Category
The idea of biblical inerrancy is one of the most invasive weeds in Christianity’s wheatfield. The weed might produce lovely looking flowers wherever it is allowed to grow, but the notion of inerrancy ultimately chokes out the inherent goodness of the Bible. Notice the defining difference between biblical inerrancy and the inherent goodness of the Bible.
Many faithful church goers are familiar with Jesus’ parable of the man who owns 100 sheep, and loses 1 of them. It is thought to be a lesson about the great lengths God, and by association, Christians, will go to bring 1 lost sheep back to the fold of church membership. This surface understanding often causes churchgoers to see themselves as the 99 good, faithful, obedient sheep who stay close to their owner.
In an endeavor to approach the study of the bible with some degree of consistency, biblical scholars developed criteria known as “historical criticism” to guide the study. During my time as a member of the Society of Biblical Scholarship, I heard scholars discussing whether or not we’ve come to an end of what can be gleaned through the historical critical lens.
Since the late 1800’s, most biblical scholars have favored a mythological view of Genesis 1. In spite of their attempts to promote this view of the Creation account, many Christians hold fast to a literal reading of the text. God created the heavens and earth in six, literal 24-hour days. These two opposing interpretations have caused a host of problems, especially in American culture. But, what if we are missing the point with this text? Suppose both interpretations are inadequate. Is this possible?
Once upon a time—before the Gutenberg printing press, in 1450, the church patriarchs had it made! Week after week, an eager audience of people rushed through the church doors to hear a reading of the Bible, which couldn’t be printed to the masses. The work of the church was synonymous with instruction. “Right-Believing 101” was the course to take and pass on to others.
The priestly account of creation is pure literary brilliance—not because of what the text overtly reveals, but because of what it doesn’t overtly reveal. Who hasn’t seen a good movie that is intently captivating because of what the actors aren’t saying? Who hasn’t read an intriguing novel, that stuffs more information between the lines, than the lines actually tell?
Is it possible to achieve spiritual purity? Some people think it is. For those who are trying to achieve it, I thought it might be helpful to discern the difference between white as a color, and white, as light. If we can’t appreciate the difference between color as pigment, and color as light, we could be in big trouble, spiritually speaking!
I have a theory regarding the grand spiritual canyon that divides conservatives from liberals, and fundamentalists from progressives. Since I write today, for the church of tomorrow, I am compelled to understand this theological and social divide, especially as it manifests itself in North America. The church will forever consist of people who see our social issues from different perspectives. Conservatives conserve. Liberals liberate. That’s life!