These tags allow for discussion of hemeneutical approaches and exegesis without endorsing them as a community.

Sensus plenior is not normative to the mainline hermeneutics but it generally is of mainline doctrine.

There are some hermeneutics that produce heresy which we may wish to discuss without appearing like we are endorsing it. Though this can be done within the article by someone not embracing the topic themselves, having the tag is an easy way to indicate POV without having to wrestle over words within the topic.

Would these tags be helpful?

  • I won't answer because I'm not active here, but this sounds like a meta tag to me. These are generally discouraged by SE.
    – wax eagle
    Oct 23 '11 at 2:52
  • The site says that the POV is "mainline Protestant". If Walter Kaiser popped in, he would say that sensus plenior would "put your salvation at risk". Bock would think it nonsense saying "there is nothing there". Blomberg would think the topic was out of line because "if it were there, how would it get there?" Though SP is not normative hermeneutics, it produces normative theology. Tags allow for discussion without endorsing. Possibly removing a barrier to attracting professionals. Quotes from personal correspondence.
    – Bob Jones
    Oct 23 '11 at 16:03
  • Without the tags the article would start. This (JW, Mormon, Jewish, Sensus plenior, Gnostic, Secular, etc.) hermeneutic is not mainline Protestant). As a courtesy I usually start with something like "In sensus Plenior" just to flag that it will be uncommon in the experience of the reader.
    – Bob Jones
    Oct 23 '11 at 16:06
  • Some alternative are to have a monolithic definition of the mainline protestant hermeneutic and declare other discussion out of scope for the forum, or to drop the mainline protestant designation. Or just pretend that the identity doesn't matter. I bring it up related to the topic of attracting professionals. As an open forum without that goal, it probably doesn't matter.
    – Bob Jones
    Oct 23 '11 at 16:17
  • Well, my navigation isn't so good yet, so I couldn't find what led me to believe that. Heck I may have even wandered somewhere else. I apologize for the non-issue. My experience elsewhere perhaps makes me too sensitive about it. I will accept these comments as a full welcome. Thank you. Forget the tags.
    – Bob Jones
    Oct 23 '11 at 21:20
  • 3
    @Bob as you are still finding your way around, I also want to explain that unlike on the 'main' site, where upvote/downvote is an opinion on how good the question is, here on 'meta', a vote is often just an expression of agreement or disagreement :) Oct 24 '11 at 11:29

This site doesn't actually endorse ANY hermeneutic or doctrine, so I think this is a non issue. StackExchange is a for-profit secular company and hosting a QnA forum on the topic of Hermeneutics doesn't actually place them in a position of endorsing any of the views expressed by the community.

Additionally, asking a question about a view doesn't mean the OP supports that view, only that they want to come to a better understanding of it. I often ask questions about things I don't believe. In genuine interest about learning the answer, I ask my Muslim neighbors about their faith. That doesn't make me a Muslim. Likewise on this site asking about or answering about hermeneutics that I don't support is more than fair.

In fact I think adding the tags you suggest would have the opposite effect of what you are trying to accomplish. I understand the concern that you want to be able to discuss things without appearing to support them. That I agree with. However if you add tags to some specific views that say some POVs are "unsupported", you are basically saying the site in some way endorses everything else.

This is similar to the issue we have on Christianity.SE where there can be no determination of right or wrong doctrine, only questions about doctrines that exist and happen to be labeled Christian by somebody.

  • Gottcha. Cool. I won't worry about it then. Let's just delete it.
    – Bob Jones
    Oct 23 '11 at 21:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .