• Home
  • About
  • Podcast Archive
  • Subscribe (RSS)
  • Subscribe (iTunes)
  • Deacons
  • Live Events
  • Advertise With Us

Homebrewed Christianity

Equipping grassroots theologians for creative thinking, engaging, and living.

Claremont School of Theology

You are here: Home / Archives for thinking / bible stuff

Meaningful Dialogue and Dialogue about Meaning

May 20, 2013 by Callid Keefe-Perry 13 Comments

Guest Blogger: Amy Mitchell of UnchainedFaith.com

Not long ago, I read a lively discussion among a group of fellow writers on the interpretation of Scripture and who has earned to right to explain the meaning and original context for the Bible. Two of them suggested that theological discourse must begin with specific courses of study, including language; the third disagreed. I found myself feeling uncomfortable as I scrolled through the conversation, for a number of reasons.

First, I don’t entirely disagree. My education and experience are in nursing and health science, with an emphasis on women’s and children’s wellness. It always makes me roll my eyes at least a little whenever someone tries to educate me on those topics, particularly when that person’s entire knowledge base seems to derive from either WebMD or conspiracy-theory channels. It can be just as frustrating to have a rational discussion about health as it is about the Bible for a lot of the same reasons. I can identify with believing that one should be thoroughly educated, preferably from an accredited school of [insert your area of expertise], before attempting to debate the finer points. In that sense, I recognize that I’ve been guilty of PWAD—Philosophizing without a Degree—and that makes me feel awkward.

Second, I immediately recognized something suspicious about these bloggers—they are all white men. These are people who have the luxury of not needing to defend themselves. Even women who have been to seminary often find themselves ignored or disrespected, or they have their credentials questioned whenever they offer an opinion. Among those of us who have not earned advanced degrees, most people are more likely to listen to men on matters of theology—as though we women don’t have any idea how to research a particular topic and are just making things up as we go along (or as though our entire theology is built on the concept of “story”). Some months ago, a well-known progressive Christian tweeted to me that he never reads women on matters of feminism or theology, because these women are still steeped in patriarchy and aren’t progressive enough. He refused to acknowledge that women might, in fact, be experts on women and that by ignoring us he was doing the very thing he claimed to be avoiding. In fairness, he isn’t entirely wrong; white feminist theology is fraught with problems. His solution, however—to only read the writings of men on feminism and feminist theology—is misguided at best and misogynistic at worst. The only time I’ve ever felt more marginalized was in a conservative evangelical church, and even there, at least I knew what to expect. I appreciate what these men are trying to do—bring dignity to writing on Scripture—but they shouldn’t make proclamations about who has the right without thinking deeply about what that means for people who have been underrepresented in pastoral ministry and how it comes across when white men try to interpret Scripture that addresses the personhood of people who are not they.

Third, I’m not convinced that merely having an education (or knowing Hebrew and Greek or having taken courses in Biblical Studies) is a fair way to give the stamp of approval for theological discourse. There are still plenty of pastors who make grave errors in interpretation regardless of their study. How many times in the last month alone have well-known preachers made foolish doctrinal statements? How many of us have left fundamentalist religion because we regularly heard sermons in which people were marginalized or shamed? Those pastors would likely all claim that any other reading of the text is faulty, just as more progressive pastors and theologians might claim their reading is the right one. In fact, those are two sides of the same coin; both stem from a desire to find the one, true meaning of each and every verse of the Bible. Knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, and even understanding cultural context, may or may not lead to better interpretation. Instead, education becomes a weapon for both sides to use against one another—and the casualties are those of us who dwell outside those intellectual debates, most of whom just want to know how to love God and serve others.

Theology and interpretation of the Bible are important for those of us who have to navigate the divide between the teachings of the church and our study and experience of the real world. I’ve spent the better part of twenty years trying to figure out how to reconcile what I know about human anatomy, physiology, and sexuality with what the church has taught. For those of us outside the ivory tower, theology is not about needing to find the best rendering of a specific word in the Hebrew Bible or the social constructs leading to Paul’s invented phraseology. It doesn’t exist only in the spaces where one investigates the theories of atonement and weighs them against one another. Instead, it lives in the place where I need the words to explain why a certain reading of the text does more to promote than to prevent damage. I need to be able to talk about theology because it matters that my mind and my soul be united, especially when caring for people the church has ignored, shamed, and marginalized.

A better way to handle discussions about heavy topics is to extend trust to one another. Those of us in the trenches of human existence have become fearful of anyone we see as part of “the institution” of whatever we happen to dislike at the moment. It’s easy to fear pastors, just like it’s easy to fear teachers or doctors. Those of us who are or have been part of an institution may feel defensive about our position within that community and wish to hang on to our authority. It’s like Thanksgiving dinner—we tend to divide ourselves, seating one group at the adults’ table in the dining room and relegating the other to the kids’ table in the kitchen. What if now and again we all just took our plates and hung out in the living room together?

So what do you think? Can we have a conversation about what the Scriptures mean without degrees and language study? Or are we better off leaving it to the experts?

 

Amy Mitchell is a  family woman, feminist, LGBT ally, reader, writer, and nerd. She considers herself a progressive Christian, even if that does sometimes earn her the side-eye from both directions.  She likes to poke holes in conservative Christian culture and theology, but she requires copious amounts of caffeine to do it effectively.  She can be found blogging at http://www.unchainedfaith.com

 

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: bible stuff, engaging, latest, philosophy, sermon, thinking Tagged With: Amy Mitchell, education

God Is Not Like Me

May 12, 2013 by Bo Sanders 11 Comments

I grew up in a tradition that said I should be, as much as possible, like Jesus.  I get that – and I try to do so.

Yesterday at the Loft LA I had the privilege to say 3 things (among many others) about God:

  1. God is Black (from James Cone)
  2. She Who Is (from Elizabeth Johnson)
  3. God is a Fag ( from Bernard Brandon Scott)

It is interesting because I am none of these three things! I am not black, a women, or homosexual. It is interesting then to present these images of a God who is very much different than I am – even as we, as a community, are being conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29).  money_and_god

It is important that we acknowledge that God is not on the side of ‘the powers’ but of those in need of liberation – that it is equally as accurate and as inaccurate to call God ‘She’ and it is to call God ‘He’ – and that according to 2 Corinthians 5:21

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

This is a topsy-turvey business.

Over the last 20 years of ministry I have noticed a somewhat unsettling trend that in order to be like God, I have had to move away from many of the natural strengths that ‘God gave me’.

  •  While I love to be at center stage in the spot light with a microphone – I am fascinated with the cell group, house church, and small group model of church. As a pentecostal, I am obsessed with how the Spirit of God is at work in the People of God.
  • While I am a big, hairy, muscular man – I am convinced that feminist theologian are right and that Christian history does not accurately reflect the will and mind of God for the world that God loves so much (John 3:16).
  • While I am white guy – I am writing my dissertation on ‘White Privilege’ and hoping to confront some of the systemic racism that will not do as we move into the 21st Century.

So while I attempt to be more like God, I am very aware that God is not all that much like me. 

This is an important distinction. As C.S. Lewis said in his poem “A footnote to all prayers”  (it references Pheidias who was  a legendary statue maker in the ancient world):

He whom I bow to only knows to whom I bow
When I attempt the ineffable Name, murmuring Thou,
And dream of Pheidian fancies and embrace in heart
Symbols (I know) which cannot be the thing Thou art.
Thus always, taken at their word, all prayers blaspheme
Worshipping with frail images a folk-lore dream,
And all men in their praying, self-deceived, address
The coinage of their own unquiet thoughts, unless
Thou in magnetic mercy to Thyself divert
Our arrows, aimed unskilfully, beyond desert;
And all men are idolators, crying unheard
To a deaf idol, if Thou take them at their word.

Take not, O Lord, our literal sense. Lord, in thy great
Unbroken speech our limping metaphor translate.

When we pray, we by nature blaspheme – all of us. The reality is that language , by its nature, means that words are provisional. When the Hebrew Testament speaks of God as a ‘King’ or Martin Luther writes a hymn declaring “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” … these are analogies. They are metaphors. They are temporary place holders.

Anything that we say about God is (in the apophatic sense) both illustrative and, at the same time, not exactly all that accurate. We would do well to get used to saying :

“God is like X … and that, of course, is not exactly true.”

Philippians 2 is helpful at this point. The ‘Kenotic’ Move of Christ self-emptying and descending for the purpose of service, exhorts us to not hold onto anything too tightly (clinging/grasping) but to empty our certainty and expose all of our assumptions to that which is not natural to us. Not an easy task!

If we acknowledge, then, that all language is provisional… that it is just a accurate and as inaccurate to call God she or he… that any prayer is at some level blaspheming … and that I am called to be like God – though I know that God is not exactly like me … then I can begin a kenotic journey of recognizing God while releasing God from my pre-conceived notions.

This is the dynamic journey of faith: to recognize  the full moon and the new moon, the high tide and low tide, the Fall and the Spring, the ebb and the flow, the fall and the rise of all that I am familiar with and and all that I am ignorant about. That is what we talk about when we talk about God.

Rob Bell puts it this way:

When we talk about God, then, we’re talking about something very real and yet beyond our conventional means of analysis and description.

The Germans, interestingly enough, have a word for this: they call it grenzbegrifflich. Grenzbegrifflich describes that which is very real but is beyond analysis and description.

When I’m talking about God, I’m talking about your intuitive sense that reality at its deepest flows from the God who is grenzbegriff.

Bell, Rob (2013-03-12). What We Talk About When We Talk About God (Kindle Locations 767-772). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

I would love your feedback and reflections.  

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: bible stuff, books, church history, conversations, emergent, engaging, latest, living, post-something, quotes, sermon, thinking Tagged With: Bernard Brandon Scott, Bible, book, books, C.S. Lewis, church, Elizabeth Johnson, feminist, gay, God, homosexual, James Cone, jesus, kenosis, Phil 2, prayer, Rob Bell, sin

Faith-Works: What’s the differance?

April 24, 2013 by Stephen Keating 8 Comments

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life. –Ephesians 2.8-9

For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead. –James 2.26

Ah, the old faith versus works debate. Paul vs. James: cage fight! Who wins?

To be honest, it has been a while since I have given this one any thought. Once you realize that the various documents of the Scriptures were written with/regards/to/from various communities with differing problems and emphases, making them all fit together exactly isn’t so important. And yet, what if this particular “problem” shouldn’t be?

In his new book Outlaw Justice: The Messianic Politics of Paul, Ted Jennings offers a fresh reading of Romans, bringing together insights from ancient political thinkers and contemporary philosophers. In the introduction, he explains some of the choices that he had to make in translating the text.

The reading of this text that I propose here breaks with this tradition of reading Paul. The reading begins by restoring terms like “law” and “justice” to their basic political significance. So dominant has the apolitical reading of Romans become that it will be necessary to introduce a number of unfamiliar translations into this reading. In part this is neces- sary to help the reader encounter a text with fresh eyes not blinkered by the tradition. A strategy of defamiliarizing is almost always necessary to allow a fresh encounter with the text. But in this case it is even more important if the text is to be liberated from its cloying confinement in the cult like enclave of traditional religious reading. Much of this is simple substitution warranted by the text itself: Judean rather than Jewish, messiah rather than Christ, justice rather than righteousness, fidelity or loyalty rather than faith, generosity or favor rather than grace, Joshua rather than Jesus, and so on.

So next time you’re reading your Bible, try translating “faith” as fidelity. It works!

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: bible stuff, books, engaging, latest, philosophy, politics, thinking Tagged With: Ephesians, faith, fidelity, james, outlaw justice, paul, Romans, ted jennings, works

Emergent Preaching?

April 12, 2013 by Bo Sanders 25 Comments

A good question can stimulate the brain to put together things that one had not previously connected. Stuart Harrell asked my a question about what a course on emergent “preaching” would look like. Here are some of my thought – I would love to hear yours.

GtMeadow

My cleaned up tweets are posted as bullet-points with a clarifying thought following. 

  • You would want to immediately address message and medium. It’s not just a repacking of the same old material.

What we are experiencing in a genuinely different expression of the good news. I watch lots of video clips of hip – fashionable – edgy young preachers who are still on an elevated stage using the exact same forms as the past 100 years … only they have added video clips and hair gel.

That is not what we are talking about. That is just lipstick on pig :)  not that I really believe that old-school preaching is a pig, I just love that phrase.

  •  #EmergentPreaching would involve scripture, culture, media, dialogue, experience & impartation to start.

The ‘problem’ with emergent thought is that it is neither reductive nor is it reproducible. It is environment specific (contextual) and organic. It interacts with its surroundings and emerges from its participants. It is a different animal from day 1.

  • I have given a LOT of thought to Emergent Preaching since my dad is a homiletics Prof. & I helped start The Loft LA recently.

One of our biggest glitches is that our ‘gatherings’ don’t translate to podcasts or video very well. We planned on being media savvy but the ‘sermon’ is broken up into conversation starters, dialogue, small groups, feedback and presentation. It’s kind of messy and we are still trying to figure out how to ‘capture’ it authentically. I think that we are going to start just throwing it out there unedited for members who missed that week in case they want to catch up.

  • the task of Emergent Preaching would deal with issues of power, voice, dialogue, participation, action, justice & cultural stuff.

This is where the medium must be addressed along with the message. HOW we do something is as important as WHAT we do.

Proclamation is a vital part of the Christian tradition. We don’t want to lose that! We address the form as well.

Why is there one person talking anyway? How is that person chosen? With what authority do they speak? These are essential questions to ask.

  • Assumptions of culture, the gospel, power, structures, and orthopraxy are vital to address in thinking about.

We are always attempting to do at least two things (this is true for every area of life). Side note: this is why saying that sex is only for procreation is ludicrous.  So it is incumbent upon us to concern ourself with present cultural realities as well as desired outcomes – because we preach an incarnational gospel that must be in-bodied (embodied) to survive.

  • One would have to pull back the curtain & examine the scaffolding (assumptions) that hold the entire project up.

This is the tough job of deconstructing a constructive theology. There is no easy way around it.

  • It would be part Liberation, Feminism, Walter Wink, masters of suspicion, biblical scholarship & philosophy.

There is just no sense in even attempting to do proclamation in the 21st century under the auspices of emergence without this. Emergent Preaching would need to be well-informed and undeniably self-aware at some level. This seems unavoidable.

  • But it would also have to be rooted in history, hermeneutics, scripture and praxis. Those are my thoughts on Emergence Preaching. 

In the end, we preach the christian gospel and not some form of god-ness or spirit-uality. We are the church after all. Accounting for history, hermeneutics, scripture and praxis is tall order. But what is the other option?

 

I would love to hear your thoughts on my little list and see if you had any additions. 

You can also tweet me & and Stuart Harrell - use the hash-tag #EmergentPreaching

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: bible stuff, books, church history, conversations, emergent, engaging, latest, living, sermon, thinking Tagged With: Bible, book, books, church, Emergent, emerging, God, history, homiletics, jesus, preaching, science, The Loft LA

The Cross: meaning, redemption and the future

April 12, 2013 by Bo Sanders 4 Comments

Guest post by Renee Axtell – Wooden Cross
one of the stars of the Easter Call-In Challenge has sent us her thoughts from the amber waves of Kansas. 

Should we stop saying that God sent Jesus to die?

My answer is yes. We should stop saying that God sent Jesus to die, because that implies that God’s intention prior to Jesus’s birth was to send Him to die, and that would be mean. A loving God doesn’t do mean things.

 But… if you accept the premise that God knows everything that’s knowable, and the future isn’t knowable (because it hasn’t happened yet), then God couldn’t have known for sure that Jesus would be crucified.

It doesn’t take a Divine Mind to figure out that a person doing and thinking the things that Jesus did and said in first century Palestine was going to get crucified. I think that explains Jesus’s predictions of his own death found in the gospels. But just because you can predict something is likely to happen doesn’t make it your will or your desire.

I’ve got teenagers. I know teenagers are going to do things that are going to have painful results. That doesn’t mean that it’s my will as a parent that they do those things and experience those painful results, but it’s highly predictable.

So the Father sends the Son into a dangerous situation, the worst case scenario happens, and Jesus ends up getting crucified. God sees this and says, “I can use this for something good. In fact, since this evil thing happened to my Son, I’m going to use this to do literally The Best Thing Ever and defeat death and redeem the world.”

That’s just what God does. “We know that all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose.” (Romans 8:28) As the Messiah, Jesus had the ultimate calling and therefore God used His death to achieve the ultimate purpose, the redemption of the world.

It wasn’t merely the disciples that ascribed meaning to Jesus’s death after the fact, it was God. Your blog post makes it sound like the disciples were making stuff up and attributing meaning to something that wasn’t really there. The meaning was there because God put it there. The disciples were engaged in the discovery of that meaning, and we continue that process of discovery today.

Thoughts? 
Questions? 
Concerns? 
Comments? 

Tripp and I loved that THAT cross had a surplus of meaning from God – the disciples only brought it out and proclaimed it.

What do you think?

 

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: bible stuff, church history, engaging, latest, sermon, thinking Tagged With: Bible, call in, challenge, cross, crucifixion, Easter, future, God, jesus, open, redemptions, theology

Jesus, the Cross and Another Way

April 10, 2013 by Bo Sanders 17 Comments

Guest post by Ken Alton -
one of the stars of the Easter Call-In Challenge TNT has sent us his thoughts from the northern forest of British Colombia, Canada. cross-150x150

Did God send Jesus to die on a cross? Did God send Jesus to die for our sins?

 My reaction is to say no. God sent Jesus to save us.

And I want to say that there was a possibility, even way back in biblical times, that Israel, responding in human freedom, could have realized just who this Messiah was and got behind and between and caught up in the kin-dom, such that all nations would have been drawn to that light, that human flourishing and the kin-dom be proclaimed to the ends of the earth without there being a cross in the story.

I want to say that even with the Sanhedrin being all caught up in shoring up their hierarchy and religiosity, then  Pilate and Herod could have responded, in human freedom, to the invitation of God in their ears at that moment, to the invitation of God standing right in front of them, and set Jesus free, not only set him free but got behind and between and caught up in the kin-dom and taken it to the ends off the earth in a different way, also without there being a cross in the story.

Jesus could have lived to a ripe old age, teaching thousands of brew-babies brought to him from miles around, sitting on a swing hanging from a tree to fulfill the prophecy. And after he died in his sleep, God still could have raised him from the grave and the lesson of new life could have been learned, and the giving of the Spirit could all have happened without a cross.

If none of that was a real possibility on Christmas morning, then something is wrong in how I understand our human freedom to say yes to Sophia’s divine wisdom whispered in each and every ear. I know we live in a world where the cross did happen. Thank God that cross is not the end of the story. Maybe if we spent less time focused on Jesus having to die for us, we could open ourselves to being able to live into that kin-dom that is always coming near, so near that it is among us even now.

Thoughts?
Questions?
Concerns?
Comments? 

Tripp and I called it a ‘hat-trick’ and a ‘home-run’. What do you think?

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: bible stuff, engaging, latest, sermon, thinking Tagged With: Bible, call in, Canada, challenge, church, Easter, God, jesus, resurrection

TNT: Easter Call-In Challenge

April 9, 2013 by Bo Sanders 9 Comments
Subscribe on iTunes Here!

Subscribe on iTunes Here!

The deacons have responded to the challenge!

That is exactly what we were hoping for when we cooked up a little obstacle course around issue of crucifixion and resurrection. The callers navigate the obstacles with ease and in doing so get to show off some their best theological moves!

In this hour we hear from folks all the way from the forests of northern British Columbia, to the island of Jersey. In fact, we got calls from Africa, Asia, Australia and Eastern Europe.

Here is a hand-selected sample to showcase a variety of approaches.

We want to thank everyone who called in and all of those that made donations to help support the podcast!

 

You can read the link to the original challenge here if you need to get up to speed.

Standard Podcast [ 1:07:30 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: bible stuff, conversations, latest, thinking, TNT Tagged With: atonement, Bible, book, books, challenge, church, crucifixion, Easter, Global, God, history, jesus, response, resurrection, Understanding

3 Days Left To Respond To The Easter Challenge!

March 28, 2013 by Bo Sanders 3 Comments

You have till Easter Sunday to CALL IN and respond to the Easter Challenge.

We will pick a selection of calls and posts to interact with on next Monday’s TNT – the day after Easter.  Wooden Cross

Here are the step-by-step instructions:

  1. Read the challenge post below
  2. Think about a response
  3. Write up your thoughts
  4. Use the speak pipe on the front page to send us an MP3 message

 

Here is the challenge: 

Suppose I was to say: 

We need to stop saying “God sent Jesus to die on the cross”.  The only place the New Testament even talks about God sending Jesus is in John 3:17 – Jesus was sent into the world, not to condemn it but to save it.

The danger of saying any more than John 3:17 says itself is that it distorts our image of God and our understanding of the mission of Jesus.

What really happened is that Jesus died an unjust death. He was nailed to a cross by the Romans – as many threats to political peace and social stability were.

In the years after that weekend’s traumatic/amazing events, Jesus’ followers came to ascribe bigger and cosmic meaning to his death and their experience of his resurrection.

Believers, in those first few centuries, retro-fitted divine intention and design into Jesus’ death.

This comes down to us through the centuries and gets distilled as “God sent Jesus to die for our sins” or ,even worse, “Jesus came to die for our sins”

No – Jesus came for many reasons. He was then assassinated by an unjust regime in cahoots with a corrupt religious system.

God vindicated this injustice with the event we now call Easter. That signals God’s solidarity with those who suffer and are persecuted under unjust systems and structures.

The death of Jesus was seemingly as senseless as any victim of the powers. 

It was only afterward that Jesus’ followers retroactively ascribed this kind of meaning and divine intention on his death.  Doing so is:

  1. poetics at its best – and very appropriate.
  2. problematic at many levels including metaphysics, nature of time, and child abuse (to name just 3)

 

The selecting of narrative elements to illustrate a thread is a common way to give meaning and direction to a story. We do it at weddings all the time. We have this couple standing at the altar and we trace narrative threads back to show how they were ‘destined’ to be together or even ‘made’ for each other.

It’s a nice way to talk and it is poetic and beautiful. I am fine with doing it – both for a couple’s wedding and for Jesus’ death – as long we understand that this is what we are doing.

When I say that a couple was meant to bump into each other at the party/parking lot/ dating site … I am trying to ascribe an extra level of meaning or significance to their relationship.

When we say that “God sent Jesus to die for our sins” we are doing the same thing. It is our way of attempting to ascribe an extra-ordinary level of meaning or significance to his life and influence.

 

What would you say to that?

I look forward to your SpeakPipe calls!

 

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: bible stuff, church history, latest, thinking Tagged With: Bible, cross, Easter challenge, jesus, resurrection

TNT Easter-Cast with Daniel Kirk

March 28, 2013 by Bo Sanders 8 Comments

One of our favorite theology nerds – author J.R. Daniel Kirk drops by the HBC Headquarters for an Easter style Throwdown.TNT Version3

This was recorded last year and placed in the cellar to age. What you are about to enjoy is some vintage goodness!

Kirk is the author of Jesus have I love but Paul? and he blogs at Storied Theology. 

This is his third  visit to the podcast - and he talked with us at Wild Goose West. 

 

WARNING: if you are going to call in a response to the Easter Call-In Challenge, do so before listening Kirk!

 

Standard Podcast [ 1:06:22 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: bible stuff, latest, thinking, TNT Tagged With: Bible, cross, Daniel Kirk, Easter, history, Narrative, New Testament, paul, resurrection, scholarship, storied, theology

Homosexuality: the difference between TV and Greek Tragedy

March 27, 2013 by Bo Sanders 21 Comments

bible wedding

Blogging is a fascinating way to interact with people over an issue or topic.

Once in while a blog will unexpectedly come back to life after months of lying dormant. It usually happens when A) somebody references it month later B) when the topic hits the news again. The dying embers leap back to life in flame! 

This week my old post on and Evangelical approach to same-sex marriage has fired back up – for obvious reasons. I’m not going to link there because I just can’t wade into the 195 comments without getting lost.  I did, however, want to report about a most interesting exchange that came out of it.

Someone who disagreed with my saying that ‘homosexual’ as we currently understand and conceive of the term, never existed until the 19th century. Some people keep wanting to argue about sexual acts and missing that there are broader issues of orientation and identity that were not addressed in Greco-Roman culture or the greek language of the New Testament.

One such person – let’s call him TM – engaged the issue this way: 

For example, the statement “The Bible (the inspired written word of God) is not talking about homosexuality. It didn’t exist.” seems somewhat confusing, even if we only focused on the Roman era of indulgences of the First Century. Are you suggesting that homosexuality didn’t exist in this era… simply because they may have called it something else?

This is along the lines of your attempt to make a point about television – in one sense, it didn’t exist; and yet in another, it did – as plays/theater. Are you suggesting that simply because the presentation was different that there weren’t actors and actresses who presented drama, comedy, tragedy and more to a mass audience? Are you really going to argue that because a word didn’t exist that means the concept didn’t exist?

Do you see the how the analogy works? This is really important to see because those who sincerely believe that they are being faithful to the scriptures are often mashing contemporary experiences into ancient writings in a way that is … how should I say this?
Let’s try it a different way: when your faith is constructed in such a way that you need your sacred text to speak to every area of your life – then you will, by necessity, fit your modern data into the provided molds.

My response to TM included 3 points of departure:

“TV is indeed different from ancient theatre.

1) One can sit alone in a house and watch TV, absent of the social connection and crowd interaction.

2) One can also change the channel when it gets boring. You can not do that at the theatre.

3) Plays also so do not have commercials which deeply influence us.

In those three ways I would say that one can not simply say “TV and theatre are the same” as you have.

You are comfortable mashing modern categories onto the ancient & calling them the same. This willingness to mash is why you are frustrated that the Bible isn’t talking about what we are talking about.  TV is a different medium than ancient theatre – I hope that you can see that.”

It seems like a great example of the where the ‘two’ sides are missing each other in this debate.

It reminds me a great deal of the ongoing issues of conservatives ‘starting in the middle’ that I am perpetually having to point out.

That is where Ray Comfort takes the highly refined and cultivated modern banana and reads meaning, design, and intention back into it by the ‘creator’ – even going as far as it’s fit to the human hand, its easy pull tab opening, and its built-in disposal wrapping.

Maybe it would be easier for us to talk about TV & theatre in a categorical way before we wade into the elevated hostilities of the same-sex debate.

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: bible stuff, church history, conversations, engaging, latest, media, news, politics, public policy, thinking Tagged With: ancient, Bible, church, conservative, court, gay, God, homosexual, homosexuality, jesus, marriage, modern, news, paul, same sex, science, TV
«Older Posts

Search

Subscribe via iTunes

 


Support the brew

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2013 ·Delicious Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in