Sex & God & Rock & Roll
If Clare Amos supports it it has to be good.
I think it's way past time we started teaching the laity the basics that the clergy get in Div School---and almost never bring up again from the pulpit if they want to keep their jobs.I take the Bible seriously---but having studied historical, textual, form, redaction, and other forms of Biblical criticism, I can never take it literally.If we DON'T teach these things, one of two negative outcomes can occur:1) People think Biblical literalism/fundamentalism is what is required to be Christian--and they seek to mold the world based on that flawed understanding. 2) They find out that the things they have been taught about the Bible are not true--and abandon the faith altogether.If the Church is going to offer "generous boundaries for our reading," it needs to start with being honest about what we know--and don't know--about the Bible.Pax,Doxy
Doxyexactly, and Clare Amos does precisely that. There's nothing fundamentalist about her, her lectures are a real intellectual experience. If she has anything to do with it, as the article suggests, it should be ok.
I don't know the people concerned, but agree in principle with WD (and there are things I don't say in the pulpit either!). My concern is that we may end up with a 'simplest' agreement that limits rather than expands thinking, and that this will be yet another cause of dissent.
Well, I do that stuff in the pulpit, and I studied hard and encourage the whole congregation to engage in rigorous debate and criticism of biblical texts and all that.But I don't have a notion what that first metaphor is about. (The one about our engagement with the Bible being rather like different parts of a house).
What Doxy said.FWIWjimB
That is the most painfully drawn-out metaphor I've seen in recent memory, is what it is. Perhaps some sort of demented rephrasing of "in my father's house are many rooms..."?And "User Groups"? Ah, I love my church...