THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH: SCRIPTURE- Part 1

“NO!!!” (Me)

I write my entries in Word and then copy and paste them into my blog because they can be kind of long. I also do this because even though I have found some pleasure in sharing my thoughts with whomever runs across my little blog, my real reason for writing these things down is because it is cheaper than therapy. Anyway, I began working on this particular entry a few weeks ago, actually before I started working on any of the previous entries about truth. It is something that I wanted to write about from the very beginning, but knowing that what I would write would be disheartening to many who know me I have had to go through a lot of inner dialogue on the topic before I could formalize my thoughts. When I was preparing to proof the entry before uploading it to the blog I realized that I had deleted it. The whole thing. It was a good one too. I realize that it might have been a little edgy since it was about scripture, but I felt that I had built a strong defense for where I am with scripture today. So to the best of my ability I will attempt to briefly re-craft my argument.

1. Realizing that most who take the time to read this blog have already shaped their opinion on the inerrancy of scripture, my entry purposefully avoided the topic of how accurate scripture is and rather focused on something that I feel is much more important when considering the truth of scripture. It doesn’t matter what your beliefs are regarding the accuracy of scripture, all that matters is that you allow scripture to speak to you. In other words, scripture is about more than its historical accuracy and was never intended by the authors to be used to explain the history of the humanity. The authors’ original intent was to share the story of God.

Depending on where people land on the continuum of scripture as “the exact word of God written by human vessels” to “the writings of people trying to explain their worlds” this is going to have individual consequences, but regardless, the purpose is about more than the modern understanding of explanation.

I argued that the truth of scripture isn’t in its accuracy, but in its meaning. The institutional reading of scripture is manipulative and controlling while the modern reading of scripture is fundamental. These approaches, while meeting obvious personal and institutional needs, doesn’t reflect the purpose of holy texts.

2. Throughout the book of Acts Paul uses the word “defense” as he discusses his faith. The implication being that we should have a defense for our faith in Christ as well.

I argued that a defense for our faith is one that is built on experiences as well as understanding. I Corinthians 2:5 tells us that our faith should not rest in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Our faith should be shaped as a partnership between our understanding and how Christ works in our lives.

Western Christianity, however, has been so shaped by its historical context that it is unable to use both to complement each other the way scripture intends. It typically does one or the other: either defending our faith from a pure apologetics perspective or pure sensationalism.

Likewise, scripture must also have a dynamic component that relies on both more than just human understanding, but the infusion of Christ.

3. I then argued that despite what we want to believe, our understanding of what scripture even says has changed significantly since it was first compiled. These changes in interpretation have a greater impact than deep theological constructs, they shape the way we understand who God is, our relation to Him, and how we engage the world.

4. I also looked at 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.”

The validity of something resides in its ability to measures or point to that which it is intended to measure or point to. My argument was that the validity of scripture is not in its ability to prove itself, but to validate what it purports to do. The bible’s validity is validated by its ability to point to God. Scripture meets the 2 Timothy standard of validity because it directs us in holiness, not because it is necessarily factual.

Over its history, the church has made an idol of scripture. The book itself is revered as if it has supernatural powers. This is not to argue that the bible should lose its value as a holy text, but that the actual book is no more supernatural than any other book.

5. Finally, John 1 teaches us that Christ is the Word and that in the beginning was the Word, we are not called into knowing verses, but using the verses to show us Christ.

I argued that because of this, Christ reveals himself in many ways and that limiting our understanding of God to solely one book is rooted in a fear of lose of stability and control in our spiritual lives.