I was just thinking (danger zone); wouldn’t it be just like the LORD to confound the wisdom of the wise with what the wise consider to be foolishness? Except get this: Instead of the usual dualism that this kind of thinking is usually thought through — like Church-world, or sacred-secular — what if the reference was actually Church-Church, or sacred-sacred? So that what the wise in the Church consider to be wisdom; and obversely, what the wise in the Church consider to be foolish, turns out to be the wisdom of God. I have been thinking a lot about Dispensationalism  lately, and it strikes me that most biblical exegetes and systematic/dogmatic theologians today (Christian ones) consider Dispensationalism to be the “common-man’s” religon; or the untrained dilettante’s attempt to provide a “sophisticated” theological construct (based on “common sense” literalism) for their beliefs. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the dispensationalism so often mocked turned out to be the most proximate to how it actually is?

I am persuaded that at least classic dispensationalism is not the way it is. But then again, I could be wrong. I’m not admitting of an relativism in my approach, or that we cannot come to any kind of critically real understandings of theological hermeneutical reality. I’m just thinking out-loud about the possibility that so many theological trajectories, for all their respective gusto, could be terribly wrong; and of course I am thinking of theological adiophra or secondary musings elaborated and articulated by theologians and biblical exegetes (i.e. theolougemena); not about essential teachings elaborated by the Church ecumenical (i.e. I’m not entertaining some sort of nihilistic hermeneutic).

I’m just positing the idea that for all the collective wisdom amongst all of the collective theologians and biblical exegetes out there; grandma who sits in the pew with her common-woman understanding could be more wise than the “Wise.” A humbling prospect . . .