Today's post relates to a very recent discussion I had with a well-churched Christian friend after receiving too many insulting jibe's directed at me. They were not meant to be funny but to be taken personally. At which point, a fun evening became a full-on private discussion between myself and my accuser.
The matter at hand - that of process theology using the newest and latest philosophic and redactive tools at hand - had been brewing for years requiring some form of frank, but well-meaning, discussion.
Unfortunately our venue that night very quickly became the time and place for me to share my personal journey. A journey I had kept private knowing full well the kind of response I would receive.
It began when asking my friend about his trip to an international pro-life religious-political conference which we talked about without getting too deep. But then the remarks started coming when I mentioned a few appointments I had taken this past month.
As I briefly mentioned these my friend began to goad the discussion onwards with accusations towards my community so that it became readily apparently he was unwilling to engage in any meaningful or positive way but fully readily to enact accusatory judgments.
If only his commentary was directed towards myself I would have laughed it off and moved on as I had done over the years but when accusations started landing upon fellow assemblies and friends then it had gone too far.
And so, there we were as I tried to share where I was personally as he pretended to listen while innocently blinking his eyes indicating he had stopped listening and was, instead, looking to argue and accuse in defense of his brand of Christianity.
I found it all particularly sad and a bit frustrating if I am to be honest. And the outcome a complete bust. Nothing was gained. And I became road-kill once again.
It also reinforced the thought I had asked myself on too many occasions that if anyone wished to find Christian enlightenment they should not come to the area I live in.
Once known as the New Jerusalem, my hometown refuses to update its old theologies; rather, it obsequiously monitors all new ideas by it's self-appointed Scribes and Pharisees as overseers of all church polities and policies. Not Jesus. Not love. And certainly not enlightenment.
The apologetic walls here are on high alert and at all times. People come here to leave. Not stay. Any new seed dies on it's hard grounds. And any new wine is expected to be poured into old wine sacks which predictably will burst and be lost. We are expected to stay to the old ways and imagine the rugged past as better than any promised future.
Which is also why I have felt Spirit-driven over the years to write out my personal journey so that readers may benefit by my examination of traditional church beliefs and teachings and how they may be more appropriately applied for today's present times.
Which is also why I am posting Tripp and James' discussion today finding similar souls on similar journeys as my own. That our testimony may aide fellow travellers and local church assemblies exploring the meaning of their Christian faith against all which would make it hollow and empty.
To find a Jesus-gospel which reclaims and redeems; renews and repents; heals and will not harm; as versus another kind of gospel meant to prevent doubt or inquiry; any meaningful self-examination; or force all who come to Jesus to assimilate under a specific brand of socio-political doctrinnaire.
Tripp, by background, comes from a North Carolina Baptist setting in his youth - while James, at present, teaches at Butler University in Indiana. I respect them both. Each have their strengths in Christian witness and testimony. Whether James is a process theologian I do not know. However, he's hanging around the right people who are even as I am trying to find similar fellowship in my area if it is possible.
Moreover, Tripp, like myself, are "all-in on Process-everything" and have been actively fleshing it out since becoming acquainted with Whitehead's organic cosmo-philosophy and metaphysics.
Enjoy,
R.E. Slater
December 14, 2023
Source and Redaction Criticism
There are a lot of critical tools we use when studying the Bible. These ways of thinking about the text help us understand where it came from and how it has been used by the authors. The passage we looked at on Sunday leads into a really neat example of both source and redaction criticism.
Source criticism tries to uncover the original source of a story or document and looks to understand what that original source was trying to say. Redaction criticism sees the author of the text as it comes to us as the primary source and tries to understand what the author was trying to say as they edited (or redacted) that original source.
Well, in Matthew 25:14–30 (the parable of the talents) and in Luke 19:11-27 (the parable of the minas) these two authors tell a very similar story with almost diametrically opposed meanings. and this brings up some really interesting questions.
From a source-critical perspective, we can ask where this parable originated. One of the most common assumptions in the study of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) is what is known as the two source hypothesis. Mark is assumed to be the oldest of the Gospels and Matthew and Luke appear to take much of their material from this pre-existing text. However, as in the case of the talents/minas parable, Matthew and Luke share some stories that Mark does not. From this, we surmise that there may have existed another older Gospel containing stories of Jesus that Mathew and Luke also borrowed from. We call this hypothetical document Q from the German for source. (I know now very creative.)
Perhaps even more intriguing though, is the fact that Matthew and Luke seem to think this parable means something very different from each other. In Matthew’s version the servant who brings back the most to his master is the hero of the story, while in Luke’s version it’s the servant who is willing to bring back the least that is the example we should follow. If the source is indeed Q, then this means the two Gospel writers/redactors have interpreted the parable in two different ways based not their understanding of Jesus. And in the end, this is a pretty fascinating window into how each of us encounters Jesus through the text of the Gospels.
Jesus, Zacchaeus, and Source Criticism
by the Commons Church
* * * * * * *
James McGrath: The A to Z of the New Testament
One of the ongoing tensions for Biblical scholars is the gap between the shared knowledge within the academy and the need for more awareness among the larger public. Most ministers are aware of the tension this creates in the congregation, but the public square is no better. A friend and New Testament scholar, Dr. James McGrath, is back on the podcast to discuss his new book to tackle this problem. Here's the book: https://amzn.to/46Wjqv6
The A to Z of the New Testament:
Things Experts Know That Everyone Else Should Too
by James F. McGrath (Author) Format: Kindle Edition
So you think you know the New Testament? Did you know that Jesus made puns? Did you know that Paul never calls himself or the churches he writes to “Christian”? Did you know that we don’t know who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews, or if it’s even really a letter?James F. McGrath sheds light on these and many other surprising facts in The A to Z of the New Testament. Cutting through common myths and misunderstandings of problematic Bible passages, McGrath opens up expert knowledge to laypeople in his friendly introduction to New Testament studies. Each chapter in this fresh, accessible volume begins with a provocative anecdote or fact and then pulls back the curtain to inform curious readers about how scholars approach the issue. Along the way, McGrath explains unfamiliar terminology and methodology to non-specialists with humor and clarity.
No comments:
Post a Comment