Thank you for this. I agree. I pray for all of us looking for that community that participates in the story without reducing it to its interpretations. I admit I haven't found it.
I thought I wasn’t spiritual enough to grasp the concept years ago when our small group leader with lots of colored pens in his Bible proclaimed sola scriptura and extolled the virtues of Piper and MacArthur. Now I could engage in a meaningful conversation but he was fired from the church for misconduct and moved out of state😐
The PSA is a terrific way to get ourselves off the hook of responsibility ... "Jesus died for my sins, maybe even yours." End of story. And off we go ...
I continue to read your commentary with much enjoyment and edification. I believe Immanuel Kant contended that it was finally impossible for the human intellect to achieve insights into the realm of the transcendent. I'm of that opinion too. Especially when I (attempt) to follow the critical commentaries such as yours and now the guest writing of Mr Libolt. The reasoning occurs at at a very high level of scholarship and the writings are very articulate and surprisingly rational (unencumbered by reliance on faith) . But what fascinates me is the deep apparent disagreements (perhaps not to the level of a theological Schism) but certainly profound and probably not easily able to be positively reconciled between your research and commentary and most of the (conventional) evangelical leadership guidance. This must cause great anxiety and sadness for those whose faith is the bedrock for their lives. For the rest of us we must leave it at Kant and strive for guidance to a moral/ethical path in our lives outside of Biblical instruction one that is informed by the evidence of good works by many leaders religious as well as others thinkers / scholars(scientists/ philosophers/ etc.) including those who are not necessarily 'believers'. Again what most fascinates me is how these deep disagreements only seem to increase the confidence of both sides that theirs is the true path. (Given the long historical evidence that Kant may be on to something.) As an aside are you familiar with the writings of the late Thich Nhat Hanh? He seemed to have a path to a strong moral self that avoided the infighting. Or perhaps to go back further and seek some understanding in the writings of Marcus Aurelius. Maybe a bit of Stoicism would help all sides? Cheers
Ah, the Bible as story and about relationship, and relationships are not reducible to facts, data, and absolutes. It seems if we prioritize the Bible above all else, we are putting it above God and making it an idol. Just as a dot on a map is not an actual location, it's a symbol and a guide. Thank you.
"....Biblical...the word masks layers of complexity." As a very young believer, I was observing this but not understanding it as I do now. I commented in a bible study group once that when you use biblical as an adjective, then you must include sinful, evil and ungodly when you use it because it's in there too. People just learning the talk to be accepted is one of the complex layers, no?
Nicely done Clay. Even in churches that are moving a bit away from trad evangelical theology PSA and the idea of a wrathful and holy God who MUST punish someone/something is a big sticking point. Story is a good way to start bending away from this.
Thank you for this. I agree. I pray for all of us looking for that community that participates in the story without reducing it to its interpretations. I admit I haven't found it.
I thought I wasn’t spiritual enough to grasp the concept years ago when our small group leader with lots of colored pens in his Bible proclaimed sola scriptura and extolled the virtues of Piper and MacArthur. Now I could engage in a meaningful conversation but he was fired from the church for misconduct and moved out of state😐
“Stories are not reducible to their interpretations “ 👏
The PSA is a terrific way to get ourselves off the hook of responsibility ... "Jesus died for my sins, maybe even yours." End of story. And off we go ...
I continue to read your commentary with much enjoyment and edification. I believe Immanuel Kant contended that it was finally impossible for the human intellect to achieve insights into the realm of the transcendent. I'm of that opinion too. Especially when I (attempt) to follow the critical commentaries such as yours and now the guest writing of Mr Libolt. The reasoning occurs at at a very high level of scholarship and the writings are very articulate and surprisingly rational (unencumbered by reliance on faith) . But what fascinates me is the deep apparent disagreements (perhaps not to the level of a theological Schism) but certainly profound and probably not easily able to be positively reconciled between your research and commentary and most of the (conventional) evangelical leadership guidance. This must cause great anxiety and sadness for those whose faith is the bedrock for their lives. For the rest of us we must leave it at Kant and strive for guidance to a moral/ethical path in our lives outside of Biblical instruction one that is informed by the evidence of good works by many leaders religious as well as others thinkers / scholars(scientists/ philosophers/ etc.) including those who are not necessarily 'believers'. Again what most fascinates me is how these deep disagreements only seem to increase the confidence of both sides that theirs is the true path. (Given the long historical evidence that Kant may be on to something.) As an aside are you familiar with the writings of the late Thich Nhat Hanh? He seemed to have a path to a strong moral self that avoided the infighting. Or perhaps to go back further and seek some understanding in the writings of Marcus Aurelius. Maybe a bit of Stoicism would help all sides? Cheers
Ah, the Bible as story and about relationship, and relationships are not reducible to facts, data, and absolutes. It seems if we prioritize the Bible above all else, we are putting it above God and making it an idol. Just as a dot on a map is not an actual location, it's a symbol and a guide. Thank you.
"....Biblical...the word masks layers of complexity." As a very young believer, I was observing this but not understanding it as I do now. I commented in a bible study group once that when you use biblical as an adjective, then you must include sinful, evil and ungodly when you use it because it's in there too. People just learning the talk to be accepted is one of the complex layers, no?
Nicely done Clay. Even in churches that are moving a bit away from trad evangelical theology PSA and the idea of a wrathful and holy God who MUST punish someone/something is a big sticking point. Story is a good way to start bending away from this.