Finding God In Mystery

Every time a natural disaster happens I'm always horrified at how quickly certain people (you know who) are to explain God's purpose or to rationalize what happened, even claiming God was behind the disaster.  I have no idea what the personal motivations might be for this (they probably vary depending on who it is), but it probably has to do with trying to contrive some sort of comfort from being in control.  This is kind of a paradox to me, since things like tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis and earthquakes prove that human beings are far from in control, and yet it seems like a prevalent coping mechanism is to explain what happened, why it happened and even what can be done to prevent it.
Of course, these "explanations" differ depending on who the person is.  Did God cause the disaster because the people affected weren't faithful enough?  Is there no God and is this all scientifically explained?  Does an explanation really help anyone, let alone the victims?
I personally cannot fathom a just God who would cause something to happen in so destructive away, and giving witness to this kind of God helps no one accept those who feel that they have God's favor over other people.  Likewise, while the scientific explanation for natural occurrences may be accurate, it can't predict when a disaster will happen and is also of no use to the victims.  In both "explanations" each response has the appearance of having "all the answers" and yet having this knowledge does nothing to bring justice or healing to those in need.
I once watched a show on TV where in the plot, police officers were looking for a person who had been responsible for molesting another person many years earlier.  In the closing scene one of the main police officers encounters the "criminal" and points his gun at the other person's head.  The "criminal" implores the officer to "do what he has to do" and explains that he has lived with the crime for years, that he has made peace with God and has reformed himself over the years, but that he still lives with the guilt of what happened.  He also implies that he has been going to church.  The officer doesn't shoot him, but places him under arrest as the narrator concludes the show.  I can only paraphrase, but I believe the narrator asked:  "Why does God allow these things to happen?  Where is he when people feel this kind of pain?  I used to be angry with God for allowing these things to happen, but now I have an idea of where God is.  He is in the hands of those who heal and of those who try to make things right."
While I probably butchered the plot or what was precisely said, it has always been the final point that stuck with me.  It is quite obvious that we don't know why things happen.  Anything we try to say to those in pain usually doesn't get through.  Sometimes what we do falls short.  But where is God when disasters happen?  He is with the clean-op crews, the doctors, and those who help rebuild.  Even though the world is problematic, I'd rather think of God being in the solution, not the problem.

Please take time out of your week to pray for the marginalized,


Jason

The Inaccuracies of the Inerrant Bible

(Ed Note: I will try to pump out at least three posts a week, but no promises with a full time job and caring for my kids in the evenings. -J)


Do you view scripture as "inerrant?"  If so, how do you define inerrant?

The Meriam-Webster dictionary defines inerrant as "free from error."  Can we really define the Bible in this way, whether we see each isolated doctrine as free from error or the larger narrative itself?  One could argue that human error is an integral part of the story, and while I know that is not how some define inerrant, the fact remains that the limitations of the authors and main "characters" within the Bible are intentionally present.

There are so many things that an inerrant view of scripture complicate.  I won't list them all (and couldn't), but here are a few of my issues:

1) Which version of scripture is inerrant?

KJV, NIV, NRSV, NKJV, etc., and those are just a fraction of English interpretations of the Bible.  If you are able to put aside that the Bible is largely made up of oral tradition, poetry and experience and that all of this was grounded in specific cultures and settings in history, and that there are numerous other steps in the process of putting together the canon (let alone transcribing it into different languages), which version is the most complete?  Or maybe all interpretations are to be seen as inerrant?  Or are the original transcriptions inerrant?
I think I've made my point.  Each version of the Bible, as objective as those who do the tedious work of translating try to be, has it's own different bias.  This is good from the standpoint that as many people as possible should be able to be included in reading the Bible.  It becomes bad when we elevate our own translations, and subsequently, our own limited views.

2) The "Inerrant Bible" detracts from its true purpose.

My teacher in Bible class way back in high school had a nice way of describing the Bible:  It is perfect in its purpose.  If we approach the Bible as equally important in everything it teaches we lose the significance of who scripture is pointing us towards.  What then, does scripture become?

3) The Bible can quickly become an idol when we become dependent on scripture instead of on God in Christ?


John Frye, who used to be my pastor in my childhood church, has done a great job of continually addressing this epidemic in modern Christianity.  He has preached on it, written on it, and obviously thought long and hard about it.  His blog is here: http://www.jesustheradicalpastor.com/  Do we worship the God who lives in the real world, or the God who exists and is limited within the Bible?  Is it possible to experience God apart from the Bible, in a way that isn't described in the Bible?  How did the early church manage to have faith without the New Testament?  They were living it!  Perhaps the real question is how can we continue living the story today?

It seems that Christians today either elevate the past at the expense of the present or throw out years of traditional understandings for a "modern" understanding of scripture which elevates our own experience and in its own way can diminish God's continuing story in creation.  The Bible isn't free from error, and in a way that's the point.  Each of the authors seemed to bear a fully limited witness to a divine God, and we continue to bear a limited witness today.  This is why we ultimately need God, and not a God who can be figured out so easily or who can be put into our boxes for our use, but a God who fully intends to make the world right.


The Bible isn't meant to answer all of our questions.  When we treat the Bible this way, we get the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Bible as a defense for slavery, the injustices done to women and homosexuals in the name of God, etc. etc. etc.  I am aware of my own limitations, heck, this blog post is far from perfect in any way, but I prefer to view the Bible as a witness to God's glory and ultimate sacrifice through Christ who conquers death and prepares the way for true justice, wholeness, etc.  The Bible is fully human in its witness.  It contradicts itself several times.  There are some things we can never know.  But the beautiful thing is, much like Jesus is viewed as fully God and fully human, the limited nature of the Bible doesn't detract from its true purpose, it actually accentuates our need for something, for someone, more.

I do hope that you got something in this rant that speaks to you and I'd love to get anyone's feedback as usual (comments/facebook/coffee for those in GR).

God bless,

Jason