Since "we know only in part" and "see in a mirror, dimly" (1 Cor 13:9, 12), none of us have a "clear understanding of God?" What any of us knows is only partial -- and our knowledge is colored by our own experiences.
True, but I find little in race, gender, and class, per se, to help us see the face of God. We see it in a variety of people. We see the antithesis of God in those whose lives are in chaos, and we see excellent examples of it in those who bring peace to others -- peace which breeds strength order, and happiness, rather than the liberal version of peace, which is really just wimpiness. Race-gender-class have little to do with it. E.g., I have more in common with Condoleeza Rice (a black woman raised in a poor, racist environment, who now is far beyond me socially, and is an evangelical protestant) than I do a white male Lutheran attending Ebenezer.
Perhaps a modern woman cannot fully empathize with a woman from 2000 years ago -- but I'm certain that whatever empathy they may have with the ancient woman, it will be a whole lot more than I could ever muster.
That sounds like a generalization -- one which states that there are innate, inborne differences between men and women...
DH Wrote:
Good, but I still don't have any idea what difference race, sex, nationality, income level, etc., has to do with anything.
BS Wrote:
That is your loss. One example that my seminary theology professor discovered was that he had been teaching that the basic sin was trying to be like God: being proud of our accomplishments, raising ourselves up to to godlike status. He knew that that was his experience.
His wife went to seminary and said that she did not have that experience of sin. For her, like many women, she had never had thoughts of becoming like God. She saw her basic sin was thinking of herself as less than human -- not living up to the giftedness and potential that God had given her.
Male-female differences are significant, I accept that. It is important for us to have contact with the opposite sex. But I don't accept your theology professor's take on it. Women are quite capable of playing God, and men are quite capable of thinking of themselves as less than human, and not living up to their potential.
There is some ambiguity in his writings. Circumcision is not necessary, but he has Timothy circumcised. There are no such things as other gods, so sacrifices to them mean nothing, but he would refrain from eating such meat. We are justified by faith (alone). Works account for nothing, but then most of his letters have a section where he tells the readers what they should be doing. While he says that he doesn't want to boast, he goes ahead and boasts about what a good Jew he was -- and what a suffering Christian he is. I think Romans 7 is a good illustration of a man who knows the limits of his own abilities. If anything, Paul is sure that he will sin; and he is sure that there is no condemnation for those in Christ.
Sounds right-on to me. Works are important, but only as a *byproduct* of faith. Standards vs. compassion. Passion & ambition vs. humbleness. Etc.. As our pastor once said, a symptom of being a Christian is an internal struggle. And it's true. If we move too far in the conservative direction, then we are heartless and inhumane. If we move too far in the liberal direction, then chaos ensues. The goal is to be in the middle (the absolute middle, not relative to society), constantly struggling with truisms of right and left, micro and macro, etc.. The goal isn't to be perfectly consistent. I think it was Fr. Neuhaus who once said, "better to be inconsistent, than consistently wrong".
So Paul didn't become a liberal (or a conservative). He became a Christian.
