as I am trying to set up a field education internship and apparently I have to work with a M.Div educated pastor so that we can properly theologically reflect. It is a sad sad misconception that it takes an M.Div to theologize well. So, here I am representing the radical reformation and true “priesthood of all the saints,” I grew up thinking that Communion was about Community, silly me (as Andrea would say).
Well, Adam I’d like to hear you try to answer some of your questions posed at the beginning of this blog.
February 26th, 2005 at 5:11 pm
Adam-
Adam, I think that you have woefully misunderstood what this seminary is trying to teach about hermeneutics. The Reformed Tradition that this seminary operates under is very different from your description. That is not say that PTS always gets it right.
The Presbyterian system works off the idea that its people exist in community. We are a people of the covenant. What that means is that those larger bodies (national organizations as you call them) exist so that we can come to experience the working of the Spirit in and through one another. They do not deliver proclamations from on high. They are a conglomeration of voices and in the end their decisions must be accepted by the smaller communities. We only determine God’s will within the framework of community. The church needs the widest possible set of voices so that it can determine where God is leading. I think Princeton actually teaches this more communal idea. While one person may be speaking from the pulpit the Spirit works within individuals in the community. Anyone who has ever delivered a sermon knows that what they intend or perceive is rarely what is perceived by those who hear. That is the working of the Spirit in the community. Who is one person to decide so great a thing as what God is doing or desires to do? How can we discern God’s will without the voice of many from a variety of contexts and places?
Don’t get me wrong, I love a great deal of your post, but I just think that you have misunderstood the seminary and the denomination it is affiliated with. PCUSA is no bowl of cherries, but it is worth an in depth look.
February 27th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
Matt. I may have painted with a bit of a broad stroke, and I don’t know the preaching professors real well here, but it is still the feeling I get. Even sitting in the sexual ethics seminar last week, and hearing Harry tell us all that we, as pastors, were going to be endowed with “power” and “if you use that power correctly, God will bless you.” To tell hundreds of potential pastors that they “have power” is certainly not helping them come to the realization that they are not “special” or “above” their congregations, I think it only helps contribute to feelings of pastoral superiority. I doubt many of our fellow classmates would say “I’m the pastor, and what I say goes…” but I wonder when it really comes down to it, a few years out of seminary, when we’re all in churches, how it will really work out. You know?
I’m still learning about the PCUSA (as I would call myself a reluctant Presbyterian), but I think I disagree. That is EXACTLY what General Assembly does; they decide what the church is going to believe, and so even if small local congregations want to believe something differently because of their locale, their experience, etc., that is not going to fly (homosexuality would be just one example of this working out on a local/national level).
This may just come out of other issues I have with PTS and how “old school” it is on a whole and the question that every graduate probably asks PTS (and this goes for most seminaries today): “Why did you prepare me for a church that does not exist?”
February 28th, 2005 at 9:46 am
Adam-
Thanks for the response. I really appreciate it. I hope that my initial post did not come across as heavy handed or arrogant. That is not my heart. I too am sorting through the same types of issues, and I have always called myself a “reluctant Presbyterian.” Let me just say a couple of things.
First, I have heard the “power” issue brought up as well. I think that Freebairn said the same thing last year at the seminar. Dykstra also mentioned in a class some things that were in a similar train of thought. I am cautious, just as you are, with such ideas. They tend to appeal to the darker sides of our humanity. Yet, it would be equally foolish for us not to realize that our education and experience does in some sense give us power (The PCUSA has a variety of ways that it tries to limit that power). It might be better if we referred to it as a “responsibility.” My point is that we need both ideas exisiting in equal opposition. Can you imagine if a heart surgeon denied that she had “power.” We would laugh. And then I think we might also recoil in horror. We would be afraid to trust one so flippant with their duty over life and death matters. My point is not that we are “heart surgeons.” I do not wish to elevate ministry to something that it is not or evaluate on the terms of worldly success. My point is that we negotiate and hold in tension our knowledge of power and the need to be good stewards of it in everything we do. When we get in a car, we truly have power to go and also the power to harm. We must hold those in tension so that we do not become intoxicated with the power. As ministers we must be willing to get out of the way when others bring informed convictions, ideas, etc. to the table.
Second, I still think that you are misunderstanding the PCUSA and what it tries to do (emphasis on tries). The General Assembly does not have final say. In fact, the issue that you use as an example actually serves my point better than it does yours. If the General Assembly was the final arbiter, then this decision would have been made a while back. I never realized how decisions were actually made until I was able to participate in the General Assembly. I also want to say, that I think that your argument also fails to understand that the G.A. is not an amorphous and non-local body of hierarchy. In fact, it is a representative assembly of local and regional voices. Not everyone is even ordained or formally educated beyond their profession or trade.
Let’s talk about some of this in person. I would love to hear more about how you are sorting through these issues and share the process that I have gone through. One “reluctant Presby” to another.
February 28th, 2005 at 10:15 am
Having been somewhat active at General Assembly and in the presbytery, I confess that I am an enthusiastic (not reluctant) Presbyterian. Even so, I often agree with Adam in his critique of the larger church. But this time, I think Matt is right to question Adam’s characterization of the General Assembly within a Reformed polity…
The General Assembly is best termed not the “highest” governing body of the Presbyterian system, but the “most inclusive.” It is the strongest link between our congregations, uniting them in all their diversity around our common faith in Jesus Christ. The General Assembly sometimes attempts to speak FOR the church, and sometimes TO the church, but always with a fair amount of acknowledgement that it represents people with a variety of views. (That’s why proclamations on social witness always begin “The 216th General Assembly (2004) says…”–it is THIS group of people speaking at THIS particular time and place, hopefully and prayerfully under the guidance of the Holy Spirit but aware that, as the Book of Order says, “human councils may err.”)
I think a worthwhile distinction is to be made between action and belief. Adam says “they [the General Assembly] decide what the church is going to believe, and so even if small local congregations want to believe something differently because of their locale, their experience, etc., that is not going to fly.” That isn’t true. Local congregations (or more correctly, the members of local congregations) can believe differently all they want. This is the correct usage of the phrase “God alone is Lord of the conscience…” from the Westminster Confession of Faith. What they cannot do is disregard the discipline and order of the church with regard to their actions. It’s an important distinction: A congregation that disagrees with the General Assembly on an issue like homosexuality is not prohibited from exercising its conscience and doing everything in its power to see the General Assembly’s position changed–even preaching against it from the pulpit, and drumming up members to lobby against it. But it also must submit in its actions.
And on social witness policy issues, like abortion or gun control, issues on which the General Assembly frequently speaks but which have little impact on a church’s daily activities, a congregation is always free to disagree and say boldly and publicly that the General Assembly was wrong. And many do. The General Assembly’s role is one of discernment and influence, not enforcement.
On the subject of “power”: Power is part of life, and believe me–pastors have it. They may not seek it, or admit it, but they have it. Harry is exactly right–if you wield it wisely, graciously, humbly, acknowledging its Source–then God will work through the pastor to bring blessing to the people. And if a pastor abuses power–which is to say, pridefully arrogates power to him/herself, forgetting its Source–then there is hardly any greater failure in ministry, or greater danger for a community of faith.
Just a few thoughts.