|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| One question that gets old real fast...."Are you the engaged one?"
| | |
| Is it just me, or did Harry Potter get...hot?
As Ron would say, "Blimey, Harry."
Someone at the Ministry needs to fine this boy for violating the Restriction on Underage Sexiness.
[But I'll always be a Ron gal at heart. :) ]
Oh yeah, the movie's really good too...
| | |
| The Question of Biblical Interpretation(warning: this will be a long one.)
This has been on my mind a lot lately, due to circumstances that are not really necessary to go into. I have long ago diverged from my hardline CoC home congregation on the grounds that "any rational thinking person who reads the Bible with a sincerely searching heart will naturally come to our (or as the would say, "God's") conclusion on things"--notably, on the "5 authorized acts of worship" or the inherent sinfulness of sinful music. (If you don't know what the "5 authorized acts of worship" are, God bless you--or more accurately, your congregation). The phrase "rightly dividing the word of truth" was ingrained in me from an early age, as the concept of "truth" was applied only coC doctrine, instead of the truth of Jesus Christ.
But that's a bit of a tangent; believe me, I could talk for pages about the wrongs I believe my home congregation has done to the faith. My main question here, however, is this: how can one truly know what God asks of us as a body of believers who seek to practice faith based on the new covenant of Christ's love and forgiveness? Please don't confuse that sentiment with the hardline coC line about "following the blueprint for worship as outlined in the New Testament"--I don't believe that the New Testament is a "blueprint", and I believe that calling it one greatly undermines, even mocks, what Christ came to earth to do. There are a just a number of questions that I don't know how to answer. For starters,
1) I don't speak Greek, and even scholars who do often disagree about modern interpretations of words and passages. From what I understand, Greek isn't exactly a cakewalk to translate. How am I to know what has been lost, or added, for that matter, in translation? Furthermore,
2) Is it possible, even, to interpret the Bible from its native language without the cloud of personal bias? How a church of Christ scholar interprets certain passages will undoubtedly differ from a Methodist's interpretation, though both may come to study with the purest of intentions. With any great work of foreign literature, the general consensus is that it can only be truly understood in its original language, and better still, by native speakers. Can the same be said of the Bible? (I could pose questions about the canonization of Scripture, but frankly, that's a huge issue that I don't even know where to begin in terms of discussion, nor do I want to (not now, anyway)).
3) How are we to know what was "cultural", what was written for a specific church situation, and what is binding for us today?
This is a biggie for me. What most readily comes to mind is the "women in the church" debate. When Paul says that it is "shameful for a woman to speak in church", is he addressing a specific isolated problem, or is he writing this for universal application? I know there is considerable evidence to suggest the former. (But again, are people seeking such evidence from selfish desires or from a genuine interest in true historical context? Agggghhh...). Before you label me as a heretic (no, you wouldn't do that, I know), let me assure you that I believe absolutely in the merit of God's creative order, and I am not calling for some radical overhaul in what women are allowed to do. But...well, what are we allowed to do? There is evidence for female deacons in the New Testament (forgive me for not having passages readily available; I'll look it up if you want proof). And is a newly baptized 8-year old boy really more qualified to lead a prayer in church than I am? (Ladies, please tell me I am not the only one who has ever felt this frustration, and the subsequent guilt that such frustration brings). Why must we rely on Paul's teachings for this, and many of our other core beliefs concerning the early church? At the risk of sounding incredibly disrespectful, though that is not my intent...why couldn't God-made-flesh have made these distinctions, if they are so important? (Please don't think I am trying to undermine Paul's apostolic authority; I just...don't get that sometimes).
Is it a salvation issue? Whose is it to decide what salvation issues are? Are we all just supposed to "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling", and does that mean something different for everyone?
The question obviously doesn't end with women in the church--what about "having all things in common"? "greeting one another with a holy kiss"? anointing the sick with oil? laying on hands? I could go on, but I'll stop there.
Can we ever have all of our questions answered? Obviously, no. Is it worth it to pursue answers where we can? I certainly hope so. Having said that, if anyone could point me towards some helpful, high-integrity resources on any of these subjects, I would be very grateful.
God is big; sometimes, it seems, unfairly big, and I can certainly sympathize with those who fall away from faith entirely because of the unanswerable uncertainties. Fortunately, I am confident in one thing which we can be certain of: That God sent his son to earth to live as man and pay the ultimate price for my, and everyone's, sins. I know that demands obedience; I just don't know exactly what that means, or even if knowing exactly what it means matters. It's so easy to get lost in contradictions, and one line of questioning leads to a myriad of others. Any sincere desire to think about things entails the hidden possibility--necessity, even--of being completely maddened by them. Perhaps that is why I am just now articulating the (seemingly) unanswerable. But God didn't give us curiosity for nothing, I think, and questions coming from a sincere heart are noble and worthy of investigation.
That will have to serve as a conclusion, as I am altogether mentally exhausted.
Not for such hopes and fears
Annulling youth's brief years,
Do I remonstrate: Folly wide the mark!
Rather I prize the doubt
Low kinds exist without,
Finished and finite clods, untroubled by a spark.
~Robert Browning, in "Rabbi Ben Ezra"
| | |
| New Reality Show Ideas for MTVIt happens any time I am home for an extended period. Inevitably, inexplicably, I am sucked into the swirling vortex of decadence also known as MTV's "My Super Sweet Sixteen." For those of you unfamiliar with the show and thereby ignorant of its infuriating appeal, I present this dialogue between mother and daughter, after the mother presents the daughter with a brand new car, as Exhibit A:
Daughter: MOM, you ruined EVERYTHING! The party's OFF! You stupid motherf**** IDIOT! I HATE YOU! (girl continues in unintelligible hysterics)
Mother [to camera, in explanation]: She wanted the car, but she wanted it the day of the party.
*"Everybody Hurts" by R.E.M. plays in the background*
It only occurred to me as I am typing this now that the girl was only turning fifteen, and wasn't even capable of driving the car.
While I realize that this top-of-the-line trainwreck entertainment is hard to beat, it's becoming a bit redundant. I am afraid that MTV might run out of ideas for reality shows in which the wealthy are deified and parents unfit for dogsitting use cash as a substitute for actual.....uhhh.....parenting. That's why I've come up with the following ideas for MTV's next hit reality show. Enjoy.
Money to Burn : pretty self-explanatory. Teenagers will, quite literally, set money on fire. The biggest blazes will, obviously, signify the biggest bank accounts, ergo each teenager will stop at nothing to have the most impressive bonfire that "like, ANYbody at my high school has EVER seen."
Life on a Median Income : Super-wealthy teens will be forced to survive a week with a family which only earns the approximate-American family median income. This will be designed to foster the teenager's sense of awareness of the less fortunate. Teens will be forced, among other things, to share a bedroom and shop at Old Navy. After a week of such atrocities, however, they will be whisked away in a stretch Hummer to the insulation of their multi-million dollar homes. The teens will be nicer and more appreciative of their parents who make such a lifestyle possible. For about five minutes.
Lifestyles of the Rich and the Diapered : Cameras will follow around a group of super-wealthy Orange County toddlers. They will wear name-brand diapers, carry diamond-encrusted rattles, and potty-train on miniature gilded toilets, thus jump-starting good old-fashioned American entitlement at an early age. A pivotal moment in the series will come when the adorably over-indulged tots speak their first words, all of which, oddly enough, sound remarkably like "inheritance" or "trust fund."
I've put a lot of thought into these pitches, and am confident that at least one of them will be picked up by the network.
Or, better yet, we could just sentence to death by firing squad the parents that promote this sickening entitlement into future generations.
| | |
|
