Confessions of a Liberal Puritan

"...They take scenes out of context, and misquote interviews and con-reports, to support their POV. Sound familiar?"

As compared to religion in general? Or to interpreters of Paul's writings, in particular? Either way, the familiarity does comes through.

As I've noted elsewhere (in the comments on Superplin's reflections on the Bible and fandom from March 26), I have my own favorite sections of Paul, and other sections (even those from the indisputably authentic Pauline letters, like I Corinthians) that I tend to discount. Like the extremists in the Pro-Spike and Anti-Spike camps -- or like those who use Paul to beat justify misogyny, homophobia, or slavery, in what seems to me a very un-Christ-like spirit -- I make my own 'canon within the canon', cherry-picking the bits that agree with my viewpoints and pooh-poohing the parts that support an opposing interpretation. Like many of Paul's greatest fans among women theologians and biblical scholars, I'm tempted to put his "women should be silent in the churches" comments in I Corinthians 14:34-36 and elsewhere down to Paul having an "off" day, or being too rooted in his own particular history and culture to realize that this might NOT be God's eternal word for his people. How else to explain that the guy who wrote I Corinthians 13:1-13, or Galatians 3:28 ("There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus") could also come out with a groaner like that? Meanwhile, my opponents cherry-pick and pooh-pooh to arrive at the opposite conclusions -- that the "no girls allowed in the pulpit" rule represents the REAL Paul, and anything to the contrary is just taken out of context.


"I liken the Gospels (even John, it's just a different form of Gospel, like Hush, The Body, Restless*, and Once More With Feeling are different types of episodes) canon to BtVS canon. Acts and everything thereafter is more akin to A:ts canon. Where Peter, John, etc. (one of the 11) have written a post-Gospels book or epistle, we have a situation akin to those A:ts episodes written by (now former) BtVS scribes. The church's (historical and worldwide) teaching is the fanon. Sometimes it is right and insightful. Sometimes? Not so much."

I think you may be on to something, there. I have no trouble at all accepting the extra-biblical teachings and traditions of my own or any other branch of the Church as 'fanon' -- and therefore only authoritative in so far as they seem to reflect the real canon. The Gospels as the BtVS canon and Acts-through-Jude [is that the last Epistle before Revelation? I don't have my Bible with me at the moment] as the AtS canon makes sense in terms of who's supposed to be interpreting and building upon what. But given the fact that most of Paul's letters, at least, pre-date the earliest Gospel to be written down and circulated, the chronological angle doesn't quite work out. However, if we liken the first three seasons of BtVS to the SOURCE materials the Gospel-writers are presumed to have used (a proto-Mark, the "Q" source shared by Luke and Matthew, and the individual resources reflected in each of the finished Gospels), then BtVS seasons 4 thru 7 (minus "Restless"!) could be argued to be analogous to the finished Gospels and AtS seasons 1 thru 5 to Acts and the Epistles. Maybe. I suspect I'm way over-thinking this.

"'Restless' is also fandom's version of The Book of Revelation. Some people can't make head nor tails of it. Some people are upset by it. Some people are enthralled by it. Some people think everything is in it."

LOL! That's a perfect analogy!