so i did learn something...
the only thing i thought i walked away with from church history was
"check walker"...today, i would have given my left arm to have had walker in my hand...
for kicks i like to watch the prominent local baptist preacher...as he speaks, it is the only time in my life that i talk to the television with vigor- as if he could hear my bellowing through the screen...today's 'sermon' was on the inadequacies of dan brown's novel- you know what....
as he said the word "exactly"- referring to the dates the new testament would have been written- the only red flag voice going off in my head was ellen saying: "you cannot use the word 'exactly' when referring to history, monica..." thus, my vocalization started to the television, plus a few choice words inbetween the cooth words as well...
he quoted several times that all the books of the new testament were written before 60 ad (note the ignoring of common era language)...i felt the voices of erhman and monya regarding "alleged" dates...what was it that made me think i was right? which made me start to ponder authority...
we all have an idea of what it is, but seriously, who was his authority in claiming the pre 60 ad dates? i only rant on this for a few reasons: 1) he claims that the gnostic gospels were not considered in the canon due to their late writings...oh, and because they were full of shit...(paraphrase mine)...2) because of this lateness, they are completely inacurate...
hmmm...let's see...basically, it all boils down to who you claim as your authority...if this is so, then what does this mean? reformed people, like you and me, claim scripture to be our authority...but even in this, there are different authorities on the authority...and then on top of that, add your ability to be authoritative and then you have at least three major authorities duking it out...and we know that the winners write history...
he spoke in other areas of academia- theology, history (councils)...i found myself hearing his authority to be different than what i have been schooled in this year...so who's right? on a side note, he did teach me today that the phrase "one iota of difference" came from the nicea council differentiating between homi/homo ousious...this is the only time i did not talk back to the screen...
so, without going off any more, i wanted the world to know that my first year of education has enabled me with some skills...like bashing baptist pastors and actually being able to realize that claimed authority is relevant...which makes me a little nervous...maybe i'll learn more about that this year...
ps- i think i am headed toward the mission field...am working on mission internship for school year of 07-08...this, my friends, has brought me to a place of freedom and peace...will continue to discern, but i am so thankful for the chance to be able to check it out...and if it fits, i'll finish up in school and be out by 09...i think having kids is out of the picture...you never know...
posted by Monica @ 4:13 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Mon-
I watched a very similar program on debunking the Da Vinci code on television this afternoon. It was thoroughly infuriating, as this preacher claimed to have "facts" and "truth" about people and events in the early history of the Church, when in reality such people and events were much more complex. It's such silliness, and if people really knew church history, instead of mere propaganda, there wouldn't be reason to get up in arms and, instead, we could actually have meaningful conversations. But nooooo... Better to just warn people of the EVILS of Dan Brown and ask for a $50 donation. Sheesh.
it was seriously repulsive...sheesh is correct my friend...
Our view of authority is something that I think we will always be struggling with.
In the case of the Baptist preachers, they are presenting authoritative knowledge in a way their congregations are comfortable with. That is, black & white, unambigous.
I suspect that at least one reason that some of these types of traditions have been successful is that many people long for the security of certainty. Going back to our Sys I discussions of post-modernism, it seems our culture, in its quest for more and more individualism, is only able to provide ambiguous answers to any given question or issue. So, with the overwhelming amount of uncertainty permeating our lives, we often find ourselves clinging to those things which at least seem reliable. In many cases, people are willing to discard reasonable discourse in order to cling to this little bit of certainty that they think they have in their own lives.
The thing is, this phenomenon is not limited to religious fundamentalism. It springs up in all areas, even in scientific discourse. Whenever any of us become so certain of our views that we cannot find anything of value in other positions.
Of course, I'm fairly 'certain' that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and that some views manage to capture more of it than others. ;-)
One thing I really love about our community, is that everyone seems to be willing to earnestly engage in dialog over even the most contentious issues and opinions. In many cases that ends up being even more important than the conclusions reached.
well said mr. amen....the question of ambiguity leaves many people squirming...absolute is convincing...for most people- except for those of us who are always asking "what does this mean?"
Post a Comment
<< Home