The place of Scripture in the church today

To rehash the three points  I’ve made about using “rightly” and “proper” to manage interpretations of Scripture:

1.  Using “rightly” and “proper” effectively split’s the community of believers into two camps—insiders and outsiders. 2.  “Rightly” and “proper” are extra biblical means of defining belief in Jesus and Paul‘s letters. 3.  Using “rightly” and “proper” are usually practices carried out by insiders and it privileges the insider’s camp over the outsider‘s camp.            

So, in short, talking about “rightly” understanding some piece of Scripture or having a “proper interpretation” is a way that some conservative evangelicals manage the abundant possibilities opened up by the Holy Bible and a way that they sustain their particular visions of faith.

To be clear, I’m not claiming that trying to understand the context in which Jesus lived is incorrect or somehow misguided. On the contrary, I think that any good student of Jesus would attempt to understand the historical contexts surrounding Jesus and the Scriptures.

The meat of the point that I wish to make is this: to frame “context” as only or even primarily historical in nature has a powerful blinding effect on the reader/writer/follower of Jesus. Even more important than historical context is present context.

My argument is straightforward. On logical and empirical grounds, whatever present contexts we find ourselves in are more significant for understanding our relationship with Jesus and the kingdom of heaven than are the historical contexts in which the words were originally spoken.

1.  Can we understand “miracles” through the lens of standard scientific epistemology?

I think that “miracles” can be explained by science but, and here’s the rub, science can only explain “miracles” in scientific terms.  And by scientific terms I mean that “miracles” can be translated through the scientific disciplines of sociology, psychology, biological, etc.  The science method cannot account for “miracles” outside scientific terms.  

2.   How are we to understand “miracles”?

Not as scientists.  The possibility of “miracles” is not a possibility confined by (a faith in) empirical and rational limits, as is the modern scientific method.  

Rather, the possibility of “miracles” is a possibility founded on the words of the Holy Bible.  The ground on which the possibility of “miracles” stands is revelatory and therefore inexplicable in scientific terms.  

The truth of “miracles” is not a scientific truth and the two kinds of truth should not be conflated.

As the possibility for a US led war in Iraq began to gain momentum, Christians began staking out positions. Some Christians defended the call for war and other Christians rejected the call for war.

Below I examine how believers of the same community of faith came to defend and reject the war in Iraq. How did they justify their positions?

“You’re taking that out of context.”  

That is a charge often leveled at people interpreting the Holy Bible.  The critical claim that an interpreter is taking a piece of text “out of context” serves to call into question the validity of the interpretation.  Taking a piece “out of context” is a bad practice, in other words.  And perhaps it is.  

Jesus didn’t say anything explicitly about economic policy, so as in all things relating to the Bible, there is room for various interpretations.  Below, I read the oft quoted passages in the Gospel of Matthew and suggest what they entail for economic policies for us today.

Widespread Agreement

My claim is simple: we have lost a sense of the value of the word and the story. This is especially the case with the Holy Bible.

The Scriptures as we have them are English translations of Greek copies of copies of copies. Not only are those copies sometimes unreliable, but our translations of them bring their own cultural baggage. Even which books we consider to be part of Scripture are the result of human events which must be understood. Is there something to be done about providing Christians with a less biased, more “accurate” translation of “Scripture”?

Whose words do you value more, Jesus or Paul?