Subscribe to Posts
please don’t let me be misunderstood (about Paul)
Well I’ve gone and made a few of you nervous, which means we’ve got a good conversation going about Jesus and Paul and understanding this book that is so important to us or we wouldn’t bother. In some of the comments to my previous post I detected a certain unease about the idea that there might be any difference in the relative weight or significance of various biblical writers or books in the Bible. As if any suggestion of such a difference entailed a rejection of parts of the received text of Scripture.
Let me assure you, I have no interest in ejecting anything from the Bible. I don’t think anyone would give a rip if I pronounced such a judgment. The Bible would keep on rolling along as is before I came along. So I’m disinclined to trust my authority let alone my capacity to get out the Thomas Jefferson shears and start cutting away. Perhaps Vatican III might want to take that up, or better yet, Jerusalem II, but little old me?
But the idea that every book, every writer, ever jot, every tittle of the Bible has equal weight or significance? I don’t know how it’s possible to engage the Bible that way–at least not consistently. I for one wouldn’t want to try. That’s not to say the whole kit and caboodle isn’t inspired. It’s simply to say we can’t engage any collection of writings, any book, any narrative, any person, any meaning-soaked entity that way.
We distinguish between the Major Prophets and the Minor Prophets among the Hebrew prophets, don’t we? Because Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel are obviously more significant in scope than say, Obadiah or Amos. No knock on the minor prophets, but there is a reason we call them minor prophets. Doesn’t mean the minor prophets don’t belong among the Hebrew prophets or that any one of them is uninspired.
Jesus Did It Too
Jesus spoke of weightier matters of the law like justice and mercy. Weightier than what? Other matters of the law. Other legitimate, inspired matters of the law. He made a very big point of teaching what he believed was the heart of the Law and the Prophets–the bulls eye, the center of the middle, because this is important for us, even with sacred things, maybe especially with sacred things: to have the em-PHA-sis on the right syl-LA-ble.
Is Genesis weightier than Ecclesiastes? I think so. Is Exodus weightier than Genesis? Mike thinks so. Is Philemon weightier than Romans? Most wouldn’t think so, except Onesimus, whose freedom was at stake in that letter. When the church was wrestling through the legitimacy of slavery as an institution, Philemon became weighty indeed. Did the Holy Spirit tuck that little gem of a letter away for a time when the church would finally have ears to hear the cry of the slaves? I think so. But I digress. None of this discrimination or relative weighting is pitting one book or writer of the Bible against another as they are wrestlers who could toss each other out of the ring. It’s honest and meaningful engagement with the sacred text.
Maybe my problem is that I’m a pastor who often has the pleasure of introducing the Bible to people who have never cracked it open before. People who think Christ was Jesus’ last name. They have no particular doctrine of Scripture and if I were to set them straight by saying The Bible is the Word of God, their eyes would just glaze over. They need to taste and see what the thing is.
So generally speaking I start them off with the gospels so as to introduce them to the remembered words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth. If this doesn’t appeal to them, I’m not thinking Romans will.
I don’t think it’s an accident of history that the earliest Jesus communities were founded on what Luke meant by “the apostles teaching.” The remembered words and deeds of Jesus, circulated by word of mouth, before they were downloaded on an Kindles, were the first catechism for those very early communities. There’s something central about the gospels. The early church came up with the Apostles’ and the the Nicene Creeds. I don’t think any subsequent summary of faith holds a candle to these two summaries. Not even, dare I say, the Vineyard statement of faith. And the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds are rooted in those gospels (and the book of Acts.) I mean this is the love story.
Speaking of Nervous
See, I get nervous when anyone gets nervous about asserting the PRIMACY of Jesus. I mean, Jesus is the final word. Any words after Him are commentary. Like Paul, or the author of Hebrews, or James. Wouldn’t Paul insist on the same? Wouldn’t he tear out what remains of his hair if we were to claim that his words had the same weight as his Master’s words? He argued for his rightful place among the other apostles, those so called pillars, as he referred to them. The man didn’t lack a sense of his own importance. But I wouldn’t want to be the one to suggest to Paul that his words were in a league with his master’s words, not on one of his best days. Which doesn’t mean Paul wasn’t inspired to write what he wrote, or that he doesn’t belong in the canon.
Actually, I get nervous around all this nervousness. Luther was not the nervous sort. He read the letter of James and called it “an epistle of straw.” I think that means that he thought it was crap. You gotta love Luther, and you can see why he loved Paul. Hey, if you’re gonna sin, sin boldly! If you’re gonna pass wind, aim it in the direction of the devil!
Me? I love the letter of James. If this guy wasn’t the blood brother of Jesus, he sure did a great imitation.
If James sat down with Paul, I think they would disagree over works. I think they’d have a royal row over the royal law of liberty.
I think it tells us something important about the Holy Spirit that He inspired both men to write what they did.
I think it tells us that the Holy Spirit is not a systematic theologian. He is personed truth guiding us into personed truth, not systematic truth, and there is a difference.
Oh, oh. Have I made even more people nervous?
Tags: apostles' creed, apostles' teaching, bible, canon, gospels, Jesus, major prophets, minor prophets, nicence creed, Paul, scripture, systematic theology
May 18th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Ken, when you said that Jesus is the final word, you linked to Hebrews, chapter 1, but have you ever noticed the following?
Hebrews 1:1-2 (New Living Translation)
“Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe.”
Any words that Jesus may have spoken on earth are missing from Hebrews, even though the author’s thesis is that, “in these final days, [God] has spoken to us through his Son.” Instead of any earthly words of Jesus, the author quotes Old Testament verses when he gives examples of what the Son has said to us in these final days.
Why is that, Ken? Why does the author of Hebrews quote Old Testament verses instead of any of the earthly words of Jesus, after clearly stating that, “in these final days, [God] has spoken to us through his Son.”?
May 18th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Ken, here’s a serious question for you.
Isn’t there a higher authority than Scripture that every person ought to submit to? How about the authority of Truth? Isn’t Truth the authority that God always points to, the only authority that God himself cannot usurp, the only authority that even God himself must submit to?
May 18th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Ken,
I guess a simple way (I’m sure it won’t be as simple as I would hope) to get to the heart of what makes some of us nervous is to ask you if the writings of Paul are authoritative for us? It feels like you’re setting up a situation where we are to live according to the words of Jesus in the gospels but can be a bit more lenient with the rest of the Bible. Not being the scholar you are, I’m sure I’m missing something here. But it feels like you’re suggesting all scripture is inspired, but perhaps not authoritative for our lives? In other words, are the writings of Paul the words of God? Or just Paul’s words that God happened to allow to end up in the canon because they were generally helpful for our spiritual lives? If they aren’t the words of God then aren’t you defining inspired quite differently than it has traditionally been understood?
We all agree Jesus is the final word. But aren’t the words in black the words of God as well? And if so, don’t the red and black agree? This is what makes me nervous…it seems like you’re saying the red and black parts of scripture may not be in agreement. I concede sometimes they appear to conflict, but it wasn’t that long ago, that even in VLI, we chalked that up to our own limited understanding, not true lack of unity in the teachings of scripture.
I know I’m antagonist toward about everything you write (sorry, you’re just not a guy I agree with much), but these are honest questions and I’m truly trying to understand what you’re saying. Thanks for your patience in sifting through my less scholarly attempt to dive into this topic.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Actually, it’s my understanding that the Minor Prophets are called that because they’re shorter. I don’t think it’s a reference to relative importance.
I’m trying to think this stuff through in order to respond and finding it very challenging. I’m trying to remember how I came to believe that the Bible is inerrant, authoritative and the actual word of God–and what I actually mean by that. I know I don’t mean that ‘6 days’ has to mean 6 days. But I do mean that ‘6 days’ means something that can only be properly said exactly that way.
Certainly, part of it is believing the scriptures are absolutely authoritative to start with and then approaching them as such. But part of it is also experiencing God speaking through them and thereby coming to believe. I don’t remember which came first, if either.
All I can say for sure is that when I read anything at all in any part of the Bible that is less important to me than another part, I don’t really believe that it IS less important. And if I read something that doesn’t make sense to me, I believe that at some level it actually does make sense. Because I trust that all the Bible is God’s words, I take for granted that I need all its parts in order to interpret any smaller part. If one statement contradicts another, there is going to be something in the whole thing that not only proves both statements true but makes them fit together.
I also know that I won’t discover that unity of meaning fundamentally by intellectual process (although my intellect will ‘get’ it), but that it will be revealed to me by the Spirit that speaks through it and animates it.
That’s why I’m uncomfortable with ranking some parts of scripture over others … although I will admit that I have not yet been able to make heads or tails of Ecclesiastes. And I will also admit that the gospels do function for me as preeminent interpreters of all the other parts. And if you mean something like that, I’m not nervous at all.
May 18th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
i’m not nervous. it’s just that most people i’ve read who have issues with the authority of Paul’s letters do so because they disagree with him. (let’s not beat around the bush. this is all about the homosexuality debate.) instead, they teach as if scripture is inspired insofar as it jives with what they *think* Jesus would have said. (these pastors have no troubles giving great weight to minor or obscure texts if it fits with their notions. Prayer of Jabez anyone?) nobody is arguing that Jesus isn’t central, or of greater significance. this isn’t about anyone saying Paul is equal to Jesus. (i don’t recall Paul contradicting Jesus). it’s about lessening the authority of scripture. because I don’t see folks in your circles heightening the authority of Jesus’ words (be even more radically obedient. am I wrong?) instead it’s a buffet approach to the Bible: take what you like, don’t have to eat what you dont. if the fruit of your arguments is a greater reverence for Jesus’ words, and obedience to them, i’ll gladly eat mine. but I don’t see that fruit. the mainline churches have been doing that fir decades, and look at where that’s gotten them.
May 18th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
the Holy Spirit is not a systematic theologian:
amen.
What works for one reader / believer doesn’t mean it will work quite so well for any other ready of the word. Who knows how the whole thing shakes down? the first book of the bible i read was revelation, coming from a 23 year old hard core atheist background – go figure how jesus pulled that one off?
The point that the holy spirit is personed truth guiding us into personal truth is proven beyond doubt by my own personal awakening, and of course everyone else’s own unique awakening to boot – He works with who He made us – well aware of our own idiosyncrasies – he’d be a pretty useless creator if he wasn;t aware of my level of dysfunction (or the level of dysfunction at work in all of us) so i concur totally that it is a personal God offering a personed truth approach as he draws us to himself, in any and all the bizarre ways that he can and does do his thing.
i can in reality only offer my story, which in the final analysis is all any of us can do – that is offer our own story and that is hard to argue with, it can be dismissed by the hearer, but not that readily argued against.
my story for what it’s worth;
revelation first
then i devoured the new testament from front to back( a multitude of times)
then the psalms
then the old testament – which has more impact on me now that it did as a young believer
and then i pretty much ended stuck in the epistles / letters – I can’t help it, they just work for me – or to put it another way, jesus seems to use them more in his personal approach to getting me to listen to Him
Thank God for personal pver systematic, or we’d all be screwed
mike
Give me a savior who is as hard and firm as a rock and the same yesterday, today and forever, but also able to be malleable and off the cuff in how he reaches out to us all – so personal over systematic must be right – there is a different story for all of us ( and in all our different stories, we find the common ground: we are all sinners in need of a savior- and thank God, Jesus has an uncanny knack of getting it right everytime as he addresses us and runs after us ‘person to person’,
May 20th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Humphreys.
Good points, especially about the homossexuality debate’s connection with the criticisms of Paul.
I wonder what other folks think about this.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
When Jesus walked the face of the earth in human form, those who looked to Scripture as their authority and continued to do so, rather than looking to Jesus, came in for a bit of a hard time from Jesus himself. This authority business! Did not Jesus make it clear that he himself has been given all authority? I don’t think he could have been clearer. He did not say, “Oh, by the way. What I want you to do is to pay attention to Scripture (present and future) above me. Above what I say.” No. In fact, he says the opposite. All authority has been given to him. Not to Paul or Moses or Timothy or James. And not to any student of Scripture. Or to any preacher of Scripture. To Jesus. And to Jesus alone.
May 20th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Notbell.
From what source did you obtain the information you just shared about what Jesus said ?
Unless you have personally, verbally spoken to Jesus, you have to rely on scripture to figure out what He wants. So we are back to looking at scripture for authority.
May 21st, 2009 at 3:59 am
Humphreys and Joao ask an interesting question, which I will reframe provocatively as follows:
So what’s the problem with Paul?
That’s a tough question, one I haven’t thought much about.
Sure, homosexuality is one issue; the place of women in the church is another; but I think those two issues are pretty minor compared with Paul’s obsession with the problem of sin.
Sin is a problem. Paul forcefully frames and explains man’s bondage to sin, how it relates to the atonement, and how Christ’s atonement frees us from that bondage. It’s theologically deep. It’s written in distinct, bright-line dichotomies.
If you are looking for a Biblical book written like a systematic theological treatise, look to Romans. I need a theological scaffolding to understand myself, God, and the world, and for most of my life Romans provided it. It was, until recently, my favorite Biblical book.
But now I am wearied of the church’s constant focus on sin — and I’m not talking about sins against each other — I’m referring to sins of the flesh, sins of the thought life, and sins against God.
When Evangelicals see a person, they see a “sinner.” It’s a noun, not an adjective. It’s not “a person made in the image of God, yes flawed, yes fallen, but loved no less for it,” but rather a “sinner.” The sin — not God’s image; not God’s love; not the eternally significant but mortal being that a person is; not the beauty of that person’s life — defines/names/characterizes (in one single word) the whole person.
Roman’s narrative is that life is all about a constant, agonizing struggle with sin. It’s a terrible thing; it separates you from God; it demands the shedding of blood for its remission; and even after you get saved, you struggle (“Oh what wretched man I am….”) with it.
The only way to mature as a sanctified Christian is to keep warring with that sinful nature, crucifying it again, over and over. Well, that’s what we have to do, right? Have any of you succeeded in crucifying it once and for all? If you say you have, you deceive yourself and the truth is not in you.
So, from conception (we were each conceived in sin) to death (the consequence of sin), life’s whole narrative, its purpose, its meaning, and its ultimate fate is found in our bondage in, freedom from (by identifying with and crucifying the sinful self with Christ), and continuing struggle with sin.
I forgot to add “so we can live.” Well, because the churches I went to didn’t go into that too much. Maybe they mentioned the fruits of the spirit every once in a while. And it’s just as well. If we are honest with ourselves, in a sincere Evangelical sort of way, we’re still so mired in that struggle with sin that we’re just not quite ready to move on to the fruits and loving one’s neighbor as oneself, etc.
The obsession of the Pauline epistles and Reformation theology is on sin. Somewhat on our own sin; moreso on our neighbors’ sin; and especially — with righteous self-confidence — on the sin of the surrounding culture.
And what a melancholy obsession that is. I went beyond most, reading 17th century authors like Jonathan Edwards, etc., and became so conscious of my sin, my failures, etc., that I eventually began to view life itself as a wretched state of being.
I slowly emerged from that cave. The world isn’t as dark and ugly as I believed. Many of the unbelievers who were — according to Paul — “enslaved” to sin defy the labels we gave them. Generally, they express more interest in others as persons with inherent value than as a “sinners” who need to resume their battle with sin. I also found more genuine compassion, empathy, and kindness among my secular friends than I have ever known in the church. So who’s “enslaved”?
Life is short. I’ve spent about half of it tormenting myself with an overactive conscience about sin.
Now I want to enjoy the few remaining decades that I hope God will give me. I will always be very conscious of sins against other people, but I plan to obsess less about the other sins. Now, I find purpose and meaning in other things — like raising my recently adopted son to be empathetic, compassionate, kind, gentle, reasonable, etc.; like being a blessing to others (God’s promise to Abraham’s descendants); and by enjoying — yes just enjoying — the beautiful creation God gave us to enjoy (I recently moved to Colorado, so this part’s easy).
Life is much fuller thinking about things other than sin.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:12 am
what i love about this is that we are talking about connecting with “The Thing Itself” (what the germans call: Ding an Sich) directly and not just via a medium or indirectly. this is so important, because so many people nowadays are satisified with an indirect encounter. in john 5, Jesus says: “You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life.” to experientially know the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is to experience eternal life.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:59 am
Joao, For what I say, I go not to Scripture but to the words of Jesus given us in Scripture. For assurance that these words are reported to us correctly, I look to the rest of Scripture and other literary sources. And for an encounter with God–which as Steven says is life itself–I look outside of Scripture. And this encounter outside of Scripture is finally everything.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:15 am
I gotta say, this is one fascinating conversation y’all are having. Is Scripture a painting or a portal? And what Eric describes with searing honesty is a real phenomenon–theology really matters; we wear it on-in our psyches’. Emphasis matters.
May 21st, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Wow, I love some of the trails this is taking. Ken, I resonate with a lot of what you said, but I don’t think Paul and James were at odds quite as much as you suggest, after all it was James who, as leader of the Jerusalem Conference, announces the response to the Gentiles’ and Paul’s concerns (Acts 15, esp. vv 13ff).
Eric c, don’t sell Paul short just because of all the crap that’s been marketed in his name. Many of his letters (though Romans isn’t as blindingly obvious on this point) demonstrate that Paul spent virtually his whole ministry battling it out with the Judaizers who were trying to force the law onto the Gentiles. Taken in that context, it seems to me an awful lot of what Paul says about sin is in fact a response to the Judaizers’ sin-obsession. Remembering that, Romans 4 (for example) can be seen as clearly in the same theme. . .clarifying what the law (and, I would extend, sin-obsession) can and can’t accomplish. In short, I think Paul would react as negatively to Reformation-style systematic theology “based” on his writings, as you do.
But finally, implicit in many of the objections here to what Ken is saying, is the (I believe) unquestioned application of the terms “Word of God” and “inspired” to the entire Biblical canon. Neither of these things are Biblically-supportable, but are in fact later, extrabiblical doctrines (I know, someone will object with 2 Tim. 3:16, for which I offer this response). Until (as I think notbell #12 suggested) we learn to differentiate the voice of God and the voice of godly men in scripture, we fail to give proper weight to those things that God himself–or the inpired authors–took the pains to highlight as God speaking. I suspect they highlighted them for a reason. . .
May 21st, 2009 at 9:47 pm
I do not believe that the Bible is authoritative in any area, including in the area of faith or practice. Especially practice.
Ken, in accordance with and in obedience to the following words of holy scripture, how often do you recommend that parents punish their children with a rod while their kids are still growing up?
Proverbs 13:24
He who spares the rod hates his son,
but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.
Proverbs 22:15
Folly is bound up in the heart of a child,
but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.
Proverbs 23:13-14
Do not withhold discipline from a child;
if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.
Punish him with the rod
and save his soul from death.
Proverbs 29:15
The rod of correction imparts wisdom,
but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Prov%2013:24;%2022:15;%2023:13-14;%2029:15;&version=31;
May 21st, 2009 at 10:02 pm
I think I’ve always had a problem with the traditional definition of “inspired”. Someone made the point, in order for it to be inspired, the red and black words all to be in sync some how. The implication behind that is that the author of the black text…or the person speaking the words in black…is speaking as though he or she were God. That just doesn’t jive with me.
It seems that Paul can be saying stuff in his writings and be “wrong” in his perception of things…but that the writing as a whole can still be inspired and have a lesson in there for us from a macro perspective.
Everything has to fit into the larger narrative. There have to be primary principals and spiritual laws that guide our interpretation of every writing. I don’t know about everyone else, but I’m going to take my cue on what those principals are from Jesus.
If Paul says something inconsistent with how I read Jesus teaching God’s main principles, I guess I’m ok saying I think Paul was wrong. For me, though, that isn’t necessarily contradicting the inspiration of his writings as a whole.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
wow! good discussion all around. dave and dan, here’s my concern with what you’re saying. if i understand you’re general argument, you’re saying that the chief authority is god, and god as revealed through jesus. so what jesus says, has the highest authority. everything else is human response to god, and subject to misunderstanding and errors, including other portions of scripture. so as dan says, it’s okay to say that paul was wrong where we feel he’s inconsistent with jesus. it seems to me that what you’re putting on the highest pedestal of authority isn’t god or jesus, but our own perceptions of them. so when the bible teaches something that we don’t feel jesus would say, or god would approve, we set it aside. but doesn’t the bible continually challenge and offend us? are god’s thoughts our thoughts? don’t we consistently see people in the bible being challenged or confounded by what god does or says? aren’t we consistently wrong about what god and jesus would do or say? can you show me where jesus or any of the apostles set aside scripture (the hebrew bible for them) as being just plain wrong, because they didn’t view it as consistent with god’s character? didn’t jesus himself say that “Scripture cannot be broken”? (John 10:35) when referring to Psalm 82:6? as far as i know, psalm 82 was written by neither god nor jesus, but by a fallible human. and yet Jesus refers to it as scripture that “cannot be broken.” how about we treat all scripture, including what was written by fallible humans (oh wait, that’s 100% of it) as jesus did. i just think you’re going down a very dangerous path.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
notbell, i think your response to joao was incorrect. how do you not read jesus as constantly relating to scripture as authoritative? jesus saw himself as fulfilling scripture. in fact, he saw his entire life as a fulfillment of scripture. he constantly refers to scripture in a way that suggests its authority. even after his resurrection jesus is expositing scripture to his disciples (luke 24:32, 45). jesus, the incarnate word of god, related to scripture in that way. how do you think we should relate to it?
May 22nd, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Ken, I take personal offense at the fact that you seem to think that you sit in the seat of authority regarding what shall be permitted and what shall not be permitted to be said in this forum. You do not have a veto authority over anyone’s inalienable, Creator-given right to speak his or her mind in this forum. You do not have the authority to silence or shun the contents of anyone else’s expressed thoughts, as long as those thoughts do not cross the line of obscenity, hate speech, or other serious offenses against the inalienable rights of someone else.
Therefore, I am reposting my post from yesterday, below, and I will expect you to allow both this post and that post to appear on this page.
Thank you.
May 22nd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I do not believe that the Bible is authoritative in any area, including in the area of faith or practice. Especially practice.
Ken, in accordance with and in obedience to the following words of holy scripture, how often do you recommend that parents punish their children with a rod while their kids are still growing up?
Proverbs 13:24
He who spares the rod hates his son,
but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.
Proverbs 22:15
Folly is bound up in the heart of a child,
but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.
Proverbs 23:13-14
Do not withhold discipline from a child;
if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.
Punish him with the rod
and save his soul from death.
Proverbs 29:15
The rod of correction imparts wisdom,
but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Prov%2013:24;%2022:15;%2023:13-14;%2029:15;&version=31;
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:32 pm
“But the idea that every book, every writer, ever jot, every tittle of the Bible has equal weight or significance? I don’t know how it’s possible to engage the Bible that way–at least not consistently. I for one wouldn’t want to try. That’s not to say the whole kit and caboodle isn’t inspired. It’s simply to say we can’t engage any collection of writings, any book, any narrative, any person, any meaning-soaked entity that way.”
Ken, as a layperson, I think that part of the stickiness of the debate comes from the disconnect that most of us who are American evangelicals have from church history. If we are to use sola Scriptura as the bedrock of our faith, I wonder what in the world transpired during the 1,200 years between Nicaea and Wittenburg? I’ve heard some evangelicals say that the faith “went underground” between the apostolic age and Luther, but I’ve always found that ridiculous and itself extrabiblical… of course there was a Church during the Dark and High Middle Ages, and whatever we might think of their theology, it was at the center of people’s lives! It also does a great disservice to some of the spiritual giants of the era, like Francis of Assisi, whose lives we don’t hear enough about in many Protestant circles. What about the many generations who didn’t have the luxury of being literate enough to read the Pauline epistles?
I value the Reformation. I’m not sure that without it, we could have ended chattel slavery as easily in the West, and I rather like being a doctoral student instead of a domestic or field hand.
But at the same time, we are not living in 1500. We are living in an era that is a minefield of ideological dilemmas, and the way that we have been dealing with them is counterproductive. 10 years ago, before I’d had much life experience, I believe in absolute truth. Now, when I am honest with myself, I find that I can hold many different, ideologically dilemmatic beliefs at the same time… and I have yet to meet a person who is ideologically consistent. We are all, as Anne Frank wrote in her famous diary, little bundles of contradictions… something that Paul wrote most eloquently about in Romans 7. “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord”, indeed.
Having said that, I do believe in absolute spiritual truth. Truth = Jesus. However, as I told my roommate, I think sometimes people quote Scripture chapter and verse to avoid engaging with the truth of Jesus and the needs of fellow man. For instance, when my father died, a good number of my Christian friends just lined up the Scripture quotes and asked me if he was saved. Nothing that they did was wrong, but wow, it didn’t seem as if it was from the heart. It was the canned response, what they were “supposed” to do. After all, it was what I always did myself when people experienced major life events like that.
Eleven years later, I am healing and recovering and people from the Vineyard are praying for me, meeting my human needs (some showing extraordinary service), and the like. I know just as much Scripture as I did as a university coed in the late 1990s, but now I also feel that I’m part of a community of folks who are sold-out totally for Jesus… and I didn’t have to do and say all the right things in order to get this kind of care. And as they’ve sat with me, driven me places, we have fellowshipped, shared our stories of faith and life, and prayed for each other…
…but after all these visits to this shut-in, no one’s pulled out their Bible yet. I guess I’d better look out for these people.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:17 am
Humphreys, thanks for your comments. I’m not sure about Dan, but that’s not exactly what I’m saying. Here’s my approach to understanding God.
I take the Bible as a whole, the entire story, with a perspective that Jesus is, in a sense, the summation of that story. The period at the end of the sentence, if you will. Based on my understanding of God’s whole story, I distill basic principles about God and life and I use those as a filter when reading and understanding other parts of the Bible…or anything for that matter. I (and call me crazy for doing this) also mix in my life experience into that understanding. I had certain “theologies” at various points in my life that absolutely didn’t produce anything positive whatsoever…and looking around I saw that those same beliefs were destructive in other people. We’re told that we can judge things by the fruit they bear.
I think you’re totally right about how we can get things wrong. That’s why humility has got to be a cornerstone of our life and our thoughts and discussions in these matters.
It seems to me one of the biggest errors of the modern day church is how we’ve perceived the Bible. We treat it pridefully…as though we really know what this thing is…like we know how God intended it for us and how we’re meant to use it. In some cases it’s fairly clear. But I think we’d be all a lot better served…and more honest…if we just admitted that sometimes we don’t get what the Bible is. If that statement raises your hackles then I think I’ve made my point.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Jesus refers to himself as “one greater than Solomon” (Luke 11:31), and also as “one greater than Jonah” (Matthew 12:41). He is “greater than the temple” (Matt. 12:6). Greater than Moses (Heb. 3). By implication he is also greater than Abraham (John 8:53) and Jacob (John 4:12). The Bible is pretty clear that Jesus is the pinnacle of authority, and the essence of truth. It’s not that the witness of all these others isn’t truth; it’s just that the truth found in Jesus is greater. Jesus IS the truth. It’s like the difference between a picture or description of a person and the person himself. The picture or description is “true” in that it accurately portrays the person. But it is far from the person himself. The person is alive, the picture isn’t. And if you really want to get to know the person, you should go beyond the picture and descriptions. Peter, Paul, John… they all portray the truth, they tell the truth, but they aren’t the truth–Jesus is.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Humphreys, I think we should seek Jesus everywhere and in all things. He is our authority.
May 24th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Ken you asked Is Scripture a painting or a portal?
Is the Kingdom just about scripture or power or both?
The scriptures are fun to study, discect and debate. But the power of the Kingdom completes the picture.
Matt. 22:29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
While it is good to discuss the scriptures and the merits of the different writers are we being trapped by the premise that there is a possibility of something we might miss. Though unsaid the highest command is the command to love.
The greatest Christian heresy is to believe that the opposite of sin is virtue. No. The opposite of sin is grace. Kierkegaard
May 24th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
ex,
actually this is a moderated blog….it just happens that I only had a moment to review posts and approve before taking off for the weekend and didn’t get to yours. Not to worry, wasn’t seeking to silence you.
ken
June 8th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Well it looks like I am in the middle of a large group of real theologians. When I study the scriptures I rank the Apostles as before the cross and Paul as after the cross ( before He died and after He died). I do not rank them as far as little and big. But I have to say John really gets my attention in Revelations.
Paul as it was had the divine charge by Jesus after his death to begin on his journey to spread Christianity not only to the Jews but also the Gentiles( us probably). There fore, we do have to consider his teachings as the last word from the Lord. Right?
Ok. Paul was at first hard to keep focused on what he was saying so I went out and bought several books breaking down what his teachings were. Finally I began to understand what he was saying. Interesting to note many if not more of his statements were referenced to when reading other books and authors.
One question for all of you. Which Prophet said “I was at the third level” in his vision and what did that statement mean? I am curious.
Now diving into the Rapture. I have read that some theologians decree that the Rapture will happen at the beginning of the Tribulations and others profess the Rapture will happen at the end of Tribulations. Naturally I went out and bought some more books to figure this one out for myself. Then I find out many do not dive into this much as is too controversial.
Of course the secular humanist movement decrees this is all a myth and there is no such thing going to happen. Uh Hello? Over 500 prophesies from the bible have already came true. I don’t think the rest are a myth. That is outstanding batting averages in my book. Guess I am becoming a wanna be theologian.