Comments on Out Here Hope Remains: KINGDOM COME: Chapter One

JD, I hope you are enjoying the book. I am really...

2006-09-28T10:17:00.000-07:00

JD, I hope you are enjoying the book. I am really interested in you take on it. I also appreciate you calling attention to the work, that is very thoughtful of you to do.

I will participate in any discussion as I can.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Charlie,That is why we have dictionaries. :-) Se...

2006-09-27T02:59:00.000-07:00

Charlie,

That is why we have dictionaries. :-) Seriously, you are correct that we need to be more sensitive to our target audience in terms of words. A glossary would have been helpful or something like that...but do you know how much work that is? I'm not sure we want to work that hard. :-) Your point is well-taken.

The terse comment on hermeneutics is something that needs development, but its context is simply to say here are a few things that we would find problematic in Lipscomb/Harding. We did intend to elaborate on those as we wanted to stress the positive, but we also wanted the readers to know that we are not blind devotees of Lipscomb/Harding. That is the function of trhe sentence and not really to persuade anyone about hermeneutics. It only indicates our own perspective in relation to Harding/Lipscomb.

I happy the introduction served part of its purpose---to peak an interest in reading the rest.

Thanks for the interest and the comments.

Hey Bobby, I'll post a link in the body of the blo...

2006-09-26T22:28:00.000-07:00

Hey Bobby, I'll post a link in the body of the blog. I don't think I can link in the comments.

Charlie, excellent comments. The focus on being "foreigners" was indeed an important thought for the chapter. Good suggestions for improvement for further editions. Hicks and Valentine both said they would check in on the series and perhaps interact with us.

There are some archived posts in Berean Spirit wherein I said "The restoration movement is dead." I had a reason for saying that ... but as history ... it is living and reasonable for us to both understand and see it's meaning for our current life in the Kingdom.

John where can I get the book?

2006-09-26T17:50:00.000-07:00

John where can I get the book?

JD - Good summary. I am re-reading the book as par...

2006-09-26T05:24:00.000-07:00

JD - Good summary. I am re-reading the book as part of this "book club" -- The main thing I got from tthis chapter was a desire to better understand the "context" of the "churches of Christ".

I (as you may know) have struggled in recent years with the sense that "we" had become very "denominational" in our teaching and practices -- to the extreme because we had splinter after splinter each with a variation on the main "creed".

My reaction to this has been I "don't want to hear about "the churches of Christ, their history and what "they" believe. I just want to be a Christian, I just want to follow what the Bible says.

Bobby & John Mark in Chapter 1 challenged me to understand that I couldn't escape the "lens" of my early teaching and that it was important to be able to see how those lens were shaped in order to better see what might be "missed" by our current lens.
The other thing that caught my attention was the description of one of the fundamental "paradoxes" of Christianity - being -- "foreigners at home"

I do have a couple of suggestions for improvement

1. The authors introduce "theological" terms e.g. dieism without definition. Those of us who haven't have formal courses on these things are sent scrambling to look up definitions. I think a glossary and perhaps a reference book on these topics would be helpful for "serious" (but unschooled) readers.

2. They observe, in the Conclusion that "they (DL & JH) pursued an ecclesiastical hermeneutic that .. distorts more than illuminates". This personal conclusion is dropped in without any "rationale" or references or indication that it will be discussed further. I think this type of basic challenge to how "we" have approached understanding the Bible needs some background, evidence and begs the question -- if this one is flawed what is a better one?
(not saying I disagree with the conclusion just that I would like to better understand the reasoning and the alternatives) -- even a statement that it was beyond the book's scope and a reference to a paper or book on hermeneutics would be preferable)

I agree -- Chapter 1 made me want to read the rest.

God Bless
Charlie