Theologically sensitive or merely seeking to be popular?

I've been asked to think about how we think about thinking about thinking theologically. So here it the beginning of it (I think):

If there is anything that makes thinking theologically an interesting and, at times, potentially frustrating thing, it has to be the fact that so many of us want to work in a world where things are always mutually exclusive. Add to this the challenge of having people who call upon us to 'interpret the Bible using the lens of our heart' and those who are happy to embrace all and every thinking on the grounds that we are 'called to peace' or because we are called to be' inclusive' (phrases that need to be interpreted and understood at some stage)  and we find ourselves in a very interesting place indeed - and it don't always look 'Christian' (if that means 'Biblical' or refers to the way we live our faith!). The challenge is that we do indeed need to be 'theologically sensitive' and we seek the truth whether it is popular or not.

I'm having a bit of a struggle with a few issues at the moment. This is what I do because I'm called to do it for myself as a believer and for those I pastor, as a pastor, and those teach and  . . . (you know what I mean I'm sure).

My faith demands that I examine and question and explore and dialogue (with those who believe like me, unlike me and not like me at all) with the things I believe, think I believe and think I might not believe too. This is the Christian's quest - to ask awkward questions and seek unbelievable answers to questions of belief and then, having managed to do that to some extent, direct my life (and help others to follow too) on the way that God hints* that I should go.

Looking, as I am, at the question of infant baptism I am encountering many friends who are happy for this to feature alongside adult baptism. Both have their place in Church practice and are indicated in the Bible. 'What's the problem with having both?' they cry.  And before the words are dry in the ears of the hearers response, 'We can only have one baptism - and that's . . .' is heard and battle is joined. There can be but one solution and, fallen human nature to the fore, we need to our view to be the persuasive, compelling and predominant viewpoint. Anything else is obviously just plain wrong because . . . well because it's 'MY' view for a start and the fact I WANT it to be the way things are done should surely be enough for it to be exactly that!

We then starts the horse trading:

'We have 'always' done this!'
(isn't 'always' a real curse? It is the province of the insecure and the feeble-minded or the faux security of those who who know they're on shifting and uncertain ground!). It's also the opportunity for the, 'But we know better know' brigade (and let's be fair, you can only refer to slavery and the like so many times before it just becomes a little hollow and worthless!).

'We live in a different time - that was then, this is now!'
The irony with this approach is that those who bring this gambit into play seem to forget that there are a number of factors to be considered:

i. Many of the things they oppose were actually part of the Church when people could remember the stuff the people we call Apostles were doing their stuff pretty accurately. It was the practice 'then' for them - not history!

ii. When it comes to 'ignorance' we forget that living and doing Church from first principles without the assistance of search engines, the internet and the resources that make even the most idiotic appear to have some knowledge (I know, I've looked in the mirror!). They weren't 'thick or primitive or ignorant' in fact, discovering it for themselves and thinking about it actually makes them look a darn sight cleverer than we give them credit for!

iii. When it comes to being 'enlightened' I have to say that it doesn't hold water from where I'm hiding. In fact I have to own up and say that I am just a little tired of the people who think that we are the brightest and the best and that 'our modern thinking' is the datum from which all else is to be judged and the yardstick by which all is measured. In a world of polyamory, natural law and revenge-ridden madness I find this grasping just a little too far.

'Let me quote . . .'
If this quote happens to be from the Bible then we have a few opportunities for problems in that many who like to quote for the Bible also enjoy engaging in the practice of 'prooftexting' - this is the method of finding words that meet our needs, support our words and give us the opportunity to look smugly at our opponent with 'incontrovertible truth'. The problem is that to do this the proof text needs to be in context and not just a few words selected because they say what you want them to say.

My Favourite example of this is the fact that the Bible supports the claims of some in that, 'There is no God!'  An Atheist friend used to use this with the reference: Psalm 14 - and he was right to quote it as he did. The reason for my thinking being that the whole verse (verse one) tells us: 'The fool says in his heart, There is no God!'

Engage in prooftexting  in the secure knowledge that you, and your argument, are destined to be on the wrong end of a good kicking.

The other end of the 'quoting someone' spectrum is the person who will quote some self-absorded, self-supporting, all-knowing plankton as if their very words had been handed down on Sinai's mount itself. Dorkins may find himself quote worthy and perennially valid, but most of my atheist friends don't. Claims to rational thinking need to be rational and valid. Wanting them to be is (sadly) not the province of any one player in the world of theological debate - all have fallen into this trap (and will continue to do so I'm sure).

So there we are - fifteen minutes of splurge from the recesses of my bonce. Madness, misdirection and mayhem? Probably - but if it get us talking, thinking and challenging ourselves and others (always best to start with ourselves - easier to win against limited intellects).

More soon!

*'Hints' - Recently, listening to a preacher on the radio I heard them tell their listeners that 'God commands us to do nothing but love and how this shapes everything else - Love is the only absolute and it ignores everything in its name. Outside of love there are no commandments - only hints as to how we might live!'

When Rights Clash - Part the Second

The Prooftext

Being human the reality is that we all make choices and have our own positions on a number of issues. Some Christians, naively it seems, think that the Bible is the source of concord and yet, many of us know that it can also be the source of discord thanks to the way we read it, interpret it or make it support our own position.

We have the heresy that is prooftexting whereby passages are taken and used to support our position and, having done this, make our righteous stand on the basis of the 'warrant of Scripture'. The problem is that all too often we find the passage used is taken out of context and so the reality is that we make it say what it never intended to say! Let me give you a safe example (i.e. I'm not using the Bible and I'm avoiding any of the amazingly contentious subjects that cloud our otherwise sunny days!):

One of our children once comes to me and asks if they can go outside and play in the park. My first response is to ask what Mum has said on this issue, for wisdom comes with experience ;-). The reply for said child is that, "Mum said I can go and play." Assured that I am acting in agreement with 'the Mummy', I (the'Not the Mummy') let them go.

The Mummy returns from somewhere or other and asks where number n child is. I reply, feeling assured that I am on safe ground, that they have gone into the wilderness to encounter adventure. The Mummy vanishes for a moment and them returns to tell me that they weren't allowed to go until the bedroom has been tidied (and of course it has not been).

When child is retrieved from the park they tell me that indeed the Mummy did say they could go out and when I point out that the words 'after you have cleaned your bedroom' were omitted, they merely answer, "But she did say I could go out!" Now she did use the Mummy's words, but they were presented out of context. Had the Mummy not returned before the child had been, gone and returned to the bedroom all would have appeared well, but of course would not have been. This is the curse of the prooftext and sadly, it is not restricted to children and playgrounds but can be found in the actions and theologies of many on all sides of many issues.

So here is a little plea on behalf of my employer:

1. If you want to hold a view that is contrary to that which appears to be Biblical please feel free to hold it, just don't twist the words to justify your decision for it confuses the sheep, and don't expect everyone to approve - they won't!

2. When you make a point please make sure that when using any source you do so with integrity and should you rely upon some form of 'having fixed the hermeneutic' (this means looking at the when, who it was written to, why it was written to them (and why then), the sociological, historical, political and any other reality in place at the time of writing, the intended audience and the authority of the person what writ it!) please make sure that it is not skewed to assist your own argument.

3. If you find something with which you disagree then engage with the words and dialogue with the writer (or speaker). Look at what they say and judge their sources and supporting material. Our society engages with ad hominem far too willingly (I know, I do it as well - I might be trying to be physician here but I recognise that I am also a sufferer). Issue a rebuttal and hope that a surrebuttal returns through the ether. This is dialogue and is healthy, constructive and Christian. (well it should be - if you can do wit you can also opt for the wonderful world of rejoinder and surrejoinder, which is much more fun but also potentially more barbed).

Happy Saturday