First
and foremost Mackan, you wrote suggesting my response to your last comment
reflected certain disrespect. If you see me as disrespectful I apologize. It's
certainly not my intention.
As
I pointed out earlier, I have the utmost respect for you. But I have no respect
for the way in which you interpret the Bible. It is quite impossible to
translate a text from one language to another without losing some meanings and
adding some new ones. If one reads the Bible with this as the premise, one cannot
be certain of anything. There are alternative ways of translating every single
verse in the Bible, and there is not a single expression in the Bible that one
cannot assert as having a slightly different connotation in the original (foundational)
text.
It
may be a completely accurate proposition. However, the reason that many leading
Bible translations, both Swedish and international, stand (hold to the word) on
homosexuality, is that the linguists who translated the Bible consider that it
is clearly the most reasonable interpretation. And why should one try to find
less reasonable interpretations when there are more reasonable alternatives.
In
the Swedish Bible 2000 the word homosexuality isn’t found. Instead they have
chosen to translate it with the words, "men who ‘sleep’ with other
men" (I Corinthians 6:9) and "men laying with men" (I Timothy
1:10). Even if one does not use the word homosexuality, they surely say the
same thing but with different words.
I
can, of course, be totally wrong, but I get the impression every time I read
those bible interpretations that their interpretation stems from (builds) from
what they feel the Bible ought to say, and trying to find justification for the
position to make the message of the Bible a little more politically correct.
Incidentally,
I still have respect for you and wish you every blessing in your important
mission to proclaim the Word.
Peter
Baronowsky, Lt.
Regional Commander
SA Latvia
Translation: Sven Ljungholm
6 comments:
The GLBTQ debate continues to be the single most controversial issue drawing visitors to the FSAOF blog. And not unexpectedly, both Mackan and Patrik (Olterman) shared a few says ago that their blogs saw a similar upsurge when the GLBTQ initials were used. Clearly then, it's an issue(s) that speak to a great many people. Too bad then that they don't speak back!
Could it be that the issue is too confusing, too sensitive, too unfamiliar or too controversial and one prefers that others duke it out? In my view, that's why the issue remains one of the most divisive in the chuch today.
There is no reason why the thinking Christian person must choose between the traditional and contemporary reading. Humble reflection and the willingness to learn from the wise men of other centuries coupled with the urgency to live in the present is the challenge the contemporary Christian (salvationist) must engage in. There is no inherent conflict between learning from our past and living a thinking life in the present. There is no demand that you 'choose' and limit your choices today!
The truth can be found in the Christian faith and your engaging in the debate, and sharing your voice will help us root it out.
Blessings, sven
Baronowsky said something to the effect that Bible interpretations are made that stem from the need to make the Bible say what we want it to say. I would aruge that goes both ways. People cherry-pick verses so support their position. Their position informs how they will interpret scripture.
I think the real problem in this issue of homosexuality is really about how one views the Bible in regards to inerrancy, inspiration, and appropriate interpretion. It is possible to take the Bible seriously without taking it literally.
It is of interest to me that alongside the Hebrew Scriptures, Jewish scholars have a midrash/commmentary that extensively delves into the nuances, turns of phrases and interpetions of scripture. Alternate interprations are compared and discussed and are considered valid. I think that we are not meant to have the absolute last word- that part of our faith journey is struggling and wrestling with God's word, allowing it to take root in us, to know that we don't have to have all the answers. We're human, we can't. I am the type of person that likes things to be all tied up, to have all the answers- and i am learning that it is okay for there to be doubts, questions, debate ambiguity. That's part of loving God with my mind. Struggling to allow Scripture to speak, to take root in my heart and to apply to my life. The argument for correct doctrine is usually a championing of one person's personal interpretion being the "right" on or what God meant. So all other opinions become heretical. The thing is we can't speak for God. And when someone disagrees with our interpretion of Scripture; there is a trap of thinking that they are disagreeing with God.
In the end, for me at least, its not so much about "correct" or right doctrine as it is about having a right heart before God that prompts us to right action and living. The proof of our Christian life is not right doctrine- it is a right heart. They will know we are Christians by our love- one for another (even for Christians we disagree with).
Blessings
Tina Paddock
Former
Canada and Bermuda
I think that some doctrine can make or break us. To believe that there are several ways to eternal life when Jesus stated that He was the Way is vital to our Christian life including His Diety. There are many other doctrines that are minor and that have nothing to do with our salvation. Yes, love is vital. Without it we have not seen God.
USA Former
Dear Canadian Mom Tina...
WOW! You pinned the tail right on the donkey girlfriend. What was that last line in the movie "Doubt" that the faithful Sister Meryl Streep tearfully confessed to? "I'm full of doubt!"
We sometimes miss it in our Salvation Army faith tradition but if the truth be known confessed to doubt is a sign of true faith whereas 100% certainty is actually a facade for a lack of faith. If I remember correctly there was even a quote to that effect by the great theologian Paul Tillich several decades ago.
The only thing I'm 100% sure about anymore in these discussions, is the full humanity of and thus the need for inclusion of GLBT people into our faith communities in the same way that Jesus included the "outcasts" of his day. The rest I leave in the hands of God who showers us with (as the J. B. Phillips translation of the Gospel of John so aptly puts it) grace upon grace!
God Bless TSA and everyone on this site who has contributed to these discussions with their various insights.
Daryl Lach
USA Central
"You Must Go Home by the Way of the Cross, To Stand with Jesus in the Morning!"
Tina (Canadianmom), my thanks as well. "I think the real problem in this issue of homosexuality is really about how one views the Bible in regards to inerrancy, inspiration, and appropriate interpretion. It is possible to take the Bible seriously without taking it literally." If I could only open the hearts of a few congregants to see this.
Active
Canada
If your eye offends you,pluck it out. A true literalist would have to pluck out their eye if they sinned with their sense of sight. Who is THAT literal. Honestly I see a mixed bag among liberal and conservative interpretation.I do not put blame as being inconsistent if you compare scripture with scripture and a complete study of where , when , and what is observed. Also study of Hebrew and Greek words is important as well as comparing what they mean in perhaps two different cultures or time frames.Tradition is another study that should be considered as well as comparing the same topic (not always the same word such as homosexual)in other situations.
I have seen a level of many viewpoints in recent months. No one should be made to be ridiculed or shunned because of their respective opinions , nor should there be bashing against individuals that are involved with certain practices. The problem arises among the pros and cons as to agree what the bashing includes.
That and the interpretation of scripture and method is where several differ in various degrees.
USA Former
Post a Comment