I live in a culture that is used to exercising its freedom. We live in cultural context where those conversations can be had.
When you talk with people in other parts of the world, they are dealing with life and death issues. The conversations about human sexuality, they often don’t have time to deal with it, and when it comes up they are dealing with a context in which homosexuality is criminalized.
What did you bring to the table in terms of explaining the American experience?
They were able to hear from me and other bishops from the U.S. about the possibility of the holiness of life of GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) people.
We’re accused of not embracing the authority of Scripture. I was able to explain to them I do embrace the authority of Scripture, but I understand some parts of Scripture differently because of my cultural context.
Bishop Adams is of Central New York, not Western New York.
[i] Thank you for the head’s up.[/i]
“We’re accused of not embracing the authority of Scripture. I was able to explain to them I do embrace the authority of Scripture, but I understand some parts of Scripture differently because of my cultural context.”
=============================================================
What do the temporal vagaries of a self-indulgent North American and British “cultural context” have to do with with ‘Eternal Truth?’
#2 AnglicanFirst
“What do the temporal vagaries of a self-indulgent North American and British “cultural context†have to do with with ‘Eternal Truth?’”
That understanding the cultural context of the Bible is IMPERATIVE is not debated by any educated Christians or seminaries including the most conservative Evangelical (I know because I attend one!). The problem lies, as it always does, in different understandings and contemporary conclusions drawn from the Bible’s cultural context.
The Bible is God’s revelation of his will to humanity given within a cultural context that is very different from our situation today. Although the Bible remains God’s revelation of his will for us, it was originally written to people whose language, culture and worldview greatly contrasts with ours. Thus, the more the values, beliefs and situation of the original audience are understood by today’s reader, the better the meaning of the divine message can be comprehended. Similarly, the more we comprehend our own culture and society, the better equipped we are to understand how the biblical revelation can be expressed and applied in our context.
The implications of this reality are profound for the Bible translator and the cross-cultural worker as well as for all those who want to understand the relevance of God’s word for them. We cannot understand and appreciate the way the Bible relates to us without first recognizing that God spoke his message to people both through and because of their situation. To the degree our modern context is similar to the context of original audience, the original message will have direct relevance for us. However, differences between the ancient and modern cultures require us to adopt a two step process of interpretation. First, we must understand the message through the original cultural perspective and second, we must consider how that revelation can be expressed relevantly for us today.
I live in a cultural context that would bless and support this bishop’s opinions. The Scriptures, however, are counter culture. Thanks be to God.
Society today is an extraordinary jumble caused by shifting sands under our feet. This is not unique to our age. Throughout history, values of one culture have been imposed on another by invading armies or invading ideas. The idea that the the church today must look at the Bible in a cultural context means that the church should not be standing on a solid rock that Christianity historically calls God, but on the shifting sand of the culture of our age. Too many church leaders, like the good Bishop, want the church to leave the safe haven of the solid rock and rebuild on the shifting sands of our culture.
Sounds good? But where does it lead? The church must look at history for clues to the answer. Has the sexual revolution that began in the sixties enhanced societies well being or degraded it? Each of us must answer for we are also the sand constantly shifting. Has sexual freedom, abortion, and easy divorce enhanced your life and family? Or has it degraded your life and your family? Looking back, do you wish you had known the brother or sister that ended up in the waste disposal at the abortion mill? Growing up do you wish you had one father or mother instead of divorce-producing two or three of each? Do you wish your mother and father had said emphatically, “You can’t go to the mixed couple sleep over down the street?â€
The Church that stands on the rock called God will help you and your family live happier and more contented lives. The Church standing on the shifting sands of time leads where? Many may like it today, but just as many wish that their homes growing up had been based on the stability of an unchanging God.
Yet another bishop for whom the cultural tail wags the Scriptural dog.
Heresies come and heresies go but the church goes on and future seminarians will study those heresies after they to have joined the dust bin of history with all the other corrupt ideas that have failed.
[blockquote/] “We’re accused of not embracing the authority of Scripture. I was able to explain to them I do embrace the authority of Scripture, but I understand some parts of Scripture differently because of my cultural context.†[/blockquote]
I have a problem with this statement. It just doesn’t hold water, I’m afraid. How about all of us (millions) in the western provinces who have the same “cultural context” as this bishop, yet we interpret the Scriptures exactly the same way as the GS Bishops do.
# archangelica, I just have one question. What about the word “no” has changed since the Scriptures were written? It mean NO then, and it still means NO now. There are just plain things that the Scriptures say NO, you can’t do them. That’s it!
Archangelica is right:
[blockquote]
However, differences between the ancient and modern cultures require us to adopt a two step process of interpretation. First, we must understand the message through the original cultural perspective and second, we must consider how that revelation can be expressed relevantly for us today.
[/blockquote]
However there is a crucial further step: third, because the ever-present danger of self-deception, we must submit our understanding to the global multi-cultural church for judgment and abide by the decision.