So I think I am going to use this blog to chronicle a bit of my faith journey and maybe those of you who find time to read it can dialog with me on issues of Spirit.
Livermore as a town and circumstances of life more generally have been re-exposing me to more conservative theology. I find it balancing and struggle with the merits of each (progressive and conservative theologies) in drawing me into a closer relationship with God. I felt this tension at a biblestudy I attended this past Sunday evening. I was frustrated with a bible study for being too academic and contextual (this is a first). It left very little room for God to be expansive, timeless, present.
We opened to Isiah 55. I came to the scripture rather indifferent about it, but hopeful to experience God. I don't always connect with many of the prophets of the OT.
It started, "Come, you who are thirsty, drink."
My mind was taken to the woman at the well. To Jesus inviting us to living water.
It went on to say... "Gods word is like the rain and snow. It falls to earth but doesnt rise back up again without watering the earth."
I thought about rain. The mystery of it falling and evaporating, but in the process nourishing grass and trees. I thought of Jesus, word made flesh, filling the earth with Gospel before leaving again. I thought of living water. Always nurishing.... The earth never dried up. Jesus came and through us the word keeps circulating. Re-nurishing us again and again. I made progress on thoughts of jesus. But the pastor continued to refocus our understanding of Isiah to the prophecies of liberation for Israel from Babylon.
Is there some theology that allows me to critically understand scriptural context without bounding God to a specific time or place? Can biblical writers write both to their contemporaries and to a future generation looking back? Can this happen without misintrepretation or coopting the scriptures for ones own purposes or renegade theology? Can one see Jesus and the church in the old testament while respecting its Jewish context and history? How can you tell what's what?
Livermore as a town and circumstances of life more generally have been re-exposing me to more conservative theology. I find it balancing and struggle with the merits of each (progressive and conservative theologies) in drawing me into a closer relationship with God. I felt this tension at a biblestudy I attended this past Sunday evening. I was frustrated with a bible study for being too academic and contextual (this is a first). It left very little room for God to be expansive, timeless, present.
We opened to Isiah 55. I came to the scripture rather indifferent about it, but hopeful to experience God. I don't always connect with many of the prophets of the OT.
It started, "Come, you who are thirsty, drink."
My mind was taken to the woman at the well. To Jesus inviting us to living water.
It went on to say... "Gods word is like the rain and snow. It falls to earth but doesnt rise back up again without watering the earth."
I thought about rain. The mystery of it falling and evaporating, but in the process nourishing grass and trees. I thought of Jesus, word made flesh, filling the earth with Gospel before leaving again. I thought of living water. Always nurishing.... The earth never dried up. Jesus came and through us the word keeps circulating. Re-nurishing us again and again. I made progress on thoughts of jesus. But the pastor continued to refocus our understanding of Isiah to the prophecies of liberation for Israel from Babylon.
Is there some theology that allows me to critically understand scriptural context without bounding God to a specific time or place? Can biblical writers write both to their contemporaries and to a future generation looking back? Can this happen without misintrepretation or coopting the scriptures for ones own purposes or renegade theology? Can one see Jesus and the church in the old testament while respecting its Jewish context and history? How can you tell what's what?
4 comments:
Thank you for posting this, Sara. I've been rolling some similar thoughts around in my head recently, largely coming out of a book by James Smith (Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?). One of his central claims is that we miss out on the continuity of spiritual practice when we try to remove ourselves from our traditions and the specificity of our viewpoints. Religious traditions often tend toward an ahistorical vision of God -- whether by focusing on abstractions of the timeless aspects of God or by forcing special revelation into a culture and context that would have been alien to the original authors.
Smith argues that the bridge between these two views comes from embracing the role of the Spirit in tradition and what he terms a 'gracious orthodoxy.' What he constructs is something of an embrace of the paradox of the incarnation. The tension that we live in seems to stem from this paradox -- while God is eternal, our interactions with him are temporal and limited. How do we live through these? In sticky points of applying faith to life, the role of the Spirit keeps cropping up.
To this end, the traditions and history of the church, its roots and its diversity are all important to our life in God. None of us runs through life as an isolated unit. Our perception, and I would add personhood, is intimately connected to our past. In the same way, our knowledge of God draws from the accumulated history that we have as the church.
Applying this seems to be sticky, though. Traditions aren't always helpful, and some can obfuscate any connection that we might otherwise have with God. I guess I would look at church history as a chance to test fruits. What has led to the greatest love, joy, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control? How can we creatively apply those practices to our peculiar culture and time?
More questions and no answers, I suppose ... :)
Oh, wow, Blogger ate my incredibly long comment after I edited it down to be less incredibly long. Aargh. But Tyler, I wrote it before your comment posted, and I wound up at exactly the same place, quoting the exact same verse. So I'll argue for that being a bit of Spirit action right there.
Okay, let me try to make it really short. I think there is a tension between tradition and experience, and when we err spiritually, more often than not we err on the side of what you, Sara, call a conservative theology, because it is easier, safer, less risky than stepping out into the unknown and trusting the infinite and incomprehensible God.
As for our personal interpretation or scripture, or any larger theological framework, the test is how it leads us to act -- love of god, of neighbor, and those fruits of the spirit that Tyler cited.
As for your personal experience, Sara, I would go so far as to say that a theology that stops with your head is not what you should settle for. Storm the gates of heaven and ask for more.
Interpretation *of* scripture, not or. Sorry.
I have been learning the past months about the Jewish tradition of Midrash - the practice of re-interpreting the scriptures in the form of commentaries. It seems to have been very well established in times before Jesus and has been very important to the development of Judaism perhaps even as much as the scriptures themselves.
It was done particularly in periods of cultural change or bondage. Re-focusing the Jewish people on the importance of Abraham or of the law. I have read that the writings of paul are essentially Midrash as it was practiced in his time.
I agree with you both that the essential problem is that while God is timeless, our relations are temporal and contextual and Midrash is a useful tool in helping us to re-discover God in our current contexts and situations.
However, Midrash has also lead to 350 different understandings of Abraham. Stories and legends being added to the tale. A mis-use of Jewish scripture by Christians in the early church and beyond. And an instrument for dividing Christian denominations.
I don't think its all bad. And perhaps even in God's plan. Having such a range of theologies and understandings of God out there allow different parts of God's nature to be revealed -- and therefore invite different people at different points on their faith walks into a relationship with a vast unknowable God.
So perhaps my question is a deeper one, perhaps I am looking for the next place that God can draw me into himself. The fruits of the Spirit are def. a good starting point.
There is just an academic part of me that wants a "right" answer. What does God mean? What did and does God intend to say? Why be so cryptic that we can spend our whole human existence scratching our heads and splitting hairs. It would be easiest if we could take the whole thing at face value, but then again, where's the mystery there.
God really likes to play hide and seek and it seems that we are always IT. :)
Post a Comment