I like what Danaher says about truth being a person (the Person). To know a person we must dialogue. Where there is no mutual dialogue, truth disappears.
]]>I am also very interested in the community applications, which seem to outweigh the personal teachings in the Bible. Many times the Bible is speaking of plural “you” and “they”, not speaking about individuals.
]]>Btw, the narcigesis term came from a Christian apologist that I used to listen to. He would review sermons and determine whether they were gospel-centered or man-centered. His analysis was helpful in that it really sharpened my listening skills in terms of seeing whether or not the gospel was in a sermon.
]]>I learned my new favorite word: narcigesis (is this made up?)
Oy, I was a master as narcigesis, to my shame. Pastor Bryan warned me rather sternly once to stop putting myself into the Bible stories. It is highly dangerous indeed to supposed I am the “David” or the “Pharisee”. If we want to put ourselves into the Bible narratives, it is far healthier to imagine we are an observer, documenting what we see and hear around us.
I really want to pursue this further with your “OT and inspiration” article. Indeed, we need a multitude of viewpoints to see more clearly. Objective truth is only seen with many subjective viewpoints.
]]>I started with an idea I wanted to tell people, and then looked for Bible verses that seemed applicable to my idea. When I found such Bible verses, I then tried to find some meaning from them that was consistent with my idea. This approach often left me confused, but it did bolster my ego.
This was largely my experience too which I think stems from human nature; we want something or someone to affirm or validate our ideas and sentiments which is amounts to self-actualization. Hence, we use the text to bolster our own hopes and desires. To be honest, to this day it’s still a challenge to not impose my own ideas onto the text or narcissistically read myself into it. I find that reading a multitude of viewpoints is helpful in this regard. For personal study, I combine the historical-grammatical method (which is aimed at understanding the author’s original intent) with a Christo-telic hermeneutic (the point of scripture is to reveal Christ) and cap it off with Lectio Divina, which is an experiential/subjective way of interacting with God through Scripture. In my mind this style covers both semi-objective analysis and mystical experience which hopefully leads to a fuller and more biblically-based interaction with the text. Through theologians like Enns, I’m also delving into the historical-critical method which is controversial in many conservative circles. My ubfriends article The OT and Inspiration touches on this subject.
If you’re interested in the Hyde Park talk, take a listen to the audio or view the ppt:
]]>