Reading out and reading in

I've had a fantastic weekend, the details of which I won't relate here, but need to get two thoughts out of my head before I forget them. They're kind of related.

The first is about judging people by what they don't say. I was going to do something a bit more generally on judging people, but then I don't want to fall into the whole parallel systems thing - you can't easily complain about judgementalism. But I noticed three examples recently of reading in based on what isn't said:

• A UK Christian magazine suggests that the emerging church movement is lacking a Holy Spirit dimension. Why? Because two books by emerging church leaders don't say much about the Holy Spirit. And obviously, if they don't mention it, they don't believe in it.
• The WCC are Evil Liberals because they don't talk about the cross as much as we'd like. Now the WCC may well be Liberals, Evil or otherwise, but they're working from the basis of what they can get everyone to agree on, and since they can't get everyone to agree on the role of the cross, they don't talk about that bit so much.
• Now I have to confess to a very slight, half-baked streak of universalism. (I'll say right here that universalism doesn't negate mission, since I think a relationship with God is the best thing since sliced bread, and Everyone Should Have One^TM. And of course, this is just what I believe this week and I'm at Bible college...) It's only half-baked in the sense that I'm not going to declare that anyone is condemned to Hell, but I reserve God the right to do so if He wants to. How can I justify that when there are statements like "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved"? Well, quite easily, because that statement only tells you who does the saving, not the relationship between the saver and the saved. We posit that, but based on things which are not said, in that passage.

Developing that theme, point two: I'd like to see the Evangelical Eisegetical Bible. An exegesis is something which "draws out" the meaning of the words in the context; eisegesis is the name my NT teacher gives to reading back one's own theology onto the text. In the liberation theology tradition of "making our assumptions explicit", I'd like to see a Bible that contains verses like:

Acts 4:12: For there is no other name under heaven, given to men, whereby we must be saved by making a personal and individual commitment to Jesus, vocalised of preference in the Sinner's Prayer, and demonstrated by commitment to and regular attendance of a church.

Or maybe: (credit for the idea goes to a sermon I had to endure today)

Matthew 24:14: And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then immediately, the very moment that's accomplished, the end will come.

Or perhaps:

Psalm 5:5: The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong (but actually you love them really).

Just a suggestion.

Full version - 1 Comment