Is this a bad thing? Some argue that Christ was not born of a virgin. Others say that He was. Both are using scripture to prove their points. Some say that Christ wasn’t God. Some say that he was, again both using scripture.
The truth will always win. Thus “whoever wins the battle” would be the one who has truth. Thus those who are in truth would “have authority” as you say it.
Isn’t this what you want, for the ones who are right to be in authority?

which, by the way, garnered an email from Pastor Silva.

By the way, Joe C…I appreciate your disclaimer.
=)

Hey little boy. Want sum candy?!?!?

Disclaimer:
This comment is not to be construed as making child kidnapping and other forms of abuse of minors as trivial or something to be laughed at. Any attribution of said perception to the ECoD is purely fictitious and slanderously reaching. Further, any construal of inappropriate relating between this commenter and any other commenter is also categorically denied and assertion to the contrary is slanderous, manipulative and generally a really crappy move.

NC, in particular. Excellent.

I’d give you some candy if it were possible. And not creepy-sounding.

This post explains a lot of the action/reaction and discord that caused this blog to be created and illustrates what goes on in the comments section of it.

I’m going to have to think more about this and blog it myself.

Anyways, yes, that’s what I was trying to get at in a round-about way. We have to believe that the author had a reason for writing. He had something he wanted us to know. How well that comes through in the text is where the debate comes into play.

Maybe I’m postmodern after all…

Re: “postmodern relativism”.

That’s a hard postmodernity that very few people actual advocate in general.

I dunno.
I think the reader always brings things to the text.
Social location is inescapable.
I think it’s a matter of reading with a chastened self awareness that we bring a perspective to the text and it does affect our reading of it.

There are 3 insights from the major movements in western thought.

Pre-Modern: Meaning is above the text.
Modern: Meaning is in the text.
Post-Modern: Meaning is before the text. (The reader brings meaning to it out of their location/experience/etc.)

To harden any of these categories doesn’t recognize the dynamic ways we humans engage the Scripture.

The ODM”s etc. tend to tantrum that EC or “pomo” folk think you can read anything you want into the text. OR categorically deny any clarity to the text.

This is the extreme reaction to very nuanced understandings of knowledge that are being presented by the EC.

And has not, to my knowledge, ever been advocated for by the EC. Only attributed to them by armchair “researchers” who should concentrate on teaching N.T. at their school, or kickstarting their songwriting careers, or caring for the 4 people in their flock.

Anyway,
None of the three things above are moral statements.
They are phenomenological statements describing reality and the particular emphasis of each “era”.

The beauty of today is that we can draw from all three to have a holistic theory of knowledge.

It shouldn’t be threatening.
And if you don’t agree it doesn’t mean you’re more faithful or orthodox.

You just have a different theory of knowledge.
That’s not a doctrinal issue.

It’s obvious this stuff already happens even with the ODM’s.
Isn’t it fascinating how their understanding of biblical issues makes the bible out to be this fantastic endorsement of North American middle class social respectability? And to think! 2000 years AFTER the construction of the canon!

What a co-inky-dink!

I hope you get my point… =)

Disclaimer:
This post in no way indicates that I am a relativist, believing everyone can elevate post-modern readings as the supreme way of engaging scripture. To claim otherwise makes you obtuse on a good day and a bald faced slandering dirty thing at worst–which is probably most days for some. Juuuuuuuuuuust Kidding!!!!! But seriously. Don’t lie. I’m no relativist. Eat spam! And if you really, really, really need to find some material for a smear site, then I guess I’ll just believe the best. You have a need. Go ahead and lie anyway. It’ll be my way of serving you toward a sense of purpose for life and true devotion revealed in your perpetual anger. Amen and Amen.