The conversation continues... (Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 4.)

---

from Anna Dodridge
Jan 24, 2007 3:34 AM

Hello Randy,

Thanks for the continued conversation. I mentioned it to a friend of mine a couple of days ago, and expressed how glad I was to be having a conversation with someone from the more 'traditional' church background who showed some respect, and didn't question whether or not I love Jesus. Sadly enough this has been a bit rare in my experience. It's definitely a blessing.

 Anna: However, I believe they miss out on relationships a lot because they focus too much on the 'task' or 'doing' church (setting up meetings, organising the building, having meetings, meeting to make decisions etc.)    

That can certainly be a danger.  

Not only can that be a danger, it is always a mistake in my view. We have even lost the meaning of the word 'church' . Of course many christians of all denominations and taste will be familiar with the idea that 'the church is the people, not the building'. But we still talk about 'going to church', whether people mean the building, or the meeting. I would call that the 'gathered church', when the people of God meet together. But I am the church right now, in my office, typing an email. I was the church yesterday evening watching a film with my friends, and when in the hours before when those friends and I read Romans 12 together and prayed for each other.

For me the biggest shift in position since I stopped attending congregational meetings hasn't been a theological one. It's been really grasping what being the church is about. I spent so long in a church community which never said to us 'you're church on Monday morning at work'. We were often reminded we were christians at work, but that has a sense of separation. We're not alone in the day to day things we do. I am part of a body all the time. I know there will be plenty of people who agree with this idea, however, the difference is that there is no focus on that idea, and our language and actions deny the reality of it. We end up missing out on 162 hours a week (calculating sunday morning church as 3 hours, and a 3 hour weekday small group meeting as an adverage guess!) of really being CHURCH.

I guess that's why I had to do what I did.  

Anna: My context- I am part of a 'church community'. Basically we are a group of christians who hang out together on a day to day basis, sometimes as a whole group, sometimes as two or threes. We sometimes pray, sometimes talk, sometimes look at the bible. Our focus is on our relationships with each other, and how we can help each other know God more. I guess most of this sort of information is in the Bolger & Gibbs book.  

 Yes, it seems that approach would be easiest for singles or couples without kids. Once you have kids it seems like daily interaction would be almost impossible. Kids get sick, everyone gets tired, etc. I think your community approach is a beautiful way of life, though.

My church community certainly has a majority of singles and young marrieds. However, it's not excusively so. We are involved with a number of families, with younger and older children. It is true that I (as a single person) spend more time week to week with other single people, and couples. That's our context, that's because we have the time to hang out. However, our 'married with kids' people are still part of our community, we still spend time with them, support them. And they see each other more too. They key is that people know we are committed to each other, and that we stay involved, even if we don't physically see each other very often. That's the 'gathered meetings' approach to church. Especially in this age of super easy communication. Emailing is not as good as face to face, but it can fill the gap when people have busy lives. Also, as we grow up together (we've been together for five or so years) our context changes. More of us are getting married, and a few people have had kids or are pregnant. It won't be too much longer before the majority of our community are young families, and in that time the way we do things will shift to suit us. That's another key to how it works. And yes, it feels like a beautiful approach to life. I know I am more important than people's busy-ness, that people love me enough to drop their tasks to listen to me. It's amazing. 

Anna: I recently re-read the book, and found that now the ideas Tomlinson presented were far from shocking, in fact, perhaps they did not go far enough. I think the important thing for me is that I continue to question and challenge that which is presented to me. Not to take for granted that what I am taught, according to the evangelical tradition and culture, is not simply accepted at face value.  

 Yes, I would encourage you to do just that. Just because something sounds cutting edge and relational, missional or whateveral doesn't mean that it shouldn't be questioned.  

Anna: When I begin to read about the discovery of non-canonical gospels, or hearing about other faiths experiences of the spiritual, it reveals to me that God could be more than that which I, in my very narrow and small experience and understanding, have heard.

 Of course, one must not take much for granted in those areas, either. For example, most of the so-called non-canonical gospels have no more credibility or authenticity than Monty Python's Life of Brian depiction of the time of Christ. We must also be wary of the dark side of the spiritual world. Many false religions can produce spiritual experiences that are demonic imitations of the truth. Satan comes as an angel of light, after all. That's why the Bible is important as a standard to measure teaching and experience. How do you discern in these areas if the Bible isn't your standard? Group consensus? I'm curious how that plays out.

I  would certainly agree about the importance of not just sucking up any old 'radical' message either. I'm probably as critical of some of the 'emerging church' crap as you. People come out with rubbish, and because it's new and trendy noone picks it up & dares to disagree. That's not my approach at all.

I have read a good book, trying to remember the title...'Lost Christianities', Bart Elhman (that's a real guess from the back of my memory). There are plenty of things the author picks up on from the non-canonical gospels, epistles, acts, and revelations, that don't sit right. Either they totally deny or oppose stuff recorded in the canon or they don't feel right from experience, in the gut.  And I don't think people would claim that the non-canonicals should be taken as written, certainly not someone like myself who wouldn't take the canonicals 'as written'. The important thing for me was to realise that there were other records of Jesus, and the early church. And that the bible, (I'm sorry, you won't like this) is a man-made creation. The Council of Nicene (I think-I'm going from memory, and I normally prefer when talking history to have a reference.) had an agenda. Whether or not it was a Godly agenda, some people would say yes, some no. They wanted to get their view of Jesus across, and they chose the books accordingly. I think we would both agree on that- however, the evangelical position would argue that these men were guided by the Spirit, as were the biblical authors, and the bible is exactly as God wants it to be. That's not my position.

I find it a little difficult to answer your point about 'false religions' producing spiritual experiences that are demonic imitations...largely because what am I supposed to say? It's something that has been thrown at Christians for all sorts of reasons- Christians questioning their brothers' and sisters' experiences of God...not something that sits very comfortably with me. What I know is that I seek God at every step of my journey. I have asked Him to reveal Himself, and to guide me in my discoveries. If what I am hearing back is a demonic imitation then God has abandoned me and cares not for my fate. I happen not to believe in a God who does that- as I said in my previous email, God promised to be found when I sought Him.

I still believe in the Bible as an important standard. It was written over thousands of years by Godly men (no women of course!!) who had a whole lot more experience and wisdom than me. BUT they also had cultural bias, they lived in a difference time from me, and they still misheard God sometimes. They were sinful people just like me. So I can read behind the dismissal of women to get into what Paul is saying. I don't agree with some of the things he says, but I am still able to get something out of it, and respect his experience.  How do I discern things? Through the Holy Spirit, praying to God, and knowing that He is there full of revelations. How do you discern things? The bible is a book of dead words unless read through the Spirit. My relationship with God is FAR more important to me than what's written in the bible. The bible is a great starting place, and it still holds so much that God uses to speak to us, but it's not the be all and end all. I guess that's why I'm not an evangelical!!  

Evangelicals have plenty of flaws, so I can't argue that. The key, however, is not what comes from evangelical tradition, but from the Word of God. Then rejection is problematic.

I  suppose that personally (I am speaking entirely from my POV and experience, not infering this is the same for everyone) it took getting out and away from the evangelical wa of life to realise that that which is called the 'Word of God' according to evangelical ideas IS an evangelical idea. It's an interpretation of what the bible says, and it is man's point of view. What I regard as the 'Word of God' may not be that same as what you regard as the 'Word of God'. I cannot pretend to know who is right or wrong, whether there is a right or wrong, and whether it matters. My thoughts on this matter is that God judges my heart, my motivation. If i've misunderstood a bit of the bible in the genuine search to know God better will He burn me? Well, I don't think so. Perhaps if God has wished our opinions on the bible to be totally uniform He would had left us with no doubt, no room for discussion. He clearly didn't being as for the past 2000 years and more there have been non stop discussions and disagreements about the bible.  

Doesn't that reduce the Bible to just another good book?

Not really. The bible is the best book- because it's written by the best authors. The bible is written by men who met God face to face, or who expanded the church over the face of the earth, or ate a meal with Jesus. WOW. They were people with many years of experience, and who prayerd for wisdom, and who God blessed. These are the kind of people who know a thing or two! And then the bible has been around for a long time too. So it's not just a 'good book', it's a great book. Still a book though. Still written by people. Still handpicked by people at a time when the church was notoriously riotous. Still interpreted and translated by people. Still preached out of and misunderstood by people with their own agenda. As long as I keep that in mind it's a safe read!!

Can't God speak to you on that level through a great novel or song? 

Yes. And when the church doesn't speak what He wants to say, and no people will speak out God's words, then the trees and the rocks cry out. God is invasive, all pervasive, in everything- St Thomas wrote the words he claimed Jesus spoke 'split a piece of wood and you'll find me, turn over a rock and I'm there'. Why shouldn't God speak to me through every means He has? He does, and He has many times.  

If we, as fallen humans, have the capacity for self-deception, isn't it dangerous to set our experiences as the highest authority?

Perhaps. But how else will I know God? How can a relationship really be a relationship if it is not based on experience? If i want to go beyond knowing *about* God to *knowing* God I have to be brave enough to make a mistake or two. God doesn't let go. 

How do you pick and choose what you'll accept and what you'll reject in the Bible?

I accept it all. I accept that every word written has potential to reveal something of God. What I know of God is that He is consistent. He is Love, He is perfect. When Jesus tells us not to kill, not to murder, not to even get angry, I have to question why He ordered the death of many people simply because they were from a different country and had never even heard of God. When the bible is used to crusade against certain people and their lives I have to ask, is there an agenda, is this consitent with God's bigger picture. It's about understanding WHY things in the bible are written, what's behind them, what's the bigger picture.  And most importantly I only ever read prayfully. If i decide something in the bible doesn't sit right with what I understand of God I pray. That's what we all do right?  

As I said before, God judges my heart and motivation, not my theological understanding of the bible. If i've got a few wrong opinions, so what? I am doing all I can to Love God more.

Anna: For a start, without even considering all the translations we are relying on, I have to work through my own understanding of it too. still, perhaps this is going to far into the 'bible debate' and could be unhelpful. the point is, my view on the bible is not the centre of all i believe, merely a part of it. The focus of my faith is on seeking God. I seek Him desperately and ernestly, everywhere I look. That is what God asks of me, and that is what I do. Everything else is merely a sideline.

I appreciate that focus, but how do you know that's what God asks of you?

Anna: So I don't know about whether God is interventionalist.

Do you mean you're wondering whether He intervenes in this world and our lives? If not, it would seem pointless to seek Him desperately and earnestly.

If I don't seek God how will I ever know what it is that is out there? I don't seek God because He asked me to, I seek God on the most basic level, because there is something beyond me that I don't fully understand. Curiosity. And when you start to find God you realise He's worth knowing more about.

I believe that God intervenes with us, He speaks to us, He changes our hearts. Whether or not He physically intervenes with the world? I don't know. I'd like to think so, but it throws up some extremely difficult questions. Which means I'm happy to say 'don't know, I'm working on finding out'.  Gandhi once said 'You have to be the change you want to see in the world'. That's intervention in my eyes.

Anna: I believe that Jesus was the most perfect, accurate, pure representation of God this world has ever known.

 I'm not quite sure what you mean by "representation." Do you believe Titus 2:13 is correct in speaking of "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ"? In other words, was Jesus Christ someone who represented God, or God come to earth in the flesh?

Isn't that the same thing? Jesus was God in flesh incarnate. Therefore, he represented God in the form of a human being. Perhaps my choice of language wasn't helpful, sorry.  

Anna: I have an issue with penal substitutionary atonement

Why? Hebrews and Romans seem pretty strong in teaching it. I consider it a core belief of evangelicalism, so yes, if you reject that, you're definitely no longer evangelical. Do you favor Steve Chalke's approach (or isn't the Oasis Trust known to everyone in the UK)?

Have to disagree, I don't think the teaching is strong on the matter. I think Steve Chalke made some very good points. But I think this email is VERY long already, and I don't think I have the next three hours to discuss PSA. I think it is key to the core of who God is. And yes, count me out of evangelicalism if that's their prefered view of God! 

Rather unrelated, but would your peer group reject musicians like Delirious? and Matt Redman as being too evangelical? 

I quite like some of Delirious?' stuff. I probably wouldn't 'agree' with all the lyrics, but that's not really the point. It's their ideas on stuff, and their experience, like any other song is.  I do 'reject' Matt Redman on the grounds that his music is crappy and boring!! Nah- it's not my taste, but it suits loands of other people. And he is a good man, with a heart that Loves God, and how he chooses to worship is not my business.

I do have issues with the christian sub-culture that has grown up around musicians like this, and the adulation that (young people in particular) give to them. Another subject entirely!

I am SOOOO sorry at the length of this reply. We are getting into deeper matters and I want to do a little bit of justice to your questions. Thanks for your time.

Anna

---

from Randy Brandt
Jan 26, 2007 1:40 PM
Hi Anna,

Never apologize again for the length of a reply--I read fast, so length is no burden!

Thanks for the continued conversation. I mentioned it to a friend of mine a couple of days ago, and expressed how glad I was to be having a conversation with someone from the more 'traditional' church background who showed some respect, and didn't question whether or not I love Jesus. Sadly enough this has been a bit rare in my experience. It's definitely a blessing.

Thanks. I told Scott Kelly, the associate pastor at my church, that I was having an enjoyable dialogue with you. This article about him shows that we're not quite  a typical American evangelical church.

 However, I believe they miss out on relationships a lot because they focus too much on the 'task' or 'doing' church (setting up meetings, organising the building, having meetings, meeting to make decisions etc.)  

Randy: That can certainly be a danger.

Not only can that be a danger, it is always a mistake in my view. We have even lost the meaning of the word 'church' . Of course many christians of all denominations and taste will be familiar with the idea that 'the church is the people, not the building'. But we still talk about 'going to church', whether people mean the building, or the meeting. I would call that the 'gathered church', when the people of God meet together. But I am the church right now, in my office, typing an email. I was the church yesterday evening watching a film with my friends, and when in the hours before when those friends and I read Romans 12 together and prayed for each other.

You are absolutely correct. Certainly here in America, most people don't want "church" intruding in their lives outside of carefully delineated blocks of time.

For me the biggest shift in position since I stopped attending congregational meetings hasn't been a theological one. It's been really grasping what being the church is about. I spent so long in a church community which never said to us 'you're church on Monday morning at work'. We were often reminded we were christians at work, but that has a sense of separation. We're not alone in the day to day things we do. I am part of a body all the time.

Once again, I agree. The church is a body of attached believers, not a set of special clothes we take off and put back on for special occasions.

I know there will be plenty of people who agree with this idea, however, the difference is that there is no focus on that idea, and our language and actions deny the reality of it. We end up missing out on 162 hours a week (calculating sunday morning church as 3 hours, and a 3 hour weekday small group meeting as an adverage guess!) of really being CHURCH.   I guess that's why I had to do what I did.  

I can certainly respect that. I cherish the times I'm together with close friends, although it's not as continuous and intentional as your situation.

The key is that people know we are committed to each other, and that we stay involved, even if we don't physically see each other very often. That's the 'gathered meetings' approach to church. Especially in this age of super easy communication. Emailing is not as good as face to face, but it can fill the gap when people have busy lives.

Or even allow people to chat who might not otherwise meet... Yes, no one has a good excuse for losing touch with anyone else these days.

Also, as we grow up together (we've been together for five or so years) our context changes. More of us are getting married, and a few people have had kids or are pregnant. It won't be too much longer before the majority of our community are young families, and in that time the way we do things will shift to suit us. That's another key to how it works.
And yes, it feels like a beautiful approach to life. I know I am more important than people's busy-ness, that people love me enough to drop their tasks to listen to me. It's amazing.

Reminds me a bit of the Jesus People USA community in Chicago that's been going for three decades. Now they've got grandkids running around the place. From the way you've described your group, it sounds like you don't actually all live together, right? At JPUSA they have an old hotel or something, so they're all under one roof of a multi-story building.

I  would certainly agree about the importance of not just sucking up any old 'radical' message either. I'm probably as critical of some of the 'emerging church' crap as you. People come out with rubbish, and because it's new and trendy noone picks it up & dares to disagree. That's not my approach at all.

That's good. Of course, we probably disagree on the content of some of the rubbish out there.

I have read a good book, trying to remember the title...'Lost Christianities', Bart Elhman (that's a real guess from the back of my memory).

It's Bart Ehrman, so you were really quite close!

There are plenty of things the author picks up on from the non-canonical gospels, epistles, acts, and revelations, that don't sit right. Either they totally deny or oppose stuff recorded in the canon or they don't feel right from experience, in the gut.  And I don't think people would claim that the non-canonicals should be taken as written, certainly not someone like myself who wouldn't take the canonicals 'as written'. The important thing for me was to realise that there were other records of Jesus, and the early church.

A key question is how credible other documents were--as I alluded to earlier, many of those so-called gospels were forgeries purporting to be by apostles, written a century or two later than the canonical gospel accounts. I think we should seek the truth, whether that means four gospels or forty. I'm convinced that the four canonicals are the only ones that stand up to historical and theological reflection, and I believe the Holy Spirit preserved them for the purpose given in John 20:31  But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

And that the bible, (I'm sorry, you won't like this) is a man-made creation. The Council of Nicene (I think-I'm going from memory, and I normally prefer when talking history to have a reference.) had an agenda. Whether or not it was a Godly agenda, some people would say yes, some no. They wanted to get their view of Jesus across, and they chose the books accordingly. I think we would both agree on that- however, the evangelical position would argue that these men were guided by the Spirit, as were the biblical authors, and the bible is exactly as God wants it to be. That's not my position.

Yes, you've described my evangelical position correctly. However, it's simply an oft-repeated myth that the Biblical canon was "created" at Nicea. The Muratorian fragment, which dates to 170 AD, a century and a half before Nicea (325 AD), discusses the accepted canonical books of that time and puts forth four gospels, Acts, the Pauline epistles, and so on as already being accepted by the church! Despite Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code fantasies, you did not see dozens and dozens of gospels floating around pre-Nicea, waiting for Constantine to define Jesus as God so they could decide which books to canonize. Pure rubbish without a shred of historical evidence. The Christian church had their apostolically-authenticated canon in place long before Constantine was even born.

I find it a little difficult to answer your point about 'false religions' producing spiritual experiences that are demonic imitations...largely because what am I supposed to say? It's something that has been thrown at Christians for all sorts of reasons- Christians questioning their brothers' and sisters' experiences of God...not something that sits very comfortably with me. What I know is that I seek God at every step of my journey. I have asked Him to reveal Himself, and to guide me in my discoveries. If what I am hearing back is a demonic imitation then God has abandoned me and cares not for my fate. I happen not to believe in a God who does that- as I said in my previous email, God promised to be found when I sought Him.

My point was (not) addressed at your experience, but to caution those who are impressed by spiritual activity in religions that are anti-Christian, such as polytheistic Hinduism and Mormonism, monotheistic Islam, or any other religion that denies that Jesus is the Christ come to save mankind.

I still believe in the Bible as an important standard. It was written over thousands of years by Godly men (no women of course!!) who had a whole lot more experience and wisdom than me. BUT they also had cultural bias, they lived in a difference time from me, and they still misheard God sometimes. They were sinful people just like me.

Of course, but I believe that the Holy Spirit safeguarded the transmission of the Scriptures. The authors certainly sinned in other areas--Paul even had to confront Peter and call him to account in Galatians.

So I can read behind the dismissal of women to get into what Paul is saying. I don't agree with some of the things he says, but I am still able to get something out of it, and respect his experience.  How do I discern things? Through the Holy Spirit, praying to God, and knowing that He is there full of revelations.

How did you get to that point? Just personal experience? Or teaching that you trusted?

How do you discern things?

Through the Holy Spirit and prayer, and consulting the Scriptures. Anything that goes against clear Biblical teaching must not be of God, for He will not contradict Himself. The Bereans were commended for testing even the word of Paul by the Scriptures they had.

The bible is a book of dead words unless read through the Spirit. My relationship with God is FAR more important to me than what's written in the bible. The bible is a great starting place, and it still holds so much that God uses to speak to us, but it's not the be all and end all. I guess that's why I'm not an evangelical!!

Yes, that does disqualify you! I don't believe the Bible is ever dead words:

Isaiah 55:11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I think God stresses the "Word" instead of images for a reason (I suppose that could be another discussion), but the bottom line for me is that He has chosen to reveal Himself most specifically in His Word. Yes, nature is another revelation, and the work of the Spirit in our hearts is vital, but the baseline by which to measure truth is found in the written word that God began to reveal by writing the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone.
 
That said, our lives have to actually live out what we learn from the Word or it's just a dead orthodoxy...a clanging cymbal.

that which is called the 'Word of God' according to evangelical ideas IS an evangelical idea. It's an interpretation of what the bible says, and it is man's point of view. What I regard as the 'Word of God' may not be that same as what you regard as the 'Word of God'. I cannot pretend to know who is right or wrong, whether there is a right or wrong, and whether it matters.

Of course you actually believe it does matter, or you wouldn't take the time to read, study and discuss these issues. When you say "whether there is a right or wrong," you are referring only to the 'Word of God' issue, correct? I know you passionately believe there are many rights and wrongs, and therefore that applies to issues like the 'Word of God.' Think about it--if one of us is truly right, that has significance for life. The one who is wrong is missing the mark in some way, and is the poorer for it. That matters.

Clearly, you believe you are right--even the insane can not hold to beliefs they know to be false, and the unsure still tend to favor any belief they think is closer to the truth than the alternatives. The essence of belief demands that we favor what we think to be true, but that doesn't mean we can't change our beliefs if better evidence comes along.

My thoughts on this matter is that God judges my heart, my motivation. If i've misunderstood a bit of the bible in the genuine search to know God better will He burn me? Well, I don't think so.

Yes, God views our hearts, but He gave us minds and expects us to use them (as we hopefully are doing in our little email exchange). And no, I certainly don't believe God burns people for misunderstanding. We agree on that. However, if you tell me something I haven't heard before, God expects me to weigh it, not ignore it.  1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. I think that's pretty good advice.

Perhaps if God has wished our opinions on the bible to be totally uniform He would had left us with no doubt, no room for discussion. He clearly didn't being as for the past 2000 years and more there have been non stop discussions and disagreements about the bible.

But discussion is good. Faith is good. And we mustn't forget that many of the discussions and disagreements originate with those who do not follow Jesus, who have no interest in obeying God, and will oppose Him no matter what. These sorts of people are like the Israelites who still rebelled after Moses brought the tablets of stone from the hand of God Himself. I love history and archaeology--the evidence for the Bible and Christianity is astounding when compared to other religious beliefs, so God has left plenty of evidence for those with open eyes. We won't have total agreement this side of heaven, but I think Biblical teaching on a lot of issues is pretty straightforward.

Randy: Doesn't that reduce the Bible to just another good book?

Not really. The bible is the best book- because it's written by the best authors. The bible is written by men who met God face to face, or who expanded the church over the face of the earth, or ate a meal with Jesus. WOW. They were people with many years of experience, and who prayerd for wisdom, and who God blessed. These are the kind of people who know a thing or two!

I agree, but if they were making mistakes, how do you know what portions of what they wrote really have value? Can you treat it like a buffet, choosing what you like and discarding the rest?

And then the bible has been around for a long time too. So it's not just a 'good book', it's a great book. Still a book though. Still written by people. Still handpicked by people at a time when the church was notoriously riotous.

I believe it was written by people carried along by God's Spirit, picked by the church based on apostolic authority so as to avoid errors in compiling the Spirit's choices. A great book, yes, but more than that to us.

Still interpreted and translated by people. Still preached out of and misunderstood by people with their own agenda. As long as I keep that in mind it's a safe read!!

But really, should it be a "safe" read?

Randy: Can't God speak to you on that level through a great novel or song?

Yes. And when the church doesn't speak what He wants to say, and no people will speak out God's words, then the trees and the rocks cry out.

Yes!

God is invasive, all pervasive, in everything-

I'll agree unless you're failing to separate the creation from the creator. Then I'd disagree. No pantheism, or panentheism, for that matter.

St Thomas wrote the words he claimed Jesus spoke 'split a piece of wood and you'll find me, turn over a rock and I'm there'. Why shouldn't God speak to me through every means He has? He does, and He has many times.

Anna, you don't want to appeal to the Gospel of Thomas. St. Thomas surely didn't write it. Apart from its gnosticism and historical lack of credibility (except to extreme Jesus Seminar types), it makes absurd claims inconsistent with the canonical gospels. Do you want to appeal to a Jesus who has the following attitude towards you?

114) Simon Peter said to Him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of Life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Certainly we find no trace of that mentality in the canon. The full-blown gnosticism found in the book did not arise until more than a century after Christ, yet another reason to believe the actual St. Thomas could not have written it.

Randy: If we, as fallen humans, have the capacity for self-deception, isn't it dangerous to set our experiences as the highest authority?

Perhaps. But how else will I know God? How can a relationship really be a relationship if it is not based on experience? If i want to go beyond knowing *about* God to *knowing* God I have to be brave enough to make a mistake or two. God doesn't let go.

Yes, mistakes are not fatal, and yes, some people are more concerned with knowing *about* God than actually *knowing* Him. However, experience must be tempered by knowledge. If a woman meets a charming guy, and then a friend explains that he's charmed his last three girlfriends for several months before savagely beating them and then abandoning them, should she simply rely on her positive experience of their first date? Her friend can turn over court records of his history and the woman can respond that her experience trumps the written word, but when he starts abusing her two months later, it would be hard to say she shouldn't have known better. (Sorry for the negative example, but it's the first one that occurred to me.) Experience can be tempered by a higher source of truth.

Randy: How do you pick and choose what you'll accept and what you'll reject in the Bible?

I accept it all. I accept that every word written has potential to reveal something of God.

That's kind of cheating, isn't it? You can say you accept it all, and that it all has potential, but I'm asking about realized potential. You've made it clear that you disagree with Paul writing about women teachers, so as you accept that, what does it reveal about God? You can't reject it and accept it simultaneously.

What I know of God is that He is consistent. He is Love, He is perfect. When Jesus tells us not to kill, not to murder, not to even get angry, I have to question why He ordered the death of many people simply because they were from a different country and had never even heard of God.

I've never heard of God ordered the death of anyone because they were different. What are you referring to? The OT judgments on the extremely sinful nations like the Caananites?

When the bible is used to crusade against certain people and their lives I have to ask, is there an agenda, is this consitent with God's bigger picture. It's about understanding WHY things in the bible are written, what's behind them, what's the bigger picture.

I believe the "why" is because "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

And most importantly I only ever read prayfully. If i decide something in the bible doesn't sit right with what I understand of God I pray. That's what we all do right?

Yes, we should always approach Scripture prayerfully. Agreed.

As I said before, God judges my heart and motivation, not my theological understanding of the bible. If i've got a few wrong opinions, so what? I am doing all I can to Love God more.

If you (or I) are objectively wrong, it does matter, because we're in positions of influencing others. Teachers and leaders have added responsibility:
 James 3:1 Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

It's great that you want to do all you can to love God; perhaps growing in theological understanding is meant to be part of that process. For me, growing in understanding of your position is probably part of that process. I trust we are benefiting from this exchange--if not, at least it's enjoyable!

If I don't seek God how will I ever know what it is that is out there? I don't seek God because He asked me to, I seek God on the most basic level, because there is something beyond me that I don't fully understand. Curiosity. And when you start to find God you realise He's worth knowing more about.

Well put.

I believe that God intervenes with us, He speaks to us, He changes our hearts. Whether or not He physically intervenes with the world? I don't know. I'd like to think so, but it throws up some extremely difficult questions. Which means I'm happy to say 'don't know, I'm working on finding out'.  Gandhi once said 'You have to be the change you want to see in the world'. That's intervention in my eyes.

If we eliminate miracles (actual intervention), how do you deal with the Resurrection? That was pretty severe intervention, crashing into death and all. But if we don't have a physical Jesus risen from the dead, Christianity has nothing.

I believe that Jesus was the most perfect, accurate, pure representation of God this world has ever known.

Randy: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "representation." Do you believe Titus 2:13 is correct in speaking of "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ"? In other words, was Jesus Christ someone who represented God, or God come to earth in the flesh? 

Isn't that the same thing? Jesus was God in flesh incarnate. Therefore, he represented God in the form of a human being. Perhaps my choice of language wasn't helpful, sorry.

I don't think it's the same thing, but you clarified it well. You and I can represent God on earth by being followers of Christ, but we'll never be God come to earth. Despite Shirley MacLaine's claims, we are not God; we are His creation. 

I have an issue with penal substitutionary atonement

Randy: Why? Hebrews and Romans seem pretty strong in teaching it. I consider it a core belief of evangelicalism, so yes, if you reject that, you're definitely no longer evangelical. Do you favor Steve Chalke's approach (or isn't the Oasis Trust known to everyone in the UK)?

Have to disagree, I don't think the teaching is strong on the matter. I think Steve Chalke made some very good points. But I think this email is VERY long already, and I don't think I have the next three hours to discuss PSA. I think it is key to the core of who God is. And yes, count me out of evangelicalism if that's their prefered view of God!

We have to find the time to go here at some point, because I agree with you about it being "the key to the core." I want to understand your reasons for opposing PSA, and I want to express my reasons for cherishing the doctrine. I venture to guess we both have misunderstandings of the other view, so dialogue would be beneficial.

Have a wonderful day, night or whatever it is when you read this!

---