Labels: baptist
¶ 8:19 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
the who?
;-)
if it ain't american, it ain't worth noticing...
(i'm just kidding- of course you are right to point out the bwa- and i think you should write an essay condemning my myopia and send it to ethics daily)
By 
Jim, at
October 8, 2008 8:32 AM
John in posts like "Emmanuel Lévinas: A Brief Introduction" and "Lévinas: A Mentor for the 21st Century" gave me the idea which is developing into my paper for this year's ANZABS (Aotearoa NZ Association for Biblical Studies) conference (3-4 Dec).
Lithuanian/French Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas made "alterity" the core of his philosophy, the notion that we live, move and exist in relationship with another like me, as Gen 2 puts it "flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone", like me yet different. Of all our interactions those with “the other” have the most profound impact on us. For, "others" call on us in ways that things do not.
It struck me that otherness ("alterity") might make a useful organizing concept "towards reading the Bible as a Baptist in the 21st century" which is now, therefore, the sub-title of my paper. For Baptist approaches to reading the Bible, if they are to be distinctively "Baptist" need to take seriously the fact that reading is always a situated reading with, or against, "others".
So, my title is: "Alterity and biblical hermeneutics", and I plan to post some summaries of some of the ideas in the paper to this blog as I begin to work them out this week!
Labels: baptist, hermeneutics, lévinas
¶ 4:22 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
I met someone at SBL who told me that after reading my posts on Levinas, she made up her mind to focus on his thought as a grad student.
It's nice to see the posts proving helpful to you as well.
ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com
By John, at
November 27, 2007 7:55 PM
So first, as a Baptist (not quite, but nearly, life-long) I'll be - I hope - endearingly honest about this, I am (still) a Baptist precisely because of the congregational and Christ-centeredness of Baptist life. The picture of "voting on everything" simply misunderstands. In an ideal church meeting (which does not exist, see Genesis 3) we would vote on nothing. The Church (the local gathered community of Jesus followers) would pray, discuss, argue, debate, and finally recognise, which way the Spirit is blowing and follow.People, I think usually just end up in denominations, and then often work backwards and try to justify (to themselves as much as anyone else) why they belong there.
Baptists, endearingly, seem to be quite honest about this. There is no major over-arching vision statement or document of beliefs. On most theological issues they give a pretty wide berth. As I have said before, it's a great ecumenical approach.
Having said that, I find the whole congregational governance thing a bit hard to stomach. It's just a bit reactionary for my tastes. But perhaps that's because I was once involved in a Baptist church where we voted on everything down to the copy machine budget.
In the real world, we often often end up voting. That's because of contagious heteropraxis [If you don't understand see Rhett's Feeling Strangely Warned and substitute "praxis" (doing) for "doxy" believing.] what I mean is that we hear of congregations voting, and our society votes, we're democratic, so the church copies the world. When we do, we think of Church as "democratic" what a heresy! We should be pneumocratic, governed by the Spirit of Christ. And that's why Baptists should be Bible centered, because we know the mind of Christ through the Scriptures that witness to him.
So, Rhett (and anyone else ;-) if that's "reactionary" then I'm an old reactionary - boots and all!
Labels: baptist
¶ 8:09 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
"When we do, we think of Church as "democratic" what a heresy! We should be pneumocratic, governed by the Spirit of Christ."
Amen!
<><
By Tim, at
May 18, 2007 10:07 PM
Sorry, to avoid confusion with the author of this blog, I should remember to comment here as tjm1983.
<><
By 
, at
May 18, 2007 10:10 PM
