It's another round of Conversations with Bob! Come on in and set a spell!
You asked a lot of thoughtful questions. It will take some time to hash it all out. Before I start with that I want to follow up on my last comment regarding global warming. I think scientists have pointed to a fact that the planet is warming. Also, CO2 levels are rising. That increase in CO2 is in part due to human contribution (ie. fossil fuels). I am not sure all scientists are convinced that the connection between CO2 and the current warming has been clearly established. In graphs of CO2 and warming in history, the warming appears to have started before the CO2 increased.
My point: What happens if Earth begins to cool after 2012 as some scientists suggest? If we put all of our eggs in the global warming nest, we may lose our commitment to dealing with the wider variety of issues, including other ways we are polluting Earth, and violence between nations over resources. I am excited and hopeful about the increasing concern for our planetary home. Environmental concerns should be one of our primary concerns, as a human race and as a church (more important to me than substitutionary atonement for instance). It is all a package, a biblical package, I would say of God's justice and love for creation.
This is my point about reinterpretation. The Bible is not a book about everything even God. It is to me a story of what it means to be human. Crossan points out that the Bible dates Creation around 4000 BCE. Why that date? It is about that time that humanity moved from the Old Stone Age into the Neololithic Revolution characterized by agriculture, the domestication of animals and the control of other people. It is the beginning of civilization. The Cain and Abel account is the beginning of the Bible's story of that movement. The biblical writers knew that civilization was problematic as it contained within it the unjust control by the few over the many and the violence needed to retain that disparity. The ideological means of retaining that system of injustice was theology set up by literate priests.
In other words theology or ideology (a system of ritual and meaning) sometimes served (more often than not) to legitimize the power of those who are advantaged. Sometimes the theology served to critique this injustice and to point to a new way of being and the hope of God's justice on Earth (ie. the Song of Mary) ...
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.
The Biblical story is a radical story of God's justice edited by human injustice. Reinterpretation involves the recovery of the message of God's peace through justice vs. empire's (the normalcy of civilization) peace through victory (Crossan).
The church today and throughout its history has largely served Empire. It does so by not talking about it. That is, it makes up all kinds of other theories and says that they are more important (ie. getting to heaven as opposed to hell), and all of the theories that go with that. This includes elevating the whole of the Bible as God's Word, which levels the radical message of God's justice with human injustice not only in who gets to control theological interpretation of texts but even within the texts themselves. The pastoral epistles are an example of editing the radical message of Paul. An easy illustration is the silencing of women in Church or the requirement that slaves obey masters with fear and trembling, etc.
The clincher in history was when the Roman Empire became the "Holy" Roman Empire. It was still the violence of Empire but now blessed by Christianity. Christianity did not change Empire, but Empire changed the radical message of Jesus. In short, church theology has largely served to keep the people happy with Empire, rather than being empowered to move against it.
That is a start! Flycandler said that at some point you will need to be asked the $60,000 question regarding Jack Rogers. Here it is:
Did he always have this much hair?