the infallibility of scripture

"if any part of it is untrue, then the whole thing is untrustworthy, we cannot believe any of it"
this is frequently the argument i hear of the infallibility of scripture. there are quite a few things wrong with this argument.

1. there are parts of the bible that contradict one another. in the simple story of the woman annointing jesus with her costly perfume. each of the gospels records this particular event, however none is exactly the same. this either means that there were four accounts, or some of the details in some of the accounts are wrong. if there were four events, then there is not much of a problem, however, i have read zero commentaries that truly believe that. in fact most believe that there were two events. the details got somewhat confused, but the majority of scholars believe that john, mark and matthew record one event, while luke speaks of another. so then there must be some error in that not all the details corroborate.

2. this argument is never used with things such as science books. i would guess that 95% or more of the current science text books speak of pluto as a planet. guess we better throw out the part about gravity too then huh? there are parts of the bible that speak of the "four corners of the earth" there was a prevalant belief up until, i believe, the 1400s that the earth was flat. seems as if the writers of the bible agreed. guess we had better throw the whole thing out huh?

3. this really depends on definitions. we have a different definition of truth that those that wrote the bible. many times we define truth from a modern mindset, that is concrete, and scientific. however, when the hebrews would write something and use numbers, they would often not use the actual number, they would use a number that was symbolic. they would be saying something much more than at the surface level. they were no symply prone to hyperbole, which they were, they were also prone to use numbers that meant something else to them. 12 for example, symbolized god's people. so when john wrote that 144,000 people would be saved in revelation, he probably just meant that all god's people would be saved. not that people would have to take a number, and if theirs was greater than 144,000, might as well step out of line and go home.

these are just some of the reasons i think that argument is funny. these people have missed the purpose of scripture. it is the written account of god's revelation. no more, no less. it is divinely inspired, but not as a history book or a science book. those things are unimportant to its message. we should not expect it to do something for which it was not intended.

what if the world was created millions of years ago, and god used evolution to create man, would that make him any less god? no, but it would cause a lot of us to reevaluate the expectations we put on the bible. it would cause difficulty for moderns, who expect the writers of the bible to know things about science that were not discovered for 3 or 4 thousand years after they wrote. does that mean god didnt understand them? of course not, but how could he possible explain gravity to a people who had a hard enough time figuring out that the earth was round?

the bible is a wonderful gift from god, but lets not try to make it into something it is not, and that is a science book, or a history book. it is a religious book, it tells truth of how we can know god, how much god cares for us, how god has worked in his people in the past. moderns...

hot chocolate

this past week i had the opportunity to help some people in NYC. one of the jobs we did was to help a portable soup kitchen. they had renovated an old school bus, turned it into a soup kitchen on wheels. they would pull up and just give away soup, bread and hot chocolate. these people were regulars. the guys that worked the bus knew several of them.

one man was named tony. tony was drunk, and high. he looked on the verge of collapse. steve, who worked regularly at the soup kitchen, pulled me over and pointed to a crack in the wall. "that is where tony lives," he said. tony used to be a cop, but then 9/11 happened and he fell apart. tony was so hurt by the massive loss of life, the massive pain he felt, he turned to heroine and alcohol. tony barely knows who he is now. this is one of casualties of the spiritual war going on around us. hearing about tony was the low point in my day. what good is there in such suffering?

an hour or so later, we were almost out of hot chocolate. i handed out the last full cup. and as i did so, another man walked up and wanted some. "sorry sir, we're out." the man was very disappointed. then something wonderful happened. the man that got the last cup poured half of his hot chocolate into another cup and shared. this man had nothing, he was homeless himself, he had every reason to horde and to take all he could, but he in his poverty shared.

there is much to hurt about in the world, and each of us is in pain, but the grace of god is that we can share the bountiful goodness of him. we in our poverty can share the free gift god has given us. there is no law against this.

"in christ"

i have recently been contemplating what it means for someone to sign something "in christ." what are the ramifications of that? what does this mean to the people that read that particular signature? what responsibility does it carry?

it is funny to me that people will wear a shirt that says "jesus loves you" but at the same time proclaim with their sign that "god hates fags." i have a hard time reconciling those two statements. there seems to be some sort of disconnect between our actions and our speech.

seems like jesus faced the same issues. which is why he said things like, "if you claim to be in me, you must walk as i do." "is it possible to have both good and bad water come from the same fountain?" james asks. so is it really possible to claim with a bumper sticker that "jesus saves" while at the same time proclaiming that the person behind you is worthy of the one finger salute?
i guess that begs the question. is it possible to fill a message or a blog with all sort of condescention and derision then to sign it "in christ" believing that makes it ok?

the obvious argument is that these people are being corrected, so since jesus stands for truth should we not correct them? i guess i look at the instance of the woman caught in adultery for that. jesus is anything but harsh with her. he is anything but harsh with peter later. i have hard time believing that people can be corrected in their doctrine by someone who corrects them in a very unchristlike way.

i guess maybe we should just all evaluate a little better what we wear, what we put on our bumpers, how we sign blogs and emails. we should represent the one we claim to represent, with actions before words.
in the flesh.
chris

know it alls

i have recently come up against many people that are vehemently against the emergent church. these people write awful things in an attempt to disqualify the movement. i am always needing to be reminded that i should not decide what i believe about something before i have sufficient evidence.
that being said, i think many of the times, these people make a decision about the emergent church without really being informed of the content of the movement itself. many times they will hear what a favorite speaker has said about it, or what a particular theologian says about it, then formulate their opinions as a result. this would be like me saying that martin luther is a raving idiot, without ever having read his work for myself. my pastor told me he is dumb, so i know that to be true.
i would venture to say that people like that live a miserable existence. they have no ability to see things from the other side. there is no sense of dialogue for these people, there is not any possibility for growth either. this, i find is a very closed minded, foolish approach to theology.