We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
On Biblical Interpretation
Today we’re linking to a blog post from Rachel Held Evans about Biblical interpretation.
In her post, Rachel writes about the complexities Christians encounter when our scriptural interpretations differ (emphasis is Rachel’s):
What is perhaps most frustrating about engaging in such conversations within the evangelical community in particular, however, is that differences regarding things like Calvinism and Arminianism, baptism, heaven and hell, gender roles, homosexuality, and atonement theories often disintegrate into harsh accusations in which we question one another’s commitment to Scripture. In some cases, folks are so committed to their particular views on these issues they seem incapable of making a distinction between the Bible itself and their interpretation of it, and so any critique of that interpretation is seen as a critique of Scripture itself! And so we miss one another entirely.Instead of a lively, impassioned debate about the text, we engage in lively, impassioned debates about one another’s commitment to the faith.
She goes on to say:
For constructive dialog to happen, Christians must stop conflating differences in interpretation of Scripture with differences in commitment to Scripture. We must respond to one another’s questions, arguments, and ideas in kind, with more questions, arguments, and ideas, rather than avoiding the conversation altogether by dismissing one another as unfaithful.
We encourage you to click over and read the whole post. As you go throughout your day and interact with other Christians and debating various topics, these words are definitely worth remembering.
Related Reading
The Cross and the Witness of Violent Portraits of God
In my previous post I noted that the prevalent contemporary evangelical assumption that the only legitimate meaning of a passage of Scripture is the one the author intended is a rather recent, and very secular, innovation in Church history. It was birthed in the post-Enlightenment era (17th -18th centuries) when secular minded scholars began to…
Toasted Ham and Nye
So, the big debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye is history. We didn’t really pay a whole lot of attention to it, and here’s why. In order for there to be a winner in this debate (because of the way it was framed) you had to choose between the false dichotomy of a believing the…
The Point of the Book of Job
The point of the book of Job is to teach us that the mystery of evil is a mystery of a war-torn and unfathomably complex creation, not the mystery of God’s all-controlling will. Given how Christians are yet inclined to look for a divine reason behind catastrophes and personal tragedies, I think it’s a point…
Jesus, the Center of Scripture
Paul declared that Jesus was nothing less than the very embodiment of all of God. This distinction of “all of God” is important for us to understand what it means for us to see Jesus and God rightly. Battling proto-gnostic teachers who were apparently presenting Christ alongside other manifestations of God, Paul declares “in Christ…
Are You Guilty of Marcionism?
Greg responds to the question of whether or not his cruciform hermeneutic is anything like the heresy of Marcion, who basically advocated throwing out the Old Testament. (Spoiler: it’s not.)
Thinking Biblically?
Olga Caprotti via Compfight Micah J. Murray over at Redemption Pictures posted this reflection called Beware of Thinking Biblically. The image of a google search on the topic is worth the price of admission. Christians throw around this phrase in some really damaging ways, as Rachel Held Evans demonstrated in her recent publication of A Year…