 |
|
|
|||||||
|
Devilish HermeneuticsAnother Caputo quote:So the devilishness of the deconstruction of a tradition or a text, of the insistence that we have always to do with the interpretation of signs, is not the devil itself, and is not to be conceived as a way of destroying faith or tradition, but rather of exhibiting their contingency in an effort to preserve them and keep them open ended…Deconstruction does not demolish authority and the “force of law,” but divests the authority of the law of the trappings of absoluteness, thereby making the bearers of the tradition responsible for the forms the tradition assumes and the formulae in which faith is cast. (199)Compare this with Guder, "Our need for continuing conversion is linked directly with the reductionism of the gospel that has become pervasive in our traditions and churches" (72). How about Frost and Hirsch: "Hold fast to the core but expreiment like wild with the expression... [A] missional community ... is careful not to abandon the truth of the gospel nor to water down its implications (80-1). Does this make Ehrman a hero or heritic? posted by Jake at 4/03/2006 05:37:00 PM  
1 Comments: |
Friends w/ Blogs
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 My Reading Queue 
 
 
 
 Just Finished 
 
 
 The Looooong List 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Previous Posts Emergent is for Introverts, Too! ------------ Irreducible “undecidability” ------------ Emergent Seminarians ------------ Critical Contextualization (part two) ------------ Critical Contextualization ------------ Who's Feeding the Fishdog? ------------ Hmmmm... ------------ Being and Bearing Witness not Witnessing ------------ People and Programs ------------ Happy Birthday Abby! ------------ Archives November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007
|
I say neither Jake.
Ehrman is, as far as I can tell, not claiming to be a Christian. He refers in his book to his time as a Christian in the past tense. How can one be a heretic when no longer claiming to be a Christian? Heresy as I understand it (which I think plays out historically time and time again) is the attempt to redefine the faith while still claiming it as your own.
Furthermore, I find it hard to see how introducing people to the bare bones of textual criticism while strongly suggesting that this compromises basic Christianity (which it does not) makes one a hero.
On the other hand, his being honest enough to actually give up on the faith when no longer adhering to it may be a rare enough quality to actually make him a hero after all.