Terry wrote:
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.
While I think there's some validity in that argument, I think there are as many arguments *for* more labelling as there are against. For example, the very people who most object to being labelled *within* Christianity (fundamentalists) themselves create a very stark "us and them" divide by delineating what (or who) is and isn't a christian. Labelling people as fundamentalist or liberal crosses faith boundaries and thus provides an alternative divide. That isn't to say it's any better, but I believe it's certainly no worse, and that adding alternative divides to those already assumed is one step towards reaching beyond the divides.
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.
That's a dangerous argument, IMO, because it presupposes that there's only one way to interpret scripture, which certainly isn't true. Interpreting scripture from within a particular framework doesn't necessarily alter it, anyway. It simply offers a way of understanding the overall message for a particular set of circumstances.
Is this why the Sexuality debate keeps on going, because we want to fit the Message to it rather than the other way round?
I would say the sexuality debate keeps on going because there's a conflict between those who see the message as black and white and incapable of being interpreted in any other way, and those who believe that the "orthodox" interpretation of the message falls short of meeting people where they're at.
To paraphrase Geza Vermes, we should take more notice of what Jesus said than what is said about Him.
But we don't know what Jesus said. And therein lies my biggest problem with seeing scripture as absolute, or insisting that any one interpretation is the only right way to understand it.
Clare *************************************************** Clare Pascoe Henderson http://www.clergyabuseaustralia.org Clergy Sexual Abuse in Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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 ------------------------------------------------------
