The last post (“No Harm Will Befall You?”) illustrates what I think is a flaw in the notion that every word in the Bible is divinely inspired and true for all time. At one time or another, we all run across this scenario: we read something in the Scripture; we look at our own experience; the overwhelming evidence contradicts the Scripture. What do we do then?
What I did, in my evangelical days, was tie myself in intellectual knots. I would try to force-fit a literal reading of the passage—which, as I saw it, was the absolute truth—to the way life clearly is. I would force-fit a passage clearly intended for ancient Jewish culture onto our culture. In contrast, the notion that the verse sprang from the spiritual wellspring at the core of the writer, however divinely influenced, or was meant for that culture at that time makes more sense.
To be sure, you can go too far the other way too: flippantly dismissing all kinds of passages as incorrect, or culturally relative, or inaccurately translated, and therefore not worthy of attention. I suspect that’s why I clung to inerrancy so tightly—because I feared losing a cornerstone of my faith.
Is this true of most evangelicals? If so, there’s good news on two fronts. One, between inerrancy and flippant dismissal is a whole spectrum of frameworks in which we can take the Bible seriously, if not literally. And two, there is always the true cornerstone of our faith—the Holy Spirit—who, according to Jesus, would “guide us into all the truth” (John 16:13).
P.S. It’s been a while since I could honestly call myself an evangelical. If you are one, and you feel I’ve misrepresented you, please speak up!
No comments:
Post a Comment