I disagree Terry; we ALWAYS have to reinterpret scripture in order to apply it. Wherever we start from, we're interpreting, and implicitly come with our own backgrounds, pre-supposition, biases, and blind-spots. If we don't think we're interpreting, we're just using our own lenses and not even noticing that they're always in front of us. The message is not separate from our contexts, and is not objective. That's why scripture is always relevant -- because it's always related to the context of the reader, and is subjective.
And we're being simplistic if we think going back to the synoptics is getting closer to what Jesus "actually" said, regardless of the strength of oral tradition in (ancient) cultures. Each of the synoptic writers puts words in Jesus' mouth for their own purposes -- not separate from God's purposes in Jesus, but distinct from each other gospel writer -- just as Paul writes from his perspective and for his audiences and purposes (and much earlier than the gospel writers, of course). Different writers put the same words into Jesus mouth in different situations, or different words in the same situations. They each draw at times from common (that is, shared) traditions, and at times from their own unique sources. Divinely inspired certainly, but not divinely identical. The Christian gospel is a held-in-tension ongoing conversation between the three synoptics and John, and Paul, and the rest of scripture too (canonical and extra-), all of which points to the central complex figure of God revealed in Jesus Christ and present through(out) history in the Spirit. I'd want to paraphrase Vermes I guess, and suggest that we should take more notice of what Jesus _says_, bringing the conversation into the present, moving from research into a relationship with the triune God that is always present and relevant to our context. Regards, Rohan Rohan Pryor Manager, Information Technology Services Synod of Victoria and Tasmania Uniting Church in Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: (03) 9251 5243 Fax: (03) 9654 4110 Website: http://vic.uca.org.au -----Original Message----- From: Terry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 3:43 PM To: Insights Subject: Re: theage.com.au ~ GAY ministers still up for debate G'day Darren & Sue, As a Christian, I also feel uncomfortable with terminology such as Orthodox, Fundamentalist, Liberal, Conservative etc, when applied particularly to believers of Christ. It implies and somewhat helps to perpetuate the gaps that divide us, not only within but throughout other denominations as well. There seems to be a modern day tendency for some believers, to interpret or re-interpret Scripture to their belief system. For example you would find that many Social Workers, Shelter Workers, those working with Homeless or those wanting social change, tend to be in the Liberal category (box). This is not saying they are more right or wrong than any of us but it will colour their perceptions and interpretations of the Message. Whilst we want and need social change, does that therefore lead to necessarily wanting the Message or Church also to change accordingly. Surely the great and wondrous thing about Scripture, is that it as relevant today as when it was written and we don't have to reinterpret it to apply it. Is this why the Sexuality debate keeps on going, because we want to fit the Message to it rather than the other way round? But I am new to all this and maybe see it differently because I was outside and have now come back in. To paraphrase Geza Vermes, we should take more notice of what Jesus said than what is said about Him. Peace and blessings to all, Terry Bester [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
