Cool Aritcle

i just think that when we try to make faith "certain" or into something that is unquestionable, than by definition it is no longer "faith"

In fact I would say that we border on idoltry when we make faith certain, because than the faith we have replaces God.

Faith, to me, is experiential. Ideology is doctrinal.

Faith, of course, comes first, and doctrinal interpretations are based on experiential faith. And not only that: By frequently delving into experiential spirituality we continuously renew and refresh our doctrines.

The framework I usually use is cliché but works for me. That is, it's about those who live in "the letter of the law" and those who live "in the spirit of the law". Whether one is conservative, liberal, left, right, middle, socialist, capitalist, even fundamentalist, when one approaches life through the letter of the law it is rigid, lifeless, hollow, and can lead one into contempt. Yet, approaching life in the spirit, irrespective of all the "isms", we can be open to love, depth of feeling, and free -- this is what Paul celebrates in his writings.

A woman I know whose parents are devout Roman Catholics often comments about them that they are better than their theology -- to me, that's a good example of people who are living in the spirit. Faith vs. ideology...for sure.

Baptists are sometimes called the "People of the Book." We're taught in our churches to interpret everything through Scripture.

I'd say interpreting Scripture through what we perceive of as our relationship with God is often the cause of many problems, including both those we see in the far right of those who call themselves Christians, and the far left. The tricky part is holding Scripture as the standard for faith while avoiding bibliolatry.

Mysticism or spiritual experience was highly regarded in Catholicism—but only if the mystic interpreted his or her visions in terms of Catholic doctrine. Those who did not were threatened with excommunication until they knuckled under. If they did not, they were pronounced heretics and were ostracized, excommunicated, and sometimes burned at the stake.

If Scripture is taken metaphorically, then almost any mystical experience will fit. The more Scripture is taken literally, the more difficult this becomes. Those who take the Bible "seriously but not literally" don't have much trouble matching mystical experience with Scripture. But doctrine that has hardened into dogma tends to get in the way.

David amen amen amen

What would be a good example of Jesus showing this?

Mark Chapter 2, verse 27:

 ²⁷And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

yep. Thanks MOF.

Hi airclean 3:

RAN asked the question of what would be a good example of Jesus interpreting scripture through his relationship with God and that's a passage that I thought would be suitable. Jesus' message was one of a loving God and his (Jesus') teachings, as recorded in the gospels, reflect that. In challenging the concept of the Sabbath, it seems to me that he was saying that the well-being of each other comes before satisfying "the law". So, his interpretation of the scriptures of the day was affected by his understanding of, and his relationship with, a loving God.

Does that make sense?

Thanks Alex.

I would agree with you. At that point, for me, its no longer "faith" at all because we no longer allow God to move us. We depend on the interpretation of a book.

a good distinction I think.

Initially I think this is true. As time passes the doctrine overtakes the faith. Those who seek "certainty" only climb on board when the faith has been encased in the walls of dogma.

Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". In similar vein, I think that faith must periodically be disinterred from the dogma. Seems to me that's the process that's happening now.

It's a good cliché. And let me just add a hearty Amen

From the perspective that anyone can claim that "God spoke to me and said [fill in the blank]" I'd agree with you. However, that's no more nor less true with how people interprest Scripture than it is with seeing God in a sunset or a starving child's eyes.

For many, the tricky part seems to be seeing legitimate faith in those who use a different "Scripture", or none at all.

For me, the standard for faith is how I act in my relationships with others and all of Creation. While I could spend eternity arguing the variations of doctrine between 30,000 Christian interpretations, Buddhist schools, Muslim sects, Hindu pantheons, or humanist precepts, I can readily find one universal kernel of faith that lies within all of them.

back at you my friend.

Hi jae. Please correct me if I'm wrong, (I'm no expert on denominational belief by any stretch) but hasn't this led to a significant amount of diversity within the "umbrella" of Baptist belief? As I understand it, each congregation has a great deal of autonomy in determining exactly what the interpretation of Scripture means for them as a group.

Which, to me, would ideally mean that the faith of the people would determine how they understood a passage or parable or epistle or what have you for their own community.

Since the world is usually less than ideal, results would no doubt vary, but it seems to me that the intent is sound. I'd appreciate hearing more if you feel like expanding (and/or correcting my comments).

This is a good example of Jesus interpreting the Sabbath law differently from the particular Pharisees who criticized his disciples "harvesting" grain on the Sabbath.

However, in this passage I don't see where Jesus bases his interpretation on his relationship woth God.

I don't think it's meant to be only interpreted on a literal level...in my view, the Sabbath is a metaphor for "the law" and how the law can be so lifeless when it's the guiding principle. That's the theme throughout...new wine, river of living water, new covenant, are all symbols for love and relationship with God and that's what, in my opinion, Jesus' message was all about.

MOF has said pretty much what I would answer as well. However, let me ask - if you don't think that Jesus, who, in traditional theology "is" God, bases everything he does on that relationship, what is it that you think he uses? That's not a sarcastic question, I'd genuinely like you to expand on your thought.

For me, throughout the Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke in particular, Jesus is written as repeatedly underscoring the fact that the Law and the Prophets are useless as the interpreters of our relationship with God.

Isn't that, after all, where the traditional doctrine of "salvation" comes from? That it isn't following all the rules that "saves" someone, but "faith alone"? 

While, for me, "salvation" doctrine is a pale corruption of what Jesus is written to have taught, I can certainly recognize the ghost of it in that theology.

 I'm curious. Would those who interpret their relationship with God through Scripture not argue that it is, in fact, their relationship with (or experience of, or understanding of) God that causes them to interpret their relationship with God through Scripture?

Both perceptive comments about the dangers of idolatry. How often do we allow our faith in God to become our God? How often does what we believe about God become dogmatic to the point of arrogance and exclusivity, therefore removing us from the humility we're called to have in our relationship with God. And if we interpret everything through the Bible, does the Bible not become our God? And yet, as people of faith we surely must believe something with some degree of certainty. The trick is to do that with that necessary degree of humility. I believe in Jesus as the incarnation of God. I believe in the trinity. I believe in the resurrection. There are many other things I believe. The tricky part is for me to remember that while I believe that what I believe is true (otherwise I wouldn't believe it), and while I believe that what I believe is universally true (if Jesus is in fact  the incarnation of God then it doesn't matter whether you believe that or not; He's still the incarnation of God) I must also acknowledge that what I believe about God isn't complete - that there is more to God than I can grasp. Avoiding that trap of assuming that my beliefs are perfect and complete is the difficult part. 

Ditto for me.

Nice thread, David . . . P3

Hi - I would agree mostly with Rev Davis. I would put that I feel that my teacher is not so much the Bibel as the Holy spirit. I believe in all the Bible , But do not yet understand all of it.The Bibel is my guide.If the Bible is your map, and you change it then how will you find your way.The spirit Of God is your guide.You must be in contact with God  to follow his way. Jesus said I do nothing unless the Father tells me.--- Airclean To God Be The Glory. P-s This is what I Believe , Others will. Others will not . That is your right.

My undersdtanding of what David is getting at, and so nicely did, is that when we read the tradition we find that Jesus read his tradition and like Jesus we interpret.  At the foundational level the question is what was the character of God that informed the tradition and how did Jesus experience of God inform how he interpreted the tradition.   This is also the same quetion for Paul - context and his experience.  The problem is with Jesus we have only second hand words - those of the interpreters - the gospel writters.  But with Paul's first hand and the relgious context and issue of the time, we can get some insight to how Jesus saw God - his gospel.  He experienced God as one found in all of the world, in nature, and that sacred space was everywhere.   One could also go on to say he taught sacred space was within - the kingdom of God is within and as well everywhere, and is efficacious in forming identity.  For Jesus God was as close as his breath.

Of course what I have done here is to interpret the texts using knowledge of the context - that is the nature of the religious questions and reality of Jesus time - and make best quess statements, that are tested by others within the craft.

I just thought that was an interesting quote to ponder.

This is the passage that includes the verse (27) suggested for my original inquiry: 

Here I see a response from Jesus that is based on biblical example (David and the consecrated bread [25-26]), on Sabbath origin (rest from labour? [27]) and on a personal claim (Lord of the Sabbath [28]).

To me, only the last of these suggests anything about the relationship between Jesus and God. Is that what you mean? I had assumed not.

I am still interested in examples to illustrate your OP suggestion "Rather than interpret our relationship with God through Scripture, Jesus shows repeatedly that we have to interpret Scripture through our relationship with God." Maybe you would prefer to use a different example from Mark 2:27?

Let me preface this first with a note - although we're discussing this passage as though it's a historical account of an actual event, I in no way approach Scripture that way. It's simply a useable "shorthand" in some situations.

Ran, let me answer in part with a question - In the passage above is Jesus

A) Justifying his actions by quoting Scripture (the David story) thereby making Scripture pre-eminent, or is he

B) already certain that what he'd done was acceptable, and simply refers to Scripture to upbraid the Pharisee on his attempt to put doctrine ahead of the welfare of people?

If the David story had not been part of Scripture, do you think that would have made Jesus' actions unjustified?

For me, as I've noted before, the historicity of the Gospel writers' accounts of Jesus' actions and teachings is irrelevant to the "truth" that they're trying to communicate. Over and over the writers have Jesus using variations of "strive for relationships with one another that look like the relationship I've had with you" (badly rendered as "love one another as I have loved you").

I have the feeling that you're looking for explicit statements where Jesus says something like the "Lord of the Sabbath" thing. Something like "relationship first, law second." There is such a statement - it "sums up" the Law and the Prophets" and is "what they hang on."

But for me, everything written about Jesus says it as well.

Not sure if that helps clarify or not. I'd be happy to continue the discussion. Sorry I haven't been on much lately. Juggling too many things.

Be Well

David

very well put as always Pan.

I agree with your second statement ac. Though others might use different words, its when we listen to our interconnectedness with God/Theos/Creation that we act in harmony with it.

As to "changing" the Bible, that seems to me, based on what you've shared of your perspective, to be a contradiction. You have an interpretation that is, for lack of a better term, "carved in stone." Regardless of the nudging of the Spirit, you cannot entertain the possibility that your interpretation may not be absolutely correct.

To use your map analogy, it's as if the map shows you a bridge over the river ahead, and though a sign along the side of the road says "bridge out", you insist that the map must be correct and that the sign was posted by pranksters.

Creation is changing all the time. So is faith, even though, in our short lifespans, we may think differently.

Amen to that.

No, I don't.

But I do think that Jesus chose to use it because it was part of Scripture.

From your OP, I thought you had such explicit statements in mind. ("... Rather than interpret our relationship with God through Scripture, Jesus shows repeatedly that we have to interpret Scripture through our relationship with God. ..."). Looks like I misunderstood. No problem.

You highlighted 2 approaches to interpretation.

1. interpret our relationship with God through Scripture
2. interpret Scripture through our relationship with God

I tend to think of these as both/and, rather than either/or. So I would share your view that Jesus' relationship with God influenced his interpretation of Scripture. However, I would want to add that I think Jesus' interpretation of Scripture also influenced his relationship with God.

For example, Matt 22:23-46 has 3 different questions about scripture (including the "greatest commandment" question). In this passage Jesus seems to use both approaches to interpretation.

No problem. Thank you for following up with me.

What comes to mind, as I read this thread tonight...is how often I feel that through hymns, new pop music, and the some of the evangelical faith language that I have encountered ---- i feel that Jesus has been turned into an idol....the exact opposite of what  I understand the message was about...

I have a little sadly come to believe that all of you know what faith is. (please don't quote me Hebrews 1--)  Well maybe not sad, maybe envious.

I am curious, inquiring, not so much seeking as enjoying a trip, questioning everything.

I enjoy studying the Bible, think Jesus was a wonderful  apocalyptic prophet...

and think, even for those who do not love God, all things work togeththr for good, and think my theological posit as it rests precariously on my shard of understanding of quantum mechanics notwithstanding,  the most optimistic one I have imagined. No death, continual curiosity, improvement, learning, (Just to be caught up on my reading !)...so...that would be my personal heaven. Sides if you continue to advance ETERNALLY you would, I suppose, eventually make God good company. Maybe God is lonely, maybe that's what God has in mind. What would be your personal heaven? Or what does heaven mean to you? Other than the mystery of 'being with God'. And if that is it, what does it mean?

Of course. But to justify his actions, or to illustrate the justness of an action he already knew to be correct?

The first makes Scripture pre-eminent, the second makes it subject to the relationship. 

Thanks for being part of the discussion.

Amen to that.

Then you do know what faith is

Heaven doesn't, for me, mean "being with God", since that term suggests a "not being with God" - which, in spite of traditional theology, is impossible.

For me, "heaven", as a place of reward for chanting the correct mantras, is a childish idea. However, the "kingdom of heaven", as in a personal, social, and global transformation from a "my way or the highway, devil take the hindmost" environment to a celebration of the unity in our diversity and the acknowledgement of our interconnectedness with all of Creation - that heaven is very real, and very much at the heart of the Message of the Christ.

Be Well

DAvid

What if I say it served both purposes?

Then I would ask why you think Jesus need to justify himself.

I did not. by the way, suggest an either/or situation (although granted its phrased that way in the above sentence) . My question, at least as I intended it, was "Which comes first in priority?"

That's my point in the topic overall as well. Just as Hillel didn't dismiss the Torah by calling it "commentary", I'm not dismissing Scripture by saying that it is secondary to our relationship. I'm simply saying that it's to be understood through our relationship, not the other way around.

Excellent.

I know it is weirdly childish, and when it comes to quantum mechanics I am 'reaching beyond my grasp', but I can't help reading about the multiverse, and that our universe peels off another one every time an event happens 'cause there's always an alternative. So there are an infinite number of universes being created and, somehow, an infinite numbrer of an infinite number...if nothing else it widens my awe at the concept of infinity. (Tried to understand Cantor - the 'infinite math-man)- I can't help but think of this as a pretty good if highly egoistic thought; that we all create our own universe = the Kingdom of God IS within you and is at hand. And you will live forever for consciousness took some 13 billion years for God to assemble and is noncorporeal and God only knows (to coin a phrase) what you will look and act like in another thousand years, for as Kurtweil has proven change is accelerting. (Taking breath) ...Science(Fiction?), Quantum Conjecture, Religious thought:  the pleasent agreement the mix makes in my think-box...almost makes me want to say...I believe it!  I do think there is a hint of a tincture of a shard of possibility - and in one fell swoop the elimination of a consideration of heaven AND hell seems a fine idea...as is following the annointed apocalyptic prophet's saying as an intuitive (ok, inspired) understanding of the permanancy of consciousness:. Not eternal after-life eternal  life! At hand. Always at hand.

Hey, you wanna silly  fantasy indulgence from an 82 year old? Ya got one!

Cheers!

John.

As "silly fantasy indulgences" go John, I think that's a pretty good one. I'm perfectly content to let God/Consciousness/multiverse handle the details of what happens to my "me" when this olf bag of bones can't hold on to me any longer. I believe that there's a lot more room in the universe for variety than most philosophies want to accommodate. Yours has the virture of infinite space for infinite diversity.

I rather like that.

Be Well

David

I am not sure I have a firmly defined faith or ideology. I am more the "reclaiming the revolution of conciousness" type... now that is not the rioting thing, but it is counter-culture... juust as Jesus was. Since it is enlightenment and transformation, it can't be concreted in or set in stone. It moves always toward a higher unity and finding purpose and connectedness...

Oh dear, now I sound like Arminius. =)

Hi Stevie:

Next thing you'll call yourself a syntheticist, or a creative evolutionary.

Call me Syntheticist,

Arminius

We must be still and moving

Into another intensity

For a further union, a deeper communion

 -T.S. Eliot

Care to share some examples.

'Beyond faith, beyond unbelief...'

Eschew doctrine with great relief...

(---Rumi's retarded roommate)

OR

(If only Rumi learned to rhyme. he'd be popular...)

Goldenrule,"That's my point in the topic overall as well. Just as Hillel didn't dismiss the Torah by calling it "commentary", I'm not dismissing Scripture by saying that it is secondary to our relationship. I'm simply saying that it's to be understood through our relationship, not the other way around."

Agree!

vive la révolution! 

Amen to that.

Drat. Another post in which I can find no fault. Outch! (I hurt my thumb)

lol - must be something to this synthesis of Arm's

Hi Happy Genius:

Rumi rhymed in Arabic, I'm sure. But I think he wrote in Persian, and was translated into Arabic by his followers. Like the troubadour poetry of the Middle Ages, the Arabic poetry of that time period was written mainly in "saji," a loose rythmic and rhyming balance, more like what we know as prose poetry.

Yesterday a great teacher went from door to door

With a lamp.

He who cannot be found

Is the one I'm looking for.

-Rumi