The problem, I think, is that the two different ways of interpreting scripture-- the literalist view that sees the Bible as the inerrant (without error) Word of God vs. the more nuanced way of reading the Bible to discern its wisdom, how it applies to our lives today -- are so different that bringing them together in the same post makes me really uncomfortable. When I am standing firmly in my new way of thinking, whether or not the miracles of Jesus "really" happened or the resurrection "really" occurred is irrelevant. It's not that I don't believe they happened; in fact, I would be disappointed if someone was able to prove that they didn't. It's just that it doesn't matter whether or not they happened in order for me to read and learn from the text.
But if you're still in the other way of thinking, that is just so wrong. If you say it doesn't matter, it's the same as saying it didn't happen. And if it didn't happen, then what the heck is it that we believe? (someone in that tradition would say.) If it didn't happen then Jesus was a charlatan, a liar, or nuts. This is an old argument. We've all heard it before. But the fact that someone who was still in that mindset could come along and read the previous post and think that I was arguing that the resurrection didn't occur is very uncomfortable for me. Uncomfortable to the point of wanting to delete the evidence. Sometimes this is just so hard.
to be continued, but not today.
AB
AB
This is really the crux of the issue --- the literalist view that sees the Bible as the inerrant (without error) Word of God vs. the more nuanced way of reading the Bible to discern its wisdom, how it applies to our lives today -- are so different that bringing them together in the same post makes me really uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteThis dichotomy encapsulates a struggle that I have been having, a struggle to reconcile what feel like two different worldviews or cosmologies. One view has God as a sort of glorified Santa Claus who arrives predictably and behaves in ways that fit our scripts for him.
The second view acknowledges that the God who could have created the universe as I understand it will probably not be limited enough to walk onstage in a way that fits my limited view of him.
My two views don't coexist very well in my brain. But the power that the first view has over me viscerally is hard to overestimate.
I have rejected on most levels the first view of God (the glorified santa view) but am loathe to part with the manageability, imaginability and personalness of that God.
So, I flip-flop. I use the essentials of the GSG (glorified Santa God) when I need a personal God.
And I acknowledge the God of Einstein and Darwin (both men of faith in their own ways) when I am up to it. (A big God asks a lot more of me in terms of self-esteem and courage.)
And I hang onto Jesus, who refused to be the Israelite's version of a Santa God - the expeller of the dirty Roman occupation force.
For me Jesus reconciles the two irreconcilable views of God.
That leaves me with lots of questions. But those questions are usually about theoretical things. On the practical issues Jesus was pretty clear even though I may not like the answers
I hadn't thought about the "personal" God issue in relationship to this issue, that merits a lot more thought. In my women's group at church, we bat this question around so much that we have come up with a shortcut for referring to it-- the parking lot God-- do you pray to find parking spaces when you're out running errands? It's a joke, of course, but it brings up the differences in the way people see God. Some people, including me 25 years ago, do/did believe that God cares about every little thing and can intervene if asked. And there's some basis for this in the Bible-- God has every hair on your head counted, after all. But I no longer believe that myself. Hmmm. more thinking. more on this later. p.s. also thanks for your e-mail yesterday, my e-mail is down for some reason and I'll reply later. thoroughly enjoyed it.
ReplyDelete