Unsettled Christianity

Gloria Dei homo vivens – St Irenaeus
February 17th, 2014 by Joel Watts

I’m not sure I agree


Define “require”… define “truth.”

For instance, the pastor who died over the weekend because he “had the truth.” The truth for him is in the KJV. He doesn’t rely on humanities or theology, nor on the simple science that if you get bit by a snake you may die, regardless of prayer.

I get the sentiment, that science is not all there is, but surely it can be better expressed than this?

Joel Watts
Watts holds a MA in Theological Studies from United Theological Seminary. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians, as well as seeking an MA in Clinical Mental Health at Adams State University. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).


2 Responses to “I’m not sure I agree”
  1. Know More Than I Should says

    In so far as truth is concerned, it’s the parable of the blind men and the elephant. There is your version of the truth. There is my version of the truth. Then, there’s actuality/reality.
    Require is equally as subjective. The game seems to be put more of a burden on science than on religion. It is something that Jesus would have probably recognized quite well had the argument arisen in his day.

  2. If you replaced “truth” with “facts” this would be unexceptionable. Whether facts are equivalent to truth is a different matter…

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: