This essay makes the case that liberalism has been an inherent part of Anglicanism from its inception. It furthermore argues that Anglican teaching occurred in advance of changes to society that were later termed “liberal,” not the other way around. Excerpt below: “Anglican liberals like Anglican conservatives assumed that the Enlightenment critique of religion had been decisively refuted by Bishop Butler whose works were recommended reading for ordinands for two hundred years. Moreover on reading the works of nineteenth century Broadchurchmen and twentieth century modernists it becomes clear that their liberalism did not come from any source other than their studies of the Bible and the Church Fathers.” Read the whole thing: https://anglicanism.org/liberal-anglicanism
Yes, good. But the very next sentence... ...is a non sequitur! The author makes an unwarranted leap, and he bases it upon a statement by Butler which was an equally-unwarranted leap. The better conclusion would be that we must continue to evaluate what was written in light of the context and world view of the writers, no matter what century we live in or how different our world view might have become since then. Otherwise, we alter the original context and thereby rewrite the scripture to suit ourselves.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Understanding scripture without the historical, political and cultural context that gave rise to it is to take it out of context. The saying is, A Text Out Of Context Is A Con.
I think the original aphorism was "A text out of context is a pretext" but your version is beter for those of us that might not fully understand exactly what a pretext is. which is an ostensible motive or reason , put forward as an excuse or to conceal the true one. Outward show. .
To go no further than this is to treat the biblical text as a mere museum piece, with no applicability to our own time and circumstances. It is precisely this sort of exegetical inertia that the liberal tradition of theology, so well exemplified by the history of Anglicanism, has always sought to avoid.
With respect, I don't see any logic behind this statement. Interpreting the words of the Bible (and the recorded words of Jesus) in light of the original, intended meaning (within the cultural setting of that time) serves to preserve those words as they should be preserved, so that we may apply the lessons contained therein to our own lives with maximal accuracy. The applicability to our lives and circumstances still exists, and the reader avoids the errors that can creep in by reinterpreting those words and messages in a way which was never intended. The truths contained in the Bible, truths which God wishes to impart to us, are thereby kept intact. Far from making the text "a mere museum piece," this methodology enhances the Bible's relevance to us today by maintaining the original message and the intent (which is no less than God's!) behind it, and keeping it from becoming perverted (twisted) by the machinations of fallible man's rationalizations and the influences of changing cultures. The Bible's message is not subject to change, even though times have changed.
But would this not severely restrict the freedom to read the text of scripture under the influence of the Holy Spirit, as a 'living text', (without of course descending to crude bibliomancy), and then constrain us to only read it as a 'dead letter', unable to speak to us in our own generation on issues of relevance, specifically to our own generation? The Bible is certainly regarded by many believers as more than a mere recording of past events and attitudes to human issues, written by people with a particular world view, set in various particular temporal and geograpical settings, in the past? .
In a sense, it is a bit like how you interpret the Constitution. Your Supreme Court and our High Court have both regularly interpreted our respective Constitutions in ways that could not have been the intended purpose when the Constitution was drafted. This of course is effectively unconstitutional, because it changes the Constitution without changing the words. In Australia, we need a referendum to change the words of the Constitution, and it has to be passed by a majority of people, and by a majority of people in a majority of states. On the other hand, to change the meaning of the Constitution you just need the relevant court. This is why we need great skill on the part of translation committees. Language and the ways we use language change. We used to be quite happy with suggestions that God and Justice were indifferent, whereas, by today's standard use of language, we know that the meaning is impartial. Once to say that the congregation was gay meant something quite different to what those words might be taken to mean today. So what I am trying to say it is not just the times that have changed, it is also the cultural filters and the language by which we apprehend meaning has changed as well.
No, not at all. I see no reason why this would be so. Stop and think for a minute. In all the posts I've made on this forum, have any of them given the impression that I view the Bible as a 'dead letter' and 'unable to speak to us on issues of relevance'? Quite the opposite! Yet I view as vital the need to avoid re-interpreting scripture in light of modern culture. These two positions are completely harmonious; there is no conflict of logic. Yes, of course. In fact, many believers take Hebrews 4:12 to imply that God the Son (who is alive and powerful) speaks to us through the written word by the Spirit, making the written word 'come alive' to us with personal relevance and import for our own daily lives. The Bible has immediate relevancy to each one of us, every day. (Of course, Jesus is the real 'word of God' referred to in this passage.) Allow me the liberty of an illustration from a work of fiction. In "The Lord of the Rings," Gandalf & company arrive at the entrance to the abandoned dwarf mines of Moria. Gandalf reads the statement above the locked doorway, "Speak friend and enter." Gandalf spends hours speaking various magical commands that he imagines a friend of dwarves might say, but nothing works. He racks his brain for words and phrases that might gain them access, but no no avail. After he's long since run out of ideas, someone asks a question to the effect of, what's the old dwarvish word for 'friend'? Gandalf replies, "Mellon," and the door cracks open. In the days of Durin, any friendly visitor to Moria would have known the intent of the writing: say the word 'friend' in the appropriate language, and the door will open; but time and changing culture obscured this meaning. What is the principle behind this story? (Remember that Tolkien was a Christian who interwove Christian principles throughout.) It is this: the key to understanding what a writing means is to apply the meaning which the original writer intended, not to reinterpret the words with 'new knowledge' or contemporary ideas.
Yes, quite so. Yes, quite so. Of course, this is not a process of reinterpretation but of restoration.
Talk of "intent" is begging the question. A text means whatever the effect of its correct interpretation is. Find out what the latter is and you will know what the intent was. And if we find that the text of a particular passage has no domain of applicability, then it is obsolete unless we are allowed to seek a deeper meaning therein. We just encountered a real world example of this in the Feast of the Ascension, the biblical source of which assumed the three-tiered universe of premodern cosmography. Today we know that heaven isn't literally "up there in the sky," but the ancients thought it was. A refusal to adapt the message in such instances to our modern understanding leaves such stories in the realm of mere mythology, with all the cognitive dissonance that would entail, but for many Christians, that's simply not an acceptable option.
I was thinking primarily of the account given in Acts 1: When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. While he was going and they were gazing up toward heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood by them. They said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”
I see. I thought maybe you were pulling something from a Psalm. Well then, the idea of a three-tiered cosmology does not really come into play in this passage in Acts. The disciples visually watched Jesus ascend into the sky until a cloud hid Him from their view. The angels said that Jesus would return in the same way. The word "heaven" used here by the translators stands in for a Greek word that more literally indicates the sky, although certainly the manner of Jesus' ascension could have led the disciples to reasonably assume that God's abode was somewhere above them. Yet none of this proves the allegation that a literal interpretation necessitates either a falsehood or a myth. Interpreting the passage literally, they saw Jesus ascend into the air of the sky and they were told that Jesus' Second Advent would have him descend visibly from the sky; this ties harmoniously with Rev. 1:7 which says, Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.
Another example could be the teaching of St Paul in Romans, on 'believers' and the eating of meat that has been sacrificed to idols. This was once a real problem when Paul wrote the advice. Nowadays, in any first world context, it is extraneous, almost irrelevant advice, unless it can now be interpreted as illustrating a principle which can be applied also to other disputes between believers on entirely other matters than actual meat that has been sacrificed and offered to idols. .
Ah, but don't you see? You still interpret the passage in light of the original meaning and intent of that era; you recognize that such a practice existed in those days. If you were to reinterpret it in accord with today's western society, you might conclude that it related to some fiction or parable or something. Instead, you see counsel given about a practice that has fallen out of use in our western society. It should be noted, however, that people in Thailand (and perhaps other parts of the world, but of Thailand I know for sure) still set out food sacrifices in front of idols, so the counsel given in this passage actually is still relevant today... only, not to you or I.
That indeed was partly the point I was making. That some things we read in The Bible are relevant to different people in different ways. Some things we may read in the Bible are not addressed to everybody in every generation as edicts from God designed to control their behaviour, and yet some others ARE. Scripture is inspired enough to be its own arbiter of who it is speaking to, itself, without any help or directing from us readers of it. The WORD often addressed individuals specifically, not intending what he said to be of general relevance to all and sundry. Jesus was The Word of God, with a capital 'W'. Scripture, if it is indeed also the word of God would obviously have the same charateristics as did Jesus in its conversations with human beings, through the mediation of The Holy Spirit. .
I'm saying I believe the written record. Jesus ascended into the air until He was hidden from sight, and from there we don't know the exact details. Did He dematerialize? Quite possibly, but not necessarily. However, we do know that He now resides at the Father's right hand (in the Father's "house", as it were, since that is the terminology Jesus used (John 14:2). I am sure that He departed in this manner for a good reason; perhaps the disciples would have been 'freaked out' if He'd dematerialized before their eyes. Of course, if someone doesn't believe the veracity or accuracy of the recorded account, they will likely reach some other conclusion. Do you believe it?