http://www.hornes.org/theologia/travis-tamerius/interview-with-n-t-wright Just another WordPress weblog Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:22:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://www.hornes.org/theologia/travis-tamerius/interview-with-n-t-wright/comment-page-1#comment-4641 Linda Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:15:34 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/theologia/travis-tamerius/interview-with-n-t-wright#comment-4641 I have been active in my church my whole life, but nonetheless, I am a real neophite when it comes to theological issues and hermeneutics et al. I've just now started to delve into these areas, which is how I found myself here. I just have to ask: why is the order of salvation so important? I understand that pre-election and election must come first, but after that, why is it so important? Didn't Einstein prove (basically) that time is irrelevant? Especially on a cosmic level? So why are we worried about an earthly, linear concept of time and order? Why might it not be a right-brained concept of time rather than a left-brained concept? (Anyone who knows a solid right-brain-oriented thinker will understand what I'm saying. Right-brained people have their [our] own concept of time, which is flexible.) Why do people assume that it happens in distinct stages at all? Why cannot it be as with so many other things in life: a little bit of sanctification here, then maybe some justification, then maybe back to some sanctification, etc. And why wouldn't these be life-long processes? To say they are not is contrary to the basic Reformed idiom: Always reforming. Any of these stages that is process-oriented, such as sanctification, rather than single-event-oriented, such as election, would not be precluded from happening over time. A stop-and-start, happens here, happens there sort of process. Why couldn't it be just like so many other (emotional) experiences that we as humans work through: you're angry for awhile, then you think you've resolved it, then maybe you enter into compassion, then maybe some anger comes back, and you wind your way through the experience in a very non-linear way. Our deepest emotional experiences, and much of our life experience, is like a lava lamp: fluid, always changing motion, changing color, dynamic, yet of one whole. One of the first rules of psychiatry is, reality has nothing to do with it. Understanding what's going on with a person internally requires understanding the reality of the person's feelings and history, not the actual tangible events that come with the presenting symptoms. When all is said and done we are, after all, our feelings. They are what define us as human beings. Why should the faith journey be any different? We are imposing our concept of time and space and order upon God, and perhaps that is not where God comes from, how God works. I think you can define the elements at play, but I prefer to think of this process as much more mysterious than it would seem most theologians do. And -- hello, aren't some of these other issues just plain over-thought? Why would you think "on heaven as on earth" DIDN'T literally mean on earth? We are to be the vessels of God's love and mercy on earth; we are to strive for it in everything we do and with everyone we meet. What did you think this meant? I'm not saying I'm right -- I know almost no history -- but, while I am all for generosity and liberalness of interpretation, I think one has to be careful when attributing symbolism to the words of the disciples and Paul. If you want to tell me that Paul and the others wrote/spoke in "code" because of restrictions and/or threats, that's fine. But I think you also have to consider that much of what they said was what it is (literal -- sometimes a cigar is just a cigar). It's probably one way or the other -- either people at that time spoke frequently in symbols as part of their culture; or the disciples used plain, literal language to speak to the "lowest common denominator" -- those who were unable to perceive in symbols. I personally think this is most likely the case, for Christ wanted everyone to hear the good news, and there are many wonderful, humble people in the world who would not be able to follow symbolism. ???? Just my thoughts. I have been active in my church my whole life, but nonetheless, I am a real neophite when it comes to theological issues and hermeneutics et al. I’ve just now started to delve into these areas, which is how I found myself here.
I just have to ask: why is the order of salvation so important? I understand that pre-election and election must come first, but after that, why is it so important? Didn’t Einstein prove (basically) that time is irrelevant? Especially on a cosmic level? So why are we worried about an earthly, linear concept of time and order? Why might it not be a right-brained concept of time rather than a left-brained concept? (Anyone who knows a solid right-brain-oriented thinker will understand what I’m saying. Right-brained people have their [our] own concept of time, which is flexible.)
Why do people assume that it happens in distinct stages at all? Why cannot it be as with so many other things in life: a little bit of sanctification here, then maybe some justification, then maybe back to some sanctification, etc. And why wouldn’t these be life-long processes? To say they are not is contrary to the basic Reformed idiom: Always reforming. Any of these stages that is process-oriented, such as sanctification, rather than single-event-oriented, such as election, would not be precluded from happening over time. A stop-and-start, happens here, happens there sort of process. Why couldn’t it be just like so many other (emotional) experiences that we as humans work through: you’re angry for awhile, then you think you’ve resolved it, then maybe you enter into compassion, then maybe some anger comes back, and you wind your way through the experience in a very non-linear way. Our deepest emotional experiences, and much of our life experience, is like a lava lamp: fluid, always changing motion, changing color, dynamic, yet of one whole.
One of the first rules of psychiatry is, reality has nothing to do with it. Understanding what’s going on with a person internally requires understanding the reality of the person’s feelings and history, not the actual tangible events that come with the presenting symptoms. When all is said and done we are, after all, our feelings. They are what define us as human beings. Why should the faith journey be any different? We are imposing our concept of time and space and order upon God, and perhaps that is not where God comes from, how God works. I think you can define the elements at play, but I prefer to think of this process as much more mysterious than it would seem most theologians do.
And — hello, aren’t some of these other issues just plain over-thought? Why would you think “on heaven as on earth” DIDN’T literally mean on earth? We are to be the vessels of God’s love and mercy on earth; we are to strive for it in everything we do and with everyone we meet. What did you think this meant?
I’m not saying I’m right — I know almost no history — but, while I am all for generosity and liberalness of interpretation, I think one has to be careful when attributing symbolism to the words of the disciples and Paul. If you want to tell me that Paul and the others wrote/spoke in “code” because of restrictions and/or threats, that’s fine. But I think you also have to consider that much of what they said was what it is (literal — sometimes a cigar is just a cigar). It’s probably one way or the other — either people at that time spoke frequently in symbols as part of their culture; or the disciples used plain, literal language to speak to the “lowest common denominator” — those who were unable to perceive in symbols. I personally think this is most likely the case, for Christ wanted everyone to hear the good news, and there are many wonderful, humble people in the world who would not be able to follow symbolism.
???? Just my thoughts.

]]> http://www.hornes.org/theologia/travis-tamerius/interview-with-n-t-wright/comment-page-1#comment-1114 Rogan Kelly Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:38:31 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/theologia/travis-tamerius/interview-with-n-t-wright#comment-1114 Well-said Ruth. It is the Holy Spirit who chooses to use his many servants, some “scholars” and others who are not, and I humbly stand corrected. All Glory to God. Well-said Ruth. It is the Holy Spirit who chooses to use his many servants, some “scholars” and others who are not, and I humbly stand corrected. All Glory to God.

]]> http://www.hornes.org/theologia/travis-tamerius/interview-with-n-t-wright/comment-page-1#comment-1089 Ruth Sat, 05 Jan 2008 15:49:15 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/theologia/travis-tamerius/interview-with-n-t-wright#comment-1089 I for one am thankful that the Holy Spirit has chosen to use his many servants, past and present, some "scholarly" and some not, as one of the means by which he "gives us meaning, interpretation and life to what the Bible is about." I for one am thankful that the Holy Spirit has chosen to use his many servants, past and present, some “scholarly” and some not, as one of the means by which he “gives us meaning, interpretation and life to what the Bible is about.”

]]> http://www.hornes.org/theologia/travis-tamerius/interview-with-n-t-wright/comment-page-1#comment-1046 Rogan Kelly Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:42:39 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/theologia/travis-tamerius/interview-with-n-t-wright#comment-1046 My response to Sue Dawsons comment that her readings of the OT prophets were uninteligible rantings and mere children stories. Did she realize she was reading Gods Word, that God was speaking through the prophets. And it is only The Holy Spirit that gives us meaning, interpretation and life to what the Bible is about, not the rantings of NT Wright or any other scholar My response to Sue Dawsons comment that her readings of the OT prophets were uninteligible rantings
and mere children stories. Did she realize she was reading Gods Word, that God was speaking through
the prophets. And it is only The Holy Spirit that gives us meaning, interpretation and life to what the Bible is about,
not the rantings of NT Wright or any other scholar

]]> http://www.hornes.org/theologia/travis-tamerius/interview-with-n-t-wright/comment-page-1#comment-13 Sue Dawson Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:37:41 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/theologia/travis-tamerius/interview-with-n-t-wright#comment-13 Thank you so much for the interview with NT Wright. Since becomming aware of his scholarship my world has been tilted on its moorings. The historical perspective which he applies to his work brings actual life to what for so long seemed mere childrens stories and uninteligible rantings from the OT prophets. My Bible Studies are now so much more detailed because of this man and the depth that can be drawn is amazing. More Wright would please this lay scholar very much Thank You God Bless, Sue Dawson Thank you so much for the interview with NT Wright. Since becomming aware of his scholarship my world has been tilted on its moorings. The historical perspective which he applies to his work brings actual life to what for so long seemed mere childrens stories and uninteligible rantings from the OT prophets. My Bible Studies are now so much more detailed because of this man and the depth that can be drawn is amazing. More Wright would please this lay scholar very much
Thank You
God Bless, Sue Dawson

]]>