Statement on Social justice
Sep. 10th, 2018 07:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
yrieithyddSo a bunch of SBC men have got together to post a statement on Social Justice which manages to repudiate racism but entrenches complimentarianism and opposition to equal marriage in a series of 14 statements of affirmation and denial.
At one level it is vaguely useful in setting out some of the assumptions behind the disagreements, although I think there are many still unpicked, but at another it really isn't because it's another statement whereby they claim to be the only ones who are right.
I had assorted thoughts when reading it and would like to unpick them in more detail so I think tackling each in turn is the way to do this.
So affirmation/Denial 1:
Breathed out struck me first - probably because inspired is breathing in. The verse behind this (2 Tim 3:16) has God-breathed theopnustos, with no preposition if I recall correctly.
Second - I now react strongly to male pronouns for God - there's probably a separate blog post to be written about the illogic I've seen about male pronouns embracing the female when talking about humans (so I have to put up with generic he to include me) but then having to put up with male pronouns for God because that is "what he uses about himself in the Bible".
Third - we start not with the Trinity but with the Bible. Writing this I'm struck by the lack of the term "revelation". To me, the Bible is the record of God's revelation of Godself to humanity and our complete inability to grasp what that means and to mess up and turn away. Whilst I'm happy to proclaim after a reading from Scripture "This is the word of the Lord" (even if some passages make me wonder), to me the primary meaning of the Word of God is Jesus (John 1). So to me, the final sentence of the affirmation majorly problematic. Ethical and truth claims come back to what Jesus does, which is revealed in scripture, but he is beyond scripture.
Fourth - the denial sets up a false dichotomy between clear understanding based on scripture and post-modern ideologies. Grappling with scripture is complex - it was written in Hebrew and Greek, over a long period of time and has been transmitted and translated through an even longer period. One of my issues with talking about infallibility and/or inerrancy is that even if scripture (rather than God) is infallible or inerrant, it is always read by fallible errant humans and like those in ancient Israel we mess up in our reading of it. Recongising this is not downplaying scriptural authority, but is proper humility before the text. Using techniques and understandings from our culture can be part of how we understand the text better.
Fifthly, my feminism and intersectionality is based in my reading of scripture not contrary to it. Texts such as Galations 3:28 (In Christ there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female), stories such as that of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch and the question of circumcision (through Acts and in Galations) form my understand of God's inclusivity and recognition of the way in which we fallible humans have sinned in excluding people from God's plan and exploiting and oppressing them. The party of the circumcision had scripture on their side, but Paul and Peter counter it by pointing to what the Holy Spirit is doing in Gentile believers. Hearing the voices of those we have oppressed is important.
Next up: Imago Dei
At one level it is vaguely useful in setting out some of the assumptions behind the disagreements, although I think there are many still unpicked, but at another it really isn't because it's another statement whereby they claim to be the only ones who are right.
I had assorted thoughts when reading it and would like to unpick them in more detail so I think tackling each in turn is the way to do this.
So affirmation/Denial 1:
Scripture
WE AFFIRM that the Bible is God’s Word, breathed out by him. It is inerrant, infallible, and the final authority for determining what is true (what we must believe) and what is right (how we must live). All truth claims and ethical standards must be tested by God’s final Word, which is Scripture alone.
WE DENY that Christian belief, character, or conduct can be dictated by any other authority, and we deny that the postmodern ideologies derived from intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theory are consistent with biblical teaching. We further deny that competency to teach on any biblical issue comes from any qualification for spiritual people other than clear understanding and simple communication of what is revealed in Scripture.
SCRIPTURE: GENESIS 2:18-25; PSALM 19:7-10; 1 CORINTHIANS 2:14-15; EPHESIANS 5:22-33; 2 TIMOTHY 3:16-4:5; HEBREWS 4:12; 13:4; 1 PETER 1:25; 2 PETER 1:19-21
Breathed out struck me first - probably because inspired is breathing in. The verse behind this (2 Tim 3:16) has God-breathed theopnustos, with no preposition if I recall correctly.
Second - I now react strongly to male pronouns for God - there's probably a separate blog post to be written about the illogic I've seen about male pronouns embracing the female when talking about humans (so I have to put up with generic he to include me) but then having to put up with male pronouns for God because that is "what he uses about himself in the Bible".
Third - we start not with the Trinity but with the Bible. Writing this I'm struck by the lack of the term "revelation". To me, the Bible is the record of God's revelation of Godself to humanity and our complete inability to grasp what that means and to mess up and turn away. Whilst I'm happy to proclaim after a reading from Scripture "This is the word of the Lord" (even if some passages make me wonder), to me the primary meaning of the Word of God is Jesus (John 1). So to me, the final sentence of the affirmation majorly problematic. Ethical and truth claims come back to what Jesus does, which is revealed in scripture, but he is beyond scripture.
Fourth - the denial sets up a false dichotomy between clear understanding based on scripture and post-modern ideologies. Grappling with scripture is complex - it was written in Hebrew and Greek, over a long period of time and has been transmitted and translated through an even longer period. One of my issues with talking about infallibility and/or inerrancy is that even if scripture (rather than God) is infallible or inerrant, it is always read by fallible errant humans and like those in ancient Israel we mess up in our reading of it. Recongising this is not downplaying scriptural authority, but is proper humility before the text. Using techniques and understandings from our culture can be part of how we understand the text better.
Fifthly, my feminism and intersectionality is based in my reading of scripture not contrary to it. Texts such as Galations 3:28 (In Christ there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female), stories such as that of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch and the question of circumcision (through Acts and in Galations) form my understand of God's inclusivity and recognition of the way in which we fallible humans have sinned in excluding people from God's plan and exploiting and oppressing them. The party of the circumcision had scripture on their side, but Paul and Peter counter it by pointing to what the Holy Spirit is doing in Gentile believers. Hearing the voices of those we have oppressed is important.
Next up: Imago Dei
