It seems to me possible that a certain reading could be clear and at the same time God could be using it to say or do something completely different than the "clear" reading suggests.
I think an exemplar can be drawn from the creation/evolution debate. Because regardless of where you stand on the biblical evidence, the evidence available in the earth itself means that the bible reading cannot be taken as simple and clear. Either, God used evolution to create the world in which case the bible must be read as more complicated than the superficially clear story, or God did not use evolution but for some reason chose to make the world in such a fashion that it appeared that He did, in which case the bible must be read as more complicated than the superficially clear story. The important point being not whether evolution is or is not true but that the bible story is not and cannot be taken as a simple explanation of everything that is going on. Even if you are a hard-line creationist the undeniable fact of dinosaur bones means that on some level the Creation story has non-simplistic elements.
It seems to me this logic can be extended beyond the first chapters of Genesis and taken to any other aspect of the bible. You don't need a 'dispensation' if you take the reading as being more complicated than a simple set of 'rules'.
Although, point of doctrine, didn't Paul excuse most of those rules just as he did with things like circumcision?
I think we need to be honest about this, and admit that our interpretations are born as much from our moral commitments (both personal and communal--and we cannot forget that Mother Church, fractured and divided as she is*, is guided by the Holy Spirit) as they are from any type of straight, direct exegesis. (These commitments are not prior to our interpretation of Scripture, but rather in constant unending dialect with it.) But I also believe that that's the only game in town. I'm just quoting this because I like it so much.
Wrestling with God is an ongoing task not just for each individual but with a greater historical scope. The idea that modern moral concepts can somehow be ignored or should not be applied to religion 'because the bible says so' seems to me to be wrong. Christianity is not fossilised in some fictional past when morality was fixed in a clear fashion. Morals have always changed, and thus the way in which Christians respond to the bible are bound to change along with them.
Mind you, I speak as a conservative agnostic, so probably not your intended core audience.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-25 02:35 pm (UTC)I think an exemplar can be drawn from the creation/evolution debate. Because regardless of where you stand on the biblical evidence, the evidence available in the earth itself means that the bible reading cannot be taken as simple and clear. Either, God used evolution to create the world in which case the bible must be read as more complicated than the superficially clear story, or God did not use evolution but for some reason chose to make the world in such a fashion that it appeared that He did, in which case the bible must be read as more complicated than the superficially clear story. The important point being not whether evolution is or is not true but that the bible story is not and cannot be taken as a simple explanation of everything that is going on. Even if you are a hard-line creationist the undeniable fact of dinosaur bones means that on some level the Creation story has non-simplistic elements.
It seems to me this logic can be extended beyond the first chapters of Genesis and taken to any other aspect of the bible. You don't need a 'dispensation' if you take the reading as being more complicated than a simple set of 'rules'.
Although, point of doctrine, didn't Paul excuse most of those rules just as he did with things like circumcision?
I'm just quoting this because I like it so much.
Wrestling with God is an ongoing task not just for each individual but with a greater historical scope. The idea that modern moral concepts can somehow be ignored or should not be applied to religion 'because the bible says so' seems to me to be wrong. Christianity is not fossilised in some fictional past when morality was fixed in a clear fashion. Morals have always changed, and thus the way in which Christians respond to the bible are bound to change along with them.
Mind you, I speak as a conservative agnostic, so probably not your intended core audience.