Quote:
Originally posted by DoggyStyle82
I support the intellectual understanding of the Bible. What I vehemently disagree with is politicizing and socializing the Word to fit individual agendas, be they womanist, feminist, prosperity, Jehovah Witness, Catholic, and Mormon. They all have corrupted the word of God through false and flawed supposed "intellectual" interpretations.
|
I see where one can say that Academics and/or theologians can twist scriptures to fit a political agenda, I'm sure anyone could. I see blatant examples of this with the homosexuality debate. Peter Gomes, the Chaplain at Harvard, who is a self described "African American, Republican, Homosexual , Christian" has a book entitled
The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart in which he pretty much explains away any sin that is consented upon by adults in the name of really seeking truth in God rather than falling into what he calls "bibolatry" or idolizing the Bible. I clearly see the homosexual bias in his reading of those passages such as Romans 1 and the Mosaic laws. But, in the case of gender justice in the Church and the notion of "patriarchy", to note that their is patriarchy in the church I don't think takes much twisting of scripture. The fact that things like the scarcity of women in pulpits, the notion that historically when girls got pregnant out of wedlock they (and only they) had to go in front of most congregations in our community and be subject to shame and scorn, that many of the pastors of our churches will tell a woman to remain in a physicaly, emotionally, and spiritually abusive marriage for the sake of making the institution of marriage look good, and etc. tells me that there is still a lot of patriarchy in our churches. I think the "liberal" interpretation or careful study of the Bible will reveal that God is not patriarchal, but that we live in a patriarchal society, which God calls us (both men and women) to challenge with God's "light".
Quote:
Originally posted by DoggyStyle82
...my point is to be on guard when I hear people DELIBERATELY go against sound theology and undeniable scripture for their own personal aggrandizement. Anyone who will accept Tupacs and Biggie's lyrics as Gospel and then challenge the Word of God is a herectic and is playing an intellectual shell game.
|
I don't think Dyson accepts Tupac's words as Gospel. If you read
Holla if You Hear Me Dyson goes to great lengths to talk about the mysogyny, self destructive hedonism and crass materialism in Tupac's music. I think Dyson's references to the work of Tupac is to note the creative genius that Tupac possessed and the biting social commentary that some of his music makes about growing up as a Black man in America. I think Dyson finds this an important insight to the human condition, especially the Black man 's possible collective psyche and that we should at least give ear to the cries of our "ghetto" (for lack of a better term) youth when we sit down and read scriptures for possible answers to our suffering. Besides, as an academic , Dyson has to question everything-Tupac, the Bible, his own mama. Don't get me wrong, most times I think Dyson praises Tupac too much and reads way more into Tupac's music than is actually there, but that is what makes him (Dyson) exciting and gives us an opportunity to love God with "all our heart, all our soul, and
all our mind" by thinking about some of Dyson's ideas.
BlackWatch!!!!!!