Richard had it right: we’re trying to find an elusive moral coherence in the scriptural record. Anyone who claims they have nailed it down in all of its particulars is delusional at best.

Maybe we’re never going to find it. But the scriptural record is full of hints and intimations that one of God’s essential characteristics is justice, which would seem to require…moral coherence. So the search for coherence is, in a way, a proxy for the search for God. And if we take His agents at their word, that those who search for Him will find Him, moral coherence is a noble and plausible pursuit.

Although I wasn’t overwhelmed by the quality of the book, Scot McKnight’s _The Blue Parakeet_ helps us confront the vexing demons within us, the cognitive dissonance that deafens us when we juxtapose “destroy all of them, women, children, weak…” and “you did not advocate for the widow and the orphan.” Surely, Brett, you can see the ethical quandary such a juxtaposition creates, right?

Your archRepublican servant,

qb

If Christians were to suddenly decide that certain characters in the Bible were ascribing to God what he did not do, that opens up an interesting can of worms. Any passage would be subject to liberal interpretation. One could take the passage in the Old Testament, where God assures us that he is not a man, and discount the entirety of the Jesus story. Perhaps Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were ascribing to God what he did not do–coming to Earth as a man–and fabricating some supernatural occurences along the way. Perhaps God didn’t impregnate Mary as well, if you can simply say that characters ascribed to God what he did not do.

Or, there’s the passage in the Bible warning against canabalism. The sacrament is symbolic canabalism, and Jesus said that even symbolic sin is sin (lust in the heart, etc.). Perhaps eating flesh and drinking blood symbolically is against God’s will. Or, better yet, perhaps some of the good things in the Bible were ascribed to God when he had nothing to do with them–that last bit is sarcastic, but you can see where this can lead.

The reason the Bible seems harsh to us is that we are living in enlightened times (relatively speaking) when people of good conscience realize that animal sacrifices, destroying others of a different faith, eternal hellfire, and the like do not seem like holy deeds inspired by God, but as cruel and terroristic. Moderate, liberal, intellectual, reasonable, Universalist (or whatever you want to call them) Christians proudly proclaim the good things in the Bible (love one another, feed the poor), but they attempt to justify the aforementioned attrocities by saying that we are no longer living under the law, that God was “speaking” to ancient people in ways that they would understand, hellfire is merely symbolic, hell is merely seperation from God, our minds are too finite to understand, and now–this is the first time I’ve heard of this theory–characters in the Bible were ascribing to God things he did not do.

I wonder what the next justification theory will be?

I’m just hesitant – I’m sure we all are! – to edge toward a Jeffersonian approach to scripture: scrapbooking what we like and clipping out what we don’t.

But, what about those passages where God seems to be acting un-God-like? Here are possibilities:

1. Maybe our sense of what is un-God-like is wrong. (Though I’m working primarily from what I’ve learned about God in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.)

2. Perhaps people at times attributed to God actions that were not from God. That happens all the time! We don’t need much proof of such. The question is this: does our understanding of inspiration permit that?

Stay with me in this series. Partly, I’m provoking people. My greatest goal would be to get others to read the OT carefully.

http://www.matthewmorine.com

I’ve had the same problems that Brett has (and almost lost my faith over it) but have come to the conclusion that maybe some things that the OT writers ascribe to God, might not have been his intentions. Its part of the story of his people, but read in context of the OT as a whole, we see the results of the life that Israel often times chose for itself, and they aren’t good. Do you not think its possible that the OT writers believed things to be God’s will that weren’t? I can think of some examples in more modern history where intelligent and respected members of our faith community have declared things to be God’s will that future Christians might find questionable. Maybe there’s an aspect of progressive revelation involved here.

Brett – “making God sovereign” would be my choice of wording.

“Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.” ~ Romans 11:22

As C.S. Lewis says of his messianic character Aslan, the lion: He’s not safe. But he’s good. He’s the king.

Making God pro-choice, eh?

Scary but true, kinda like that jumping off the empire state building thing. Best be in the “Spirit-led community”