Rachel Held Evans

Am I an Evangelical? Are You?

A few weeks ago, a group of church leaders led by Os Guinness released An Evangelical Manifesto in an effort to explain “who evangelicals are and what they stand for.” The effort was largely motivated by their desire to pry evangelicalism from the grip of the religious right, and the resulting document is quite generous in its definition of evangelical orthodoxy, thought it has been criticized for being too vague.

Among other things, the document states that “evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth.” It asserts that “Jesus Christ is fully God become fully human” and that salvation comes through grace, not works. Interestingly, nothing is said about inerrancy.

The manifesto has been criticized by both evangelicals and the press for being too broad.

Scot McKnight made an interesting point about the subject on his blog. He claims that an attempt to unite evangelicals beneath one creed will fail because “evangelicalism never has been and never will be uniform in theology…[Evangelicalism] has always been ecumenical for the sake of the gospel.”

McKnight believes that three groups are currently threatening to hijack evangelicalism:
“1) The Religious Right, which seems to think all evangelicals have the same political views; 2) The Neo-Reformed, who think Calvinism is the only faithful form of evangelicalism; and 3)The Political Progressives, who like the Religious Right think the faithful form of evangelicalism will be politically progressive.”

I’m not sure An Evangelical Manifesto is an attempt by the third group to redefine evangelicalism by progressive standards. However, it does have the ring of inclusiveness and tolerance…which doesn’t bother me, but might bother other evangelicals.

I guess over the past few years I’ve become less and less certain about what it means to be an evangelical in the first place. I’ve been wondering: Can I still be an evangelical and vote for a democrat? Can I still be an evangelical and support gay rights? Can I be an evangelical if I prefer the word “authoritative” rather than “inerrant” to describe the Bible? Can I be an evangelical if I have a blog called “Evolving in Monkey Town”?

I affirm the Nicene Creed and consider myself a follower of Christ…but am I an evangelical?

Based on An Evangelical Manifesto I think I am. But based on other standards, the ones that get talked about a lot in evangelical circles, I’m not so sure.

So, what do you think?

Have you read the manifesto? Do you think it accurately explains evangelicalism? Is it too broad or too narrow? Do you think you are an evangelical? Why or why not? Do you think I’m an evangelical?

Unorthodoxology

Divisive...
Reply #1 on : Thu May 29, 2008, 00:31:48

I think the Evangelical Manifesto is a work of profound divisiveness and disingenuousness. First, it tries to hack off major portions of evangelical history -- fundamentalism (the historic movement between the turn of the 20th century) and fundamentalistic evangelicalism (the militant, politicized strain of folks like Falwell, et al, which is mistakenly called fundamentalism).

They are trying to reinvent and redefine the word, much like the evangelical intelligentsia (mostly highminded Calvinists) did in the 1940s and 1950s to move past the debacle in your hometown.

Anyway, I am opposed to any defining of a religious group as broad and beautiful as evangelicalism that attempts to narrow it down. The colorful, unwieldiness of evangelicalism is exactly what makes it so much fun to study!

Plus anyone who writes a "manifesto" has an overinflated ego that needs to be popped like a pimple on prom night. Sorry alliteration got the best of me.

Micah

blah
Reply #2 on : Thu May 29, 2008, 14:58:04

I agree with the OP about the pretentiousness of writing an Anything Manifesto.

I think the whole thing is silly, honestly. Don't we have better things to do? Are all the problems of the world solved?

Or, if I was at fark.com, I'd say

Evangelicals bicker for months in public and private over the proper definition of the word "evangelical." Still no cure for cancer.

kristen

Re: Am I an Evangelical? Are You?
Reply #3 on : Mon June 02, 2008, 14:24:14

i have read through some & skimmed some of the manifesto and i am not sure what to think of it. in general it says things i agree with but i too question its purpose.

there is a part of me that very much feels the need for christians to publicly remind the us and the wider world that not all christians are fundamental evangelicals. the fundamentalists bother me because i think they drive as many people away from the faith as they attract. it is the evangelical in me, if you will, that wants to see this public reaction against political fundamentalism so that people will see the great diversity of our faith and come to know the Truth of the gospel. i think perhaps this is a desire that i share with the authors/signers of the manifesto . . . yet i still question it. i wonder what good it will do, in the end.

i kind of don't care if i am considered an evangelical or not. to me, it is a word that has come to carry little meaning. so, rachel, if you want to be called evangelical, i think there is room for you to do so; if you don't, don't worry yourself with it.

kristen

Re: Am I an Evangelical? Are You?
Reply #4 on : Mon June 02, 2008, 14:25:14

i am quite interested to hear what mitch thinks about the manifesto actually.

Mitch

You Asked For It :)
Reply #5 on : Mon June 02, 2008, 19:00:53

I haven't read the Manifesto though I've read a couple brief articles about it. I'm glad there are Christians (evangelical or otherwise) that are saying "no" to politics as the purpose of the church. The church's job has been and will be (until Christ returns) to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ (his payment for our sins which leads to our reconciliation with God). Many in the church have been chasing a rabbit trail for a few years now trying to gain political power, I believe at the expense of evangelism and world missions.

I think the terms Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Calvinist, Dispensational, Christian, etc. are essentially useless unless defined. I tend to agree with Scott McKnight that creeds will be ineffective in this culture. I believe this because our postmodern culture believes that it's okay to take a word, change its meaning, and keep using the word. So when many people say Gospel, Christian, believe, faith, inspired, etc. they mean very different things. They may agree to the same creed, but they aren't agreeing to the same message. Time always brings this out. This manifesto attempts to define evangelicalism. In that regard I think it does a pretty good job because it focuses on the message of Jesus (even if it takes a weak stand on where it got that message, i.e. inerrancy). But in doing so, many people will redefine the terms used to define it. Postmodern deconstruction of language followed by the constructivism of new meaning leads to the suicide of thought in our generation, a dumming down of our knowledge and through processes. Science bears out that we think in language and our intelligence is largely based on it. To diminish language is to diminish logic, our ability to perceive, organize, and process our world, and ultimately thought itself. It guarantees that anyone can be "christian", "evangelical", "fundamentalist", etc. Simply redefine the word to include whoever you want to include, while keeping the word so that you can claim orthodoxy. The self-fulfilling prophecy of postmodernism is that it preaches language is open to interpretation, then uses that interpretive license to change meaning completely, which then does render the language ineffective to communicate.

Thankfully reality refutes postmodernism. Language may take a beating but it won't be lost because it's the stamp of a relational communicative God on His creation.

Finally, the term fundamentalist takes some unjust knocks in the media and certainly on this blog. A fundamentalist does not have to be a jerk, ignorant, mean, racist, or any of the other caricatures thrown around by the media or other factions of the church. A fundamentalist can simply a person that believes in certain "fundamentals" of the faith (its original meaning). There are a vocal few that have earned this reputation for the many. However, most of the fundamentalists I have known have been quiet, kind, gracious people that have spent their lives and their resources loving others (believers and unbelievers) well in deed and in truth by proclaiming the Gospel.

David

Language...
Reply #6 on : Tue June 03, 2008, 00:28:04

"Postmodernism," also known as poststructuralism, isn't a epistemology that says language is open to interpretation. It actually is a critique of language, a fracturing of it, that points out how our use of language, in Derrida's case, always points to more signs.

For instance, as one writer noted, the letter "t" is the letter "t" because it is not an "m" and "n" or any other letter. It is defined by what it is not, not by what it is.

So in our use of language we are constantly creating systems of thought that create and us and a them, and the us is just as dependent on them as the them is dependent on the us.

Most people who think of poststructuralism as a nihilist, relativist morass haven't read much of the theory behind it and, as in the emerging church movement, call it "postmodernism."

What poststructuralism teaches is precisely that language matters, deeply, because it constructs our reality, not deconstructs it.

Mitch

Poststructuralism
Reply #7 on : Tue June 03, 2008, 06:04:28

Whatever it is called, postmodernism or poststructuralism, it's selective use in the area of metaphysics is destroying the ability to communicate effectively. It is also resulting in a redefining of terminology (i.e. evangelical) and reinterpretation of literature (i.e. the Bible) in metaphysical discussion.

Language simply doesn't construct reality. It describes it, categorizes it, generalizes it, and can be used to communicate things that may change or affect reality, but it does construct reality.

No matter how many times you say "I can fly", you can't. The physical world rejects this. For some reason the postmoderns or poststructuralists are pushing that what demonstratably doesn't work in the physical world, MUST be accepted in the metaphysical world.

Since it can't be demonstrad as false, it must be true. That is not only bad logic, it's dangerous. It may not always lead to a "nihilist, relativist morass" but it often does end in pluralism and moral relativism. At the least it leaves christians that embrace it with no message to declare to the world. All that is left is to do good works and hope God will accept it. This social gospel though sentimentally nice, is not faitful Christianity according to the Bible.

Mitch

Proofread
Reply #8 on : Tue June 03, 2008, 06:08:17

Oops. I just looked at my last post and am embarrassed by my poor spelling and diction. Don't tell anyone I'm a teacher.

Dan

let's create some reality
Reply #9 on : Tue June 03, 2008, 14:14:32

Mitch, wouldn't you agree that meanings of words change over time and words themselves get created and change over time? If this is the case, I think it's rational to explore the idea that meaning is separate (not unrelated, just separate) from the words themselves.

DISCLAIMER: I may be a little off base on this, and I'm not very well read in postmodernism (or poststructuralism?), so I'm open to correction if I say something that isn't a fair representation.

Words are tools we use to create meaning from concepts. From my understanding, a postmodern approach to meaning or language doesn't suggest a lack or reduced importance of meaning. It moves the idea of meaning from being wholly contained within inanimate objects (such as words, or books) to also being contained in the people and the communities that use the words and write the books. This doesn't discount meaning, it just frames it based on people, (and other intelligences I assume).

Example: Let's create the word "dimpsty." Dimpsty probably doesn't have any meaning to you yet, because I just made it up. Now, I'll tell you I came up with this word by first lining up the letters DTMSTY from the words "Does This Make Sense To You?" I then repackaged it in a more english friendly form with a well placed vowel or two. This is a brand new word, using concepts from six other words. From now on it will have meaning between us. It doesn't have meaning inherently, and I'm sure you'll agree none of the original words are written when i write "dimpsty." The word "dimpsty has meaning because you and I had this conversation, you know the entire history of the word, and understood the original concepts. You and I just created meaning... we just created brand new single word to house a concept contained in our reality. In this case, it's an interrogative concept. In a later post if I tack on "dimpsty?" you'll know instantly what I mean, without needing to think of it's history.

How could this happen unless meaning is separate (though not unrelated) from the words? I think in this case, the meaning of the word dimpsty is between you and me. In a sense, we've created our own reality where dimpsty is a real word conveying a real concept. Dimpsty? Would you agree?

Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 14:22:15 by Dan

kristen

postmodernism and poststructuralism
Reply #10 on : Tue June 03, 2008, 14:42:30

the two terms are related but are not the same thing. david does make a valid point, however, that when many people criticize 'postmodernism' they are actually criticizing 'poststructuralism,' as structuralism (as well as poststructuralism) is the component that deals with language itself.

a simple way to understand poststructuralism is to say that it argues that context creates meaning. in structuralism, language forms the basic structure of our thoughts, words are signifiers for meanings but are independent of those meanings (the 't' example from above). the poststructuralism of foucault and derrida reacts against structuralism by claiming that there can be more than one meaning for a signifer/symbol/word. this meaning is based on context.

for example, in the (admittedly horrid) song by r. kelly, he sings "i believe i can fly." in hearing the song and his claims of being able to touch the sky, it becomes clear that kelly does not think that he can literally fly (like a bird or plane); rather, metaphorically, he can soar above difficulties in his life through strength of self and/or romantic love. the context defines the meaning of "i can fly" and kelly can indeed fly above adversity.

it is a reality that words change meaning through time, language, and context. others have discussed how this is so here on this blog (for example that there is more than one greek term for the single english term 'word.'). few would argue that this is shift of meaning based on context is reality though few think about it what this implies on the philosophical level.

when one draws the conclusions of foucault, derrida, and others (who hardly wanted to be called poststructuralists) out to one possible and extreme conclusion, one does indeed lead to a brand of nihilism. true poststructuralism, if there is such a thing, would claim that there is no Truth with a capitol T. it is important to note that few people who ascribe to aspects of poststructuralist theory today take it to that extreme. in fact, there exists substantial scholarly literature in reaction against poststructuralism. many poststructuralists would argue that there is indeed a Truth with a capitol T but that it proves difficult for one to discern all of it. JFK was indeed asassignated, but uncovering the complete historical Truth of the event may not be possible (but historians continue to try such things). applied to the Bible, this implies that God's word is Truth but we can disagree on how to interpret it (but believers continue to attempt knowing God better).

the problem, then, is that many argue (as i understand mitch to argue) against this extremity of poststructuralism which few people actually hold to. it is as frustrating an argument as when scientists try to argue against christians who claim that there is no sort of evolution, when, in reality, the vast majority of those who believe in a literal one-week creation also believe that microevolution does occur (as a part of God's continuing design). in both cases, arguments are being made that don't quite apply.

hmm--sorry that was so long. i keep telling myself that i should stop responding so much. :)

David

Posts
Reply #11 on : Tue June 03, 2008, 15:17:14

Kristen,
You are correct that postmodernism and poststructuralism aren't the same thing. Mitch had mentioned relativizing language, so I figured this is what he was referring to.

Of course, exactly what postmodernism is as frustrating to parse as is poststructuralism. I don't think that what PS puts forward is that there is no Truth, necessarily, but that there are many different truths, with each person asserting that their truth is the Truth. And, as you point out, that truth is contextual. To me, this is different than saying there is no truth.

But, to Mitch's point, that language doesn't construct reality: I would respectfully disagree, particularly in our world of spin, where one can name/label someone something and suddenly that becomes their defining characteristic. More personally, I am a stay-at-home-dad. I often read my son books. Overwhelmingly, these books portray a lovey-dovey relationship with mom, while father is barely present, and rarely involved. Thus, in reading these books to our children, we construct a reality in which mother is considered the caretaker and nurturer, which in turn is reinforced by us who were raised with a similar understanding.

Few books portray involved fathers who do a majority of the caretaking of children. Our culture largely doesn't support that idea, either, in the way it speaks and portrays families both in books and on television. Thus, our language and art have constructed a reality that presents as Truth/normative the roles of father and mother.

Also, I must point out that poststructuralism doesn't end in pluralism. Our globalized world is a pluralistic one, regardless of what one believes, thinks or writes.

Also, why does the social gospel get such a bad wrap, since Jesus said that how we will be judged is based on, basically, the social gospel. He never says that we will be judge based on whether we think he is the way the truth and the life, but whether we followed such a way -- in feeding the poor, caring for the widows, and fighting for the least of these. The message of Jesus is a social one, not metaphysical one.

I'll take my lumps now. :) Why is the security code I get always Zygote51?

Mitch

Language & Reality
Reply #12 on : Tue June 03, 2008, 18:56:17

Ok. Here goes my attempt to make this short and sweet.

Dan -- We agree that language does not have intrinsic meaning across time. However at any given point in time, a speaker uses a word or words to convey a particular (or if he's very clever a double) meaning. When the author's of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, it was to tell us something that we would understand. The historical, cultural, geographic, and other gaps between today and when it was written can make it difficult to understand some things in the Bible. However the central message of God's character (not only love, but truth, holiness, righteousness, justice, etc.) are clearly revealed even to us today. Hebrew is still spoken today as well as the Jewish culture is preseverved. Greek makes up a third of our English language, and our entire western culture is founded on Greek culture. Many of the same places have archeological evidence besides the records of Jewish and Greek historians of the time period. The meaning can be known. That is the issue.

Kristen believes that very few people actually hold to the postmodernism/poststructuralism perspective. I agree. That's because the reality of the world slaps it down. However this is the very view of many people in one thin aspect of their life, the Bible. With spiritual issues this is becoming the norm. The emergents best-selling books repeatedly take verses from the Bible, deconstructs their clear meaning, then give it a different meaning and proceed with their theological argument claiming that the Bible supports their view. They are doing this and within the church it's been accepted by many of the younger generation. It doesn't work in any other part of life and it certainly (yes I said certainly) isn't going to fly when they stand before God someday. Can you imagine telling God that he didn't communicate clearly enough to be understood or that using the excuse that you didn't interpret what he said to mean that -- I'm afraid for those who are playing these word games with the Bible. The very first sin began with these words, "Did God really say. . ." in Genesis 3. The answer was, "Yes, He did" and judgement came on the whole world as a result. Kristen, maybe you haven't run across this or maybe you didn't recognize it when you saw it, but in dealing with the Bible the newest movement within the younger generation is to the extremety of poststructuralism.

Besides that these folks are claiming there is not Truth with a capitol T. I'd be curious to hear from Rachel if she believes that truth exists over all times, places, cultures, and if it can be known. The claim by the secular postmoderns is that there is no Truth. The claim by the Christian postmoderns tend to be that if there is Truth (over all people, places, times, cultures, and perspectives) then it simply can't be know. Essentially a christian agnosticism results that places the individual in the role of deciding what Christian means since the Bible can't be trusted to tell us.

David, the social gospel is no gospel. Jesus says in John 3:36:

"He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him."

Yes, God is a God of love, but He is also a God with great wrath toward sin. Believing is how we are saved. The beauty of believing is that in Jewish culture and teaching belief always should lead to action. To you say you believe it but then not live it was and still is unthinkable to a Jew. This is why Paul and James say the same thing. Paul begin with belief and builds to action among the Gentiles. The Greek culture had divoced belief from action just as we continue today in our Greek heritage western culture. Paul started with belief and showed how belief should lead to action. Jesus and James didn't have to start there. The Jews already new what to believe. They had the Bible, the prophets, and Jesus. They also made very little distinction between belief and action since they were inseperable in Jewish thinking. Thus Jesus and James challenged right action (which implied right belief as well in their culture).

Words can create perceptions which can impact reality. Words do matter. However just because your child reads that mom is the caregiver, doesn't change the reality that you are the one making them lunch and cleaning up their messes. Words impact reality by leading us to make choices, they don't construct reality.

OK, my time is up. Gotta go.

David

factual errors...
Reply #13 on : Tue June 03, 2008, 19:28:37

Mitch,

I happen to think the central message of Jesus was to love God and love neighbor. This is the message of the social gospel. To do justice to the least of these. This is how we serve God. Strangely, this sentiment is shared by most major world religions.

Jesus tells a story of the servants. One who said he would do what the master said. One who said he would not. In the end, the one who said he would not do the work asked of him, did it. The one who had promised to, did not. Which will be rewarded?

You say believing is how we are saved. I am confused. Because in our society and language, believing is ascribing to a certain set of propositions. This is what our language means. But, you seem to imply that believing is also action-oriented. Thus, you seem to be trying to change how most of us understand the word believe. I happen to agree with you on that point, though. What you are doing is to show that the word "believe" has deeper meaning and is inextricably connected to other words. Believe contains the inherent trace of action. This is actual deconstruction as Derrida described (instead of the self-serving way many emergents describe it).

Deconstruction isn't about tearing down beliefs. That is demythologization, which is the result of some cognitive dissonance and loss of meaning that is beyond one's control. Eventually, remythologization usually happens. (James Fowler, Stages of Faith).

Also, I question whether in Jewish culture it was impossible to consider believing divorced from action. Wasn't this the primary critique of the Pharisees? Hollow belief? Perhaps they had wrong actions because they had wrong beliefs. But they followed the letter of the law in all its minutae. They had correct beliefs. But they had wrong actions. They didn't reach out to the least of these, which Jesus says, is the litmus test for eternity.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, and I'll take my chances with the love of God. Plus, if the Bible is inerrant, and you have spoken the Truth, we must trust the Bible to fulfill itself and have the word not return void.

David

An addition...
Reply #14 on : Tue June 03, 2008, 19:51:00

To speak of the changing nature of language and its ability to shape our reality, let's look to the Bible, two accounts of the same story.

I SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel,and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Which is it?

Mitch

Re: Am I an Evangelical? Are You?
Reply #15 on : Tue June 03, 2008, 22:13:30

1. I didn't say believing is how we are saved. Jesus did! I quoted John 3:36 and explained how Jesus teaching on right action matches very well with his teaching on right belief as how we are saved. Your beef is with Jesus words not mine.

2. I'm saying that "believing" something at that place and time in Jewish culture implyed the understanding that you would act accoring to your belief -- an insinuation that in Greek culture was not as strong, thus Paul carefully articulate this in Romans & Galatians among other places. Thus "believing" according to what the Bible teaches is ascribing intellectually to facts which then change how you live. The Pharisees did not have right belief as Jesus repeatedly condemned them for not accepting Him and His teaching. They illustrated their wrong belief in their wrong actions, i.e. killing Jesus Christ.

3. There are several parallel passages in the scripture that have nuanced or seemingly contradictory statements, usually about relatively insignificant details. You raise one of them. There are several available explanations but I expect that you are probably not really interested in any of them. I'll throw the answer I think most likely out there so you can play your game of "gotcha".

I think this is simply the same issue as the problem of evil . . .who is responsible? Does God cause evil or does Satan? Ultimately God is sovereign and "responsible" for allowing it, while it is Satan that carries it out (and me and you and any other sinners). Job gives a good insight in this. Satan does terrible things to Job which God allows. It would be accurate to say God did this to Job or to say that Satan did. Have a good time.

4. It seems that we digress from the point of Rachel's post which dealt with labels like "evangelical" and their definition / defense.

5. The Word does return void when the Word is not being communicated (even using the same words if those words do not have the same meaning, then it isn't the word). That is why false teachers are condemned and to be disassociated from the church. This is why when Satan quoted scripture to Jesus in Matthew 4, Jesus responded with scripture properly used in context to reveal that Satan's message(though using God's words) was not accurate, not the same. Truth matters and words are tools to communicate truth.

David

Believing...
Reply #16 on : Wed June 04, 2008, 00:46:52

Let me first apologize if I have offended you, Mitch. It was not my intention. I simply like to think openly about these things and enjoy healthy conversation about tricky topics.

Jesus also said that those who give a cup of cold water to thirsty are saved. I know of many people who have done this, but are not "Christians." What am I to do with this? What am I to do with the myriad people who have never heard the gospel? Or have heard a gospel from unloving people?

You are still pointing out the fluidity of language. Belief in parallel cultures meant different things. In one, it implied action. In another, it didn't. One may be right. One may be wrong. But it doesn't change the fact that the same concept holds different meanings in different contexts.

I have engaged with you on tough topics genuinely and am disappointed that you refuse to do the same regarding the passage I pointed out or with the parable of Jesus I pointed out. These things do not fit neatly into a box.

I am surprised to think that equating the "anger of the Lord" -- that wrath you pointed out in an early post -- and "satan" in the Bible is an insignificant detail!

Shall we instead discuss the two contradictory stories of creation?

I genuinely don't think God will be angry at honest inquiry.

What I am saying regarding the word is that if you are preaching the true word and communicating the true word, will that word return void? The Bible says it won't. So, I trust that if you are correct, the seed you planted will eventually grow. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong, that you are wrong, and that we are both wrong. How can this idea even remotely be offensive?

And Jesus condemned the Pharisees for condemning others. That, perhaps, is a wrong belief.

Mitch

Belief
Reply #17 on : Wed June 04, 2008, 02:15:31

Just a quick clarification. I am not saying belief meant different things in different cultures. I'm saying it meant the same thing in both Jewish & Greek cultures, but that in Jewish culture it additionally had the implication of correct action. The Jewish cultures automatically would have understood belief affects action, the Greek may not.

I'm not offended David so no worries. I just don't think this topic is as tricky as it's being made. I thought I did deal with the passage you raised. My point is that the passage was not about Satan or the anger of the Lord but a historical narrative and that these two phrases could be understood to be saying the same thing in different ways.

I don't believe there are two contradictory creation accounts. I don't believe God will be angry with honest inquiry. But it isn't honest inquiry to have decided in advance that there can be no knowable answer which is what many postmoderns are preaching. Thanks for the conversation.

Laurie

"Postmodern" Biblical Interpretation
Reply #18 on : Wed June 04, 2008, 11:26:15

Just a quick comment in response to Mitch's observation that "The emergents best-selling books repeatedly take verses from the Bible, deconstructs their clear meaning, then give it a different meaning and proceed with their theological argument claiming that the Bible supports their view."

Interpreting Biblical passages in ways outside the box of theological systems and ascribing meanings to them other than the "clear" or apparant one is nothing new. It has been done throughout the centuries of Christendom, and often, I would argue, to the edification of believers. Cases in point are the uses of various passages by mystical giants of the faith like Theresa of Avila and the anonymous author of "The Cloud of Unknowing." William Johnston talks about this "creative," for lack of a better word, use of the Bible in his introduction to "The Cloud of Unknowing" when he talks about the author's christology. He says:

"In this Christology, however, some readers may be perturbed by the author's use of the Bible. . . . his apparent twisting of Scripture to illustrate and prove his point may bring a smile to the lips of the modern exegete. Yet this approach is typical of the mystics from Origen to John of the Cross. And it is, I believe, legitimate, and even helpful to the modern exegete. . . . The contemplative approach to Scripture complements the exegetical and is, I believe, coming more and more to the fore today."

Johnston wrote this Introduction to "The Cloud" in 1973, and I think it's very pertinent today. Like him, I think various approaches to Scripture complement one another. The Spirit speaks through systematic, theological approaches to Scripture and through experiential, contemplative, and other approaches. THey aren't mutually exclusive.

David

A nice place to end...
Reply #19 on : Wed June 04, 2008, 11:45:15

Thanks Mitch for the response. I still am having a hard time with the way you nuance the term "believe." It still seems like you are saying this concept had different meanings in different cultures when you say:

"I'm saying it meant the same thing in both Jewish & Greek cultures, but that in Jewish culture it additionally had the implication of correct action."

I guess, I just don't get it. Oh well. But I would very much be interested in your thoughts on the anger of God/satan passage and how these two phrases communicate the same thing. Are you saying that the anger of the Lord is equivalent to the work of satan? This is probably not the place for such a tangential discussion, so I posted a brief thought at my blog (unorthodoxology dot blogspot dot com)and am extending an open invitation for you to share your thoughts there. I do appreciate opposing points of view.

And I'll add a hearty amen to Laurie. And then shut up. :)

Write a comment

Required fields are bold and marked with *.

Evolving in Monkey Town

living, learning, and re-thinking fundamentalism in the town that gave it its name

Am I an Evangelical? Are You?

Write a comment

It happens to everyone...