What do you think about my suggestions on the post topic?

some continue to speak in absolutes and are negative in their responses. over and over again.

thats why i made the comment. i wasn’t passing or blowing things off. i’m just not going to argue with someone when i prefer conversation. and i’m not going to continue the same 3 arguments over and over again. when both are fundamentally opposed.

That phrase makes me angry, because it often castrates a conversation that holds the potential to change those involved in it. It has a place in conversation, but only as a last resort.

I’ll admit it…as I read your thoughts, I was frustrated by the direction you took and the conclusions you came to. But I’ve been finding over the last several years that my frustration does not mean your (supposed) subjectivism is running into my (supposed) absolutely truthful grasp on reality…. so I read it again. And I think there’s some good stuff here.

I’d side with Derek a bit more here though, even as I agree with you that orthodoxy has taken place on a sliding scale of sorts. I’d add a word to his thought (I’ll italicize it) that; (Authority and truth) do not necessarily depend on context or application. I added the “necessarily” because I think the Bible presents itself as a collection of books about how universal truth has been (and is) relayed through particular actions, persons, and communities. So God has called Israel and the church in their particular lifestyle and commitments to show the universal truth that all humans have been created for…the process of how this is worked out sometimes shows up further on the universal side of the spectrum and sometimes more on the particular (and thus more relative) side of the spectrum.

I think where scripture relays universal truth is through the structure of expectations it sets up as boundaries for the good life God has called us to; now, the structure is up for discussion and interpretation, but a foundational aspect of discipleship is submission to God’s revelation as given to us, not what we’d like it to look like.

For example, as we follow the narrative arc of the Bible, while it is true that the Bible can be read to show that females should mindlessly submit to males in leadership of families and God’s people, we could more faithfully say (I think) there’s a movement in the text toward women being given more respect and freedom in their humanity and leadership…the same applies to slavery. So the church can faithfully take the step to endorse women in leadership positions and reject slavery as an institution that dehumanizes folks.

However, this sort of narrative approach reveals a different conclusion within the structure of Scripture when speaking of homosexuality, for example. In fact, while the NT doesn’t call for the death sentence for homosexuals, it intensifies the righteousness and lifestyle expectations of heterosexuality in ways the OT doesn’t address. So the movement is towards more rigorous, monogamous heterosexuality in the narrative arc rather than an open inclusiveness regardless of one’s sexual lifestyle. One could say God is establishing an absolute standard here in expected conduct that isn’t open to our choosing, as the expectation is consistent from OT to New.

Therefore, examples like slavery and the status of women reveal truth isn’t always universal and unchangeable for all time, but examples like homosexuality reveal the situation is not as simple as your comment that “they (Scriptures) only work insofar as they are local.”

So I think Derek’s so far on the other side of the spectrum that he reads reality through the lenses of “objectivity” and “absolute”; and thus says

As far as comparisons with the Israelites and the Jews of the early Christian church, they did see scriptures as truth. And absolute. God made a covenant with them, and it was what it was. It didn’t change. And the idea of an unchanging God was a Hebrew idea

Derek doesn’t make the distinction I consider necessary to separate between God’s unchanging character and steadfast love and the reality that God’s revealed expectations of the faithful life have clearly changed; and were radically changed by Himself as revealed in the life of Jesus.

Derek makes a deeply important point, I think, though; if the only way you approach truth is through the context of community (outside of the deep guidance God gave to the development of Scripture), then you’re gonna find yourself in a community without a solid foundation.
Maybe you’re ok with that kind of community, and that’s fine…just don’t call it church.

In some ways, it’s scandalous that we would have the audacity to suggest in our evangelism that universal truth was revealed most fully through a particular Jew at a particular time in a particular culture for all time and cultures; but that doesn’t mean we should shy away from that proclamation.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that there’s a universal/particular paradox going on here that creates a tension necessary for the church to faithfully represent God’s desires for the world.