"story" = dirty word?
Does identifying the Bible as "story" diminish it's importance?
Sent from my iPhone
re: Anne Lamott's "Mess" and John Wesley's "Perfection"
here is 6 days growth. my son said this morning, "your beard is pinching me!" i have received some comments regarding my last post which included an excerpt from Anne Lamott's Bird by Bird . The comments centered around Lamott's observations re: perfectionism being the voice of the oppressor, the Wesleyan theological term "Christian Perfection", and the United Methodist understanding that we are moving on to "perfection." i don't think that by sharing Lamott's observations i have called Wesley's theology into question or compromised my own understanding of "Christian Perfection." as i understand Wesley, his move towards "perfection", or the acquisition of "sanctification" (though Wesley seems to believe that this could be a fleeting acquisition at best) is a process or journey made by one through grace alone and that one who achieves "perfection" is not in the state permanently and therefore is
Comments
Is there a differnece in calling the Bible story and reading stories in the Bible?
If, on the other hand, we admit that modernity had to tell stories to explain why stories are not worth as much as facts, then perhaps not.