Thanks for engaging with the question. The only thing I would push back from my perspective is that I don’t think it’s so much about applying the principles of the Bible in your life as it is about allowing the Holy Spirit to shape your life.

I sometimes use the language that sin is an “eye problem” that leads to an “I problem.” The Bible often uses language that sin is a force or disease which affects and infects us. And yes, I believe that we’re only healed of this disease by the work of the Holy Spirit.

I think “conversation” is the key word here. It’s a means of engaging in dialogue with our predecessors, who wrestled with many of the same questions we do today.

These days, I interpret the idea of “sola scriptura” to be more closely related to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers than the infallibility of the Bible. I recognize that this may not be what Martin Luther had in mind, but I’m comfortable asserting that we don’t need to rely on the clergy to interpret scripture for us. I don’t think it’s wise to reject the wisdom of the church or to read the Bible outside of community.

Some traditions would argue that the concepts of original sin and total depravity necessitate that, as sinful people, everything we do, we do in sin, regardless of intention or knowledge.

For the most part, I reject that line of thinking. I think sin usually does involve some level of awareness. Again, I view sin primarily as the dehumanizing or objectifying of others. It’s viewing people not as other souls with inherent worth, but as a means of achieving your own desires. I think often, we are aware to some degree that we do this. But then, it could be argued that we may sometimes do this without realization.

Not always, but often, making unpopular changes is precisely what the executive is being paid to do. Their job is to implement these changes, make sure that they are the one everyone gets upset with, and then take that anger with them when they leave.

I actually haven’t heard about that podcast. Thanks for sharing!

If I understand you correctly, I think I could get on board with your interpretation in the sense that this may be the method by which God has designed humans to gradually develop an understanding of sin, but I would differ in that I believe there is an objective morality towards which we’re aligning. If sin is truly memetic, then the Good either doesn’t exist or is inaccessible/unknowable, which is inconsistent with my understanding of God’s self-revealing nature.

The way that someone chooses to interpret scripture is certainly going to impact their perspective on women in leadership. I agree with you that, despite the claims of many fundamentalists, it seems difficult to uphold the Bible as a univocal, concordant text. I see a lot of issues stem from the assumption that the Bible is effectively an instruction manual with a clear and consistent message on how we are to live our lives. A great resource on this topic is “The Bible Made Impossible,” by Christian Smith.

I think an interesting example of how we should depend on biblical authority within the Bible itself is from Acts 15. By appealing to the scriptures, the early church determines that Gentiles shouldn’t be required to practice circumcision - which was one of the core elements of their faith at the time, because it was commanded in the scriptures.

In my experience and perspective, the value of the Bible comes from its role as the word which reveals the Word. I will stand firm on the conviction that Jesus is the definitive revelation of divinity - not the Bible. The Bible is useful inasmuch as it is a book about Jesus. And yes, the portrait of Jesus it provides for us is someone who declares liberation, not subjugation.