Scholarship is very important to me.  That's why all my life, but particularly in the last 20 - 30 years, I have grasp at opportunities to read books, and attend lectures, seminars and workshops with leaders in their field - as well as engaging in conversations and asking questions from clergy persons whom I respect and whom I am quite sure engage in ongoing study and scholarship themselves. 

While I enjoy hearing a lecture from an invited expert in a field, particularly if I have read some of his/her books and know something of his/her background, I find one of my best learning styles is in engaging in facilitated discussion where all exchange ideas, rather than one person dominating the conversation.  Fortunately I find many seminars (such as the Atlantic Seminar on Theological Education, held for a week each June) give opportunities for both.  One or two keynote speakers are invited (last year Borg and Vosper) and each morning and afternoon one or the other gives a talk followed by a question period.  Then, after a break, we go to groups (a dozen or so people with a facilitator) and discuss several of the issues that arose around the lecture.  

Personally, I’ve always found scholarship invaluable to my understanding of faith and scripture. By filling in context, it helps me to understand the roots and sources of the images and stories presented, which can then help me find meaning. It can suggest routes of interpretation and understanding that I may not come to on my own. It can head off dead ends and misunderstandings.

Scholarship is not going to give hard answers to the big questions. That isn’t its role. It’s role is to help find context and understandings as I grapple with finding answers to the big questions. In other words, it is a “source of my living tradition” (to use the UU parlance) rather than some ultimate authority handed down from heaven.

In the end (as Berserk says) we must form our own opinion, our own interpretations and understandings, that shape our faith and how it informs our lives. The scholarship informs, provides context, gives guidance in that journey. Like a travel book, it can help understand our destination but what we get out of the journey comes from how we use that book to understand and engage with what we find on the way.

Mendalla

Mendalla,

This is a great topic--well formulated and a natural outgrowth of my posts to Seeler. I have resisted the temptation to invoke scholarship to rebut Michael's thread on the Book of Revelation, but will eventually gladly do so on your thread.  Two years ago, I was approached by 2 laymen who wanted a more scholarly kind of Bible discussion group.  I hesitated because such a group would mean a lot more preparatory work for me than a conventional Bible study and because I doubted that such a cerebral study would be sufficiently rewarding spiritually.  My concerns were misguided.  3 of the 4 are or will be going to seminary because this approach made them more excited about their faith than a more 'practical" Bible study would have.  It took a while for them to get a handle on scholarly methodologies, but once they did, we had some very productive debates.  One of them, a young Russian who has just received his degree in nursing, has become more well read in scholarly literature than most MDiv graduates!

For now, I would just make 2 suggestions: (1) John Meier's 4- book series "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus" is the best way to get a handle on the best of modern Jesus scholarship.  He is a more respected scholar than popularizers like Marcus Borg, but the reason I recommend him is his incorporation of incredibly detailed footnotes which detail alternative perspectives.  This makes it easier to argue with Meier in a well-informed manner and to gain a comprehensive grasp of how the best of scholarship arrives at its conclusions about Jesus and His times.  (2) Raymond Brown's "Introduction to the New Testament" is my favorite for a similar reason: it is a bit dated now,but is much more thorough than other Introductions in the scope of its survey of various scholarly views about the New Testament. 

Call me an old cynic - but I think we form an opinion, and then seek to justify our opinion through scholarship.

(Which probably explains why I'm interested to pursue scholarship in process theology.)

Hi Mendalla,

Scholarship isn't abstract to me.  It is one voice within the whole Christian community.  Since I take very seriously the idea of a faith community as a community of disciples listening to the voices of scholarship is important to me.

I readily admit I don't swallow or even pay attention to all scholarship, nor do I think that scholarship is ever the last word interpretation wise.  If any scholarship fails to challenge us then we, most likely are spending time ignoring scholarship or only reading only that which affirms what we have already decided upon.

I do not think that the average Christian needs to carry around a set of commentaries if they want to read the Bible.  I do think that assuming scripture speaks directly to me and my generation is a tremendous mistake.  Scripture speaks directly to the intended audience and indirectly to me (through the Christian tradition).

As disciples we need to spend more time listening to those who have already wrestled with texts and their meaning and less time constructing a personal meaning for every text.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Pilgrim - you are right - we tend to choose lectures and read books by scholars who's viewpoint we suspect is something similar to our own.  Even on the WonderCafe I find I am more apt to follow a thread by someone I agree with, or enjoy exchanging ideas with, than by someone who insults me or addresses me in a condescending manner (I understand that this site was established for open-minded discussion).   However, I also recognize the value of reading a book, or listening to someone, who's view point differs from mine.  I find then that I often reevaluate my point of view.  I may see all the more reason to support it, but sometimes I find that I am altering it to understand and perhaps incorporate this new way of thinking.  I find I seldom am swayed by someone who is diametrically opposite to all that I hold important - especially if they are also dogmatic about it.  I can't stand the 'I'm right and you are wrong' approach.    I don't know that it has ever won me as a convert.

This is an interesting thread. I have really been engaged in learning and reading all I can about theology from lots of sources. What led me to it, I'd rather not explain. I have not been religious for most of my life, so the process is really confusing for me. Rather than relying on scholarship first, I have found that through reading Bible scripture, and by re-reading it, layers unfold, possibilities open up...and history, time, perceptions...are not always what they seem here and now, yet anything and everything is al there...it's almost a creative/ artisitc excercise. It is a creative artistic exercise actually, not almost. Then, I check with scholarly writings, and I discover there are theologians who believe or interpret very similarly to me...and others, by virtue of their approach to "teaching", confirm my skepticsm about certain things. It's quite an amazing experience really!

Thanks for the recommendations and thanks for joining in the thread (given that you inspired it). Meier sounds interesting. May have to use my wife's library privileges at Western to get the stuff (doesn't sound likely to be in my PL or on Kobo ) but I'll give it a shot.

EDIT: Not as bad as I thought. 1 volume of the Meier set (vol. 2, alas) in the public system and my local branch actually has Brown's book.

Your scholarly bible study group sounds wonderful, even to my agnostic ears. Something I could get behind easily.

Mendalla

I'm not so sure, Pilgrims. It is certainly true in some, perhaps many, cases. However, I've had cases in my own journey where I started following a thread in this way (looking to justify opinions or faith already held) and ended up going somewhere unexpected. My recent re-engagement with the notion of Grace and my efforts to understand how it might fit my life and faith came out of following a route that explicitly did not match up with my opinion going in (RevJohn talking about Grace from a Calvinist perspective when I had largely abandoned any notion of Grace after being essentially a universalist in my Christian days) and realizing that there was something in it that spoke to me. IOW, engaging in discussion or scholarship to find justification for your opinion can be a dangerous road for that opinion and can still lead you to something new IF you are approaching things with even the slightest semblance of an open mind. Fer instance, I'm not in agreement with Berserk on a lot of things but he's taught me a lot and I'd go to his church without hesitation if I'm ever in the neighbourhood.

Mendalla

I WAS just going to continue my flow of praise, admiration and fawning ...

(Which you may justly assume)

BUT

The last four words gave me pause. What is the Christian tradition?

Diversity in speculation? War and torture sprang to my mind when I first read those words.

Then my mind mumbled 'protestant tradition? Catholic Tradition? '

...and now that my mind is in mumble mode I am not clear about what the Christian faith is;

I do not believe in the resurrection, so I am not a Christian, but one cant correctly say I'm not interested ! No scholar  I, But delightful year-long bouts with Barth at Emanuel, Post Reformational Theology at Knox, and Paul at St Basal's -- after being raised on agnosticism, curiosity and then the work of C. I.  Scofield

I can't find a group. I no longer want to find a group. I think it arrogant to proclaim myself as a denomination of one, Sooo my theology is constantly in a state of flux...

Isn't everything?

Where does 'admiration of'  become 'faith in'

Clear everything up for me, will ya? In less than 120characters, I read slowly, and understand even slower than that.

I really enjoy your posts.

Cheers!

I would like to take a theology course. Berserk, your course sounds interesting...I think we've disagreed on WC a couple of times, but I nevertheless learn from everyone's views...and if I react to somethat triggers me, I  I learn from my reactions.

 I took a basic course for new/ exploring members through UCC, and I have a strong desire to learn more. Theology studies aren't cheap though and require serious dedication and discipline...and I have great respect for those who dedicate themselves to it.

Given that I do not have access to proper theology training at the moment, I hope my appoach isn't hugely misguided. My minister's sermons are very good...and he provides us with food for thought and for the soul...but I leave church wanting to know more. I actually don't go seeking scholars who I know to confirm my views. I look up meanings to passages that I read and  go looking for answers to questions I have, and  often come across someone who holds a view that has already dawned on me...and if their view doesn;t agree, I am open to it as long as it's taught from a position of respect for the reader. When it is hate spewing, or fear mongering, that pretty much says to me that it is not worth studying.

Hi Happy Genius,

The history of wrestling with text from Christian perspective.

There is a lot within the Christian tradition which is not to be celebrated.  Neither should it be forgotten.  If we cannot learn from our mistakes we end up repeating them.

Both would fit under the umbrella of "Christian tradition."  Just because I reject the Roman Catholic teaching on sacraments and Papal infallacy it does not follow that I have decided all of Roman Catholicism is unChristian.  That would be mentally lazy.  Nor does it follow that because I identify with Calvinism that I give everything bearing the Calvin label a free pass.  I am very critical of apartheid and the Reverend Fred Phelps.  They are Calvinist mistakes that this Calvinist will not repeat.

My stance on "what is or isn't Christian" here and elsewhere is steadfast.  Christian is that which is similar to Christ and non-Christian is that which is not similar to Christ.  I know that many well-meaning Christians want to make it about certain criteria.  I believe them to be in error.

Nowhere does Jesus teach that we will be known as his disciples by the doctrines we keep.  In fact, it appears that it is our actions that testify to how Christian we are than our beliefs.

Further, I invite you to sit with Jesus and his disciples on that Gallilean mountaintop where Jesus charges his disciples with the Great Commission.  Much ink and paper has been devoted to "making disciples" and "baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."  Very little attention has been placed on a throwaway verse just before all of that.

Jesus did not disqualify disciples based on what they did or didn't believe.  It was understood that to be a disciple means to ask questions and have doubts.  If Jesus is prepared to leave the spread of the good news with individuals who doubt him.  The contemporary church can be more gentle and gracious in terms of what is believed or not believed.

Doubt is not the enemy of belief.  Unbelief is the enemy of belief.  Doubt is the crucible in which believes are proven, or not as the case may be.

Again, I've known people who would die believing in the resurrection yet when you hear them talk about their neighbours there is no love evident.  Their clanging gonginess tells me that they are, at the very least, extremely poor examples of Christians.  If anybody sees Christ in you then you are rightly labelled Christian.

Thanks to the work of Brian McLaren I am rapidly becoming convinced that we don't need a group so much as we need friends  I'm beginning to think that this is where Christianity fails in the modern age more often than not.  It has bought into the modern concept of foundationalism (the answer is what matters most) and spent absolutely no time doing as Jesus did and build friendships.

I'm a Calvinist.  Take a guess at how many of my closest friends are Calvinists.  I don't like in a Calvinist ghetto, I don't vett who and what I read for the Calvinist stamp of approval.  I'm certainly not impressed by claims of Calvinism surrounded by evidence of gracelessness.  

If a friend believes what I believe as I believe that is a bonus.  I value my friends for who they are and how they are there for me and not because their beliefs are "acceptable" or even "normal."

That is the million dollar question.  I think that some elements of the Christian faith need to be hardened off.  In our early faith days we are like hot house flowers (growing conditions have been carefully managed)  Everything needed for growth is provided at its optimum.  Then those hot-house flowers need to leave the hot house.

If we just pick them up and march them out into conditions radically different from the hot-house those flowers cannot adapt fast enough.  So we begin the process of hardening.  We take the flowers outside for hours at a time and only when conditions are mild.  We let them get some wind.  We let them take some cold and after some weeks we might leave them outside overnight.

Jesus used a lot of agricultural imagery in his parables.  Some of our new Christians have no agricultural experience or knowledge at all and they make assumptions about growth that are more literal than actual.

Sorry, I don't live in a world that moves that fast.

My yes is typically a straighforward yes.  My no is typically a straightforward no.  Ask me what I think and well, I'll tell you.

Thank you.  I enjoy yours also.

Grace and peace to you.

John

To me, faith is a feeling. I do undertake speculations about that feeling, but the speculations and explanations are not my faith.

My faith is, as I said, in the feeling. And my explanations are that it is a feeling of universal unity, inseparableness, or synthesis. I think I experience reality as a unitive whole, a monad. In my theology, God is The Monad, and I, the individual, am an inseparable part of The Monad. But, essentially and ultimately, I am The Monad simply because The Monad is the only thing there is. Or, in other words, The Monad is the only reality and the only truth, the only and ultimate self and everyone's higher self.

Any analysis of the Monad has to be undertaken from a particular viewpoint. This viewpoint is chosen by the analyzer, and thus the resulting analytical or scholarly truth is chosen by the analyzer. As someone said before, we have a pre-conceived bias, an a-priory assumption, and use scholarly research to support that assumption. The monad contains a limitless number of possible viewpoints and truths, every one of them arbitrarily chosen by the analyzer or observer.

But I also am a history buff, and scholarly research into history matters to me, particularly the history of our Christian religion and Western Christian culture. Scholarly research has a lot do do with my understanding of the Bible, but little or nothing with my faith.

Interesting. For me, understanding the Bible (and other scriptures in my case) ultimately helps shape my faith so that the scholarship has a noticeable impact, even if it's a somewhat indirect one.

Mendalla

Among many others things, scholarship illustrates what it means to claim that            

(1) the Bible has never really been translated and cannot be translated, and the true meaning of Scripture becomes far more inspiring once the implications of this are worked out.

(2) the New Testament cannot be adequately understood apart from the historical trajectories of the early church of the first 3 centuries and apart from the background of Jewish and Greco-Roman history, culture, and religious ideology and experience. 

(3)The development of  Paul's thought  cannot be adequately understood apart from an awareness of the chronology of events in and related to his life and the sequence of his letters and the plurality of letters embedded within our existing epistles. 

(4) Paul was a great champion of female equality and leadership, despite appearances to the contrary. 

(5) Contrary to expectations, the early church generally taught a conditional universalism until the middle of the 2nd century. 

Hi Mendalla:

If feel that the Bible, as well as the sacred scriptures of other religions, consist largely of writings about and by mystics who expressed their mystical experiences, and what they thought about them, in the concepts of their culture and time.

I seek to understand, and do understand, those writings as a fellow mystic. From my own mystical experiences, they ring profoundly true. They are poetic expressions of spirituality. Scholarly research, which regards scripture as history rather than poetry, tends to detract from the poetic/mystical meanings.

I do agree that scholarly research into the lives of those ancient mystics and their culture helps us understand what the meant by their metaphors. But I prefer to understand the meanings intuitively, on the feeling level, based on my own mystical experiences. These intuitive truths ring far truer to me than the scholarly ones. I suppose this is the difference between the mystical and the intellectual approach to scripture or faith.

Ideally, one should use both approaches. And I do. Except that the mystical/intuitive approach to understanding scripture ranks first and foremost.

Scholarship when it comes to faith is at best questionable.

I saw an interesting programme on t.v. about why folks don't trust scientists when it comes to global warming.

One of the reasons given was that since the rise of the internet, folks "opinions" are shown alongside scientist's opinions - intimating that they're of equal value and thus devaluing  scholarship.

When we, the general public, do hear scientist's views expressed they are often in the form of one liners  - answering a reporter's heavily weighted question.

Scientists true scholarship is seen in peer reviewed publications.

Do we , the general public, read these publications? And, supposing we did, could we understand them - when our own education in these subjects is lacking?

Answer, no.

But, what we can do, is give an uninformed opinion. Most of us go round saying we agree/disagree with climate change and human involvement - when the truth is we, as individuals, know very little about it.

 Most of science operates on consensus  - which by it's nature leaves room for some uncertainty.

More and more, it seems to me, that scientists - oppressed by the weight of uninformed opinion - are resorting to more certainty publicly than they must privately know.

This then opens then to legitimate criticism...........

Which brings me to religion.

If science - the realm of experiments and facts - can't get it right, how can we expect anything as nebulous as faith to succeed?

Peer review? 

Of what? A book, written in another time by unknown authors? The history of the church? What church?

At best, scholarship when it comes to religion, is highly questionable.

Moreover, how important is scholarship in living a Christian life? It's entirely feasible you could be a professor of Theology and be a right .......

Love God and love your neighbour. That's where our faith scholarship should concentrate.

It's more important to do, rather than learn why, IMO.

By all means study religion. It's interesting and can play it's path in assisting you with your faith journey.

Just beware of certainty...............

On most issues of biblical scholarship there is no scholarly disagreement and virtual certainty has been achieved.  For the debatable issues, nonspecialists need a clear exposition of the key arguments and evidence so they can decide for themselves. 

I like learning about theology...especially as it brings the historical/ geographical and cultural perspective into context, because I am not so knowledgeable about the way people lived back in Jesus' day and region.

The thing is...the Bible was written for regular people, when people lived and shared the good news communally. The academics and authorities of days long past, who held power and had authority, asserted that power and authority by sometimes distorting the gospels as a means of control, which could have distorted our view over time.

Most of biblical scholarship focuses on the objectives facts of biblical languages, history, culture, and manuscripts, and so, is not very controversial.  Controveries evolve when these objective facts are integrated into theories

When it comes down to it" Love God and Love your Neighbour...the law and the prophets hangs on these", can be tested against all the theories, even our own...the theories are only of consequence if they defy those principles...this is why it's also interesting to me to hear the theories.

The risk of not employing the tools of scholarship to understand the language and context of scripture are quite evident here. Michae1's reading of revelation consists largely of reading the book and trying to shoehorn current events into it rather than studying the historical and social context of the book and drawing meaning from seeing the imagery in context. In short, you can make scripture say anything but if you recognize that it was written by human beings in a particular historical and social context, a lot of possible meanings, including many of the extreme ones, begin to drop away. For instance, if you know that a particular image had a particular meaning in the culture in which the story is written, then you can focus on how that meaning fits the passage and that can then help inform your own reading of passage. Otherwise, you just have an image that you can read however you like.

The Beast of Revelation is a good one, as "biblical prophets" in each generation manage to find someone in their generation who fits the bill. Sometimes they change their reading of the image to suit changing conditions. However, if you understand that it was written during a period of persecution (Domitian's reign, IIRC) and who was doing the persecuting and why and how that persecution affected the writer of Revelation, then you can start with the notion that the beast isn't a particular someone contemporary to you, but a larger symbol of the forces that seek to oppress the followers of Christ in every generation. Or something like that. I'm talking through my hat a bit here to illustrate why I think scholarship is necessary to understanding  scripture.

Mendalla

I think you make a good point Mendalla, when bringing up Revelations. Though,  I'm sure every civilization who had access the the Bible going through upheaval and tribulation...every age that has experienced higher periods of natural disaster could relate Im sure...which does make it relevant...and we can see the relevance in it today in the metaphor. At least I can. However, applying and preaching owns' specific predictions about it's details...applying it to particular people or places in the world now, is dangerous. People are vulnerable in the world right now, and pumping out fear, trying to assert that fear over others, only exacerbates or spreads hate...doesn't bring about love...it doesn't bring about the best in people.

This is straying from the thread, but I believe that if we don't  focus on and spread more love...one of these days, one of these predictions may come true...and we will have wasted time spreading fear or living in fear.

Berserk,

I apologise for my reckless, impulsive response to your views on biblical scholarship.

I don't believe I sinned - but I do feel I fell short of the mark.

By way of explanation (but not excuse) I wish to explain that more and more on my faith journey scholarship of the Bible has less significance than spiritual experience.

Spiritual experience is first hand knowledge - whereas scholarship is second hand knowledge.

I'm moving towards seeing all religions as an expression of the experience of a greater force at work. That's it.

Folks have had spiritual experiences before Christianity, during the time of Jesus, and since.

But we humans demand an explanation - we don't like uncertainty.

So, even though this experience has many of the same qualities, we feel compelled to tell a story.

The Christian story is told in the Bible, Islam in the Koran etc............

I'm at present studying Australian indigenous religions (the Dreaming) as I'm curious to see how they interpret their belief in "The More".

Further scholarship that interests me is reading William James on religious experiences - and also process theology which seems to support both the idea that we are all connected in relationship with each other and "God". (which is the noun we choose to use and,as everyone in the west knows, we must have a noun to describe a thing or person!)

So, good luck with your biblical scholarship Berserk, may it fulfil you in your spiritual journey.

We're just on different paths - but hopefully we'll reach the same destination.

Here is a FREE on line video course, "New Testament History and Literature" taught by Yale professor Dale B Martin.  I went thru the entire series, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.  He brings a whole new perspective to biblical texts.

http://academicearth.org/courses/new-testament-history-and-literature

This and Mendell's post affirm the need for scholarship - it does challenge pre conceived notions and makes deeper the insights we have, by testing them in a broader context - my opinion must be tested in a community of diverse voices otherwise it is noise, only solipsistic.

The go back to the point on Paul, there was a time where he was discounted but scholarship showed how radical and inclusive he was. Crossan and Borg have a very informative book on him.

By the way, Borg may write popular books but he is scholar in the same class as others in the historical Jesus group - many different cuts in that group and when at the society for biblical studies they sit in the same gatherings. My formation was Otto Betz , James Robinson and Burton Mack, each different in approaches but all informed by years of studies.

I want to nuance this "

At best, scholarship when it comes to religion, is highly questionable. "

This is not true for like science there are peer reviewed contexts, yes there are debates, and disagreements about outcomes of scholarship, but real scholars must take into consideration the ideas of those they disagree with, and offer a better theory - this is true in science as well, it is the test of a theory that is crucial.

In theological scholarship there are givens that must be addressed - for example what are the different theories of atonement and when did they emerge and what was the context?  Thus one can see there are several and the use the background differently given philosophical and cultural issues.  Given that we choice the one that works and has a history that it makes sense of the material that gave rise to it.

Now of course there are some you speak of revelation as the test but  even revelation has a history and is a theory.  All knowledge is mediated there is no 'pure' experience that is without interpretation.  Interpretation has a history and is a theory.

It's true that we interpret our experiences ( not just religious/spiritual experiences - all experiences).

But the interpretation not only follows - but depends - on the initial experience.

To me, the experience itself is the key, not the explanation.

The Australian indigenous people had no written language - no Bible to study and interpret - yet they too, had a belief in an unseen power. 

It seems we humans are stuck with the need for an explanation - a story.

We're also uncomfortable with uncertainty and not understanding - we must know.

Pan, the reason I'm interested in process theology is that it's explanations mirror my experience.

I do feel an unseen force luring me on in life and I also feel that I'm not alone - but that's all I understand.

Understanding an interpretation of what I'm experiencing is mildly interesting - but it is the experience, and not the explanation or interpretation that is central to me.

As regards interpretation itself - it's occurred to me that perhaps all religion and spiritual experience are based on the same experience - namely that there's "something more" an unseen force beyond our human experience.

From there, due to our different cultural, education, historical contexts etc. we create different stories or interpretations.

If this is so, isn't the experience what counts?

Answer - Yes for me, but no for you, and I suspect, most folks!

No, because the interpretation that we give, whether it's individual or cultural, determines how that experience affects our actions, our relationships, even future experiences. Experience is not pure. It is always mediated (interpreted) in the light of other experiences.

Scholarship isn't definitive, but it is a mediated forum where interpretations can be discussed, dissected, and examined for their implications. Access to this scholarship can then help us in examining and understanding our own interpretations.

EDIT: Sigh. Should have read the posts above Pilgrims' Progress. Pan already said most of this. M.

Mendalla

Like Mendalla I do begin with experience and as he says it is not 'pure' - it demands interpretation - in a non dualistic way experience and reflection go together, you cannot have one without the other.  Yes PP process valued up the experience you had, and made it usable to guide you, and without it you would have reflected the experience in the old ideas and a hunch it would have died in the old religious ideas, to make it vivid you needed a new lens.

This is not to deny experience ( feeling) comes first but that it comes mediated by how we receive it.  It is a relationship of thinking and feeling, not one or the other but both.  And thinking and feeling come mediated - now  a statement that appears to be absolute but only because of ideas we have received - there is no unmediated experience.

By the way if the lure of God is prior and primary, it is shaped by a history- So other religions and ideas shape the experience in unique ways.  That shaping gives us different understandings, so Buddhism tells us something that only Buddhism can, and to understand that same experience means we have to experience it through Buddhist eyes ( lens), and we can add it to our Christian lens.  There is a difference and it matters.

Written language is not different in kind from unwritten language, so those groups who don't have a written language have reflective system to make vivid an experience. It is called story.  And written language also depend on  a story ( or stories)

I still stand by this.............

I agree we interpret our experiences (it's what we humans do!) - but because our explanations, interpretations, stories differ - to me the intriguing factor is the initial experience.

Yes - you are right about the intriguing factor of the initial aim - and at the same time we know it contextually which depends on ideas formed over history - stories, and that is why stories are unique and different and they never give us the fullness of the initial aim.

Pan,

That's why my interest in process theology - it gives a good explanation (interpretation) of that initial aim.

I've no wish for this to sound offensive, but do you retain a measure of uncertainty regarding process theology? 

I note you often say, "Whitehead says...." as if there's nothing else to be considered - end of story.

Is it possible to have a scholastic understanding of process theology - and yet still retain enough uncertainty to say when it comes to faith "I don't know if this is a correct interpretation, but it best accords with my personal experience of faith? I am content to live with the mystery and the uncertainty."

Personally, I could never move beyond that point. Uncertainty, like change, is integral to life, IMO.

Rev John:

Thanks for the welcomed post!

i have thought  of a thousand question-filled posts --

All concerning that snarky 25 year old Frenchie Jean Cavin,and his egoism to think anyone would pay attention to his philosophic efforts -- a mere tad with his...Institutes.

(Before you throw something)

If I started a thread labled TIP-TOEING THROUGH THE TULIP

do you think you would joini in  

letter by letter (question mark) My keyboard no longer has em or other punctuation   marks

I mean just the letter t

comes with a bag of questions starting with reprobation

more after I get a new keyboard

PP uncertainty is not part of my thought but process reminds us that  we need to continue to work on better explanations - one can build and go beyond whitehead - are there more beautiful explanations - built on a foundation.

Yes mystery is part of the theory but it is more than a personal feeling while that is part of the experience - my cut must be tested and revised, just as experience grows and changes - it is a process not a fixed idea -  However there are points of satisfaction where one says yes this works, yes for now but there is satisfaction with the answer and the answer is open enough for more information to slide in.

Been there, did that.

Totally agree.

(The amount of things like tate offered by universities, and TED, et cetera ,,,all without charge,,,and available around the world --- gettin there)

happy happy joy joy

ÈéÉÈè;::   È:¨¨¨¨ Ç―