Comments on Can We Still Trust God's Word, pt. 4
By Next-Wave Readers |
| |
 (0)
|
|
| |
kriviere
(9/25/02 7:46 am)
I've just re-read this thread and there is a lot of good commentary there. In Charles' last post he described it as being modern meets post-modern. I wasn't quite able to see that distinction. It appeared to me to be fundamenalist/evangelical meets modern/post-modern. If there is a distinction that I would infer from the posts here it is that the rational moderns are seen as doing mostly navel-gazing trying to figure out what they can claim to believe with integrity, while the post-moderns are jumping in to proclaim the kingdom of God without waiting to formulate "the answer" to all questions, instead running with the question to see where it goes.
I especially liked Len Hjalmarson's posting talking about the Greek and Hebrew understandings of salvation and what it should mean to us. I thought the following paragraph especially beautiful and thought provoking:
> And in doing so, we compartmentalized salvation, separating it from
> discipleship, and even in some ways from earthly reality. We objectified
> reality, including the word of God, divorcing troth from truth, covenant
> from christianity, and many other divorces. We believe now more in
> information than in formation, and we have even recreated a priestly
> caste system that has disempowered the people of God.
If I have these labels straight, then trying to answer my own questions I would put Spong and the Westar Institute at the leading edge of the moderns (in some cases leaving their fellows behind to yell "you're going to far, you heretics!"), but they haven't gotten a clear push to engage the world to be the church (though Spong is calling for that, he just doesn't have a clear plan for what the new church life he calls for will look like).
Again, this discussion has been great. I look forward to more.
-J. Kenneth Riviere
www.riviere.ws
CatPo
(9/26/02 8:27 pm)
Hats off to all of you guys for some very captivating postings.
Reading about the claims of the historical inaccuracy of the bible and how it should not be taken literally (perhaps you did not mean to say so, it just came across this way) - one question jumps out - who is this Jesus guy and how do we know that he really was who he said he was? (unless we take the bible at its face value)
This questions, of course, is asked of those who suggest that the bible is anything less than the inspired word of God.
Cat
michaeltoy
(9/26/02 10:00 pm)
Jesus is whoever He says He is...Nobody takes the bible at face value, even the most conservative person has some spin which protects them from having to take the entire bible absolutely literally. The argument is about which parts get interpreted literally and which parts get "re-contextualized."
I'm very comfortable taking Jesus as a person/God who walked the earth and said the things that are recorded as coming from Him. I'm on board for a literal ressurection as well. I am still in mid-process, so I am not sure what to do about the eschatological parts of the New Testament. When I read them as an evangelical, they didn't hang together very well, maybe when I get back to them as a post-evangelical, it will seem different.
How do we know Jesus is who He says He is. We don't. If I were an agnostic scientist, I would probably come to the conclusion that someone named Jesus did exist, but as far as proof that his revelation was more true than Mohammed, or Buddah, or Joseph Smith, there really isn't much to go on.
What I have is a sense that God has revealed himself to me through His Son, and through His Spirit. This sense of revelation testifies to the trustworthiness of the biblical accounts. This makes my concept of what is true about Jesus very personal. I also trust that Jesus is eager to make it equally personal to anyone who seeks him.
[ Michael suddenly looks around, with an alarmed expression ]
Michael - Hey, what happened to Shoney's? Where's my pie? I was saving that last bite! Have I died? Is this heaven?
:)
-Michael
CatPo
(9/27/02 3:44 pm)
Cat - Bartender, my friend's pie looks old, please get him a new piece. Wait a second, make it a double...
[dead silence for a few minutes while everyone is having a piece of pie]
Cat - [to Micheal] ... consider the fact that unless you read the name of Jesus in the Bible and came to believe the account given in the Bible, you would not know who Jesus was or is, or that God had a son for that matter and that his name while on earth was Jesus. The bible, in this case, is the information source upon we all built our belief. In essence, if the information source is inaccurate, our belief is nothing more than a big lie (more or less). I guess... really, the bottom line is where do you draw the line and say that a portion of the bible is accurate and one is not? And what's the criteria for making this decision? (Nevertheless, point well taken regarding the fact that we all have our little spins to avoid the literall interpretation of the bible.)
[Cat resuming eating his piece of the pie]
tgraypots
(9/27/02 7:37 pm)
tgraypots enters the dining room...from the rest room where he had spent several rubber kneed hours, dressed in tee shirt and shorts, short hair and goatee, although at 52 no one would consider him a p_m_ , formerly a Dr. Pepper drinker, but no longer since he discovered the Carlyle group was bottling them. "Hey guys! I sure hope nobody's eating that sh***y pie! It gave me the squirts! .......So, what have I missed? By the way, any of ya’ll read the latest edition of Next-Wave?"
Darn good thing God loves us so much, huh? At least I think He does. Read that in the bible somewhere. Sure hope it’s true.
charleswear
(9/27/02 11:57 pm)
Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so, little ones to him belong, they are weak, but he is strong, Yes, Jesus loves, Yes, Jesus loves me, Yes Jesus loves me, the Bible tells me so....
[Charlie hums the tune to the song his Mom taught him when he was just a little boy...even though she had stopped attending church, she made sure that every weekend he was dressed in a little suit and dropped off for his Cradle Roll class...where, even before he was able to read, loving teachers taught him what their parents had taught them]
"When I first learned that song I didn't know what the Bible was, couldn't read, and wouldn't read for a few more years...."
The B-I-B-L-E, yes that's the book for me, I stand alone on the word of God, the B-I-B-L-E
[Charlie is whistling this time, remembering how much he liked going to church, and seeing the little flannel cutouts and the pictures of the man in the white robe with all the little children around him]
"I sang about the Bible before I could read it, but eventually I did learn to read it, and study it, and learn the books of the Bible, and study all of the stories of the Old and New Testaments in Bible class at my Christian school"
"But, I'll have to admit, it wasn't until a while later that I began to truly understand, that Jesus was more than a storybook hero, and that his Spirit was more than 'just the other one' in the trinity"
I come to the garden alone, while the dew is still on the roses, and the voice I hear, falling on my ear, the son of God discloses, And he walks with me and he talks with me, and he tells me I am his own, and the joy we share as we tarry there, none other has ever known
[Charlie looks down at the remains of his pie, just crumbs on a plate. He remembers the last time he sang that song. His dear grandmother, lying in the hospital bed in the dining room of the family home. A tear running down her cheek. No longer able to speak, she squeezed his hand. Even now, in the flourescent glare of the restaurant lights, his eyes fill up with tears]
David Drury
(9/28/02 4:32 am)
[Charlie Wear wipes the tears from his eyes, those around him visibly moved by his emotion concerning his grandmother. None of us knew that a Pastor/Lawyer could have such a big heart.]
[Those eating pie notice someone eavesdropping on them in the corner--rudely listening and never contributing to the conversation, such as it is. The drunken pseudo-theologians on the floor don't notice of course, but the large man with an out-of-style goatee and holding a Robert Bly book on Mythology gets out of his booth and takes a seat next to Charlie Wear.]
David Drury - Hello, friends...I've heard of the 7 minute lull, but the 7 day lull in conversation?
Charlie Wear [rolling eyes] - Oh, it's you! [Charlie turns away to the internet cafe-style monitor to his right and logs on to check his e-mail]
David Hopkins - We've already got enough controversy in here, buddy, don't be looking for trouble!
David Drury - Well, pal, sometimes when you get what you ask for you realize what you already had wasn't bad. And anyway, this place is still more Bird and Baby than Prancing Pony on the danger scale. I'm just having touble figuring out who the wannabe C. S. Lewises are among us.
David Hopkins - Oh, Charlie was right, it's YOU! [Hopkins goes for more coffee]
Charlie [getting e-mail] you'll never believe who I just got an e-mail from guys!!! [several hung-over pseudo-theologians on the floor are stirring after Charlie's loud outburst] I'll read it to you guys:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: JohnTheBeloved@LINUXHEAVEN.com
To: CharlieWear@next-wave.org
CC: SinfulAccounts@MSNHELL.com
RE: Your citing of the gospel I wrote
Hello, Mr. Wear.
Thanks for your efforts in the world right about now. I'm encouraged to see men of your advancing age still mucking it up with the younger ones. I lived to a pretty ripe old age (unlike my fellow Disciples on earth) and was known to act much like you until the unfortunate Patmos Island incident (oh, well, it left me time to write).
Just wanted to clarify that when Jesus was explaining salvation to Nicodemus (as you spoke about earlier in the Bar) Jesus did much more than just use an analogy. You mentioned to those here that "Jesus didn't use a single quote from scripture" even in the context of speaking to a religious leader. Actually, Jesus did use a very significant (however obscure to the postmoderns in the room) reference to the central problem of sin and what must happen to overcome it in speaking to Nick (we're pals now) about Numbers 21, believe it or not.
In Numbers 21 we find the great story (which I think of as at least True Myth and More) of Moses crafting the bronze snake in the desert to cure the disease of those bitten by snakes among the Israelites. The poisoned ones only needed to look up on the bronze snake to be freed from the pain. Jesus refered to this when he said, "The Son of Man must be lifted up"... much like the bronze snake. You see the wonderful parallel.
Now, there are several other examples of Jesus not using scripture to communicate the gospel, this is just not one of them. Sorry for the mix-up. I tried to make it clear when I wrote it way back when. I didn't realize people would someday be reading it in that New Living Translation and missing out on such things.
Your Fellow Disciple,
John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Charlie blushes a bit and smirks]
David Hopkins - Dude, you just got e-pimp-slapped by one of the Twelve.
David Drury - Don't feel bad, Charlie. John probably had a higher view of scripture than most of us in here. He likely just started to take it personally. At least he knows your e-mail address. [Drury surveys the group of puking cross-eyed drinkers and blood-shot-eyed cof-aholics with shaking hands and decides to order a large water with lemon.]
Edited by: David Drury at: 9/28/02 6:43:03 am
charleswear
(9/28/02 12:00 pm)
[I blushed and then smirked, as I thought about dear John's email]
"I guess I'll have to stop trying to use my NLT One Year Bible and switch to my annotated super-duper Study Version, but now that I think about it, I guess my earlier comments about the Nick-Jesus conversation still aren't that far off"
[shrugging my shoulders, I turn to the waitress and ask for a refill on my diet Coke, the only drink of choice for overweight ex-pastors]
"Jesus used the scripture in such an elegant and contextualized manner, that I missed his textual reference."
[sipping from my diet Coke, I turn to David, a guy I really like to see involved in any discussion]
"Don't you get tired sometimes, when us Bible-toting folks start to hit each other over the head with the living Word of God? Seeing who can top the last proof text?"
"The thing I like about Jesus' methods is that, even though we can't see the expression on his face or the tone of his voice, the love in his heart for each and everyone of us always seems to shine through"
[I hit the reply button on my screen and write:
Dear Brother John,
Thanks for adding to our discussion, I remember that you and your fellow followers had a number of lively ones as you walked with Jesus on the streets of Palestine. Thanks for showing us so much of God's love in your written words and in your life.
Your brother in Christ,
Charlie]
CatPo
(9/28/02 3:24 pm)
[thinking out loud]
Yo, Charles, I too wish that I had grown up in church, I just grew up in a communist country where the love and grace of Jesus wasn't passed from loving grandmas to their grandkids (and churches were sparser than banks). My hero's image came directly from the Book.
BTW - what's up with the Apocrypha? The puritans or Victorians (forgot which) apparently removed these books from the 'bible'...it didn't agree with them...Kinda feels 'unnatural' to think of these books as part of the bible, even though the early church did use them until not too long ago...
I guess if we do the same thing now with Paul's letters, 200-300 years from now, future generations will have similar 'debates' regarding the completeness and accuracy of the bible, not even giving thought to the fact that the pomos of the 20th and 21st centuries have taken them out because they seem a little too 'harsh' and unfriendly to their culture (making this up).
Hm... what is then the real scripture?
[.... a guy in a robe walks in asking for new adherents to his political party... ]
"Guys, I think the bartender spiced our Cokes, or did I order something else? Strange feeling..."
David Drury
(9/29/02 10:49 am)
[David's water with lemon arrives at the table. The waitress gives him a dirty look for ordering a free drink after a night of cashing in on the dollar tips from everyone's cold ones]
David Drury - You're right, as usual, Charlie, and wise, in your appraisal of Jesus' style of communicating and discussing the gospel. It was always served up with a healthy slice of love and contextualized illustration. We could learn a lot from JC.
Charlie Wear - There's a great book called "The Master's Way of Evangelism" by Robert Coleman that illustrates the several ways Jesus shared with people... always shifting his style and content while driving home the poignant message.
David Drury - No way, I was just thinking of the same book [Charlie ponders whether the quote "great minds think alike" is really true]. I guess the Bible will alway be THE reference for us in how and why to connect with God and spread the message... its just that from time to time the WAY we use it alters a bit.
[David leaves a 5-spot for a tip after the waitress begrudingly re-fills his water]
Edited by: David Drury at: 9/29/02 12:49:39 pm
baruch
(9/29/02 6:24 pm)
[Baruch stands up to stretch and let the excess caffeine work out of his nervous system before engaging in another cup]
baruch - Waitress! Refills for everybody! Another piece of pie for Michael there, give one to the man with the tee-shirt and shorts, another vodka for that man on the floor, another glass of water for David -- and another lemon, and [whispers in the waitress's ear] spike Catpo's coke again, and a double spoon of sugar in Charles' diet drink -- give him a sugar high...
[overhears Catpo saying something about the Apocrypha]
Apocrypha huh? What about the Shepherd of Hermas (www.antioch.com.sg/th/twp/bookbyte/hermas)? Origen and Turtullian thought that should have been in the cannon of scripture. That's pretty cool stuff -- reads almost like the book of James in places, you know, the book that Martin Luther wanted to throw out.
[...is distracted by Charles incessant humming and wistling] Will you quit that already!
Just to throw out a question... I see Catpo's point, coming from a country where knowledge of Jesus is nil, I can relate to Charlie's point that it takes more than black and white pages of the Bible. Where I live (Thailand) people know almost nothing of Jesus except the form and structure of a very Western church that has been plopped down in middle of their culture, or what they see on TV or the movies, which is definately "Pre-modern". I think that Charles would agree that it's much easier to teach songs to the kids within their own cultural context of Sunday School, than to give people in other cultures an alternative to having to figgure it all for them selves from reading it in black and white. Yet, letting them read it, or even to say it, has it's drawbacks. Rural Thailand, and other parts of the world are a totally different mindset.
We say, "For God so loved the world..."
They say, "Who's 'God'?"
"God is the creator."
"You mean, the one who entrapped our souls in what Lord Buddah calls the vain material world? And what about this 'love' bit? Love, according to Buddha, is one of the lower emotions, which leads to pain and suffering, and you're trying to teach us that your way is superior?"
There have been successes, but more often than not, we've successfully changed Thai people so that they no longer relate to their own culture. They go for this "Modern" and "Pre-Modern" type of structure that just doesn't cut it with the traditional (Thai) types.
Any thoughts...?
baruch
(9/29/02 7:54 pm)
Earlier question on Spong: I looked at your website, K Riverie -- nice -- and followed the link to the Amazon page on Spong. I only read some of the reviews, none of the excerpts, I realise reviewers don't always give the whole picture, so please correct me if any of the following is inaccurate (I don't even remember Spong's first name):
From what I can gather of what I read is that Spong and myself are into the church scene for opposite reasons.
I think I also speak for "Postmodern believers" or "the emerging church" (I don't like labels either) -- do I? For me, the church scene is okay only insofar as Jesus is in the dead centre of it all, and the whole thing is, or seeks to be a reflection of Him. It's just that we don't see that happening. The Apostle's creed, to me, while it isn't Scripture, nor would I canonises it, does reflect an accurate picture of my faith (though personally, I wouldn't try so hard to define the Trinity, but simply emphesise the Jesus narrative as it has been passed on to us. Doctrinalising the Trinity was probably necessary just to maintain direction in the face of errors although in some ways, it may have blown us slightly off course on a different level). I suppose some Postmodern believers may accept less than I do, but I think I'm pointed in the right direction. I've made the statement on my own website that if someone could prove to me conclusively that Jesus did not die and rise again from the dead, I would stop wasting time with the Christian thing. To me, that's the source of what makes it work.
Spong, on the other hand, seems to value the institution of the church over the acceptance of faith in Jesus as I've described above. He calls himself an "exile", and retains the title of "Bishop", which insinuates that he be sees himself as belonging in the institution of the church, but thinks it needs an overhaul. For him, that means re-examining the points of the Apostle's Creed, and of the role of Jesus in the church and in the world.
Spong says, the institution of the church is okay, but without Christ necessarily being at the centre. Postmodern believers are saying (if I'm correct), we want Christ at the dead centre of our lives, but could do without the institution. I suppose if we agree on anything, it would be on where Jesus says in Revelation, "I wish you were either hot or cold..." We want it red hot, Spong wants it cold. Therefore, some of us are exiles from the church as well, but, like I say, for the opposite reason.
Without having read any of Spong, I suppose he could be Postmodern, but not in an emerging church context.
Edited by: baruch at: 9/29/02 10:03:01 pm
charleswear
(9/29/02 10:21 pm)
[Charlie creates a huge spray of diet coke as he nearly chokes on the sickeningly sweet concoction, eyes and ears wide open he listens to Baruch as he expounds on obscure non-canonized writings and responds to K's comments about the nature of postmodernism and Spong, whoever the heck that is]
"You guys are way to deep for me. I keep wondering what the heck a "postmodern" believer is? I'm a believer in the risen Christ living in a culture that is clearly changed. Some folks call it "postmodern" others label it "misguided."
[pausing to get the waitress' attention so I can order another diet coke, I ponder how this discussion has meandered, from point to point and how it is a snapshot of the dilemma facing the institutional church and, for that matter, just regular Christians who are interested in "making disciples" of Jesus and announcing that the kingdom of heaven is at hand.]
"Baruch, with Jesus at the dead centre of all that we do, it would seem hard for any of us to go astray."
[the nature of belief, faith, practice, doubt, mystery and how it all relates to our discussion swirls in my mind]
"I just pray that all of this discussion helps us keep Jesus at the centre"
David Drury
(9/30/02 4:47 am)
[Head swimming a bit -- must be the lemon]
David Drury - Great to ponder all that stuff, Baruch, you're really on top of your debate game... and I think you argument is sound for sure.
Baruch - [Belching] Sure! No prob.
David Drury - What's interesting to me, guys, is that this discussion started with considering how fundamental the Bible might be to our faith -- and even what parts might not be accurate. And now Baruch has us considering whether the fundamental beliefs of the trinity should be doctrinal. Just from the face of things, I'd say a discussion like this presupposes a downward spiral in "central ideas" that we can all share... and it also begins to alienate those on the fringe whose central ideas circle is so much larger than one like Baruch. I don't have any 2 cents on Baruch's statements yet... but just this additional commentary on this discussion.
K - Thanks... [under breath] .......... fer nothin'
charleswear
(9/30/02 10:15 am)
[Ouch, I feel the beginnings of a caffeine headache, my head's not used to this much activity]
"David, central ideas, huh?"
David Drury
(9/30/02 10:48 am)
Re: Central ideas?
David Drury - Yep. Central Ideas, Charlie. Or central tenants, beliefs, doctrines, faith concepts, etc. I think it interesting that these debates always end up with a limited number of these central ideas agreed upon...and we never seem to build on them (by adding a consensus belief to "our list"). I think it's an inherent problem we Postmoderns have...we're still 99% demythologists and deconstructionists... and have built nothing much to credit the Creator yet. That's why the boomers still rule... becase their bad ideas are liked better than our lack of ideas. We still just have criticisms to offer. Not much construction.
Charlie Wear - Que?
David Drury [Nodding off] - Whatever.
charleswear
(9/30/02 1:26 pm)
[Squeezing my temples in order to relieve the pain, I ask the Shoney's waitress to bring me a menu. It's one of those menus with the colored pictures that show various items. The dessert menu catches my eye, with its picture of a hot fudge sundae. I love hot fudge sundaes, they are my favorite ever since a childhood vacation when my dad used to drive us into town each afternoon and order one each. What sheer delight. I signal the waitress, who by this time looks really fed up with all of the drink orders and the whistling, humming and ranting coming from our end of the restaurant. 'May I have a hot fudge sundae, please, lots of fudge and whipped cream, thanks.....A few minutes later she brings me a big dish, I can almost see the steam rising from the hot fudge. I spoon in my first bite and turn to David...]
"I knew a pastor once who used to compare the Bible to these kinds of picture menus. He used to say that some Christians act as though they would rather eat the menu, than the food that the pictures represent. His point was that living life in the kingdom of God is an experience that is so alive that we Christians should be writing new chapters to the book of Acts every day."
[I can see that David is fed up with all the words we have been trading and the fact that these discussions usually produce more heat than light.]
"I guess the discussion is important for me when it helps us move toward an understanding of how the "central ideas" will help us explain the kingdom message to the inhabitants of our culture."
"I see so much pain in the eyes of my fellow citizens of planet earth. Even though knowing Jesus won't give us a pain-free life, for me, it does seem help me be more hopeful...."
Edited by: charleswear at: 9/30/02 5:37:25 pm
kriviere
(9/30/02 6:41 pm)
I want to thank baruch for his analysis comparing John Spong to post-modernism. That sounds like a reasonable approximation of the difference.
I would say that Spong doesn't necessarily value the church over Jesus as much as he fears that the ongoing exodus from the church by people who cannot accept that the world is flat or that dead men can walk and talk and float into the air will leave the world without anyone to proclaim the truth that there is a God. What that God is and what we can understand about that God and what it means to us if there is a God are all important questions to deal with, and if the church ceases to be a factor in the world to help us come to tems with those questions then we and our descendents will all be worse off. Spong certainly sees Jesus as our clearest guide to understanding what God is and how we should live. What Spong is trying to do is reach out to people who reject miracles, virgin birth, physical resurrection, and a view of how the universe works that is thousands of years old. He wants to help them to see that there is more to life than just being born, feeding our faces, and eventually dying. He certainly finds much in the Bible which we can use to understand how we should live and relate to God, but he recognizes that it was written by fallible people who did not have the benefit of the knowledge we have ammassed about the workings of the universe that we can see, it was assembled centuries later based on which beliefs were being supported and emphasized, and it has been translated with predispositions which influence what gets printed. I think that Spong can get quite passionate about his beliefs, so I don't know that I would characterize him as cold. However, I hear you saying that Spong is coming to his belief as an intellectual exercise while postmoderns commit to Jesus as a belief and then are trying to find what that means for their lives (please correct me if I have not understood or expressed your meaning clearly).
While I cannot say I agree with everything Spong says, I find myself more comfortable with his approach than one which would insist that first I must believe what the Bible says and through that know all that is important. I think there are some things which I've read here that I find useful, but I get tired of arguments about the literal truth of the Bible. I have enjoyed reading this discussion, but I'm not sure if I'm going to find much to satisfy me here.
Peace.
[The discussion continues here...] |
| |
|
(0)
|
|
|
NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THIS ARTICLE