daved@academy.westford.ccur.com (508-392-2990) (02/05/90)
What are some contemporary books that stress New Testament-based
defenses of moral theology? What do people in this group think?
The reason I ask this is that I am struggling with some issues in
in the Pauline corpus. Paul makes any number of normative statements,
directly and indirectly, in his letters. Some of these, almost no one
seems to take seriously: "Women ought to have long hair and be silent
in church." Other pronouncements are held up as binding on all
Christians. How does one know which is which?
I have heard two oft-stated rules addressing this concern:
1. Prefer a word of Jesus (as from the Gospels) over Paul, if there
seems to be a conflict;
2. Some statements were for a particular place and time and group of
people, and were not intended to be universalized.
Neither of these seems to me to hold up, to my present understanding,
under close scrutiny as a rule which maintains the authority of
scripture, and still permits us to 'put by' such statements as (this
time from Matthew I think) "Believers will handle snakes and
drink poisons."
I welcome any thoughts or references. The only lead I have so far
is William Barclay's The_Mind_of_St_Paul."
Dave Davis These opinions are my own.
daved@westford.ccur.com
{harvard,uunet,petsd}!masscomp!davedoracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (02/07/90)
Re: Dave Davis In article <Feb.5.04.44.11.1990.26841@athos.rutgers.edu>, daved@academy.westford.ccur.com (508-392-2990) writes: >What are some contemporary books that stress New Testament-based >defenses of moral theology? What do people in this group think? Hi, Dave! I know of a *very* good book (IMHO) on that subject... though it isn't directly spawned from Scripture. It's called, "A SENSE OF LIFE; A SENSE OF SIN", By Father Eugene Kennedy. It elaborates (at great length) the moral perceptions of Christian society today, along with a concept of sin ("What *is* it, anyway?"), a sense of morality, and a sense of what love actually is. It's published by DOUBLEDAY IMAGE BOOKS: Image Books a division of Doubleday & Company, Inc. Garden City, New York (you'll have to look up the zip) I hope this helps! Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
userPUB1@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Scott Advani) (02/09/90)
In article <Feb.5.04.44.11.1990.26841@athos.rutgers.edu>, daved@academy.westford > >What are some contemporary books that stress New Testament-based >defenses of moral theology? What do people in this group think? Some would say that Christians don't think. Just like Christians don't party - they socialize! :-) ;-) >seems to take seriously: "Women ought to have long hair and be silent >in church." Other pronouncements are held up as binding on all >Christians. How does one know which is which? > I think PERHAPS Paul is making an observation that the social customs should be obeyed in the church. At that time, under the law, it was improper for a woman (against the Law) to speak in Church. Yet, in 1 Cor 11:5 he refers to women praying and prophesying. Also, the context is that of improper behavior in the church. 1 Cor 14:35 states "If they want to inquire about something..." so, if a woman objects to the use of tongues or prophesies IN THIS CULTURAL CONTEXT, then the woman should ask her husband when they go home. There is a good book about women in the church that was recently published by Linda Rainey Wright, entitled A CHORD OF THREE STRANDS. It might help you. In Christ, -= Scott Advani =- ------------ "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1:1
brandy@mimsy.umd.edu (Brandy R. Provine) (02/22/90)
Dave Mielke writes several things which I find questionable: >A very common tendancy today is for people to ignore those commandments >which do not appeal to their sinful nature. Each time this is done, >however, it is no less than a deliberate act of rebellion against God, >even when it is cleverly hidden behind such seemingly learned >statements as "I choose to believe that God did not really mean it to >be interpreted that way" which won't hold any water whatsoever on >judgement day. Firstly, I do not `choose to believe' anything. Either I am convinced or I am not, and to the best of my ability I leave personal preferences at the door on my way in. You seem to be saying that people who disagree with you are being intentionally rebellious, and you totally ignore the possiblity that there are those who simply think you are wrong. (Whether it is they who are mistaken is irrelevant.) For example, _I_ think you are wrong, about several things. Are you going to reply by saying that I am being deliberately rebellious? Do you wish to stand in judgement that my opinions are dishonestly held? If not, I would appreciate a retraction of your paragraph. If so, well, do not bother responding. The reason I consider this paragraph worth the effort is that you have created a false dichotomy. Either: I interpret everything in Scripture the way you do or I am ignoring the parts I don't like. You have left out: I interpret things differently. If you read carefully, you will notice that I have not described your opinions as dishonestly held, merely wrong. Is there some reason you cannot extend that same courtesy to those with whom you disagree? It would be a small matter for me to claim that you are imposing your opinions on top of Scripture, but since I have no way of knowing what you are thinking that would be groundless speculation. Why is it you think you know what I am thinking? Also, your last phrase suggests that Jesus' atoning sacrifice is not enough to cover theological errors. If a human must have 100% correct beliefs on Judgement Day, then I don't think there's much hope for anyone; I would hope that Christians recognise that Salvation is also for the mistaken -- but the position that a believer cannot merely be in error implies that perfect beliefs are in fact necessary. >>2. Some statements were for a particular place and time and group of >> people, and were not intended to be universalized. > >This is a very convenient, and apparently logical, way to attempt to >eliminate those teachings which a given person does not like. There is, >however, absolutely no Scriptural foundation for making a claim of this >nature. Once again, we have the problem that you are assigning motivations to other people. This need not be `an attempt to eliminate those teachings which a given person does not like', but could be a way to make sense of the fact that the OT tells people to do no work on the Sabbath, and Paul tells people that it doesn't really matter (Romans 14)%. Why do you feel qualified to state that this sort of thinking is done "to eliminate those teachings which a given person does not like"? How can you judge others' motivations in this manner? Secondly, Galatians 3:23-25 pretty clearly states that the law given to the Israelites was to lead people to Christ, and "now that faith has come, we are no longer under supervision of the law." So Paul himself has stated that some of Scripture was for a particular place and time and group of people, and was not intended to be universalised.% Is this what you mean by "absolutely no Scriptural foundation"? ------ % - I am aware that there is disagreement about these interpretations, and refer the Gentle Reader to my above paragraph about theological error. ------ >Carried to its extreme, we may as well ignore the entire Bible. Nobody is saying this should be carried to its extreme& -- only that since God gave the gift of reason, it should be used. Neglecting one of God's gifts strikes me as rather irresponsible. ------ & - Well, somebody might... ------ >No one of us, basing his decisions solely on his own sinful thinking, >ought ever declare that even one word of God's message to mankind is >anything less than profoundly important! Nobody said that it wasn't important -- they are just wondering if, like the law in the OT (which Scripture states is not for everyone%), some of the commentary in the NT is also not intended for everyone. ------ % - Ditto the previous comment with a `%'. ------ brandy@cs.umd.edu Brandy R. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!brandy "The only place where he never contradicts himself is his firm refusal to recognize that he has contradicted himself." -- David M. Tate
crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (02/25/90)
[daved@academy.westford.ccur.com (508-392-2990) asked about how people deal with Paul's statements. He says that no one takes seriously the command the women be silent in Church, but others are held up as binding. How does one know which is which? bnrgate!bmers58!davem@uunet.uu.net (Dave Mielke) responds that there is no need to distinguish, as all are valid. He indicates that ignoring the commandments is an act of rebellion against God. --clh] This discussion reminds me of a Beetle Bailey cartoon which was in the papers recently. The lieutenant received an order saying, "The general will inspect the men's buns today." Someone else read the order and commented, "That doesn't make sense; I'm sure it's supposed to say 'guns.'" But the lieutenant wouldn't hear of it, and made sure that each man at inspection was holding a plate with a bun on it. The general, looking at this ridiculous sight, couldn't figure out what had happened. Of course the best thing for all involved would have been for someone to call the general and double-check the order. I think the same can be said for our attitude toward the Bible. As a Christian, I consider God's word in much the same way that a soldier would consider his orders. If I understand the military correctly, a soldier has no business questioning the authority behind an order, but is certainly supposed to check and ask questions to make sure an order is properly understood, if there's any doubt. So with me: I try to obey what the Bible teaches, and ask for God's help in doing so, but I still ask questions to try and understand the parts which don't make sense on first (tenth, hundredth, etc.) reading. As Dave very correctly pointed out, some people do indeed use questions of interpretation or understanding as a means of avoiding teachings they don't like, and this is definitely wrong. But he seems to imply that anyone who asks questions about the Bible is being disobedient. Far from it; in fact, asking questions *with a proper attitude* is an important part of correctly handling the word of truth. I would suggest that we should carefully distinguish between these two kinds of questions; the latter says, "I want to be sure this is what the Bible says; if it is, I will obey it." The former says, "I have no intention of obeying this; therefore, it cannot be what the Bible says." See the difference in priorities? Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh
rnhale@dartvax.uucp (Robert Hale ) (03/01/90)
In article <Feb.22.03.34.10.1990.5730@athos.rutgers.edu>, brandy@mimsy.umd.edu (Brandy R. Provine) writes: > > >>2. Some statements were for a particular place and time and group of > >> people, and were not intended to be universalized. > > > >This is a very convenient, and apparently logical, way to attempt to > >eliminate those teachings which a given person does not like. There is, > >however, absolutely no Scriptural foundation for making a claim of this > >nature. -----I want to just clarify what you were saying in this statement. While it is true that the Scriptures is a book of a universal theology it is also taught that the science of that theology is subject to "Ongoing Revelation" and "Historical Specificity." I will explain these terms as I understand them. "Ongoing Revelation" is simply the process that occurs when the Faith is more completely understood. It is similar in many ways to the development of a child. It is not possible to discuss Plato with a 5 year old with the 5 year old having any type of complete understanding. The mental faculties are simply not there. But as the child grows older he/she becomes increasingly capable of such and understanding. In the same way the faithful, as time goes by, gains a more complete and mature understanding of the Faith. An example is the development of God as understood by the Old Testament crowd and the christian understanding of the Holy Trinity. "Historical Specificity" is a concept that grew out of the Second Vatican Council. All that this means is that the limits of a historical period effect the science of theology as taken in that day. It is, as I'm sure I need not point out, closely related to Ongoing Revelation. Now, does this mean that the universality of the Faith are open game to, "Well, that might have been the case for Issac..." Most certainly not. But it does recognize that life is a process and that our understanding of the Faith is also a process. And now time for my disclaimer. I have not read the original article that brought this discussion about. I just want to know if you had considered these points. If you have and I missed it, my apologies.