I love the overarching message in this article, and as a recovering exvangelical who started the "taking the Bible seriously but not always literally" dance in my late teens/early 20s, it's a welcome course-correction. The language about certainty vs anxiety is pertinent to me too, as I'm also in therapy for an anxiety disorder and we talk about embracing uncertainty all the time! Actually, when I had a brief dance with deconstruction and agnosticism during the height of COVID, I thought that was the only logical conclusion for me because the faith tradition in which I was raised demanded certainty in one direction and atheism demanded certainty in the other. But then once I began the reconstruction process, I came to realize faith can actually hold a lot of room for uncertainty and doubt. The real enemy *is*, in fact, certainty, not asking questions.
My only concern here is that we know Scripture was written by fallible humans who were just as influenced by their culture as we are by ours. We also know that there were books left out of the 66-book canon, that the synoptic gospels were written decades after Jesus's death, that each one was written with a particular theological/persuasional endgame in mind, and that not all quotes attributed to Jesus in those books may actually have been said by Him. If we're supposed to meet Christ via such imperfect (but still valuable) Scripture, as this article claims, then it stands to reason that the Christ we come to know this way may not be entirely accurate. And sitting with that is hard.
"The Christ we come to know this way may not be entirely accurate" - but this has always been the case, even for Jesus's disciples and certainly Paul. It also encourages humility even when we have some measure of confidence in our theology. Jesus did not command us to be right about God and our neighbor, he commanded us to love God and love neighbor.
Sure, but it hasn't always been the case for me. I was raised with the inerrancy and infallibility models of interpretation. Distancing myself from that and embracing an interpretation model that is much less black-and-white is difficult even on my best days. This article seems certain that Scripture still bears witness to Christ even if it can't be interpreted literally all the time, but the witness itself can be unreliable because of the humans that penned it. So that makes me wonder whether I'm following or worshipping a Christ that never actually existed.
I suppose, though, like you seem to be implying, that if the version of Christ I meet is inaccurate but still leads me to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God, then that's all that matters?
Yes, I think the fruit is what matters. And no less importantly, the lack of absolute certainty in interpretation keeps us turning to Jesus and seeking his face, because God wanted/wants a relationship, not distant obedience like the older brother in Luke 15. Inerrancy and infallibility models result in assumption of theological orthodoxy while missing God's heart. https://askanarmchairtheologian.substack.com/p/moral-authority-and-moral-imagination
Excellently written, wish I could love it more times.
It has only been since I started writing my Substack posts that I've realized that the theological education I got at Fuller was extraordinary--even for Fuller. At that point in time (2003) Fuller had moved past 'church growth' and rejected inerrancy, and a number of stellar scholars and professors--some of the most influential for me--had only recently joined the faculty. And it being an interdenominational seminary (and me not having been there under care of a particular denomination) gave me great freedom to explore without fear.
I love the overarching message in this article, and as a recovering exvangelical who started the "taking the Bible seriously but not always literally" dance in my late teens/early 20s, it's a welcome course-correction. The language about certainty vs anxiety is pertinent to me too, as I'm also in therapy for an anxiety disorder and we talk about embracing uncertainty all the time! Actually, when I had a brief dance with deconstruction and agnosticism during the height of COVID, I thought that was the only logical conclusion for me because the faith tradition in which I was raised demanded certainty in one direction and atheism demanded certainty in the other. But then once I began the reconstruction process, I came to realize faith can actually hold a lot of room for uncertainty and doubt. The real enemy *is*, in fact, certainty, not asking questions.
My only concern here is that we know Scripture was written by fallible humans who were just as influenced by their culture as we are by ours. We also know that there were books left out of the 66-book canon, that the synoptic gospels were written decades after Jesus's death, that each one was written with a particular theological/persuasional endgame in mind, and that not all quotes attributed to Jesus in those books may actually have been said by Him. If we're supposed to meet Christ via such imperfect (but still valuable) Scripture, as this article claims, then it stands to reason that the Christ we come to know this way may not be entirely accurate. And sitting with that is hard.
"The Christ we come to know this way may not be entirely accurate" - but this has always been the case, even for Jesus's disciples and certainly Paul. It also encourages humility even when we have some measure of confidence in our theology. Jesus did not command us to be right about God and our neighbor, he commanded us to love God and love neighbor.
Sure, but it hasn't always been the case for me. I was raised with the inerrancy and infallibility models of interpretation. Distancing myself from that and embracing an interpretation model that is much less black-and-white is difficult even on my best days. This article seems certain that Scripture still bears witness to Christ even if it can't be interpreted literally all the time, but the witness itself can be unreliable because of the humans that penned it. So that makes me wonder whether I'm following or worshipping a Christ that never actually existed.
I suppose, though, like you seem to be implying, that if the version of Christ I meet is inaccurate but still leads me to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God, then that's all that matters?
Yes, I think the fruit is what matters. And no less importantly, the lack of absolute certainty in interpretation keeps us turning to Jesus and seeking his face, because God wanted/wants a relationship, not distant obedience like the older brother in Luke 15. Inerrancy and infallibility models result in assumption of theological orthodoxy while missing God's heart. https://askanarmchairtheologian.substack.com/p/moral-authority-and-moral-imagination
Excellently written, wish I could love it more times.
It has only been since I started writing my Substack posts that I've realized that the theological education I got at Fuller was extraordinary--even for Fuller. At that point in time (2003) Fuller had moved past 'church growth' and rejected inerrancy, and a number of stellar scholars and professors--some of the most influential for me--had only recently joined the faculty. And it being an interdenominational seminary (and me not having been there under care of a particular denomination) gave me great freedom to explore without fear.