What he is saying is that as Christians we can't expect Islamists to abandon close state-religion links and Caliphates if we persist in holding onto things that might, from the outside, look very similar ie. a monarch as head of a Church etc.
To be fair, I think he does have a point on that, however the amount of weight he puts upon it is, I think, out of all proportion. Plus, even if the CofE disestablished itself tomorrow I don't think it'd make a blind-bit of difference to how it or Christianity in general is perceived by radical Islamists.
ISIS HQ:
Mohammed: Look here Abdul, don't you think this business of killing every Shia Muslim we come across is a bit much.
Abdul: You raise a good point, our hands are soaked in blood and to what end? Truly, we must end this carnage and work towards peace.
There is a crackling sound as the radio kicks in.
Announcer: Today in the House of Lord, Archbishop Justin Welby expressed concerns about the activities of payday lenders...
Mohammed and Abdul: SLAY THE UNBELIEVERS.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this probably isn't how it works.
You don't need to go out on much of a limb to say that; and even more so in that 'the activities of payday lenders' would be an area where Muslims and Justin Welby would pretty much agree.
But I do wonder how easy your Mohammed and Abdul will find it to heal the Sunni/Shia split without massively rewriting the idea implicit in ISIS of an 'Islamic state'. The Sunni/Shia split is not a Christian-style theological split but precisely over the succession to the rulership of the Islamic state. And how easy can that rewriting be when it was Muhammad himself who formed an army and set up that state in decided contradiction to his other teaching about 'no compulsion in religion'?
No, I'm not anti-tradition, nor am I exactly ignorant of it, mind. A person who's read as much as I have is certainly not just disregarding it. And my library, including my Kindle these days, is a lot more than just a few interesting books; and the books I own are a small part of the total of my reading. Not my fault that the reading is the thing I do really well, but I'd be really stupid if I didn't take full advantage of being significantly hyperlexic.
What I am trying to do is have tradition in its proper place and proportion. And to bear in mind what Jesus said in Mark 7 about the risk that tradition can all too easily end up nullifying the law/word of God. ( and in view of some things I've seen on the Ship in some discussions, it might be worth pointing out that Mark 7; 13 is a place where Jesus rather clearly refers to scripture as 'ton logon tou theou' - the word of God)
One major point is that 'tradition' can at best only be a secondary authority; it can't realistically carry the primary authority of scripture or the acknowledged teachings of the apostles themselves as Jesus' commissioned ambassadors to the world. And the longer tradition goes on and builds on itself, the greater risk of a 'Chinese whispers' kind of situation which may actually end up with this secondary source in conflict with the primary.
A claim of 'tradition' from outside the Bible raises serious risk of such a 'tradition' being used to manipulate people for institutional self-interest with no easy way to hold the manipulators accountable; and in some ways the same risk applies to any claim that amounts to "We have quasi-magically a 'traditional' authority to interpret scripture which you ordinary people aren't allowed to challenge".
When I'm discussing with non-Christians, sure I'm telling them what I think the Bible means, and why I think it; but I'm also basically saying to them "This isn't just me making it up to suit myself; check me against the Bible, I'm considering myself accountable to the Bible...." And I think that rather than 'tradition' applies elsewhere as well.
I fully recognise that Scripture doesn't answer every possible question especially as the world changes. But it does contain "forever principles", so to speak. I fully agree that we the church have every right to try new things. At the same time we need to monitor those things by scripture. To keep checking back that we're not going too far from the scriptural basics; particularly that we're not slipping into ideas that may nicely serve us but are in fact incompatible with the basic scripture principles, the primary source of Jesus and the apostles. And we need also to check that when we start something it remains alive in a positive way, and doesn't 'fossilise' into a mere custom that again may end up undermining scripture.
In effect, sure we need to develop new traditions - but not so new that we lose touch with the roots.
And precisely because I read so much I've become aware of something which seems to get overlooked when people are going on about 'tradition' on the Ship. It's a simple fact, pointed out by one Gamaliel on the old Ship, that all too often the traditions (even within one Church, let alone between denominations) can be so wide apart that it is simply a case of "They. Can't. All. Be. Right." And its precisely at that point that tradition becomes pretty useless to decide things. Of course they'll all claim to be right - but again, they can't all be right on that either. So how do I, how does anyone, navigate contradictory tradition? As I see it, I have to assess it myself; not from arrogance but just because there's not much other option if I'm to ascertain the best answer I can. I use the best logic I can, the best evidence I can secure, and I really, really, don't want it to be about me, I want it to be about getting that best answer.
At this time of night that'll do for now. I'm probably also going to transfer this post to the other thread for some different conversation about it to what's likely here.
I am mentally categorising Steve's posts as Walls of Text™ which are not worth ploughing through - tl;dr.
Sadly, there is a thread where his Walls of Text™ meet those of another Shipmate, but with the use of Extra Added Colour™ and an intrusive sig to make them even more unreadable. Scroll, scroll on by.
Steve asserts that he reads a lot. Continues to fail to demonstrate comprehending anything.
Points out the wildly obvious contradictions inherent in religion/tradition, and somehow uses this as justification for making up his own assertions.
At no point does Steve apply a shred of insight, nor any sign of recognizing how maladaptive his mode of discussion is.
Rook, if it really was "too long" and you "didn't read" it, how could you possibly know enough to make those further comments?
Seems, mind you, you agree with me on the 'wildly obvious contradictions' of those asserting 'tradition as a way of weaselling round Scripture and avoiding 'their own assertions' being held accountable to it. As opposed to my position that what I say should be held accountable to scripture as primary source of the Christian faith....
And to be blunt, the post in question was not itself intended as 'discussion' but as a statement of what my actual position is on the issue in question, in the face of constant gratuitous misrepresentation by other Shipmates and gratuitous insults based on the misrepresentation rather than on my actual position. As a Host/Admin isn't it part of your job to not support such misrepresentations and insults?
Steve asserts that he reads a lot. Continues to fail to demonstrate comprehending anything.
Points out the wildly obvious contradictions inherent in religion/tradition, and somehow uses this as justification for making up his own assertions.
At no point does Steve apply a shred of insight, nor any sign of recognizing how maladaptive his mode of discussion is.
Rook, if it really was "too long" and you "didn't read" it, how could you possibly know enough to make those further comments?
I think RooK was providing other posters who thought it was too long to read a synopsis. Seemed a pretty good synopsis to me.
And to be blunt, the post in question was not itself intended as 'discussion' but as a statement of what my actual position is on the issue in question . . .
To be blunt, Steve, very little of your posts seem intended as “discussion.” Beating us over the head until we see that you are right seems more like it.
. . . in the face of constant gratuitous misrepresentation by other Shipmates and gratuitous insults based on the misrepresentation rather than on my actual position.
You know, it’s my experience that when everyone is constantly misunderstanding and misconstruing what I’ve said, it’s because I’m not communicating nearly as well as I thought I was. Lengthy responses are not helping you in this regard. Brevity could be your friend.
And it doesn’t help when your “answer” to repeated questions about central points in your argument is “Headed out, so I don't have time to answer now, I’ll have to get back to it when I can,” and then you turn around and post lengthy “position statements” on tangents.
Bottom line, Steve: You’re not convincing anyone. You appear to be avoiding actual discussion and to be brushing aside any challenge to your position. Whether you intend it or not, your posts absolutely do come across as boiling down to “Why can’t you people see how right I am?”
I'm afraid I don't think this is a suitable place to discuss Steve's ideas. With all the best will in the world, he is unable to communicate in a way that anyone else wants to.
I don't think it is deliberate but Steve genuinely believes that someone somewhere cares enough to read multiple long posts.
More a case of if I'm wrong would people please explain it instead of just misrepresenting and insulting. I've explained that 'position statement' quite a few times in the past in more like the brief format you want me to use, and there are a few people who just keep on and on repeating the same old stuff as if I hadn't bothered to say it. Can you explain what is so terribly wrong about a position that says, essentially, "I respect tradition but I also see it as necessarily a secondary authority after, and therefore accountable to, the primary authority of the scripture which records the original teaching of the actual Jesus and the actual apostles"?? And a position which has some obvious worries about how a 'tradition' position can go wrong, as Jesus himself pointed out in Mark 7. And a position which credits God himself with being a good enough communicator that just perhaps people can understand most of his word without the intervention of 'authorities' like the Pope?
Not to mention a position which very positively says "This is what I think but check-it-out-in/hold-me-accountable-to scripture".
A lot of Shipmates on that other thread do seem to be having serious conversation even if they're not entirely agreeing with me; but some seem to be going at it in what seems a questionable way.
A lot of Shipmates on that other thread do seem to be having serious conversation even if they're not entirely agreeing with me; but some seem to be going at it in what seems a questionable way.
A lot of Shipmates on that other thread do seem to be having serious conversation even if they're not entirely agreeing with me; but some seem to be going at it in what seems a questionable way.
Nobody is agreeing with you. Nobody at all.
I didn't say they were agreeing with me; I know this one is likely to be a long haul - just that some of them do seem to be discussing rather than insulting.
Steve, you should go and read your own blog - at least you'll find someone there who a) can be bothered to formulate an argument in the only way you find acceptable and b) has the patience to read long screes of text.
You might do well to reflect on whether an argument can possibly be straightforward if it requires many pages of explanation of pre-requisite ideas.
Can you explain what is so terribly wrong about a position that says, essentially, "I respect tradition but I also see it as necessarily a secondary authority after, and therefore accountable to, the primary authority of the scripture which records the original teaching of the actual Jesus and the actual apostles"?? And a position which has some obvious worries about how a 'tradition' position can go wrong, as Jesus himself pointed out in Mark 7. And a position which credits God himself with being a good enough communicator that just perhaps people can understand most of his word without the intervention of 'authorities' like the Pope?
Well, a few things spring to mind:
1. We only have Scripture because of Tradition. The Scriptures didn’t fall out of the sky. They came to us through tradition. The Scriptures are a form of Tradition themselves, so saying Scripture is primary and Tradition is secondary is too simplistic, because they themselves are Tradition.
2. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and our interpretations of Scripture come from Tradition, from the thinkers who have come before us. It is IMPOSSIBLE to come to the Scriptures in their own right without being heavily influenced, subconsciously and consciously, for good and for bad, by the paradigms we’ve inherited, so again, saying that Scripture is the primary authority is too naive. IMHO, God is the primary authority, and has chosen to reveal Godself through Tradition, Scripture, Art, Nature, Reason, Love, Music, Space and Many Other Things. Each of these can be ‘primary’ at any point in time to any specific person. Saying that just one is ‘primary’ overall is too sweeping and simplistic.
3. Yes, although Tradition can go wrong, so can Fundamentalist wooden interpretations of Scripture. All sorts of things can go wrong, not just Tradition.
4. You’ve conflated ‘word’ with the Bible, which the Scriptures themselves primarily uses to refer to Christ and Prophecy.
5. You’ve essentially used circular reasoning (God’s primary communicative device is the Bible -> I think God is a good enough communicator that the Bible is enough), but your final assertion is dependent on the ones that come before. So if one doesn’t think that the Bible is God’s primary communicative device is the Bible, then your final statement is redundant, because however good a communicator God is, if one doesn’t believe that’s through a Sola Scriptura medium, then so what?
Look, FWIW, I actually agree with you on the whole Constantinian thing. I do think that Constantine fucked up the church in a big way.
BUT...
It’s not the magic bullet that you think it is. There are many, many, many ways that the church is fucked up. That’s just one of them. If we could fix that bit, it’d be great. But there are many other things that we need to sort out. Just off the top of my head:
- We need to sort out our theology towards creation before we destroy our home for good.
- We need to sort out the Churches shitty attitude towards Different People, and the crap lack of pastoring care and compassion.
- We need to live up to our calling when there is a refugee crisis in the world that we’re not doing anywhere near enough about.
- There are homeless people in our affluent country that our Government doesn’t give a shit about. The Church has the resources between us to help every one of them, but we don’t. That’s a travesty.
- We need to rediscover Christianity as a Way of Life, rather than a set of doctrines.
- We need to stop being judgemental pricks telling people they’re going to Hell, and realise that most of the Hell language in the Bible is reserved for the ‘righteous’. We’ve got our theology of Salvation screwy.
- We need to learn to treat our Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Humanist etc. brothers and sisters with respect and love. It’s about time.
- We need to realise that We are the Church of God - Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and even our distant cousins the Mormons and JW’s. There’s way more that unites us than divides us, so let’s stop bitching about each other.
- We need to provide a counter-culture to the Capitalist, selfish society we live in.
- For fuck’s sake, let’s do something about poverty.
- God is Love. Let’s talk about Love more. We don’t nearly enough.
There is so much more, especially about damaging theologies that we cling to, but I think you get the idea.
So yeah, Constantine bad. But that’s really just the tip of the iceberg, and the amount of words you’ve devoted to the topic is soooo disproportionate. Again, it’s not the magic bullet you think it is.
More a case of if I'm wrong would people please explain it instead of just misrepresenting and insulting.
A number of people have done just that, Steve, particularly with regard to your interpretation of “my kingdom is not of this world” and your assertion that the NT lays out a clear understanding of how the church should and should not relate to the state. Your response has tended to be:
to say something amounting to “no, that’s not right”;
to say you don’t have time to address the points raised and will get back to them later, but “later” never seems to come; or
to ignore it altogether.
Again, I encourage you to consider that your posts may not be coming across as you intend them to.
Thanks, Nick. Seriously. I'll address some of the points you raised and adapt the responses on the other thread to account for it. I don't think this thread would be appropriate for a detailed response to you; but while not seeing the state/religion issue as quite a 'magic bullet' it is certainly a major contributor in many of those areas you identify above.
That was rather wasted, I fear. Steve will render that as either approval of his Co-Constantinianism-ism, or justification for further endless blathering whilst totally avoiding your points.
I think maybe you were responding to @goperryrevs?
Yes, sorry to you Nick as well. I'm not exactly totally agreeing with goperryrevs, but thing is he was actually responding usefully - which some haven't been. Partial explanation of what's been going on is that I was rather bounced into starting that new thread and I'm still catching up with myself a bit. And slightly to my surprise for something people supposedly didn't want to know about, the thread has actually had a lot of traffic and I've been struggling to keep up in a situation which is too close for comfort to 'Me v the World'. I'm trying to give short instant answers where I can - but also to prepare deeper less 'soundbitey' answers for others. t'ain't easy!
I'm not going to change all that much; I think there might be a place on the Ship for my way of doing things as well and that at least some will find it congenial. On the particular topic, well as I've said elsewhere it is actually rather big and rather pervasive in all kinds of areas. For now, let's run it on its own for a while and see what comes out.
Mind you, realising that the other answer was from goperryrevs means, when I look at it, you haven't actually answered what I asked yourself.... I need a smilie at this point and still haven't sorted that out on the new Ship; but a nice smilie in this case!
but while not seeing the state/religion issue as quite a 'magic bullet' it is certainly a major contributor in many of those areas you identify above.
I think again, it’s more nuanced than that. The state/religion is a symptom, not a cause.
(These is Brian McLaren’s observations, not mine, btw)
In its earliest days, Christianity was primarily a Way of Life. But as it grew, it was influenced by the two dominant cultures; Roman and Greek.
The Roman factor was the Power of the Institution. Rome, in all its glory. The defining attribute was Who you belonged to. Empire building, and all that. Constantinianism is a symptom of that.
The Greek factor was to do with Philosophy, Knowledge, Wisdom and Understanding. So the defining attribute was What you Thought. Doctrinal purity, and all that.
These two have gone hand in hand for centuries. We define our Christianity by which group we belong to (Rome) and what we believe (Greek). These are static judgements. When it was still primarily influenced by Jewish thought, Christianity was dynamic. Followers were disciples - constantly learning.
These mindsets were going to influence the church whatever, and already had begun to. Constantine was just part of that, on a bigger scale. Augustine was too.
Look at our names of the two ancient Churches - Roman Catholic, bringing all members under the Universal banner of Rome; and Orthodox, reflecting the emphasis on Right Thinking.
But Protestants aren’t any better. At least the Orthodox finally froze the emphasis on right thinking after the seventh council. Despite rebelling against the established churches, Protestants still define themselves by Institution and Doctrine, often more than the ancient churches.
Institution and Doctrine are both important, but they should never have been elevated above the principle that following Christ is a Way of Life.
ISTM that you are rightly rebelling against the Roman way*. But you’re doing it under the rules of the Greek. So although you reject one of these paradigms that have influenced us so much, you are a slave of the other. I’d challenge you to explore Christianity outside of orthodoxy (with a small ‘o’).
* Here’s another challenge, though. If the Roman way is about defining ourselves by the Group we belong to, isn’t it possible to fall into the same trap by primarily defining ourselves as Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox or Anabaptist, rather than just a follower of Christ?
Here’s another challenge, though. If the Roman way is about defining ourselves by the Group we belong to, isn’t it possible to fall into the same trap by primarily defining ourselves as Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox or Anabaptist, rather than just a follower of Christ?
I prefer the 'follower of Christ' thing myself; 'Anabaptist' is just shorthand for the nearest thing to the way I'm doing it. It's useful in everyday situations to be able to refer to it as a different broad idea - less useful, it has turned out, on the Ship where some people don't yet seem to have got past Munster, and others don't seem to have realised that between the modern Mennonites, a good few of whom I know, and the UK Anabaptist Network, Anabaptism is very much changing and active. The typical UK Anabaptist will actually be a member of another denomination but bringing key ideas of Anabaptism to help navigate the modern 'Post-Christendom' world which has come as a bit of a shock to other traditions!
On the Scripture/Tradition thing - Yes you can describe Scripture as part of our tradition from one viewpoint. What I'm opposing is that generally those who talk much about 'Tradition' have an agenda of trying to make out that Scripture is somehow subordinate, that the Word of God is somehow dependent on the Church rather than the other way round. And from that the Church - or their Church anyway - tends to take over in questionable ways. The NT simply in terms of historical priority and being the primary source of the actual teaching of Jesus and his direct witnesses/ambassadors is, well, primary, and all that comes later necessarily secondary. And Jesus did in fact in Mark 7 and its parallels, specifically contrast 'the word of God' with 'tradition' that could make it void.
Have to go now. Sorry again about mixing you and Nick up yesterday.
This is a strangely non-Hellish conversation to be having here....
that the Word of God is somehow dependent on the Church rather than the other way round.
Just for laughs, remind us again which arbitrarily constructed and edited version of the contradiction-intensive "word of god" curated through tradition are you resting your faith on?
Somebody please explain to Steve what primary and secondary sources are in a way that he can understand. He clearly doesn't have a clue.
It may be that I'm using the words slightly differently to some narrow technical jargon in some field you know. But I don't think you're in any real doubt of my meaning. For Christianity the teaching of Jesus and the apostles, recorded in the NT (and including, I note, a pretty clear endorsement of the OT) are the first and most direct information we have. And all the later stuff is derivative from that teaching and though useful, can't compete with that first and most direct information.
The "narrow technical jargon in some field" known as "history", common to anyone with secondary level education (you do understand what is meant by "secondary" education, that's not too technical for you?) If you can't bother to even use basic terms correctly then how is anyone supposed to decipher your dribble-streaked screeds?
Humpty-Dumpty used words to mean whatever he wanted them to mean. Sometimes he paid them more for the privilege. The rest of us need to use words the way everybody else does in order to be understood. Special pleading that "I'll use this word any way I damn well please" proves one is not really interested in communicating.
Anticipated that response, did my own research anyway. The definitions I found suggest that 'primary source' can mean a bit wider than being a literal eyewitness, 'secondary source' can inter alia mean 'scholarly books and articles' ie somewhat removed from close involvement.
My basic point I think still stands. As the record of Jesus' own deeds and teaching and the deeds and teaching of the apostles who were eyewitnesses in many cases anyway, the NT is head and shoulders above other sources, and the sources referred to as 'tradition' outside the NT are later, derivative, and dependent on what the NT tells us. Like not in the same league even from a not-particularly Christian standpoint.
Am I the only one who finds it incredibly annoying when someone writes a post with just "Biblical 'Thought for the Day' for this thread...." and a Bible quote?
Am I the only one who finds it incredibly annoying when someone writes a post with just "Biblical 'Thought for the Day' for this thread...." and a Bible quote?
Shipmates pretty much forced a certain topic out of everywhere else on the Ship except by me starting a thread specifically for it. I'm trying to avoid too many blog-type over-long posts by occasionally just putting in a generally relevant text for discussion and to keep the scope broad. My quirky sense of humour was responsible for the 'Thought for the Day' heading - I'll try and think of a different way to do it in future.
What really riles me about Steve is his almighty arrogance. Of course the entire Ship is wrong, with your solitary exception. Burn in the fires of your pride.
'It's hard work ...', 'It's a long haul ...' but eventually I'll get the rest of you to agree with me by quoting proof-texts at you.
That's the sum of it.
You complain that people are resorting to insult, Steve, but hasn't it occurred to you that they are only doing so because you have driven them to distraction by repeating the same tired and somewhat two-dimensional points over and over and over again?
Silly question. No, of course it hasn't occurred to you ...
Some still care enough to at least try to engage you in 3-D debate but they give up in the end.
No-one is 'stuck' at Munster. No-one is dismissing the Anabaptist tradition. What tires and riles people is the way you present your case.
It's a shame but there it is.
I'd say more but I can't right now because [delete as appropriate]:
- I'll have a bit more Holy Week and Easter by engaging with the Orthodox version as far as I can this coming week.
- I might end up boring everyone again and become a monster reacting to Steve's posts.
- I've got better things to do ...
But a happy and blessed Easter season to you all. And as Dave Allen used to say, 'May your God go with you ...'
On the Scripture/Tradition thing - Yes you can describe Scripture as part of our tradition from one viewpoint. What I'm opposing is that generally those who talk much about 'Tradition' have an agenda of trying to make out that Scripture is somehow subordinate, that the Word of God is somehow dependent on the Church rather than the other way round. And from that the Church - or their Church anyway - tends to take over in questionable ways.
I don’t think it’s that other people have an ‘agenda’, any more than you or I do. I think it’s the reality that the Paper Pope of the Protestants has turned out to be as risky a system as the Human Pope was. ISTM that wisdom lies in understanding the risks and benefits of both approaches.
And whether you like it or not, the Scriptures ARE dependent on the Church, just as the Church is dependent on the Scripture. If there had been no church, there would be no New Testament.
We went over this a bit on the Old Ship, God bless ‘er. But even the Bible that you use is dependent on your Tradition. How many books you have in your Old Testament is down to which tradition you come from.
The NT simply in terms of historical priority and being the primary source of the actual teaching of Jesus and his direct witnesses/ambassadors is, well, primary, and all that comes later necessarily secondary.
(Acknowledging the point others have made about how much of the NT can be described as primary source...) The Bible is made up of a lot more writings than just the Gospels. I don’t see many evangelicals treating the Scriptures as a hierarchy as the Orthodox do. The whole lot is ‘The Word of God’ as some kind of homogenous lump. Your assertion is makes sense with regard to the Gospels, but to take it logically further, it would mean giving a high status to Polycarp, Clement, the Didache and so on too. Why then are those writings often ignored or treated as irrelevant by us Protestants, who seem to believe that Christian history closed with Revelation and opened again with Luther (and Calvin and Zwingli... and of course Hubmaier, Simons etc.)?
And Jesus did in fact in Mark 7 and its parallels, specifically contrast 'the word of God' with 'tradition' that could make it void.
As I said earlier, if you’re going to make out that “word of God” is synonymous with “Bible”, you’re going to have to justify it. It’s a phrase that has a lot of different meanings. In this case it’s specifically the commandments that Jesus is talking about. In other places it refers to other things, including, of course, Jesus himself. A blanket “Word of God” equals Bible is too simplistic.
The reality of course is that the Paper Pope becomes My Interpretation As To What The Paper Pope Plainly Says ... which may, of course, differ from someone else's interpretation of the 'plain meaning of scripture'.
In which case My Interpretation is always the plainest of plain meanings ...
I roughly know what to say to goperryrevs here - but it's not going to get worked out in the next few minutes. One thing I would say is that the evangelicalism in which I was 'dragged up' - the former "Crusaders Union" and University Christian Union - was decidedly not about treating the Bible as 'flat' or a mere homogeneous lump. We knew that we needed to understand there being a progression from the start to the NT with God gradually teaching a recalcitrant and awkward bunch of humans and leading them up to the revelation in Jesus at a time suitable in all kinds of ways including for the mission to the Gentiles. And actually by understanding the NT as bringing in a 'kingdom not of this world' church superseding the idea of a 'national/state church' as in OT Israel, the Anabaptist understanding is even less 'flat' than most.
We knew that we needed to understand there being a progression from the start to the NT with God gradually teaching a recalcitrant and awkward bunch of humans and leading them up to the revelation in Jesus at a time suitable in all kinds of ways including for the mission to the Gentiles.
I’m not talking about meta-narrative, I’m talking about inspiration, and challenging the view that sees Scripture as a constant: The Word of God, infallible, inerrant, every single word as inspired as the next. You may disptute me in word, but in practice, this is how you approach Scripture.
Instead, I’m suggesting that the amount of inspiration varies, and arguing for progressive revelation. That there are competing views and voices in Scripture, some right, some wrong. Some okay, some better, some fuller, culminating in Jesus. Some of their time, others best left there, others progressive still today. And we NEED Tradition to wrestle with all that, discerning the Divine voice among the Human ones. All of the Traditions, good bad and ugly - we can learn from them all. Both in Scripture and beyond. And on the fuzzy edges that only just did or didn’t make it into whichever Canon we ascribe to.
Some of this has been explored in the Purg thread anyways, but that’s what I’m trying to get at.
A specific example is in your discussion (in purg) with @Croesos, where you say, “As I've said, the broad outlines of the situation are clear.”
But I’m with Croesos - that’s just post-hoc rationalisation. The pro-slavey lot were certain that the broad outlines were clear. Same when it came to the heliocentric arguments. Women. Gays. Usury.
The problem is treating scripture as if it’s a legal document that needs to be woodenly interpreted and applied. It’s too dynamic and messy for that.
Or, as an alternative possibility, it's mostly bullshit. With some interesting bits that feel relevant and good, but essentially bullshit.
I only mention this because Steve seems to have all the arguments for the bullshit-ness of it gripped obsessively in hand, but then insists on taking selected handfuls of bullshit to smear his own personal meanings on the asylum walls and howl at length about its obvious reeking rightness.
Clearly Steve doesn't agree with my suggested theory. But it's irksome to watch him continually complain about the bull when he so dearly values its shit.
I'm thinking two things.
One is what would be said about this by Jesus - you know, the guy who said that thing about traditions which make void the word of God? And I don't think he'd be very happy with what you're saying here.
The other is something which has been poking around the fringes of my mind for a while, which is that the big thing you need here is the church as originally founded - not the church corrupted and distorted by being a state church. The examples you quote above are decidedly on that kind of line, texts messed up by being looked at from the 'whole society' church rather than the separate church of the born again. We can't discuss it in full here but the biblical view of gay sex is far more human than either the typical state church view or the modern secular view.
One is what would be said about this by Jesus - you know, the guy who said that thing about traditions which make void the word of God? And I don't think he'd be very happy with what you're saying here.
“You’re wrong and you’ve made Jesus sad”... Dude, and you wonder why you’ve ended up being called to Hell...
I get you want to hang a lot on your interpretation of Mark 7. You’ve brought it up enough times. But it’s beginning to strain under the weight.
He didn’t say Traditions nullify the Bible; which is how you’ve been interpreting it.
He said (in essence) some of their traditions nullified the spirit of the Commandments the Law. That means be careful about which traditions you go with. Or, in more general terms, the message of that passage is “don’t be a hypocrite”. Great message.
Again... it’s time for a word study on the phrase “The Word of God” (there have been threads before), and the various Hebrew and Greek words that get translated that way.
As for Jesus, as much as the conservatives hate to admit it, he was a picker and a chooser. He reinterpreted, reinvented, ignored, left bits out, broke the rules and affirmed the rules all in one go. He was an enigma, and I’d be wary to assert that I know exactly what he would have said to anyone today.
@RooK, sure man. I respect that. I guess I still keep finding enough petals amongst the shit that it makes me think there’s a pretty flower in there somewhere.
The other is something which has been poking around the fringes of my mind for a while, which is that the big thing you need here is the church as originally founded
I get it. I used to be very restorationist in my theology. But it’s a flawed point of view.
What you say is literally impossible. We can’t recreate the church as originally founded. Our cultures and societies are different. We have new technologies that change the ways people interact. We have the Scriptures (they didn’t). We have two thousand years of history or getting it wrong and getting it right; and the world has the knowledge and experience of us doing that. We can’t go back.
What we can do is try to take the good values that they had that we can understand as key and live in that Spirit, but that involves a damn hard discerning process. We also need to learn from their mistakes. Hell, read Galatians and Corinthians if you’re under the illusion that the early church was perfect.
Here is one example. Think about ministry roles in the early church. They had elders/shepherds, overseers, evangelists, prophets, teachers, deacons, apostles...
The restoratist looks at that and says “screw vicars! We need elders/shepherds, overseers, evangelists, prophets, teachers, deacons and apostles, just like they did!”; and tries to model their church structure in as close a way as they can to their understanding of how the early church was structured. All the time missing the spirit, but sticking to the letter of what the early church did.
Instead, we can look at why they did this, and try to replicate the spirit. So, principles like plurality of ministry. Spreading the load among different people. Specialisms in ministry, rather than blanket ‘leadership’ roles. Using contemporary, secular words rather than just religious words to describe what people do in church. And so on.
I think we should be more restorationist in our thinking, and many Christians aren’t enough. But not restorationist in a wooden, literal way. We need to capture the creative Spirit that swept the early church along, and see how the Spirit wants us to reinvent ourselves for this time, this generation. There is always more new to discover.
I get you want to hang a lot on your interpretation of Mark 7. You’ve brought it up enough times. But it’s beginning to strain under the weight.
It was the obvious one to mention; but not by a long way the only case where Jesus uses the scriptures in a clearly authoritative way. Though also challenging people to interpret in terms of asking what the rule is really about, not just following a dumb wooden literalism.
And I haven't been saying just simply that traditions nullify the Bible. I don't know if you followed some of the discussions on the old Ship but we were using a distinction between small-t and capital-T tradition to distinguish between different kinds of tradition and ways of using tradition and relating it to scripture. The point being rather that we have to be careful that various extra developments don't end up nullifying scripture.
And in a lot of discussion of this there is loose thinking - people who appeal to Jesus but seem not to notice that basically we don't know much about Jesus except through scripture, for example.
And people who seem willing to endlessly discuss all these peripheral things but don't seem to read the actual scripture to know what it means.
All of this discussion can too easily end up as the justification for in the end just making it up to fit what we want; I find scripture doesn't often allow me to do that.... Not to mention that often the awkward bits of scripture can turn out to be very fruitful in outside the box ideas in the world.
Comments
You don't need to go out on much of a limb to say that; and even more so in that 'the activities of payday lenders' would be an area where Muslims and Justin Welby would pretty much agree.
But I do wonder how easy your Mohammed and Abdul will find it to heal the Sunni/Shia split without massively rewriting the idea implicit in ISIS of an 'Islamic state'. The Sunni/Shia split is not a Christian-style theological split but precisely over the succession to the rulership of the Islamic state. And how easy can that rewriting be when it was Muhammad himself who formed an army and set up that state in decided contradiction to his other teaching about 'no compulsion in religion'?
No, I'm not anti-tradition, nor am I exactly ignorant of it, mind. A person who's read as much as I have is certainly not just disregarding it. And my library, including my Kindle these days, is a lot more than just a few interesting books; and the books I own are a small part of the total of my reading. Not my fault that the reading is the thing I do really well, but I'd be really stupid if I didn't take full advantage of being significantly hyperlexic.
What I am trying to do is have tradition in its proper place and proportion. And to bear in mind what Jesus said in Mark 7 about the risk that tradition can all too easily end up nullifying the law/word of God. ( and in view of some things I've seen on the Ship in some discussions, it might be worth pointing out that Mark 7; 13 is a place where Jesus rather clearly refers to scripture as 'ton logon tou theou' - the word of God)
One major point is that 'tradition' can at best only be a secondary authority; it can't realistically carry the primary authority of scripture or the acknowledged teachings of the apostles themselves as Jesus' commissioned ambassadors to the world. And the longer tradition goes on and builds on itself, the greater risk of a 'Chinese whispers' kind of situation which may actually end up with this secondary source in conflict with the primary.
A claim of 'tradition' from outside the Bible raises serious risk of such a 'tradition' being used to manipulate people for institutional self-interest with no easy way to hold the manipulators accountable; and in some ways the same risk applies to any claim that amounts to "We have quasi-magically a 'traditional' authority to interpret scripture which you ordinary people aren't allowed to challenge".
When I'm discussing with non-Christians, sure I'm telling them what I think the Bible means, and why I think it; but I'm also basically saying to them "This isn't just me making it up to suit myself; check me against the Bible, I'm considering myself accountable to the Bible...." And I think that rather than 'tradition' applies elsewhere as well.
I fully recognise that Scripture doesn't answer every possible question especially as the world changes. But it does contain "forever principles", so to speak. I fully agree that we the church have every right to try new things. At the same time we need to monitor those things by scripture. To keep checking back that we're not going too far from the scriptural basics; particularly that we're not slipping into ideas that may nicely serve us but are in fact incompatible with the basic scripture principles, the primary source of Jesus and the apostles. And we need also to check that when we start something it remains alive in a positive way, and doesn't 'fossilise' into a mere custom that again may end up undermining scripture.
In effect, sure we need to develop new traditions - but not so new that we lose touch with the roots.
And precisely because I read so much I've become aware of something which seems to get overlooked when people are going on about 'tradition' on the Ship. It's a simple fact, pointed out by one Gamaliel on the old Ship, that all too often the traditions (even within one Church, let alone between denominations) can be so wide apart that it is simply a case of "They. Can't. All. Be. Right." And its precisely at that point that tradition becomes pretty useless to decide things. Of course they'll all claim to be right - but again, they can't all be right on that either. So how do I, how does anyone, navigate contradictory tradition? As I see it, I have to assess it myself; not from arrogance but just because there's not much other option if I'm to ascertain the best answer I can. I use the best logic I can, the best evidence I can secure, and I really, really, don't want it to be about me, I want it to be about getting that best answer.
At this time of night that'll do for now. I'm probably also going to transfer this post to the other thread for some different conversation about it to what's likely here.
Sadly, there is a thread where his Walls of Text™ meet those of another Shipmate, but with the use of Extra Added Colour™ and an intrusive sig to make them even more unreadable. Scroll, scroll on by.
Rook, if it really was "too long" and you "didn't read" it, how could you possibly know enough to make those further comments?
Seems, mind you, you agree with me on the 'wildly obvious contradictions' of those asserting 'tradition as a way of weaselling round Scripture and avoiding 'their own assertions' being held accountable to it. As opposed to my position that what I say should be held accountable to scripture as primary source of the Christian faith....
And to be blunt, the post in question was not itself intended as 'discussion' but as a statement of what my actual position is on the issue in question, in the face of constant gratuitous misrepresentation by other Shipmates and gratuitous insults based on the misrepresentation rather than on my actual position. As a Host/Admin isn't it part of your job to not support such misrepresentations and insults?
To be blunt, Steve, very little of your posts seem intended as “discussion.” Beating us over the head until we see that you are right seems more like it.
You know, it’s my experience that when everyone is constantly misunderstanding and misconstruing what I’ve said, it’s because I’m not communicating nearly as well as I thought I was. Lengthy responses are not helping you in this regard. Brevity could be your friend.
And it doesn’t help when your “answer” to repeated questions about central points in your argument is “Headed out, so I don't have time to answer now, I’ll have to get back to it when I can,” and then you turn around and post lengthy “position statements” on tangents.
Bottom line, Steve: You’re not convincing anyone. You appear to be avoiding actual discussion and to be brushing aside any challenge to your position. Whether you intend it or not, your posts absolutely do come across as boiling down to “Why can’t you people see how right I am?”
I don't think it is deliberate but Steve genuinely believes that someone somewhere cares enough to read multiple long posts.
More a case of if I'm wrong would people please explain it instead of just misrepresenting and insulting. I've explained that 'position statement' quite a few times in the past in more like the brief format you want me to use, and there are a few people who just keep on and on repeating the same old stuff as if I hadn't bothered to say it. Can you explain what is so terribly wrong about a position that says, essentially, "I respect tradition but I also see it as necessarily a secondary authority after, and therefore accountable to, the primary authority of the scripture which records the original teaching of the actual Jesus and the actual apostles"?? And a position which has some obvious worries about how a 'tradition' position can go wrong, as Jesus himself pointed out in Mark 7. And a position which credits God himself with being a good enough communicator that just perhaps people can understand most of his word without the intervention of 'authorities' like the Pope?
Not to mention a position which very positively says "This is what I think but check-it-out-in/hold-me-accountable-to scripture".
A lot of Shipmates on that other thread do seem to be having serious conversation even if they're not entirely agreeing with me; but some seem to be going at it in what seems a questionable way.
Nobody is agreeing with you. Nobody at all.
I didn't say they were agreeing with me; I know this one is likely to be a long haul - just that some of them do seem to be discussing rather than insulting.
You might do well to reflect on whether an argument can possibly be straightforward if it requires many pages of explanation of pre-requisite ideas.
Of course you won't.
Well, a few things spring to mind:
1. We only have Scripture because of Tradition. The Scriptures didn’t fall out of the sky. They came to us through tradition. The Scriptures are a form of Tradition themselves, so saying Scripture is primary and Tradition is secondary is too simplistic, because they themselves are Tradition.
2. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and our interpretations of Scripture come from Tradition, from the thinkers who have come before us. It is IMPOSSIBLE to come to the Scriptures in their own right without being heavily influenced, subconsciously and consciously, for good and for bad, by the paradigms we’ve inherited, so again, saying that Scripture is the primary authority is too naive. IMHO, God is the primary authority, and has chosen to reveal Godself through Tradition, Scripture, Art, Nature, Reason, Love, Music, Space and Many Other Things. Each of these can be ‘primary’ at any point in time to any specific person. Saying that just one is ‘primary’ overall is too sweeping and simplistic.
3. Yes, although Tradition can go wrong, so can Fundamentalist wooden interpretations of Scripture. All sorts of things can go wrong, not just Tradition.
4. You’ve conflated ‘word’ with the Bible, which the Scriptures themselves primarily uses to refer to Christ and Prophecy.
5. You’ve essentially used circular reasoning (God’s primary communicative device is the Bible -> I think God is a good enough communicator that the Bible is enough), but your final assertion is dependent on the ones that come before. So if one doesn’t think that the Bible is God’s primary communicative device is the Bible, then your final statement is redundant, because however good a communicator God is, if one doesn’t believe that’s through a Sola Scriptura medium, then so what?
Look, FWIW, I actually agree with you on the whole Constantinian thing. I do think that Constantine fucked up the church in a big way.
BUT...
It’s not the magic bullet that you think it is. There are many, many, many ways that the church is fucked up. That’s just one of them. If we could fix that bit, it’d be great. But there are many other things that we need to sort out. Just off the top of my head:
- We need to sort out our theology towards creation before we destroy our home for good.
- We need to sort out the Churches shitty attitude towards Different People, and the crap lack of pastoring care and compassion.
- We need to live up to our calling when there is a refugee crisis in the world that we’re not doing anywhere near enough about.
- There are homeless people in our affluent country that our Government doesn’t give a shit about. The Church has the resources between us to help every one of them, but we don’t. That’s a travesty.
- We need to rediscover Christianity as a Way of Life, rather than a set of doctrines.
- We need to stop being judgemental pricks telling people they’re going to Hell, and realise that most of the Hell language in the Bible is reserved for the ‘righteous’. We’ve got our theology of Salvation screwy.
- We need to learn to treat our Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Humanist etc. brothers and sisters with respect and love. It’s about time.
- We need to realise that We are the Church of God - Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and even our distant cousins the Mormons and JW’s. There’s way more that unites us than divides us, so let’s stop bitching about each other.
- We need to provide a counter-culture to the Capitalist, selfish society we live in.
- For fuck’s sake, let’s do something about poverty.
- God is Love. Let’s talk about Love more. We don’t nearly enough.
There is so much more, especially about damaging theologies that we cling to, but I think you get the idea.
So yeah, Constantine bad. But that’s really just the tip of the iceberg, and the amount of words you’ve devoted to the topic is soooo disproportionate. Again, it’s not the magic bullet you think it is.
Again, I encourage you to consider that your posts may not be coming across as you intend them to.
To be painfully clear, I'm an agnostic atheist. I view the whole mess as wildly obvious contradictions.
Because you're a narcissistic asshole.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
-gasp-
HA HA HA HA HA HAA!
Yes, sorry to you Nick as well. I'm not exactly totally agreeing with goperryrevs, but thing is he was actually responding usefully - which some haven't been. Partial explanation of what's been going on is that I was rather bounced into starting that new thread and I'm still catching up with myself a bit. And slightly to my surprise for something people supposedly didn't want to know about, the thread has actually had a lot of traffic and I've been struggling to keep up in a situation which is too close for comfort to 'Me v the World'. I'm trying to give short instant answers where I can - but also to prepare deeper less 'soundbitey' answers for others. t'ain't easy!
I'm not going to change all that much; I think there might be a place on the Ship for my way of doing things as well and that at least some will find it congenial. On the particular topic, well as I've said elsewhere it is actually rather big and rather pervasive in all kinds of areas. For now, let's run it on its own for a while and see what comes out.
Mind you, realising that the other answer was from goperryrevs means, when I look at it, you haven't actually answered what I asked yourself.... I need a smilie at this point and still haven't sorted that out on the new Ship; but a nice smilie in this case!
I think again, it’s more nuanced than that. The state/religion is a symptom, not a cause.
(These is Brian McLaren’s observations, not mine, btw)
In its earliest days, Christianity was primarily a Way of Life. But as it grew, it was influenced by the two dominant cultures; Roman and Greek.
The Roman factor was the Power of the Institution. Rome, in all its glory. The defining attribute was Who you belonged to. Empire building, and all that. Constantinianism is a symptom of that.
The Greek factor was to do with Philosophy, Knowledge, Wisdom and Understanding. So the defining attribute was What you Thought. Doctrinal purity, and all that.
These two have gone hand in hand for centuries. We define our Christianity by which group we belong to (Rome) and what we believe (Greek). These are static judgements. When it was still primarily influenced by Jewish thought, Christianity was dynamic. Followers were disciples - constantly learning.
These mindsets were going to influence the church whatever, and already had begun to. Constantine was just part of that, on a bigger scale. Augustine was too.
Look at our names of the two ancient Churches - Roman Catholic, bringing all members under the Universal banner of Rome; and Orthodox, reflecting the emphasis on Right Thinking.
But Protestants aren’t any better. At least the Orthodox finally froze the emphasis on right thinking after the seventh council. Despite rebelling against the established churches, Protestants still define themselves by Institution and Doctrine, often more than the ancient churches.
Institution and Doctrine are both important, but they should never have been elevated above the principle that following Christ is a Way of Life.
ISTM that you are rightly rebelling against the Roman way*. But you’re doing it under the rules of the Greek. So although you reject one of these paradigms that have influenced us so much, you are a slave of the other. I’d challenge you to explore Christianity outside of orthodoxy (with a small ‘o’).
* Here’s another challenge, though. If the Roman way is about defining ourselves by the Group we belong to, isn’t it possible to fall into the same trap by primarily defining ourselves as Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox or Anabaptist, rather than just a follower of Christ?
I prefer the 'follower of Christ' thing myself; 'Anabaptist' is just shorthand for the nearest thing to the way I'm doing it. It's useful in everyday situations to be able to refer to it as a different broad idea - less useful, it has turned out, on the Ship where some people don't yet seem to have got past Munster, and others don't seem to have realised that between the modern Mennonites, a good few of whom I know, and the UK Anabaptist Network, Anabaptism is very much changing and active. The typical UK Anabaptist will actually be a member of another denomination but bringing key ideas of Anabaptism to help navigate the modern 'Post-Christendom' world which has come as a bit of a shock to other traditions!
On the Scripture/Tradition thing - Yes you can describe Scripture as part of our tradition from one viewpoint. What I'm opposing is that generally those who talk much about 'Tradition' have an agenda of trying to make out that Scripture is somehow subordinate, that the Word of God is somehow dependent on the Church rather than the other way round. And from that the Church - or their Church anyway - tends to take over in questionable ways. The NT simply in terms of historical priority and being the primary source of the actual teaching of Jesus and his direct witnesses/ambassadors is, well, primary, and all that comes later necessarily secondary. And Jesus did in fact in Mark 7 and its parallels, specifically contrast 'the word of God' with 'tradition' that could make it void.
Have to go now. Sorry again about mixing you and Nick up yesterday.
This is a strangely non-Hellish conversation to be having here....
Just for laughs, remind us again which arbitrarily constructed and edited version of the contradiction-intensive "word of god" curated through tradition are you resting your faith on?
Idiot.
It may be that I'm using the words slightly differently to some narrow technical jargon in some field you know. But I don't think you're in any real doubt of my meaning. For Christianity the teaching of Jesus and the apostles, recorded in the NT (and including, I note, a pretty clear endorsement of the OT) are the first and most direct information we have. And all the later stuff is derivative from that teaching and though useful, can't compete with that first and most direct information.
But like I said. even if I was using terminology loosely, I don't think you were in any real doubt what I meant by it....
JFGI
My basic point I think still stands. As the record of Jesus' own deeds and teaching and the deeds and teaching of the apostles who were eyewitnesses in many cases anyway, the NT is head and shoulders above other sources, and the sources referred to as 'tradition' outside the NT are later, derivative, and dependent on what the NT tells us. Like not in the same league even from a not-particularly Christian standpoint.
Shipmates pretty much forced a certain topic out of everywhere else on the Ship except by me starting a thread specifically for it. I'm trying to avoid too many blog-type over-long posts by occasionally just putting in a generally relevant text for discussion and to keep the scope broad. My quirky sense of humour was responsible for the 'Thought for the Day' heading - I'll try and think of a different way to do it in future.
That's the sum of it.
You complain that people are resorting to insult, Steve, but hasn't it occurred to you that they are only doing so because you have driven them to distraction by repeating the same tired and somewhat two-dimensional points over and over and over again?
Silly question. No, of course it hasn't occurred to you ...
Some still care enough to at least try to engage you in 3-D debate but they give up in the end.
No-one is 'stuck' at Munster. No-one is dismissing the Anabaptist tradition. What tires and riles people is the way you present your case.
It's a shame but there it is.
I'd say more but I can't right now because [delete as appropriate]:
- I'll have a bit more Holy Week and Easter by engaging with the Orthodox version as far as I can this coming week.
- I might end up boring everyone again and become a monster reacting to Steve's posts.
- I've got better things to do ...
But a happy and blessed Easter season to you all. And as Dave Allen used to say, 'May your God go with you ...'
Or not, as the case may be. Peace be to all.
'AAAAAAAaaaaaarrrghhhh!!!!'
Of course, I shouldn't have been surprised ...
I don’t think it’s that other people have an ‘agenda’, any more than you or I do. I think it’s the reality that the Paper Pope of the Protestants has turned out to be as risky a system as the Human Pope was. ISTM that wisdom lies in understanding the risks and benefits of both approaches.
And whether you like it or not, the Scriptures ARE dependent on the Church, just as the Church is dependent on the Scripture. If there had been no church, there would be no New Testament.
We went over this a bit on the Old Ship, God bless ‘er. But even the Bible that you use is dependent on your Tradition. How many books you have in your Old Testament is down to which tradition you come from.
(Acknowledging the point others have made about how much of the NT can be described as primary source...) The Bible is made up of a lot more writings than just the Gospels. I don’t see many evangelicals treating the Scriptures as a hierarchy as the Orthodox do. The whole lot is ‘The Word of God’ as some kind of homogenous lump. Your assertion is makes sense with regard to the Gospels, but to take it logically further, it would mean giving a high status to Polycarp, Clement, the Didache and so on too. Why then are those writings often ignored or treated as irrelevant by us Protestants, who seem to believe that Christian history closed with Revelation and opened again with Luther (and Calvin and Zwingli... and of course Hubmaier, Simons etc.)?
As I said earlier, if you’re going to make out that “word of God” is synonymous with “Bible”, you’re going to have to justify it. It’s a phrase that has a lot of different meanings. In this case it’s specifically the commandments that Jesus is talking about. In other places it refers to other things, including, of course, Jesus himself. A blanket “Word of God” equals Bible is too simplistic.
No probs.
In which case My Interpretation is always the plainest of plain meanings ...
But yes, goperryrevs gets it in one.
I’m not talking about meta-narrative, I’m talking about inspiration, and challenging the view that sees Scripture as a constant: The Word of God, infallible, inerrant, every single word as inspired as the next. You may disptute me in word, but in practice, this is how you approach Scripture.
Instead, I’m suggesting that the amount of inspiration varies, and arguing for progressive revelation. That there are competing views and voices in Scripture, some right, some wrong. Some okay, some better, some fuller, culminating in Jesus. Some of their time, others best left there, others progressive still today. And we NEED Tradition to wrestle with all that, discerning the Divine voice among the Human ones. All of the Traditions, good bad and ugly - we can learn from them all. Both in Scripture and beyond. And on the fuzzy edges that only just did or didn’t make it into whichever Canon we ascribe to.
Some of this has been explored in the Purg thread anyways, but that’s what I’m trying to get at.
But I’m with Croesos - that’s just post-hoc rationalisation. The pro-slavey lot were certain that the broad outlines were clear. Same when it came to the heliocentric arguments. Women. Gays. Usury.
The problem is treating scripture as if it’s a legal document that needs to be woodenly interpreted and applied. It’s too dynamic and messy for that.
I only mention this because Steve seems to have all the arguments for the bullshit-ness of it gripped obsessively in hand, but then insists on taking selected handfuls of bullshit to smear his own personal meanings on the asylum walls and howl at length about its obvious reeking rightness.
Clearly Steve doesn't agree with my suggested theory. But it's irksome to watch him continually complain about the bull when he so dearly values its shit.
One is what would be said about this by Jesus - you know, the guy who said that thing about traditions which make void the word of God? And I don't think he'd be very happy with what you're saying here.
The other is something which has been poking around the fringes of my mind for a while, which is that the big thing you need here is the church as originally founded - not the church corrupted and distorted by being a state church. The examples you quote above are decidedly on that kind of line, texts messed up by being looked at from the 'whole society' church rather than the separate church of the born again. We can't discuss it in full here but the biblical view of gay sex is far more human than either the typical state church view or the modern secular view.
“You’re wrong and you’ve made Jesus sad”... Dude, and you wonder why you’ve ended up being called to Hell...
I get you want to hang a lot on your interpretation of Mark 7. You’ve brought it up enough times. But it’s beginning to strain under the weight.
He didn’t say Traditions nullify the Bible; which is how you’ve been interpreting it.
He said (in essence) some of their traditions nullified the spirit of the Commandments the Law. That means be careful about which traditions you go with. Or, in more general terms, the message of that passage is “don’t be a hypocrite”. Great message.
Again... it’s time for a word study on the phrase “The Word of God” (there have been threads before), and the various Hebrew and Greek words that get translated that way.
As for Jesus, as much as the conservatives hate to admit it, he was a picker and a chooser. He reinterpreted, reinvented, ignored, left bits out, broke the rules and affirmed the rules all in one go. He was an enigma, and I’d be wary to assert that I know exactly what he would have said to anyone today.
@RooK, sure man. I respect that. I guess I still keep finding enough petals amongst the shit that it makes me think there’s a pretty flower in there somewhere.
What you say is literally impossible. We can’t recreate the church as originally founded. Our cultures and societies are different. We have new technologies that change the ways people interact. We have the Scriptures (they didn’t). We have two thousand years of history or getting it wrong and getting it right; and the world has the knowledge and experience of us doing that. We can’t go back.
What we can do is try to take the good values that they had that we can understand as key and live in that Spirit, but that involves a damn hard discerning process. We also need to learn from their mistakes. Hell, read Galatians and Corinthians if you’re under the illusion that the early church was perfect.
Here is one example. Think about ministry roles in the early church. They had elders/shepherds, overseers, evangelists, prophets, teachers, deacons, apostles...
The restoratist looks at that and says “screw vicars! We need elders/shepherds, overseers, evangelists, prophets, teachers, deacons and apostles, just like they did!”; and tries to model their church structure in as close a way as they can to their understanding of how the early church was structured. All the time missing the spirit, but sticking to the letter of what the early church did.
Instead, we can look at why they did this, and try to replicate the spirit. So, principles like plurality of ministry. Spreading the load among different people. Specialisms in ministry, rather than blanket ‘leadership’ roles. Using contemporary, secular words rather than just religious words to describe what people do in church. And so on.
I think we should be more restorationist in our thinking, and many Christians aren’t enough. But not restorationist in a wooden, literal way. We need to capture the creative Spirit that swept the early church along, and see how the Spirit wants us to reinvent ourselves for this time, this generation. There is always more new to discover.
It was the obvious one to mention; but not by a long way the only case where Jesus uses the scriptures in a clearly authoritative way. Though also challenging people to interpret in terms of asking what the rule is really about, not just following a dumb wooden literalism.
And I haven't been saying just simply that traditions nullify the Bible. I don't know if you followed some of the discussions on the old Ship but we were using a distinction between small-t and capital-T tradition to distinguish between different kinds of tradition and ways of using tradition and relating it to scripture. The point being rather that we have to be careful that various extra developments don't end up nullifying scripture.
And in a lot of discussion of this there is loose thinking - people who appeal to Jesus but seem not to notice that basically we don't know much about Jesus except through scripture, for example.
And people who seem willing to endlessly discuss all these peripheral things but don't seem to read the actual scripture to know what it means.
All of this discussion can too easily end up as the justification for in the end just making it up to fit what we want; I find scripture doesn't often allow me to do that.... Not to mention that often the awkward bits of scripture can turn out to be very fruitful in outside the box ideas in the world.