As I was skimming through the Internet, (You Tube to be precise) I saw a posted comment that recommended a website called "The Ooze". Always interested in Christian websites, and seeking to get a greater knowledge of what the "Emergent Church" movement is about, I "Googled The Ooze" to see what's up. After browsing the site for a bit, I happened to come on to a post titled, "John :316- Is It Focused on Just People, or Something Bigger?" by a man who simply called himself Jonathon. It was a critique of the "traditional interpretation" of the verse, And while not denying the traditional interpretation, he made a statement that I found particularly disturbing...
"Basically we read and form theology INTO the verse or this particular verse"
Why do I find this disturbing? Because he states that theology (Which is in this case the the traditional interpretation) Is read into the verse... (italics mine) This struck me as odd ...and a question popped into my mind...
Is he implying that the Traditional view of the verse, (That God gave his son so that those who believe shall have eternal life) is a preconceived notion , which we have READ INTO the verse itself?
It strikes me as odd because I was under the impression that the theology was formed on the basis of what the verse said, in context with the entire narrative...
I continued to read, about how although the traditional interpretation is "good and valid according to theology" He went on to say that:
1. "It is not good in how we appreciate the biblical narrative and theology based on the whole bible"....O.K....
2. That it promote a belief that God cares for people only, and brushes the rest of His Creation aside...
3. "It sort of shrinks our theology giving us a "malnutrition version" of God's plan....WHAT?!?
He than proceeds to give what he perceives to be a more "Holistic/nourished approach of theology based on John 3:16 that is faithful to the biblical message." He did this By using a sparse overview of the Old Testament, and two passages from the New Testament, (Collosians 1: 15-20 and Romans 8: 18-23) to show that God not only seeks to reconcile humans to himself, but creation as a whole... By doing this he sought to show "a more holistic view of the mission of God and theology for understanding John 3:16."
WOW... I never thought John 3:16 meant all that.... and you know what... It Doesn't.
Jesus was not giving a geology lesson to Nicodemus. No where is that implied in the context of the chapter, He was stating the need of a Spiritual rebirth of man which is necessary for salvation.
Jonathon said that we read and form theology into this verse.... and he did the exact same thing...not on the basis of the narrative as a whole, but on the basis of one word... world.
The difference is that the traditional theology is based on the immediate context of the passage, and is consistent with God's plan of redemption throughout the Bible as a whole...
So is it wrong to see that God has a plan to redeem his creation? The Bible says that God will create a NEW heaven and earth wherein dwelleth righteousness....but that is another topic, for a later time.
No comments:
Post a Comment