All comments

Guerrilla Worship - Liverpool Flash Mob

The world has moved on.: Re: Guerrilla Worship -... (1 day ago)

Why YOU Should Plant a Church

The world has moved on.: Re: Why YOU Should Plant a... (1 day ago)

Contradictions in the Gospels: Problems or Opportunities?

Jacob: Re: Contradictions in the... (4 days ago)
Jacob: Re: Contradictions in the... (5 days ago)
peter wilkinson: Re: Contradictions in the... (5 days ago)

Day One: A Sir Toby's Creation Myth

john doyle: Re: Day One: A Sir Toby's... (5 days ago)

A Generous Orthdoxy - Brian McLaren

john doyle: Re: A Generous Orthdoxy - Brian... (5 days ago)

The Lost World of Genesis One - John H. Walton

john doyle: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (5 days ago)
peter wilkinson: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (5 days ago)
john doyle: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (6 days ago)
Syndicate content

Meta-theology

Meta-theology

A very interesting article. With regard to the idea that we should view the bible as a series of historical artefacts. Would you agree that taking this approach leads you to the conclusion that the books of the bible are really no more or less authoritative than, say, Pilgrim’s Progress (still on my list of books to read I’m afraid)?

It strikes me that recognizing the context and history of the bible brings us perilously close to seeing through the mystic that surrounds it. The Bible would clearly still have value as an historical account, and the bits that were written by those who knew Jesus would also have plenty of clout. But some of the books are only really made special by the fact that at one time or another they were endorsed by the religious authorities at the time, a fact which resulted in their inclusion in what we now know as The Bible.

Can The Bible really claim to be anything more than useful? Years from now could a theologian in the emerging church actually have a realistic hope of contradicting Paul without getting shot down in flames? If so, then we’re into interesting territory because theology itself (in the Christian context), is a science based on the study of the scriptures. Christianity has always needed some sort of fixed point on which to anchor its theology. Whether its the Pope, or the bible, or something else, our theology has always been defined by the non-negotiable. It the emerging church’s only rock is to be a trust in the authority of God (which, I would conjecture, would be God’s preference) then theology itself becomes a tricky business. The number of truths that our theology could insist upon would be severely reduced, and morality would be a much more personal affair. Instead, we would need a set of guidelines about how to approach the formation of your own personal theology. A meta-theology if you will.

It’s possible, of course, that I’m arriving late on this one, and that everyone reading this will think I’m stating the obvious. Apologies if that is the case, but I’d still appreciate you thoughts.

Strange but true: the irrelevance of Scripture for the church today By: Andrew (5 replies) 18 November, 2003 - 12:05