I received my first paper back in Religious Studies. I expected an A, or something close. I got a C+. You have got to be kidding. I loved that paper. So much did I cherish it! Part of the problem stems from my use of the word "orthodoxy." No, I did not try to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. I merely was trying to say that the new religious pluralism threatened traditional notions of Christian orthodoxy. I shouldn't have to tell my instructor the contours of what that might look like. I wasn't trying to put forward my view of orthodoxy, just to say that those who define what it is feel threatened. Duh. Also, I defined sacred space as any place where the presence of God is, or was. Which, in my view, seems self-evident from Exodus 3:5 and the rest of what I would call the Old Testament. To refute my basic definition, my instructor referred me to Jonathan 2 (which doesn't exist). I hope you're reading this, Chip. Because I expect better from you as well. If you're going to challenge my knowledge of the Bible, you'd better be right. Not to sound arrogant, but I know more of the Bible than the entire department, with the exception of Dr. Friesen. And yes, I'll put money on that. How does anyone expect to understand the religions and the people who practice them if you don't know their Scripture? They spend so much time talking about cultural forces, their analysis is always wrong. It's all about hermaneutics, Chip. Good hermaneutics creates lasting Biblical worldviews, and bad hermaneutics creates religions that are reflections of the changing cultures in which they live.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
Comments