Spiritual astringent.
written by Julie R. Neidlinger 6 comments link this postFriday and today have become a huge, sucking vacuum. I have spent nigh unto ten hours at the computer, waging a word battle for nothing.
I never do this. I hate it when people do this. I did this.
First, I blogged here. Then I blogged there. Then, the comments sections exploded and I not only didn't get out of the way, I lit a few matches, too. Do you have many hours to waste? You might be able to read all the comments in the posts in question, including this one (you must right click, copy link, and paste in a new window -- the link won't work directly), which is what inspired me to blog the other two.
The experience has left me absolutely spiritually dry.
And also revealed something to me about the way people use scripture.
Some people use a specific verse or chapter method. They "apply" a specific verse as is, the words directly, little or no context, or sense of the entire Word of God and how the scripture fits into the whole. Ba-da-boom. Applied. Quick jabs and stabs.1
Some people do not just see isolated chunks of scripture, divisions of non-relation between Old and New Testament, beginnings and ends -- some see the whole package and apply scripture as a whole.
When I read a book, I don't talk about it in parts. I talk about the entire package, all that I've learned and the entire message -- the whole thing. The parts are intentionally connected and therefore, rely upon each other and are all important. This is like the latter method of using scripture. It's not a cop out. It doesn't tremble at what seem like contradictions. It takes it all in as a whole instead of unrelated pieces and finds the message found within the similarities and contradictions. It's a working, living, book.
I made a comment about the contradictions that seem to exist in the Bible:
Do you think that the Bible isn't contradictory? What would it mean if it was?
I mean, really. I'm not saying that any contradictions would negate the Bible as authority and truth -- I often find that contradictions and paradoxes are only seen that way to humans with our limited viewpoint, but that paradoxes and contradictions actually create a deeper picture. You know, like death being life, the strong being weak...
I often wonder why people run from any hint that there might be contradictions in the Bible, as if that makes it untrue. I believe the Bible is wholly true and the inspired word of God and also contains what appear to us humans as "contradictions." That's a living, breathing book, the Bible. It exists in history and through time and out of time, being from the past now in the present and already mapping out the future in a sense -- it's the Word. Of course it is going to seem to contradict and confuse -- we are trapped in some kind of limited view in linear time.
I find the contradictions and impossibilities of agreement on interpretation exciting. You know, Joe, what you said about some Christians coming to one conclusion and others coming to a different conclusion, but both being Christians nonetheless… that would seem to be a contradiction. An impossibility. How could God tell his people different things? Oh, but we just don't know what God is doing, his larger plan, and why he could possibly want "soldiers" that aren't all marching the same way when that's how we think it should be. I think the contradictions strengthen the "truthiness" of the Bible, not weaken it.
In the second post I wrote, I was accused of not using scripture. I found this confusing, since all that I was trying to say has come from my Bible reading and study, and the notes I've taken over the years. My entire world view and thought process comes from that. To me, what I think and do and say is using scripture in the most broadest and intentional sense.
But, you see, I wasn't hacking out chunks of chapters, throwing out specific verses. I wasn't saying things like "according to Eph. 1:8" or "this situation should have 1 Corinthians 1:6 applied to it." So I wasn't using scripture, in their eyes. One reason I was wary to write for that blog, even when asked and assured it would be OK, is that I am not that kind of person, the one who bandies about words like "exegete" and "hermeneutics" -- I'm an average, plain Jane who reads her Bible with trust that the Spirit will reveal it to me, and I keep building on each reading to create the whole being I am in the Word.
I feel like I've taken a wee bit of a whopping because I'm not a Bible scholar in that traditional sense.
I was told by one young lady that she had no respect for arguments not based in scripture, which she seemed to be suggesting I was doing.
Interesting.
My whole existence is based in scripture. I just haven't divided it all up into compartments and verses and applications for specific areas of life. I would never whip out a verse and "apply" it to someone without considering as many more related bits of scripture as I could remember, and using them all together. I haven't relegated Old Testament to being Old and New testament to being relevant. They are part and parcel of the same story. The beginning and the end at once. Not a start and finish, but the entire Word. It's a whole. The Word of God lives, and it lives in me.
But, all in all, I can say that the entire experience has left me really, really, really wanting to avoid these kinds of Christians. And not sure if I'll take the time to write another post like that. For, being the only woman writer at that blog, I was called "emotional" (by another of the male writers, no less) while I've never seen the male writers called that. Apparently, I have to overcompensate and become dispassionate, removed or almost disinterested so as to avoid being seen as another "emotional" female.
Exhausting. Sucked the life right out of my spirit. I'm glad tomorrow is Sunday. I need it. Thank God for church. I mean that. Good Christian people who love and know me -- I'm barely able to wait.
Moral of the story: Are you spiritually dry? Stop blogging. Get to church!
-----------------------------
1 This cut-and-slice vs. as-a-whole method that I believe creates some of the argument over the topic at hand, which is, essentially, the position of women in the church, specifically as pastor. I would try to include OT examples, while being told to use NT scripture only. Since I do not see why there should be some kind of disconnect, but that both OT and NT teachings, examples and stories of women should be considered, the argument went on interminably. The strictest adherents on what a woman is not allowed to do feverishly quote select verses written by Paul. They are not to be discounted, those verses, but should be added into th whole, which includes OT examples, the example of Jesus and how he treated women, and Paul's own references to people like Phoebe who was a leader (some say deacon) in a church.
But the slice-and-dicers insist on Paul only. NT only. And Phoebe doesn't count because you're misinterpreting that. It is a strangely partitioned way of looking at scripture, and I don't understand how they are comfortable with that.
Labels: bible, blogging, christianity, guest blogging
Copyright (c) Julie R. Neidlinger 11/17/2007 02:40:00 PM
Like this post? Subscribe to the feed.
Help support this site.
Facebook |
Stumble It! |
Del.icio.us |
DiggIt! |
Technorati |
Blinklist |
Furl |
reddit |
Newsvine
6 Comments:
Julie,
You already know how I feel, but let me add that I know some of your feelings today as they are echoed in my own heart.
I stayed up way too late trying to add what I thought would be a few cogent remarks on the CRN.Info and Old Truth blogs only to see, as you did, the level of conversation deteriorate.
Some followers of Jesus can be ruthless and heartless in their reactions to those with whom they disagree. It is sad, very sad, and makes me despair that such is this case. Some of the responders were so out of bounds in their comments and attacks that I was amazed at their cruelty in attacking a fellow Christian.
While I was not subject to as much vitriol as you were, the exchanges over the last 24 hours left me drained and disheartened as well. Only now have I gotten up sufficient energy to work on my sermon (of course, this is the time that I always do it ... 9 pm on Saturday night), but nevertheless I must, for my own saniety, be careful in deciding what battles to get involved in from now on. It's not that I don't like, or even love a good debate or argument or even fight (for the lack of a better word), but some of them can be so destructive to who we are that it is best to avoid them.
Anyway, I want to say that I think you acquited yourself well, and if I had been in your shoes, I don't believe I would have been able to maintain the gracious spirit that you showed.
By 
Will, at
November 17, 2007 7:59 PM
I lost my cool twice.
But in real life, I'm a decent person.
Really.
And -- I'm as far from cool as they come. So really, is it possible to lose my cool?
Quandary!
By 
Julie R. Neidlinger, at
November 17, 2007 8:40 PM
Wow. That whole episode (based on what I know of it) was very disheartening. I applaude you for standing your ground and mostly keeping your cool. It is hard to see individuals keep such a closed mind about such matters. Somedays, it's hard to hold on to my faith in humanity. You're a good one though, so keep that up.
By oldtranslations, at
November 18, 2007 3:12 AM
Julie,
I thought you did an excellent job, in tone and response, and I understand your frustration all too well... As one who prefers to apply the holistic use of scripture, rather than chapter/verse eisogesis, I understand all too well the cries of "You need to use more scripture".
In fact, it often takes extreme force of will to not jump in and type something to the effect of "if you knew scripture as well as you claim you do, you'd recognize all the places I was quoting it without chapter/verse". Now, just thinking about it, I'm pretty sure that I fail to that force of will and respond in kind all-too-frequently.
I particularly liked your response to the "solas"...
Blessings to you and hopes that you will write for us again...
Chris
(P.S. I did check, you weren't the only one singled out as "emotional" last week by Rick - Tim got that as well... I think that a discussion of passion vs. emotion may be on the horizon...)
By Chris L, at
November 20, 2007 10:38 AM
Chris,
Thanks for commenting. I was going to chuck the whole thing; for a while it was as if every comment was from an Old Truth orc and to have to also deal with the standard "you're being emotional" jab from another blog writer no less...yeah. I was fairly certain I'd just call it a one-time writing experience.
I'm glad I'm not the only "emotional" one over there. I think a post on emotion vs. passion would be splendid.
I'm always curious: what's so wrong with emotion? Emotionless arguments have their own inherent flaws -- condescension, arrogance, assumptions of infallibility...
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
November 20, 2007 11:05 PM
My vote is for the use of the word "passion" instead of "emotion." And any person without a "passion for what they are writing ought to just give it up because wht he or she says won't be worth reading. Needless to say, but I will anyway, you have passion, and that is exactly why I read your words.
By Will, at
November 21, 2007 1:29 PM
