Disqus - Friends of olterman

Re: Book Club Discussion: The Church's one Foundation

Rachel Held Evans — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:55:44 -0000

Great response

Thanks for the responses, Leah and Mitch. Much to think about! It's great to have such a diversity of opinions and backgrounds interacting on the site...including a bilogist.

I'm wondering what you all think about the idea of reading the Genesis account metaphorically. Do you think that compromises Scripture?

Re: A few more thoughts on evolution

Rachel Held Evans — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:27:14 -0000

Clarification

Leah - I added that you are a young earth creationist in the blog entry...just for clarification. (I don't want to misrepresent your position.)

Re: A few more thoughts on evolution

Rachel Held Evans — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:41:52 -0000

Some thoughts...

Keeping in mind that Genesis is a pre-modern text of the ancient Near Eastern tradition, I personally don't have a problem interpreting the creation account metaphorically. I don't think the Bible is intended to be a science or history textbook. In fact, the Bible itself never claims to be inerrant.

Scripture is inspired by God and is "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" so that followers of Christ can "be thoroughly equipped for every good work." If we take a story's purpose and implications literally, does it really matter if the story can be scientifically or historically proven?

I suppose the subject of inerrancy should probably be another post altogether.

My primary hangup on the evolution issue is that I don't like being a conspiracy theorist. I sometimes feel like, in order to accept young earth creationism, I have to believe that the scientists of the world are ganging up on Christians. Sure, I know that many come to the table with the presupposition that God does not exist, but does that mean they would deliberately perpetuate unsubstantiated (and deceitful) scientific ideas? I just don't know if I buy it; it sounds a little too much like the whole geocentricism thing.

I'm in no way an expert, of course. Just thinking...

Re: A few more thoughts on evolution

Rachel Held Evans — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:27:07 -0000

pre-modern text

Mitch- The Bible does have many of the characteristics of other pre-modern texts. Pre-moderns were not as concerned as we modern rationalists with things like accurate battle numbers or the ages of patriarchs. (Other ancient texts put some kings' ages at 20,000 years!) Using hyperbolic and metaphorical language was commonplace, and accepted (and probably not seen as being deceitful.) Several other ancient texts, like Gilgamesh, include stories of a worldwide flood. This could certainly mean that the Middle East had a significant flood at some point...a flood that would appear to the writers to be worldwide.

From what I understand, the way that the ancients interacted with story was very different than the way we would interact with story. We're so affected by the Enlightenment that we need something to be scientifically verified to be "true." I think that perhaps pre-moderns had the ability to interact with God's stories in the Bible in such a way that they didn't have to be "provable" to matter and to change how people lived.

Re: Selective Literalism

Rachel Held Evans — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:55:43 -0000

True that!

Friend of a Friend,
Love the Emerson quote: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblins of little minds."
Reading Jacobs' account of his attempt to take the entire Bible literally has been a good reminder that we should indeed be grateful for the role of the Holy Spirit, as well as Church tradition, to help us interpret the Bible and practically apply its teachings.

My main concern with selective literalism is when it is used to oppress people or alienate them from the Church.

Re: Selective Literalism II: Who Would Jesus Stone?

Rachel Held Evans — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:16:26 -0000

To Clarify

A little about the author: A.J. Jacobs is an agnostic. "The Year of Living Biblically" is his second book; his first, "The Know it All," describes how he read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica in a year. I haven't really sensed that he has an anti-religious agenda in writing this book. In fact, he's been pretty open to the truths he has encountered. Of course, I haven't finished it yet...

To clarify, the problem I'm addressing in these posts isn't so much with the interpretation of Scripture, but in the application of it. (I'm frustrated with the evangelical culture's obsession with homosexuality and its inconsistency regarding women's equality.)

Re: Selective Literalism

Rachel Held Evans — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:01:13 -0000

Church and Gays

Mandy - Thanks for your posts!

I have a terrible feeling that 10 years from now, the evangelical community will be shaking its head in shame over the way it has treated gays and lesbians. I hope they will be able to forgive us.

Re: Book Club Discussion: It's all relative!

Rachel Held Evans — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:48:05 -0000

Interpretation

Thanks for the responses, Mitch and Friend of a Friend.

Mitch, if the Bible is indeed "fixed, sure and unmoving, throughout all time and culture in its message," then why are there so many diverse and seemingly contradictory interpretations of it? If the Bible is so clear and if we are supposed to get closer and closer to knowing absolute truth the more time we spend reading it and studying it, then why-for centuries-have theologians disagreed about some pretty important aspects of its content. Why have good, God-fearing people interpreted it differently, even with the Spirit to guide them?

(Example: You mentioned that the entirety of the Old Testament, from Adam to Noah to Job to Israel, was given to point to the coming Redeemer. A lot of evangelical theologians would probably disagree with that. Many believe that the Old Testaments saints were not saved by looking ahead to a future Christ, but by their personal interactions with God through faith, and that the story of Israel's interaction with God was just that, the story of Israel's interaction with God from the perspective of the people living at the time. This issue, in part, goes back to the classic Covenant theology vs. dispensationalism debate...one that isn't about to be resolved anytime soon.)

(Another example: I would interpret Peter's words in his second letter as warnings against false prophets, not warnings against varying interpretations of Scripture. You and I read the same passage, but interpreted it very differently.)

You know that expression, "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." I guess I've always felt like it's a bit more complicated than that.

Is it really possible to interpret the Bible completely objectively without being influenced by our own interpretive communities?

To be clear, I am in no way trying to undermine the authority and importance of the Bible by saying that it records a wide variety of God-encounters from a wide variety of perspectives. While the theme of God's redemption is present throughout, the way people experience and understand that redemption is amazingly diverse. As Downing writes, "truth then is relative to each; all come to the light differently. Nevertheless, it is the same Truth they come to: Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light."

Re: Book Club Discussion: It's all relative!

Rachel Held Evans — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:42:13 -0000

Good discussion

Thanks, Mitch and Friend of a Friend for your comments! I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and look forward to more in the future.

Re: Why I've joined the "emerging conversation"

Rachel Held Evans — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 07:34:55 -0000

Some important clarifications

Good questions, Bethany.

To be clear, I've never encountered an emerging church leader who did not affirm the deity of Christ and salvation by faith. I too affirm these central Christian teachings found within the Nicene Creed. While more conservative Christians may disagree with some of the theological or political positions of people in the emerging church, I think it is unfair to characterize the movement as anti-Christian or heretical when its participants embrace these fundamental, creedal tenants of the faith.

I think what has happened here is that "fundamentalism," as an evangelical position, has begun to include a lot of things that some of us doubt are in fact fundamental to the Christian faith, like young earth creationism, conservative republican politics, exclusivism (the idea that salvation is available only to those who explicitly express faith in Jesus Christ), the scientific and historical inerrancy of Scripture, eternal damnation of sinners, etc. The thing is, many of these subjects have been up for debate for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years, with a lot of good Christian theologians disagreeing about them. (For example, folks have been discussing the destiny of the unevangelized since the early days of the church. What about those who never heard about Christ? Are they punished for eternity? And is anyone really punished eternally or does God actually eradicate sin altogether by destroying hell and its inhabitants? And is the point of being a Christian to get into heaven in the first place, or is there more to it?) These are the sorts of questions that the emerging church is addressing.

Part of what makes the "emerging conversation" confusing is that there is such a wide range of views found within it. Some are more "liberal" than others, but most can be characterized by the attitudes I describe in my post and by Scot McKnight's article.

For the more liberal, "emergent" view, (different from "emerging;" yes, it's pretty confusing), you might want to check out Tony Jones' book, "The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier" or (one of my favorite books) Brian McLaren's "A Generous Orthodoxy."

"The New Conspirators" by Tom Sine is perhaps more representative of the majority of people in the general emerging church movement. I haven't read it myself, but I believe he talks about the church being more missional, inclusive, and community-oriented.

You might also want to check out "How to be Evangelical Without Being Conservative." Scot McKnight recommends this book and I'd like to read it.

Personally, my thoughts as a follower of Christ have changed in a lot of ways, not because I started reading about the emerging church, but because I started having doubts and questions of my own long before I'd ever heard of the movement. I'd go into more detail, but that's what this blog is about, so read on!

As far as the alma mater is concerned, I've met some people from Bryan who hate the emerging church and some people who love it. Honestly, as with any Christian denomination or movement, I just think it appeals to certain personalities and dispositions more than others. I have no hard feelings toward those who don't like it. All I ask for is their kindness and respect.

Anyone else who is familiar with the emerging church should feel free to comment on this as well, especially if you think you can help clarify its distinctives

Re: Book Club Discussion: A God who both transcends and inhabits all pronouns

Rachel Held Evans — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:14:07 -0000

Trinity

Good thoughts about the Trinity, Kristen. Try as they may, no one has ever come up with a "perfect" metaphor to explain it.

Re: Take this quiz to find out what you believe!

Rachel Held Evans — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:10:06 -0000

Amen!

Amen to your comment about the pointless debate questions, Mandy! I checked the clock and the first 45 minutes were spent re-hashing these silly stories that get WAY too much coverage on cable news anyway...on both sides.

(I'll vote for HIllary if Obama doesn't get the nomination. What would you think of a joint ticket? Probably not going to happen, huh?)

Re: Take this quiz to find out what you believe!

Rachel Held Evans — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:35:41 -0000

a European perspective!

Rachel - Thanks for the comment! It's great to hear from a European, especially about the healthcare issue. Healthcare is one of the most important issues to me, as I'm seeing more and more of my peers (many with full-time jobs) struggling to pay for medical bills and insurance premiums. And then there's the millions without any insurance at all...many of them children.

Some folks say that if we have a healthcare system like the UK's people would have to wait for weeks and weeks to get an appointment as the system would be overloaded and doctors wouldn't have as much incentive to practice. Sounds like your experience wasn't so bad. When I write a longer post about this issue, I'd love to hear more of what you think!

Sorry you can't vote! That must be frustrating...We're glad to have you on this side of the pond, though!

Re: Book Club Discussion: Are we more compassionate than God?

Rachel Held Evans — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:33:17 -0000

P.S.

To be clear, I'm not saying here that I don't believe in any form of hell or judgment. I'm just suggesting that perhaps we underestimate God's compassion and forgiveness. I don't claim to know how God judges good and evil, but I suspect that no one will face an eternity separated from Him without choosing to do so themselves.

Re: Cable news is destroying America...I know because I watch it 24/7

Rachel Held Evans — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:28:55 -0000

Bloggers helping or hurting?

Great comments. Do you guys think that the myriad of news bloggers our there are helping by keeping the press in check or are they hurting by putting more of the sensationalism out there?

Re: Book Club Discussion: Is Jesus a Christian?

Rachel Held Evans — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:51:10 -0000

"The way, truth, and life"

Thanks for the great responses!

Matt, I appreciate the depth with which you have considered this subject. It is always encouraging for me to bump into other folks who struggle with the moral implications of a God who damns the majority of the human population to hell, most without even having a chance to be saved.

Regarding the John 14:6 references, I think it's important to take the "I am the way, the truth, and the life" verse in context. (I've had it quoted at me more times than I can count, so I've spent a lot of time thinking about what it means.) When Jesus speaks these words, He is engaged in an important conversation with His disciples, in which He continually makes the case for being "one with the Father."

In verse 8, Phillip reveals that he and the disciples are still struggling with this concept. I wonder if the emphasis Jesus is making here is not so much on His exclusivity in regard to other religions and among those who never heard His name, but on the importance of recognizing the relationship between Jesus and the Father. If someone who rejects Jesus rejects the Father, shouldn't it be assumed that someone who rejects the Father rejects Jesus? It then follows that accepting Jesus is accepting the Father, and accepting the Father is accepting Jesus. Perhaps those who do not have the luxury of being born at the right place and the right time to hear the gospel can accept Jesus by embracing whatever revelation God has given them.

I find it interesting that, just a few verses away, in John 15:22, Jesus is warning his disciples about the people who will persecute them and says, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well."

Does this not imply that those who never had the opportunity to truly encounter and reject Jesus will not be held accountable for never having the chance?

Re: Some thoughts on those who "haven't heard"

Rachel Held Evans — Sat, 03 May 2008 06:04:10 -0000

Biblical support for inclusivism

Mitch,

Considering the fact that there is a lot of biblical support for inclusivism, (much of which I presented in the post), why do you think believers "must" hold to the exclusivist position? I understand why a lot of fundamentalists hold to exclusivism, but I think it's unfair to characterize it as the only biblical view.

Re: When a theology just doesn't feel right...

Rachel Held Evans — Sun, 11 May 2008 18:09:56 -0000

Whoa!

I haven't checked the blog in a week because I was on vacation (at the beach!)... so you can imagine how pleasantly surprised I was to find such a great discussion following this post. To those who asked me specific questions or sent e-mails...I'll get back with you this week sometime when I've had time to read through your thoughts.

Guess y'all don't really need me to keep the blog interesting, after all!

Thanks for the participation...Now, I've got to go nurse my sunburn with some aloe!

Re: When a theology just doesn't feel right...

Rachel Held Evans — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:57:22 -0000

Responses

I wanted to be sure to respond to any questions that readers asked me directly. Also I'll be posting a series about inerrancy this week that should clarify my views on that.

1. Inerrancy/ Exclusivism

Much has been said about the role that an inerrant Scripture plays in the exclusivism/inclusivism debate. To be clear, I think that a person can consider himself or herself an inerrantist and still reject exclusivism. As I mentioned before, my own thoughts about inerrancy will be explored in upcoming posts.

2. Intuition vs. the Bible

I think we may have inadvertently created a false dichotomy here, where we feel we must choose between listening to our conscience and heeding the words of the Bible. In times like these, I like to call to mind what has been called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. John Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions:

1. Scripture
2. Tradition (Church history)
3. Reason (rational thinking and sensible interpretation)
4. Experience (intuition, personal spiritual journey, etc.)

It is naïve to say that one can exist independently of the others. For example, we must have faith in our Christian tradition in order to give authority to the Bible because members of the early church picked which writings would be included in the Bible. We have to use reason to interpret the Bible and to pick and choose which traditions are most fitting in our culture. All of this is filtered through the lens of our experience. To say that one of these epistemological pillars ought to be elevated over the others…or that one doesn't need to be there…throws everything off balance. So when my reason, experience, and interpretation of Scripture are causing me to question a certain theological tradition, I think it's appropriate to challenge it.

3. Jason's Questions

Jason asked: 1) What then is the standard or process to which people are saved? If not exclusively through Christ Jesus. 2) What urgency is there (if at all) to evangelize if those who have not heard are going to heaven? 3) Who will go to hell? Those that only hear and reject Christ?

My response: 1) I think that people are saved by faith. I think that God is, of course, the ultimate judge of who has faith in Him, and that the best indication of faith from our perspective is good works. 2) We evangelize because Jesus told us to evangelize and because the gospel is good news and it makes an extraordinary difference not only in the afterlife but in this present life. (If you think about it, with exclusivism, the "good news" is actually bad news. It means most people are damned to hell.) 3) I don't know who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Jesus seems to indicate that a lot is based on the treatment of "the least of these."

Jason also asked, in light of the "potter vs. clay" passage, if there is a time when we have to just let go, accept exclusivism and other theologies as God's Word. I think it's important to distinguish between arguing with God (clay objecting to the potter) and arguing with Calvin or Augustine or the positions of some other theologian (clay objecting to other clay). My argument here isn't with God Himself but with interpretations of Him that I think are false (on moral AND biblical grounds). Skepticism is often an appropriate response to widely held theological positions. I'm certainly glad that Luther continued questioning the Catholic Church even after they called his questions heretical.

4. Julie's Questions

Julie had a lot of questions for me, many of which have been used in the past to "size me up" in terms of my true faith and orthodoxy. I'll try to answer the best that I can. I'd like to make it clear that I consider myself a follower of Christ and that I affirm the Nicene Creed.

Q: Do you believe there is a hell-as in a pit of fire, and walling and gnashing of teeth that lasts forever?
A: I'm not sure. Jesus indicates that hell is a real place, but there's Scripture that supports what has been called an "annihilation" theory, that God ultimately destroys all evil, that He does not allow it to continue eternally in the form of torment.

Q: If so who do you believe will be in it?
A: I don't know. I just trust that God will destroy evil and injustice.

Q: Do you believe that if someone denies Christ and follows another god with great faith and devotion will be saved?
A: I don't know.

Q: Do you believe that salvation comes by works or grace?
A: I believe that salvation is a gift received by faith, and that faith without works is dead.

Q: Do you believe that salvation is a get it by grace keep it by works?
A: I don't really like that question.

Q: Do you believe that a person serving another god (who hasn't had a chance at knowing Jesus) but is "working" for their salvation based on the other religion's theology will be saved?
A: I don't know.

Q: Do you make decisions based on the "traditional view" or by "Gary Friesen's position."
A: I like Gary Friesen's position on decision making, but am not sure how this is relevant.

Q: Do you call yourself a Christian?
A: Yes. I guess I prefer being called a follower of Christ because, for a lot of people, the term Christian includes connotations that are not Christ-like.

Q: Do you think only Calvinist are exclusivists?
A: No; a lot of evangelicals are exclusivists.

Q: What do you believe about missions? Or translating the Bible into other languages?
A: I love it. I admire and support anyone who has committed his or her life to sharing the gospel with others overseas. Of course, I think it should be done in a manner that is Christ-like, without any forced cultural assimilation.

Q: Why were we told to bring the Gospel to others? Why would it be good news if they didn't need God to save them?
A: think I answered that above.

Q: Is ignorance bliss?
A: I don't like trick questions.

Q: Do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? Do you believe the Bible is Inspired? Do you put scripture above (as in ultimate authority) other wittings? Do you believe the Bible is inspired by God? Do you hold any other writings to be inspired?
A: I'll tackle these questions in future posts…so keep reading!

5. Response to Josh Lowry

You asked, and I cannot more emphatically disagree that those who reject the modern notion of biblical inerrancy are pluralists borrowing Biblical content for selfish use, or that they are idiots comparable to the prophets of Baal. It's important to me that we keep the dialog on this blog civil, and that we do not call each other names or ridicule one another's positions.

I certainly hope that those of you who have posted feel like this is a safe place to express your views. I really like the variety of opinions we are getting here. Thanks so much for your thoughts and feel free to keep responding!

Re: Have We Made the Bible Into an Idol?

Rachel Held Evans — Fri, 16 May 2008 11:50:14 -0000

"Bible-Believing" vs. "Christ-Following"

Matt, I thought you might appreciate this quote from Crystal Downing:

"One descriptor I'd like us to reconsider is the identifying term employed by many evangelicals: 'Bible-believing.' Perhaps it would be more helpful--and accurate--to characterize ourselves as 'Christ-following.'"

Re: Book Club Discussion: Doubt as a Necessary Element of Faith

Rachel Held Evans — Fri, 23 May 2008 19:27:14 -0000

@Chris

I just wanted to say that I love the fact that you used the word "obfuscate" in your comment. You officially win the prize for best vocabulary of the day.

Re: Pastors + Politics = Problems

Rachel Held Evans — Wed, 28 May 2008 06:24:43 -0000

Laws

Tim, Thanks for the clarification about the tax exemption laws. That makes sense.

(I love it when someone who knows more than me posts a good comment like that...I get to learn something new on my own blog!)

What bugs me about James Dobson is his insistence that certain policies are more Christian than others, when they seem pretty neutral to me. (Like campaign finance reform.) I don't mind him having an opinion, but I'm uncomfortable with him using his position as a Christian leader to imply that God is on his side. Unfortunately, there are thousands of Americans who rely on Dobson to tell them how to vote; I guess they'll be staying home this year too. (Which, as an Obama supporter I'm not so sorry about!)

I guess I don't think it ought to be illegal for pastors to preach about politics; I just prefer that they not.

I have this weird aversion to anyone who claims God is on his side on a political issue. I guess I feel like that puts an end to intelligent discussion and debate really fast, because who can argue with God?

I want my church to be a sanctuary where I don't have to hear lectures about what God thinks about gun control or balancing the budget or climate change. I feel like I can think through this myself, without the help of pastors or priests.

Re: Gays, Buddhists, and Scientists: Will Evangelicals Change Their Minds?

Rachel Held Evans — Wed, 28 May 2008 06:34:08 -0000

@Tanner

I guess I don't feel like homosexual relations between two consenting adults falls in the same category as mass murder.

Also, I'm not sure the Bible is quite as crystal clear on this issue as people make it out to be. I will probably post on this subject later, but I often wonder if the Bible references to homosexuality are more culturally influenced than we think.

Paul said that women who do not cover their heads "disgrace their heads." When a woman tells me, "I don't have the luxury of picking and choosing which parts of the Bible I take literally," I have a hard time taking her seriously unless she is wearing a head covering and no jewelry.

I often wonder if disdain for homosexuality fits into the same category as slavery and the oppression of women. All seem to be condoned in the Bible...but I don't think that means God approves.

Just some thoughts.

Re: Book Club Discussion: Love as Orthodoxy

Rachel Held Evans — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:18:03 -0000

NT Wright

I'm leaning toward "Surprised by Hope." Great suggestions!

Re: (The First Ever) Finish-The-Sentence Friday

Rachel Held Evans — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:42:49 -0000

Another one:

Apple's not dead. Buy some stock!