Wrestling with the Divine

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think I agree with Peter Rollins here that it is more important to wrestle with the text than it is to have the right answer. (I love the parable at the beginning.)


http://www.vimeo.com/18880300

[Hans Deventer]

Now what would this say about our NazNet theology discussions? I readily admit I'd often LOVE for God to step down and end the discussions that I feel lead nowhere. But if the value is in the wrestling rather than in finding the answer, NazNet can be seen in quite a different light.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Now what would this say about our NazNet theology discussions? I readily admit I'd often LOVE for God to step down and end the discussions that I feel lead nowhere. But if the value is in the wrestling rather than in finding the answer, NazNet can be seen in quite a different light.

I have been right there with you in kind of liking the idea of God coming down and settling the matter. But, maybe the real answers are in the discussion, the dissonance? If that is the case then NazNet is a place where this is happening. What's unfortunate is that we tend to be too willing to die for our opinions and break fellowship over them. In the parable related in the video the two rabbis are friends even though they have differing opinions. Maybe that's the key to the struggle, the humility to remain n fellowship with those with whom we disagree. The words to a secular song come to mind: "The poetry that comes from the squaring off between, And the circling is worth it. Finding beauty in the dissonance." Maybe, just maybe this is where our answers lay?

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think that Rollins' latest blog is informative within this discussion: On Consumption, Vomiting and Eating With Others (http://peterrollins.net/?p=2840)

Maybe we meet the divine meaning when we see our position and opinion in the other's when we disagree?

I am liking Rollins more and more.

[Billy Cox]

Now what would this say about our NazNet theology discussions? I readily admit I'd often LOVE for God to step down and end the discussions that I feel lead nowhere. But if the value is in the wrestling rather than in finding the answer, NazNet can be seen in quite a different light.

In that light, there may be value in debating with someone whose theological positions have taken on the qualities of an immovable object. ;)

[Dale Cozby]

I wonder...if God spoke in a clear loud and distinct voice and gave us the answer to a question, would we even be able to agree on what he said?
I very much doubt it. We would write it down verbatim and some one will claim we got it wrong. We can then debate what he means by his choice of words, argue over their meaning, debate his infliction and tone, and then disagree on if it was really God's voice or someone else that boomed down from the sky.


“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, while you were too busy arguing theology and did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me"

Uh is that the way that passage reads? Maybe....

[Eric Vail]

I think I agree with Peter Rollins here that it is more important to wrestle with the text than it is to have the right answer. (I love the parable at the beginning.)


Paul, in such a concise way you just summed up the move from Modern to Postmodern hermeneutical approaches. Well done!