Rachel Held Evans

It’s all relative!

It’s Monday! Time for the final post on March’s book club selection-How Postmodernism Serves (My) Faith by Crystal Downing.

In Chapter 7, Downing examines a variety of approaches to relativism, arguing that what she calls “building relativism” is favorable to Christianity. This kind of relativism allows for absolute truth, while maintaining many of the epistemological ideas associated with postmodernism. In in, “truth meets human beings on their own ground…Truth, then is relative to each; all come to the light differently. Nevertheless, it is the same Truth they come to: Jesus is the way, the truth and the light.” Through Jesus, truth is found in relationship, not in a set of beliefs or ideas to which one ascribes.

I like that. The beauty of relationship with God is that each individual experiences it quite differently.

However, what I enjoyed most about the last few pages of Downing’s book is what she says about the Bible. She writes that “while many modernists saw scriptural discrepancies as evidence that the Bible was not ‘true,’ postmodernists would attribute discrepancies to the pluralistic situatedness of interpretation,” making the Bible a more true-to-life and authentic account of human interaction with the divine. Therefore, “the incredible diversity and apparent contradictions within Scripture are its strength. Its pluralistic pronouncements and parables can speak to the pluralistic experiences of Christians…”

I don’t know about you, but this calls to mind the many theological volumes that have been written in recent years seeking to address the discrepancies in Scripture. I’ve known theologians who could explain away everything from the historically impossible numbers associated with Hebrew battles to the differing accounts of the Sermon on the Mount to the alternating emphases on works and faith in the apostolic letters. These explanations always used to stress me out because I secretly felt like they sounded more like rationalizations than anything. They sounded a bit desperate, if you know what I mean.

But Downing’s approach, which I’ve encountered in several places recently, is refreshing. Perhaps one of the greatest themes of Scripture is that there is no one theme. Perhaps in allowing such diversity in the writing and compiling of Scripture, God sought to protect us from making an idol out of any one interpretation of it. Perhaps rather than fearing apparent contradictions, we should celebrate them, knowing that they serve as affirmation that God speaks to all kinds of people in all kinds of ways.

Mitch

Revelation -- It's Not Up To Me, God Has Already Revealed It.
Reply #1 on : Mon March 31, 2008, 20:46:06

"Perhaps one of the greatest themes of Scripture is that there is no one theme."

Oh but there is one theme. There is one overarching theme that ties all of the Bible into a powerful metanarrative that binds all peoples, languages, cultures, backgrounds, nations, and any other category under its message. The message since Gen. 3 is that man has broken fellowship with a holy God who can not and will not tolerate the rebellion of sin against His perfect love. In accordance with that perfect love while still maintaining his holiness He freely has made a way to be right with him again. The entirety of the Old Testament from Adam, Noah, Job, and other righteous men to the nation of Israel's very existence, was given to point to the coming Redeemer who would make a way to be right with God again. The Gospels reveal in detail from 4 perspectives the Incarnate Word, God's fullest revelation, the person of Jesus Christ that John declared was the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. The prophecied rejection and humiliation of Jesus, his crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection display the perfect plan of God to atone for man's sin and welcome all men to come and be right again. The Acts and epistles declare the unity of people from very diverse backgrounds that trust in the payment of Jesus Christ as they spell out the church, the fullness of Jesus Christ in the world today, guided by the Holy Spirit to declare God's redemptive plan, the person of Jesus Christ, to the ends of the earth. The Revelation of Jesus Christ shows us the coming judgement of those who continue in their rebellion, rejecting the perfect plan and payment of a holy God. In Revelation we see Jesus coming to make war on the nations who have rejected Him and to reward the sinful people who have declared that their only hope is the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. We see a picture of a new heaven and earth that will be without sin or rebellion where we will be united again in perfect relationship with God Almighty under the exalted ruler, Jesus Christ. It is one powerful story, the history of the world, all people, declared to us in the Bible SO THAT WE WILL KNOW IT!

It is not our message to interpret as we choose. Rather it is fixed, sure, and unmoving throughout time or culture in its message, though each time and culture must faithfully apply it's message. The Bible itself makes this clear. Jude gives this verse in the context of a warning about those who are teaching things about God and the scriptures that are not true:

"Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to CONTEND FOR THE FAITH THAT WAS ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED to the saints." (emphasis mine, ESV).

The assumption clearly is that they know the truth, it was given once for all time. It is not okay to interpret it however I want to but must be based on what the Bible actually says.

Again in the context of warning against false teachers that will manipulate God's message Peter says this about Paul's letters, in II Peter 3:15-17 --

"And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN THEM THAT ARE HARD TO UNDERSTAND, WHICH THE IGNORANT AND UNSTABLE TWIST TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION, AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability." (emphasis mine)

Earlier in II Peter 1, Peter had encouraged the readers that they could be sure about what they believed. He states in 1:16-18 that they are not following clever stories and myths. He reminds them that he personally witnessed Jesus being affirmed by God the Father on the Mount of Transfiguration. He goes on in v. 19 to say this:

"AND WE HAVE SOMETHING MORE SURE, THE PROPHETIC WORD, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, KNOWING THIS FIRST OF ALL, THAT NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE COMES FROM SOMEONES OWN INTERPRETATION. FOR NO PROPHECY WAS EVER PRODUCED BY THE WILL OF MAN, BUT MEN SPOKE FROM GOD AS THEY WERE CARRIED ALONG BY THE HOLY SPIRIT."

Paul gives instructions to Titus in Titus 1:9 about an overseer in the church. He says again in the context of a warning against false teachers,

"He must HOLD FIRM TO THE TRUSTWORTHY WORD AS TAUGHT,so that he may be able TO GIVE INSTRUCTION IN SOUND DOCTRINE and also TO REBUKE THOSE WHO CONTRADICT IT."

The Bible contains many, many such principles and statements which is where the concept of inerrancy in the original texts (not in every translation) comes from. They almost always come in the context of a warning that people are and will constantly come up with their own interpretations and teachings that will deceive others and lead them from the truth. Many times it is clearly stated as an intentional deceit for money or power. Other times it indicate that out of ignorance people "fall for" these teachings. Christians are called to know their Bibles, answer these falsehoods with truth, and hopefully help those who in ignorance are following these truths to come back to THE TRUTH, once for all given to the saints.

I know this is a long winded response and may not be well received by some readers. I only pray that I myself will not be deceived by false views, teachings, and perspectives. That is what drives me to study the Word of God, to know what it says, to allow my thoughts and ideas to be critiqued and even destroyed by its penetrating truth that gets to "the thoughts and intents of our hearts".

I can never know fully and completely, but I can know truly what God has revealed, made known, communicated to us all in His Word, the Bible. The Holy Spirit guides, God gives wisdom freely to those who in dependence seek it, even beg for it, from Him. He is a God who can be known, who communicates in words to make Himself known to every generation. What we do with His clear message is what we will answer to Him for someday. I do not fear someone will "disprove" parts of the Bible or apparent contradictions. The message that was given is perfect even if some of the translations are not. God's Word has stood and will stand the test of time, it will last as long as God lasts, forever.

friend of a friend

in the spirit of friendship and humility
Reply #2 on : Tue April 01, 2008, 10:36:02

All right, that’s just too much for me to let go without commenting. Someone please let me know if my comments are too confrontational—for I’m certainly not trying to make enemies or attack anyone’s faith. On the other hand, as a Christian is who is deeply concerned about how the Church articulates its vision, I would like to voice my strong disagreement with the view of Scripture given above by (the obviously well-intended, conscientious, and thoughtful) “Mitch.” Additionally, I would like to comment because I am aware of how common this view is among Evangelicals, so I treat it as somewhat representative (or at the very least, prevalent).

The understanding of Scripture articulated above has a whole host of unjustified assumptions and circular arguments. I don’t think it is necessary to try to pick them all apart. One of the key problems with the above view is that a particular theological paradigm regarding the centrality of Christ’s redemption of a fallen people in order to restore fellowship with the holy God (a respectable and legitimate theological paradigm, I might add)—this paradigm is clearly inspired by the reading of the Scriptures—is used as the framework through which all subsequent reading of the Scripture is filtered. It is assumed that all portions of the Bible will support and add to this theme. This, I believe is the difference of opinion which sparked Mitch’s comments. Rachel said, “Perhaps…there is no one theme;” to which Mitch responded, “Oh but there is one theme.” Mitch then nicely expounded some of the details of that theme. As for myself, I would defend Rachel’s initial statement that there is no one theme. One can construct a theme, drawing from numerous key passages of the Bible (as many, like Mitch, have done), but to elevate such a theme to the level of metanarrative to which all portions of the Bible must somehow contribute and not deviate from puts the Church in the position of dictating what the Bible can and cannot say. It leads naturally (and honestly) to the circumscription of what the Holy Spirit might communicate to the Church. That is not a position with which I feel comfortable.

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of Mitch’s comments, however, came when he said, “[the Bible] is not our message to interpret as we choose. Rather it is fixed, sure, and unmoving throughout time or culture in its message…The Bible itself makes this clear.” Wow. I think this is an honest mistake but an incredibly dangerous one nonetheless. It is most likely based on a superficial understanding of language and human communication. The Bible simply cannot be understood without interpretation. We are engaged in the act of interpretation the very instant the words act as signifiers to concepts we have in our heads. This requires interpretation. If we did not interpret the Bible, it would simply fall on deaf ears like it would if it were in a language that we didn’t understand. God choose to communicate to us in language (among other means), but the nature of language is fluid and cannot be “fixed.” Language cannot speak for itself. Humans construct and reconstruct language at every moment of every day. Rather than saying “it is not our message to interpret as we choose;” I would say that the Bible is a message entrusted to us which we have the responsibility to interpret the best of our abilities, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and with utter humility and openness to God’s ever-renewing truth. We are commissioned with task of interpretation. We can not ignore this or allow others to do it for us. And coming back to my previous point, I do not think we can afford to allow our theological constructions provide the sole interpretative guidelines for this important task.

I really don’t mean to pick on Mitch—I don’t even know who he is, nor he me—but his Bible quotations only serve to illustrate the problem with his approach. In each instance of his quotations, the given quote seems from the context he has constructed to perfectly support his views. But I would strongly argue that his views are assumed and then the quotes are read as if they are already understood to be addressing the concerns and beliefs which he holds. For example, Mitch quotes Paul’s letter to Titus (1:9) which says, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” For Mitch, this “sound doctrine” “as taught” is synonymous with his own theological paradigm and therefore supportive of it. While this may very well be the case, the text does not clarify what the sound doctrine is, who taught it, how it conforms to other revelations, what that means for larger interpretive questions, etc. As one could well imagine, I feel that Titus 1:9 is supporting the views I am here expounding. 

This is not to say that the Bible does not contain doctrine or teach things. I think all Christians would agree that it does. But it does so from a variety of viewpoints, worldviews (shout out to all the BC grads), theological paradigms, and individual circumstances. Moses’s conception of God and God’s eternal plan was most certainly very different from the one John had. Even Peter and Paul had serious theological disagreements. That is not something to be afraid of or to be apologetic towards. None of the writers of the Bible had the collection of books in front of them that we have today such that they could defend a unified metanarrative. If there was a metanarrative that formed the singular theme uniting all the diverse books of the Bible, than it would be a theme which the Church has itself constructed when it decided which books to canonize (not necessarily a negative thing, but something to be aware of since those of us who stand in the Protestant tradition do not recognize Church history as necessarily authoritative). But even within the given canonization that the Protestants have come to generally adopt, it do not think it is wise to attempt to assume all portions of the Bible confirm with our own theological constructs. Instead, we ought to try to listen to the Holy Spirit as we read through the wonderful accounts of God’s engagement with mankind in the Bible and be open to what new and old themes each passage may individually address.

Praise God from whom all blessings flow.

M Morgan

Re: It’s all relative!
Reply #3 on : Tue April 01, 2008, 15:55:15

very well put, friend. of a friend.

Mitch

Re: It’s all relative!
Reply #4 on : Tue April 01, 2008, 18:16:41

Don't worry Friend of a Friend, I can take it :). I don't mind a lively discussion, particularly about such significant issues. I too am not out to attack others, but to challenge in love assumptions that I believe are damaging to the church and to faith in God in general. The unloving thing to do from my persepective would be to sit in silence.

You stated, "I am aware of how common this view is among Evangelicals, so I treat it as somewhat representative (or at the very least, prevalent)."

I would suggest that that is because it is prevalent in the Bible. There is a metanarrative story in the Bible of creation, the fall, redemption, and the coming consummation. The promise of a redeemer came in Gen 3 who is then found throughout the Bible until the redeemer finishes the story on the throne in Revelation. OT Israel demonstrated His coming through the sacrificial system, the prophets declared this to many generations, Jesus claimed it for Himself, and the epistles speak of this throughout. I wonder why your theological framework rejects out of hand any overarching story that is for all people and cultures? What has caused you to reach the point of rejecting this concept? The Orthodox Jewish faith as well still waits for the coming Messiah (as Christians we believe Jesus was this Messiah) in great expectation based upon only the OT of the Bible. Could it be it's because that theme is there? If it was there, how would it change your view of God, the gospel, and reading scripture?

I do not minimize the Holy Spirit's role in the world today or in my life today. The HS is leading me to understand God, His Word, and live it each day. That does not somehow exclude, or make void, what God has chosen to communicate across the generations of time. It does not contradict His Word, but supplements, comlements, and magnifies it's application in my life.

On the issue of language, I intrepreted what you just posted through my own grid as you did when you read what I posted. The point is that we CAN read and interact with each others thoughts simply because language does have a fixed point of meaning at any given time, with given people, from given cultural contexts. All interpretations are not valid. In fact, most interpreations are not valid. In reading my post you may not have completely and fully understood everything I said or meant as I may not have understood all that you said or meant. But this IS foundational to ALL language -- words do have meaning! The same is true of the Bible. The people who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote from a certain context to people in another context. If we only look at it through the grid of today we will likely misunderstand things. But there is a gap historically, geographically, culturally, etc between us and them. To understand most accurately, we must read it as the orginal reader read it and as the original writer wrote it. That is why translations are available! They put into the language and culture of today the word meanings and sentence meanings that were communicatd then. We can understand, language does have meaning that can brought forward today. I think this postmodern desconstruction of words is a suicide of thought. In so many words someone argues that words are so ambiguous or relative to only one context that we can't really use them. Yet they argue this point with the very language they diminish.

In picking up Titus 1:9 you conspicuously skipped more clear verses in I Peter 1 on this issue. You also simply muddied the water about what "sound doctrine" is in Titus. We are not left wondering what sound doctrine is. Titus as well as all the other Pauling epistles clearly tell us. It isn't your version or mine that is being referred to, it's Paul's version which he received in person from Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. It also lines up just fine with Peter, James, and John's version. They are the same version.

Finally, you close by saying:

"This is not to say that the Bible does not contain doctrine or teach things. I think all Christians would agree that it does. But it does so from a variety of viewpoints, worldviews (shout out to all the BC grads), theological paradigms, and individual circumstances. Moses’s conception of God and God’s eternal plan was most certainly very different from the one John had. Even Peter and Paul had serious theological disagreements."

You close by saying that the Bible teaches things. You don't say what those things are! Your whole argument to this point has been that we can't know what it teaches (at least enough to depend on) or that what it teaches applied to another place and time, not ours. What do you believe then? How do you know its true? Is it just experiential guess and check through life? What value is the Bible then? You seem to spend your post saying the Bible says nothing that has authority in your life, then you close by saying but it teaches doctrine. I wonder what doctrine you are referring to!

Though those in the OT did not see the full story of God's redemptive plan, Moses and John would clearly agree with this theme: God is holy and righteous while man is sinful and desperately wicked. Man needs God's help but deserves God's judgement. Just because they lived in different times doesn't mean their basic view of God, sin, redemption, God's word, etc. were different.

The canonicity issue that you raise was not the church voting in the parts of God's Word they liked. They were simply recognizing formally what the churches had already accepted long before that these were inspired words given by God. It wasn't an election with candidates for the Bible running like some in the emerging church movement have been prone to frame it as. Talk about reading our culture into the past, that's prime example.

Finally, not every word in every book deals explicitly with the theme of redemption. I am not saying that. Only that it is the major theme referred to frequently throughout the entirety of the Bible. There are practical, topical, things to be gleaned from scripture. I just think that only studying it like makes it like a pop culture self-help book that you can choose to listen to or not.

Thanks for the excellent discussion.

Rachel

Interpretation
Reply #5 on : Wed April 02, 2008, 09:48:05

Thanks for the responses, Mitch and Friend of a Friend.

Mitch, if the Bible is indeed “fixed, sure and unmoving, throughout all time and culture in its message,” then why are there so many diverse and seemingly contradictory interpretations of it? If the Bible is so clear and if we are supposed to get closer and closer to knowing absolute truth the more time we spend reading it and studying it, then why-for centuries-have theologians disagreed about some pretty important aspects of its content. Why have good, God-fearing people interpreted it differently, even with the Spirit to guide them?

(Example: You mentioned that the entirety of the Old Testament, from Adam to Noah to Job to Israel, was given to point to the coming Redeemer. A lot of evangelical theologians would probably disagree with that. Many believe that the Old Testaments saints were not saved by looking ahead to a future Christ, but by their personal interactions with God through faith, and that the story of Israel’s interaction with God was just that, the story of Israel’s interaction with God from the perspective of the people living at the time. This issue, in part, goes back to the classic Covenant theology vs. dispensationalism debate...one that isn’t about to be resolved anytime soon.)

(Another example: I would interpret Peter’s words in his second letter as warnings against false prophets, not warnings against varying interpretations of Scripture. You and I read the same passage, but interpreted it very differently.)

You know that expression, "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." I guess I've always felt like it's a bit more complicated than that.

Is it really possible to interpret the Bible completely objectively without being influenced by our own interpretive communities?

To be clear, I am in no way trying to undermine the authority and importance of the Bible by saying that it records a wide variety of God-encounters from a wide variety of perspectives. While the theme of God’s redemption is present throughout, the way people experience and understand that redemption is amazingly diverse. As Downing writes, “truth then is relative to each; all come to the light differently. Nevertheless, it is the same Truth they come to: Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light.”

Mitch

One Last
Reply #6 on : Thu April 03, 2008, 08:23:30

The argument that you seem to be making is that because there are different interpretations either none of them is right or there's no way to know who's right so we should accept them all as equally valid.

What if I said the following:

"I have a friend from Nigeria and boy can she cook a delicious and spicy meal!"

Then the following interpretations of what I said are offered.

1. Someone overhears our conversation and thinks I'm a racist bigot because I brought up that my friend is from Africa. Clearly I am a racist because I brought her heritage into a discussion about food.

2. Someone thinks I'm a sexist because I'm talking about a woman cooking in a stereotypical way.

3. Someone thinks that I love all spicy food because I went out of my way to mention the spice after I complimented the quality of the meal.

4. Someone else thinks I'm complaining about my wife because why else would I complement another woman's cooking instead of speaking that highly about my wife's.

5. Someone else assumes that I have a friend that cooks excellent food related to her ethnic background and that I appreciate that.

These are not equally accurate interpretations obviously. The reader's interpretive community probably had an impact on how they interpreted these comments. However the facts remain that they are reading into the comments what they want to see. That doesn't obscure the fact that what was actually said remains for anyone that objectively wants to look at it. The truth of what was said reveals the faulty interpretations and affirm #5 as the person who is closest to the truth.

I am not saying that every mystery of life can be cleared up in the Bible. Indeed many questions arise from studying the Bible that likely will never be answered for me until I see Christ and maybe not then. I am saying that the main themes, the main point of the Bible is clear. Just because there are other viewpoints and interpretations does not mean that they have much or any validity.

I have great respect for people that disagree with me in good conscience about the Bible's more peripheral issues. I do not agree with most points of covenant theology but I have many good friends who do and I have fellowship with them though we probably won't be starting a church together anytime soon. We may not agree on some things but we agree strongly on the penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ for all mankind, the necessity of knowledge of and faith in His finished work, the belief that He is a God who loves infinitely and condemns sin completely, who's character is unchanging, who created all things, who has given us, as the church, the mission of declaring His word which we can know to a world that is dying because they do not know Him.

I do believe that making the reader, the interpreter, the focal point of the Bible undermines its authority and importance. This is what is happening in the emerging church's theology right now (at least part of it). Many within this movement are now rejecting Jesus penal substitutionary atonement, embracing the idea that God is changing and figuring things out as He goes (open theism), and rejecting the clear teachings of the Bible they don't like such as sin, judgement, and hell. Their view of God, man, Jesus, the Bible, and the church are significantly different that what the Bible says. They harmonize their beliefs and the Bible by deconstructing the language, offering different interpretations of words and theologies that are clearly expounded in the Bible, and then arguing that their interpretations are just as valid as everyone elses. I agree with you that I Peter 1 is about false teachers. The association is that the false teachers ARE THE ONES that are bringing other interpretations of the Bible and the gospel, than Peter, the other apostles, and Jesus taught.

As you say, "the theme of redemption is present throughout" the Bible. In fact it is the "Big Story" of the Bible and it is experienced by diverse people in diverse cultures and diverse places. But it is experienced by those who know the "Big Story" about the nature of God, understanding the deserved judgement that is coming on them because of their own sinfulness, that place their faith in God to make a way (the Redeemer). They then repent of the sin in their lives as a response to His grace, they call others to repent because it is the most loving thing they can do.

This postmodern view of truth makes God obscured by man's opinion, makes man the creator of his own theology and thus his own god, and removes the authority of God's call to repentence in the Bible.

I know what I've said draws a hard line. I think that I've outlined my beliefs pretty thorougly. It's someone else's turn. I don't expect to change people's minds on a blog, but I did want to present what I believe to be an intellectual and experiential foundation for my reliance upon the Bible. I won't keep posting and expounding the same thoughts again and again (and there was great rejoicing). Thanks to those who actually waded through all these posts and to Rachel and Friend of a Friend for putting up with me :)

Rachel H. Evans

Good discussion
Reply #7 on : Thu April 03, 2008, 09:42:13

Thanks, Mitch and Friend of a Friend for your comments! I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and look forward to more in the future.

friend of a friend

clarifications
Reply #8 on : Sat April 05, 2008, 18:47:07

Well, I had intended to post some more comments a few days ago, but life has had other plans for me. Clearly no one is convincing anyone of anything here, so I think it best to leave the topic alone. I will refrain from the temptation to take up some of the further comments which I think are poorly thought out. I would, however, like to simply clarify some of the misconceptions regarding my previous post--for the record.

First, my theological framework doesn’t “reject out of hand any over arching story” nor the possibility of a metanarrative. But when I stopped assuming (a priori) that a metanarrative existed, it did not seem to arise naturally from the texts themselves.

My comment that I believed Titus 1:9 to be supportive of my opinion, was intended tongue-in-cheek. You are right to note that the ‘sound doctrine’ to which Paul refers is Paul’s own understanding of doctrine (not your understanding or my understanding). However, the assumption that none of the Biblical writers could represent differing theological viewpoints is clearly driven by one’s own theological assumptions and does not come from the text itself. The text itself records actual disputes between the likes of Peter and Paul (eg. - Galatians 2:11).

Mitch understood me as saying that we can not know what the Bible teaches. While I believe there is great value in postmodern discourse regarding language and linguistic theory, I was not attempting to espouse any radical theories regarding the inability of language to make any meaningful communication. My only point was that language is a human construct and never “fixed” or unchanging. Language always needs an interpreter. It does not speak for itself. The idea that we could simply read the Bible without interpreting it is patently absurd. Just because an interpreter is needed, does not necessarily make all interpretations equally plausible. But it does mean we have to take seriously the ways in which our own preconceptions (as well as the preconceptions of the writers) affect the meaning of the text.

Again, I do believe the Bible teaches things. I believe many of its teachings are obvious, some are not so obvious, and many others are downright obscure and unclear. I don’t see any relevance or reason why I should here elaborate on what I think the Bible teaches (lest I pigeonhole myself into a camp of Christians more than I already have). Uncovering the Bible’s teachings are not, I believe, a matter of mere guesswork (as you seemed to think I would believe—not exactly sure why). They are best explored through rigorous linguistic, historical, and textual research done through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Mitch said, “You seem to spend your post saying the Bible says nothing that has authority in your life.” If you review my post more closely, you will see I said nothing of the sort. I’m not sure where this came from.

Thanks for the discussion. (-Matt)

Jason

Re: It’s all relative!
Reply #9 on : Fri April 25, 2008, 11:38:37

The theme of the Bible is Jesus. From Genesis to Revelation - everything points to Jesus. From the sacrifices to the cross.

Write a comment

Required fields are bold and marked with *.

Evolving in Monkey Town

living, learning, and re-thinking fundamentalism in the town that gave it its name

It’s all relative!

Write a comment

It happens to everyone...