Thank you for sharing this article. I really appreciated your engagement with the tension between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, and for mentioning Tillich. Reading the quote you included about interpreting religious symbols for the secular person, and it sparked a lot of reflection for me.
I find myself wrestling with the concern that symbolic reinterpretation, while intended to make faith understandable, can unintentionally lead new believers (and even those growing in their own sanctification) to think Christianity is something we can shape entirely to personal preference (“my truth”) versus God’s truth. At the same time, I also recognize the value in translating timeless truths in ways that resonate with people in today’s context.
I wanted to share this not as criticism but as curiosity and dialogue. I’m thinking about how we communicate truth in ways that both land and remain anchored in Scripture. Thank you again for your thoughtful writing, it gave me a lot to consider. 🤔
Thanks for your thoughts! You bring up a great point regarding symbolic reinterpretation. There is a balance we need to strike between translation (great term btw) to meet people where they are and a recognition that what we’re discussing is holy and “other,” thus requiring a move away from whatever current position is in question.
That’s what I designed the redemptive correlation method to do. We still hear the heart and the ache behind the situation, and we can contextualize accordingly. But we don’t stop there. Instead of moving the symbol, we move the situation.
Thank you for sharing this article. I really appreciated your engagement with the tension between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, and for mentioning Tillich. Reading the quote you included about interpreting religious symbols for the secular person, and it sparked a lot of reflection for me.
I find myself wrestling with the concern that symbolic reinterpretation, while intended to make faith understandable, can unintentionally lead new believers (and even those growing in their own sanctification) to think Christianity is something we can shape entirely to personal preference (“my truth”) versus God’s truth. At the same time, I also recognize the value in translating timeless truths in ways that resonate with people in today’s context.
I wanted to share this not as criticism but as curiosity and dialogue. I’m thinking about how we communicate truth in ways that both land and remain anchored in Scripture. Thank you again for your thoughtful writing, it gave me a lot to consider. 🤔
Thanks for your thoughts! You bring up a great point regarding symbolic reinterpretation. There is a balance we need to strike between translation (great term btw) to meet people where they are and a recognition that what we’re discussing is holy and “other,” thus requiring a move away from whatever current position is in question.
That’s what I designed the redemptive correlation method to do. We still hear the heart and the ache behind the situation, and we can contextualize accordingly. But we don’t stop there. Instead of moving the symbol, we move the situation.