Comments on: The customer IS the company http://www.viraljesus.org/2008/07/the-customer-is-the-company/ a dialog about authentic faith Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:01:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jon http://www.viraljesus.org/2008/07/the-customer-is-the-company/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Jon Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:22:20 +0000 http://www.viraljesus.org/?p=16#comment-7 Yes dnizzle, I can see why that is a problematic statement. And I don't fully agree with myself on that one - or at least I said it very wrong. What I'm trying to figure out is how do we arrive at some conclusion. Maybe the line in today's culture, 2,000 years removed from the source, should be “Discussion” is fine, as long as a "group informed consensus led by the Holy Spirit" is able to say, definitively, that there is a truth to be known.” I don't believe my interpretations are infallible, but I believe that there are some infallible interpretations. We can't for instance, continue to be Christians in the classical sense if we do not accept the Divinity of Christ, which, in its historical context (as seem by those outside the church) is an interpretation (the Da Vinci code claims his Divinity was entirely fabricated). There have to be some things that are part of our orthodoxy. Maybe that's what I'm arguing for - SOME baseline orthodoxy, in a pluralistic, relativistic society. And we can't simply rely on what we feel or think - our orthodoxy has to be based on copious amounts of study and research and apologetic and prayer, and those who dedicate their lives to such things most likely have something to teach us. And sometimes they are evil, so their assertions and interpretations should always be open to scrutiny. The answer should never be "it's that way because I said so." That's where abuse begins. It should be "I believe it's that way based on the Scriptures, historical sources, and a whole lot of other information that I will readily provide to you for your own study and scrutiny." This is the framework for creating a common understanding of core doctrines, and its the way we come up with our "non-negotiable" things and relegate other things to the "we're not 100% sure" pile. Maybe I should have just said "Test everything, hold on to what is true." And I don't think that everything has a definitive answer. Some of the "we're not 100% sure pile" should be discussed, but we may never arrive at a conclusion. That's what I should have said :-). Yes dnizzle, I can see why that is a problematic statement. And I don’t fully agree with myself on that one – or at least I said it very wrong. What I’m trying to figure out is how do we arrive at some conclusion. Maybe the line in today’s culture, 2,000 years removed from the source, should be “Discussion” is fine, as long as a “group informed consensus led by the Holy Spirit” is able to say, definitively, that there is a truth to be known.”

I don’t believe my interpretations are infallible, but I believe that there are some infallible interpretations. We can’t for instance, continue to be Christians in the classical sense if we do not accept the Divinity of Christ, which, in its historical context (as seem by those outside the church) is an interpretation (the Da Vinci code claims his Divinity was entirely fabricated). There have to be some things that are part of our orthodoxy.

Maybe that’s what I’m arguing for – SOME baseline orthodoxy, in a pluralistic, relativistic society. And we can’t simply rely on what we feel or think – our orthodoxy has to be based on copious amounts of study and research and apologetic and prayer, and those who dedicate their lives to such things most likely have something to teach us.

And sometimes they are evil, so their assertions and interpretations should always be open to scrutiny. The answer should never be “it’s that way because I said so.” That’s where abuse begins. It should be “I believe it’s that way based on the Scriptures, historical sources, and a whole lot of other information that I will readily provide to you for your own study and scrutiny.” This is the framework for creating a common understanding of core doctrines, and its the way we come up with our “non-negotiable” things and relegate other things to the “we’re not 100% sure” pile.

Maybe I should have just said “Test everything, hold on to what is true.” And I don’t think that everything has a definitive answer. Some of the “we’re not 100% sure pile” should be discussed, but we may never arrive at a conclusion.

That’s what I should have said :-) .

]]> By: dnizzle http://www.viraljesus.org/2008/07/the-customer-is-the-company/comment-page-1/#comment-6 dnizzle Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:45:59 +0000 http://www.viraljesus.org/?p=16#comment-6 I don't know how this sits with me... "“Discussion” is fine, as long as someone is able to say, definitively, that there is a truth to be known." I think my fear of being like the pharisees keep me from believing that all of my ironclad interpretations are "definitive truth". I believe that the Bible is infallible but i no longer believe that my interp is infallible. (or my pastor or denominations interp) (even though i got an A+ in Dr. Brady's Bible Inter) Doesn't history teach us about all sorts of well intended but horrific and unjust interp? I don’t know how this sits with me… ““Discussion” is fine, as long as someone is able to say, definitively, that there is a truth to be known.” I think my fear of being like the pharisees keep me from believing that all of my ironclad interpretations are “definitive truth”. I believe that the Bible is infallible but i no longer believe that my interp is infallible. (or my pastor or denominations interp) (even though i got an A+ in Dr. Brady’s Bible Inter) Doesn’t history teach us about all sorts of well intended but horrific and unjust interp?

]]>