Week 11 - you don't make camp on a bridge!

Week 8 and I wonder why people who read words like 'deconstruction' or 'emergent', always seem to attack from the position of they being the only ones who know the Bible. Ever notice that. Ever read the responses to the blogs I've written on new thoughts, new ways of thinking; raising questions about faith, church and life! Ouch folks.

Everybody seems to think they know the Bible, and anyone questioning or bringing any new thoughts seems to have thrown the Bible away and seems to know nothing about it. As for honoring the Word or maybe even believing the Word as God's truth- it seems that anyone with questions or some new thoughts doesn't!

But people need to engage more intelligently and perhaps elegantly with what's happening rather than so emotively. There is a sacredness in questioning (title of a pretty good book!).

Surely the most anti-deconstructionist/"has it all in a nice box Christian" must agree that what Christianity looks like today is very different that 1st or 2nd century Christianity.

Surely.
What wise questioners and/or revisionists are saying is - the building on top is a 19th or 20th century building ...but today is the 21st century - this necessitates change.

11am Sunday services - began in the late 19th and 20th century?
Baptism by immersion .....when did that start?...remembering that 60% of Christians hold to paedobaptism not believers baptism!
Formal church memberships?
The Sunday School movement .....19th century invention!
Church buildings?
Organ music to hymns.?
Dispensationalism - first 18 centuries didn't have that going ...built by a couple of English separatists!

Or, when did we quit the holy kiss?
When did we quit sharing our possessions with everyone else?
What happened that women quit long hair; what happened that we quit ........ ??


Most people are with me to this stage ...hard to argue against history. We have to accept that some of what we believe is more what we prefer ...but to some extent that's OK

But then it gets harder for some people to stay with the debate, but in truth again its historic.

When did the Gospel become individual instead of the communal/corporate theology of the New Testament?
When did it become formulaic ... 'say this prayer and you're saved'; 'learn the 4 steps to peace'; 'do the roman road' ......is all this really true to New Testament teaching?

Surely the New Testament gospel has a solid emphasis on 'following' rather than checking boxes, or raising a hand? One is "built" on top of the Scriptures; one is within Scripture.

We could go on .....but critics need to be honest to history. So much of what revisionists are dialogue-ing on is about stuff that is not in the text ...but our add ons, preferences, cultural expressions/representation.

If liberals cut parts out of the text, many conservatists/fundamentalists have added too much into the text.
Both are wrong.

Both have strong reasons why they've done what they've done - but both are wrong.

Now what would be clearly wrong is for any revisionist to say what we/they are doing is now the only right reading of the text.



But let me pull this blog over. A core quality of a leader is to define reality - even if that reality is on how the historic Scriptures have been mishandled in the 20th century.



Of course - revisionists have to stand on the bridge of 20th century interpretation as they stood on the bridge of 19th century interpretation. It's not a new bridge that's needed, we just need to keep moving along on the bridge.



But that's bridges - we use them to keep moving forward.

You don't make camp on a bridge.