Monday, March 21, 2022

Why I am not a 'Bible believing Christian'? (at least not how the term is normally used)

I am not a 'Bible believing Christian'.  Wait a minute, doesn't that mean that I don't believe the Bible?  Not exactly. Let me explain a few things first and them circle back around.

No one living in the Bible narratives had the whole Bible ... no one.  No one before Moses' time had the Torah (first five books of the Old Testament), and then it took centuries for the whole Old Testament (Tanakh) to be completed.  No one in Jesus' time and for a few decades after had all four Gospels.  And it took years from when the Epistles were written until they could be distributed to most of the Christian communities.

None of these people had all of these scriptures, so these scriptures cannot be essential to a Christian faith.  People lived deeply dedicated lives for Christ and some died because of it many years before the 27 books were collected.

What did Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses have?  They had some revelation from God that went further than any sacred writings that they might have had access to.

What did the Apostles, the women who were at the Crucifixion and witnessed the Resurrected Christ, the Seventy that were sent out, and the other disciples have? They had God and they had Christ Jesus who revealed something more than what their previous scriptures said.

What did  Stephen, the deacons, the Jerusalem church and their leaders, the church at Antioch, missionaries like Phillip, Barnabus, John Mark, Paul have?  They had God and Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Only some time *after* that did the church have anything like the Bible as Christians understand it.

And let's look at what the Bible itself says about what we must do to be Christian.  We must confess Christ as Lord and God as Our God.  We are to receive the Holy Spirit that the Spirit will speak to our hearts that which is true - convicting, teaching, and comforting - and that we may have gifts that can be used in service of God.  We are to be the Body of Christ in this world.

So what does scripture say about itself? "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness."

Scripture is inspired and useful.  Important indeed.  But as much as some Christians may want to read more into this than what either the original languages or English mean by "inspired" or "useful", there is no other situations where using these adjectives implies what so many of us insist that this verse is saying.

We can be lovers and followers of God without our scriptures (we have examples in those very scriptures that demonstrate this).  We can be followers of Christ without the whole New Testament - just enough of the words and story of Christ that who followed Him had (again we see examples of those who followed Jesus without even the entirety of even one of the Gospels). And we can be Christian without the Epistles as we see in Acts and in the Epistles themselves.

What we can't be is a mature lover of God without loving God and those who God loves, or a full grown follower of Christ without putting highest importance on the things Jesus said were most important, or someone walking faithfully with the Holy Spirit who doesn't exhibit at least some of the fruit of the Spirit characteristics ("But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.")

And I do need a Bible that is inspired and useful. 

So why am I not a 'Bible believing Christian'?  Because the Bible is not the center of my faith.  Because I see scripture as a signpost and not the destination.  I am a Christian who sees God's inspiration in scripture and am inspired.  I see usefulness in scripture and I let it do the things scripture is for.  I let the Bible be the Bible ... and God be God, and Christ be Christ, and Holy Spirit be Holy Spirit.

Of course when most people say that they are 'Bible believing Christians' they leave a bit out in the definition.  They are 'Bible believing Christians who believe the Bible in the way that their own religious leaders have taught them'.  This added layer is not insignificant.  See what they will kick people out of the church for, what they will condemn people to hell for - and I know that I can see the difference between that faith and what I believe.   

This puts 'being a real Christian' yet another layer removed from what I try to be, which is a 'Christian who loves God' - and I don't mind admitting that I do love God more than even the Bible ... and especially more that one group of Christians' own narrow interpretation of scripture.

I am not a 'Bible believing Christian', I am a 'God believing Christian' and I steadfast refuse to feel bad about that.



Tuesday, March 9, 2021

What is "not-systematic theology"?

 Per WikiPedia, "Systematic theology is a discipline of Christian theology that formulates an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the doctrines of the Christian faith."   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_theology

So what is "not-systematic theology"?  Well, it *isn't* systematic theology (see definition above).

I am not qualified to write about systematic theology.  There are very highly qualified people who do a lot of work with that.  Some of them I happen to know.  I can't do what they do.

What am I qualified to do?  We'll I have a bachelor's degree in Computer Science from 1985 (one can imagine how very much this field has changed since I earned the degree).  I think a lot, I try to learn a lot, I try to listen.  After 57 years of life, I have some ideas about that.

I am also a Christian for all of those years, and my faith has always been an important part of those years.  That faith has changed a lot, but I'll save discussing that for other posts.

Since I am not a systematic theologian, nor should I be; but I do have some ideas about Christianity that *might* have some limited merit.

My 'back of the napkin' definition for "not-systematic theology" is "thoughts about faith and religion from outside the realm of systematic theology".  Oh and since I am Christian, and more mainline Christian at that, most of it will be from that perspective.  

Will I comment outside of mainline Christianity?  Yes, especially as it pertains to white American Evangelicalism, since I grew up in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Will anything I write be influenced by systematic theology?  Almost certainly, but while I see a place for it, I am going to be exploring other places.  I am qualified to shop in a grocery store or play in a public park; but I am not qualified to play any significant role in an operating theater except maybe as the patient if needed. I will try very much to not claim to do what I can't do in regards with theology.

Hopefully the direction will be more clear in upcoming posts.

Anything else?  My personality is one that values the truth rather highly.  Ironically, I know enough about truth to understand there are very real limits on my ability (or anyone's) to know all truth.  So I may explore truth a bit in the context of not-systematic theology (and I guess not-academic-philosophy too).