Some may remember the discussion on A Phi A ave. about the state of the black church. In that discussion, I mentioned that Dr. Jeremiah Wright noted that 90% of the clergy in the "Black Church" today are not seminary trained. I think this is showing forth in our discussion thus far. From my discussions with pastors over the years since I have been teaching Sunday school classes, I have found that there is a lack of understanding about hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) that is crippling the relevance of the Black Church in the 21st century. I attend two Bible studies a week, one at my watch care church here in Columbia, MO and one with other graduate students at a "white Church" headed by a youth minster with a M. Div. from Candler Theological Seminary in Atlanta, GA (at Emory U.). The pastor of the watchcare church has attended seminary, but didn't recieve an advanced degree, yet. The biggest difference in the two is that the 2nd minister brings resources to the Bible study that "demystify" many of these passages by placing them in cultural and historical contexts that enable the students to ascertain the applicable truth that keeps the Bible's words relevant (my "PC" way of saying "make sense"). The 1st minister , while very thoughful, comes out of the normal black church tradition. He was "called" at an early age, been "preachin' " every since, and just recently decided that he needed to get a seminary education to help inform his preaching. Nothing is necessarily wrong with this, but you will find that many of our black "called" preachers will go to seminary and hear things such as what Reiki so astutely mentioned about Sodom and Gomorrah and think that the seminary is wrong and then leave, just because something that the seminary taught may go against what they have learned in their own church. They then say that they (the ministers that left the seminary) are more of a believer than those in the seminary because they don't "question" the Bible, they "trust" it, as if questioning the Bible is somehow not trusting in God. In my earlier (too long, sorry) post I mentioned a phrase "religion right". What I meant by that was that seeking truth and righteousness should involve the total man; heart,
mind, and soul. Too often, we as believers think that thinking and having faith are polar opposites, when in reality, they are both necessary in the quest for truth and understanding. Last Sunday school class, we discussed the impetus of the word "faith" and it involved both knowing and trusting God, this meant that you encountered the claims of "the word" and you know them and agree with God about them (homologous-to confess). The agreeing involves a submission to the will of God. Knowing the word is not necessarily just being able to quote scriptures, but having an intimate understanding of the Truth in the scriptures. This understanding involves knowing certain facts about the text. These facts should include (but are not limited to) the following:
1. Knowing the way the language the original text is written in and how it is translated,
2. Knowing what the audience and the speaker understood about the subject at the time,
3. Knowing what type of literature is being quoted-is it a poem, a song, a historical account, wisdom literature (practical teachings not necessarily to be applied as doctrinal), is it doctrinal?
4. Understanding how the Truth lesson of the text can be applied in our culture and time.
The way many of the scriptures and ideas from the Bible have been used by some people on this thread shows a lack of Bible study, but plenty of Bible reading. For example, someone quoted the familiar phrase from John 1 "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God" as a reason why they don't question the authority of the Bible. This demonstrates an assumption that in the beginning was the Bible, which is not what this passage is stating. That word "word" in that passage comes from the Greek word "logos" which means "ideas" or , for people at that time a "logic" under which the universe is created or patterned. When John goes on to state that the Word "became flesh " , he is not saying that Jesus was the Bible in the flesh, but that Jesus was the Truth of God (Logic of God) in the Flesh, a person with
the Divine understanding. Besides, there was no Bible written down until the early part of the 1st millenium and it was not cannonized until the 11th century AD, long after any of the original writers had died. So it would be irresponsible to think that the King James version of the Bible was sitting "in the Beginning" with God and Jesus, in fact, this is just not true. There are so many other things that are evidenced by the way people are using scriptures here that I won't go into them (PM me, if you like). I think we need to really start studying Christianity, rather than just reading and reciting Bible passages before we make the claims that many people are making.
P.S. No one has yet to answer my question about how the Bible teaches us that Jesus died for sins and not abominations? Honestly, that just doesn't make since to me.
Blackwatch!!!!!!