Oversimplification of the Bible

I have had several conversations this past week that have revolved (that's a Greek Perfect... an action completed in the past that still impacts the present) around the same topic: the oversimplification of God and/or the Bible. It is common for a child who is learning a new, complex concept to want to get it in a simple terms and ideas initially. It is even common for adults, who learned a concept at an early age, but have not pursued further knowledge in that area to maintain a simplistic discussion. For example, my son took Anatomy and Physiology. He speaks of various specific muscles and muscle groups when I refer to my calf or shoulder muscles hurting.

What is unusual is that someone who would claim to be a follower of Jesus would be content maintaining a simplified view of God or of the Bible. Although not wrong, such a perspective is deficient. The biggest problem is it leads to the attitude that since I understand God or the Bible in a simplistic way, that I understand God or the Bible completely. Although I might be able to discuss the makeup of an atom as possessing a nucleus and protons and/or electrons, that doesn't mean that I understand subatomic physics.

If God is the God who created this world we live in, and has been seeking humans for fellowship ever since, then is it possible that this God is more complex than our human mind can fathom?

Just a random thought this morning.

The Shack

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of taking my son back to Manhattan. With two other drivers available, I spent my time in the back seat reading The Shack by Wm. Paul Young. Those who know me well will know that I do not read "pop" religious literature on a frequent basis. However, since my wife is reading the book with some ladies at church and I had just returned from vacation, I decided to give my brain some further rest.

As a fictional novel I found The Shack to be an emotional rollercoaster. Young deals with some of the most emotionally gripping issues of our culture, the senseless evil of child kidnapping and murder. The strength of the plot provides this book a reason for continued reading alone.

As religious literature, Young broaches post-modernity in a public forum. His theological dialogues are aimed at challenging the rigidness of modernity and the pride of humanity in thinking it has arrived at all the correct answers. I can see where The Shack would prove challenging for the many pewsitters who don't take time to (re)evaluate their religious beliefs. For the theologically adept, Young provides little that is new. His purpose is to shake up the stodgy, not write a systematic theology.

The amazing elements are the numerous intertextual allusions to biblical teaching. Since the time of Luther there have been officially recognized differences of opinion on what biblical passages imply for our understanding of God. Young frequently makes references to biblical passages without citing them chapter and verse. This style of writing requires the reader to catch those audience conventions to fully recognize what is taking place. The biblically illiterate reader will be lost during those times and may accuse the author of "making things up."

The Shack brings the Bible to a readership where there is increasing biblical illiteracy. Perhaps the plot will cause some readers to increase their own understanding of the intertextual corpus and find a deeper understanding to the dialogue with Elousia, Jesse, and Sarayu.

Keeping the End in Sight

The past two weeks have seen a rare occasion, two sons graduating from two institutions on two different weekends. With our first college and final high school graduations under our belts we stop and pause to reflect. Is graduation the end or is it actually a commencement and a new beginning? Something has been achieved and yet there is so much more to achieve. For those familiar with this blogger, such paradoxical thoughts are frequent.

But now to the larger point. On May 30, I will be presenting a biblical moment of praise and worship in support of my pastor's vacation. The passage of choice is Philippians 2. 1-11. My approach is to start with the end and to work backwards. It is extremely easy in biblical study to start at the beginning and read to the end, having forgotten what the beginning actually was about! By forgetting the goal, the actions become de-contextualized and take on divergent possible meanings.

The final phrase of 2.11 is "eis doxan theou patros", to the glory of God the Father. Everything presented in the Kenosis Hymn of 2.6-11 is for this single purpose. Everything Paul asks of the church at Philippi in 2.1-5 is for this single purpose.

If God is eternal with no beginning and no end, then this purpose never ceases to direct the thoughts and actions of the Godhead or the church. When that purpose is out of focus then those proclaiming to be "of the Father" aren't.

Random Theological Thought Patterns

During my recent mental excursions I was pondering Genesis 2:15-3:22, specifically the first and last verses, and how to relate this theological account to a contemporary (careful not to confuse that adjective with the less specific 'modern') audience. My circuitous route took me from Genesis to the Gospel of John and its strongly characterized relationship in chapter 1 with Genesis 1. The punishment for Adam and Eve's failure to adhere to the gardener's instruction was to be removed from the presence of a single tree.

The tree under consideration is called the "tree of life" whereby the fruit when consumed gives life. It then became clear to me that Jesus, as presented in the Gospel of John, provides life, appearing a mere 36 times in 32 different verses. Of greater consideration is that it appears 32 times in the first 12 chapters.

The result of Genesis 2 is denial of access to the tree of life, the result of Jesus' coming is access to life, not in the form of a tree, but in the form of Jesus. The reason for the removal of Adam and Eve from the garden was to prevent them from "eating" the fruit that gives life and living forever, the invitation of John 6:41 is to eat and live forever.

I find it irrational that a contemporary reader of John's Gospel can seek to find meaning, true meaning, fulfilling meaning, in the Gospel without also becoming aware of the Old Testament messages. The two walk hand in hand.