|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Where does loving the word stop and Bibliolatry start?
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
The kind of Church circles I move in are usually reformed conservative (just the type we all love on SoF!)
As you may have seen from my recent threads, I'm starting to take another look at this way of church and one area I'm thinking about is the academic in depth study of the word that prevails. We seem to have to wring every last bit of mystery, joy and awe out of it and boil it down to it's component theology - eg: Last week we had the 'textbook' answer of why there is suffering in the world, but I felt sorry for anyone who was suffering that morning as there wasn't much practical help!
The Word is analysed to extreme degrees about what it means, what it says and what it implies, but it feels a bit like this is at the expense of encouraging and teaching us to have a Godly walk.
What would your thoughts or opinions be?
[ 26. March 2013, 21:39: Message edited by: Stoker ]
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
In-depth exegesis can be helpful to our understanding and reflection of a text, but I agree with you that it should not be at the expense of encouragement to enjoy the scriptures. Both should help us on our Godly walk. We need challenge as well as affirmation so that we'll grow in faith, and we need to use our minds as well as our hearts so that we'll love God with both (and our souls and strength).
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
The kind of Church circles I move in are usually reformed conservative (just the type we all love on SoF!)
As you may have seen from my recent threads, I'm starting to take another look at this way of church and one area I'm thinking about is the academic in depth study of the word that prevails. We seem to have to wring every last bit of mystery, joy and awe out of it and boil it down to it's component theology - eg: Last week we had the 'textbook' answer of why there is suffering in the world, but I felt sorry for anyone who was suffering that morning as there wasn't much practical help!
The Word is analysed to extreme degrees about what it means, what it says and what it implies, but it feels a bit like this is at the expense of encouraging and teaching us to have a Godly walk.
What would your thoughts or opinions be?
We used to be that way, and we still are. But I think we are realizing more and more what it is to live it out. I know it can seem like being at a auto repair shop with no cars to work on. Just talking shop. As time has gone on, though, it does seem more and more suffering has come along. Either that, or I just got older and noticed it more. It does seem we've stepped up and are being much more down to business. Do you have people there who are really up against it? Do they think they can talk about it?
Last summer on Wednesday nights, and I think we might do it again, we had a series based on the I Am Second series. We would watch a video from I Am Second, then a voluntary member of the congregation would sit before us and talked about things they have gone through in life or are going through, still, and maybe take a few questions. It turns out lots of us have storms in our lives and we have learned we can talk about it. And things were talked about that many of us thought would not have been talked about, but they were, and I think we have learned we can trust our brothers and sisters to love us.
All that said, no one can take your joy. Maybe you could ask questions that cause folks to think beyond the pew, what it means for rest of time you are living. Maybe you should look at your own life, find something you are going through, and talk to someone there about it. Give them a chance.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
Well, you know you are in the presence of a Bibliolator when you hear the phrase "the Bible says it, so I believe it" in the face of some rational appeal or scientific evidence. As long as the Bible is being studied (not just slavishly followed) then you might find worship a bit dry, but not idolatrous in my opinion.
I have noticed a greater desire for indepth Bile study in newer Christians, presumably because they feel the need to "catch up" on the knowledge more seasoned believers seem to have at their fingertips. Whereas, the desire for greater intimacy (with one another and with God), action and encouragement seems to prevail amongst people who have been in the faith for longer.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
YMMV but I've found the analogy of the Bible being like a menu helpful. The menu tells you all about the food but you don't eat the menu itself rather you eat what it describes and points you towards.
What Mere Nick touches on about reality and honesty is very important. I well remember a conversation I had when I was a student about the church I'd recently joined with another new member who'd recently moved to the area - "this is a very unusual church - they've all got problems" ... "maybe they are just more honest".
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
What would your thoughts or opinions be?
I don't know. I've seen this sort of thing in the past, but these days most of the very conservative churches I know are also deeply pastoral in their approach to people's problems.
I think perhaps in the past there was a natural reaction away from such things due to fear of being a 'social gospel' church - but such extremes have been largely corrected.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Where does loving the word stop and Bibliolatry start?
I think Bibliolatry starts when "The Bible says..." is the end of the conversation, not the start of it.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
If the Bible is an "idol" for the "bible-believing" type of christian, then are reason, tradition, or "The One True Church" (which one of them is open for debate...) idols for other types of christians? For each christian has to base their faith decisions in something. Sayng that you believe in something because your church´s tradition teaches so doesn´t sound less "idolatrous" to me then Bible-believing.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
Bibliolatry starts when we forget that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone. The Word did not become book, the Word became flesh. That we happen to have some very, very good books about said flesh is a wonderful thing; but they should not be confused with the Word himself.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
I spend several months each year at a uniting church where the minister has made efforts to bring her flock into the 21st century with stuies such as Living the Questions. Last year's group responded enthusiastically but some have moved away and this year we have a couple of core members who rejected every course suggested; they want Bible Study pure and simple; they bring big fat bibles with lots of footnotes and sidebars, and when I left they were clamouring for a study on Revelation (Rev and I when it had cropped up both said "it was written in code for people suffering persecution" – she was planning to do a great deal of study before she tackled it!)
What really distressed me was that the one woman who is great at sharing both her Christian love and her meagre goods with those in need, described herself as a 'dirty rag' (Isaiah 64:6). What has been done to use the bible to frighten her? The other bibliolater (as I think they are) used the same expression – she who is the mainstay of the Messy Church programme.
My reaction at the time was to tell the first woman that she is a loved child of God.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
I don't think any Christians are not bible-believing, so I find the implied criticism in using that phrase arrogant.
RealLivePreacher makes a good point about Bibliolaters in There's Something About the Way You Use the Bible quote:
Somehow you have come to think that the bible is like everything else in your life. You think it is something to master and something you can own. The more you know about the bible, the more power you hope to gain. The more verses you can quote, the closer to God you hope to be.
The bible is your prop and your flag. You wave it around and make sure that it is seen. You highlight it and talk about it and make wild claims about its truth and fight over it and win with it and boast about how you believe every word of it. It is your way and your truth and your life.
He seems to be saying that Bibliolater are not loving the word but the power they can get from it.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Last week we had the 'textbook' answer of why there is suffering in the world,
The answer to why there is suffering in the world.
Wow.
They were able to collapse the Psalms, Job, sacrifice, retribution, apocalypticism, Jesus' suffering, and all the rest into one tidy little textbook answer? Neat trick.
quote:
At Galloping Granny's bible study:
...they bring big fat bibles with lots of footnotes and sidebars...
In my meager experience leading bible study, I insist that no one read any of the commentary, footnotes, or what-have-you, until we are able to tell the story or retell the text in our own words as a group. If anyone wanders off into Theology-Land during this retelling of the text, I redirect them back to listening to what the text is saying to them—not as they have heard it said.
This usually takes the first third of the allotted time. Then, we talk about what we think the text may mean. Only after all that, and only if there is time, do we pay any attention to the commentary, footnotes, and what-have-you.
I take as my guide Eramus's plea that the farmer at his plow and the weaver with his shuttle—even women and the Scots and Irish—sing the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Bibliolatry starts when we forget that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone. The Word did not become book, the Word became flesh. That we happen to have some very, very good books about said flesh is a wonderful thing; but they should not be confused with the Word himself.
Well said. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I think Pope Benedict XVI once said that exegesis had its place, but there's been done about enough of it, and one ought not forget the importance of reading the gospel with one's heart.
The Monastics have a nice way of reading the Gospel, known as 'Lectio Divina'.
Carmelite take on it here and
Cistercian lectio site here.
I have been close to the Lay Cistercian movement for some years and still practice the Lectio that way. I find it keeps a nice balance between over-exalted flights of spiritual fancy and bibliolatry.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Bibliolatry starts when we forget that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone. The Word did not become book, the Word became flesh. That we happen to have some very, very good books about said flesh is a wonderful thing; but they should not be confused with the Word himself.
Yep, I agree wholeheartedly with that too.
As ex-shipmate ChristinaMarie ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) memorably said of the Bible here long ago, "it's the map, not the terrain". Or as Jesus said (John 5:39-40):
quote:
You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I believe I'm right to say that some (British) Baptist Churches refused to adopt Statements of Faith which begin with phrases like "Our supreme and divine Authority is the Bible, as originally given ..." on the grounds that our Authority is God himself, albeit revealed through the Bible. They were right to do so.
Whether Baptist churches should adopt Statements of Faith is another question entirely ...
We had a meeting with members of our local Mosque a year or two back, and it was interesting to hear them explaining their approach to the Qu'ran. In many ways it sounded as if it married the rigidly textual approach of conservative Christians with the historical-commentaries approach of the Talmud. What it conspicuously seemed to lack was any sense of the Holy Spirt bringing "fresh light and truth" to the words.
Let me say (a) that this is not a particularly conservative group of Muslims and (b) that was my impression of wat they said; I might have got it wrong.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd second what Desert Daughter said. I was long involved in a tradition which valued personal Bible reading and the ability to memorise and quote the scriptures highly.
I used to be proud of the fact that I could turn up an obscure text or passage that the preacher was going to speak on whilst many others were fumbling to find it.
I was pleased that I could pepper my extemporary prayers with scriptural quotations, that I had a verse for every occasion, that I could reel off chapter and verse at the drop of a hat.
I used to preen myself inwardly whenever I was referred to as 'a man of the word' ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
This was in a very charismatic setting, so we did have a sense of the vatic and the numinous and a very highly developed sense of personal piety almost to the point of illuminism ...
I'm not knocking it entirely. A lot of it was good. We had strong Brethren and Baptist influences and so this gave some ballast and stability to what would otherwise have become highly subjective and heebie-geebie.
We were probably in a mid-point position between some of the more chewing-a-brick Puritan approaches within the independent conservative evangelical scene and the often scripture-lite fluffily charismatic outfits.
I've moved on from this now but value the emphasis we had on the scriptures - if not always the approach we took.
In more recent years I've discovered 'lectio divina' and have recently attended a Lenten study group with our local RCs using this approach. I have to say, I find it a lot more 'three-dimensional' somehow than the often 'proof-texting' approach we used to adopt ... and the focus has been devotional rather than doctrinal - if it's possible to make a distinction.
In the course of these sessions I never once heard anything 'flakey' or any odd-ball or individualised interpretation that sat at odds with what we might all agree to be the broad thrust of the passages in question.
The last time I attended that RC study group - about three years ago - a charismatic Anglican lady also attended and every single session would come out with something that either wasn't in the passage or else was a highly subjective - and sometimes flakey - spin from it. I got the impression that whatever the Gospel reading would be she'd turn it around to some hobby-horse or other.
At one time I'd have been aghast if you'd told me that we could take a leaf out of the RC's book when it came to Bible-study and reflection yet here I am saying so.
That said, when it comes to exegesis I still think that some of the more Protestant traditions do excel - and if there were ways of merging the two approaches I think we'd all benefit.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That said, when it comes to exegesis I still think that some of the more Protestant traditions do excel - and if there were ways of merging the two approaches I think we'd all benefit.
I totally agree. ![[Cool]](cool.gif) Lectio Divina is awesome. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) A very rich stream to tap into.
I for one greatly value the spiritual disciplines of my evangelical upbringing. Having a daily 'Quiet Time', to use classic evangelical jargon, and memorising Scripture are excellent spiritual disciplines to cultivate.
I get frustrated by more conservative evangelical brethren (or sistren) whose approach to the Bible can be quite cerebral - too cerebral - and almost put God in a box. I got very fed up with some of the stuff produced by one famous conservative evangelical outfit: their Bible study materials were so clearly designed to elicit the 'right' answer. Digging into the Word is one thing. Often we have to wrestle with it too. The Bible is powerful, and certainly not always easy to interpret or understand. Hence the wisdom of drawing on traditions older than ourselves, which go way back to very wise men and women.
I do believe that Scripture contains 'the very words of God'. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't bother being a Christian. We don't worship the Bible, but neither can we do without it ... or, rather, perhaps it's better to say that we cannot do without the powerful truth it contains. People do come to faith without having access to a Bible ... I'm thinking of Muslims who encounter Jesus in their dreams, for example.
Orthodox Jews and Muslims take their Scriptures seriously. So should we.
[ 27. March 2013, 11:13: Message edited by: Laurelin ]
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I believe I'm right to say that some (British) Baptist Churches refused to adopt Statements of Faith which begin with phrases like "Our supreme and divine Authority is the Bible, as originally given ..." on the grounds that our Authority is God himself, albeit revealed through the Bible. They were right to do so.
Really? I'd like to meet these guys, I thought it was just me. Do you have any links?
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
What I really resent is the suggestion - mainly explicitly - that if you don't apply scripture in the way certain people apply it and if you don't believe in a 6 day creation and that Noah really did build an ark (etc), that you therefore are contemptuous of scripture. It's such a terrible misunderstanding, and sadly, a refusal to listen or even attempt to understand anothers' perspective on something they consider holy.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
What I really resent is the suggestion - mainly explicitly - that if you don't apply scripture in the way certain people apply it and if you don't believe in a 6 day creation and that Noah really did build an ark (etc), that you therefore are contemptuous of scripture. It's such a terrible misunderstanding, and sadly, a refusal to listen or even attempt to understand anothers' perspective on something they consider holy.
I agree. Being evangelical doesn't make me a strict literalist in every single respect.
I've heard interpretations of the Bible's 'inerrancy' to mean that the Bible is perfect in what it teaches. I wouldn't argue with that. As it still doesn't mean you have to be a strict literalist about absolutely everything in Scripture.
Discussion recently in a preachers' meeting, we were about to launch a teaching series on Jonah. Fellow lay minister said he very much took the line that Jonah was a story. I said I believed it was based on real events. My vicar (a lovely charo-evangelical guy) said, "Very diplomatic." ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I wasn't really being diplomatic though. I do take the Old Testament accounts very seriously. I don't dismiss them as myth. Again ... that doesn't make me a strict literalist. E.g. I do think Job is a story.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Q. Where does loving the word stop and Bibliolatry start?
A. When reading the bible (or hearing a man publicly explaining it) is considered to be the only means of encounter with God.
[ 27. March 2013, 13:01: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
Thanks folks, all really helpful.
Hardcore exegesis can certainly get tiring in a Bible study/ discussion. I think Pastors get so caught up in it sometimes that they forget that us mere mortals don't have the amount of time they do to mull over the scriptures.
FC - I agree with you on this (despite past skirmishes) - I recently was told that God created dinosaur fossils. I kept a straight face but didn't know wether to laugh or cry.
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I'd go along with that, daronmedway - and I think there are some other more subtle pitfalls too ...
@Laurelin, I keep getting outraged responses from friends in my former restorationist setting when I suggest that Job (or Jonah) isn't necessarily to be taken literally ... I mean, are the comments of the Comforters an actual transcription of real conversations? ... in poetry?
I'd be happy to accept that there is an historical background and context to the story of Jonah, for instance - but I'd still understand it as myth - myth in the C S Lewis sense.
I keep being asked why I might take one story as allegorical/mythical and not another - so, for instance, why do I accept that the resurrection actually happened, but I'm quite happy to take some of the stories about Elijah and Elisha in more mythical terms ...
I don't have any cut and dried answer for that. I wondered what your responses might be in such circumstances?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gextvedde
Shipmate
# 11084
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Where does loving the word stop and Bibliolatry start?
I think Bibliolatry starts when "The Bible says..." is the end of the conversation, not the start of it.
This with bells & whistles attached.
--------------------
"We must learn to see that our temperament is a gift of God, a talent with which we must trade until he comes" Thomas Merton
Posts: 293 | From: The Twilight Zone, near the M25 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In some ways, Stoker, you (and I?) are in something of a cleft stick ... on the one hand I'm tempted to suggest that you should count yourself lucky that there is still detailed exegesis and analysis going on in the circles in which you move ... much popular evangelicalism seems to be dumbing itself down, it seems to me.
The megachurches and so on are probably almost entirely bereft of scholarship and exegesis - but I might be wrong ...
The other part of me is tempted to say, 'What the heck are you doing there? Run away ... run away ...'
But then, I sometimes think I ought to apply that to myself at times.
In fairness, most UK evangelicalism doesn't fall into the overly literal trap - God creating dinosaur fossils to fool us and so on - but I've come across some UK evangelicals who hold those kind of views.
I can't speak for where you are.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I'd go along with that, daronmedway - and I think there are some other more subtle pitfalls too ...
@Laurelin, I keep getting outraged responses from friends in my former restorationist setting when I suggest that Job (or Jonah) isn't necessarily to be taken literally ... I mean, are the comments of the Comforters an actual transcription of real conversations? ... in poetry?
I'd be happy to accept that there is an historical background and context to the story of Jonah, for instance - but I'd still understand it as myth - myth in the C S Lewis sense.
I keep being asked why I might take one story as allegorical/mythical and not another - so, for instance, why do I accept that the resurrection actually happened, but I'm quite happy to take some of the stories about Elijah and Elisha in more mythical terms ...
I don't have any cut and dried answer for that. I wondered what your responses might be in such circumstances?
Whereas I suspect that when the "book of the Law" was "found" during Temple "spring cleaning" the ink was suspiciously wet.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I keep being asked why I might take one story as allegorical/mythical and not another - so, for instance, why do I accept that the resurrection actually happened, but I'm quite happy to take some of the stories about Elijah and Elisha in more mythical terms ...
I don't have any cut and dried answer for that. I wondered what your responses might be in such circumstances?
Yeah, it's a fair enough question ...
Perhaps one way to approach it is to say that believing in a literal Resurrection is a foundational, salvation 'thing', one which all Christians of all persuasions confess, whereas Elijah taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot is not a salvation 'thing'. I doubt that answer would satisfy the critics, but I can live with that.
I don't doubt the miracles, actually. Either in the OT or NT. I believe that God can supernaturally intervene, and has done so. I believe He answers prayer. But believing in a miracle doesn't always mean taking it in a strictly literal way. The parting of the Red Sea can possibly be explained scientifically. It's just that God's timing was spot-on ...
The Biblical writers didn't have a modernist POV, let alone a post-modern one. That doesn't make them unreliable or untruthful. It does mean that a rigidly literalistic interpretation doesn't always work.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Bibliolatry starts when we forget that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone. The Word did not become book, the Word became flesh. That we happen to have some very, very good books about said flesh is a wonderful thing; but they should not be confused with the Word himself.
This idea is often bandied about the ship but I'm beginning to see it as more Barth than Bible. Jesus is described as God's word in John 1, but I think most people are agreed that word isn't a brilliant translation of logos. Whereas "this is the word of the Lord" or "thus says the Lord" is used directly of many of the words of Scripture other than those about Jesus.
I could go with "the revelation of God is Jesus Christ" but I think that's somewhat different.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I keep being asked why I might take one story as allegorical/mythical and not another - so, for instance, why do I accept that the resurrection actually happened, but I'm quite happy to take some of the stories about Elijah and Elisha in more mythical terms ...
I don't have any cut and dried answer for that. I wondered what your responses might be in such circumstances?
Yeah, it's a fair enough question ...
Perhaps one way to approach it is to say that believing in a literal Resurrection is a foundational, salvation 'thing'
Oh dear. It is the cosmic grill thing for me then.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Bibliolatry starts when we forget that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone. The Word did not become book, the Word became flesh. That we happen to have some very, very good books about said flesh is a wonderful thing; but they should not be confused with the Word himself.
This idea is often bandied about the ship but I'm beginning to see it as more Barth than Bible. Jesus is described as God's word in John 1, but I think most people are agreed that word isn't a brilliant translation of logos. Whereas "this is the word of the Lord" or "thus says the Lord" is used directly of many of the words of Scripture other than those about Jesus.
I could go with "the revelation of God is Jesus Christ" but I think that's somewhat different.
I too find this distinction suspiciously neat and tidy. I'm not sure how one can (if indeed one would want to) disentangle the Word from the word as it were.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Laurelin:
quote:
I don't dismiss them as myth.
See, this is a perfect example of hat I mean. Who is dismissing it?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
You shouldn't dismiss myths. They're truer than most truths.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
What I really resent is the suggestion - mainly explicitly - that if you don't apply scripture in the way certain people apply it and if you don't believe in a 6 day creation and that Noah really did build an ark (etc), that you therefore are contemptuous of scripture. It's such a terrible misunderstanding, and sadly, a refusal to listen or even attempt to understand anothers' perspective on something they consider holy.
That can (and often does) work both ways.
Bibliolatry can be an irregular verb - I take scripture seriously (with whatever party nuances) whereas you are a Bibliolater...
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Q. Where does loving the word stop and Bibliolatry start?
A. When reading the bible (or hearing a man publicly explaining it) is considered to be the only means of encounter with God.
I'd sign up for that
[ 27. March 2013, 15:01: Message edited by: Twangist ]
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Bibliolatry starts when we forget that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone. The Word did not become book, the Word became flesh. That we happen to have some very, very good books about said flesh is a wonderful thing; but they should not be confused with the Word himself.
This idea is often bandied about the ship but I'm beginning to see it as more Barth than Bible. Jesus is described as God's word in John 1, but I think most people are agreed that word isn't a brilliant translation of logos. Whereas "this is the word of the Lord" or "thus says the Lord" is used directly of many of the words of Scripture other than those about Jesus.
I could go with "the revelation of God is Jesus Christ" but I think that's somewhat different.
Surely, how we read Revelation 19:13 is key to this particular debate? However, I agree with Lep that it isn't a simple either/or issue. There's more of a both/and issue going on I think.
For my part I think Rev 19:13 should be read as saying that Jesus is the gospel.
[ 27. March 2013, 15:02: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Oh dear. It is the cosmic grill thing for me then.
I'm not talking about putting anyone on a cosmic grill.
But if the Resurrection isn't a real event - if Jesus has not truly arisen from the dead - then Christianity is rendered null and void.
IMO.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Oh dear. It is the cosmic grill thing for me then.
I'm not talking about putting anyone on a cosmic grill.
But if the Resurrection isn't a real event - if Jesus has not truly arisen from the dead - then Christianity is rendered null and void.
IMO.
Oh, I think it can be a real event without it being literally factually true. Essentially I'm rather more sure that Jesus is alive now (not amazingly sure, but relatively more sure) than that he literally rose from the dead in the dead body gets up and starts being alive again sense which "literal" usually implies.
I'm not sure that either of them are true, or not true, but I'm rather more sure (or, conversely, even less sure) of one than the other.
[ 27. March 2013, 15:24: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - and perhaps this is getting into Dead Horse 'inerrancy' territory, Laurelin, do we actually have to accept the Red Sea story in Exodus as a literal historical event?
I mean, I've heard some people connect it with the earthquake and tsunami that ended the Minoan civilisation and which would have been contemporaneous for some of the dates given for the Exodus, thereby giving it a scientific and historical basis.
But do we really have to do this? Do we really have to posit a literal parting of the Red Sea for the 'myth' to have weight and have effect?
I'd fight shy of applying the same logic to the resurrection though, for reasons similar to yours ... but when we have, say, no archaeological evidence for walls of Jericho or for the Hebrew 'invasions' of Palestine happening in the way they've traditionally been understood, are we within our rights to consider that they might not be 'historical' in the modern sense.
I agree with you, though, about the miraculous and answered prayer and so on ... although I wouldn't go around making hard and fast claims about some of these things in the way I might have done in my more full on charismatic evangelical days.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
quote:
But if the Resurrection isn't a real event - if Jesus has not truly arisen from the dead - then Christianity is rendered null and void.
I don't know that I would say that. Reduced significantly, yes; null and void, no.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I recently was told that God created dinosaur fossils.
Sounds about right to me. He is the Existing One, who created all things.
He started with amino acids and ended up with rock, the ancestors to birds a short stop along the way.
Clever guy, that I AM WHO I AM.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Jesus is described as God's word in John 1, but I think most people are agreed that word isn't a brilliant translation of logos
Who are these "most people"? And if logos doesn't mean "word", what does it mean?
I think most if not all of the bits in the Bible referred to as the "word of the LORD (YHWH)" are, within the genre, supposedly spoken directly by God, whether it's OT prophecies or the Pentateuch.
Besides, what about Hebrews 1 for instance? Sounds pretty much like the Son is God's, um, last Word to me. And 2 Corinthians 3 makes a good case for the Scriptures being about as much use as the back of a cereal packet unless "in Christ" our understanding is enlightened by the work of the Spirit. Christ is the Word. The Scriptures are a medium. An important one, to be sure, but useless unless God chooses to speak through them. Jesus makes a similar point in John 5 as alluded to above.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Jesus is described as God's word in John 1, but I think most people are agreed that word isn't a brilliant translation of logos
Who are these "most people"? And if logos doesn't mean "word", what does it mean?
You've got the wrong end of the stick. He didn't say logos was a bad translation of word, but that word is a bad translation of logos.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Jesus is described as God's word in John 1, but I think most people are agreed that word isn't a brilliant translation of logos
Who are these "most people"? And if logos doesn't mean "word", what does it mean?
You've got the wrong end of the stick. He didn't say logos was a bad translation of word, but that word is a bad translation of logos.
How are "word is a bad translation of logos" and "logos doesn't mean word" different? There may be a confusion here.
To Leprechaun: Of course there are plenty of God's words in the Bible, in both testaments, but that isn't the question. The question is whether the Bible, taken as a whole, is the Word of God. And my answer remains that the Bible is the best record we have of the Word of God, but should not be confused with Him.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd be happy to accept that there is an historical background and context to the story of Jonah, for instance - but I'd still understand it as myth - myth in the C S Lewis sense.
Agreed. Perhaps bibliolatry wants to ignore context and historical background, and treat the Bible as a monolith with every word speaking directly across the ages to the contemporary reader. It seems to be a blinkered approach to me.
Take, for example, Jesus's advice "when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." A naive reading could easily conclude that litanies, for example, are not just wrongheaded but of the devil.
A reader open to context and history, however, would be curious as to what the heathen do. It's been years since I studied this passage, but as I recall from The Interpreter's Bible, they often assumed that God was very impressed with titles. Hence their prayers were full of effusive and formal flattery (somewhat as a 17th-century commoner would be careful to insert in a letter to a prince). Some believed that God would not hear a prayer unless they managed to get His name exactly right, and since they weren't certain what that name was, they tried lots of them.
I would think, then, that this information would imply a caution to anyone insisting that only a prayer in Jesus's name would be heard. What does it mean to pray in Jesus' name? Would it work if someone used it after merely overhearing someone else use it in the street? Wouldn't one need to know something about who Jesus was? How much knowledge would be enough? I've asked this question before. The most sensible answer I've received is that it isn't the name itself that matters at all, but a humble yet intimite spirit behind the prayer. Dare we imagine that Christians have a monopoly on that?
This is just a simple example, of course. The point is that the Bible was not originally one book, and it was not dictated to zombies in a vacuum.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
How are "word is a bad translation of logos" and "logos doesn't mean word" different? There may be a confusion here.
We want the words of our translation to mean what the original said. We're not using logos to translate English so the question of whether logos means word is irrelevant.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Bibliolatry starts when we forget that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone. The Word did not become book, the Word became flesh. That we happen to have some very, very good books about said flesh is a wonderful thing; but they should not be confused with the Word himself.
I don´t know of anyone who profess that the Bible is an incarnated God, though I know many who believe Jesus to be the Word of God because the Bible tells them so. It is not necessary to put the scriptures down, for what they are, in order to elevate Jesus. And matter of fact, theologians who dismiss the scriptures usually also have a very low view of Jesus´s divineship.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
How are "word is a bad translation of logos" and "logos doesn't mean word" different? There may be a confusion here.
We want the words of our translation to mean what the original said. We're not using logos to translate English so the question of whether logos means word is irrelevant.
Well there's certainly confusion on my part. I know you are usually quite precise with your words, mousethief, but I'm failing to see the point you're making here.
The equivalence of meaning between "logos" and "word" is not entirely reflexive, but isn't it somewhat reflexive? "Logos" does not mean "cat" and "cat" does not mean "logos" because there is no overlap in the ranges of their respective meanings. I assume you are referring to the fact that if I translate "logos" in Greek into "word" in English, that would not necessarily mean that the converse is true: I would not necessarily also translate "word" in English into "logos" in Greek.
But if I do translate "logos" in Greek into "word" in English, presumably it's because there is some overlap in meaning, and therefore there would be a reasonable discussion to be had about whether "word" in English could or should be translated as "logos" in Greek. In contrast, it's clear that neither "cat" nor "logos" would ever be a good translation of the other because they mean completely different things. Doesn't saying that "logos" does not mean "word" imply a similar relationship (albeit more weakly than in my "cat" example)?
I'm struggling to understand why you would say the question is irrelevant. Yes, the two questions are not equivalent, but they are related. How can the one be irrelevant to the other?
To Leprechaun (and/or Bostonman): I'd be interested to know why "word" is not a good translation of "logos."
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
It is not necessary to put the scriptures down, for what they are, in order to elevate Jesus.
I agree, and I would add that elevating Scripture and calling it the Word of God does not detract from Jesus being God Incarnate and the Word made flesh. There is more involved in those ideas than equating Jesus with a book written in human language.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
