Quote:
Originally Posted by james73
Walter Wink... points out pros and cons of other points of view, treating even his own ideas objectively and sometimes even defeating his own arguments! This is true confidence and scholarship at work.
By contrast, Lee's works are built on sand. With no referencing or bibliography (other than the usual "shoulder-mounted canon" of Guyon, Luther etc) how are we to trust the work, or build on it, or discuss it, or research if further? Theology like this should never be taken on faith, and it is poor practice to ask readers to trust the author in this way - if for no other reason than it makes it impossible to check for mistakes or wrong thinking.
|
I agree with the above. In addition, if the saints today claim to be following closely in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, should they not consider the writings that came between the apostles and the present?
Instead, we get this vague, "Oh yeah, WN read all that".
Huh?
As james73 says, if you have confidence in what you are doing you treat alternatives with respect and attempt to give all possible interpretations & ideas equal attention.
I know it takes work to pay attention and sift through all those voices. It takes work to temporarily hold conflicting ideas in your head until you sort them out. As WL once said, it is like a 'jigsaw puzzle' that you are putting together.
But to work through all the primary, secondary material is arguably better than to say, "Oh, WN did all the hard work. And WL did the hard work to bring us WN's essential teachings. We just need to read the ministry."