Ok, so after posting my last entry, I realized that in an attempt to break-up this discussion into managable parts, I didn’t accomplish that so well.  I have modified the previous post and put in a dividing line where the part 1 discussion should have stopped.

In part 1 of this topic, I really wasn’t trying to discuss writing styles, such as hyperbole, allegory/metaphor,etc.  However, I realize now that those styles were brought into question by including those 2 verses of Scripture and my comments about them.  My main goal was to discuss this concept of ‘Infallible & Inerrant’.  I’m wondering when the Church leaders began referring to the Bible as Infallible & Inerrant?  I was also wondering, is it fair or accurate to say that the accepted definition of ’Infallible & Inerrant’ is ’being without error’?

The comments I made about the question of taking the Bible literally were really intended to be directed towards those sections of Scripture that are teaching oriented, versus allegory, etc.  To answer Jenn’s question, her assumption is correct, I don’t think we should hold to a “literal” interpretation of a book like Revelation.  The main reason I used the word ‘literal’ was to give an idea or suggestion of a possible answer to the implications of defining ‘Infallible & Inerrant’ as ‘being without error’.  If it is without error, do we have to take it all literally, and if not (which I think not), then how do we explain what that phrase means in a practical sense.

Well, I hope this clears up part 1 of this discussion and clarifies the question I was trying to pose.  I look forward to discussing some of the other points that were brought up in my post as well as the comments in future posts.

As I mentioned in my possible blog topics list, one of the topics I have been thinking a great deal about over the last few years is our view of the Bible.  Sure, I could start with a difficult, culturally-relavant, emotional subject like ‘Substance abuse in Golf’, but I thought I’d begin with an easy one.  Something that people casually discuss over Starbucks, where I love to drink hot chocolate with Raspberry.  :)  So, let’s get started, shall we?

I had a conversation at our church retreat just over a year ago with a few good friends, one of them being Brian.  In that discussion, I believe we started out discussing a woman’s role in church and ended up asking questions about the Bible.  One question I asked a female friend of ours (who is in seminary I think, or studying theology), was:

When did the Church Leaders begin referring to the Bible as Infallible & Inerrant?

To my recollection, no one had an answer…including me.  Now, I would like to make a few disclaimers before I go on.  First, I haven’t researched an answer to that question myself, which maybe I’ll do soon.  Second, even though I may have some different thoughts or questions about our view of Scripture, I don’t believe that discredits the Bible or its relavance to our lives.  I’m just questioning our view of it and the words we use to describe it, especially in light of some of the recourses of those words.

If we say that the Bible is Infallible & Inerrant, does that mean it is to be taken literally?  I was always under the impression that it was, but I’m sure that is a debated topic as well.  Dictionary.com defines Infallible as ’Incapable of erring’.  It defines Inerrant as ‘Containing no errors’ (the #2 definition).  So, even if we just say that ‘It is without Error’, what does that imply?

—– The below section should have been saved for part 2 of this discussion —–

Here are 2 passages that I wonder about when people say the Bible is without error:

‘I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes’ - 1 Timothy 2:9 (NIV)

‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.’ - 1 Timothy 2:12 (NIV)

I know that this is picking verses up out of context, but I wonder…why does the church, as a whole, seem to follow one more than the other?  How did we decide which one was just a ’cultural issue’ and which one was a ’spiritual issue’?

Well, I have many more thoughts, questions and opinions on this subject, but I’ll have to continue them in another post and on another day.

While surfing the other day, I came across this post by Mike Ayers over at Thinklings that really made me think about some things. He raises some great points.

As one who teaches pastors and those considering ministry, I often have students ask, “What is the best model of doing church?” They go on to inquire about the emerging church model, the emergent church, and/or the cell church. “What is G12?” they say, or “Is the seeker model still viable?”Such statements flow from the presumption that the question of how to do church is the most important consideration of all.

This strikes me as indicative of the current trend in churches to assume a business mentality. After all, we as the church are charged with marketing the ultimate product, right? At least that’s the way it sometimes comes across. Unfortunately this line of thinking leads to an unhealthy interest in church numbers, a point that Mike is quick to point out.

In ministry, growth almost unequivocally means more in numbers. In fact, we really don’t have to clarify what we mean when we say the word growth. It’s now assumed to mean numeric increase. Thus, in a wholesale way we’ve come to measure success very much like the world. The conclusion is that because a church has grown numerically it is effective at reaching lost people- which of course may or may not be true. Also, just because a church has many people and programs does not mean that it is making disciples. Activity does not equal productivity and growing good church attendees does not necessarily equate to developing authentic disciples of Jesus. In fact, some might argue that in the Western world these are polar opposites. [emphasis mine]

Unfortunately, I see a lot of places where this attitude is affecting the church. Somewhere along the way we have lost touch with the history of the church and have decided that it’s better to re-invent ourselves - complete with bigger, better, more “inviting” church campuses, video displays, and worship experiences (complete with professionally light stages and fog machines), and even more exciting baptisms! In an attempt to “better reach the world,” a large part of the church has sold out it’s “set-apart” status.

So if the primary goal is gaining more people who attend church (and let’s face it- that is the goal for most pastors) then how to get them there would logically be front and center. But that focus misses the most important consideration of all and I believe pastors dismiss this more critical matter way too quickly. Instead of how, the first consideration should be why… Why are we doing this thing called church?

I love that he says the first consideration should be why. If there is no foundation, it is exceedingly difficult (but probably not impossible!) to back track and lay one anew. [I find myself in exactly this position with my local church body.] I believe when a local body begins with answering the questions “Who do we serve?” and “Why?” they have laid for themselves a solid foundation. They will become known by how they answer these questions. As their ministry grows and/or changes, the answers to these questions should not. As opportunities come along, the leaders of the church will have these answers to fall back on. How they first answered these questions will hold them firmly under the authority of the One upon which they have laid their foundation, instead of being blown by the ever-shifting breezes which sway the world to and fro.

Just a funny article I found about some Moses bobbleheads and thought I’d share.  I was just wondering how they made the dolls look.  Did they model it after Charlton Heston?  I mean, do we have any pictures of Moses to model?  Just curious…. 

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=2167611

BTW, I do like Bobblehead Dolls myself, so if you run across any of these Biblical Bobbleheads, let me know. 

I’ve been thinking about topics that I’d like to blog about, so I thought I would make a list. That way, at least I would have somewhere to start when I get a case of blogorrhea. Plus, I’m sure I’ll make Reon especially happy since she loves lists.

Finance
1. Mvelopes
2. Budgeting
3. The cost of Houses

Sports
1. Something about Golf…
2. Something else about Golf…
3. Substance abuse in Golf??? lol…
4. Golf as an Analogy for Life

Theology
1. Our view of the Bible
2. The purpose of prayer
3. God’s will
4. My view of Church
5. The role of Women, Elders, Sound Technicians, etc…. in the Church.
6. Giving
7. Church Buildings
8. Ministries and their use of money
9. Why I have all the answers…

Technology
1. Google Rocks
2. Apple
3. SalesForce

Well, there is my first list. I’m sure I’ll add to it later. What do you think? Any requests from the audience as to which one I should address first? Any suggestions for other topics? I’m open and flexible…just couldn’t decide which one to do first, so I thought I would at least try to get organized. Once again, more brownie points from my wife….

Saturday (July1), jlove and I went with some friends to the Smoky Mtns. and hiked the 11-mile loop around Cades Cove. Being complete novices at this experience, we felt the need to share b/c we were quite proud that we actually made it out with our legs still attached to our bodies. We learned that the best time to go is around 5pm. It took us four hours, so we finished just at dusk when the air was nice and cool. This was the best time to see animals, as well. We probably saw 15-20 deer, and at least half of them were young bucks. No bears, though. We had a great time, and can’t wait to do it again! Anyone want to join us?!

I heard on the evening news tonight about a “nurse-in” that happened at a Victoria’s Secret in Seattle, WA this weekend. The best quote comes from a mom comparing what was going on just outside the store to the larger than life ads hanging in the window of the store:

“There are giant posters up there of half naked women up there, and I think that one right there is showing more b**b than anyone here,” said Isadora Eads, mother and protester.

I’m not sure if I would have had the guts to go as far as these mommies, but you’ve got to admit that Mrs. Eads has a point. Chalk one up for the mommies…

is from a gentleman by the name of David F. Wells, a rather prominent leader at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. I found this on the Thinklings “Quote of the Moment” -

Why do people choose the substitute over God himself? Probably the most important reason is that it obviates accountability to God. We can meet idols on our own terms because they are our own creations. They are safe, predictable, and controllable; they are, in Jeremiah’s colorful language, the ’scarecrows in a cornfield’ (10:5). They are portable and completely under the user’s control. They offer nothing like the threat of a God who thunders from Sinai and whose providence in this world so often appears to us to be incomprehensible and dangerous . . . [People] need face only themselves. That is the appeal of idolatry.

Gives one pause, doesn’t it??? Yikes!