Paul's Passing Thoughts

Interpretation

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on August 2, 2013

ppt-jpeg4Christians like information. Between church, K-Love radio, and cable, we receive information nonstop. We also live in the Information Age. Never before has mankind received so much information.

But all information has a source, and the source of any given information is disseminating the information with a goal in mind, and that goal will depend on how the disseminators interpret realty. They have an agenda. Sure, some Hollywood producers merely want to entertain, but most want to educate according to their own good intentions. In Religion, agenda-driven education is always the goal. That’s us.

So, all information that we hear as Christians has an agenda. There is no exception here in this venue. And there is an all pervasive belief among Christians in regard to discernment: knowing how the teacher interprets reality is not important, I can take from the shelf what is true and leave on the shelf what isn’t true. The goal of the teacher based on how he/she interprets reality is not important. Every teaching has good and bad in it, but we can benefit from what is good. Hmmmm, really?

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding in how words work in communication. If you do not know how a teacher interprets reality, regardless of agreement on elements, through word replacement, and emphasis on certain words over others, you can be led to a functioning belief of the teacher’s choosing. I have watched this happen in Reformed circles firsthand. I know of churches that gleefully follow men that they would have run out of town ten years prior. I have watched this concept in action.

All of the words that form the ideas of any teacher you are listening to are framed according to his/her interpretation of reality. In the English language, the alternative use of words to put forth an idea are literally innumerable. No pun intended. Anybody’s best guess is that the English language has about 470,000 primary words. Generic words can be used to put forth an idea that would normally be dismissed out of hand in a certain venue by avoiding the specific word etc.

A classic example in Christian venues is the use of the word “gospel” to put forth certain ideas about justification that would be dismissed out of hand if the word, “justification” was used. Initially, that is. Once the idea is assimilated into the group’s minds, “justification” can then be freely used which seals the deal. If a teacher doesn’t believe in a particular biblical truth, he/she can simply never teach on it while assimilating nuanced antithetical ideas into the general curriculum. Hence: “One man’s account seems convincing until another comes forward.” Well, the other guy never comes forward, and you are therefore convinced.

The idea that we can glean helpful truth from any message is naïveté on steroids. Every word is an accomplice to that teacher’s interpretation of reality and the goal’s thereof. That is what “teaching” is. It is purpose-driven. 900 people liked what the words of Jim Jones seemed to say, but didn’t understand that his interpretation of realty would leave them dead and rotting in the hot sun of Guyana.

This also speaks to the scandalous reality of systematic theology not being taught in the churches. Congregants are left to accept whatever caveats are dished out from the pulpit.

Which can lead to anywhere.

paul

Tagged with: , ,

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on August 2, 2013 at 12:43 PM

    Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.

    Like

  2. james jordan's avatar james jordan said, on August 3, 2013 at 1:35 AM

    All information has always been agenda driven, all of it. This statement strikes me funny: “This also speaks to the scandalous reality of systematic theology not being taught in the churches.” There is not and cannot be any systematic theology, because the New Testament doesn’t cohere with itself and certainly not with the Old Testament. This is the problem. And it can’t be fixed. There cannot be a systematic Christian theology; its not possible.

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on August 3, 2013 at 4:33 AM

      The Tabernacle is not systematic theology?

      Like

  3. james jordan's avatar james jordan said, on August 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM

    I’m not sure what tabernacle you’re referring to, but I would clarify my statement. Its possible to make a systematic theology as in a system of theology that uses certain parts of the NT and ignores others. But its not possible to make a systematic theology following the principle of tota scriptura since much of what Paul says will not harmonize. For example, in one place we should not eat what is offered to idols because “what the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons” and “I would not have you partake of the table of demons” whereas in another, “we know an idol is nothing” and therefore we can be sneaky and eat the meat when no Jewish Christian is around — oh that Paul. The NT is full of this kind of doublespeak in the Pauline epistles, so it is not possible to bring every verse into your system: you must reject some. That’s what I mean.

    Like


Leave a reply to james jordan Cancel reply