Thursday, March 29, 2012
Left Behind Series
Left Behind
I have been listening to the Left Behind series on Audiobooks and enjoying them considerably. I believe that the authors have done a good job in dramatizing the Apocalypse. However, I do have a concern that this 'translation' may indeed constitute an "adding to" or "taking away from" the St. John's prophecy.
The final works on the Millennium are quite a stretch, though i am sure that the authors have scriptures to justify their speculation. But isn't it always that way? Every act of understanding is an act of interpretation---is a hermeneutic dogma. Getting large groups of people (churches) to agree on specific dogmatic interpretations is always an act of violence against those who perhaps would see a given text in another light. This happens often and for many reasons: to wit, one may be irrational, another far more penetrating or intelligent than those who tow a strict interpretational line, there may be some who actively subvert dogmatic interpretation and also many other examples of original interpretation---some culpable, errant, some perhaps not.
In saying this I do not mean to undercut the idea that the Revelation gives truth. Au contraire, in fact, I am trying to defend the truth of the Word of God, against oftentimes well meaning, but shortsighted pastors and ministers who rigorously defend authoritative interpretations but who in fact err. We see a classic example of this in Reverend Camping's prediction of the May 2011 end of the world. Had we been members of his church we would have meant to be good christians and agree with an interpretation of scripture which was errant. This is an insoluble problem, but does not indicate the lack of veracity of scripture. A difficult claim perhaps, and one that I will attempt to describe in more detail in later posts. Yes the scripture is inerrant, but interpretation is always prone to errancy! Therein lies the insurmountably delicate challenge to human reason that authentic faith requires. No safety net! "We walk now, not by sight, but by faith."
The final works on the Millennium are quite a stretch, though i am sure that the authors have scriptures to justify their speculation. But isn't it always that way? Every act of understanding is an act of interpretation---is a hermeneutic dogma. Getting large groups of people (churches) to agree on specific dogmatic interpretations is always an act of violence against those who perhaps would see a given text in another light. This happens often and for many reasons: to wit, one may be irrational, another far more penetrating or intelligent than those who tow a strict interpretational line, there may be some who actively subvert dogmatic interpretation and also many other examples of original interpretation---some culpable, errant, some perhaps not.
In saying this I do not mean to undercut the idea that the Revelation gives truth. Au contraire, in fact, I am trying to defend the truth of the Word of God, against oftentimes well meaning, but shortsighted pastors and ministers who rigorously defend authoritative interpretations but who in fact err. We see a classic example of this in Reverend Camping's prediction of the May 2011 end of the world. Had we been members of his church we would have meant to be good christians and agree with an interpretation of scripture which was errant. This is an insoluble problem, but does not indicate the lack of veracity of scripture. A difficult claim perhaps, and one that I will attempt to describe in more detail in later posts. Yes the scripture is inerrant, but interpretation is always prone to errancy! Therein lies the insurmountably delicate challenge to human reason that authentic faith requires. No safety net! "We walk now, not by sight, but by faith."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
