Apparently, due to the fact that somebody from my former (and most recent) parish discovered this blogsite of mine, there has been quite a buzz there at First Baptist Church in Paris, IL. I can certainly understand that since, while I did make more of an effort to diffuse -- and in some cases dismantle -- what I felt were poorly based or just flat out incorrect beliefs and ideas about the Bible near the end of my time there, this blog nonetheless represents a much more open viewpoint than they would not have fully expected. The truth is, I don't mind people knowing about what I think, but if they're going to talk about it, I'd rather them understand me rather than presume to know (and then gossip about) where I stand from something they heard from someone else or read and misunderstood in the context and purpose of this blogsite.
And so...to my former parishioners:
I certainly understand the confusion that might have been evoked -- as those who sat in a pew and listened to me teach -- to have heard or assumed from this site that I am an agnostic in some way or another. That being said, since the word is out (or at least some kind of "word"), I almost feel a certain ethical obligation to explain a few things...if for no other reason than to prevent wrong or misinterpreted information from hurting anyone who trusted me as their pastor and teacher.
I stated on the last Sunday morning I was at FBC that my beliefs had changed on some things and that my resignation was a decision based upon the desire to be honest and open about my thoughts and beliefs...something I just wasn't completely able to do in a Baptist church setting. I haven't really changed much belief-wise since I left, though my openness in this blog might have made it seem so.
I've always been a "truth-seeker", and so I've never been totally satisfied with any particular "set" of beliefs for any particular long stretch of time. I believe in asking questions, and questions often lead us to study, to analyze, to dig deeper...though that seems to scare the daylights out of some people. Some denounce asking "too many questions" since it can lead one to be "too skeptical" – but...what is "too skeptical"? After all, one can be a skeptic without being a cynic. A true skeptic is one who wants to know the truth and refuses to accept pat-answers or "just believe this because X or Y said so" kinds of answers. A true skeptic in the most positive sense is one who won't even just believe something because a religious tradition, a religious leader, or even an ancient religious book tells him to believe it. That doesn't mean that all religious traditions, leaders or books are necessarily wrong, but it does mean we are all responsible for what we choose to believe and should be careful about what we accept, what we reject, and (especially) what we teach our children. I don't think God is afraid of our questions; in fact, I would think God would *expect* us to use this amazing brain to its fullest extent. Despite what some may think, being skeptical doesn't always lead one to *abandon* beliefs...in fact, the whole point of digging and asking questions is to try to debunk false beliefs and hang on to good ones. I wish more people in general and Christians in particular would do that, don't you? Belief should always be a process open to adjustment.
I'm not a full-blown agnostic and definitely not an atheist. I previously stated in my profile that I had atheistic leanings. Well, I have theistic leanings too! And if we were all honest, most people have questioned God's existence at some time in their lives for one or more of a variety of reasons. Nonetheless, I took that description off because I know it is so easily misunderstood. I am not an atheist, and never will be. Atheism is not, in my opinion, an honest intellectual position. Agnosticism (or certain aspects of it) by contrast is much more honest...though again, I am not an agnostic. A true agnostic is one who (temporarily) suspends beliefs in the supernatural because he or she simply hasn't been personally convinced that the evidence is strong enough. "Agnostic" means "don't know for sure". Suspending belief and taking a stand to say you *don't* believe ( i.e., atheism) are two very different things. I am actually neither one of those things. I do have agnostic *tendencies* about some things, but I also believe that agnosticism and faith are two sides of the same coin in many ways. What do I mean? The objects of faith, despite how so many try to "prove" them, cannot be proven...that's why they are matters of faith! So, one may or may not have faith that there is a God, but that's not because they can *prove* or *disprove* God's existence. Faith or non-faith in God is based upon a collection of ideas, rational evaluations, and personal experiences. I do not "know" God exists in the same way that I might "know" I am typing this on my computer in front of me right now and you do not "know" God exists like you "know" you are reading this on yours. And so, one might say that I don't *know* that God exists, but I have *faith* that God exists. Honestly, I don't know (and niether do you) that there is an afterlife. Why? Because I've not yet experienced it. But I can have faith and hope that there's one. In that way, we are all agnostic ( i.e., we don't "know") to a certain extent in our faith claims. I don't think that cheapens faith, I think it defines faith. I don't think it weakens faith, I think it reveals the essence of faith. Indeed, there is no way knowledge can ever destroy faith since faith is a personal choice. Some of the most well-educated people in the world have faith, some don't. Their choice.
So where do I stand on certain things? Am I still a Christian? One place in a blog below, I stated that I wasn't. Of course, that (as well as certain other things including the title of this blog page) was intentionally provocative in order to spur on discussion and debate on this site (which I really enjoy). So, to unpack that statement a little and answer the question: I would say NO and YES and NO again. "No" I am not a Christian in the way Christians are defined in mainline evangelical churches today. I do not believe saying a prayer in order to be "saved from hell" is anything close to what Jesus originally had in mind when he called people to follow him. Popular Christianity has evolved into something more akin to American pop-religion with lots of beliefs and ideas based upon practically no biblical scholarship and replete with completely mistaken -- sometimes grotesquely so -- biblical interpretations. The modern conservative-evangelical movement has an interesting and surprisingly recent history, but I won't get into that here. Suffice it to say: modern, popular Christianity (especially in this country) is a very culturally powerful but misinformed movement. So, no, I am not a Christian in that way.
However, I would say "YES" that I believe in the mission of the Jesus of history. The Jesus of history is very different (and a lot more challenging!) than the Jesus preached in mainline evangelical churches today. Though I suggested this and other books to the church before I left, read "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time" by Marcus Borg to get a quick overview of the Jesus I'm talking about. It will amaze you. Incidentally, Borg is a Christian and a scholar. I don't believe Jesus was as interested in "getting us into heaven" as he was in trying to change the world here and now. He was a social revolutionary who was elevated by his followers to a position of divinity. Hold on there, though. This doesn't mean Jesus wasn't "sent" by God or that God didn't "speak through" or "use" or was somehow "one" with Jesus, simply that those ideas about him arose after his death...and the further from his death you get, the more the divine Jesus evolves in writings by his followers. Interesting enough, that evolution is seen in the very Gospels themselves, though parishioners are not taught this in mainline churches. The scholarship behind the current understanding of the early church and the Jesus of history is quite well understood and developed...it's just shielded from the masses by popular dogma. But (and this is important) scholarly understandings of the historical Jesus and the evolution of the early church doesn't preclude one's choice to believe that Jesus was somehow also God. That is a matter of faith from your own personal experiences with Jesus as you encounter him in biblical stories, in prayer, etc. Some Christians follow Jesus but don't believe that he was a "God-man", others do. My point is that from a historical point of view, Jesus was a social and religious revolutionary –- we need to get to know *that* Jesus first before we just decide all he wanted was for us to believe in him so we wouldn't "go to hell". That second version of Jesus (just believe and live forever) is the easy one. The Jesus of history challenges us to change the world if we want to claim to follow him.
So, YES, I do believe in the mission of the historical Jesus. But... NO I don't claim to follow him as he demanded and (without trying to sound too presumptuous here) I doubt you do either. When you peel back the layes of tradition about Jesus (even those found in the Gospels themselves), you find a man who is uncompromising in his ideals and purposes. Most people today who claim to be Christians simply do not represent what Jesus was truly demanding of his followers. When you come face-to-face with the Jesus of history through study and meditation, he will rock your world to the core. I will refer you to self-study for the details. Leave a comment or e-mail me at kdhuddleston@gmail.com if you'd like some resources for that kind of study. Again, suffice it to say, I am only being honest when I say that while I follow Jesus in some ways, I do not claim to be a disciple in the truest sense (in his "inner circle" as seen in the Gospels) because, quite frankly, some of the levels of personal sacrifice he calls for, I'm just not ready to embrace. Before you might be tempted to judge me on that, I would encourage you to shed *some* of the pre-conceived ideas about the Jesus you've learned about in Sunday School growing up; temporarily mentally set aside the "just-believe-in-him" Jesus preached in churches today that requires little more than praying to him, reading your Bible, and trying not to sin and get to know the Jesus who wanted to change the world...and is more relevant today than ever. Of course, there is nothing wrong with prayer, reading the Bible, and trying to be a good person, but Jesus demanded so much more than that of his followers.
Do I believe the Bible? The Bible is not some magical book handed to us by God. It is an anthology of writings from many people, many places and many times charged with many political and religious motives from the ancient world. However, it is also a book expressing the experiences of others with God through their cultures and times and mindsets. That said, people claim to continue to experience the presence of God through the stories and writings in the Bible – and who can say they're wrong? Nobody. That is a personal faith-experience. The Bible is Christianity's guidebook, and a powerful one at that. Unfortunately, in most churches (though not all!) it's not being taught to Christians correctly because the popular interpretations embraced by the evangelical conservative mainstream hold sway over (and prevent) informed education based upon good, solid scholarship. Preachers preach doctrine and dogma (and even superstition that has no biblical or factual basis), but they are not educating their parishioners. I personally think that is just tragic and (quite frankly) shameful. Christians can learn so much about the book they use, avoid so many hurtful and bogus interpretations, and actually be challenged in the right way if only their pastors would get an education or educate themselves.
Well, I could keep on going...but I will stop with this small book. If anyone who may read this has questions for me, wants to discuss any of this, or whatever, then just e-mail me at kdhuddleston@gmail.com . I would be happy to reply.
Whatever else anyone might wonder, I am not unhappy, not without faith, and not some "fallen" preacher (well, those in certain circles might think so...but I don't put much stock in their opinions anyway
). Yes, I can be very caustic and aggressively critical of conservative evangelical Christianity, but only because I believe that much of what it is teaching is simply wrong. There is a growing movement of churches that are finally getting in tune with scholarship and offering a new and powerful vision of Christianity more in accordance to what the original Jesus was doing, saying and wanted. Who knows? I may end up pastoring a church like that (which should tell you that I am not anti-Christian!).
Best wishes to all.
Kevin
wingfire
The established paradigm of church, with a pastor at the top, deacons, elders, lay leaders, etc. is not biblical according to the New Testament. Then again, it doesn't sound like you agree that the Bible is the literal Word of God anyway, so I don't know that I belong in this discussion.
As for the one who said he's not sure he belongs in this discussion, I would just say you are more than welcome on this blog! No, I don't view the Bible as the "Word of God" per se, but that doesn't mean I don't believe the Bible can't offer very powerful lessons and truths to live by. Indeed, considering the level of authority it carries in our culture (and in many places around the world), it stands to be one of the best mediums for world change....interpreted and used correctly and ethically. As such, it is also one of the most dangerous mediums when misinterpreted and misused. Like anything powerful, it can do as much harm as good if not handled properly.
I gotta warn you that I come at everything from a very biblical, pentacostal (yeah, that happened at the altar of the BAPTIST church), charasmatic point of view.
I believe in miracles because I have seen them. I don't have to intellectually support them, even in my own mind, because "the just shall live by faith". Nothing is more important to me than my faith. You can have everything else I own or care about. Without faith it is impossible to please God. That is my goal in life. Pleasing God. I certainly don't have to support the miracles I have seen to you or to anyone else. Jesus did miracles right in front of people and some still didn't believe. He did not concern Himself with the unbelievers. He focused on the ones who did.
I accept that other's believe other things and I generally don't like to participate in debates about it. I am the only Christian in my family and I have paid dearly for my stand. My father was an Ivy League educated man.........you should have seen his face when he found out that I believed what I read in the Bible. I was almost disinherited at one time for adopting children that my husband and I felt the Lord telling us to adopt. We adopted them anyway.
Oh well........he couldn't get me to change my mind either. Two of my sisters are Buddhist. I don't tell them that what they believe is wrong, but they do know that I believe that there is only one way, one truth, one life, and that is Christ. If He is not exactly who He said He is then He is a liar. Right?
I would not read the words of someone I thought was a liar. I wouldn't bother. My sisters say He was a good man....a good teacher..........how can He be that, if He is not the Son of God? He said He was. He said, "I and the Father are one". Either He is a liar or He is telling the truth. There is no in between on that.
I understand where you are in your beliefs and, of course, I have no desire to try and change your mind (not that I could). Well, OK, maybe I *do* want to change your mind a little, but then I'm a teacher by "nature", so I am driven to try and educate and be educated.
You seem content in your stances. You also admit exclusivity in your truth claims. There is nothing wrong with the first, but the second is an attitude I generally challenge since it is the cause of so much hatred, division, and even violence in the world (and, of course, I'm not accusing you specifically of any of those things!).
An attitude of exclusivity when it comes to Christianity generally arises more from dogma and tradition than from the Bible. Granted, you see some exclusive claims to truth within the biblical text itself, but if one is not a literalist (a very dangerous hermeneutical method in many ways and prone to forced and mutilated biblical interpretations), then one need not take on the mindsets of ancient Near Eastern authors in order to gleen insights, lessons and even evoke religious experiences from the text. The truth is, most people who claim to believe the Bible "literally" really don't because it not only ignores all the various literary styles and types within the Bible that are not subject to literal interpretation, but there are certain laws and ideas in the Bible that they wouldn't practice for ethical or other reasons anyway.
What most people mean when they say they believe the Bible "literally" is that they take it to be the 100% truth. Yet, truth is not something that is always that easily extrapolated...especially when dealing with writings from ancient times from ancient mindsets in ancient cultures quite foreign to our own. Understanding historical and literary contexts as well as redaction (editing) history play a huge role in fully understanding much of the biblical text. Sure, you can read the Bible and interpret parts of it at "face value", but you are still filtering ancient ideas and writings through a contemporary, Western mindset and will often unwittingly misunderstand what the writers meant (and hence what the text MEANS for you today).
All that said, I think that when individuals or denominations claim that THEIR doctrinal or dogmatic understanding of the Bible is not just the ONLY correct understanding (devoid of scholarship), but that their belief system in general is the ONLY true one in existence, it is not only presumptuous but unnecessarily divisive and the fodder for hate and war.
"Atheism is not, in my opinion, an honest intellectual position."
Come again? What about atheism do you find to be dishonest?
"Agnosticism (or certain aspects of it) by contrast is much more honest...though again, I am not an agnostic."
Agnosticism says, basically, I don't know. Which, as I believe you point out, is a statement that truthfully applies to all of us. Yet you are "not an agnostic".
I think "what" you are is unsure of what you are. Nothing wrong with that. Labels are too restrictive for me too. I say in my 100 Things About Me that I'm a "Christian Atheist". I claim to be Not A Cynic. What's it all mean? That's why I write so much about this subject and I suspect it's the same with you. We're trying to make our positions ever more clear, even as they continue to evolve.
Blog on!
As for saying that atheism isn't an intellectually honest position, I should qualify that by adding that I only mean from an epistemological standpoint. One cannot prove or disprove theism or atheism, as such I think absolute claims of knowledge on this issue are a bit presumptuous. That doesn't mean (as Dawkins clearly argues in his latest book "The God Delusion") that one cannot make a reasonable and arguable stance that God doesn't exist based upon *probabilities*, but even probabilities don't automatically trump personal faith experiences. Psychological and neurophysiological explanations of religious experience can explain the mechanics of those experiences to a certain extent, but they cannot fully explain (to borrow a phrase from philosophers of mind) the "hard problem" of conscious experience -- in this case, the claim of a personal, subjective experience with (it is claimed) a supernatural mind. In other words, while it might seem to make good sense to assume that because MRIs and certain other kinds of hi-tech tests can map the brain activity of someone's religious experience, it doesn't ultimately prove that that experience is being generated completely internally...perhaps (as the experiencer would claim) the brain is responding to some outside source? It may not seem like a great argument, but it's there.
Thanks for your kind words and your great comments!
It has always been the theist that has insisted the atheist makes a knowledge claim. No atheist I know accepts this outwardly applied definition. Atheism is lacking belief and says nothing of knowledge. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. As is the case with most atheists with which I speak, it is possible to be an agnostic atheist, or one who does not know whether or not there is a supreme being (this has nothing to do with the Christian's god) but does not see any reason to form a belief that one exists.
To take this one step further, the term agnostic is in actuallity unnecessary as one must be a agnostic on the subject of the existence of something for which there can be no knowledge. A supreme being is such a concept as it, as of yet, has never been defined within coherent parameters by which we could form a coherent concept to investigate. The greatest hurdle for the theist would be to come up with a well defined coherent concept for a supreme being.
Thanks for your comments. Defining atheism and agnosticism are certainly topics of considerable debate among thinkers. I believe there are subtle differences between them, but then I can be kinda picky about stuff.
Atheism is only intellectually dishonest if the atheist claims to know that God does not exist (which some do make such claims). Those who simply hold no belief in God (as opposed to a claim to knowledge) could still be asked "why not?" ...which I assume they would have reasons given the prevalence of belief in the supernatural in the world and throughout history (which doesn't necessarily justify it, but it is there nonetheless). If someone asked me if I believed in martians in teacups circling the earth, I'd say, "No, I don't" When asked why not, I could say there is no evidence to support it. Yet theists do claim evidence (disputable though it may be). No, the atheist doesn't *have* to prove his position (indeed he cannot), nor does he need to rationally justify the absence of belief in God, but if he says "There IS no God" then I would say he is being overly confident in his knowledge claims.
Just my thoughts. I could be wrong.
When you say:
"Atheism is only intellectually dishonest if the atheist claims to know that God does not exist (which some do make such claims)."
I think this is getting into what one considers to be the basis of knowledge. By the criteria we use for deities, what can we say we know not to exist? Do we need to entertain the possibility for the existence of every imaginable possibility, or can we consider the fact that we have no evidence pointing to something but plenty of evidence that would seem to make the thing unlikely sufficient to declare knowledge of its non-existence?
"Those who simply hold no belief in God (as opposed to a claim to knowledge) could still be asked "why not?" ...which I assume they would have reasons given the prevalence of belief in the supernatural in the world and throughout history (which doesn't necessarily justify it, but it is there nonetheless)."
I'm not so sure this is true. I see no reason to need reasons. As you mention the prevalence of belief in something in no way justifies said belief. Many people I have spoken with find it hard to accept but, I have never had a belief in anything supernatural (in fact I would contend supernatural is an incoherent term, though that is along a more advanced line of thought than what I am getting at here) and have therefor never felt a need to justify my non-belief. It is, at its root, nothing more than the result of not being able to justify forming a belief. I have, after realizing during those years when one becomes aware of others and the fact that they differ from one's self and one another, been forced to examine why many hold to what I consider to be a wholly unsupported belief, and also found myself with the burden of defending my lack of belief lest I allow others to dictate my morality through their religious and political ideals, but that is in no way the same as feeling a need to justify my lack of belief.
"If someone asked me if I believed in martians in teacups circling the earth, I'd say, "No, I don't" When asked why not, I could say there is no evidence to support it. Yet theists do claim evidence (disputable though it may be)."
I can claim evidence of the martians in teacups as well. The truth is that, though I have often heard theists claim to have evidence to support their belief, when the evidence is viewed without the presupposition of the existence of a deity it does not actually lead one to posit the existence of a deity. At least not any evidence I have ever seen. This means that it is not actually evidence but for existence of something but support for an already decided upon existence.
The deity belief needs to be there before the evidence can lead to it. Of course, humans strongly desire answers for unknown questions (for psychological reasons) and tend to project themselves onto the universe to fill gaps in understandings of existence, but without the presupposed deity this would not lead to any particular god but instead a different god for every individual trying to fill the gaps in their own knowledge. It is only our societal nature that has led to god's being condensed and spread throughout the vast majority of societies.
"No, the atheist doesn't *have* to prove his position (indeed he cannot), nor does he need to rationally justify the absence of belief in God, but if he says "There IS no God" then I would say he is being overly confident in his knowledge claims."
Perhaps it is overconfident, but I truly see it as being no more of an unsupported statement than to deny a matrix scenario or any other un-evidenced proposition to the nature of existence.
An excellent point. The question of "Who's god are you trying to show exists?" is a excellent answer to those who try and utilize the old "Pascal's Wager" argument. Though I think there are some general common threads in the human conception of "divinty" (even found cross-culturally and historicall), it does become increasingly complicated and messy when trying to add accidental properties or qualifying specificity...which, in turn, brings the whole argument for God's existence to a mushy halt.
Vessel: "...in fact I would contend supernatural is an incoherent term, though that is along a more advanced line of thought than what I am getting at here"
I would argue the same thing. On the other hand, a purely natural universe doesn't necessarily preclude the idea that what is termed "supernatural" is actually an aspect of the natural universe but mistakenly (and mythically) conceptualized as transcendent or "other than matter & energy". But again, that is a whole other topic of its own.
Vessel: "The truth is that, though I have often heard theists claim to have evidence to support their belief, when the evidence is viewed without the presupposition of the existence of a deity it does not actually lead one to posit the existence of a deity."
VERY true. Hence, arguments marshalled by Christian apologists are really circular in nature much of the time. They don't see that because they are psychologically convinced of their conclusion before they begin their argument. They try to accuse scientists of the same thing (especially with arguments for the validity of biological evolution), but the difference is that most scientists truly do try to control their experiments in order to let the evidence validate or falsify their hypothesis. Christians are not so open to weighing naturalistic explanations against their own.
Thanks for your excellent thoughts!
I don't have time right now to read everyone's comments, although I am sure they are very good. I'll just respond to yours.
Sorry about the gender mix-up, Prisonerofhope.
That's okay..........not to sound dumb, but if you saw me you wouldn't mix me up..........I'm not very unisex in my demeanor. *wink*
I understand where you are in your beliefs and, of course, I have no desire to try and change your mind (not that I could). Well, OK, maybe I *do* want to change your mind a little, but then I'm a teacher by "nature", so I am driven to try and educate and be educated.
Yeah, I get that teacher thing, AF. I left school to get married, but since I have three biological children who are teachers (two teach History.......one Calculus....where the heck did THAT come from *look of complete surprise cuz I did NOT do well in Math when I was in school*) I feel vindicated that I always knew I had the teacher in me. That's okay. I love what I do and it's enough for me.
You seem content in your stances. You also admit exclusivity in your truth claims. There is nothing wrong with the first, but the second is an attitude I generally challenge since it is the cause of so much hatred, division, and even violence in the world (and, of course, I'm not accusing you specifically of any of those things!).
I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but the only exclusivity I claim is that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and no man comes to the Father but by Him. I grew up in the country club, AF, any other exclusivity is repugnant to me.
An attitude of exclusivity when it comes to Christianity generally arises more from dogma and tradition than from the Bible.
Thank you for saying this. I TOTALLY agree. *two thumbs MAJORLY up!*
Granted, you see some exclusive claims to truth within the biblical text itself, but if one is not a literalist (a very dangerous hermeneutical method in many ways and prone to forced and mutilated biblical interpretations), then one need not take on the mindsets of ancient Near Eastern authors in order to gleen insights, lessons and even evoke religious experiences from the text. The truth is, most people who claim to believe the Bible "literally" really don't because it not only ignores all the various literary styles and types within the Bible that are not subject to literal interpretation, but there are certain laws and ideas in the Bible that they wouldn't practice for ethical or other reasons anyway.
Yeah, 'literal' is a subjective term with the Bible. Do we LITERALLY believe some of the symbolism in Revelation? Of course not. Do I believe that Noah's Flood really happened? Absolutely. So, there ya go. The Bible is to be interpreted through the Spirit Whose words it is.
What most people mean when they say they believe the Bible "literally" is that they take it to be the 100% truth. Yet, truth is not something that is always that easily extrapolated...especially when dealing with writings from ancient times from ancient mindsets in ancient cultures quite foreign to our own. Understanding historical and literary contexts as well as redaction (editing) history play a huge role in fully understanding much of the biblical text. Sure, you can read the Bible and interpret parts of it at "face value", but you are still filtering ancient ideas and writings through a contemporary, Western mindset and will often unwittingly misunderstand what the writers meant (and hence what the text MEANS for you today).
To a certain extent I agree with this. I do take the Bible to be 100% true. I believe that God's Word is God's Word and it is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword. I also agree that you can't take stuff out of context, which people CONstantly do, and it aggravates me. We need the Holy Spirit to illuminate us to His Word especially because there are things in it that we don't understand or seem (notice I said "seem") contradictory.
All that said, I think that when individuals or denominations claim that THEIR doctrinal or dogmatic understanding of the Bible is not just the ONLY correct understanding (devoid of scholarship), but that their belief system in general is the ONLY true one in existence, it is not only presumptuous but unnecessarily divisive and the fodder for hate and war
Not just hate and war, AF, but cults. Whenever one group thinks they have ALL truth, it causes all kinds of mischief. I think to live as Jesus lived, is to be at peace with all men 'as much as possible' as Solomon said, but at the same time not abiding the evil that exists in the world.
Anyway, that's all I have time for today. Betcha never thought you and ol' POH would find things we agree on, huh? Then again, you might be a pastor again, so..............there ya go! BTW, my history teaching son is also a Theology major............good thing or I might not have known what 'hermeneutics' was.
Soooo....which one are you in that picture? Just curious.
POH: "Yeah, 'literal' is a subjective term with the Bible. Do we LITERALLY believe some of the symbolism in Revelation? Of course not. Do I believe that Noah's Flood really happened? Absolutely. So, there ya go. The Bible is to be interpreted through the Spirit Whose words it is."
I would argue that there is ALOT more in the Bible that is taken as literal (i.e., recounting actual historical facts or events) that is not historical in that way. There are many genres in the Bible that lay-people today are completely unaware of and become very defensive when you try to explain that some story, passage or book is not meant to be understood as history. However, the funny thing is, those misunderstood stories/passages/books become much more powerful, having much more depth and dimension when understood symbolically or theologically rather than as historical. The stories in Genesis (especially chs. 1-11, also called the Primeval History) are a great example of this.
POH: "I think to live as Jesus lived, is to be at peace with all men 'as much as possible' as Solomon said, but at the same time not abiding the evil that exists in the world."
Jesus demanded alot from his followers...much more than churches teach and do today. I think you would agree with that. It is an interesting dilemma to both try and live at peace and yet challenge the "empire" mentality of the world, is it not? I think Jesus was most interested in revolution (religious/political/social which were all very intertwined in his day and culture) and, as such, felt that peace would only come after upheaval, uprooting, and abolition of the then-current system.
As always, nice to hear from you.
I just got your message so here I am! As for the picture, that's my mother, me and my sisters. Two of my sisters are agnostic and two are Buddhist. I am the only "born again" Christian in the family. My parents raised us in the Episcopalian church.........which NO ONE, including her, go to anymore.
Having said that, I'll let you go to my gallery, increase the size of the picture and GUESS. How 'bout dat? If you get it right I'll give you a prize. I used to give my kids blow-pops if they got the Trivial Pursuit questions right when we were traveling. Would that work?
So, you don't believe the stories in Genesis are true? Awwww, I believe ALL that stuff. What about the story of the 'jackass' talking to Balaam? Do you think God can make a donkey talk?
"Jesus demanded alot from his followers...much more than churches teach and do today."
I agree with this, AF, but I don't agree that He came for revolution in the sense that we think of it. He definitely wasn't interested in overthrowing the powers, religious, political or social that were in place at the time. I believe that He is after the individual heart and once He has that change is automatically created.
BTW, a little, but not totally off topic, do me a favor, if you would, and go to CBN.com. When you get there, click on Media Services. When that comes up, type Amber Nesbitt in the little search box. Please watch the video that comes up.
Amber is in her mid-twenties. She is a good friend of mine and is the reason that I started my blog. I didn't even know what a blog was! That's why I have "in the fast lane" in my blog title. She and I used to fast together frequently and God did amazing things through it. When she was in a coma and had tubes going into her I realized she was 'fasting'. While she was still in the coma I leaned over in her ear and told her that I would fast with her until she was healed. I was prepared to go as long as neccessary. Since I've done 40 days (six weeks) many, many times I wasn't worried about whether I could do it or not. The only thing that makes it hard is making dinner for ten every night. Anyway, please watch that and let me know what you think. I would be interested in your reaction.
See, that's really my point. Evangelical Christians are taught (or tend) to think that if one doesn't believe that, say, the creation story of Genesis 1 is recounting a blow-by-blow historical account of how the universe and the world were created by God, but rather understands that text (rightfully) as a theological treatise (as the author intended), then that person is said to "not really believe the Bible". But that is simply incorrect. One may understand and believe what is being stated in Genesis 1 without forcing a literal-historical viewpoint upon it. In fact, forcing that viewpoint on it does a disservice to the text.
Frankly, there are alot of accounts/stories/etc., in the Bible that are not rightly understood simply because traditional interpretations have taken over and have become orthodoxy in the minds of church-goers. Indeed, the Gospels themselves very well might be the most misunderstood of all in terms of what kind of literature they really are, how and why they were written, etc.