(Dave, in response to your most recent "heretical" post about the authority of Paul's epistles)

Slight grin on my face. Bubble of laughter. Deep breath and long sigh. Collect my thoughts.
Type at the keyboard, so familiar, the keys are exactly where they should be, and typing feels like talking to an old friend.
I've been wondering of late how I would answer the question, "Why do you believe what you believe?"The ensuing rabbit trail I found myself on is thorny, twisting, muddy, elusive, and ultimately transcendent.
Why do you believe what you believe Dave?
I am no genius. Now I'm 24, and I have a college education, and some life experience, and I'm pretty smart and articulate compared to the masses. But put me next to a seasoned sociologist who has been around the world, around the bend, and been jaded, and I can't argue much with them about what I believe about society. Do my redemption concepts and salvation and Kingdom of God ideas and understandings really have the potential to change people? I wouldn't even be able to dialogue with the sociologist about all the key issues, about how to change behavior, how to bring about the highest good... what is the highest good?

Put me next to an old man who has a doctorate in religious studies and I wouldn't very well be able to defend my position on why I believe in Christ, that he rose from the dead, that he did miracles, that he is THE way, THE truth, THE life. Don't get me wrong, I have reasons for believing, but if we argued about it, I couldn't convince him, or even fully rationally convince myself. There's so much I don't know. I'm so ignorant.

The disciplines have been booming, and humans can study their brains out on a specific subject, field, discipline, and never learn all there is to know about it. So we have experts running around talking about religion, or science, or cosmological theories, or consciousness, or history, or probabilities, or literary criticisms.
I do not know what they know regarding my own "beliefs." I cannot rationally and arguably stand up against them to "defend" what I believe. I know that, even employing my best arguments, they could derail my train of thought.
So I could say, "I'll just believe what I believe. Leave me alone." Well, that's ignorant, I'd realize tomorrow, and chastise myself. Lunatics disassociate themselves from the idea forum so they can justify their own heresies. Yet, if the issue can never be settled for me... if I can never really know all the evidence for intelligent design, and the authenticity of Scripture, and the contextual intent of Christ's teachings, and my own psychological pre-framing, why don't I just blow my brains out?

I'm basically burning my brain up if I try to figure this out. If I try to seal my spot in the ring of rational and logical systems. I'm dead in the water.
But here's a thought that gives me comfort: Nobody knows enough to defend their position. The moment they do, and get arrogant, somebody in China will discover something buried in a field that will blow their theory to hell. So should I be an agnostic? I guess that's not too bad of an idea in certain respects, because agnostics admit their own limitations, admit that they are humble and cannot figure it out rationally. For them, "believe" has to be based on good evidence, and since they feel they can't secure all the evidence, they stay unattached. I appreciate the humility of this view, but not the cowardice or the ultimate disillusionment.

I won't waste a keystroke on throwing out "evidence" about why I believe in Christ. Why he is the Lord of my life. I believe in Him more than I believe in myself, and I have committed my life to his Kingdom, and his teachings. However, the minute I cite "proof" for his resurrection, I'm open to the railings of scholars who can better argue their counter-point than I can argue my belief. Any road I try to run down fails to bring me to confident faith.
I could then take the mystic approach, and largely opt-out of the discussion, and seek Christ in the mysteries of experience and contemplation and nature and simplicity. Yes, I could do that and live well enough, except that I have an active mind and I know that going AWOL in the discussion doesn't prove my point to anyone, or really help establish my faith either.
Do you see... any direction I take to get to rationally defending my beliefs and securing my position fails me.
So, what's going to happen is that I'm inevitably going to say make that statement, act like I'm despairing, and then take a post-modern approach to faith that transcends the rational system... which is what I'm about to do.
But then the philosopher can come in and argue that my post-modern approach is a passing phase and my "logic" or anti-logic doesn't make my position any more true.So what is my position? Why do I believe what I believe?

Slight grin on my face. Bubble of laughter. Deep breath and long sigh. Collect my thoughts. I'm smiling because inside I cultivate and appreciate all that I claim to "know" and I also "know" that my beliefs are transcendent to this discussion. I cannot prove them. I'll let them grow in the garden of my heart, and you are free to smell their scents and admire them or hate them. But they cannot survive on the laboratory table of examination. There they are dead- a carcass under a microscope. In me they are living, and they are breathing smells that smell good, and making movements that heal and encourage. We can talk about beliefs, sure. It's a good discussion. But maybe first we should have a cup of tea without talking. We should share the joys of green tea, and wrap our hands around its warmth, and breath it deep before sipping. We should marvel at the wonder of two people sitting in front of each other, alive in the mystery of life itself, and think how perposterous it is that we sit on wooden chairs that are made up of atoms that are mostly empty space moving at rapid speeds that have electrons that are popping in and out of existence.
We can look into each other's eyes and past and future dreams. Sure, let's pull out verses from the Bible and talk about them. Bring them to the cold table. It is good and can be good and must be good.
But tea is good.
Love is better.
I am discontent with my current status of ignorance on so many things. I want to learn and grow and read and know more and more...I am content with being a humble and a largely ignorant human being, with not knowing everything there is to know and being able to prove myself and my beliefs to everyone.

I suppose this offers no insights on Paul. Maybe he would not want to have tea with me. His agenda might be on church-planting or tent-making, or writing inspired letters to different cities. That is also good.
Your investigations into the mysteries of the Bible and our faith and our lives... that is also good. God birthing faith in our hearts that leads to gardens of hope and joy and peace and compassion... that is the best yet.

I could type many words now to end this post... words in English or in jibberish... quotes of scholars or sayings of children... common sense or non-sense, to give guidance to those who search. But the old friend in front of me only has 26 plastic keys... not enough to communicate my transcendent faith or light the path. That's the job of the Spirit.
May he illumine our paths.
May he save us from getting lost in words.  ¶ 3:30 PM 4 comments

  Divinely inspired Jarod,

I have a confession to make. I have a difficult time believing the apostle Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I have made many remarks during Bible studies, thought many things that would go against traditional views of Biblical authority, and disregarded several keys aspects of Pauline theology (as it is interpreted by Evangelicals).
Where do I start? Taken as a whole, Paul's works make up the majority of the basis for Christian theology. Most sermons that I've heard have been preached out of Paul because the way of salvation is clearly established by him.
There have been several troubling observations that have wandered into my mind while comparing Paul's writing with the rest of the New Testament.

Jesus' teachings were centered around the Kingdom of Heaven/God. Using symbolic language (mustard seed, field of wheat, etc.), Jesus' listeners learned about how the Kingdom of Heaven/God is at hand/among them. He talked about fulfilling the Law, and called his followers to a higher standard of living. His disciples recorded these teachings with a sort of ambiguity that, without Paul's and the other epistles, our systematic theology would have some large holes in it. John's Gospel offers some Cosmic level explanations of Jesus possible relationship with God, as well as some teachings on the Holy Spirit. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have accounts of Jesus teachings, miracles, confrontations, and deeds.

Enter Paul.

Paul makes hardly a mention of the Kingdom of God/Heaven in his epistles, the central teaching of Jesus. Instead, he goes on long rants about the Deity of Christ, and the importance of the Gospel (Jesus died on the cross for your sins and if you believe in Jesus you won't die but have everlasting life...)

This is why the writings of NT Wright, James Dunn, and others who hold to what is called The New Perspective on Paul, have aided in reworking/understanding what Paul was trying to say.

Basically, this new way of thinking gained popularity when a guy named E.P. Sanders wrote a book called Paul and Palestinian Judaism, in which he claimed that our traditional understanding of Judaism as a works-based salvation is a misunderstanding of the Judaism of the time. Sanders argued that the Jews did not believe that their goods works saved them, but instead that these actions were boundary points of what Sanders termed 'Covenantal Nomism'.

"Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one's place in God's plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression." (E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 75)

How NT Wright has influenced my thinking.

The question of whether or not I should be so influenced by a man with such a strange theology is one that I'll put aside for the moment. Wright's Jesus and theVictory of God (summarized here) introduced to me Jesus' political bent. He makes a compelling case for the Messianic juiciness of Jesus' actions and teachings.
- Jesus chose twelve disciples, an obvious allusion to the original twelve tribes of Israel.
- Jesus' challenging of the major authoritative symbols of Israel (authority of the Temple, the Sabbath, Food laws, Ethnicity, etc)
- Even using the phrase, "Repent and believe in me," which Wright claims is the exact phrase used by other Revolutionary leaders during the same era, and roughly means, "Give up your way of doing revolution and follow mine."
This is just a few examples of the fresh light that Wright shines on the historical Jesus. Hopefully we can talk more about these ideas. But let me go back to Paul...

Below are several troubling observations I've made about Paul...

- The overall tone of expectation of the end of the cosmic world within a his generation (which may have also been shared by Jesus). In thinking about this observation, Wright suggests that Jesus and Paul were not talking about the end of the space-time universe, but rather the end of the current age. With this line of thinking, we are now living in the age of the Spirit, where the Kingdom of God is being established here on Earth. This view has its problems as well. Click here to read an interesting summary of the eschatologies of the major world religions.

- Paul's culturally relevant but Enlightment-uninformed view on women, with his conclusions being backed with a strong theological argument (Adam was formed first, then Eve). His arguments seem ill-thought out, or not expressed properly. He makes sweeping statements that, perhaps are cultural, perhaps are not. If he was inspired, shouldn't it be a little more clear what he meant?

- Paul's (and other writers') small-scale view of the world, as evidenced by their dualistic way of dealing with other religions (Christianity is right, any other claims of supernaturalness have demonic origins). No where in Paul's writing do we get a sense that other religions might be partially correct, which is a common Christian view today. The open-mindedness just isn't there. An answer to that might be, 'well, it was necessary for Paul to be as agressive as he was because they were laying down the foundations for Christianity, and he needed to not be wishy-washy.'
But we're saying that everything Paul said is God-inspired, therefore it is true.

- Paul seems really confused with what to do about the fate of Israel in Romans 9-11. Even if there are other passages where he describes old Israel in Orthodox Christian terms, the existence of these fuzzy passages should be red flags to Paul's authority. He seems to be just spouting off unfinished ideas because he's not sure what God's going to do with the existing Israel and the Promise.

- Paul's explicit teachings on the foolishness of getting married in Corinthians (well, if you have to...). I believe this teaching ties directly to the first observation about the end of the world coming soon, and the importance of spreading the message. This singleness passage was taken quite seriously in the early church, as the first saints in the post-persecution period were strange men and women who took vows of celibacy.

My way of dealing with these troubling observations has been to shift my way of thinking about Biblical authority. The cycle goes this way...

Jesus came and taught, died, rose, and sent out his followers.
Paul becomes an influential Christ-follower, writing many letters that were helpful and edifying to the churches. Several Gospels and other epistles are written, and all of these writings are copied and circulated among the churches. Three or four generations later, Constantine sees that Christian theology is not fully thought-through, and gets all of the leaders together to canonize certain books and letters that belong and are authoritative. At that moment in history, the authority of the church was just as, if not more important than the written Scriptures. The church had 'authority' over the Scriptures. So, the second the books were canonized, the authority switched from the hands of the church into the Scriptures?

How do I say this properly...

I want to believe in both the full authority of the church and the full authority of the Scriptures. But, at the moment, I'm viewing the church and Her decisions through God as more authoritative than the chosen Scriptures. Does that sound slippery? It is. But its my way of dealing with this huge problem I have with the Scriptural texts. I hope these links and thoughts are helpful to you in describing where I've been. I will continue to dutifully pursue these answers as I also make myself practically useful in my work. I've had these issues for some time now, just growing while I put them off to the side for survival purposes.

-Dave  ¶ 9:52 AM 12 comments