welcome to the story.

My closing remarks for my online class from this summer to all the people who got mad at me during the semester. I'd like to add a few closing remarks regarding the exegesis of this and the other subjects that we've covered this semester so that I perhaps I can avoid being labeled a flower child or fruit. Although there is nothing wrong with those distinctions, I would prefer to be known as student of the Word, of theology, of thought, and of culture. On subjects of theology such as this, where there is obviously still a great divide between a consensus and our interpretations, I attempt, as previously outlined or hinted at in nearly all of my posts, that I approach the text not only from a scientific viewpoint but from a poetical or narrative view as well. I am not referring to narrative theology (although I do not agree with the way conservative Christianity has defined it) I do take a more narrative approach to theology and God. In this way, I can approach the Bible as the ongoing story of redemption and not as individual parts to be abstractly studied. I believe that is one of the major flaws of systematic theology. It makes theology a science and it reduces the study of God down to modernistic science, which is an approach that I'm not comfortable using at all times in my study of Scripture. While I do take a very systematic approach in my studies and readings, I also take a narrative or poetical approach. This is the approach that St. Ignatius used frequently as he would place himself in the different shoes of those in the gospels. It is an approach with many flaws as well as strengths. Just as a systematic approach to theology has many flaws and many strengths. Perhaps we might be viewing "exegesis" from a much to narrow mindset. Maybe the goal of exegesis is for us to be able to approach the text from a variety of different angles and with a variety of different layers. In this way exegesis would be more holistic than the one-sided way in which it is predominantly done now. In reality, there is not much difference between the way you approach a text and the way I do. You approach it from a systematic angle and by doing so you are out to find facts, observations, laws, theories, and points that usually tend to be more abstract. While I approach it from a narrative/poetic angle and by doing so I allow the text to read me, instead of me reading it. This allows me to immerse myself in the ongoing story of the past, present, and future. In this way I can see how the text serves as a hinge, catalyst, bump in the road, or springboard in the ongoing story. Passages of Scripture don't become isolated, detached pieces of information to be broken down and memorized, but they instead becoming living, breathing stories that force me to enter and immerse myself into the story. One of the reasons I choose to study Scripture through this lens is because of the diversity of opinion that forces my interpretation to be stretched and intellectually thought through. In this way, I can openly discuss theology and learn from those who do not operate under my plausibility structure or theological framework. In this mode of thinking, I can learn from an Eastern Orthodox priest as well as I can from a Southern Baptist preacher, from a 80 year old theologian and from a child, from a poverty stricken third-world Christian and from a financially stable, wealthy American Christian, from a man and from a woman. Obviously, those with more experience will have more to contribute to the table knowledge wise, but those with more naivete might be able to contribute more to the table wisdom wise. The reason I have attempted to approach exegesis in this fashion is that, to be perfectly honest, I have become very disillusioned with the way the modern, post-Enlightenment (especially the past 100 years) church has handled the text. This was evident over my "disgruntlement" on the Atonement Assignment. I did not enjoy the Spirit of that conversation or many of the simplistic answers that did not leave room for mysterious layers of complexity. I am also tired of watching church splits, friendships end, and denominations torn over areas that we will never have a full and comprehensive understanding of this side of heaven. Growing up in my home church in Alabama, before I even became a Christian and an amateur theologian, I had to listen every week after church as the members would stand around and argue the nuances of some remote passage in Numbers. Or better yet, they would sit around and argue about the new resolution that the Alabama Baptist or Southern Baptists just passed. Then as I matured, I got to learn about why I'm not supposed to be in this man's Sunday School class because he teaches Calvinism or in this man's class because he doesn't use the KJV of the Bible. And later on, I got to learn how the great and mighty (sarcasm implied) Southern Baptist Convention was hanging on the blade of a knife over this "Calvinism/election" debate. As a lost kid, this was such a beautiful portrait of a community of faith that I wanted to sign right up and start living a life like these guys. Yeah right . . . that is why I went off and did my own thing until God opened my eyes to the fact that not all Christians are Pharisees. I was discontent with this arrogant, elitist approach to Scripture. So I've attempted to focus on a few grand essentials. And in these essentials, unity; in the nonessentials, diversity; and in all things charity. Hopefully I've shown that spirit in everything that I've discussed this semester, never condescending, but always valuing the rich diversity of interpretation present among this class. Unfortunately, I think I may have failed in that regard on a few occasions as I have let my passion speak without discernment and clarity. I know as a 22-year-old college student in a graduate level class, that I do not have much to offer in the way of knowledge and experience. But what I do hope and pray that I have offered throughout this semester, is a fresh perspective on theology - whether poetic, narrative, or systematic. I know this approach has frustrated many of you. If I had a dollar for every person who has been frustrated with me in my 3 years here at Luther Rice, I'd be well on my way to a nice fortune. I'm sorry that my approach to theology and methodology ruffles so many feathers. I do not purposefully intend to do that. I do however, intend to stretch my thinking as well as the thinking of others in a didactic and sometimes paradoxical way. With that I approach, I hope I have contributed in some small sense to this classroom and our assignments.