What do we have to lose from embracing the historical-critical method but greater understanding of our transcendent God? Reluctance to use this method reveals a lack of faith in the presence of God among his people. I don't understand Christians that resist using a more academic/objective look at Scripture. If we truly have faith, then we have nothing to lose. We should seek truth over tradition. The Biblical-critical method enables us to get at the truth. If we hold to sola Scriptura, then we should give the text the authority that we claim to give it.
“Sometimes we spend too much effort in protecting Jesus from things Jesus might not wish to be protected from. We have spent too much time protecting the God who inspired the Scriptures from limitations that He seems not to have been concerned about. The impassioned debate about inerrancy tells us less about divine omnipotence (which presumably allows God to be relaxed) than about our own insecurity in looking for absolute answers.” (The Human Word of the Almighty God, p.18)
I must consider how it feels to confess as a church that we are insecure about our faith. We don't trust God to be the absolute answers, and so we seek to grasp the absolute answers, which if we were allowing God to be who he is, we would know that we can not know the absolute answers. What do we have to lose by using this method if we genuinely have faith? If we fear losing our faith by investigating the text, then do we really have faith? If you have it for real, you don't fear losing it because you would be crazy to let it go. It defines you. It is more real than anything discoverable.
Soundtrack: Show Me What I'm Looking For, Carolina Liar
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/418b5/418b5ac862eb924141daffd8315c67ce3d7aaf73" alt="Share/Bookmark"
No comments:
Post a Comment