Knowing God

Awhile back I had a discussion, well, let's say a momentary interchange, with one of the pastoral leaders of the church I was attending. I was excited about the scriptures, in that they were becoming alive for me in ways that I had not experienced previously. I mentioned to him that I did not think that the Bible was a users manual for humans. It's purpose is not so much to tell us how to behave as it was to reveal God's love for the Cosmos. Although, there are things that point to how God expects those who are called as God's children to live and act, this was secondary. My point being that unless we allow God's word to transform us internally, the external things are of little importance. His response was that the Bible is a guide to living a morally and godly life. That it is imperative to follow the guidelines and precepts present in the text in order to please God.
Hmmm....I don't think so. In Jesus' day there were groups of people who thought like this pastor. We know them as Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees loved Yahweh. They tried to follow the Torah in their everyday lives. They followed all of the prescribed behaviors in order to respond in righteousness to the grace they had received as God's chosen people. This kind of thinking led Paul to state that he was, in fact, righteous according to the Law. But, the Pharisees missed something. Jesus said about them, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life" (John 5:39-40). Many today, like this pastor, think that by reading, memorizing, and attempting to apply the scripture as if it is law, they will achieve righteousness and, ultimately, eternal life. Yet, like the Pharisees, they aren't able to "come to me" and receive life.
Like the Sadducees who were mistaken about the resurrection, people today impose on God presuppositions that limit what they allow God to be. They have an idea of how God is supposed to work, and try to fit the scriptures to that small understanding of the Creator/Yahweh who walked among us. Jesus' response? “Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God?" (Mark 12:24). We all try to fit the infinite Yahweh Elohim into our finite minds. We are not built to grasp and understand the transcendent. But, we do God, the very good creation, and ourselves a great disservice when we try to do that very thing. God will not be fitted to our image. God, on the other hand, will try to make us into the image dei.

.

I saw this cartoon over at Dr. John Byron's blog. For me, it sums up the position of biblicists. Folks who come to the scripture with presuppositions that specify how God must act, speak, exist in order to shore up a poorly designed position of biblical inerrancy. More on that to come.

Peter Enns and Adam

There is an interesting thread beginning over at http://thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/.
Dr. John Byron has blogged about Peter Enns' book, The Evolution of Adam: What theBible Does and Doesn’t say about Human Origins (Brazos Press, 2012).
The book has the potential to free many from the shackles of biblical idolatry, (bibliolatry). So many of us put the scripture in bondage to something that it was never intended to be. It is not a history, although it contains some. It is not intended to be science. Regarding some of the factors that Enns proposes we approach Adam today, Dr. Byron wrote, "(1) literalism is not an option, (2) that the Bible and science speak different languages and ask different questions, (3) that inspiration should embrace God’s use of cultural idioms, and (4) that a rapprochement between evolution and Christianity requires a synthesis, not just adding evolution to theology."
I am waiting anxiously for Amazon to get my copy of Enns' book into my hands. It sounds like a refreshing take on an old discussion.

The Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth

The ongoing discussions about biblical inerrancy continues to fascinate me. I've read the Chicago definition. I find it wanting. Mostly, because it tries to define God in an extremely narrow manner. It also, I feel errantly, raises the biblical text to the place of godhood. It is, as they say, bibliolatry. What really got me thinking about this was the nastiness that many display when this question comes up.
While struggling with this, and other issues related to the biblical literalist position, a professor of Old Testament asked an interesting question. While considering both Ruth and Esther as stories that most likely were not accounts of actual events, he asked if it was possible for truth to be expressed in fiction. Hmm....Heck Yeah! I began to think about the story of Scripture as narrative...a love story from Yahweh to creation. The inconsistencies in the text disappeared as did the battle between science and theology. In this world all can live together in the discussion. Inspiration has never been an issue with me. The text is inspired. It is, however, free to express God's love, mercy, compassion, etc. without the hindrance of having to line up with, or do away with observable truth. Yea, God!
Anyway, I bring this up to share a link to another blog where this topic is being chewed on once again.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/03/15/absolute-perfection-oh-my-rjs/
Enjoy!

The Virgin birth...fact? Does it really matter?

There has been quite a reaction to an article written by Albert Mohler. This article was in response to another by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times. Mohler's argument that one must accept the virgin birth of Jesus as fact or risk one's position as a Christ follower. He wrote, "This much we know: All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ — the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A true Christian will not deny the Virgin Birth."
While I personally do believe in the birth of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, Mohler's inflamed rhetoric does little to convince anyone who is not a Christ follower of the truth of Christ's life and mission to reconcile the Cosmos to Yahweh. It does, however, point to the narrow focus of some. Having read some other articles by Mohler, I think that this recent one reveals more about Mohler's view on biblical inerrancy than to anyone's faithfulness to Christ.