Return to Question

Since both of the above "camps" as I've described them operate from at least partially diametrically opposed and partially mutually exclusive sets of strong first principles about the nature of Scripture, is it realistically possible for this site to be "all things to all people" (or perhaps all things to both camps) so to speak, and in so doing not show bias--whether intentionally or not intentionally--toward the non-faith-based hermeneutists?

 

Furthermore, isn't the person who assumes we must bracket the sacred from the secular in fact simply tipping his or her hat towards the ones who define secular instead of towards the ones who--like me--consider this bracketing tantamount to creating a false dichotomy between sacred and secular? As if sacred truth and secular truth could never possibly be happily married?

Since both of the above "camps" as I've described them operate from at least partially diametrically opposed and partially mutually exclusive sets of strong first principles about the nature of Scripture, is it realistically possible for this site to be "all things to all people" (or perhaps all things to both camps) so to speak, and in so doing not show bias--whether intentionally or not intentionally--toward the non-faith-based hermeneutists?

Furthermore, isn't the person who assumes we must bracket the sacred from the secular in fact simply tipping his or her hat towards the ones who define secular instead of towards the ones who--like me--consider this bracketing tantamount to creating a false dichotomy between sacred and secular? As if sacred truth and secular truth could never possibly be happily married?

Having read recently Paul Copan's book True for you, but not for me: Deflating the Slogans that Leave Christians Speechless, I've become extra-sensitive, I guess, to the tendency of non-faith-based hermeneutists, scientists, philosophers, theologians, and just plain people to assume their perspective is in some way superior to the faith-based perspective by virtue of its being more neutral, less biased, more fact-driven, and generally less baggage-laden. Again, nothing could be further from the truth, at least not in any inherent sense.

Furthermore, isn't the person who assumes we must bracket the sacred from the secular in fact simply tipping his or her hat towards the ones who define secular instead of towards the ones who--like me--consider this bracketing tantamount to creating a false dichotomy? As if sacred truth and secular truth could never possibly be happily married?

Having read recently Paul Copan's book True For You, But Not For Me: Deflating the Slogans that Leave Christians Speechless, I've become extra-sensitive, I guess, to the tendency of non-faith-based hermeneutists, scientists, philosophers, theologians, and just plain people to assume their perspective is in some way superior to the faith-based perspective by virtue of its being more neutral, less biased, more fact-driven, and generally less baggage-laden. Again, nothing could be further from the truth, at least not in any inherent sense.

Furthermore, isn't the person who assumes we must bracket the sacred from the secular in fact simply tipping his or her hat towards the ones who define secular instead of towards the ones who--like me--consider this bracketing tantamount to creating a false dichotomy between sacred and secular? As if sacred truth and secular truth could never possibly be happily married?