autobiographies beseeches.Huston amid,personify,liable …

Thanks for the feedback! Sorry I forgot to do a pingback thing on my post, I meant to but… you know.

One of the hazards of trying to explain a thought in a few paragraphs is that the reduction results in oversimplification. Which is to say, I agree that things are not so cut-and-dried as I indicated in the original post.

Having grown up Roman Catholic, the value of tradition as a correction to do-it-yourself religion has (almost) always seemed like a “no-duh” to me. And vice versa. Nowadays, hanging around mainly North American evangelical protestants, I get a sense of how dangerous and radical that line of thinking can seem in certain circles.

I say, more power to the balance of powers.

I noticed rather later that my friend Erin posted some interesting thoughts about my Epiphany/Raven article on her blog.
Check Erin’s response out here.

……

I thought about the moral ambiguity of the story afterwards too. I even looked up some other versions on the web to make sure I wasn’t getting it all wrong. In one, Raven is not hurt, making him less sacrificial. In one, the man who owns the light is the eagle (which makes the chasing part make sense – though I thought eagle = Rome was an interesting allusion).

Is the Bible, even the NT, all that morally cut-and-dried? The OT sure isn’t – there is moral ambiguity in every story, especially with characters like Jacob (sleazeball/man of faith). Even a story as innocent as Ruth leaves room for hanky panky. David’s kingdom and family peter out. Daniel, one of the most positively treated characters in the OT, if you read between the lines is at least complicit with the (evil) empire.

The striking thing about the NT against that background is that it does portray one person, Jesus, without that moral ambiguity – but even in Acts there is plenty of room to question whether the author is approving everything wholesale or insinuating that the Christians’ motives and actions may not be spotless.

So, I think it is more complex, but you’re right that the Bible does train us to look for moral significance in stories, and the Raven story is charming because it resists that sort of reading.

Back to the context of the whole article, though, I am trying to affirm the goodness of intuition/natural theology, but also point out its limitations. Likewise, I’m affirming tradition as a better guide than individualized intuition, but ultimately arguing that revelation is indispensible to knowing God, even though that revelation may be guarded by an unfaithful religious establishment.

Anyway, thanks again for reading, thinking about and responding to my article!