“So, do I believe the Bible is the word of God? Yes. Do I believe it is inspired? Yes. Do I believe every word of it has to be followed to the letter? No.”
I don’t disagree with your position at all. It just doesn’t seem as if biblical inerrancy is the issue in the first instance. But this does depend on what is meant by following the Bible ‘to the letter’.
Rather, the concern seems to be bad exegesis - or the lack of exegesis altogether. Which is indeed a legit concern. In general, the Bible ought to be read in context - proper exegesis. Something that the ICOC, historically, didn’t do well, and isn’t done well generally across Christendom. I don’t think this means the ‘inerrancy’ is wrong, but that exegesis is sorely lacking.
“Those advocating “Biblical inerrancy” do not believe the Bible more than other Christians. They just like to manipulate verses to prove their pre-existing views and prejudices.”
A bit of a sweeping judgment, but point taken. Again, inerrancy isn’t the issue here, but the manipulation of verses with inerrancy as a pretext.
The claim that Jesus ‘broke the law’ doesn’t ring true, in my mind. Rather he broke the pharisaical interpretation of the law or their traditions which often superseded the law, and missed the point of the law in the first place. Again, I disagree that the ‘you have heard it said’ quote challenges inerrancy. But this would need contextualization - exegesis - to be fully understood.
All said, ‘inerrancy’, as is generally understood, isn’t necessary for Jesus to be Lord or for goodness to be good. Granted. But I suppose the next steps would be to point out the errors. I’d be keen to see this.
Thanks for addressing this and I hope you don’t take my counters as attacks in bad faith (I don’t think you would). This is just how I see it.
PS perhaps a definition, or understanding of ‘Biblical Inerrancy’ might help in this case?
I’ve been reflecting on this for a few days and have some thoughts to offer. A problem I see with the idea of a “biblical inerrancy” as a hermeneutic is that this position by sheer nature of its formulation operates as a black box. It’s a settled set of propositions. Sealed with wax and put on a shelf somewhere in a person’s theological framework. Never to be inspected.
Whereas the Bible is written to be meditative literature. To be reflected upon. Contrasted and compared. Treasures sought. Linkages created. Truth discovered. And opportunity for God’s Spirit to speak afresh to the heart created. To approach the Bible this way - I.e. as meditative literature leads to ongoing learning, wonder, humility. actual transformation, and a deeper understanding and connection with God’s eternal plan.
There is nothing about Biblical innerancy that promotes a lack of thought or meditative reflection. Quite the opposite. Since I believe it is the word of God I meditate on its meaning and application all the more. I treasure it carefully and seek to not misrepresent it all the more.
I fully agree with your analysis Nadine. The law is first and foremost a guiding thread — a framework given by God to lead us toward Him and toward others, not a rigid cage designed to control or exclude.
In my view, this is where one of the deepest confusions lies: the law according to God is profoundly marked by love and His justice — a justice that restores, lifts up, and reconciles. Whereas the law according to religious men is too often filtered through their own interpretation, guided — consciously or not — by their fears, their biases, and their own conception of justice. A human justice that judges, classifies, and excludes.
Paul expresses this with striking clarity in 1 Corinthians 2:10-12: the truths of God cannot be grasped by human wisdom or intellectual reflection alone. They are revealed by His Spirit. Which means that any reading of the law that is not inhabited by the Spirit risks becoming a projection of our own anxieties and certainties — rather than a revelation of the mind of God.
Jesus himself gave us the most eloquent demonstration of this: he did not hesitate to transgress religious rules when compassion demanded it — healing on the Sabbath, lifting up the woman caught in adultery, overturning rigid interpretations of the law. He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it in its deepest meaning — that of love.
The real question therefore is not: “Are you faithful to the letter?” but “Are you led by the Spirit who gives life to the letter?”
For Paul himself warns us in 2 Corinthians 3:6: “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” This is not an invitation to theological anarchy or to reject Scripture — it is a fundamental reminder that the law, read without the Spirit, becomes an instrument of death rather than life. It becomes a tool of power in the hands of those who know how to wield texts, but whose hearts have not been transformed by the One who inspired them.
A text read without the Spirit can justify almost anything. History is tragically full of examples — the wars of religion that have bloodied the centuries, slavery, the marginalization of women, the exclusion of foreigners — all of this was defended, at one point or another, by verses taken out of context and wielded as divine verdicts. Millions of people suffered and died in the name of a God whom his own representatives had reduced to an instrument of conquest and domination. That was not the voice of God. It was the voice of human fear — and the thirst for power — dressed up as doctrine.
The Spirit, on the other hand, does not lead toward exclusion — it leads toward truth and love, simultaneously and inseparably. It does not allow us to sacrifice one on the altar of the other. It pushes us to ask the hard questions, to challenge our comfortable certainties, to see in the other — even the one whom the religion of our time would seek to marginalize — the image of God.
To be led by the Spirit is to accept being unsettled. It is to accept that God is greater than our theological systems. It is to walk in the humility of one who knows they still see only in part — as Paul himself says in 1 Corinthians 13:12: “For now I know in part, but then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” 💕
Merci Nadine, ça me touche 😊 Pierre me dit la même chose ! L’idée me traverse l’esprit de temps en temps… mais entre la réflexion et le passage à l’acte, il y a tout un chemin et cela demande du temps et de la disponibilité.
I agree with you that the reaction of the Christian right against science has gone to far; however, the more recent Marxist-inspired wokeness is clearly not of Christian origin. The Enlightenment benefited us all for sure, but also put man instead of God in the center of things and we started worshipping ourselves. Aggravating that was Simone de Beauvoir's philosophy of the made self. For her (according to Google), the self is not a fixed, innate essence, but a fluid, intangible consciousness. Rooted in existentialism, she argued that we are radically free and must actively construct our identities through our choices, actions, and projects. This has led to all kinds of problems, especially with the latest iteration of transexualism, or trans-trending, which thankfully seems to be waning. But a lot of young people are rootless because they've abandoned Christ's principles or twisted them into something other than He intended.
Marxism has infiltrated the far left and academia and has partnered with wokeness since both are based on human, rather than divine, ideas. John Lennon's "Imagine" to me is a Marxist-inspired song that is the opposite of Christianity. Sure, he meant well, but putting humans at the pinnacle is dangerous. Sure, people who put God at the pinnacle can be dangerous as well, but our problems are caused by ourselves, not the God of the Bible (if interpreted correctly). What we agree on is that we can't take every word of the Bible at face value and those who do run into problems. However, we also can't assume that Jesus had ideas that would be considered progressive today. He was progressive for his time, but we need to leave him in his context, not "bring" him to a Pride parade or abortion clinic.
Yikes. I have not seen anyone bring Jesus to a Pride parade or an abortion clinic. What I try to bear in mind is how Jesus would talk about abortion or gay people. Oh wait, he never talked about them. He did say to love our neighbors as ourselves.
He implied that people are valuable from before birth and the David in the Psalms talks about being knit together in his mother's womb. Jesus spoke of marriage between a man and a woman. There are progressive churches that try to make him approve of abortion and gay marriage but, after decades of exposure to 3 denominations of Christianity and the Bible (though I am not a cleric or expert), I can't see Jesus as a social liberal in today's sense. However, I don't see him hanging out with Trump or even Vance. Jesus wouldn't align with LGBTQ or MAGA.
Thank you for sharing your views. I have spent much time with men and women who have been affected by abortions, and I have also spoken with hundreds of queer people. I have listened to their stories, and it has led me to do a lot of reflecting. Things are not as clear-cut as I was led to believe. I am learning.
I'm not saying condemn gay people or those who've had abortions outright, but don't promote feelings over reflection either. Being same-sex attracted isn't a decision or even a sin, but acting on it is spiritually problematic according to the way I understand the Bible, and abortion on demand is selfish, in my opinion. However, abortion to save mother's life should be allowed and miscarriages are just that, not some moral failure.
In context, Jesus was not specifically addressing “biblical marriage” being limited to between a man and woman; he was using the Genesis passage to teach men not to dump their wives arbitrarily. To use this as proof text to oppose gay marriage doesn’t wash. And you using a dismissive term like “woke” tells me everything I need to know about your supposed argument.
Shari, I believe you’re drawing from Matt 19. It feels like you’re saying: “What isn’t explicitly prohibited is expressly permitted.” If so, couldn’t we also say that Jesus didn’t prohibit child brides nor marriage to AI bots. How slippery do we permit the slope to become as a society?
So you insist that Jesus would be comfortable at a Pride parade or abortion clinic? The right thinks he'd be comfortable at a Trump cabinet meeting. I think neither at all.
Listening to Christian discourse nowadays one could conclude that Jesus’ main message must have been anti abortion and anti gay. But curiously Jesus had much to say about religious hypocrisy.
Spending a lot of time in Christian circles I almost never hear about these issues. As a preacher, I rarely talk about them. Perhaps, by Christian you mean "Conservative American Political". Which is quite different.
The wonder or the plague of the Internet is that it can be used to find exactly what you’re looking for and in fact, is designed specifically so. There is a great deal of positive Christian messaging to be found to help us to heed Paul’s admonition to think about things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent and praiseworthy (Phil 4:8). Unfollowing and unsubscribing are some of our best friends.
James, you jest about people bringing Jesus to pride parades and abortion clinics, but that is exactly what has happened and is happening; if Google is to be trusted. When enough effort is invested in creating a custom hermeneutic the Bible can be made to say whatever we want it to say. In the end, we all want clear consciouses and because God’s Word is believed to be truth by so many it must conform to our “truth”. It is far easier to change God’s Word than my behavior. As Christians, we are not to judge those outside the church (Matt 7:2; James 4:12). Rather instead, we are to keep ourselves from being polluted by the world in our quest for a religion that is pure and faultless (James 1:27).
But how do we distinguish what is of the world and what isn't if we can't judge at least movements or ideas or agendas? For me, LGBTQ and abortion on demand are modern movements that are humanist and completely separate from God, church and spirituality. I avoid those things personally, though in a civil society would accept gay liaisons (civil marriage) and abortions in the case of rape, incest and life of mother. As a Catholic, I'm supposed to be against artificial birth control but personally I am not, except for the IUD.
The problem is quite simple : the humanitarian modernist wants man to be at the center of all morality, not God. But man can only be in the center if the God-man is the true center. Otherwise mankind is nothing more than a simple animal. And whats wrong with one animal harming another?
In 1944 Aurel Kolnai predicted that this sort of irreligious religion would supplant and subvert Christianity in the West. Astonishingly he foresaw that its proponents would be forced to support an amoral view of sexual purity (as in this blog) and of suicide (which view is a close friend of the first) since neither "violate anyone's rights." And, that abortion would be impossible to oppose since ones "standard of living" is more "indispensable" than a child. This proceeds not simply from greed but from "a pious economy...a deification of 'actual human needs.'"
In other words the proponents of these atrocities will claim they are meeting pressing, real-life needs of others. Including sexual "needs" like sexual pleasure and freedom. The confusion is obvious.
The question is how do we help people understand that genuine love is not "humanitarian" in origin but Theanthropic. That is, one must first love God before one can actually love neighbor. Not as a matter of sequence as in a machine but like a tree the roots must come before the fruits or eventually the fruit will wither.
I believe we are not to judge those individuals who do not follow Jesus. Like you, I believe we are to make judgments but not for the purpose of hurting or condemning our non-Christian neighbors. The challenge arises, as you pointed out, when non-Christians co-op Jesus for their cause or conscious. One of the primary responsibilities of our shepherds/elders/bishops is to protect the church (Act 20:28-31). Nadine does a wonderful job of highlighting some significant failings of our shepherds and offers useful and constructive criticisms. Of course, there are thousands of shepherds who are caring and protecting those flocks under their care. At the very least, we non-shepherds have a responsibility to our fellow believers in Christ. We are our brother’s keepers. (Col 1:28). Yes, we can and must speak out about the sin we see and strive to avoid these sins ourselves. (Eph 5:8-11). In the end, I believe I will be judged by God based on the life I’ve lived…not those of our neighbors.
Ok, but then we have all these different denominations who've had plenty of time to examine scriptures and yet arrive at different conclusions about key aspects of doctrine. I'm Catholic but was also Greek Orthodox and Protestant fundamentalist (Church of Christ), so I have influences from 3 different denominations but overall I lean conservative because the social aspects of today's "woke" ideology would be completely alien to Jesus and his followers back in the day, I think.
The thing that came to mind when I read your post is that the problem is not about whether or not the bible is inerrant but the fact - the real fact- is that humans are errant to the fullest degree.
So whether or not the bible is inerrant the practical application made by humans is going to be errant. So our job is not to be the judge but to be the seeker of the ultimate truth of what God wants us to know.
This was such an interesting post as it got me down a little rabbit hole. I just googled inerrancy and information about this German philosopher came up.
Errancy (Die Irrnis) and Truth
Heidegger redefined truth not as a correct statement, but as unconcealment (aletheia)—the way things reveal themselves to us.
The Shadow of Truth: Whenever something is revealed, other aspects of reality are hidden.
The Nature of Errancy: Errancy is not a simple human mistake or logical error. It is a fundamental condition of existence where human beings naturally wander and lose themselves in what is immediately present, missing the deeper mystery of Being.
He says the only way to find truth of something is by interacting with it. Since the bible clearly says that God is love, if we find ourselves interacting with the scripture in any kind of way that does not produce love, I would say that that is errant.
Words on a page are just words on a page. Until they are interacted with the true meaning is not revealed. God has shown us that if we look through a lens of love we can read, learn and grow from his word but looking through another lens can reveal the errancy of human nature.
I would like to briefly hold up a mirror to your own writing so you can see it better. Firstly there are a plethora of strawmans and ad hominems here. For example you reduce conservatives to (if not conservatives then innerantists) "People who like to marginalize people they don't like." I suppose I might be justified in calling liberals (at least the American brand of them) people who "murder those children they find inconvenient." Would you find such a comment to be charitable or accurate?
You also imply that these same people think that the Biblical text should simply be "taken at face value." Perhaps some do. Most do not and are taught to not do this. You equivocate love and empathy; classical Christian theology rightly identifies a huge problem with this.
And for the coup de grace you brazenly attribute a failure to deal with predators, be generous to the poor, etc to your version of "innerantists".You are tilting at windmills. I am genuinely curious if you see this or not.
Inerrancy is not upended or challenged by hyperbole (like 'cutting off your hand') or by anthropomorphisms ('the eyes of God') or by difficult history (the earthquake in Jerusalem coincident with the death of Christ, and people coming out of tombs). Inerrancy simply means that the Scripture cannot be broken (ignored, whitewashed, or dismissed), as Jesus said in John 10. Inerrancy does not mean the Bible teaches math precisely, or teaches science exactly, BUT it does mean that when Joshua told the sun to stand still over Aijalon, there were more hours of daylight than expected, for that day. It is not a hard concept, and Jesus certainly endorsed it several times (see the Sermon on the Mount and Luke 24, for example). When the solidity and trustworthiness of the Word is degraded, the oomph of the Scripture (and its authority) are lost.
Not necessarily. We can also trust the Holy Spirit and trust our minds, apply common sense. Evangelicalism has told to not trust ourselves, but we have the Holy Spirit and discernment.
“So, do I believe the Bible is the word of God? Yes. Do I believe it is inspired? Yes. Do I believe every word of it has to be followed to the letter? No.”
I don’t disagree with your position at all. It just doesn’t seem as if biblical inerrancy is the issue in the first instance. But this does depend on what is meant by following the Bible ‘to the letter’.
Rather, the concern seems to be bad exegesis - or the lack of exegesis altogether. Which is indeed a legit concern. In general, the Bible ought to be read in context - proper exegesis. Something that the ICOC, historically, didn’t do well, and isn’t done well generally across Christendom. I don’t think this means the ‘inerrancy’ is wrong, but that exegesis is sorely lacking.
“Those advocating “Biblical inerrancy” do not believe the Bible more than other Christians. They just like to manipulate verses to prove their pre-existing views and prejudices.”
A bit of a sweeping judgment, but point taken. Again, inerrancy isn’t the issue here, but the manipulation of verses with inerrancy as a pretext.
The claim that Jesus ‘broke the law’ doesn’t ring true, in my mind. Rather he broke the pharisaical interpretation of the law or their traditions which often superseded the law, and missed the point of the law in the first place. Again, I disagree that the ‘you have heard it said’ quote challenges inerrancy. But this would need contextualization - exegesis - to be fully understood.
All said, ‘inerrancy’, as is generally understood, isn’t necessary for Jesus to be Lord or for goodness to be good. Granted. But I suppose the next steps would be to point out the errors. I’d be keen to see this.
Thanks for addressing this and I hope you don’t take my counters as attacks in bad faith (I don’t think you would). This is just how I see it.
PS perhaps a definition, or understanding of ‘Biblical Inerrancy’ might help in this case?
I think what I am referring to is the "biblical inerrancy" that is bandied around these days. The last big leadershipp meeting was ugly.
Ok. Without context I’m still not sure what that means.
I reckon the ‘last big leadership conference’ was the ICOC unity one in Boston? I never did hear much about it after the fact.
No it was in Atlanta. That meeting probably deserves a post by itself.
Defo not as in the know as yourself - but ya, now I’m curious. Will keep an eye out for that post.
I’ve been reflecting on this for a few days and have some thoughts to offer. A problem I see with the idea of a “biblical inerrancy” as a hermeneutic is that this position by sheer nature of its formulation operates as a black box. It’s a settled set of propositions. Sealed with wax and put on a shelf somewhere in a person’s theological framework. Never to be inspected.
Whereas the Bible is written to be meditative literature. To be reflected upon. Contrasted and compared. Treasures sought. Linkages created. Truth discovered. And opportunity for God’s Spirit to speak afresh to the heart created. To approach the Bible this way - I.e. as meditative literature leads to ongoing learning, wonder, humility. actual transformation, and a deeper understanding and connection with God’s eternal plan.
Love this!
There is nothing about Biblical innerancy that promotes a lack of thought or meditative reflection. Quite the opposite. Since I believe it is the word of God I meditate on its meaning and application all the more. I treasure it carefully and seek to not misrepresent it all the more.
That is my goal too. We just have to use common sense.
I fully agree with your analysis Nadine. The law is first and foremost a guiding thread — a framework given by God to lead us toward Him and toward others, not a rigid cage designed to control or exclude.
In my view, this is where one of the deepest confusions lies: the law according to God is profoundly marked by love and His justice — a justice that restores, lifts up, and reconciles. Whereas the law according to religious men is too often filtered through their own interpretation, guided — consciously or not — by their fears, their biases, and their own conception of justice. A human justice that judges, classifies, and excludes.
Paul expresses this with striking clarity in 1 Corinthians 2:10-12: the truths of God cannot be grasped by human wisdom or intellectual reflection alone. They are revealed by His Spirit. Which means that any reading of the law that is not inhabited by the Spirit risks becoming a projection of our own anxieties and certainties — rather than a revelation of the mind of God.
Jesus himself gave us the most eloquent demonstration of this: he did not hesitate to transgress religious rules when compassion demanded it — healing on the Sabbath, lifting up the woman caught in adultery, overturning rigid interpretations of the law. He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it in its deepest meaning — that of love.
The real question therefore is not: “Are you faithful to the letter?” but “Are you led by the Spirit who gives life to the letter?”
For Paul himself warns us in 2 Corinthians 3:6: “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” This is not an invitation to theological anarchy or to reject Scripture — it is a fundamental reminder that the law, read without the Spirit, becomes an instrument of death rather than life. It becomes a tool of power in the hands of those who know how to wield texts, but whose hearts have not been transformed by the One who inspired them.
A text read without the Spirit can justify almost anything. History is tragically full of examples — the wars of religion that have bloodied the centuries, slavery, the marginalization of women, the exclusion of foreigners — all of this was defended, at one point or another, by verses taken out of context and wielded as divine verdicts. Millions of people suffered and died in the name of a God whom his own representatives had reduced to an instrument of conquest and domination. That was not the voice of God. It was the voice of human fear — and the thirst for power — dressed up as doctrine.
The Spirit, on the other hand, does not lead toward exclusion — it leads toward truth and love, simultaneously and inseparably. It does not allow us to sacrifice one on the altar of the other. It pushes us to ask the hard questions, to challenge our comfortable certainties, to see in the other — even the one whom the religion of our time would seek to marginalize — the image of God.
To be led by the Spirit is to accept being unsettled. It is to accept that God is greater than our theological systems. It is to walk in the humility of one who knows they still see only in part — as Paul himself says in 1 Corinthians 13:12: “For now I know in part, but then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” 💕
Seriously, you should write! Or write something, and I will post it as a guest article. You express things so well!
Merci Nadine, ça me touche 😊 Pierre me dit la même chose ! L’idée me traverse l’esprit de temps en temps… mais entre la réflexion et le passage à l’acte, il y a tout un chemin et cela demande du temps et de la disponibilité.
I agree with you that the reaction of the Christian right against science has gone to far; however, the more recent Marxist-inspired wokeness is clearly not of Christian origin. The Enlightenment benefited us all for sure, but also put man instead of God in the center of things and we started worshipping ourselves. Aggravating that was Simone de Beauvoir's philosophy of the made self. For her (according to Google), the self is not a fixed, innate essence, but a fluid, intangible consciousness. Rooted in existentialism, she argued that we are radically free and must actively construct our identities through our choices, actions, and projects. This has led to all kinds of problems, especially with the latest iteration of transexualism, or trans-trending, which thankfully seems to be waning. But a lot of young people are rootless because they've abandoned Christ's principles or twisted them into something other than He intended.
What do you mean by "Marxist-inspired wokeness"? I am not sure what you are referring to.
Marxism has infiltrated the far left and academia and has partnered with wokeness since both are based on human, rather than divine, ideas. John Lennon's "Imagine" to me is a Marxist-inspired song that is the opposite of Christianity. Sure, he meant well, but putting humans at the pinnacle is dangerous. Sure, people who put God at the pinnacle can be dangerous as well, but our problems are caused by ourselves, not the God of the Bible (if interpreted correctly). What we agree on is that we can't take every word of the Bible at face value and those who do run into problems. However, we also can't assume that Jesus had ideas that would be considered progressive today. He was progressive for his time, but we need to leave him in his context, not "bring" him to a Pride parade or abortion clinic.
Yikes. I have not seen anyone bring Jesus to a Pride parade or an abortion clinic. What I try to bear in mind is how Jesus would talk about abortion or gay people. Oh wait, he never talked about them. He did say to love our neighbors as ourselves.
He implied that people are valuable from before birth and the David in the Psalms talks about being knit together in his mother's womb. Jesus spoke of marriage between a man and a woman. There are progressive churches that try to make him approve of abortion and gay marriage but, after decades of exposure to 3 denominations of Christianity and the Bible (though I am not a cleric or expert), I can't see Jesus as a social liberal in today's sense. However, I don't see him hanging out with Trump or even Vance. Jesus wouldn't align with LGBTQ or MAGA.
Thank you for sharing your views. I have spent much time with men and women who have been affected by abortions, and I have also spoken with hundreds of queer people. I have listened to their stories, and it has led me to do a lot of reflecting. Things are not as clear-cut as I was led to believe. I am learning.
I'm not saying condemn gay people or those who've had abortions outright, but don't promote feelings over reflection either. Being same-sex attracted isn't a decision or even a sin, but acting on it is spiritually problematic according to the way I understand the Bible, and abortion on demand is selfish, in my opinion. However, abortion to save mother's life should be allowed and miscarriages are just that, not some moral failure.
In context, Jesus was not specifically addressing “biblical marriage” being limited to between a man and woman; he was using the Genesis passage to teach men not to dump their wives arbitrarily. To use this as proof text to oppose gay marriage doesn’t wash. And you using a dismissive term like “woke” tells me everything I need to know about your supposed argument.
Shari, I believe you’re drawing from Matt 19. It feels like you’re saying: “What isn’t explicitly prohibited is expressly permitted.” If so, couldn’t we also say that Jesus didn’t prohibit child brides nor marriage to AI bots. How slippery do we permit the slope to become as a society?
So you insist that Jesus would be comfortable at a Pride parade or abortion clinic? The right thinks he'd be comfortable at a Trump cabinet meeting. I think neither at all.
Listening to Christian discourse nowadays one could conclude that Jesus’ main message must have been anti abortion and anti gay. But curiously Jesus had much to say about religious hypocrisy.
Yep
Spending a lot of time in Christian circles I almost never hear about these issues. As a preacher, I rarely talk about them. Perhaps, by Christian you mean "Conservative American Political". Which is quite different.
The wonder or the plague of the Internet is that it can be used to find exactly what you’re looking for and in fact, is designed specifically so. There is a great deal of positive Christian messaging to be found to help us to heed Paul’s admonition to think about things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent and praiseworthy (Phil 4:8). Unfollowing and unsubscribing are some of our best friends.
He wasn't overtly anti- those but implicitly, yes.
I think we have to be careful about being too certain about that.
Again, I simply can't imagine Jesus supporting Pride or abortion. I just can't.
I disagree that we should 'leave him in his context'. No, we should bring his spirit into every new context.
James, you jest about people bringing Jesus to pride parades and abortion clinics, but that is exactly what has happened and is happening; if Google is to be trusted. When enough effort is invested in creating a custom hermeneutic the Bible can be made to say whatever we want it to say. In the end, we all want clear consciouses and because God’s Word is believed to be truth by so many it must conform to our “truth”. It is far easier to change God’s Word than my behavior. As Christians, we are not to judge those outside the church (Matt 7:2; James 4:12). Rather instead, we are to keep ourselves from being polluted by the world in our quest for a religion that is pure and faultless (James 1:27).
But how do we distinguish what is of the world and what isn't if we can't judge at least movements or ideas or agendas? For me, LGBTQ and abortion on demand are modern movements that are humanist and completely separate from God, church and spirituality. I avoid those things personally, though in a civil society would accept gay liaisons (civil marriage) and abortions in the case of rape, incest and life of mother. As a Catholic, I'm supposed to be against artificial birth control but personally I am not, except for the IUD.
The problem is quite simple : the humanitarian modernist wants man to be at the center of all morality, not God. But man can only be in the center if the God-man is the true center. Otherwise mankind is nothing more than a simple animal. And whats wrong with one animal harming another?
In 1944 Aurel Kolnai predicted that this sort of irreligious religion would supplant and subvert Christianity in the West. Astonishingly he foresaw that its proponents would be forced to support an amoral view of sexual purity (as in this blog) and of suicide (which view is a close friend of the first) since neither "violate anyone's rights." And, that abortion would be impossible to oppose since ones "standard of living" is more "indispensable" than a child. This proceeds not simply from greed but from "a pious economy...a deification of 'actual human needs.'"
In other words the proponents of these atrocities will claim they are meeting pressing, real-life needs of others. Including sexual "needs" like sexual pleasure and freedom. The confusion is obvious.
The question is how do we help people understand that genuine love is not "humanitarian" in origin but Theanthropic. That is, one must first love God before one can actually love neighbor. Not as a matter of sequence as in a machine but like a tree the roots must come before the fruits or eventually the fruit will wither.
I believe we are not to judge those individuals who do not follow Jesus. Like you, I believe we are to make judgments but not for the purpose of hurting or condemning our non-Christian neighbors. The challenge arises, as you pointed out, when non-Christians co-op Jesus for their cause or conscious. One of the primary responsibilities of our shepherds/elders/bishops is to protect the church (Act 20:28-31). Nadine does a wonderful job of highlighting some significant failings of our shepherds and offers useful and constructive criticisms. Of course, there are thousands of shepherds who are caring and protecting those flocks under their care. At the very least, we non-shepherds have a responsibility to our fellow believers in Christ. We are our brother’s keepers. (Col 1:28). Yes, we can and must speak out about the sin we see and strive to avoid these sins ourselves. (Eph 5:8-11). In the end, I believe I will be judged by God based on the life I’ve lived…not those of our neighbors.
Ok, but then we have all these different denominations who've had plenty of time to examine scriptures and yet arrive at different conclusions about key aspects of doctrine. I'm Catholic but was also Greek Orthodox and Protestant fundamentalist (Church of Christ), so I have influences from 3 different denominations but overall I lean conservative because the social aspects of today's "woke" ideology would be completely alien to Jesus and his followers back in the day, I think.
The thing that came to mind when I read your post is that the problem is not about whether or not the bible is inerrant but the fact - the real fact- is that humans are errant to the fullest degree.
So whether or not the bible is inerrant the practical application made by humans is going to be errant. So our job is not to be the judge but to be the seeker of the ultimate truth of what God wants us to know.
This was such an interesting post as it got me down a little rabbit hole. I just googled inerrancy and information about this German philosopher came up.
Errancy (Die Irrnis) and Truth
Heidegger redefined truth not as a correct statement, but as unconcealment (aletheia)—the way things reveal themselves to us.
The Shadow of Truth: Whenever something is revealed, other aspects of reality are hidden.
The Nature of Errancy: Errancy is not a simple human mistake or logical error. It is a fundamental condition of existence where human beings naturally wander and lose themselves in what is immediately present, missing the deeper mystery of Being.
He says the only way to find truth of something is by interacting with it. Since the bible clearly says that God is love, if we find ourselves interacting with the scripture in any kind of way that does not produce love, I would say that that is errant.
Words on a page are just words on a page. Until they are interacted with the true meaning is not revealed. God has shown us that if we look through a lens of love we can read, learn and grow from his word but looking through another lens can reveal the errancy of human nature.
When we are unaware of how our worldview infects our theology, we think we are interpreting exegetically but are in fact replying on eisegesis.
✅https://reimaginenetwork.ning.com/forum/topics/eisegesis-reexamine-scripture-to-untangle-original-intent-from-in
I would like to briefly hold up a mirror to your own writing so you can see it better. Firstly there are a plethora of strawmans and ad hominems here. For example you reduce conservatives to (if not conservatives then innerantists) "People who like to marginalize people they don't like." I suppose I might be justified in calling liberals (at least the American brand of them) people who "murder those children they find inconvenient." Would you find such a comment to be charitable or accurate?
You also imply that these same people think that the Biblical text should simply be "taken at face value." Perhaps some do. Most do not and are taught to not do this. You equivocate love and empathy; classical Christian theology rightly identifies a huge problem with this.
And for the coup de grace you brazenly attribute a failure to deal with predators, be generous to the poor, etc to your version of "innerantists".You are tilting at windmills. I am genuinely curious if you see this or not.
Thank you for your comments. I have sat through so many leadership meetings, and this is what I observed. I am not making this up.
Inerrancy is not upended or challenged by hyperbole (like 'cutting off your hand') or by anthropomorphisms ('the eyes of God') or by difficult history (the earthquake in Jerusalem coincident with the death of Christ, and people coming out of tombs). Inerrancy simply means that the Scripture cannot be broken (ignored, whitewashed, or dismissed), as Jesus said in John 10. Inerrancy does not mean the Bible teaches math precisely, or teaches science exactly, BUT it does mean that when Joshua told the sun to stand still over Aijalon, there were more hours of daylight than expected, for that day. It is not a hard concept, and Jesus certainly endorsed it several times (see the Sermon on the Mount and Luke 24, for example). When the solidity and trustworthiness of the Word is degraded, the oomph of the Scripture (and its authority) are lost.
Not necessarily. We can also trust the Holy Spirit and trust our minds, apply common sense. Evangelicalism has told to not trust ourselves, but we have the Holy Spirit and discernment.
A good passage regarding this issue is where Jesus says, if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off.