Comments on: Ever Interpreting… http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/07/27/ever-interpreting/ Telling the story of the story-bound God Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:46:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: mark begemann http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/07/27/ever-interpreting/#comment-4199 mark begemann Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:48:23 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=1004#comment-4199 i don't insist. but i don't know what approach to take with people that do. they make a good argument and it's hard to defeat on their terms. so, yeah, maybe just say that these <i>are</i> boundary markers and are more faithful to scripture than setting markers based on secondary deductions of (potentially bad) propositional logic. thx! i don’t insist. but i don’t know what approach to take with people that do. they make a good argument and it’s hard to defeat on their terms. so, yeah, maybe just say that these are boundary markers and are more faithful to scripture than setting markers based on secondary deductions of (potentially bad) propositional logic. thx!

]]> By: Bill http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/07/27/ever-interpreting/#comment-4188 Bill Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:00:41 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=1004#comment-4188 Okay, the advent of the kingdom, especially Cross/Resurrection. Got it. But "the kingdom" including what-all, more precisely? Okay, the advent of the kingdom, especially Cross/Resurrection. Got it.

But “the kingdom” including what-all, more precisely?

]]> By: J. R. Daniel Kirk http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/07/27/ever-interpreting/#comment-4186 J. R. Daniel Kirk Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:54:58 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=1004#comment-4186 Perhaps more focally: the advent of the kingdom of God, especially through Jesus' death and resurrection. Perhaps more focally: the advent of the kingdom of God, especially through Jesus’ death and resurrection.

]]> By: Bill http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/07/27/ever-interpreting/#comment-4185 Bill Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:47:43 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=1004#comment-4185 forgot the box thingy forgot the box thingy

]]> By: Bill http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/07/27/ever-interpreting/#comment-4184 Bill Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:47:10 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=1004#comment-4184 "so important that we continually recapture the narrative dynamic of our defining Christian story, and continually insist that it is the story itself that gives us our identity" Amen and amen. So, Daniel, what is that story? Is it that central thread of Christ's redemption & glorification, which we can safely extract from the NT (with the OT as vital background). Or is it the entire NT itself? If the latter, how much reconstruction is acceptable/necessary? If the former, then how much of what gets left out can we safely ignore? To what extent is "our story" only that which we make it? “so important that we continually recapture the narrative dynamic of our defining Christian story, and continually insist that it is the story itself that gives us our identity”

Amen and amen. So, Daniel, what is that story?

Is it that central thread of Christ’s redemption & glorification, which we can safely extract from the NT (with the OT as vital background). Or is it the entire NT itself? If the latter, how much reconstruction is acceptable/necessary? If the former, then how much of what gets left out can we safely ignore?

To what extent is “our story” only that which we make it?

]]> By: J. R. Daniel Kirk http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/07/27/ever-interpreting/#comment-4171 J. R. Daniel Kirk Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:55:16 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=1004#comment-4171 Similar to what I say to GC below, I'd say that I'm not drawing a boundary but rather articulating a way of performing. That, in fact, drawing a box is one way of performing, but that it's a less faithful performance based on how Jesus, Paul, etc. showed us what it means to embody the story of God. But if you still insist that I've set a boundary marker, then fine--and I'm right and I've beaten the boundary-makers at their own game and I hereby open the boundary and invite everyone to cross it together. :) Or, I need to take a nap. Similar to what I say to GC below, I’d say that I’m not drawing a boundary but rather articulating a way of performing. That, in fact, drawing a box is one way of performing, but that it’s a less faithful performance based on how Jesus, Paul, etc. showed us what it means to embody the story of God.

But if you still insist that I’ve set a boundary marker, then fine–and I’m right and I’ve beaten the boundary-makers at their own game and I hereby open the boundary and invite everyone to cross it together. :) Or, I need to take a nap.

]]> By: J. R. Daniel Kirk http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/07/27/ever-interpreting/#comment-4170 J. R. Daniel Kirk Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:52:58 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=1004#comment-4170 GC: I'm not sure I drew a line in the sand. I indicated that a certain way of approaching the question wasn't compelling. I've argued that homosexuality is incongruous with the narrative that begins with the creation of male and female; but also listen to hear if a more inclusive position might end up being more in step with the story than I had previously given it credit for being. There are varying degrees of faithful storying and unfaithful storying. There is still "right and wrong," I'm just arguing that our knowledge and understanding unfold in a more dynamic category than lists of truths and falsehoods. GC: I’m not sure I drew a line in the sand. I indicated that a certain way of approaching the question wasn’t compelling. I’ve argued that homosexuality is incongruous with the narrative that begins with the creation of male and female; but also listen to hear if a more inclusive position might end up being more in step with the story than I had previously given it credit for being. There are varying degrees of faithful storying and unfaithful storying. There is still “right and wrong,” I’m just arguing that our knowledge and understanding unfold in a more dynamic category than lists of truths and falsehoods.

]]> By: GC http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/07/27/ever-interpreting/#comment-4168 GC Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:28:00 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=1004#comment-4168 I agree that theological gate-keeping can become a sinful obsession that takes our eyes off our mission and derails our witness. I'm probably one who needs to repent of that. However, I wouldn't use the argument that no truths are timeless. Do you really believe that? I'm pretty sure that "God is good" is a safe statement for all time. Sooner or later we have to draw lines in the sand (if we are to have any identity at all). You did it yourself with your recent post about homosexuality. The alternative is a neverending post-modern "conversation" that never reaches any helpful conclusions. I agree that theological gate-keeping can become a sinful obsession that takes our eyes off our mission and derails our witness. I’m probably one who needs to repent of that.

However, I wouldn’t use the argument that no truths are timeless. Do you really believe that? I’m pretty sure that “God is good” is a safe statement for all time.

Sooner or later we have to draw lines in the sand (if we are to have any identity at all). You did it yourself with your recent post about homosexuality. The alternative is a neverending post-modern “conversation” that never reaches any helpful conclusions.

]]> By: mark begemann http://www.jrdkirk.com/2010/07/27/ever-interpreting/#comment-4165 mark begemann Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:01:10 +0000 http://www.jrdkirk.com/?p=1004#comment-4165 i agree with the general emphasis of your post (nicely put, by the way) but how do you counter the argument that you have just "defined" or set boundary markers, made a doctrinal statement, etc. about storytelling? i agree with the general emphasis of your post (nicely put, by the way) but how do you counter the argument that you have just “defined” or set boundary markers, made a doctrinal statement, etc. about storytelling?

]]>