Comments for faithandstuff.org http://faithandstuff.org/blog2 join an amical conversation about the nature of God and God's relationship to the world Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:05:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on Guest Post (#2 in a series) – Nailing My Colours to the Mast: Orange by faithan3 http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=296#comment-428 faithan3 Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:05:00 +0000 http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=296#comment-428 Would it be fair to say that one big question concerning Webb's hermeneutic is whether the 'redemptive-spirit' trajectory ends, in terms of development, with the closing of the canon? In other words, is it simply that it took us until the nineteenth century to appreciate the finalised and complete redemptive-spirit development in scripture concerning slavery (which had reached its zenith in the NT, but we didn't realise it at the time) and hence it was only then that we implemented it in society? Or, did the redemptive-spirit continue to develop in humanity (perhaps by the Spirit's acting in the world and in Christians), such that in the nineteenth century we started asking questions about slavery, and then found that scripture's perspective (to which we looked for guidance) was perhaps not what we had thought it was? I think the problem with a closed canon view of redemptive-spirit development is this - what if we can't find something to guide us, today, on a particular subject in scripture, written about as such? Then what? Do the verses we look to quote as 'a biblical perspective' become farther and farther from the subject as such, and more and more analagous in nature? If we understand development as continuing, that does not necessarily mean that we are being 'non-biblical' in our treatment of subjects. It would mean we're recognising scripture's culturally-bound limitations (not faults, I stress) and, rather than ignoring it as a result, are using it as a test-book rather than as a text-book. Which is perhaps how scripture would expect to be used ...? Would it be fair to say that one big question concerning Webb’s hermeneutic is whether the ‘redemptive-spirit’ trajectory ends, in terms of development, with the closing of the canon? In other words, is it simply that it took us until the nineteenth century to appreciate the finalised and complete redemptive-spirit development in scripture concerning slavery (which had reached its zenith in the NT, but we didn’t realise it at the time) and hence it was only then that we implemented it in society? Or, did the redemptive-spirit continue to develop in humanity (perhaps by the Spirit’s acting in the world and in Christians), such that in the nineteenth century we started asking questions about slavery, and then found that scripture’s perspective (to which we looked for guidance) was perhaps not what we had thought it was?

I think the problem with a closed canon view of redemptive-spirit development is this – what if we can’t find something to guide us, today, on a particular subject in scripture, written about as such? Then what? Do the verses we look to quote as ‘a biblical perspective’ become farther and farther from the subject as such, and more and more analagous in nature?

If we understand development as continuing, that does not necessarily mean that we are being ‘non-biblical’ in our treatment of subjects. It would mean we’re recognising scripture’s culturally-bound limitations (not faults, I stress) and, rather than ignoring it as a result, are using it as a test-book rather than as a text-book.

Which is perhaps how scripture would expect to be used …?

]]> Comment on Guest Post (#1 in a series) – Nailing My Colours to the Mast: Red by marcus http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=293#comment-427 marcus Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:33:09 +0000 http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=293#comment-427 Hi Mark This is a very welcome and challenging post. I confess I had to look up the meaning of LGBT so I am a long way from my comfort zone, but looking forward to taking this journey with you and learning from your wisdom and experience. May God bless you as you tackle such tricky subjects head on, and if you handle them with the humility, bravery and candour of this first post I trust that all readers will grow in faith, truth and love. With love Marcus Hi Mark
This is a very welcome and challenging post.
I confess I had to look up the meaning of LGBT so I am a long way from my comfort zone, but looking forward to taking this journey with you and learning from your wisdom and experience.

May God bless you as you tackle such tricky subjects head on, and if you handle them with the humility, bravery and candour of this first post I trust that all readers will grow in faith, truth and love.

With love Marcus

]]> Comment on “I love you with the love of Christ …” by faithan3 http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=154#comment-426 faithan3 Sat, 05 Nov 2011 19:07:05 +0000 http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=154#comment-426 Would you like to elaborate on your point, JJ? Would you like to elaborate on your point, JJ?

]]> Comment on “I love you with the love of Christ …” by jj http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=154#comment-425 jj Sat, 05 Nov 2011 13:07:06 +0000 http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=154#comment-425 Probably get it from this: John 13:34-35 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.(NKJV) John 15:12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. (NKJV) Probably get it from this:

John 13:34-35
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.(NKJV)

John 15:12
This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. (NKJV)

]]> Comment on O Ye of Little Faith by ApprehendingGrace.com » O Ye of Little Faith http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=227#comment-45 ApprehendingGrace.com » O Ye of Little Faith Sat, 14 May 2011 16:13:10 +0000 http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=227#comment-45 [...] service, I took a lunch break and was surfing the net, reading a bit here and there. I came across this blog about faith – how much or how little is required to move the hand of God? [...] [...] service, I took a lunch break and was surfing the net, reading a bit here and there. I came across this blog about faith – how much or how little is required to move the hand of God? [...]

]]> Comment on What’s your idea of ‘spirituality’? by Re-imagining the Spirit – The ‘face’ of the Spirit in Trinity and Community #2 of 3 « faithandstuff.org http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=50#comment-30 Re-imagining the Spirit – The ‘face’ of the Spirit in Trinity and Community #2 of 3 « faithandstuff.org Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:43:03 +0000 http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=50#comment-30 [...] As An Aside: The Holy Spirit’s ‘spirituality’ (that he wants to work in us) is the same as Jesus’ ‘spirituality’.   If we have a misguided perspective on what Jesus’ ‘spirituality’ looked like in the flesh, that will carry across into our expectations of the Spirit’s ‘spirituality’ outworked in us.  So, Christology comes into the mix for our understanding of the Spirit. Since Jesus is our role model as the perfect manifestation of the imago dei, how we see Jesus’ own ‘spirituality’ will be the basis for how we expect the Spirit to move in, upon and through us.   For more on this, see ‘What’s Your Idea of Spirituality?’ http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=50. [...] [...] As An Aside: The Holy Spirit’s ‘spirituality’ (that he wants to work in us) is the same as Jesus’ ‘spirituality’.   If we have a misguided perspective on what Jesus’ ‘spirituality’ looked like in the flesh, that will carry across into our expectations of the Spirit’s ‘spirituality’ outworked in us.  So, Christology comes into the mix for our understanding of the Spirit. Since Jesus is our role model as the perfect manifestation of the imago dei, how we see Jesus’ own ‘spirituality’ will be the basis for how we expect the Spirit to move in, upon and through us.   For more on this, see ‘What’s Your Idea of Spirituality?’ http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=50. [...]

]]> Comment on What’s your idea of ‘spirituality’? by Re-imagining the Holy Spirit: The ‘face’ of the Spirit in Trinity and Community at Deep Church http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=50#comment-29 Re-imagining the Holy Spirit: The ‘face’ of the Spirit in Trinity and Community at Deep Church Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:27:46 +0000 http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=50#comment-29 [...] As An Aside: The Holy Spirit’s ‘spirituality’ (that he wants to work in us) is the same as Jesus’ ‘spirituality’.   If we have a misguided perspective on what Jesus’ ‘spirituality’ looked like in the flesh, that will carry across into our expectations of the Spirit’s ‘spirituality’ outworked in us.  So, Christology comes into the mix for our understanding of the Spirit. Since Jesus is our role model as the perfect manifestation of the imago dei, how we see Jesus’ own ‘spirituality’ will be the basis for how we expect the Spirit to move in, upon and through us.   For more on this, see ‘What’s Your Idea of Spirituality?’ http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=50. [...] [...] As An Aside: The Holy Spirit’s ‘spirituality’ (that he wants to work in us) is the same as Jesus’ ‘spirituality’.   If we have a misguided perspective on what Jesus’ ‘spirituality’ looked like in the flesh, that will carry across into our expectations of the Spirit’s ‘spirituality’ outworked in us.  So, Christology comes into the mix for our understanding of the Spirit. Since Jesus is our role model as the perfect manifestation of the imago dei, how we see Jesus’ own ‘spirituality’ will be the basis for how we expect the Spirit to move in, upon and through us.   For more on this, see ‘What’s Your Idea of Spirituality?’ http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=50. [...]

]]> Comment on “Is this what Jesus told you guys to do?” by faithan3 http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=151#comment-28 faithan3 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:50:42 +0000 http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=151#comment-28 "Quite what that means for Sunday service, I am not sure ..." I think this is exactly the point. There isn't any fundamental, clean sheet of paper reflection on "Is this what Jesus told you guys to do?", in a context where the way we relate to one another - and to life in general - during the rest of the week comes into it too. There seems to be some presumption that the answer to Casper's question is "Yes, obviously ..." But why is that so obvious? Certainly not based on the usual success criteria (e.g. popularity, growth). “Quite what that means for Sunday service, I am not sure …” I think this is exactly the point.

There isn’t any fundamental, clean sheet of paper reflection on “Is this what Jesus told you guys to do?”, in a context where the way we relate to one another – and to life in general – during the rest of the week comes into it too.

There seems to be some presumption that the answer to Casper’s question is “Yes, obviously …” But why is that so obvious? Certainly not based on the usual success criteria (e.g. popularity, growth).

]]> Comment on “It’s Church, Jim, but not as we know it …” by faithan3 http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=158#comment-27 faithan3 Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:14:29 +0000 http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=158#comment-27 Jason, I so much agree with your two apologetic tasks: "first, to live the gospel in a conspicuous way so as to demonstrate its truth, and second, to proclaim the gospel in a way that is understandable, contextualized, and, yes, even attractive. However, I hold the first task to be of a much higher order (for it empowers the second), and one that we in the West have largely neglected lately. I believe that if we embody the gospel faithfully, both we and the gospel will be inevitably attractive to some (Matt 5), perhaps even to many, but never to all." Amen. We all need to work together, ordinary Christians and theologians, to achieve both. My own theological studies were directed towards equipping me to explain the Christian 'story' in ways that are understandable, contextualised and (hence) attractive to as many as possible. All the choices I made (modules, dissertation, etc.) were with that in mind. I fear that in recent years, as Christians, we've done a pretty good job of making the story everything but understandable, contextualised and attractive, both within and without the church. That's now my great passion, not just to communicate this to the unchurched but to Christians too, many of whom have massive unfilled gaps, and doubts, that popular Christianity so frequently fails to deal with (unless the Christians 'get it', the unchurched never will). The subject matters I blog about here are indicative of trying to address some of the issues, especially at the Christian level. The main website www.faithandstuff.org tries to explain why. I wish my own "[living] the gospel in a conspicuous way so as to demonstrate its truth" was of a higher order, Jason, because I totally agree that the first empowers the second, in the apologetic tasks. Steve Burnhope (PS - other Steve (SJB) shares not only my first-name but my three initials too ... very confusing) Jason, I so much agree with your two apologetic tasks: “first, to live the gospel in a conspicuous way so as to demonstrate its truth, and second, to proclaim the gospel in a way that is understandable, contextualized, and, yes, even attractive. However, I hold the first task to be of a much higher order (for it empowers the second), and one that we in the West have largely neglected lately. I believe that if we embody the gospel faithfully, both we and the gospel will be inevitably attractive to some (Matt 5), perhaps even to many, but never to all.” Amen.

We all need to work together, ordinary Christians and theologians, to achieve both.

My own theological studies were directed towards equipping me to explain the Christian ‘story’ in ways that are understandable, contextualised and (hence) attractive to as many as possible. All the choices I made (modules, dissertation, etc.) were with that in mind.

I fear that in recent years, as Christians, we’ve done a pretty good job of making the story everything but understandable, contextualised and attractive, both within and without the church.

That’s now my great passion, not just to communicate this to the unchurched but to Christians too, many of whom have massive unfilled gaps, and doubts, that popular Christianity so frequently fails to deal with (unless the Christians ‘get it’, the unchurched never will). The subject matters I blog about here are indicative of trying to address some of the issues, especially at the Christian level. The main website http://www.faithandstuff.org tries to explain why.

I wish my own “[living] the gospel in a conspicuous way so as to demonstrate its truth” was of a higher order, Jason, because I totally agree that the first empowers the second, in the apologetic tasks.

Steve Burnhope

(PS – other Steve (SJB) shares not only my first-name but my three initials too … very confusing)

]]> Comment on “It’s Church, Jim, but not as we know it …” by Jason Coker http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=158#comment-26 Jason Coker Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:13:54 +0000 http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=158#comment-26 Indeed Steve, very well said! I think it's very easy for some of us to turn suffering itself into a virtue, or, at the very least, a sign of validation that we then manufacture. Thanks again for the comments! Indeed Steve, very well said! I think it’s very easy for some of us to turn suffering itself into a virtue, or, at the very least, a sign of validation that we then manufacture.

Thanks again for the comments!

]]>