Recently finished Marilynne Robinson's Gilead. It is a slow, gentle read. The prose is just gorgeous. I really had to decide to read it, though. It isn't a book you devour. But every now and then, there are these absolutely magnificent gems. Here's one, with the narrator (a preacher) recollecting about his grandfather (also a preacher), who counted his eye lost in Civil War combat a blessing:
"He once told me that being blessed meand being bloodied, and that is true etymologically, in English - but not in Greek or Hebrew. So whatever understanding might be based on that derivation has no scriptural authority behind it. It was unlike him to strain interpretation that way. He did it in order to make an account of himself, I suppose, as most of us do" (p. 36).
Straining interpretation in order to make an account of ourselves! Certainly a post-modern look at how doctrine is formed! But how true it is... I think of some of my seminary classmates, remarkable folks whom I love dearly, but who would engage in remarkably self-destructive behaviors and brush away any questions in the spirit of Lutheran anti-legalism. Yes, in Christ we are free. But Jesus didn't die so you could indulge every selfish impulse you ever had! Or pastors who construe "faithfulness" to mean "frankly, we're not very attractive to people." Yes, faithfulness means not simply appealing to the self-indulgent appetites of the world. But it also means incarnating the love of Christ that draws the wounded in search of healing.
How much would our theological disagreements be enriched if we could be honest about how much we are straining interpretations in order to give an account for ourselves, or our traditions?