recentpopularlog in

dirtystylus : theology   70

Grant Macaskill on Twitter: "I’ve been thinking a little about this recently. Christians often say “The Bible teaches ...” or “Scripture teaches...” but this is not an idiom that is used in the Bible itself, when authors or characters refer back
I’ve been thinking a little about this recently. Christians often say “The Bible teaches ...” or “Scripture teaches...” but this is not an idiom that is used in the Bible itself, when authors or characters refer back to prior Scriptures.

We encounter expressions like “It is written” (gegraptai), or “As *insert author* says” but these are formulae that introduce quotations. In rabbinic texts, they often introduce texts that appear to support different viewpoints and set up or develop interpretative debates.

I wonder if the “Bible teaches” idiom dangerously truncates the modality with which biblical authority or normativity operates to the concept of the moral handbook (also a popular image in some traditions: the “handbook for life.”

The problem with this is that it does not accommodate the material form of Scripture and how this determines its role within Christian thought and practice. Handbooks give instructions and little else. But the Bible contains only a little material that can be labelled instruction

Torah, certainly, is essentially “instruction,” but the word Torah is not identical in scope to Bible or Scripture.

Mostly, the Bible contains things that are generally not found in handbooks (such as the one I have for recording software). Handbooks generally don’t guide us using a mixture of story, poetry, proverb and philosophy.

The classic image of the canon in Christian tradition is that of the library. The one who lives in this library is moulded and shaped by it, and morally different as a result, but only part of that reflects direct instruction of the command sort.

A number of writers (notably Stanley Hauerwas) have picked up on the problem of giving a dominant role to the notion of command-obedience in our accounts of Christian doctrine and ethics. My point here is that it is an approach that neglects the material form of Scripture.

Interestingly, we don’t see it in Jewish interpretation (e.g., in the Gemara), which acknowledges the diversity of voices and genres and more obviously “lives in the library”.
I can’t help but feel that it this kind of simplification of the notion of biblical authority (a particularly modern problem) is dangerous, particularly when we try to advocate moral positions as “biblical” and alternatives as “unbiblical”.

Up to a point, we recognise the issue. Few people will quote Qohelet (Ecclesiastes) 1:2 and say that the bible clearly teaches that life in meaningless. At that point, we invoke context and genre because it suits us to do so.

But we need to be intentional about recognising the complex character of Scripture when it DOESN’T suit our (possibly) simplistic opinions.
twitterthread  by:grantmacaskill  via:wildagafney  theology  bible  scripture 
19 days ago by dirtystylus
Brandi Miller on Twitter: "Christianity lessens it’s capacity to survive because it often fails to take on the perspective of science/scientists that essentially say “We didn’t know then what we know now, so we must change who we are, what we do, th
Christianity lessens it’s capacity to survive because it often fails to take on the perspective of science/scientists that essentially say

“We didn’t know then what we know now, so we must change who we are, what we do, the questions we ask, and the conclusions we draw.”
christianity  faith  by:brandimiller  religion  bible  theology  evangelicalism 
11 weeks ago by dirtystylus
Grappling with a Truly Fully Human Jesus of Nazareth
Expecting the words of Jesus to settle the evolution issue shows an insufficient grappling with the implications of the incarnation. Actually, it betrays how uncomfortable and “irreverent” (to borrow C. S. Lewis’s description) a doctrine the incarnation is—ironically, including for Christians.

For Jesus to be fully human mean not abstractly “human” but a human of a particular sort, fully participating in the Judaism of the 1st century.

The incarnation leaves no room whatsoever for the idea that Jesus in any way kept his distance from participating in that particular humanity. That means, among other things, that Jesus was limited in knowledge along with everyone else at the time.

That may sound irreverent or offensive, but it is an implication of the incarnation. Jesus wasn’t an omniscient being giving the final word on the size of mustard seeds, mental illness, or cosmic and biological evolution. He was a 1st century Jew and he, therefore, thought like one.

Was he more than a 1st century Jew? Yes, I believe he was—and working that out is the stuff of 2000 years of Christian theology. But however “more than human” Jesus may be, and whatever we might mean by that, he was certainly not one micro-millimeter less than fully human—and that, as I’ve been saying, has all sorts of implications, including for the evolution discussion.
by:peteenns  bible  jesus  science  christianity  theology 
november 2019 by dirtystylus
Why I’m reading Nyasha Junior | The Christian Century
If we want our biblical interpretation—and the way we live it out—to come into alignment with the fullness of who Christ is, we need new lenses.
books  nyashajunior  by:christenacleveland  blackness  theology  womanism  bible  christianity 
may 2019 by dirtystylus
Interview: The answer was love | Reform Magazine
You said in a blog that the slogan ‘Love the sinner, hate the sin’ is on the same spectrum of violence as that shooting.

Yes. Number one, that’s an unscriptural teaching. If anything Jesus calls Christians to love the sinner and hate their own sin. Also, homosexuality is not a sin, bisexuality is not a sin, being transgender is not a sin. That’s like me saying heterosexuality is a sin – you can’t classify a whole category of people as sinful based on their sexual orientation. If people misuse their sexuality for dominance, coercion, abuse, then absolutely; but if it has been consecrated for use by God then in the words of Pope Francis: ‘Who am I to judge?’
by:stephentomkins  via:broderickgreer  lgbtq  church  religion  whiteness  whiteprivilege  evangelicalism  sin  theology  inclusion 
march 2017 by dirtystylus
Confessions of a Carioca: Reconciling the Irreconcilable
The New Testament’s emphasis is not on people learning to live with what divides then, but learning to live out what unites them
via:wesleyhill  theology  episcopal  church  queerness  lgbtq  inclusion  gospel  religion  christianity 
november 2016 by dirtystylus
Alasdair MacIntyre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“After Virtue” referenced by Tim Keller WRT tradition and story.
philosophy  theology  via:timkeller 
july 2015 by dirtystylus

Copy this bookmark:





to read