Moving Past The Instruction Manual

A Continuation Of A Changed Biblical Perspective: It seems that the more I learn the more I see how language is the key to any discussion. What I have always thought scripture to be, for example, was anchored in large part on how I was defining the various words and phrases such as, inerrant and God's word. Also from these definitions came my various doubts, disagreements, and (more often than the previous) a weird almost spiritual kind of discomfort whenever I would refer to the Bible as "the word of God".  

Inerrant word of God always seems to mean, when used by the average Evangelical, the clear spoken law and picture of God that is all truth, authoritative, and in some cases literally the word of God. There is no room for error or uncertainty and to question this means you are on a slippery path towards liberalism, and/or falling from faith (It makes me smile that those two should be associated with each other). It seems to me that this view of scripture is fine as long the overarching perspective from which it comes is addressed with a little more detail. Taken by one individual, this definition could mean that the Bible was literally spoken by God to an individual human being who then transcribed it onto paper (or papyrus... what have you). 

The problem I have had, until recently, was identifying that perspective. Where was I coming from, and what did I mean when I defined the Bible as God's inerrant word? A common view regarding what the Bible is would be the answer book/roadmap model which I mentioned in a previous post. It is the approach to scripture that is the foundation of this model that I, and I believe all Christians must move past.

The Transition: Although I knew that the Bible was not an instruction manual for life, I was defining my terms as if it were. I could not reconcile how the Bible could be 100% inerrant and authoritative. How could the "inspired" letters of Paul be taken just as authoritative as those words of Jesus Christ himself? And it seemed to me that our methods of viewing the Bible stripped it of its mystery since what we did not understand we would almost discard. The problem for me, and I think for a lot of young Christians, had been that I was approaching the Bible with mixed assumptions (Postmodern vs. modern?). I knew I could not say the Bible was literally the word of God in the way a lot of Evangelicals would, yet I had no way of verbalizing

my frustration that I knew the Bible was the word of God but not in the way it had been presented to me. The problem was in how I was approaching the Bible. My approach had been tainted by a definitional allegiance to the answer book model. I did not hold that model but since it was the only solid picture I had ever been presented with it was hard to disassociate from certain terms in that tradition. I was so rigid and rooted in my own modern method of reading and understanding books that although I knew when and where the Bible came from, my process of seeking answers was from a completely different method of understanding. My mental picture (if one was even possible) needed to change, and as it changed I began to see my perspective shift from the Instruction book model into something much more useful, mysterious, and in a way more certain (paradox?).  It is this new perspective on scripture (which I know is not really new at all) that will be addressed in my next post. Until then!

-Luke