Christians do some very odd things when they gather to worship.
They rehearse the death of their founder, and eat a “meal” to commemorate that death.
The meal has two courses: make-believe blood and faux flesh.
Christians will ritually "kill" converts, burying them in water, and they sing songs of love to Persons their eyes have never seen.
Certainly worthy of mention among the weird and wonderful things Christians do is this: they open an ancient book (actually a collection of writings), read from it or listen to it being read, and with some few exceptions, they will expect to be addressed in some sense by the Creator of the Universe. They even give little speeches to explain this reading and to demonstrate its relevance to following their Leader.
Now, that may not strike you as an odd practice. And if it doesn’t strike you as odd, then you’ve probably been in the church quite a while -- because this is the picture: Ancient book, writers usually unknown, bizarre stories. The book is handed down generation to generation, so that we can read from it and say, “This is the Word of the Lord.”
Thanks be to God.
If I can remove my tongue from my cheek for a moment, let me ask you a question: what do we mean when we say things like “This is the Word of the Lord?”
What do you mean by it?
Are you saying it is inspired? Trustworthy? Beneficial?
I found a really interesting QUIZ that I think you’ll enjoy.
Click this >>>
Hermeneutics QuizWhat Christians never do is open
Mein Kampf, or
The Complete Works of Shakespeare, or the
New York Times, and expect to hear the Word of the Lord. Why is that?
What is your view of the Bible?
What is your church's view?
Does it matter?
15 comments:
Dude, why you gotta go for the tough questions right off the bat!?!
Both Tracy and I scored as moderate, progressives.
But, I'm not gonna say any more, not at this early a date...
Interesting. I scored a 70, which made me progressive (I think). First time I've been accused of that. What was your numerical score?
I was a 75 and Tracy was a 73.
What I find intriguing is that Mcknight allows none to be without contradictions.
Despite the fact that moderates have a flexible hermeneutic that gives them the freedom to pick and choose on which issues they will be progressive or conservative. For that reason, moderates are more open to the charge of inconsistency. Their's
might be seen as the voice of reason and open-mindedness.
But, he never really lays out what a moderate hermeneutic might be--beyond some sort of vaguely defined pragmatism. (I am ascribing that to him.)
Clearly, I am progressive because of these sentences, and I would venture to say that you are as well.
Still, the progressive tends to see the Bible as historically shaped and culturally conditioned, and yet most still consider it the Word of God for today. Following a progressive hermeneutic, for the Word to speak in our day, one must interpret what the Bible said in its day and discern its pattern for revelation in order to apply it to our world.
The danger he states regarding progressives is getting lost in trying to find ways "to apply" the Scriptures.
This might work, say, with any of the various stories... I'm much more comfortable interpreting Job or Esther or Nehemiah as a story than as life principles, as possibly some conservatives would do. But, at the same time, I find it hard to push into meaninglessness such injunctions as to love one's neighbor, be perfect as God is perfect, speak the truth, etc.
But, as moderate progressives, all it seems to mean is it that one is an aware of the historical situatedness of Scripture (both the various moments of writing and compiling and the various moments in which it is read.) But, this awareness does not, in any sense, imply not living under the demands of the Word.
Wow, I scored a 43. Who would have guessed...me...a conservative. I was a little dissapointed with some of the answer options as I was looking for a "none of the above" selection...which would have probably been the case in a few. I thought that was a fun little quiz though...it got me thinking..and that's always good. :]
Carolyn:
I scored 65 which makes me a moderate. I feel that is a fair evaluation. In my younger years, both as a Christian and a person, I saw things as black/white, but with experience and compassion, I have come to see that each situation, both biblical and personal, has to be viewed by the circumstances of the times. It is one thing to be judgmental and arbitrary when the situation doesn't affect you personally, but when it is a situation that you must live with on a daily basis, you begin to see shades of gray. I believe Jesus saw the shades of gray and was therefore able to dine with the sinners and befriend the prostitutes and make a difference where a difference was most needed.
i have a friend who scored considerably higher than the scores being reported. does this mean that he would need to find a new church?
of course not!!
BOB bob BOB came in at a 65! I am 'not sure' what this means? -- I do know there are rational and irrational numbers, and that between each rationale, an irrational. Why? My favorite irrational number is pie: 3.41421365... - also, I do enjoy the square root ot 2: 1.4142165....
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/003/5.12.html
an interesting companion read to the discussion
an interesting companion read to the discussion
sorry, the code didn't come out right...
I got a 68, but then I again, I'm an old geezer. I want to see what Tiffany gets.
I scored on the low end of moderate, i guess: 58.
I wonder where N. T. Wright scores on this.
Tiffany got a 54. That why I nick-named her Torquemada.
I scored between 53 and 65, which is moderate. I always thought I was a rebel! ;)
~Kara
Post a Comment