Another blogger got me thinking about how we understand the world. I didn't realize when I responded to her that my response was based on different emphasises of the Quadralateral.
Do you understand your faith by doctrine? Do you "take by faith", the doctrines in the creeds, without tearing apart the doctrinal truths to see if they correlate to sicentific inquiry? Or do you understand your faith as a lifestyl with others is lived out within the community of faith? The convictions that bind you together are those that define "your world" and sometimes it clouds your "sight" to see or understand differences in approach to faith, after all, these have given their life to these "commitments" and "values". Or do you think that faith is more about understanding and knowing God?
Doctrine is based on a tradtionalist's view, while lifestyle is an experiential view. Reason upholds a theological view, and Scripture is multivaried, depending on which view is primarily driving "faith".
But, though these views all define different people of faith, there are others that define their faith apart from belief systems, and institutions. These people would be understood as agnostic or atheistic in their belief.
The agnostic holds that though we seek God, we cannot know him, because God is beyond our capacity to understand and grasp. One must live within the contexts that define one's life and understand that all men have sought to understand and explain God, throughout the Ages. These are the scientifically minded, as they re-define God, or explain things in "new ways". The Academy defines the faith of the agnostic, as the Academy helps to keep reason humble, because of the vastness and diversity of human knowledge.
The atheists doesn't seek to understand or define God, as God is irrelvant, in their book, in helping to solve the world's problems. These like to be pragmatic in their approach to life and its problems in this world. They do not like the "sweet by and by", or "pie in the sky" promises or imaginings. But, these can be arrogant in their approach to life when it comes to their own reason, and to people of faith. And this is when problems occur in structuring government or laws that allow diversity of views that don't discriminate as to difference.
The agnostic is really atheistic in practicality because the basis of understanding the world is not faith, but the disciplines. Those that seek to understand "faith concerns" will study the philosophy of religion, or history of traditions, or religious studies, etc. And these will find in their "camp" people of faith and people without faith ( in the traditional sense).
So, how do you understand the world?
Showing posts with label Scripture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scripture. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Friday, November 6, 2009
Value as a Means of Expressing the Incarnation
In thinking about how Barbu understood the integrative and disintegrative values in a democracy and how they have to be maintained "in tension", I think that the Quadralateral is a good way to analyze these values and how they are incarnated in one's life.
Scripture is a means for moral and religious value but I would think that Scripture being a defining element of the political realm would be limiting freedom of conscience, or aesthetic value. Ethics in this regard would be an undermining value to religious or moral tradition's understanding of value.
Tradition also upholds moral values, as it has been defined by the Church (or other religious authority), but Tradition also maintains religious value in social norms. Again, without reason, tradition runs rough-shod over cultural adaptation and change in regards to ethics.
Experience underlines how the individual formulates "his world" within a religious (or anti-religious), and political realm. Experience cannot be formed "outside of itself" without limiting individuality. Man's reason is useful to analyze, categorize and determine his course. So, experience does not uphold tradition or religion, as the "form" must be individually understood and embraced. But, experience does uphold aesthetic value, leaving room for individual's to "find their place" in this world. This is the ethic of human rights and personal identity.
Reason is used to understand, evaluate, and formulate, which is the scientific value of modernity. Although fragmentation has occurred within modern society because of science and rationality, isn't freedom about that very fragmentation? And isn't freedom what life is about?
Life without justice (rights) is a life that is defined by "outside sources" of religion and tradition. And this is not what modern democracies uphold or value.
And this is why our democratic Representative Republic is of ultimate value to me!
Reason upholds
Scripture is a means for moral and religious value but I would think that Scripture being a defining element of the political realm would be limiting freedom of conscience, or aesthetic value. Ethics in this regard would be an undermining value to religious or moral tradition's understanding of value.
Tradition also upholds moral values, as it has been defined by the Church (or other religious authority), but Tradition also maintains religious value in social norms. Again, without reason, tradition runs rough-shod over cultural adaptation and change in regards to ethics.
Experience underlines how the individual formulates "his world" within a religious (or anti-religious), and political realm. Experience cannot be formed "outside of itself" without limiting individuality. Man's reason is useful to analyze, categorize and determine his course. So, experience does not uphold tradition or religion, as the "form" must be individually understood and embraced. But, experience does uphold aesthetic value, leaving room for individual's to "find their place" in this world. This is the ethic of human rights and personal identity.
Reason is used to understand, evaluate, and formulate, which is the scientific value of modernity. Although fragmentation has occurred within modern society because of science and rationality, isn't freedom about that very fragmentation? And isn't freedom what life is about?
Life without justice (rights) is a life that is defined by "outside sources" of religion and tradition. And this is not what modern democracies uphold or value.
And this is why our democratic Representative Republic is of ultimate value to me!
Reason upholds
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Why Is Scripture Not A Universal?
Scripture is a human book written within a certain context that evangelicals or conservatives claim is universal. Universiality is a claim to ominiscicnce. And since no human can have omniscience, as we are bound within many contexts of cultures, we are misguided to think that Scripture is the "ideal". This is where tradition enters.
Tradition is the attempt at "producing" or refining the text. The text has been debated as to his historicity or its mythology. Whether the writers of the text were writing in universal "myths" of their day (Greek) or whether they were using the contexts of their culture's myths (Hebrew), they were attempting to attain to the heavenly. Man has alwasys attempted to describe reality through many ways, philosophy, theology, psychology, mythology, literature, art, etc., as man is a creative being. So, tradition was man's attempt at creative interpretation of the transcendent.
Tradition was accepted in cutural norms, values, and mores that held society's "truths" and maintained society's "peace". As the individual, historical science, and the natural sciences gained influence in society through human reason, tradition and tradition's "culture" was challenged. Reality was no longer understood in tribal and communal ways, but individualized ways. The individual became capable of being educated beyond the "confines of culture" and became a "free moral agent". The birth of self-consciousness was "born" within the West and moral choice became of importance and value. Children could grow away from family values and tradition, because they became "self-actualized".
While "self" or the individual became important in the West, and industrialization undermined the "family farm", virtue was defined in different ways than "traditional understandings". Virtue became those who were able to attain through independence, choice and determine their own course in life. Determination was not from the outside, but the inside.
A clash of civilizations was born in the West and the East. The West understood values to be based on the "rule of law", and the social contract, whereas, the East are still influenced by their traditions. Self development is not an option in these cultures, as "self" does not exist apart from tradition. Reason is the enemy in traditional cultures, as it challenges the understandings and values of traditon's absolutes. Critical thinking is not a value to the conservative or evangelical because of their value of text or tradition. Reason is feared to undermine "god". God cannot be undermined from reason's inquiry, as reason is a god-given gift.
People who have not developed their reason, through fear of leaving tradition, are not developed to own their own person and choice and determine their own values. People who are passively accepting of tradition's values are prone to be useful for others to "use". These people are the modern day "dogs", so it is important for conservative and evangelicals to understand their faith in more reasoned and reasonable ways. Otherwise, we will have no impact on society at large. We will continue to be a small sectarian community that fears the world and waits for "god" to correct things. Those who do this are not leaders and they are doomed to wait for heaven to bring about justice.
Tradition is the attempt at "producing" or refining the text. The text has been debated as to his historicity or its mythology. Whether the writers of the text were writing in universal "myths" of their day (Greek) or whether they were using the contexts of their culture's myths (Hebrew), they were attempting to attain to the heavenly. Man has alwasys attempted to describe reality through many ways, philosophy, theology, psychology, mythology, literature, art, etc., as man is a creative being. So, tradition was man's attempt at creative interpretation of the transcendent.
Tradition was accepted in cutural norms, values, and mores that held society's "truths" and maintained society's "peace". As the individual, historical science, and the natural sciences gained influence in society through human reason, tradition and tradition's "culture" was challenged. Reality was no longer understood in tribal and communal ways, but individualized ways. The individual became capable of being educated beyond the "confines of culture" and became a "free moral agent". The birth of self-consciousness was "born" within the West and moral choice became of importance and value. Children could grow away from family values and tradition, because they became "self-actualized".
While "self" or the individual became important in the West, and industrialization undermined the "family farm", virtue was defined in different ways than "traditional understandings". Virtue became those who were able to attain through independence, choice and determine their own course in life. Determination was not from the outside, but the inside.
A clash of civilizations was born in the West and the East. The West understood values to be based on the "rule of law", and the social contract, whereas, the East are still influenced by their traditions. Self development is not an option in these cultures, as "self" does not exist apart from tradition. Reason is the enemy in traditional cultures, as it challenges the understandings and values of traditon's absolutes. Critical thinking is not a value to the conservative or evangelical because of their value of text or tradition. Reason is feared to undermine "god". God cannot be undermined from reason's inquiry, as reason is a god-given gift.
People who have not developed their reason, through fear of leaving tradition, are not developed to own their own person and choice and determine their own values. People who are passively accepting of tradition's values are prone to be useful for others to "use". These people are the modern day "dogs", so it is important for conservative and evangelicals to understand their faith in more reasoned and reasonable ways. Otherwise, we will have no impact on society at large. We will continue to be a small sectarian community that fears the world and waits for "god" to correct things. Those who do this are not leaders and they are doomed to wait for heaven to bring about justice.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
A Human Book That Can Be Dangerous
Last post I was personal. And in sharing my journey I do not want to give the impression that "I have no hope" or that I am distraught. No, in fact, what I have come to understand has enlarged me as a person. I am grateful for it, but it has been challenging and at times, painful.
When I call scripture a human book, I mean that humans wrote the book with certain understandings, and assumptions. Some of these are personal assumptions, just as the "image" of Father was an important one for me, because of my past. Each gospel writer have different emphasis' and different rememberances. This is not unusual, as when two people are asked about a certain situation, there are ususually areas of disagreement.
Why do I say that a human book, much less the Bible is a danger? Whenever there is something that is considered "special" or"holy" then humans tend to treat it differently. This should not be, as scripture was written by human beings, and though, inspired, were not inspired any more than what any other human being can be inspired. These writers did not become some "superman" before they wrote the scriptures. They were ordinary people who had had an extraordinary experience that had impacted their lives. Because of the impact, these writers were "inspired", but it was not a supernatural kind of inspiration. Without knowing really what the writer's intent was, nor can one understand how they "hoped in god", but we do know that these were "worldviews" as well as personal views of the writers. Therefore the text should not be accepted at face value because our world is different.
I find that faith is more enlarging and mores inclusive of others when there is an understanding of the text's limitation and not believeing that the text is somehow superior to the human being. The text cannot talk, interpret, or reason. So, understanding the text is "work". Ancient paradigms, language expressions, bring much confusion as how to apply the text Our modern West does not seek to apply it, but dismiss it altogether, while the conservative evangelical tries to obey it, with limited understanding of how wrongly their application might be. This is dangerous to the individual interpreter but also, others, as judgements will be based on this limited viewpoint.
When I call scripture a human book, I mean that humans wrote the book with certain understandings, and assumptions. Some of these are personal assumptions, just as the "image" of Father was an important one for me, because of my past. Each gospel writer have different emphasis' and different rememberances. This is not unusual, as when two people are asked about a certain situation, there are ususually areas of disagreement.
Why do I say that a human book, much less the Bible is a danger? Whenever there is something that is considered "special" or"holy" then humans tend to treat it differently. This should not be, as scripture was written by human beings, and though, inspired, were not inspired any more than what any other human being can be inspired. These writers did not become some "superman" before they wrote the scriptures. They were ordinary people who had had an extraordinary experience that had impacted their lives. Because of the impact, these writers were "inspired", but it was not a supernatural kind of inspiration. Without knowing really what the writer's intent was, nor can one understand how they "hoped in god", but we do know that these were "worldviews" as well as personal views of the writers. Therefore the text should not be accepted at face value because our world is different.
I find that faith is more enlarging and mores inclusive of others when there is an understanding of the text's limitation and not believeing that the text is somehow superior to the human being. The text cannot talk, interpret, or reason. So, understanding the text is "work". Ancient paradigms, language expressions, bring much confusion as how to apply the text Our modern West does not seek to apply it, but dismiss it altogether, while the conservative evangelical tries to obey it, with limited understanding of how wrongly their application might be. This is dangerous to the individual interpreter but also, others, as judgements will be based on this limited viewpoint.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Scripture's Impact on the Individual and Personal Identity in American Society
Scripture has been useful to impact the individual's "self-concept" as a special creation of God. A life filled with purpose and a future hope of rewards fill the heart of every evangelical believer. But, these understandings are a limited view of what it means to be "human".
These believers for the most part have "experienced" God's grace and seen it's manifestation within "community", where the experience is re-enforced with "belonging". Believers who believe that God inhabits these communities range the gambit from fundamentalists who believe in the literal understanding of Scripture, to the charismatic, who "finds" meaning not just within
Scripture, but also in ongoing "revelations" of the "Spirit". There are many colors in between these distinctives, which are "translated" into community through the understandings of Scripture.
Paul Tillich understood the continual "division" of the "Protestant Principle". But, the divisions have not always been along the lines of Scripture but also understandings of "god", and culture. The Jewish religion broke down in understanding of sectarians (Essenes), resurrection of the dead (Pharisees) or no resurrection (Sadduccees). Religion defines itself in numerous ways.
Individuals within traditions come to understand themselves as identified with these interpretive understandings. Meaning and significance come along with a sense of belonging and value.
But, these "messages" of significance, meaning and belonging are not just understood within religious traditions, but also other social structures, such as family, vocation and ethnicity. Individuals do not have the fullest understanding of the "human" without these social contexts. As apart from social contexts, the individual ceases to "belong" and in a sense, ceases "to be". We are known and we know, as we experience communal ways of understanding, as well as embracing the "otherness of the other".
American identity, in this sense, is a unique one, as it allows individuality in understanding and places significance of the individual's importance to society as a whole. Apart from the individual's unique understandings, giftings, and inclusion, society suffers from a lack of innovation, or creativity, which hinders the colorfulness of the "whole of society" and limits what it means to be "human".
These believers for the most part have "experienced" God's grace and seen it's manifestation within "community", where the experience is re-enforced with "belonging". Believers who believe that God inhabits these communities range the gambit from fundamentalists who believe in the literal understanding of Scripture, to the charismatic, who "finds" meaning not just within
Scripture, but also in ongoing "revelations" of the "Spirit". There are many colors in between these distinctives, which are "translated" into community through the understandings of Scripture.
Paul Tillich understood the continual "division" of the "Protestant Principle". But, the divisions have not always been along the lines of Scripture but also understandings of "god", and culture. The Jewish religion broke down in understanding of sectarians (Essenes), resurrection of the dead (Pharisees) or no resurrection (Sadduccees). Religion defines itself in numerous ways.
Individuals within traditions come to understand themselves as identified with these interpretive understandings. Meaning and significance come along with a sense of belonging and value.
But, these "messages" of significance, meaning and belonging are not just understood within religious traditions, but also other social structures, such as family, vocation and ethnicity. Individuals do not have the fullest understanding of the "human" without these social contexts. As apart from social contexts, the individual ceases to "belong" and in a sense, ceases "to be". We are known and we know, as we experience communal ways of understanding, as well as embracing the "otherness of the other".
American identity, in this sense, is a unique one, as it allows individuality in understanding and places significance of the individual's importance to society as a whole. Apart from the individual's unique understandings, giftings, and inclusion, society suffers from a lack of innovation, or creativity, which hinders the colorfulness of the "whole of society" and limits what it means to be "human".
Thursday, February 5, 2009
The Ethical Questions Posed....
I went to hear two of our professors talk about genetic engineering yesterday, in regards to changing behavior. The two professors represented religion, and biology. And the discussion crossed those disciplinary lines concerning sin, salvation and sanctification.
The discussion is not new to me, as my husband is a Bio-physist and we had been exposed to these discussions over 25 years ago at the University of Rochester during his post-doctoral experience.
The premise was that if behavior is determined to be genetic, such as alcoholism and certain mental disorders have been, then, the solution for "sin", salvation and sanctification would be to genetically correct the problem.
I have nothing against changing genes, per se. But, this opens up a "can of worms" for me concerning ethics. When is the genetic predisposition determined? at birth or when the behavior manifests itself? Or when families have this propensity? Who keeps the records, the State?
What is sin? How is it defined and by what authority? Will there be religious freedom if one believes in another type of authority, than societal? Is genetic "salvation" mandated by the State? the Chruch?
What is sanctification, then? Is it only behaving in a certain way, when the predisposition is there but the societal norm is prohibitive?
Is the determination of human genetic predisposition to be based upon any finding in the physical world, as it was argued that homosexual behavior among certain insects showed this tendency? If so, how does one keep from reducing man to the physical alone, i.e. reductionism?
I recognize that the Scriptures are written in an ancient context and it must be "transformed" in some way to have relavancy at large, but how do we protect religious freedom? Or should we look to ethics as a means to answer the questions concerning man in the face of scientific discovery, so that man is not reduced to his lowest denominator. And should we also limit the political realm of deeming a scientific "solution" mandated, thus, protecting religious conscience?
These are interesting questions that must be discussed by all of the disciplines, so that all voices that represent man, are heard and heard loudly, before any political determinants can be made...Science has always given "grief" to the Church, but it has also blessed man. We must understand how to use science, politics, and religion as a means of blessing. These areas are of most importance in today's climate of globalization.
The discussion is not new to me, as my husband is a Bio-physist and we had been exposed to these discussions over 25 years ago at the University of Rochester during his post-doctoral experience.
The premise was that if behavior is determined to be genetic, such as alcoholism and certain mental disorders have been, then, the solution for "sin", salvation and sanctification would be to genetically correct the problem.
I have nothing against changing genes, per se. But, this opens up a "can of worms" for me concerning ethics. When is the genetic predisposition determined? at birth or when the behavior manifests itself? Or when families have this propensity? Who keeps the records, the State?
What is sin? How is it defined and by what authority? Will there be religious freedom if one believes in another type of authority, than societal? Is genetic "salvation" mandated by the State? the Chruch?
What is sanctification, then? Is it only behaving in a certain way, when the predisposition is there but the societal norm is prohibitive?
Is the determination of human genetic predisposition to be based upon any finding in the physical world, as it was argued that homosexual behavior among certain insects showed this tendency? If so, how does one keep from reducing man to the physical alone, i.e. reductionism?
I recognize that the Scriptures are written in an ancient context and it must be "transformed" in some way to have relavancy at large, but how do we protect religious freedom? Or should we look to ethics as a means to answer the questions concerning man in the face of scientific discovery, so that man is not reduced to his lowest denominator. And should we also limit the political realm of deeming a scientific "solution" mandated, thus, protecting religious conscience?
These are interesting questions that must be discussed by all of the disciplines, so that all voices that represent man, are heard and heard loudly, before any political determinants can be made...Science has always given "grief" to the Church, but it has also blessed man. We must understand how to use science, politics, and religion as a means of blessing. These areas are of most importance in today's climate of globalization.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Faith in Text, Tradition, or Life?
Dysfunctional systems are rampant within the Old Testament Scripture. Names such as Esau and Jacob, Saul, David and Jonathan, and Samson and Delilah all conjure up images that send messages about "meaning".
While most Christians understand these stories as Christian emphasis of historical revealation of God, aren't these stories also a challenge to our "modern sensiblities"?
When Jacob stole Esau's birth-right, the Christian believes this to sanction Jacob's desire to attain the "blessing of God" at "all costs", even lying to his father, with the help of his mother? Or Saul sacrificing was "out of order", which meant that he lost the Kingdom. Saul's jealousy over David, as God's choice highlights what extent jealousy will go. While some of these truths are human truths for today, some of the "spiritualized meanings" condone spiriutalized rationale for doing things that would be against modern understandings of 'justice". Most of us in the modern world would not condone this behavior. We understand such terms as fairness, which would not affirm the O.T.'s value of "attaining God's favor" through lying or pursuing God's favor through a "priesthood"'s sacrifice. Our understanding is based on the development of our laws, which protect us from lying, stealing and subterfuge.
Just recently my grandfather met with my cousin, who is the executor of his estate. In going over all of his assests, my cousin insisted that my grandfather write up the specifics to his will. This protects his interests from others doing what Jacob did, as it is not a matter of attaining God's favor, so much as doing what is just. Justice is defined by our understanding by our laws, which is equality under law. It has nothing to do with "God's favor".
Last night, a lady shared her experience with a local business that did business according to local custom. She and husband were buying a house and put up ernest money. When a three week period went by without any response from the other party, she and her husband went to investigate, only to find out that the couple had changed their minds. To this day, the lady and her husband have not gotten their ernest money back. Local custom trumped the law. Of course, I am sure that if they had pursued the case, there would have been some recourse, but would they have higher legal fees than the ernest money they paid, in the first place?
Traditions hold sway over people's minds when it comes to undestandings of justice, fairness, right and wrong. While tradition maintains a culture's values, tradition can also be misinformed and short-sighted as to a broader context and world. Tradition works at a lower level of moral development than our Constitution or legal system.
"Biblical Christians" don't even recognize that their understanding is disconnected from the real world in this sense. They are committed to the "ideals" of a Christian reality, without understanding that these realities are traditions. And even those who base their faith understandings on the text are also ill-informed to the limitations of their view because of their particular bias. This is blindness and ignorance.
I think that reason is a gift within that must be used to inform our consciences and convictions. Tradition inhibits the full use of our reason because of fear that we might displease God, because the text or the people of God are the arbitrators of truth. Believers , in this sense, are not free, but in bondage to fear. Faith is not to bring bondage and fear, but trust in life itself. Grace is the gift to be and choose in this life without fear and torment.
While most Christians understand these stories as Christian emphasis of historical revealation of God, aren't these stories also a challenge to our "modern sensiblities"?
When Jacob stole Esau's birth-right, the Christian believes this to sanction Jacob's desire to attain the "blessing of God" at "all costs", even lying to his father, with the help of his mother? Or Saul sacrificing was "out of order", which meant that he lost the Kingdom. Saul's jealousy over David, as God's choice highlights what extent jealousy will go. While some of these truths are human truths for today, some of the "spiritualized meanings" condone spiriutalized rationale for doing things that would be against modern understandings of 'justice". Most of us in the modern world would not condone this behavior. We understand such terms as fairness, which would not affirm the O.T.'s value of "attaining God's favor" through lying or pursuing God's favor through a "priesthood"'s sacrifice. Our understanding is based on the development of our laws, which protect us from lying, stealing and subterfuge.
Just recently my grandfather met with my cousin, who is the executor of his estate. In going over all of his assests, my cousin insisted that my grandfather write up the specifics to his will. This protects his interests from others doing what Jacob did, as it is not a matter of attaining God's favor, so much as doing what is just. Justice is defined by our understanding by our laws, which is equality under law. It has nothing to do with "God's favor".
Last night, a lady shared her experience with a local business that did business according to local custom. She and husband were buying a house and put up ernest money. When a three week period went by without any response from the other party, she and her husband went to investigate, only to find out that the couple had changed their minds. To this day, the lady and her husband have not gotten their ernest money back. Local custom trumped the law. Of course, I am sure that if they had pursued the case, there would have been some recourse, but would they have higher legal fees than the ernest money they paid, in the first place?
Traditions hold sway over people's minds when it comes to undestandings of justice, fairness, right and wrong. While tradition maintains a culture's values, tradition can also be misinformed and short-sighted as to a broader context and world. Tradition works at a lower level of moral development than our Constitution or legal system.
"Biblical Christians" don't even recognize that their understanding is disconnected from the real world in this sense. They are committed to the "ideals" of a Christian reality, without understanding that these realities are traditions. And even those who base their faith understandings on the text are also ill-informed to the limitations of their view because of their particular bias. This is blindness and ignorance.
I think that reason is a gift within that must be used to inform our consciences and convictions. Tradition inhibits the full use of our reason because of fear that we might displease God, because the text or the people of God are the arbitrators of truth. Believers , in this sense, are not free, but in bondage to fear. Faith is not to bring bondage and fear, but trust in life itself. Grace is the gift to be and choose in this life without fear and torment.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Revolution of a Passive Resistance
Some have understood Jesus life as exempliary for Christians to emulate, while others have understood that Jesus' life was a life that signified injustice personified.
Christendom has heralded this life as salvific, but nothing salvific happens other than this one life resisting in passivity the injustic of the religious and political systems of his day. He did not resist as an activist of any kind, but in quiet resistance in ministering to the outsiders. He, himself, was not one of the elite.
Today, in America, Christians do not face persecution. We, for the most part, have a government that allows religious freedom. Freedom, in our country is manifested in many ways, from religious expression to personal lifestyle. These values are what makes man like "god" in moral image. It is only in moral choice that moral virtue, or moral value can be assessed or judged. But, moral choice is not clearly evaluated, unless there is some standard of measurement, or an ultimate model. Consevative Christians believe that this standard is in the text or the life of Jesus, as written within Scripture.
Jesus' life was modeled on a sectarian model, historically. But, his life has been interpreted differently by many. His life inspired Martin Luther King, Jr., who brought about a social revolution with passive resistance. He did not seek a violent revolution, although violence happened and in the end, he paid for his commitment with his life.
I don't believe that conservative Christians of a Calvinistic flavor, who seek to carry out a discipleship "program", understand truely that the individual must choose their own personal values, if there is any moral virtue or value, whatsoever. Theirs is an understanding of Providence, Sovereignty, eschaotological "hope", etc. But, in understanding life in this way, they do not understand that Scriptures are not written with all of the theological jargon that "comes with the package of Christendom". Scriptures are undestood within a "Christian" framework that superintends agendas, that are presumed to be "God's will".
Although Jesus, as a moral model, has value, his life does not universalize virtue. Virtue is just as much appreciated in many "revolutionaries" that were not passive in their resistance. Justice cannot be sought in passivity (unless one wants to wait for the "sweet by and by")...
Freedom and justice for all means that each individual has a right to representation and equal treatment under law. Jesus' life did not have these protections. It is not "un-Christian" to seek protection under law. It is a moral duty, as it holds others accountable to right relationship.
Christendom has heralded this life as salvific, but nothing salvific happens other than this one life resisting in passivity the injustic of the religious and political systems of his day. He did not resist as an activist of any kind, but in quiet resistance in ministering to the outsiders. He, himself, was not one of the elite.
Today, in America, Christians do not face persecution. We, for the most part, have a government that allows religious freedom. Freedom, in our country is manifested in many ways, from religious expression to personal lifestyle. These values are what makes man like "god" in moral image. It is only in moral choice that moral virtue, or moral value can be assessed or judged. But, moral choice is not clearly evaluated, unless there is some standard of measurement, or an ultimate model. Consevative Christians believe that this standard is in the text or the life of Jesus, as written within Scripture.
Jesus' life was modeled on a sectarian model, historically. But, his life has been interpreted differently by many. His life inspired Martin Luther King, Jr., who brought about a social revolution with passive resistance. He did not seek a violent revolution, although violence happened and in the end, he paid for his commitment with his life.
I don't believe that conservative Christians of a Calvinistic flavor, who seek to carry out a discipleship "program", understand truely that the individual must choose their own personal values, if there is any moral virtue or value, whatsoever. Theirs is an understanding of Providence, Sovereignty, eschaotological "hope", etc. But, in understanding life in this way, they do not understand that Scriptures are not written with all of the theological jargon that "comes with the package of Christendom". Scriptures are undestood within a "Christian" framework that superintends agendas, that are presumed to be "God's will".
Although Jesus, as a moral model, has value, his life does not universalize virtue. Virtue is just as much appreciated in many "revolutionaries" that were not passive in their resistance. Justice cannot be sought in passivity (unless one wants to wait for the "sweet by and by")...
Freedom and justice for all means that each individual has a right to representation and equal treatment under law. Jesus' life did not have these protections. It is not "un-Christian" to seek protection under law. It is a moral duty, as it holds others accountable to right relationship.
Monday, December 15, 2008
The Bible as Scripture or the Scripture as Bible.
How we understand Scripture is pivotal in our understanding of faith. If we are justified by faith, then does it matter how we understand Scripture? Ken Schenck of Quadralateral Thoughts, has several entires about "the Bible as Christian Scripture". If you read these entries, you understand that usually Christians approach the text with a Christian bias, or a Christian understanding of theology. It presuppoese upon the text what the text means, before investigation into the full context of the original audience. This is where scholarship should "inform" the people in the pew. Fundamentalism believes that the Bible can be understood by one sitting in an easy chair. Fundamentalists take a simplistic view of inspiration, spirit, and understanding.
Fundamenatlists believe that Scripture is useful for "correction, training, so that the man of God can be...."The Scriptures themselves are what is of importance, with no consideration of the person's context, or personal situatedness, or the larger questions of historicity. Theologizing doesn't take seriously the place, or the text, itself. Theologizing assumes upon the text and presumes upon the other. Theologizing is having prejuidice and bias!
The real question is: Are the Scripture sufficient in all areas of understanding? How one understands and answer that question determines a lot about one's worldview.
The text was written within a certain cultural and philosophical framework, which was not "inspiried", but was the worldview that was prevalent in that day. There is no super spiritual "worldview" or sanctified understanding, when it comes to ancient texts. Ancient texts held a kernel of "truth" or wisdom, but should not be pervasively understood as the epitome of truth for all times, all people and all situations. Ancient texts did not have the understanding of science we do today. It did not understand sociology, biology, or government in the same way as modern or civilized people do today. The question arises; what is the usefulness of the text, as many have been damaged by mis-understanding the application of the text?
The answer can run the gambit from:
The text is the epitome of truth for application. This way of understanding is based on reason.
The text is useful for allegorical purposes to teach wisdom. this way of understanding is based on faith.
The text is irrelevant in today's climate, as we have come to develop our understanding in a far more sophisticated way. This way of understanding is based on reason.
While there are many who encourage the "faith way", as reason is limited, I think that approaching the text with faith, is really nothing other than bias and a "thologized' understanding" that still presupposes upon the text. An ancient text is best understood within the larger framework of ancient history. There we will find the "issues of the heart", such as malice, pride, maliciousness, which result in all kinds of disorder. This is why I like to understand ethics as the epitome of truth today. Ethics helps everyone to understand better what the issues are and where there convictions really play out in the world at large....
Fundamenatlists believe that Scripture is useful for "correction, training, so that the man of God can be...."The Scriptures themselves are what is of importance, with no consideration of the person's context, or personal situatedness, or the larger questions of historicity. Theologizing doesn't take seriously the place, or the text, itself. Theologizing assumes upon the text and presumes upon the other. Theologizing is having prejuidice and bias!
The real question is: Are the Scripture sufficient in all areas of understanding? How one understands and answer that question determines a lot about one's worldview.
The text was written within a certain cultural and philosophical framework, which was not "inspiried", but was the worldview that was prevalent in that day. There is no super spiritual "worldview" or sanctified understanding, when it comes to ancient texts. Ancient texts held a kernel of "truth" or wisdom, but should not be pervasively understood as the epitome of truth for all times, all people and all situations. Ancient texts did not have the understanding of science we do today. It did not understand sociology, biology, or government in the same way as modern or civilized people do today. The question arises; what is the usefulness of the text, as many have been damaged by mis-understanding the application of the text?
The answer can run the gambit from:
The text is the epitome of truth for application. This way of understanding is based on reason.
The text is useful for allegorical purposes to teach wisdom. this way of understanding is based on faith.
The text is irrelevant in today's climate, as we have come to develop our understanding in a far more sophisticated way. This way of understanding is based on reason.
While there are many who encourage the "faith way", as reason is limited, I think that approaching the text with faith, is really nothing other than bias and a "thologized' understanding" that still presupposes upon the text. An ancient text is best understood within the larger framework of ancient history. There we will find the "issues of the heart", such as malice, pride, maliciousness, which result in all kinds of disorder. This is why I like to understand ethics as the epitome of truth today. Ethics helps everyone to understand better what the issues are and where there convictions really play out in the world at large....
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Scripture, Social Structures, and Relationships
I am a little frustrated over many who try to "puff up" the need to believe the Scriptures. I recognize that Protestants are "grounded" (at least intially) on the Scriptures, but I don't believe that Scripture is the only means of faith.
Before the canon was the Church, and before the Church was the Jewish faith, which was also divided along many lines. Faith doesn't need support. Faith is oriented around what one values. And faith and one's values underscore what one chooses to do. Are evangelicals afraid that if they do not fight to uphold the text that people are forever doomed? Is it the only basis for establishing moral values that motivates them? It would be an interesting study.
The real world is not really guided by the supernatural, but people. I think we should focus more on the real world than the spiritual, as the spiritual is so often the psychological need in man. The social structures that define civilized society are meant to meet these needs, which is more and more doubtful in the West. While the civilized are more structured and the order is more conducive for individual flourishing, all societies have relationships, just a difference of form. And relationships are what social structures are to be about in the first place.
So, why the Scriptures to uphold faith?
Before the canon was the Church, and before the Church was the Jewish faith, which was also divided along many lines. Faith doesn't need support. Faith is oriented around what one values. And faith and one's values underscore what one chooses to do. Are evangelicals afraid that if they do not fight to uphold the text that people are forever doomed? Is it the only basis for establishing moral values that motivates them? It would be an interesting study.
The real world is not really guided by the supernatural, but people. I think we should focus more on the real world than the spiritual, as the spiritual is so often the psychological need in man. The social structures that define civilized society are meant to meet these needs, which is more and more doubtful in the West. While the civilized are more structured and the order is more conducive for individual flourishing, all societies have relationships, just a difference of form. And relationships are what social structures are to be about in the first place.
So, why the Scriptures to uphold faith?
Saturday, September 13, 2008
What Is the Scriptures Usefulness?
The Scriptures are used by evangelicals as a way to understand God and his ways. The requirements of God are written in black and white and some, believe, are not debatable. But, are Scriptures a supernatural text that is absolute? Yes and No.
The Scripture cover over many years and are individual texts, written in different languages to many different contexts. There is no way of bringing a coherent whole to the text. Biblical scholars have sought to understand the different contexts of the individual writings and the individual authors of those writings. The social and political contexts are easier to ascertain than the author's intention, at times. What was the real 'mind-set" of Paul, for instance when he seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth about some issues? What was his "worldview? Is there a Christian "worldview"? I would say, no. There are Christian worldviewS, but not one worldview. Not only are there differences due to denominational emphasis, but there are also differences because of how one understands the text itself.
We can understand the text as inspired, just as any text that previenently shows forth God's glory through natural revelation. This means that the text is not inspired apart from the people who wrote the text. Inspiration is grounded in the natural. The text is a "form of art" and represents truths that are universal, if understood within context and with a keen eye toward principles of "wisdom". In the sense that people are inspired by God's gifting, the Scriptures are inspired. But, the Scriptures are not some superspiritualized text that is "above" humanity. The Scriptures are not God, they only reveal things about God and man.
Scriptures cannot be absolutized as law. The giving of the law was within a particular culture and paradigm. And the law was interpreted as what gave distinction to the people of God before they had a homeland (a nation-state). The Law defined an undefined people. It was their identity. Today's nation state maintains an ordered structure through law that brings a more defined identity to the individual through culture. Identity is not anti-thetical to being Christian, because being Christian, is about being human.
But, is this view of Scripture appropriate? Do we render the text as a rule-book, where everyone adheres to the "standards" that are written without recourse or re-dress from the distinctiveness of the contexts of the text, the people of the text and people of today?
These questions will be answered differently within Christian commitment. We must allow that diversity, otherwise, we limit God's revelation to our limited minds, understanding, context, knowledge of the world in the present, etc. Surely, then we would understand that the text has been understood differently. And surely we understand that the text is the text of only one tradition. It is not the whole of revelation. It is only a part.
The Scripture cover over many years and are individual texts, written in different languages to many different contexts. There is no way of bringing a coherent whole to the text. Biblical scholars have sought to understand the different contexts of the individual writings and the individual authors of those writings. The social and political contexts are easier to ascertain than the author's intention, at times. What was the real 'mind-set" of Paul, for instance when he seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth about some issues? What was his "worldview? Is there a Christian "worldview"? I would say, no. There are Christian worldviewS, but not one worldview. Not only are there differences due to denominational emphasis, but there are also differences because of how one understands the text itself.
We can understand the text as inspired, just as any text that previenently shows forth God's glory through natural revelation. This means that the text is not inspired apart from the people who wrote the text. Inspiration is grounded in the natural. The text is a "form of art" and represents truths that are universal, if understood within context and with a keen eye toward principles of "wisdom". In the sense that people are inspired by God's gifting, the Scriptures are inspired. But, the Scriptures are not some superspiritualized text that is "above" humanity. The Scriptures are not God, they only reveal things about God and man.
Scriptures cannot be absolutized as law. The giving of the law was within a particular culture and paradigm. And the law was interpreted as what gave distinction to the people of God before they had a homeland (a nation-state). The Law defined an undefined people. It was their identity. Today's nation state maintains an ordered structure through law that brings a more defined identity to the individual through culture. Identity is not anti-thetical to being Christian, because being Christian, is about being human.
But, is this view of Scripture appropriate? Do we render the text as a rule-book, where everyone adheres to the "standards" that are written without recourse or re-dress from the distinctiveness of the contexts of the text, the people of the text and people of today?
These questions will be answered differently within Christian commitment. We must allow that diversity, otherwise, we limit God's revelation to our limited minds, understanding, context, knowledge of the world in the present, etc. Surely, then we would understand that the text has been understood differently. And surely we understand that the text is the text of only one tradition. It is not the whole of revelation. It is only a part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
