Literal interpretation of the bible. Of what bible ? Taking a version in Shakespearean
English and taking that literally with a 20th C understanding of the
same words ? Taking elements of Middle Eastern texts without any
understanding of Middle Eastern Culture ? not taking into account who
elements were said to - what was written to employers or employees, the
very religious or those excluded by the very religious ? taking one
"verse" and making it into a one size fits all rule ?
I think
19th and 20th C western church history has a lot to answer for (very
over simplified). European evangelicals were in the spear head of lots
of wonderful movements including the labour movement, reform of prisons,
work laws, child care and investigation of nature and archeology. I
include Darwin himself in that, tho Darwin-ism is quite another
matter.European theologians had a theoretically really good idea of
applying modern archeology etc to the bible - but it wasn't far enough
on to be helpful enough yet so they got rather negative (and maybe more
than a little pompous). There was a back swing against this in rural
North America. A really good idea to believe the Bible - but limited to
an archaic translation, out of cultural context, interpreted with
inadequate literacy skills - so they got a bit negative (and maybe more
than a little pompous) This Fundamentalist movement had wide reaching
effects till the Evangelical movement finally split with it in the
1940s. Both my parents were adversely affected by it. It has still left
very deep roots in some denominations.
Showing posts with label fundamentalist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fundamentalist. Show all posts
Thursday, 16 May 2013
Friday, 8 March 2013
Thoughts : The Reform
My reply to a blog post about was the reform really needed, is it still needed ?
( NB sorry I can't call the RC the catholic ie universal church, I'm part of the holy, universal and apostolic church, and the RCs won't even let me share the family meal with them. So now do you think I'm anti Catholic ? Not at all anti catholics. I do have problems with the Vatican these days - voila, cards on table )
Can I start with a question. - If you lived at Luther's time, would you feel at ease in the RC as it was ?
When I lived in Britain I had no problems with the RC. I think we have made great strides in living together, and the RC, as practiced in England at least, has taken Vatican II to heart. Of course there are some key doctrines that mean that I would feel ill at ease being a regular member of an RC congregation, but I have happy fellowship with people who are RC members and I can feel fairly trusting of many of their senior leaders. I have been living here in France for 20 years now and have actively encouraged and participated in inter-church gatherings and what I thought was ecumenism. However I have had a number of encounters that have challenged my view.
* One was not so much an encounter as a discovery. Following something that sounded a bit odd to me, said by a bishop on the radio, I looked up ecumenism in a french dictionary. The bishop was right. It means meeting with others who call themselves christians to try to draw them back to the true church. So much for mutual respect.
* I heard several people (first hand and on the radio) talk about the appalling and life affecting damage done to them by their upbringing at the hands of nuns and priests, or in fundamentalist families - the worst being the consequent inability to be able to give or feel love to varying degrees. (Well, fundamentalist families of all sorts not just RC can do their fair share of damage, so I won't count that one too much).
* I also got "evangelised" by a catholic fundamentalist. (same note about fundamentalists)
* I wasn't allowed to take communion at a cousin's wedding. Some of the family could go forward, the rest were left in their seats as infidels, outcasts, heretics despite them sharing a living faith. Then I couldn't take communion at an interfaith gathering.
* When bishops have got wind of inter-church activity they have either directly banned it or highly discouraged it here.
* On the radio the bishops and other spokesmen frequently talk as if they are the only christians and that they speak for all.
* Here, when and if the reformation is mentioned, it is frequently in negative terms. The govt have roundly condemned massacres and ethnic cleansing in Armenia for example, and the Shoa, but anniversary of St Bartholomew's day, or repeal of the Edict of Nantes - not a peep. That period of time is euphemistically known as "The Wars of Religion". Like there was really 2 sides to the wide scale massacres which happened up and down the country not just in Paris ? Eventually some protestants took up arms, but it was very latterly. The country went from an estimated 43% protestant (including much of the royal court) to less than 3%. (figures quoted by the historian Frank Ferand on the radio station Europe 1)
* I was disgusted by the rank ignorance and flagrant homophobia shown by the very well supported demonstration in paris a few weeks ago against the marriage for all bill. My own jury is still out on that issue, but the attitudes shown by ordinary men and women at that event sickened me. They are not just a few extremists. They are the French RC by and large.
* As you well know France is home to a good number of Marist pilgrimage sites. They make a tidy profit. I can't talk about how I feel about how ignorance and superstition and idolatry is being encouraged, it makes me too sad and angry.
On the other hand I should mention a few exceptions - the Bishop of Lyon, a number of very brave and kind priests and some nuns, Abbé Pierre and the continued movement for the care of the homeless, a certain number of RC writers and broadcasters.
*****
As a protestant who didn't know I was protesting at all till I lived here I find this a can be a difficult atmosphere to live in, as you can imagine. I don't go for debate. I just water seeds of faith in individuals as I find them. I treat them as fellow christians, ie as I would want them to treat me.
But the fact is I live in a country that looked at the reformation and decided it didn't want it. There are many many consequences. The French out do us hands down in certain areas of excellence, that's not really what I'm talking about.
The one that strikes me the most is that in my observation social reform was and can still be much slower than in Protestant countries.
* I was amazed when we first came 20 years ago to find that the only decent books on the bookshop children's shelves were translations from English, German, or one of the Scandinavian languages. Many homes had no or few books in until Harry Potter came on the scene. At least communist homes would have a couple of books.
* Even now, to my knowledge, there is still no school in the whole of France for Autistic children. A good number have no specialised help at all, and some just have to stay home cos no one wants them.
* The hospice movement is tiny and still new.
* The state has no specialised places or staff for interviewing children who have been abused or need help to talk about things. A few magistrates who have been to England have set up charities to pay for a room in a hospital where they can talk to children.
* Take the fact that there was never any real grass roots labour movement here except the communist party. I will acknowledge that they have done some excellent things, but their aproach is so conflictual that they can't build something.Of course labour relations are far from perfect in Britain but at least there is, or at least used to be, far more labour representation, far more negotiation etc etc as a result of the labour movement which in good part came out of the protestant church movements.
I can't go on. The list is endless of things that have been proved and work and have not been introduced just because "It's the French Way". I've heard that phrase over and again in debates about these things. A debate on the value of getting parents into schools with statistics to prove it's value. All the debaters were in a agreement, but they were all in agreement at the end that it won't happen because It's not the French Way. This makes the inferiority complex worse not better. There are some things that are better here of course, there are 2 sides to everything, but I'm mainly quoting what I hear the french saying about themselves to themselves on France Inter, France Culture, and Europe 1.
Now to protestantism and protesting and division.
Clearly, or clearly to me, fraternal rupture when it is to do with disputes, personality clash, and so on is very very sad and unnecessary.
However split, when it becomes the only alternative, can be healthy. I see it like divorce. I hate divorce. I think it's dreadful. But I'm divorced and grateful for it. The law of the land recognised that I should not be obliged to live with someone who rendered my life so difficult. I still believe in marriage. Likewise, sometimes because of serious false doctrine (not trivialities about details of practice) or sin, I think rupture is needed where reconciliation has been tried and rejected. Luther tried and was rejected. Puritans tried and were rejected. Methodists tried and were rejected. I now also feel that sometimes split for cultural reason is necessary. Take a minor example. Some people were upset at a parish church that they divided the morning service into 2 services even though they weren't packed to the doors, but I think it's not rupture it's growth. They did the early Prayer book and later Family Service with monthly joint - both services are doing better. That church had the courage to face the fact that people have different needs and ways to express themselves and that's ok. There is even one of the churches in the group that is openly charismatic. That's ok with the others. The vicars can still meet together and support each other. They can still have joint events and publicise each others events and accept some coming and going by worshipers among the different churches in the group. One has no disabled access, but another meets in a centre for the disabled. That's ok. This church is rare. Often these different needs and views have to be met by rupture because of the rigidity of the structures they are in or of those in power.
I am now proud of being a protestant. I think - the more churches the merrier. There is need for as many churches as possible, and why not of all different flavours, aproaches and outlooks. I was in a denominational church and the elderly, who had been the youth of that church once, liked it the way it was and didn't want change. I'm not angry with them. Perhaps they were being a little selfish - who am I to judge? The polite thing was not to discretely try to change them, but to make church as we saw it elsewhere, just like they had done in their day. Some were threatened but surprisingly some gave us their blessing.
Now I look and see that each wave of new church and new christian movement brings something new and refreshing to our perspective of God and christianity and how to live it. I'm proud of it. If the reformation brought reform. Much needed reform. It's still bringing reform. Still needed. Yes there have been and will be some excesses along the way as the pendulum swings. Should we try to grab on to the pendulum to try to stop it ? Should we berate the new pendulum riders as heretics ? Calvin's words, spoken in the context of Geneva at that time were not so odd, they were the pendulum. Calvin-ISM of course has done as much damage as lots of -ISMs including the recent health and wealth movements for example which started out as a healthy re-balancing and became an overbalance. Every movement that is a prophetic movement in it's own time and context can be a curse when applied rigidly elsewhere. Even Jesus did not say the same to everyone, even saying apparent opposites in very different situations. He never called the ordinary crowds whitewashed tombs or a brood of vipers! Neither should we address some of the fiery challenges of Finney or Calvin to the ordinary man off the street Alpha course !
Thank you for bringing up this debate. I hope you find my contributions fruitful. x
( NB sorry I can't call the RC the catholic ie universal church, I'm part of the holy, universal and apostolic church, and the RCs won't even let me share the family meal with them. So now do you think I'm anti Catholic ? Not at all anti catholics. I do have problems with the Vatican these days - voila, cards on table )
Can I start with a question. - If you lived at Luther's time, would you feel at ease in the RC as it was ?
When I lived in Britain I had no problems with the RC. I think we have made great strides in living together, and the RC, as practiced in England at least, has taken Vatican II to heart. Of course there are some key doctrines that mean that I would feel ill at ease being a regular member of an RC congregation, but I have happy fellowship with people who are RC members and I can feel fairly trusting of many of their senior leaders. I have been living here in France for 20 years now and have actively encouraged and participated in inter-church gatherings and what I thought was ecumenism. However I have had a number of encounters that have challenged my view.
* One was not so much an encounter as a discovery. Following something that sounded a bit odd to me, said by a bishop on the radio, I looked up ecumenism in a french dictionary. The bishop was right. It means meeting with others who call themselves christians to try to draw them back to the true church. So much for mutual respect.
* I heard several people (first hand and on the radio) talk about the appalling and life affecting damage done to them by their upbringing at the hands of nuns and priests, or in fundamentalist families - the worst being the consequent inability to be able to give or feel love to varying degrees. (Well, fundamentalist families of all sorts not just RC can do their fair share of damage, so I won't count that one too much).
* I also got "evangelised" by a catholic fundamentalist. (same note about fundamentalists)
* I wasn't allowed to take communion at a cousin's wedding. Some of the family could go forward, the rest were left in their seats as infidels, outcasts, heretics despite them sharing a living faith. Then I couldn't take communion at an interfaith gathering.
* When bishops have got wind of inter-church activity they have either directly banned it or highly discouraged it here.
* On the radio the bishops and other spokesmen frequently talk as if they are the only christians and that they speak for all.
* Here, when and if the reformation is mentioned, it is frequently in negative terms. The govt have roundly condemned massacres and ethnic cleansing in Armenia for example, and the Shoa, but anniversary of St Bartholomew's day, or repeal of the Edict of Nantes - not a peep. That period of time is euphemistically known as "The Wars of Religion". Like there was really 2 sides to the wide scale massacres which happened up and down the country not just in Paris ? Eventually some protestants took up arms, but it was very latterly. The country went from an estimated 43% protestant (including much of the royal court) to less than 3%. (figures quoted by the historian Frank Ferand on the radio station Europe 1)
* I was disgusted by the rank ignorance and flagrant homophobia shown by the very well supported demonstration in paris a few weeks ago against the marriage for all bill. My own jury is still out on that issue, but the attitudes shown by ordinary men and women at that event sickened me. They are not just a few extremists. They are the French RC by and large.
* As you well know France is home to a good number of Marist pilgrimage sites. They make a tidy profit. I can't talk about how I feel about how ignorance and superstition and idolatry is being encouraged, it makes me too sad and angry.
On the other hand I should mention a few exceptions - the Bishop of Lyon, a number of very brave and kind priests and some nuns, Abbé Pierre and the continued movement for the care of the homeless, a certain number of RC writers and broadcasters.
*****
As a protestant who didn't know I was protesting at all till I lived here I find this a can be a difficult atmosphere to live in, as you can imagine. I don't go for debate. I just water seeds of faith in individuals as I find them. I treat them as fellow christians, ie as I would want them to treat me.
But the fact is I live in a country that looked at the reformation and decided it didn't want it. There are many many consequences. The French out do us hands down in certain areas of excellence, that's not really what I'm talking about.
The one that strikes me the most is that in my observation social reform was and can still be much slower than in Protestant countries.
* I was amazed when we first came 20 years ago to find that the only decent books on the bookshop children's shelves were translations from English, German, or one of the Scandinavian languages. Many homes had no or few books in until Harry Potter came on the scene. At least communist homes would have a couple of books.
* Even now, to my knowledge, there is still no school in the whole of France for Autistic children. A good number have no specialised help at all, and some just have to stay home cos no one wants them.
* The hospice movement is tiny and still new.
* The state has no specialised places or staff for interviewing children who have been abused or need help to talk about things. A few magistrates who have been to England have set up charities to pay for a room in a hospital where they can talk to children.
* Take the fact that there was never any real grass roots labour movement here except the communist party. I will acknowledge that they have done some excellent things, but their aproach is so conflictual that they can't build something.Of course labour relations are far from perfect in Britain but at least there is, or at least used to be, far more labour representation, far more negotiation etc etc as a result of the labour movement which in good part came out of the protestant church movements.
I can't go on. The list is endless of things that have been proved and work and have not been introduced just because "It's the French Way". I've heard that phrase over and again in debates about these things. A debate on the value of getting parents into schools with statistics to prove it's value. All the debaters were in a agreement, but they were all in agreement at the end that it won't happen because It's not the French Way. This makes the inferiority complex worse not better. There are some things that are better here of course, there are 2 sides to everything, but I'm mainly quoting what I hear the french saying about themselves to themselves on France Inter, France Culture, and Europe 1.
Now to protestantism and protesting and division.
Clearly, or clearly to me, fraternal rupture when it is to do with disputes, personality clash, and so on is very very sad and unnecessary.
However split, when it becomes the only alternative, can be healthy. I see it like divorce. I hate divorce. I think it's dreadful. But I'm divorced and grateful for it. The law of the land recognised that I should not be obliged to live with someone who rendered my life so difficult. I still believe in marriage. Likewise, sometimes because of serious false doctrine (not trivialities about details of practice) or sin, I think rupture is needed where reconciliation has been tried and rejected. Luther tried and was rejected. Puritans tried and were rejected. Methodists tried and were rejected. I now also feel that sometimes split for cultural reason is necessary. Take a minor example. Some people were upset at a parish church that they divided the morning service into 2 services even though they weren't packed to the doors, but I think it's not rupture it's growth. They did the early Prayer book and later Family Service with monthly joint - both services are doing better. That church had the courage to face the fact that people have different needs and ways to express themselves and that's ok. There is even one of the churches in the group that is openly charismatic. That's ok with the others. The vicars can still meet together and support each other. They can still have joint events and publicise each others events and accept some coming and going by worshipers among the different churches in the group. One has no disabled access, but another meets in a centre for the disabled. That's ok. This church is rare. Often these different needs and views have to be met by rupture because of the rigidity of the structures they are in or of those in power.
I am now proud of being a protestant. I think - the more churches the merrier. There is need for as many churches as possible, and why not of all different flavours, aproaches and outlooks. I was in a denominational church and the elderly, who had been the youth of that church once, liked it the way it was and didn't want change. I'm not angry with them. Perhaps they were being a little selfish - who am I to judge? The polite thing was not to discretely try to change them, but to make church as we saw it elsewhere, just like they had done in their day. Some were threatened but surprisingly some gave us their blessing.
Now I look and see that each wave of new church and new christian movement brings something new and refreshing to our perspective of God and christianity and how to live it. I'm proud of it. If the reformation brought reform. Much needed reform. It's still bringing reform. Still needed. Yes there have been and will be some excesses along the way as the pendulum swings. Should we try to grab on to the pendulum to try to stop it ? Should we berate the new pendulum riders as heretics ? Calvin's words, spoken in the context of Geneva at that time were not so odd, they were the pendulum. Calvin-ISM of course has done as much damage as lots of -ISMs including the recent health and wealth movements for example which started out as a healthy re-balancing and became an overbalance. Every movement that is a prophetic movement in it's own time and context can be a curse when applied rigidly elsewhere. Even Jesus did not say the same to everyone, even saying apparent opposites in very different situations. He never called the ordinary crowds whitewashed tombs or a brood of vipers! Neither should we address some of the fiery challenges of Finney or Calvin to the ordinary man off the street Alpha course !
Thank you for bringing up this debate. I hope you find my contributions fruitful. x
Wednesday, 27 February 2013
a collection of some thoughts about the bible
some thoughts about the bible
my own personal view point
my own personal view point
i'm
coming at "the bible" from a new point of view for me. i've read it
believed it and acted on it for years. but it's been turned upside down,
put back to front. this period of my life if feel i've been
experiencing things and am now finding them in "the bible".
i'm coming at "the bible" from the perspective of having spent nearly a decade 1996 to 2006, not being able to read it much. i was too poorly. but during those years someone walked very close with me and gave me an utter conviction of his presence with me. despite old fashioned loneliness amongst other things he was always there and while everything i have done and am has been called into question in one way or another he was a simple accepting reassuring strengthening presence. i was very socially isolated in practice nursing my sick kids and bipolar husband, trying to keep up work and church membership. and a lot of misunderstandings made me even more lonely. but i remember him feeling so close that i could almost touch him. i could barely formulate "prayers". in fact i felt God told me to stop trying to.
i've only been to church a few times since 2003 cos i cant get our much and i did manage to get thrown out of 2 churches and a mission agency cos of the misunderstandings. but tho i am grateful for all the years i had of fellowship and teaching i'm also enjoying the opportunity to come at things afresh. my view of God has got bigger not smaller. i'm enjoying asking questions and exploring ideas. in this context looking at the bible from new is proving a fascinating experience. i cant see it as chapter and verses any more either. for the moment i cant handle words that have had religious ideas strapped on to them either.
i've been gripped by the people in it. i've been moved by the vivid accounts of clinical depression of naomi, chronic illness of job. i've been touched by a law system that repeats so often that it is available for the foreigner, the weak, the poor, the fatherless, and woe betide those who oppress them. letter after letter that emphasise, even more than theology, the practical outworking of loving God and loving loving others. generosity. and honesty. my giddy aunt we dont know the half of it. i've been moved by my own understanding of myself as a sinner based not on doing bad things but my concept of God's holiness being ever less like a sterilised hospital and more like freshly driven snow. sparkling, light, luminous, exciting, inviting, with a hint of danger. despite me basically being a "nice" person, and liking "niceness" it seems empty compared with that dazzling life giving power. the dynamic of the holy spirit. the God who "talks". who" talks" through his writings too, and "talks" in person. it comes to me over and over as i'm reading it in hungry gulps - if ever anyone was so in earnest to try to communicate, if ever his hearers so thick ....
and through it all the person of Jesus walks through the page and i recognise that presence with me. the one who touched people and noticed them and accepted meal invitations where no "decent christian" would be at ease is the one who i have had walk by my side, whispering in my weary heart and clumsy mind - "do not fear for i am with you". that same word over and again, along with a conviction of being held like a baby bird in the palm of a large workman's hand. i've been moved by the utter dedication of Jesus to people, not in a dry "ought to" sort of way but in the way of someone who has genuine care and genuine authority. i'm not discouraged by my pathetic little efforts, everyone has to start somewhere, but inspired by the profoundness of his understanding of how we tick and what we are really.
i'm such a beginnner. i feel i've got everything to learn.
i feel i've been pretty ham fisted in learning to express myself but i hope i'm learning. i hope my clumsiness hasn't put you off. it's mainly over excitedness. i'll calm down eventually. or maybe i wont. i'm an enthusiast.
* the alternative is believing popes ect i'm sorry i don't trust a pope as far as i could throw one, however much i might admire individual ones.
* i think the archeology backs up a lot of the bible not the popes. where there is no archelology - (and that is a good bit of the early part of the bible), this is typical of many nomadic, low ecological foot print people groups. much of what we know about groups like tuaregs and bushmen etc is based on their own memories and that is not called into question. in order to make a lasting impact on the land scape you either have to do the same thing in the same place for a very long time leaving field, road, dwelling, cultural patterns etc that we can guess from OR you have to have a lot of power and money to be able to build a monument. stonehenge couldn't have been built by a nice little village community sharing and being kind to each other any more than the pyramids were.
* i think if a theology still has to be expressed in latin it's probably dodgy.
* i think some "fundamentalist" teachings are as arrogant and pompous and erroneous as the popes. based on out of date translations of the bible and applied with ignorant and bigoted blinkered rigidity. so called "literal" application appalls me cos it's not what it claims to be. they apply one interpretation of one "verse" as it suits them without even looking at it's own context let alone its historical context. how could the teachings about race have become so prevalent amongst those groups based on a very vague misinterpretation of one verse in genesis when the whole law reiterates over and again that foreigners are to have more or less the same legal rights and obligations as natives, let alone all the teaching about equality in the NT.
* the evangelicals didn't actually break away from this rot till in the 40s and it took much longer to root it out of groups that call themselves evangelical or pentecostal. i'm an evangelical in the sense that luther invented the word - someone who has responded to the good news off my own bat not cos a church has told me i've got to go via it as an intermediary.
* what does the bible actually claim about itself ? - nothing like what the people who try to use it as incantations and spells claim. nor what some groups who use bits of it to justify their own politics. as far as i can see "word of God" is an expression that means several things not just the written collection of documents. for goodness sake why do have to use the words in latin. scripture just means written down. ok, lets say writings so it doesn't have religious overtones. bible - greek for collection or library. why are we so superstitious about it ?
* it claims to be a true account of what happened. as it was originally written that seems quite likely. where there's a difference there's often the alternative present too - eg the "chronicles" are the account of national events kept by the priests, an expurgated version of history. but the two volumes referred to as "kings" are a much fuller version, no holds barred, no taboos account of all the kings' faults as well as their strengths. as it is, it's all a much more coherent account of a nation's history than anything we have in britain so far back, so who do we think we are to pull it to pieces ? some of it is written down from an older oral record , that's no guess work, it actually says when things start to be from a written record in genesis . (it also mentions when the bronze age arrived to their peoples.)
words used in the bible to describe itself :
1) "the scriptures" - always referring to the old testament. they didn't even necessarily see the OT as a whole - sometimes the prophetic books are referred to separately from the historical and devotional documents : the law, and the prophets.
2) "the good news of Jesus" . gospel, ev-angel - latin and greek for good news - a common expression at the time - lots of wars - people would wait for an angel - messenger , to announce the progress in the latest international conflict. if the news was good he was called a herald of good news : angel + ev . which would be announced or proclaimed - the word we translate by preach, in a public place. this tradition was carried on in britain with the town cryer and we now call it a news bulletin, still communicated by an announcer (who wasn't present) or a reporter (who was).
3) "the teaching of the apostles". which is what it says.
how we use the bible, and what it is not.
* it's not a book of sayings. There's only 2 documents in the whole bible collection that are - proverbs and ecclesiastes. anywhere else we can't expect to just dip in and make full sense of any extract without bothering to read the rest. things are written in the context of a family saga, or a biography, a royal dynasty, a national crisis, a personal letter, a systematic explanation, a letter resolving a dispute or correcting error. so we can't use quoting a bible verse like a magic spell in a situation. we have to quote it intelligently
* not expecting everything in our current translation to make complete sense. The bible should, in my opinion be treated with the same circumspect respect as any historical documents. I would not like to lay odds as to whether the word translated "day" in my Bible means 24 hours, or general time period in the original ? it changes nothing about the fact that comes up all through the Bible - that God created the heavens and the earth, so why get our knickers in a twist about it ? did they thread camel thread (like threading the silk, or cotton into your needle) with difficulty or was it an actual camel through a small gate ?. these are things that are not central to salvation and i can hold on an open hand.
* People talk about details in the bible being inconsistent, but they're not being consistent themselves. the same ppl might accept hieroglyphics, or julius ceasar's writings to be a reliable account even though they're open to a huge amount of interpretation, and may have had elements of political propaganda too in their own day.
i'm coming at "the bible" from the perspective of having spent nearly a decade 1996 to 2006, not being able to read it much. i was too poorly. but during those years someone walked very close with me and gave me an utter conviction of his presence with me. despite old fashioned loneliness amongst other things he was always there and while everything i have done and am has been called into question in one way or another he was a simple accepting reassuring strengthening presence. i was very socially isolated in practice nursing my sick kids and bipolar husband, trying to keep up work and church membership. and a lot of misunderstandings made me even more lonely. but i remember him feeling so close that i could almost touch him. i could barely formulate "prayers". in fact i felt God told me to stop trying to.
i've only been to church a few times since 2003 cos i cant get our much and i did manage to get thrown out of 2 churches and a mission agency cos of the misunderstandings. but tho i am grateful for all the years i had of fellowship and teaching i'm also enjoying the opportunity to come at things afresh. my view of God has got bigger not smaller. i'm enjoying asking questions and exploring ideas. in this context looking at the bible from new is proving a fascinating experience. i cant see it as chapter and verses any more either. for the moment i cant handle words that have had religious ideas strapped on to them either.
i've been gripped by the people in it. i've been moved by the vivid accounts of clinical depression of naomi, chronic illness of job. i've been touched by a law system that repeats so often that it is available for the foreigner, the weak, the poor, the fatherless, and woe betide those who oppress them. letter after letter that emphasise, even more than theology, the practical outworking of loving God and loving loving others. generosity. and honesty. my giddy aunt we dont know the half of it. i've been moved by my own understanding of myself as a sinner based not on doing bad things but my concept of God's holiness being ever less like a sterilised hospital and more like freshly driven snow. sparkling, light, luminous, exciting, inviting, with a hint of danger. despite me basically being a "nice" person, and liking "niceness" it seems empty compared with that dazzling life giving power. the dynamic of the holy spirit. the God who "talks". who" talks" through his writings too, and "talks" in person. it comes to me over and over as i'm reading it in hungry gulps - if ever anyone was so in earnest to try to communicate, if ever his hearers so thick ....
and through it all the person of Jesus walks through the page and i recognise that presence with me. the one who touched people and noticed them and accepted meal invitations where no "decent christian" would be at ease is the one who i have had walk by my side, whispering in my weary heart and clumsy mind - "do not fear for i am with you". that same word over and again, along with a conviction of being held like a baby bird in the palm of a large workman's hand. i've been moved by the utter dedication of Jesus to people, not in a dry "ought to" sort of way but in the way of someone who has genuine care and genuine authority. i'm not discouraged by my pathetic little efforts, everyone has to start somewhere, but inspired by the profoundness of his understanding of how we tick and what we are really.
i'm such a beginnner. i feel i've got everything to learn.
i feel i've been pretty ham fisted in learning to express myself but i hope i'm learning. i hope my clumsiness hasn't put you off. it's mainly over excitedness. i'll calm down eventually. or maybe i wont. i'm an enthusiast.
i
find it very hard to think about "the bible" as just one concept these
days. it isn't a book, its such a hodge podge of a collection of
documents that i think each needs looking at in it's own right, or at
least within it's grouping. i don't know why the letter of james wasn't included. i don't have a problem when people see Jesus from a variety of perspectives.
i think some of the critics of "the bible" have a point because we've made claims that "the bible" cant realistically live up to. i think some find that christians stick in their craw for other reasons, and knocking the bible is a good way to upset them and put them on the defensive.
i do have a big problem with the more dogmatic churches that say you have to interpret this, this way, especially those with fundamentalist tendancies. i have problems with how they speak to those who dont agree with them too. thats why the creation evolution debate sends me batty. i think the science fundamentalists are just as rude and patronising as the so called creationists. i freely admit i have personal issues with fundamentalists whose negativity and rigidity and emphasis on the trivial while missing out on the the essentials did a lot of damage in my family (tho wonderfully there is a thread of faith that continues like a river that's gone underground). i have issues with people having to be proved right and having to put others down in order to do so. i've had to back off some words that are trigger words - like "evangelical" "bible" "gospel" - not that i don't believe them but they have come to have such negative connotations.
here in france the way many people talk on the radio they really believe that if you believe any of the bible you have to be a cretin. they get really angry about creation of any sort being taught in schools in the us. the concepts of bible have got caught up with images of george w bush and his gung-ho attitude to war and god, and his resemblance to a monkey when he smiles. and with black gospel music. many catholics, even nominal ones still wouldn't touch the bible with a barge pole - they've been taught it's too dangerous and only a priest should look at it. they really believe it. people in the 21st century still believe that.
as usual i want the best of both worlds. i think the polarisation of these debates make for stupidity. i think the documents of the bible, as originally written, are probably a pretty accurate account of what they are an account of but they don't claim to be a world history and i don't think they are.
i read the daily bible notes by jeff lucas, lucas on life every day and he's said more than once that there are bits of the bible he has problems with, not cos he doesnt believe that they're true, more cos he's worried they might be. and he freely admits that there are also large bits he doesnt begin to understand. his main point is to apply what we can believe and trust which comes back to other issues like how you see God etc i think that's the nearest i can get to where i'm at. pressure to believe and act on things you're not sure about can be very damaging long term even if it ensures a bit of short term orthodoxy. believing things that are wrong can also be very damaging.
we need to be consistent and scientific about these things - what sort of source documents etc are we willing to accept to make them "authentic" history ? which news paper account would we accept as valid of current news ? if we're going to accept for example that homer's accounts of the trojan wars are accurate with no other corroboration, or the earliest reports on the sayings of confuscious which date a good 500 years after he died, or the accounts of the life and battles of julius ceasar written by julius ceasar starring julius ceasar ... ? in comparison the sayings of socrates written down by plato who modified them to fit with his own teachings is pretty good evidence cos at least we know the author's motives and we know there was a direct link with the original person.
i think some of the critics of "the bible" have a point because we've made claims that "the bible" cant realistically live up to. i think some find that christians stick in their craw for other reasons, and knocking the bible is a good way to upset them and put them on the defensive.
i do have a big problem with the more dogmatic churches that say you have to interpret this, this way, especially those with fundamentalist tendancies. i have problems with how they speak to those who dont agree with them too. thats why the creation evolution debate sends me batty. i think the science fundamentalists are just as rude and patronising as the so called creationists. i freely admit i have personal issues with fundamentalists whose negativity and rigidity and emphasis on the trivial while missing out on the the essentials did a lot of damage in my family (tho wonderfully there is a thread of faith that continues like a river that's gone underground). i have issues with people having to be proved right and having to put others down in order to do so. i've had to back off some words that are trigger words - like "evangelical" "bible" "gospel" - not that i don't believe them but they have come to have such negative connotations.
here in france the way many people talk on the radio they really believe that if you believe any of the bible you have to be a cretin. they get really angry about creation of any sort being taught in schools in the us. the concepts of bible have got caught up with images of george w bush and his gung-ho attitude to war and god, and his resemblance to a monkey when he smiles. and with black gospel music. many catholics, even nominal ones still wouldn't touch the bible with a barge pole - they've been taught it's too dangerous and only a priest should look at it. they really believe it. people in the 21st century still believe that.
as usual i want the best of both worlds. i think the polarisation of these debates make for stupidity. i think the documents of the bible, as originally written, are probably a pretty accurate account of what they are an account of but they don't claim to be a world history and i don't think they are.
i read the daily bible notes by jeff lucas, lucas on life every day and he's said more than once that there are bits of the bible he has problems with, not cos he doesnt believe that they're true, more cos he's worried they might be. and he freely admits that there are also large bits he doesnt begin to understand. his main point is to apply what we can believe and trust which comes back to other issues like how you see God etc i think that's the nearest i can get to where i'm at. pressure to believe and act on things you're not sure about can be very damaging long term even if it ensures a bit of short term orthodoxy. believing things that are wrong can also be very damaging.
we need to be consistent and scientific about these things - what sort of source documents etc are we willing to accept to make them "authentic" history ? which news paper account would we accept as valid of current news ? if we're going to accept for example that homer's accounts of the trojan wars are accurate with no other corroboration, or the earliest reports on the sayings of confuscious which date a good 500 years after he died, or the accounts of the life and battles of julius ceasar written by julius ceasar starring julius ceasar ... ? in comparison the sayings of socrates written down by plato who modified them to fit with his own teachings is pretty good evidence cos at least we know the author's motives and we know there was a direct link with the original person.
why i accept the bible as evidence about itself.
* as far as i can tell even
opponents will now admit that they are def the best historical records
around as historical records go, by
historians standards, according to my sister who
worked in an archeology lab for a while. even if you don't want to live
your life by what's in them it seems likely that they do say what
they say and a lot of what they say may well have happened, or the way
the story is told is an accurate representation of the point of view of
the particular people group who is telling the story.
* 4 accounts, written within the life time of many of the first hand witnesses is a pretty strong hand. one of those accounts seems to be written by an independent researcher, sponsored by a non-jew, who interviewed eyewitnesses himself, even the socially outcast, even women, beggars, prostitutes, collaborators with enemy powers, is really quite a coup. the descriptions of the romans for example are consistent with all the other things we know about the romans. all the other writers knew each other. they were related or had been disciples together. as far as i know only luke set out to write the complete biography or Jesus and the early "church". all the other documents and letters fill in each other, fill in for where there are gaps in teaching. james is not going to double up the teachings of paul or peter. they worked together, stayed accountable to each other.
* 4 accounts, written within the life time of many of the first hand witnesses is a pretty strong hand. one of those accounts seems to be written by an independent researcher, sponsored by a non-jew, who interviewed eyewitnesses himself, even the socially outcast, even women, beggars, prostitutes, collaborators with enemy powers, is really quite a coup. the descriptions of the romans for example are consistent with all the other things we know about the romans. all the other writers knew each other. they were related or had been disciples together. as far as i know only luke set out to write the complete biography or Jesus and the early "church". all the other documents and letters fill in each other, fill in for where there are gaps in teaching. james is not going to double up the teachings of paul or peter. they worked together, stayed accountable to each other.
* the alternative is believing popes ect i'm sorry i don't trust a pope as far as i could throw one, however much i might admire individual ones.
* i think the archeology backs up a lot of the bible not the popes. where there is no archelology - (and that is a good bit of the early part of the bible), this is typical of many nomadic, low ecological foot print people groups. much of what we know about groups like tuaregs and bushmen etc is based on their own memories and that is not called into question. in order to make a lasting impact on the land scape you either have to do the same thing in the same place for a very long time leaving field, road, dwelling, cultural patterns etc that we can guess from OR you have to have a lot of power and money to be able to build a monument. stonehenge couldn't have been built by a nice little village community sharing and being kind to each other any more than the pyramids were.
* i think if a theology still has to be expressed in latin it's probably dodgy.
* i think some "fundamentalist" teachings are as arrogant and pompous and erroneous as the popes. based on out of date translations of the bible and applied with ignorant and bigoted blinkered rigidity. so called "literal" application appalls me cos it's not what it claims to be. they apply one interpretation of one "verse" as it suits them without even looking at it's own context let alone its historical context. how could the teachings about race have become so prevalent amongst those groups based on a very vague misinterpretation of one verse in genesis when the whole law reiterates over and again that foreigners are to have more or less the same legal rights and obligations as natives, let alone all the teaching about equality in the NT.
* the evangelicals didn't actually break away from this rot till in the 40s and it took much longer to root it out of groups that call themselves evangelical or pentecostal. i'm an evangelical in the sense that luther invented the word - someone who has responded to the good news off my own bat not cos a church has told me i've got to go via it as an intermediary.
* what does the bible actually claim about itself ? - nothing like what the people who try to use it as incantations and spells claim. nor what some groups who use bits of it to justify their own politics. as far as i can see "word of God" is an expression that means several things not just the written collection of documents. for goodness sake why do have to use the words in latin. scripture just means written down. ok, lets say writings so it doesn't have religious overtones. bible - greek for collection or library. why are we so superstitious about it ?
* it claims to be a true account of what happened. as it was originally written that seems quite likely. where there's a difference there's often the alternative present too - eg the "chronicles" are the account of national events kept by the priests, an expurgated version of history. but the two volumes referred to as "kings" are a much fuller version, no holds barred, no taboos account of all the kings' faults as well as their strengths. as it is, it's all a much more coherent account of a nation's history than anything we have in britain so far back, so who do we think we are to pull it to pieces ? some of it is written down from an older oral record , that's no guess work, it actually says when things start to be from a written record in genesis . (it also mentions when the bronze age arrived to their peoples.)
words used in the bible to describe itself :
1) "the scriptures" - always referring to the old testament. they didn't even necessarily see the OT as a whole - sometimes the prophetic books are referred to separately from the historical and devotional documents : the law, and the prophets.
2) "the good news of Jesus" . gospel, ev-angel - latin and greek for good news - a common expression at the time - lots of wars - people would wait for an angel - messenger , to announce the progress in the latest international conflict. if the news was good he was called a herald of good news : angel + ev . which would be announced or proclaimed - the word we translate by preach, in a public place. this tradition was carried on in britain with the town cryer and we now call it a news bulletin, still communicated by an announcer (who wasn't present) or a reporter (who was).
3) "the teaching of the apostles". which is what it says.
how we use the bible, and what it is not.
* it's not a book of sayings. There's only 2 documents in the whole bible collection that are - proverbs and ecclesiastes. anywhere else we can't expect to just dip in and make full sense of any extract without bothering to read the rest. things are written in the context of a family saga, or a biography, a royal dynasty, a national crisis, a personal letter, a systematic explanation, a letter resolving a dispute or correcting error. so we can't use quoting a bible verse like a magic spell in a situation. we have to quote it intelligently
* not expecting everything in our current translation to make complete sense. The bible should, in my opinion be treated with the same circumspect respect as any historical documents. I would not like to lay odds as to whether the word translated "day" in my Bible means 24 hours, or general time period in the original ? it changes nothing about the fact that comes up all through the Bible - that God created the heavens and the earth, so why get our knickers in a twist about it ? did they thread camel thread (like threading the silk, or cotton into your needle) with difficulty or was it an actual camel through a small gate ?. these are things that are not central to salvation and i can hold on an open hand.
* People talk about details in the bible being inconsistent, but they're not being consistent themselves. the same ppl might accept hieroglyphics, or julius ceasar's writings to be a reliable account even though they're open to a huge amount of interpretation, and may have had elements of political propaganda too in their own day.
Friday, 1 February 2013
A Link : Evangelicalism and Steve Chalke
http://www.dyfedwynroberts.org.uk/index/evangelicalism-and-steve-chalke
In making a public statement on the issue Steve Chalke's desire was to start a conversation within evangelicalism on same sex relationships. He has been partially successful and long may that conversation continue. An unintended consequence of his statement, however, is the fact that he has also shone a light on the current state of the evangelical community. While there is much to laud within the movement this episode has highlighted something that may be of concern.
Bebbington's quad
In 1989 the church historian David Bebbington published his seminal work Evangelicalism in Modern Britain and offered his four characteristics of what makes an evangelical: the necessity of conversion; an emphasis on activism; having the cross at the centre of one's faith; and finally the importance of the Bible and the 'belief that all spiritual truth is to be found within its pages'. These four points have been widely accepted as being the defining characteristics of the movement.
One key thing about them is that they are quite broad in their scope. For example, both Calvinists and Arminians can be included within the definition despite their differences. So while Whitefield and the Wesleys differed on what the Bible taught about soteriology, they are all considered evangelicals. There seems to be plenty of room within Bebbington's definition for evangelicals to disagree on how the Bible is understood. While the movement accepted that 'the Bible is inspired by God' Bebbington noticed that there was 'remarkable fluidity in ideas about the effects of inspiration on the text'.
Outside the camp
But has this breadth has been called into question by Steve Clifford, the EA's general secretary, in his response to Chalke? As I said last week Clifford took the opposite view on the subject of same-sex relationships. That in itself is quite uncontroversial - at least within evangelical circles. However, in his response he took his argument one step further and claimed that Chalke's interpretation put him outside evangelicalism. Indeed he even claimed that Chalke's interpretative method would lead people to a false 'god'. As I'm sure you'd agree that's a very strong statement.
In putting Chalke outside the camp, however, is Clifford not insisting on having a far narrower definition of what constitutes an evangelical compared to the accepted classification? It seems that he is not content for Bebbington's classical definition - allowing room for biblical interpretation - to stand. To be an evangelical today one needs not only to have the Bible at the heart of one's spiritual life but also be bound by a particular way of interpreting it.
Does this suggest that the evangelical movement is turning inwards in the face of the many challenges of our post-Christendom times? And isn't this actually a drift towards fundamentalism?
Evangelicalism and Steve Chalke
Posted by Dyfed Roberts on Monday, January 28, 2013
Under: Post-Christendom
In making a public statement on the issue Steve Chalke's desire was to start a conversation within evangelicalism on same sex relationships. He has been partially successful and long may that conversation continue. An unintended consequence of his statement, however, is the fact that he has also shone a light on the current state of the evangelical community. While there is much to laud within the movement this episode has highlighted something that may be of concern.
Bebbington's quad
In 1989 the church historian David Bebbington published his seminal work Evangelicalism in Modern Britain and offered his four characteristics of what makes an evangelical: the necessity of conversion; an emphasis on activism; having the cross at the centre of one's faith; and finally the importance of the Bible and the 'belief that all spiritual truth is to be found within its pages'. These four points have been widely accepted as being the defining characteristics of the movement.
One key thing about them is that they are quite broad in their scope. For example, both Calvinists and Arminians can be included within the definition despite their differences. So while Whitefield and the Wesleys differed on what the Bible taught about soteriology, they are all considered evangelicals. There seems to be plenty of room within Bebbington's definition for evangelicals to disagree on how the Bible is understood. While the movement accepted that 'the Bible is inspired by God' Bebbington noticed that there was 'remarkable fluidity in ideas about the effects of inspiration on the text'.
Outside the camp
But has this breadth has been called into question by Steve Clifford, the EA's general secretary, in his response to Chalke? As I said last week Clifford took the opposite view on the subject of same-sex relationships. That in itself is quite uncontroversial - at least within evangelical circles. However, in his response he took his argument one step further and claimed that Chalke's interpretation put him outside evangelicalism. Indeed he even claimed that Chalke's interpretative method would lead people to a false 'god'. As I'm sure you'd agree that's a very strong statement.
In putting Chalke outside the camp, however, is Clifford not insisting on having a far narrower definition of what constitutes an evangelical compared to the accepted classification? It seems that he is not content for Bebbington's classical definition - allowing room for biblical interpretation - to stand. To be an evangelical today one needs not only to have the Bible at the heart of one's spiritual life but also be bound by a particular way of interpreting it.
Does this suggest that the evangelical movement is turning inwards in the face of the many challenges of our post-Christendom times? And isn't this actually a drift towards fundamentalism?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)