,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Not to enter into the whole social justice debate, but it does seem this reply is a bit defensive or reactionary. Two things are true: 1) the truth of Scripture is objective, available to all (perpescuity); 2) our experiences often affect our interpretations; 1/7 @mika_edmondson
We are not disembodied spirits, able to rise above this earth like some sort of perfect brain in a jar, living in the realm of ideas alone. The things we go through in the body open our eyes to parts of Scripture that otherwise we may have missed. 2/7
This is why Peter, in part, argues from his experience at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:12). Their decision was based upon Scripture (Acts 15:13-19), but there were events that the Judaizer party needed to hear about in order to interpret Scripture accurately. 3/7
Paul likewise argues from his experience of suffering in II Corinthians 12:1-10 to show how it helped him understand the power of the Gospel more. He is a better interpreter of the Scriptures than the Corinthians in part because of his sufferings. 4/7
James tells us that wisdom often comes through suffering, and the the lowly should boast in their exaltation, and the rich in their humiliation (James 1:3-9; see also 2:5; 5:1-6). This is "social status" experience. 5/7
And so if one way believers suffer is by being part of an oppressed group, should we at least not listen to them to see if they have insights into Scripture that we may have missed? Isn't it likely than an Iranian Christian in prison can show me things I have overlooked? 6/7
But we are so quick to react to intersectionality or whatever that we can over-react and dismiss a simple truth that our experiences often do color how we interpret the objective truth of Scripture. Our social status may not be decisive but neither is it "utterly irrelevant." FIN
