OR PERHAPS WHAT I’D LIKE TO REFER TO AS THE WONDER YEARS
* From an epistemological stand point, I was moderately pro-modernity/Enlighten/anti-postmodernism to slightly post-modern/communitarian to now doctrinaire post-colonial (has a nice ring to it, eh?) 🙂
*From a politics that I would say that sat in the moderate/centrist pro-life Clintonian (Bill) Democrat with a preference for multi-lateralism in foreign policy to now an outspoken left of center libertarian, whose views fit somewhere in the neighborhood of your resident P.U.M.A. and the Republican Liberty Caucus. Foreign policy wise, I tend to favor the loudest voices who are anti-war.
* In terms of readings of Scripture, I would say back then, i would claim to read the inerrant word “literally” to transitioning to the emerging narrative reading of the biblical text to now rejecting both models in favor of historical-criticism, including quests for the historical Jesus and Paul, while reading the canon as multi-narrative, as well as affirming Scripture as uniquely and fully-trustworthy.
*Lastly, and I think this one is most important: from being a self-proclaimed egalitarian to actually reading, listening to, and engaging religious texts by women. I think it is so important to do so, and it really has changed me and the way I understand the faith, especially with regards to womanist theology and ethics.
I think theologically, I did not have to overcome any of the evangelical baggage that many so-called liberals, post-liberals, and emerging Christans go through simply because (and I had a hard time accepting this), that my tradition was simply not welcome in evangelical circles. So, I only learned about God’s “immutability” and “impassibility” when I got to college. However, I had never had to affirm those two doctrines, and I refuse to anyhow. Jesus reveals Godself to be the Suffering/self-denying God of creation and the cross, and I see these labels as a direct contradiction to this revelation. Also, I did not even know of the inerrancy debates or the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy until much later, and so I do reject the terms in which the debates have taken place, for those concerns are not my concerns at all, but rather the interests of a powerful and elite interest group. What’s exactly the point in banning redaction criticism again?