I have to be honest with our readers; my time and energy really have not been in the blog recently. When I look back on the last 3 or 4 months I know where my time has been spent, but it does give me and appreciation for those who can post daily whether it’s good or bad. I sometimes wonder if I ran out of something to say, which considering my vast knowledge should have happened 18 months ago. Also Fide-O has changed. We have become a much kinder gentler blog. Well, relatively speaking that is. Some have noticed the change and called us the blog that once was. Which I am sure was them checking to see if we were still alive. So iMonk, in the spirit of the blog that once was, I thought I would give a few opinions of your post called “A Conversation in God’s Kitchen”
Michael, I have read this post several times and really considered what you have said. I must say without exception that this is one of your best posts. It is extremely well thought out, well written, clear, concise, and very convincing. The only issue I have with it is that I think you are wrong. Wrong on about numerous levels. I plan on posting on one point of agreement later (it was bound to happen eventually), but I do disagree with your view of interpretation and your view of scripture itself. Your view is the classic liberal position, and is actually an affront to the authority of scripture. This view in my opinion places your outside of orthodoxy. As you read this take into consideration, that if I understand you correctly, I agree with the spirit of the following statement from your post, which I hope was your main point. However, we are coming from such polar opposites it is possible we don’t agree at all.
The Bible is about Jesus. The inspiration of the Bible is the presence of Jesus in the conversation. The authority of scripture is the authority of Jesus. The “inerrancy” of scripture is that, rightly understood, it takes us to Jesus. The Law came through Moses, but grace and TRUTH came through Jesus Christ. The TRUTH of the Bible was not there without Jesus. Any discussion of inspiration that is not- eventually- about the relationship of Jesus to that part of the conversation, is useless.
With that being said let me begin: I understand your desire explain the “supposed” contradictions in the scripture, and the disagreements among denominations, but you don’t get to make up your own philosophical explanation as to why. If the Bible is true then it cannot contradict itself, but I am not sure you are too concerned with whether the Bible is true or not. According to this paragraph.
At this point I want to separate myself from any kind of Christianity that sees the Bible as teaching a highly sectarian view of Christianity at the exclusion of other views. I am not shocked that Catholics and Lutherans find the words “This is my body” to mean something different than Baptists do. I am distraught that any of these parties would fail to see that we are all listening to the same texts, and disagreement isn’t because some of us are all that much smarter or better listeners. It’s because we listen to different parts of the conversation, in different ways, and we are allowed to do so.
Under whose authority are “we allowed to do so”. Do I believe the Presbyterians are correct on paedo-baptism. Of course not, but I don’t have any issues with associating with most Presbyterians. I also don’t have any issues telling them I believe they are wrong on infant baptism. I think my biggest issue is your Rodney Kingesque desire to “just all get along” at other’s expense. I am sure you don’t see it that way, but the result is the same nevertheless. While I would agree that alienating the entire Christian community over a disagreement on certain peripheral doctrines is unbiblical, the Christian community does and should claim to have the truth, so at some point being right matters — but again I don’t know that the concept of being right fits into your world view.
I am actually looking forward to posting on where I agree with you, but Michael you get more post modern every time I read you. Do you realize that you have just stated that biblical interpretation is contingent on whatever personal presupposition you bring to the conversation. At least that is how I interpreted it in my kitchen. You don’t seem to have any trouble believing you are right, but even that comes with ambiguity. I think you have issues with bringing yourself to admit someone else is wrong, except us “TR’s” and unfortunately the thing we are wrong about is claiming to be right. According to your own definition of inspired “Scripture is inspired if God has, on some level and in some way, directed its production so that it says what he wants it to say.” The logical conclusion of this definition is that if scripture says what God wants it to say, then there is one correct interpretation of a text, regardless of how I listen to the “conversation”.
So my questions to you are this: Should we try and discover the correct interpretation or do you even believe that it is possible to get the correct interpretation? I applaud your desire to promote Christ in every facet of Scripture. I believe the Gospel can be present from Leviticus to John to Song of Solomon to Romans. I also agree that too much emphasis is place on trying to decipher whether the earth is 6,000 or 10,000 years old, and God help us if we overlook Christ in the process. But you said:
It’s evident that this approach to inspiration is not particularly interested in terms like inerrancy. I believe the search for a way to compliment the Bible enough to make every word true is one of the most colossal wastes of time ever engaged in by Christian minds.
Do you really believe this? I think you may have overstated your case, or maybe you feel you understated it. But even after giving serious consideration to your paragraph concerning Christ in the Bible it still matters if every word in the Bible is true. I do have to give you kudos however, you went out on a limb with this post. I am probably not that brave or maybe its arrogance, I suppose it depends on how you approach the conversation.
Tweet
36 year old husband, father, pastor, singer, musician, reader, eater, rider, watcher,
Such a “kinder gentler” blog. Yeah, but I suggest you not wake a sleeping Rottie.
And such beliefs as this may do it: I view the Bible as a selection of purely human literary creations. I may lay aside my faith, as many critics do, and study the Biblical material purely in their historical and cultural settings. This eliminates the need to force the Bible to be divine in origin, and gives me the freedom to hear each Biblical writer saying what he/she had to say in the way he/she chose to say it. This is out right unorthodox. It is purely a denial of the “divine origin” of Scriptures.
Furthermore, the sacred writings of Scripture (2Timothy 2:14-17 are not a conversation. They are the oracles of God; they are God’s laws eternally established. Read Psalm 119 and see if you find any idea of the Scriptures being a “conversation” — you shall search in vain. Thus Michael’s approach to Scripture is completely unbiblical. Michael says: The humanity of the conversation is not an obstacle, but an invitation to understand the Bible even as we understand ourselves and our histories, experiences and cultures … Song of Solomon is erotic poetry, and not much else … The prophets spoke to their own times, and not to our own. Is this what years of psycho-babble in the pulpit has caused? No, I am afraid this is just the viewpoint of someone who has elevated his “humanity” above that which is biblical and has dared to engage God’s Word as being fashioned according to his humanity, experiences, and culture.
Such departure from sound orthodoxy leads one to say Leviticus is primitive, brutal and middle eastern, as does Michael. It leads one to believe that men like Isaiah, Moses, and Job did not write in a “scholarly” manner. What foolishness!! Even pagan literary scholars would disagree with Michael!
In the end, having read Michael’s “essay” of his “personal approach to the Bible” is nothing more than old liberalism that produced such men as Tony Campolo. Classic Christian liberalism asserted that (1) the Bible is the witness and Word of God rather than the words of God, to be interpreted in its historical context through critical analysis, and with a focus on Jesus’ statements on peace, justice, fairness, compassion and love, (2) God is good and made people inherently good, (3)Liberal Christians compare Bible passages in the light of contemporary Jewish, Pagan and non-canonical Christian writings. They also study the culture of the time and the beliefs of surrounding Pagan societies, (4) and that many passages in the Gospels and Epistles of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) contain religious propaganda, beliefs unique to the author and his/her faith group, words created by the authors and attributed to Jesus, stories of events that never happened, material picked up from surrounding Pagan cultures, etc. (And this is just a short list that I borrowed from Wiki.)
J. Gresham Machen said it well when he said, “Liberalism is totally different from Christianity, for the foundation is different. Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life. Liberalism on the other hand is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men.” Such is true of men who come up with their own “personal approaches” to the interpretation of Scripture.
Just wanted to let you guys know that I appreciate the time and effort that you have put into this blog, and that I always look forward to your posts…!
Carry on, brothers.
Hank