I’m going through a similar process and sort of trying to unlearn many implicit messages that have been ingrained over the years, replacing them with more orthodox and biblical views. I credit the discussions on this site with helping me a great deal to sift through some bad/heterodox ideologies. So for me, not only is personal bible study and reading commentaries necessary, but also engaging with others in healthy discussions.

For instance in (1), both Luther and Calvin advocated a historical-critical approach to scripture which sought to interpret the text in light of its contextual meaning to the audience that it was given to. Hence, if it was to be narrative then so be it, similarly with metaphor or poetry. This is also where modern scholarship has helped a great deal because it has given us further insight into the minds of those who inhabited ancient Israel. (Also, this is a good analysis, from both a pre-modern and modern perspective, of the word ‘literal’ when speaking about the bible.)

Also with (2) equating the process of biblical inspiration to that of dictation (I.e. God controlled the writer as he spoke) has been historically rejected by the church.

Again (5) is a point that many, before the pre-modern era would agree with. We have historical proof of this in that the church overturned its espousal of geo-centrism in light of scientific evidence. And as for (6), I would say that while Christ is the telos or end of scripture, there are indeed multiple layers to the bible. And again, most throughout church history held this kind of position.

The reason I’ve stated the above is that I know for some evangelicals, those points would cause some suspicions to arise within them. They might view these as a kind of gateway into liberalism, when in fact this is not the case at all. I just find it very ironic that our modern view of scripture is more restrictive or narrow than that of our predecessors.

“Nouwen views our spiritual “ascent” as evolving in three movements. The first, from loneliness to solitude, focuses on the spiritual life as it relates to the experience of our own selves. The second, from hostility to hospitality, deals with our spiritual life as a life for others. The final movement, from illusion to prayer, offers penetrating thoughts on the most mysterious relationship of all: our relationship to God. Throughout, Nouwen emphasizes that the more we understand (and not simply deny) our inner struggles, the more fully we will be able to embrace a prayerful and genuine life that is also open to others’ needs.”

“Reaching Out”, by Henri Nouwen

What is your view of biblical inspiration and why does it matter to you?

I have struggled through similar points like you express in the article. Here is where I’m at now. As RogerW points out in the PCA 16-point list I shared above, I don’t consider the bible to be infallible or inerrant. I do however consider the bible to be my gold standard. We won’t have pure gold this side of Heaven, but I do know that gold does exist.

So now I trust the bible. I check every belief I have against the whole of the bible, searching for something that directly contradicts my thoughts. When I find such verses, I change my thinking. I find that I no longer believe the bible is the literal word of God, but I do take the bible far more literally than ever before. I’m not sure if I am explaining this clearly. I now simply take the bible at face value, but I check the bible against itself, against reason, against tradition and against logic. I am willing to make adjustments both reason and tradition, but will not compromise logic and the written text. I look now for explicit statements and build my faith on those, not on implied ideologies.

For example, I used to believe, teach and preach that everyone needs to be a bible teacher. I thought that being a bible teacher is the highest calling of God, and is irrevocable. But then I read James at face value, taking it literally and checking what it says against the Gospels and the other books such as Hebrews and Galatians. I found that the bible directly and explicitly contradicted my belief that everyone I meet and invite to bible study should be a bible teacher. Furthermore I adjusted my paradigm of approaching the bible because of this–from a bible teacher to a bible learner.

I also always scan the Old Testament. I find the OT full of wisdom and insight into who Jesus is and what it meant for Him to fulfill both the Law and the Prophets on the cross. I reject any label of me as a antinomian. I do claim that the OT Law is no longer our guardian and was replaced by the Spirit as the object of our obedience. But unlike the Nazi Christians, I do not claim we should get rid of the OT Law or the Prophets. I just claim they have a new purpose and that the cross and the Spirit fulfilled their old purpose.

In what way is the church’s battle against certain ideologies held by secular society helpful or harmful?

This is a great question, some of which would require another book to answer :) In my 4th book, to be published 1/1/2015, “The Lambhearted Lion: Why Christianity Needs Gay People”, I will be making these claims:

“Above all this, the corrective gay people will bring to the church is the re-connecting with the righteousness Jesus preached—the upside-down nature that confounded some and brought joy to many. In order to genuinely welcome gays, the church is forced to start with love. Instead of beginning with the logos of moral statements, I contend the church should start with the pathos of love.”

And also:

“So many people have told me “Trust my good intentions” while their actions prove to be very harmful. I say Jesus is right. Beware of false prophets, who come to us in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? It is high time we look at people’s actions to judge them, not merely their words. All this speaks to the need for the church to find a theology deeply rooted in the triune thought fabric that considers logos, ethos and pathos. For too long we’ve focused only on logos, deeming pathos as evil or irrelevant—all at the expense of our ethos. Welcoming LGBTQA people with full-rights, full-inclusion and full-blessing will correct this thought fabric in brilliant fashion!”

I normally don’t like to just post quotes, but these 16 points are really good and better than I could express them.

1. We embrace the many variations of the view expressed by many great Christian thinkers that “We take the Bible too seriously, to read it all literally.”

2. We don’t think that God wrote the Bible. We think it was written by fallible human beings who were inspired by (not dictated to by) the Holy Spirit. Hence, we don’t consider it to be infallible or inerrant.

…

5. We seek to apply full attention to Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience (and that includes the insights of contemporary science).

6. We realize that there is no “objective, one, right way” to interpret a passage – and we recognize that there is no reading of any text – including the Bible – that doesn’t involve interpretation. We also realize that each person interprets the text via their own personal experiences, education, upbringing, socio-political context, and more.

I misspoke, or better yet I made an error, when I said that the bible contained scientific errors. Instead, I think it is valid to assert that the bible’s writers, who were inspired by God, wrote within the confines of their respective cultures. I have found that this kind of interpretation of scripture eliminates a formidable barrier to those trained as scientists who would otherwise write off the bible for being patently wrong about some of its assertions. It lends the bible much more credibility when we say that God was communicating information to a culture at such and such a time, thus taking into account their then understanding of natural phenomena; after all, this reflects the incarnational nature of God in that he humble himself to meet us where we are at. It’s very interesting that this view has been closer to the stance of the church throughout history (e.g. Augustine, who framed the doctrine of original sin, even reasoned that theistic evolution might be plausible) more so than it is today. I honestly think that our current view of scripture is largely a reaction to the Enlightenment, but this needn’t be the case anymore. Anyway, I’d like to prepare an article on this and flesh my thoughts out a bit more.

Also, you said,

I think it takes as much faith to believe some of the claims of science as it does the Bible.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Valid scientific theories and findings are verified by physical and repeatable tests in a real setting; if a hypothesis cannot be tested and observed in real time, then it is not valid from a scientific point of view.

Thanks again for the discussion, brother, and Merry Christmas.

You asked if it is wrong to express pi as three. The short answer is yes. So much of our modern technology and engineering depends on pi, from global positioning, the transistors that that make computing possible, probability distributions, quantum mechanics and particle physics, the proper functioning of machined parts and a slew of other things that rounding pi to three would bring about the collapse of modern civilization as we know it (just kidding).

Even still, my central argument is that the Bible’s writers were not concerned with scientific observation and accuracy. The Bible is mainly a theological text. Even the history that is recorded is set against the backdrop of answering the question of who God is and who are his people. We put too much burden on the Bible when we say that it should hold up under the scrutiny of our modern-day understanding of science. It’s just not necessary and furthermore by doing so some have promulgated very dubious science, namely in the field of geology (for instance in order to prove the historicity of the flood event). Rather what seems prudent to me is to understand that the Bible’s writers were 1) mainly concerned with theological questions and 2) when they did relay observational information about the earth and nature, it was based upon their then understanding of the world around them.

If you’re interested, this is a good article about the “solid dome” (“raqia” in Hebrew), that we know as the sky or atmosphere, featured in Gen 1:6:

It is unreasonable to suggest that Genesis 1 knowingly describes only what Israelites perceived, while holding back any commitment that what they saw was in fact reality. The meaning of raqia is likewise a description not only of what the Israelites saw but also of what they actually believed to be true. They were in good company, for their understanding of what was “up there” was in harmony with what ancient peoples believed in general. God spoke to the ancient Israelites in a way they would readily understand.

The arguments for a non-solid raqia can only gain traction by swimming against the strong current of what we know of the ancient world. But the problem is not just the arguments themselves. Rather, it is the very fact that the arguments are made in the first place. Feeling the need to make the arguments at all asks Genesis to be involved in a discussion it is not designed for. – link

Calvin directly addressed the question of the relation of Scripture’s authority and infallibility to its scientific accuracy. Specifically, he took issue with the fact that Genesis 1 names the sun and moon as the two great lights. Calvin noted that astronomers in his day already know that the moon is much smaller than Saturn, so is Scripture to be considered wrong here, since it is not scientifically accurate to call the moon one of the great lights?

Indeed, the insistence that Scripture is intended by God to train us in righteousness may be seen at the heart of all of these pre-modern readings in one way or another. When Origen reads Genesis 1 allegorically to illustrate the Christian’s journey from having one’s mind dwell on earthly things to the maturity of placing one’s mind on heavenly things, he precisely envisions a training toward righteousness and conformity to Christ. Likewise, Augustine’s allegorical reading also envisions the days of creation as the Christian’s ethical journey toward fuller righteousness. – link

You stated Proverbs 30:5 which I believe to be utterly true. What I mean by true is that I believe that all of Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it communicated what God wanted to say to all people. However, I don’t mean true in the scientific sense because there are glaring errors of science in the bible, e.g. 1 Kings 7:23 would yield a value of pi equal to 3, also the sky would be a solid dome via Gen 1:6-8. But this is of little concern to me because the truth that the Bible is concerned with centers on communicating the nature of God and what is spiritually profitable for us, which ultimately culminates in our intimate knowledge of Jesus Christ. As Jesus says, the Bible is about him (Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39; Heb. 10:7).

I love the Bible because I know that it is the one thing that is true in a world that is often filled with so much uncertainty and falsehood. I suppose that is why my views on inerrancy matter so much to me. It fills me with comfort knowing that when I open God’s Word I can trust everything that it says.

One of my favorite quotes is from Proverbs 30:5, “Every word of God is tested.” Because I know that every single word has been proved true, I have great confidence in what it says, even when it goes against reason, observation, or scientific knowledge.

Thanks Vitaly, for sharing your perspective. I personally do not think that the Bible can be used to verify modern scientific findings, but if you view it the opposite way, I can respect that. Whether someone holds to a literal or allegorical view of Genesis should, in my opinion, be an open-handed issue.

While I do believe that Genesis is foundational, I think that we are liable to miss some of the theological richness and nuance of what is contained in the text if we stick to a purely literal interpretation of it. There are challenges to viewing it allegorically, e.g. you pointed out the fact that Jesus and Peter spoke of Noah, additionally Adam and Noah are included in genealogies in 1 Chronicles, Hebrews speaks of Noah’s faith and Paul compares Adam and Jesus. However, I think that there are good explanations for these occurrences that allow us to still hold an allegorical view.

I saw this video, which has the gist that Genesis was not a detailed description of creation so much as it was a response to other mythological explanations. I really appreciated it and I think you might, too.

I think it fits in well with the interpretation that the OT as we know it was compiled from a number of sources by Godly people.

While I want to refrain from debating about the age of the earth, I am curious to know if you have read such critiques and if so what is your response to them. Also, Enns and other scholars argue that Genesis 1-11 were written to make a theological rather than a literal-historical point, hence they were never intended to be historically or scientifically accurate. Would you be open to hearing the points of such scholars?

I would like to think that I am in stage 2, but then I look at how irrationally and emotionally I react toward those who I perceive to be in stage 1 and I step back and think maybe I’ve still got a long ways to go; maybe I don’t know the gospel of grace well enough to engage these people in a loving way. Perhaps I shouldn’t presume that I am in stage 2 just yet. In my time away from organized religion + listening to Rohr, these thoughts often come to mind.

http://store.icr.org/The-Henry-Morris-Study-Bible-Casebound/productinfo/BHMSB-C/

A while back, my wife and I attended a parenting conference led by Christian author Tim Kimmel. The best nugget of wisdom I got from him is that, since our kids will inevitably go through the cocoon phase (and also rebel against the constraints that it presents), we have to relate to them not as one who is mainly an enforcer of the constraints of the cocoon but as a wiser person who can relate to them in a way that shows gospel love; we still provide them with rules, but we show them how the rules can be flexed so that a greater good may be achieved. Above all, he advocates displaying mercy toward your children rather than holding them to a standard that they cannot bear. Here are some good quotes from his books:

“Some of your children’s rebellion against your spiritual lifestyle might be a necessary step in their finding an authentic relationship with God. But beware: If they find it, it might look quite different from what you’ve always thought it should be.” – (Why Christian Kids Rebel: Trading Heartache for Hope)

“Those who think that the wisest way to groom a child for spiritual maturity is to isolate him from the evil, corrupted world system or airbrush his childhood environment so much that it exposes only him to the good and never teaches him how to process the bad (or the counterfeit) will set a child up for a life of mediocrity at best and spiritual annihilation at worst.” – (Grace-Based Parenting)

The cocoon stage is when the Law (Moses) steps in. It is a time of seeking out right and wrong, a time of trying to build something and a longing for the promised land.

The butterfly stage is when the Messiah (Jesus) arrives. It is an amazing time of joy, growing and learning. It is a time of peace and contentment, and full of incredible activity.

I find Rohr’s two stages useful, as most countries, peoples, governments, institutions, organizations and churches seem stuck in the stage I frame of mind, attitudes, impositions and expectations: dichotomous either/or thinking, elitist, exclusive, judgmental, success driven, insistence on one’s superiority, identity and validation, conditional love, etc.

Though every person needs to pass through stage I, which is needed and necessary for one’s growth and formation, it eventually becomes stifling and restrictive to one’s continued development.

Thus, stage II requires the painful unlearning and letting go of stage I, which then enables the delightful discovery of freedom, inclusivity (both/and frame of mind), non-dichotomous thinking and attitudes, forgiveness, unconditional love, etc.

Precisely the point of my entire chapter 1 of my new book (still in progress)!

I like what Gittins says about fear:

“With peace comes God’s liberating hand which frees from fear. ‘Do not be afraid’ is said to occur 365 times in the Bible—one for every day of the year. If that is encouraging for the fearful, it is also a reminder that fear does tend to stalk us through life. The consolation is that as we respond increasingly to God’s call, we are weaned from our fears and nourished on God’s words of life.” –Anthony J. Gittins, “Reading the Clouds”, Kindle Edition, Loc. 409-12

In the second phase of my recovery from ubf, I discovered that exact point. I compared my bible “study” with dissecting an alien creature. It was helpful for me to examine the question of “Why did I join?” in my second book:

“My first bible study at University Bible Fellowship (UBF) was on Genesis chapter 1. I remember counting how many times various words occurred in the chapter and drawing various pictures and diagrams, as the bible text was super-analyzed, as if we were dissecting some newfound, alien creature.”

Goodness Found: The Butterfly Narratives, pg. 10

Again, fully agree here. I don’t want to present Enns’ view as an end-all-be-all tyoe of deal. But I like his view because he is refreshingly free in his pursuit of understanding scripture rather than fearful, which is what I am accustomed to seeing in church settings. In my experience, this greatly hampers being led by the Spirit and above all, love, as you’ve said. Christians like to cite, “perfect love casts out fear” but I often wonder how much we truly believe this.

I don’t know if you’ve read anything by Richard Rohr, but he speaks to the transformational paradigm you mentioned. In his book, Falling Upward, he talks about life in terms of two stages; first is the cocoon phase where we learn to build a container, which serves to frame who we are and are not. This is necessary because it provides identity and a foundation for life. Then in the second stage (essentially gospel transformation) we break out of this and learn to think and behave ecumenically rather than in a self-protective stance.

I concur, Brian. One pastor put it this way: the Bible is not so much a map that leads us to treasure, but rather it is a treasure chest that should be opened with joy and it’s contents thoroughly and excitedly examined.

Read the Bible with a pitch fork, garden rake, and shovel in your hands–not with rubber gloves and tongs delicately turning over crackling pages of an ancient book. – link

You also mentioned the polytheism of Israel. Some say that Israel was ‘henotheistic’ before the second temple period. This means that they acknowledged that many gods existed but that only one god, namely Yahweh, deserved their allegiance. Again, some take issue with this, because it indicates that Israel went through a type of evolution in terms of their theological understanding of God. They reason that Israel, from the beginning, held fast to theism and thus were more enlightened than the surrounding nations; God somehow radically changed their thinking overnight. But the Bible clearly indicates otherwise; they acknowledged other gods and grew into monotheism over time.

On first glance, I like what I see in Enns’ model. I certainly don’t think for a moment that the writer of Genesis had all the scientific proof of eons in mind! And as I said, I no longer view the bible in a magical sense. I reject the idea that there was/is a God who hide all kinds of secret knowledge in the bible about how the earth was formed. Really only God knows that as the book of Job makes abundantly clear.

So the models are helpful. Models are however just more ideologies really so I think we need to be careful. We all have ideologies and methodologies and that’s ok. My point is that we need to be flexible and adaptable– and most of all not fearful! For example, evolution is a much better model to use when studying the bible than creationism.

Above all I think two things are more important than models of interpretation: love and the Spirit. These last three years have been exhilarating! The Holy Scripture is so much more alive and meaningful with the Holy Spirit’s help. The new wine began for me when I surrendered 100% to grace and accepted cheap grace.

The helpful aspect is that the church formed a cocoon of sorts around itself. The intent, I think, from all the ideological wars was to “protect the truth”. In a sense that is what happened the past 500 years since the birth of Calvin. But the war is over. The protest is done. Those who continue to stay in the cocoon risk dying and withering away. God is leading many through His Spirit to come out of the cocoon/ideologies and live as butterflies (love/goodness).

The harmful aspect is that we now have a splintered Body. Some are so divided that if they see the name “Rob Bell” or “John MacArthur” they immediately dismiss what is said. We have excluded so many from church. We have forbid people from marrying. We have stood on our own wisdom and darkened the counsel of God. People are hungry for third-option, trinitarian thinking!

My view has been changing rapidly. I too once embarked on an intense search to discover how all the pieces of the bible fit together. Surely all science is incomplete and just not up to par with the biblical explanations directly spoken by God, I thought! I treated the bible like a spell book. But once all the voices of ubf shepherds went silent in my mind, my view of the bible has been going through a transformation.

I now see the bible as the Holy Scriptures. This means that I believe God is alive and does speak through the bible. And it means I view the bible more realisticly now: it is a text, to be studied and examined and not simply blindly and thoughtlessly put into practice. I feel that I respect the bible vastly more than in the past. You might even say I went “From a bible idolator to a Holy Scripture examiner!” Instead of claiming I knew what God meant in the bible and was God’s teacher of the bible on this earth, I now see myself as a bible learner, not fearfully trying to obey every iota, but joyfully exploring the amazing treasure of the texts that make up the bible.

I came to realize that I had made my physical bible into an idol. I felt proud of the “spiritual” cover I had for it and often made sure to carry my bible around. I had been treating the bible as a magical spell book, even personifying the physical pages of my bible, as if it had become a mini=Jesus or something.

I don’t know how common this kind of thing is but in my case, I went beyond inerrancy and was into the magical in my view of the bible.

the Yahwist source (J) : written c. 950 BCE in the southern Kingdom of Judah.
the Elohist source (E) : written c. 850 BCE in the northern Kingdom of Israel.
the Deuteronomist (D) : written c. 600 BCE in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
the Priestly source (P) : written c. 500 BCE by Kohanim (Jewish priests) in exile in Babylon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

The view goes onto say that the book of law was suddenly found around this time, written by a priest class. In these times the law of Moses was first written down, and surprisingly God was one. And he was not limited to a certain place.

This view is very jarring. It relies on a lot of textual analysis on old testament books. It claims there is a ‘e’ ‘p’ and ‘q’ source. The ‘e’ source is the oldest and is eloheim source. This source wrote about Abraham and his covenant up until Jacob. The ‘p’ source is the priestly source, it wrote Deuteronomy, the story of Joesph and Jacob. The q source if I remember correctly wrote the creation up to Abraham.

This makes some sense to me. The Jewish people had a great oral tradition, but in exile their culture (and with it identity as God’s chosen) would have been under attack. A written account would have become the solution to preserve their heritage. As for the view of the Jews thinking they were different Gods, even if they did it is no challenge to the scripture. That God does not reveal himself to be one until Moses is no more damaging than when God reveals himself to be love on the cross. But this view goes along way towards explaining why the early jews were so quick to abandon God to worship other God’s and idols. They likely believed those things could save them, but then again that is not so different from all the other points in human history.

And yeah, I’m doing a total overhaul in how I think about and teach Genesis. Enns, along with others, recently published a curriculum on the Bible for grades k-high school. He starts with talking about Jesus and the NT and later in junior high delves into the OT due to the complex issues he wrote about in his essay. But I’m open to various ideas in how to teach Genesis, specifically (in another thread, I posted a series of articles on how Genesis can be taught from a wisdom perspective, rather than a literal-historical one).

As far as Noah goes, the link you posted is helpful. I remember reading about the physical impossibility of the construction of the ark and the world-wide flood scenario some time ago. I reasoned, as probably many evangelicals do, that God could have miraculously “made things work”.

On another line of thinking, what’s instructive for me today is understanding how the ancient Israelites regarded the story of Noah. Enns wrote a good series on the comparisons between Noah and other ancient myths that are very similar here. The evidence seems to strongly indicate that they constructed Noah’s story from other stories for the purpose of communicating how and why Israel’s God would have orchestrated something like the flood event.

When you more or less posed the question, Was there a literal Noah’s ark, I immediately googled and found this (helpful I think) FAQs: http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/faq.htm

Loved your article. Thanks!