Angellous' Reaffirmation of the Divine (rituals, gospel, tradition, church)

[angellous_evangellous]

I was ordained to the Gospel ministry in a Baptist church in 2003. Almost immediately thereafter, I wanted nothing to do with my Baptist heritage. Fortunately, I was admitted into a PhD program at an ecumenical school that allowed me to express my frustration with Christianity in general and Baptist theology in particular. I determined before entry not to interpret any Biblical texts in my papers - or to apply any of my research to theology as a protest to my Christian heritage.

Odd for a New Testament major. I guess. I saw my some of my colleagues do it - and I criticized them for assuming that God exists in their argument. They thought that I was joking.

I will quote from my first year review:
"Let me make a general observation that you might take some time to mull over: you have extraordinary skill at locating cultural, philosophical, ethical, rhetorical Greek and Latin texts that potentially shed new light on the NT, this year in relation to 2 Cor, John, and now Romans.

But you have consistently neglected the interpretation of the NT text itself, odd for a Baptist scholar, although I certainly feel the excitement of finding such texts... In my judgment (you may agree or disagree), your reflections on 2 Cor, John, and now Romans, simply reads the pagan values into the NT."

The root of the problem is that I became disallusioned at seeing fellow minsters pattern their ministries after their own lusts and not according to their calling. I saw Paige Patterson at Southwestern Seminary cleanse the community of anyone who did not hold his view. Most importantly, I saw contemporary ministers of all denomenations destroying ethics in the name of religion.

So I rebelled.

Secular humanism is attractive to me because it affirms the special nature of humanity without destroying ethics with religion. Unfortunately, it has the tendacy to view all religious rituals as infantile. I, however, can see value in religious expression if it can be shown to enrich the person - like art or music. I concluded that science or historical-critical methods are not the best way to review religious expression itself, but only the tradition of religious expression. In other words, a critical method can classify and determine the nature of the religious tradition but cannot confirm or deny the divine or the supernatural validity of the expression.

It's not harmful to place one's hope in the Divine.

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't see any harm in giving thanks to God for the marvellous Texas springtime, or calling out to God in suffering.

[angellous_evangellous]

I have determined... that I can not call the writings of Plato, Xenophon, Teles, Cicero, Seneca, and Plutarch pagan anymore than I can the writings of Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, Peter, James, or John.