Just Another Flawed Book

I read the transcript of an interview a while back that's had me thinking. Then a conversation at work last week really cemented the detriment of the particular mind-set the interview portrayed.
The interview was between Shane Claiborne (interviewer) and Tony Campolo (interviewee). I'm only going to touch on very little of the actual interview which was from 2005 (I believe), but I'll link to it in it's entirety (as I read it) at the end.
The interview is titled "ON EVANGELICALS AND INTERFAITH COOPERATION". The first exchange has Shane asking Tony (an ordained minister in the American Baptist Church and professor emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University in St. Davids, Pennsylvania) to define "evangelical".
Campolo: An evangelical is someone who believes the doctrines of the Apostle's Creed. That outlines exactly what we believe in detail. Secondly, an evangelical has a very high view of scripture though not necessarily inerrancy. And the third thing—we believe that salvation comes by being personally involved with a living resurrected Jesus. So I've defined evangelical in those three terms. There is a doctrinal statement, so that there is some content to what we believe. There is a source of truth, Scripture. And there is a personal relationship with Jesus.
Well, I believe the doctrine of the Apostle's Creed, although I view it is a very compact, condensed definition of what I believe (without detail). It may explain the who/what, but doesn't even come close to explaining the why of Jesus Christ. I also believe deeply in being personally involved with the living resurrected Jesus. What bothers me is his second point. That "evangelicals" hold a very high view of scripture though not necessarily inerrancy. As soon as someone claims inerrancy of the scripture, all arguments are over. Nothing you say, no matter how firmed in scriptural foundation the claim may be, can always be written off as scriptural error. If our salvation comes through an emotional experience and a faulty book, I'll have to pass. I mean, as far as we know, the whole story of the death, burial and resurrection may be a fabrication or embelishment. Who is the special person who gets to pick and choose what is factual and what is not? At times, I like to think that might be the job for me, but when you step back and look at the big picture, how many lives are in the balance when we decide what stays and what goes in scripture.
Two of the guys I work with, one Catholic and one Lutheran, have been told all of their lives that the scriptures are nice stories set in place as examples, but aren't necessarily factual. This is obvious by the lifestyles of these people. The Catholic guy knows the scriptures somewhat (in the typical Catholic way), but the Lutheran not at all. The problem is, whatever I might say to them regarding the scriptures is usually scoffed at. One of them asked a biblical question last week. I usually begin my answer with "if you believe the scriptures as literal...". For some reason, this time I said it it caused the Lutheran guy to say with a smirk "Of course. Is there any other way?" I understand that I only plant the seeds and God brings the harvest. All I can do is keep throwing it and hope that something sticks. Unfortunately, they are pre-programmed to take anything they might hear that might even vaguely sound scriptural skeptically. When I was young and learning the Bible, if I'd been told that I was a sinner and I was going to die and spend an eternity in hell; but Jesus, God in flesh, came to this earth to pay for my sins so that I could live forever - that the Bible said it and it was true; BUT where the Bible says that women shouldn't teach the men or that divorce is unacceptable...these are errors in the scripture. I would have walked away as the Lutheran guy has. I think we tread thin ice when we claim that the scriptures are full of errors and that we as humans can decide which is which.
Who knows, maybe I'm too shallow. Maybe too deep? Too uneducated? All of the above? I know, I've ranted on this before. There's a lot more to the interview than what I've mentioned. A lot more that I'd like to address here if I can make the time. I also have books by these two gentlemen in queue to be read (when I get the time). Maybe that will shed more light on what is true and what is not in the Bible. I'll let you know.

Interview link: here

Disarming Iran With Biscuits and a Hockey Stick

Disclaimer: Although I didn't want to blog politics this election year, circumstances have forced me to reconsider. Besides, this has a spiritual twist.

Setting the stage:

There is a debate brewing on whether or not Sarah Palin, a professing Christian, should be running for Vice President of the United Sates. The debate I’m referring to does not even bring into account whether or not she is qualified as a political candidate; but if she is permitted to, scripturally, as a wife and mother. Maybe “permitted” is a poor choice of words, as Paul said that “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not” (1Cor. 10:23). Many on the ultra-conservative side are claiming Titus 2:5 (“keepers at home”) as to why she should not be running; saying she has small children at home, one being special needs (downs syndrome I believe), that she needs to tend to.

One of the conservatives who have spoken out about her campaign is Doug Phillips, President of "Vision Forum", a Texas based ministry. He claims that this is a huge black eye for Christians.

"The Palin selection is the single most dangerous event in the conscience of the Christian community in the last 10 years at least," said Doug Phillips, president of Vision Forum, a Texas-based ministry. "The unabashed, unquestioning support of Sarah Palin and all she represents marks a fundamental departure from our historic position of family priorities -- of moms being at home with young children, of moms being helpers to their husbands, the priority of being keepers of the home."

Neither supporter nor opposer can deny the fact that she has certainly boosted the McCain campaign. And other Christians don't seem to mind. In fact, they claim that Deborah, Esther and Sarah (Abraham's wife) all had special callings from God.

Barbara Barrick, (a) women's ministry coordinator, said she looks to Deborah, a prophetess and judge, as a biblical example of a female leader. Ennis cited Abraham's wife, Sarah, and Queen Esther as other women called by God for special missions.

Looking at both sides of the issue:

Although, I think many conservative Christians were going to drag their feet to the voting booths this year, John McCain was more than likely going to get the majority of their votes. Why? Just because. Most Christians have a weird image of Jesus Christ being a Republican. But I do think that those that are less conservative were split; with many abandoning the pachyderm party and jumping on the pack animal party (see how I did that, with the pach and pack?).

For Doug Phillips to say that selecting Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate is the "single most dangerous event in the conscience of the Christian community in the last 10 years" is awfully bold. We as Christians have allowed a lot into the Church in the last ten years that, in my opinion, has done far worse damage to the home and to the image of Christ than Sarah Palin running for VP. Yes, he is completely accurate that in Titus, Paul does exhort older women to teach the younger women to be "keepers at home" (KJV) or "workers at home" (ASV) or even "managers of their households" (ISV). Why was this not brought up while she was a governor? Perhaps because she's the governor of...Alaska. Most had never heard of her before. But, Doug, why the offense with her being a Christian and working as VP of the USA. Most churches in America are made up of dual income families. And a role-reversal of the once-typical "male = breader winner" to "female = bring home the bacon" is becoming common-place...in the church. But it doesn't make it right. Because it's widely accepted is not a stamp of approval from God. In fact, many times it's the opposite. If we can take the Bible literally to mean that women should be "keepers" at home, or as the Greek says "a guard" or "stayer at home", than this is what the Holy Spirit meant when He inspired Paul to write it. This also means it applies to the female bank tellers, store clerks, factory workers, engineers, teachers, etc...also.

Should we withhold our vote from the big R because she is now on the ticket? Ooohh, who's to say?

As for Barbara Barrick, a few details many of the more liberal persuasion like to overlook. Sarah (or a female in general) was pretty much the only option to be used to usher in God's people; being Abraham's wife and all. And don't play like Abraham had nothing to do with it. We know how Isaac was conceived! And don't forget how Abraham got into the situation to conceive Ishmael. HIS NAGGING WIFE! Yes God used Sarah, and she was blessed for it. But Abraham wasn't going to do it on his own. And Deborah was not God's first choice if you remember correctly. Only when the man would not heed God's call was she able to step up. And don't try to tell me that their are no conservative Christian men in the United States political arena to run with John McCain! This has clearly been an attention-getting scheme from the beginning. The Repubs saw how well received a female was across the aisle (Hillary) and thought this would be a great way to "glean" some of those votes. Plus, she is what the conservatives want in a president. She is what John McCain is not. She's not wishy-washy on abortion. She appears to be relatively fiscally responsible. She's personable. She's young. None of which is John McCain.

So, personally, I believe that Doug is right in saying that Sarah Palin needs to be home taxiing her children to hockey practice and baking biscuits. But to say this, it applies to every other mother who claims Christ as LORD. No, it's not apples-to-apples comparison. I'm sure the duties of VP will keep her from her family more than being a teacher or bank teller would. But it's a direct conflict to the call of "keeper at home" none-the-less. And I don't think the "Deborah" argument gets a pass either. Sure God uses women. Look at Susanna Wesley, home schooling stay-at-home mother of John and Charles Wesley.

I do think that Doug Phillips did sum it up well when he said "It's more important for us to truthfully represent the priorities of Scripture than it is for us to win an election." Maybe he sees it as a ploy of the GOP as well. Or maybe he's plotting to deny her the White House in hopes of driving her back to the kitchen where she can make her famous biscuits and moose-gravy. Not likely.

Online Source: here