I was originally going to respond on the Johnson text, (because of a unique viewpoint I have being native american) however, the whole text is cut in have and unreadable for me, so I will respond to the Gomes text. After a bit of discernment, I can see more deeply of the expansion Gomes provides for us biblically in this text, and it's profoundly refreshing.
To start, Gomes lays out many straight forward (yet complex in context) truths that we as a society, and if we identify as Christ-followers must be willing to embrace:
1) the Bible must not be read and/or interpreted literally
2) cultural values and beliefs and spiritual values and beliefs are intertwined, however we must strive to view them independent of one another
3) The Bible does not present any credible case against homosexuality
While there is a lot more in the conversation that Gomes has, the above are an overview representation of his authority of Scripture.
Gomes clearly implies that in today's contemporary society, there has been much evolution within culture and the ways of life, that in some areas, he renders the Bible irrelevant and in many cases, oppressive. His main scope of investigation is around the central construct of homosexuality.
Because of this scope of focus, Gomes only briefly mentions slavery within the introduction of the text, which could be a small correlation to the Johnson text. However, the depth at which Johnson expands and analyzes the construct of slavery is unmatched.
Gomes continues and contrasts and compares two specific examples found within the Old Testament: The Book of Leviticus and Sodom and Gomorrah and then uses Apostle Paul in the New Testament. I found these choices interesting and possibly troubling in my own opinion, but I see why the author would choose these as stand-alone examples, and therefore they do hold their own weight.
In a nutshell, Gomes simplifies his analysis by saying the Bible has a clear voice on the "fallen nature of humankind." While there are direct references to homosexuality found within scripture, he deduces that the argument for what context is the true debate here.
For the majority of Gomes perspective I can agree with. I can see where their can be contextual arguments and where there is some gray areas. I also can understand the nature of not reading the Bible literally. However, I do struggle with sacrificing the integrity of the overall premise that the Bible is alive and is relevant to any and all human era.
We discussed last semester in a course that for those who are going into ordained ministry, to be careful to not be a "pick and choose" minister. The Bible is not a Golden Corral where you can just pick bits and pieces of food from what you want that day just because it "feels right" or it is what you want. That is not the gospel. While I am not entering into an ordained ministry setting at this time, I do agree with what the professor spoke on. You either take God's word all in, or not at all.
Within that contextual framework however, if you choose to take the Bible "all in" as Christ-followers we must think biblically, historically, spiritually, and above all through the lens of Christ on how we enact God's word. In that manner, we can come to the most christ-centered behavior and decisions as possible, without making the Bible out to be just what we "wished" it would have said.
To start, Gomes lays out many straight forward (yet complex in context) truths that we as a society, and if we identify as Christ-followers must be willing to embrace:
1) the Bible must not be read and/or interpreted literally
2) cultural values and beliefs and spiritual values and beliefs are intertwined, however we must strive to view them independent of one another
3) The Bible does not present any credible case against homosexuality
While there is a lot more in the conversation that Gomes has, the above are an overview representation of his authority of Scripture.
Gomes clearly implies that in today's contemporary society, there has been much evolution within culture and the ways of life, that in some areas, he renders the Bible irrelevant and in many cases, oppressive. His main scope of investigation is around the central construct of homosexuality.
Because of this scope of focus, Gomes only briefly mentions slavery within the introduction of the text, which could be a small correlation to the Johnson text. However, the depth at which Johnson expands and analyzes the construct of slavery is unmatched.
Gomes continues and contrasts and compares two specific examples found within the Old Testament: The Book of Leviticus and Sodom and Gomorrah and then uses Apostle Paul in the New Testament. I found these choices interesting and possibly troubling in my own opinion, but I see why the author would choose these as stand-alone examples, and therefore they do hold their own weight.
In a nutshell, Gomes simplifies his analysis by saying the Bible has a clear voice on the "fallen nature of humankind." While there are direct references to homosexuality found within scripture, he deduces that the argument for what context is the true debate here.
For the majority of Gomes perspective I can agree with. I can see where their can be contextual arguments and where there is some gray areas. I also can understand the nature of not reading the Bible literally. However, I do struggle with sacrificing the integrity of the overall premise that the Bible is alive and is relevant to any and all human era.
We discussed last semester in a course that for those who are going into ordained ministry, to be careful to not be a "pick and choose" minister. The Bible is not a Golden Corral where you can just pick bits and pieces of food from what you want that day just because it "feels right" or it is what you want. That is not the gospel. While I am not entering into an ordained ministry setting at this time, I do agree with what the professor spoke on. You either take God's word all in, or not at all.
Within that contextual framework however, if you choose to take the Bible "all in" as Christ-followers we must think biblically, historically, spiritually, and above all through the lens of Christ on how we enact God's word. In that manner, we can come to the most christ-centered behavior and decisions as possible, without making the Bible out to be just what we "wished" it would have said.
No comments:
Post a Comment