Postulates

Things I believe - propositions to which I will say yes or no. Literalisms.

Hazen Marr - Anglican List, Google Groups, asked about certain foundational beliefs. I thought I would try directly to respond to the 'postulate' questions - 'what' we believe re the authority of Scripture; the Virgin birth of Jesus; the sacramental atonement of Jesus; the bodily resurrection of Jesus; the physical return of Jesus.

I have said the creeds since I was about 8 or 9. Most of the liturgy is in my head and some proportion of the Bible - usually I can find a verse to the book or chapter in my favorite books: Revelation, Paul (the undisputed letters), the gospels (harder due to parallels, but I've done my colouring - see Gospel Parallels}; Isaiah - wish I knew the other prophets better; Ecclesiastes, Song, Job, Psalms (not so keen on the Wisdom apocrypha but much of it is relevant to the NT background); bits of Samuel, little of Kings or Chronicles - but the Rite of Spring is understood; and much of Torah especially Leviticus.

So after all this and 10 years of listening to scholars and reading a few, what am I left with?

Some one spoke of God's yearning - after duly considering James 4:5 I like the RSV translation: He yearns jealously over the spirit which he has made to dwell in us. This I believe. The hound of heaven would not otherwise pursue me if he did not desire me more even than I desire my own life.

Now about the 5 points:

Authority of Scripture - yes or no? As Scripture alone - No; As from God - Yes, otherwise I would not spend my time at it. As collected and constructed, Scripture is a continual marvel. I have seen the extremes of adoration and criticism. Criticism wins hands down but the poetry of adoration is sometimes lovely. And the critical result needs its own questioning. I am a Q skeptic. I don't subscribe to minimalism since I think the Biblical record is a legitimate source of historical material, but I am against inerrancy. The ostrich wearing a glass helmet still has his head in the sand.

Virgin Birth - yes or no? As image of redemption - Yes; as physically intact per Augustine - No. I do not see the doctrinal or physical or theological need for virginity. What I do see is shame in our sexuality - hence having been redeemed by God in this matter is important and it is not without our own individual work. Original sin is not a doctrine I can support from Scripture - I have some words from God on this matter but much I think needs not to be said - even cannot be said. Still Paul has much to say - 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians etc - See for instance Fig Leaves and Treasure.

Perhaps among the 144000 virgins are those who have known a woman. As I listened to personal reports from Bosnia from a Muslim, I strongly suspected that Mary was the victim of a war rape. The reading of Matthew can support this - the special nature of a suffering and abused young woman and the acceptance by and of her betrothed. Matthew names four other women in the genealogy that were subject to male abuse or whose race was despised. It is fitting that Joseph should be seen as exercising both justice and compassion.

As to Augustine's doctrine: Mary "remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin" (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is "the handmaid of the Lord" (Lk 1:38); Here is imagery pointing to the unspeakable love of God to us and in us. Does God make such images real? By all means.

Atonement - yes or no? Yes. There is no need for the sacramental adjective. God incarnates metaphor. He makes body out of light. Our own language creates our reality. (See my online novel, Seen from the Street, though not to be completed for many years yet.) But there is a major problem. We need not attribute to God the requirement of paying for sin as if there was anyone else to pay. The accusation of divine child abuse is a common one. Here we have the greatest need for growth and the most difficult aspect of our message - for we cannot impose it by force, this being the opposite of God's character. Nor can it be explained. There are things that are revealed and these are for us and our children for ever, but there are things that are hidden and known only to God. Is there any part of the New Testament that has to be read with imposition by force in mind?

Resurrection - yes or no? Yes. Life to our mortal bodies by his Spirit - we are invited into that experience through his death. The prior questions are related.

The return of Jesus? Yes as to reality, No as to prediction. What exactly is our hope if our knowledge of his Spirit in the present is weak? Future Present ends with a conundrum to undermine our satisfaction with our own knowledge. If (and this phrase following is unique in Paul) the last man became a life-giving spirit, what makes "will give life" or "you shall live" (only) an eschatological future? Is it not rather a future given to our present - a promise to be known by faith? What is last (eschaton)- our end - our purpose, is to know the Presence, the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Note how in English, as in Hebrew, the imperative can be read as a promise. The present is receiving the promise - including our chastity.

Next stop on the learning curve, Aberdeen: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/hebrews2006/home.htm

Home | Articles | Singularity (Next) | Comfort (Prev) | Creed 6