Yesterday I heard two legal specialists reflecting and dialoguing on the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. The two perspectives expressed in the conversation were quite different, as you can imagine in such a discussion. In the light of many other conversations I've been having and reading lately, I've been pondering the import of the perspectives for conversations that happen in the Churches of Christ. Here were the two perspectives as best I can capture them. (I tried to jot notes down while heading west on Square Lake yesterday, so I'm attempting to do justice to each in a very compact way. I know that doesn't allow for nuance, but indulge me! :-) )
Perspective 1. We must attend to the "literal words of the text. Read the text as it is and don't give voice to "discrete, insular minorities."
Perspective 2. "Fidelity to a text doesn't answer all of the hard cases" of real life situtions.
When you consider discussions and diaolgues in communities of faith, where do you find yourself? Which perspective sounds more like your own? What would it look like if you adopted the other perspective? How do you engage those who hold the perspective that is not your own? Where is God in the midst of the perspectives and the conversation? Where do you see glimpses or shadows the God who is revealed in Scripture in both perspectives? (Try to be fair and do justice to both sides.)
6 comments:
Interesting and pointed comparison.
I hear more and more people of the CoC heritage admit to our error in using selected scriptures as a proof text for a particular issue vs embracing the whole of scripture as a progressive revelation of the nature, character and heart of God ultimately revealed in Jesus.
An exciting move in that it opens the mind to read the living breathing Word of God through fresh lenses to know him.
Good stuff!
I definitely find myself in perspective number 2. Experience tempers everything, especially reading. When considering the other side I get very frustrated with their lack of consideration of their own experience in understanding the text.
I know a very good lawyer whom I trust who believes very much in the law, but has also impressed upon me that perspective and persuasion can alter outcomes.
In thinking of engaging with people who are firmly in perspective two, I really try to honor them. I don't understand them, as they don't understand me, but I know that they are hopefully wanting only to bring glory to God. At least I know they are trying to obey. I just wish they believed that I, too, am trying to bring glory to God and to obey... it just looks/sounds different.
I think you might need JRB and Kile and Eby to jump in here....
Peace,
Jduckbaker
Context is everything.
I am going to approach this from a different angle, if you'll permit me.
In the law or legal debates, I suggest that both schools of thoughts are efforts to establish legitimacy. Without a "legitimate" legal system, judicial structure, etc. then the participants, that is, everyone, will doubt the outcomes. The victors in the system will exploit it cynically, and the losers will reject a resolution and turn to "extra-legal" means.
I am very interested in losers. Losers and the way losers lose, to me, is a key indicator of the health and justice of a system. If the losers accept an outcome against their interests and continue to participate in the system, then they probably trust the system and believe that it is legitimate.
To your question, both positions are hoping for legitimacy. No.1 cannot imagine that legitimacy can exist outside strict language, bounded denotations and blind applications regardless of consequence. No.2 cannot imagine that legitimacy can exist without questioning the source and context of the law, the context of the participants and the outcome as applied within a culture or community. No. 1 cannot abide the notion that justice and morality may be different among communities and people. No.2 cannot abide the notion that the law would ignore the differences among communities and people.
(I feel a law review article coming on.)
By the way, as a No.2 myself, I get sideways with the No.1s all the time in my place of employment. We have almost stopped talking because this difference is so fundamental and frustrating.
I am actually more of No.1 with scripture than with the law, but I believe scripture enables itself to accommodate diverse contexts.
Oops... I meant in my paragraph number 3...
"In thinking of engaging with people who are firmly in perspective one..."
Sorry about that!
jduckbaker
Post a Comment