Angela Rayner wrote
>
>My faith does stand on a spiritual relationship, which is why I don't like
>it when intellectually, people start pointing out holes, but spiritually and
>mentally I have a relationship with God.
>
>Thank you for the above points which I snipped out, they helped me deal
>with this topic more satisfactorily.
>

I understand the concerns expressed, but I do believe it is essential to deal with biblical scholarship in the pulpit. Of course it must be done very gently, and caringly, sensitively and ALWAYS positively. But it must be done or we threaten our integrity as Christians and preachers or teachers.

I accept that there are some contexts when it might be appropriate to leave out one's summary of biblical criticism, but I think they are fewer than we might think, and I want to say why.

There must be a hardly a Christian service goes by, anywhere in the world, of any tradition, where someone doesn't at some time refer to the Bible as the Word of God. It may be in a sermon, or in a formal liturgical statement; whatever, it will be there. Always the Scriptures will be read, and usually preached on, in some form. Words of Scripture are incorporated into every liturgy and, maybe informally, into many prayers. To highlight the Bible most churches have lecterns or reading desks, often with a large Bible permanently and prominently in place. In some traditions services begin by a stately carrying-in of a Bible.

Our personal Bibles - and we encourage every Christian to have at least one - are sometimes bound in rich leather, protected by zippers; there may be blocked gold titles and gilt edges to the expensive India paper. Many homes make their huge family Bible the repository of family records. In more Catholic traditions, the Gospels are printed in specially bound editions that are exalted in worship, sometimes kissed by the priest, smothered in incense, and the reading preceded and followed by a procession and sung "Alleluias." It is still a world best-seller, and every publisher these days wants to have his own copyrighted translation as a staple support to his profits. People speak of inerrancy. We even sing hymns about the Bible. At the risk of being accused of irreverence and blasphemy, we sometimes get pretty close to treating the Bible as a fourth person of the Godhead; at least as close as some Christians get to treating the Virgin Mary in the same way.

Is it any wonder then that to even hint that some cherished tale might not be 100percent historically accurate is enough to get some folks shouting for a lynching? And is it any wonder that there is a desperate need for proper teaching and preaching, which honours the Bible but does not worship it? For the result of all this is that the Bible is actually dishonoured by all this adulation, so that people are not able to hear what is actually being said. Instead they fall prey to fuzzy amalgams of some biblical truths assembled and projected by preachers as THE TRUTH, Hallelujah, and if ya don't subscribe to these here tenets, why then old Satan's a-busy warmin' up the fire for you. So just sign here, give your credit card number, take Jesus into your heart an' all will be well with your soul, brother!

People need to know, for example, that the Gospels give four quite different, even radically different, presentations of Jesus; complementary, yes, but different. So they need someone to help them explore the way the evangelists set about writing their gospels, as far as we can reconstruct that. They need to try to hear what the evangelists were trying to say, so that we can help them read any appropriate application in their lives.

They need to be liberated from the need to believe that either Joshua stopped the sun and Jesus defied gravity or else it's all bunkum to be rejected.

They need to be told that Samuel was plain wrong when he thought God wanted the Amalekites killed.

They need to understand that the creation stories are poetic myths, with real messages, but with no aspirations to scientific accuracy.

They need to understand that Paul's social teaching, while it may have been enlightened in its day, is totally irrelevant to modern life; but that his principles of Spirit-inspired love are very relevant indeed. And so on....

And the truth is that although a few Christians will read widely, most will not, and the only place they can get any of this is in their local church. So this is our responsibility. It must be done very carefully and caringly, sensitively and always positively. But it must be done or we hand over Christianity to the sects and cults and we ourselves become obstyacles to the truth.

Whey, hay! I do go on, don't I, and I do like my purple passages. *Grin* But the fact is, I'm a preacher-man; that's my vocation, and I enjoy it!

Peace, Eric. - Eric Potts, Lowestoft, England

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 15:07:26 -0000, "Eric T. Potts" <> wrote:

much that I agree with.

It is quite commonly stated today, that the Bible is the word of God.

Is this correct? Because if it isn't, then all who claim that it is, are claiming that God said things which he did not say, and are attributing the words of men to God incorrectly. And that would be a big mistake! Why should we presume that everything written in the Bible is the word of God? Or even, that everything that is written, is even in line with what God would have us to understand? Taking Paul as a case point - I think that he would have totally denied that what he was saying was either the specific word of God, or to be classed as such. I think that he understood his own limitations more than perhaps we do. To say that the writings of Paul and other writers, are to be considered as points of argument is one thing. To say that they are the specific word of God, not to be argued with, not to be disagreed with, is another matter entirely.

The laying of fears upon the minds of their fellowmen, is very common within the world of Christianity regarding the validity of the Bible. All too often when it is suggested that the Bible may be incorrect, or that understandings contained within its pages are not correct, there are many Christians who, after shuddering a few times will respond with "0h, we must be careful here. We are discrediting the word of God

To this I reply - we are only discrediting the word of God, if it is indeed the specific word of God. If it is not the specific word of God, then we are not discrediting the word of God at all by questioning it, but rather we are learning and increasing in our knowledge and understanding.

Take care

Keith Mason

http://www.gospel.co.uk