Thanks. Helpful take on Sola Scriptura. Rohr talks about his tricycle of experience, scripture and tradition. I think the Methodists have a similar take and add a fourth pillar of reason. But scripture is just one element. I think tradition is an extension of scripture, the conversation continues.
The Bible for me is like a conversation with my 3,000 year old faith community. It is not:
I like your hermeneutic above. Christ first. Definitely the Holy Spirit although a lot of Protestant types are afraid to listen in silence and trust what they hear. Definitely the church, we are the body of Christ and it important to help each other grow in our understanding. As the UCC says, “God is still speaking.” I especially like that you listen to the margins. Christianity is a faith of the margins, despite how Christian nationalists and prosperity gospel preachers try to pervert it.
I’m indebted to Martin Luther in many ways, but Sola Scriptura is a pair of handcuffs on many faith journeys.
Nice. I’m a big fan of DBH and I’m squarely universalist. Have you followed David Artman’s podcast, Grace Saves All?
Thank you for that. I hadn’t really thought about Acts 15 that way but it is so fitting. And I agree, the Bible is a testament to the Word. The Word is Christ. I feel privileged to have this collection of writings from people who struggled back and forth with issues of faith just as we do today. I love that the compilers and canonizers were fine with those contradictions and wanted to enshrine the diversity of our faith. The contradictions inherent in that earnest back and forth are nothing to be confused or embarrassed about, they are the very point of scripture to me. Highlighting Acts 15 as you did above shows this evolving in action, led by the Holy Spirit. The Bible isn’t a magic rule book. It’s there to show you ways people who shared our faith for 3,000 years approached a relationship with God.
Unfortunately, for a lot of Americans, there is so much prideful tribalism tied up in particular ways of understanding the Bible that I’m afraid admitting literal inerrancy is too limiting would shatter their identities. But that requires a few more books worth of material…
This topic alone deserves a few books of material, but to share my progressive American view, I believe the SBC has a history of supporting patriarchy. But what came first, patriarchy or Biblical interpretation? In the spirit of assuming the best of my fellow Christians, let’s assume the problem lies in interpretation.
The SBC holds that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God. I don’t know what to do with that kind of view in my own faith life. Consider: -Many books and verses seem to contradict each other -Jesus “updated” scripture in his sayings -There are many verses that clearly seem to be written by flat-earthers, as anyone might have been thousands of years ago
The Bible was written in the language and culture of its time. Our knowledge and understanding continues to grow and our faith must continue to expand. This should all be seen through the lens of Christ first. Let’s measure the intent of scripture through Christ’s love, and if there is a contradiction, Christ wins over scripture. I cannot for a single second believe that Christ would not allow women to play equal roles in the church.
But what about Paul? We hear a lot about 1 Timothy 2:12. Paul is pretty clear that women should be quiet in church here. But why? What is the cultural context? It seems tied to not wanting to seem like another cult. We don’t have that context anymore.
We don’t hear as much about the last chapter of Romans where women like Mary and Junia are preaching all over the place with Paul’s blessing. Does Paul contradict himself? Sure. How can we really know Paul’s thoughts? More importantly, who cares if there is a contradiction? Applying what we know of Jesus, it seems really clear that we should be way beyond this issue in 2023.
Never thought of air fryer fresh roast… 😀