Tuesday, October 14, 2003

OK, I need anger management classes after that last post. Seriously, though, let's look at something. It is positively scandalous to give actual meanings to words, and hold people accountable for their "poetic license" when they stretch those meanings. In the realm of the spiritual, I have heard it called the "scandal of particularity." How dare anyone suggest a Transcendant Other that actually has a name? How dare He be exclusionary! Thus, my claim is simply this: that the Bible forms a baseline of interpretation that limits what is acceptable. Yes, this means we should be able to critically evaluate spiritual claims based on what is a given for that person or group. For example, if someone says, "I'm a Christian, (or, I believe the Bible) but I don't believe Jesus is God" there should AUTOMATICALLY be alarm-bells going off in everyone's head (even if you're not a Christian, and you have no vested interest). Why? Because the Christian Scripture dictates something other than what has been asserted. As long as words have meaning, this is so. It doesn't wash to simply say that I have a narrow exegetical strategy that I'm applying to everyone else, because we all know how to read. You'd have to be thoroughly dishonest, or incredibly ignorant to miss some of this.