Bad Theology
Posted: Monday, September 6, 2010 by Morgan inI've been increasingly disappointed with the theology at George Fox. It seems to become less and less biblically sound every time I go to chapel or a spiritual life event.
I've been increasingly disappointed with the theology at George Fox. It seems to become less and less biblically sound every time I go to chapel or a spiritual life event.
Obviously I wasn't there, but these are my thoughts based on what you wrote about her:
1) I don't think she was trying to devalue the Bible. The paragraph that begins with "I'm sure you've had..." is not necessarily saying the Bible is relative or unable to answer our questions, but that if you approach the Bible without sensitivity to the incredible difficulty and diversity present in interpretation and application then you'll end up like that one guy who just assumes *his* reading is the correct one, ignoring the vital factors of context, language and time which all play a huge role in how we understand the Bible (not saying the truth of the Bible is culturally relative, but that our understanding of the Bible is).
2) What was her point with the pool story? I highly doubt it was just to serve as a foil for complementarians. I would also say that, while I believe in complementary order in the household, saying that this serves as an awesome example of why it should be so is sort of strange. Male leadership is not important because it stops women from being totally stupid (as you seemed to imply) but for the sake of order as God intended.
3) The Bible is not just an answer book. A large part of our Bible reading experience is confusion and wonder as we struggle to understand such difficult things. Only God can grant us the ability to understand His Word. This does not mean that the Bible is answerless, of course not, but rather it is a paradox due to the fact that it cyclically calls us to ask deep, thoughtful questions and then also provides us hope and assurance in those matters. Take the issue of war and violence: By reading the Bible carefully the question of how we reconcile the warring "God of the OT" with Christ's commands to love and never judge or carry out vengeance? This is a HUGE question with HUGE implications, and people can argue both sides using the Bible well. I am a pacifist, my mentor is not, and we both use the Bible. See the problem? The Bible is a paradox because it is both the cause and solution to our questions, but only insofar as God grants us insight, so we must be immersed in Him for the Bible to make sense....another paradox because God is revealed to us through His Word.
4) As to the parable...well, it's a growing theory that that is the way to interpret it. Look at the parable of the lost lamb, the prodigal son, the lost coin...how much does God love us and treasure us!!! The prodigal son *is* the treasure of the Father, the lamb *is* beyond precious to the Shepherd. Yes, God does not need us, but He does love us immensely beyond our comprehension as a father loves his children. Not saying I agree with the theory of how to interpret this parable, but the theology of us being God's beloved is pretty sound.
Those are just my thoughts. Be discerning and thoughtful as you are, but always covered in grace and a willingness to understand (different from agreeing). Since I wasn't there I don't know if anything I said intersects with the reality of what she said, but I hope it did at least a little
Hey Matt thanks for checking this out and thinking critically about it. I want to interact with others' beliefs/opinions (that's partially why I started this blog thing).
1) No matter what she was trying to do in the first paragraph, she certainly DID devalue the Bible, at least in my view. The tone and context of this section of the message cast those who think they "should just believe the Bible" in a negative light. Sure, there are different ways to interpret some parts of the Bible, but much of it is VERY clear about many things, including its own veracity and usefulness for understanding God. Sure, there ARE those who misinterpret those parts of the Bible, but it's an incorrect generalization to group all who "believe the Bible" with them.
2) I'm not sure what the point of the pool story was, and I'm not saying that proof of complementarianism was her point. It just happened to be a good example of it. I emphatically do NOT think the point of male headship is to reign in "totally stupid" women.
3) I never claimed the Bible was just an answer book. That's certainly part of what it does though. In my religion class, we just finished going over a chapter called "God, Hidden, and Universal," which presents God as an almost unknowable deity (I happen to disagree with this to some degree). He has revealed Himself to us through His word. Granted, there are some things we can't understand or comprehend (the nature of the Trinity, predestination AND freewill, God's eternal existence and omniscience, etc.), but again, God reveals much to us in the Bible that we CAN understand. Christianity is not just one big paradox.
4) Sure, other parables DO show how much God loves and values us. Why not use those parables to illustrate that point?