Comments on: modernist, literalist, actualist: a third way of reading the words

By: Les Yoder

Les Yoder — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:12:21 +0000

I have just enjoyed listening to hours of Phyllis Tickle on “The Great Emergence” at http://www.seabury.edu/ She was a benefit to me to understand why liberal and postliberal theology is on a rapid rise in the West. But would you say it is fair — to say that she would not agree with the Vineyard Statement on Scripture – http://www.vineyardusa.org/site/files/about/statement-of-faith.pdf

By: Phil

Phil — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:54:32 +0000

I couldn’t help but to ask again for some clarity on the question I asked in the last comment after just reading the Preface to a book a friend sent to me called “Heaven”. The author begins by saying “We Christians who believe God’s Word are partly to blame for this. Why? We have failed to explore and explain the Bible’s magnificent teachings about Heaven…I want to make it clear that it’s vitally important that this book be true to Scripture.”

So in a few sentences the author seemingly uses the terms God’s Word, Bible and Scripture interchangeably. How can this be? I cannot articulate my confusion in less than a few paragraphs, so I will keep it at my original comment from above. I don’t have this figured out in any way….I just would like some insight on how these words fit together, if at all.

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:36:15 +0000

Maybe a little off topic (which woudln’t be the first time), but my struggle is with the inter-changeable use of the term “Word” or “Word of God” with the the term Bible and Scriptures. I think the scriptures/bible is a written expression of the Word, in as much as Jesus is a human expression of God.

John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.”

Does anyone find it strange that Paul’s references to the word of God, are now included in the bible which is often considered the word of God?

Would I be cast out of the church if I had the audacity to make a claim that the bible won’t last for eternity? To be clear, I do believe the Word will be with us for eternity…

Maybe it’s just me who is a little confused….any scholars out there able to set a poor boy straight?

By: MJJ

MJJ — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:42:55 +0000

I like what Metler said about communion—yesterday to today–there’s nothing new under the sun. Sometimes I imagine Jesus hanging out with me and my extended family and friends. Talking about an “actualist’s” view of Jesus hanging out with sinners, et al. It’s all about the construct of belonging vs. behaving. The Pharisees struggled with that. They wanted Jesus’ attention so bad; they didn’t know how to connect with him. Sometimes, we’re no different.

BTW Ken-Kudos for being footnoted by PT. Lucky Duck.

By: Don Bromley

Don Bromley — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:02:00 +0000

Jake, I think Ken was simply saying that the modernist and literalist approaches only get you so far. Not that they aren’t needed and useful. The problem is people not getting beyond that debate to an appreciation for the text itself, as a reader.

By: steven hamilton

steven hamilton — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:08:08 +0000

maybe instead of the blood/brain barrier, we have the bible/brain barrier, which is passed through with the word/witness transmitter…all kidding aside, i think research and brain-science has caught up to seek to explain how the Word shapes us, by setting or re-setting things “in our inward person” through word/witness experiences…this has to be a pillar of discipleship (and has been for centuries)

By: Jake

Jake — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:23:10 +0000

i have no problem with using one’s imagination, or appreciating the bible as a work of good literature, or whatnot. those are all great. not my point. my issue was with this idea that somehow the scholars and the literalists have it wrong and now we have some “new” way to read scripture that’s better. they’re somehow standing “outside” the text, whereas tickle and ken are “inside”. we wouldn’t know nearly as much about our bible as we do now were it not for the scholars using tools such as form, literary, historical… criticism. and when you have spong and crossan tearing the historical account to shreds, i’m glad someone stands up for literal meaning (even though i don’t always agree). somehow ken would have us go back to dark ages naivete and immerse ourselves in the text with simply our imagination as the tool of interpretation. sounds fun, but no substitute for study.

By: Metler

Metler — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:33:48 +0000

Or, like the act of communion, the restriction of time is removed in such a way that it is a past now…again.

Heb. 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

1Cor. 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

By: Martha

Martha — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:41:16 +0000

“Actualist.” Hmm. Well I suppose scholars need a name for it.

Some of my most wonderful interactions with Scripture have come through a process of putting myself into the scene and looking around. I’ve noticed details I didn’t see before. I’ve been struck by the impact of a word or action that I’d missed before. I’ve been humbled and led to repentance by realizing that I am more like the villain than the hero… I’ve wished I could paint, so I could capture some of the things I’ve seen and show them to someone else without the deterioration of words.

And yes, I have absolutely been helped by learning about the history, sociology, geography, etc. And yes, I have been helped by the discipline of refusing to mess with what was written, even taking the time to use my laymen’s textbooks on the Greek and Hebrew to try and solve the puzzles.

But this book isn’t like Huckleberry Finn, which is delightful and thought provoking and valuable but can never mean more than Twain intended to say. Nor can Twain respond to our anachronistic deconstructions, because he’s dead. But the Scriptures are alive and active, and they talk back, because the one who is speaking is not dead.

So if we allow ourselves to be present to the narrator—putting aside to the best of our ability any personal agendas, fears or preconceptions (and he is well able to handle any we miss)—why should we be surprised by genuine revelatory experiences? He is invested in our ‘getting it,’ after all.

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:38:59 +0000

So the ironic thing is that the literalist is really a modernist in as much as they adopt the modern perspective that man, though he be finite, can none the less grasp a truly objective perspective on a text.

I see nothing unorthodox about your approach of using your mind to imagine you are there with Jesus and thereby engage your emotions, all under girded by the power of the Holy Spirit. St. Ignatius, founder of the Jesuits was a big proponent of this type of meditation.

Still, I don’t think you can give up the task of studying the Word and the context in which it was originally written.

Did your understanding of who a tax collector was in Jesus time have a bearing on your experience? Does it matter whether or not you realize that a “sinner” is not someone who “sins” in the way we typically think of it, but rather someone too poor to fulfill the obligations (such as buying the right sacrificial animal) that the religious elite imposed on people in order for them to be “righteous”?