I wrote this summary of "original meaning" appropriation (the third of three Christian methods of appropriating Scripture: 1) pneumatic, 2) theological, and 3) original meaning. Any additions or corrections?
____________
"We might thus suggest three key factors in appropriating the original meaning of a biblical book to today. First, there is the question of genre. What are the dynamics of each type of literature that come into play when appropriating that type.
Second, there is the question of continuity and discontinuity between “that time” and “this time.” The notion of continuity and discontinuity is arguably a little more sophisticated than talking about “all time” principles because, whether we like it or not, our sense of what those “all time” principles are is a function of “our time”—because we are the ones conceptualizing those principles! But in the end, what we may find is that there are some things we would not be able to do today that they could in biblical times (e.g., have slaves) and there may be some things that we can do today that they could not (e.g., have goatees).
Finally, there is the question of integrating biblical teaching. How does one Scripture connect to the other pieces of Scripture? Where does an individual passage stand in the flow of revelation? This rigorous method is surely not necessary to hear God’s voice in Scripture, but it is sound nonetheless and, in many respects, safer than the pneumatic method we mentioned above."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This might be relevant; it's certainly timely:
http://mikevlach.blogspot.com/2011/02/nt-use-of-ot-part-1-introduction-to.html
Mike,
This is a typical Protestant view (the Church replacing Israel) and is useful for theological purposes and political ends (not unlike what Marx does with history) and eschalogical "hope" (isn't this like Hegal?). Isn't this view based on some view of "end times". too, which fits in nicely with Wesley's post-millinialism? or even, an a-millinial view....
The solution, as seen by the Church replacement, is that the Church will 'break down the wall of separation" between the Abrahamic religions. This is what is being attempted today.
BUT, what is so dangerous about politicizing theology is that "theology" is taken by those that are "true believers" as REAl REALITY for ALL people...this is NOT how our Founders understood our nation was to approach religion!!!!
Unless we want to sanction a return to Constaintinianism, or a RELIGIOUS STATE, then affirming such ideology is and has brought about revolutions which have ended in some form of totaltalitarianism...I fear this is what has been "envisioned" as an attemtp to reconcile Islam within the Abrahamic traditions...but at waht costs...?????
It is much more appropriate to understand how humans and religion are so entrenched and how belief systems are so hard to overcome...
This information might be of interest to those that really want to know what is at stake in belief systems....
Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die, by Gregory W. Lester
"Because senses and beliefs are both tools for survival and have evolved to augment one another, our brain considers them to be separate but equally important purveyors of survival information....This means that beliefs are designed to operate independent of sensory data. In fact, the whole survival value of beliefs is based on their ability to persist in the face of contradictory evidence. Beliefs are not supposed to change easily or simply in response to disconfirming evidence. If they did, they would be virtually useless as tools for survival....Skeptical thinkers must realize that because of the survival value of beliefs, disconfirming evidence will rarely, if ever, be sufficient to change beliefs, even in “otherwise intelligent” people....[S]keptics must always appreciate how hard it is for people to have their beliefs challenged. It is, quite literally, a threat to their brain’s sense of survival. It is entirely normal for people to be defensive in such situations. The brain feels it is fighting for its life....it should be comforting to all skeptics to remember that the truly amazing part of all of this is not that so few beliefs change or that people can be so irrational, but that anyone’s beliefs ever change at all. Skeptics’ ability to alter their own beliefs in response to data is a true gift; a unique, powerful, and precious ability. It is genuinely a “higher brain function” in that it goes against some of the most natural and fundamental biological urges." Link
The right of the Church of proving what "character" is expected is also what such belief sytems are also about. Such "Christian character' is defined in "Jesus, a moral model"....not too much choice about other "models" that might be informative or used as "heroes".
The church will set about defining everyone's life on this model. And it will conflate diversity of personality and purpose to "the Sermon on the Mount". Such a life is not worth living, because it has already be "taken"/defined without any consent.
Post a Comment