http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/glenn-lucke-on-trsthe-humility-zone ...dispatches from the post-evangelical wilderness Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:02:57 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/glenn-lucke-on-trsthe-humility-zone/comment-page-1#comment-8419 irenicum Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:55:38 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/glenn-lucke-on-trsthe-humility-zone#comment-8419 I just recently gave a copy of an essay I wrote a while back called "Benefit of the Doubt" to a friend of mine, dealing, at least in part, with exactly what you're talking about here. Whenever I talk with someone about translational issues or even about interpretational issues, I bring up what I call heavenly ambiguity. There are passages that quite simply allow for more than one reading. And yet it is still 'literally' true, whether read one way or the other. John 3's passage about being born from above or again illustrates the issue perfectly. Which way is the 'right' way to translate that passage? In the Greek (always a dangerous thing to say!) there's enough nuance (another dangerous word) to allow for both meanings. It's not always an either/or, but can and should be sometimes a both/and situation. We can of course go hog wild on both/and to the exclusion of any either/or's. And our fuzzy relativist friends certainly lean in that direction. But just because someone goes beyond an appropriate bound doesn't mean we should get rid of the whole enchilada. IOW's, there's adultery, so let's get rid of all sex! That'll solve the problem! HA! Maybe in the clearing mists of the eschaton we will finally rest in the fulness of heavenly ambiguity. That's my hope. I just recently gave a copy of an essay I wrote a while back called “Benefit of the Doubt” to a friend of mine, dealing, at least in part, with exactly what you’re talking about here. Whenever I talk with someone about translational issues or even about interpretational issues, I bring up what I call heavenly ambiguity. There are passages that quite simply allow for more than one reading. And yet it is still ‘literally’ true, whether read one way or the other. John 3’s passage about being born from above or again illustrates the issue perfectly. Which way is the ‘right’ way to translate that passage? In the Greek (always a dangerous thing to say!) there’s enough nuance (another dangerous word) to allow for both meanings. It’s not always an either/or, but can and should be sometimes a both/and situation. We can of course go hog wild on both/and to the exclusion of any either/or’s. And our fuzzy relativist friends certainly lean in that direction. But just because someone goes beyond an appropriate bound doesn’t mean we should get rid of the whole enchilada. IOW’s, there’s adultery, so let’s get rid of all sex! That’ll solve the problem! HA! Maybe in the clearing mists of the eschaton we will finally rest in the fulness of heavenly ambiguity. That’s my hope.

]]>