Silly literalism

Taken from "A New Kind of Christian"(2001) by Brian D. McLaren. Jossey-Bass, p. 55-56:

One thing that both modern liberals and conservatives have in common is that they read the Bible in very modern ways. Modern conservatives treat the Bible as if it were a modern book. They're used to reading modern history texts and modern encyclopedias and modern science articles and modern legal codes, and so they assume that the Bible will yield its resources if they apporoach it like one of those texts.

Taken from "The Story We Find Ourselves in" (2003) - excerpt taken from my copy of "A New Kind of Christian":

He [Neo] took a couple of deep breaths and continues talking. "All my own silliness aside, do they imagine God literally saying, 'Let there be light'? In what Language? Hebrew? Latin or Arabic maybe? Or maybe English, but if so, which accent - American, English, Aussie, or Jamaican? And where did the air come from to propagate the sound waves for God's litteral words; and for that matter, where do the vocal cords come from for God to say those words? And as for the business of the six days, assuming that you're not a flat-earther, you have to acknowledge that when it's day on one side of the globe, it's night on the other. So when Genesis says that the first day begins and ends, from whose vantage point does it mean - Sydney, Australia, or Greenwich, England?... But please don't misunderstand, Kerry. Like the staunchest literalist, I believe in the story of Genesis, but I think I believe it more in the way the ancient Semitic nomands huddeled in their blankets around a winter fire would have believed it, as they told it and retold it, generation to generation, feeling the poetic rhythms - 'and there was evening and there was morning, a second day, a third day, a fourth day...' " ...

Kerry interjected, "you see it as a myth, right? It's just another creation myth."

Neo replied, "No, no, no. I didn't say that. In fact, the more I interact with the story, the less I want to carve it down to fit in any modern categories, wheteher 'myth' or 'fact'. And I certainly don't want to reduce it with a just into anything less than fact...

I disagree very strongly with McLaren on many issues, but here he is making a good point.

Conviction in spirit and truth

Taken from "Jesus" (2002 Swedish – 2003 English translation) by Ulf Ekman. Ulf Ekman Ministries, p. 93-94; 124.

...

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:15-16)

...

Right in the middle of His ministry, in the middle of both the gospels of Matthew and Mark, Jesus asks His disciples who they think He is. People around them had all kinds of opinions, but no revelation. When Peter responds, “You are the Messiah,” it left no room for doubt. Jesus had forbidden the demons to reveal this. He wanted His disciples to do that. All the signs, all the teaching, all the prophecies had pointed in the same direction. No one other than the Messiah could have said and done these things.

Peter did not sit down and carefully meditate and analytically reflect on everything before he spoke. It did not come from himself; the Father in heaven revealed it. It has to be revealed by God so that people will understand it. Against all the logical evidence and intellectual conviction, people will not believe unless God gives revelation and opens their hearts and minds.

Some zealous Christians believe if we only could find Noah’s ark, the world would believe in God. If we only could display the cross or the Ark of the Covenant, the world would believe. No, what is needed is a conviction in spirit and truth through revelation. When something is revealed by God, it penetrates the depths of the heart where it is established as an eternal truth, to which people can dedicate their whole life. We know that we know that we know. Revelation is as supernatural as Jesus is. Revelation originates in the Kingdom of God and has the same nature as Jesus. Therefore, it is impossible to deny, destroy or prevent it.

…

No matter how theologically correct human thoughts without revelation seem to be, they are not from above; they are from below.

The real point of Genesis

Taken from "This is my God" (1959) by Hermann Wouk. Back Bay Books, p. 41-42.

The real point of Genesis

The first chapter of Genesis cut through the murk of ancient mythology with a shaft light that the whole world lives by now, so that we can scarcely picture its effects when it first shone forth. The universe was proclaimed a natural order created and unfolded by one Force and set going like a vast machine to proceed under its own power. There were no manlike gods. Nor were the animals gods, nor were the gods animals. There was no sun god, or moon god, or love god, or sea god, or war god. The world and mankind were not the product of titanic incest and sodomy among monsters in the skies. Sun, moon, wind, seas, mountains, stars, stones, trees, plants, beasts were all part of nature, without any magic of their own. Mumbo-jumbo was a mistake. The gods and priesthoods which demanded burnt children, or hearts cut from living men, or ghastly obscenities, or endlessly draining gifts, were useless, silly, doomed libels on the universe. The childhood nightmares of mankind were over. It was day.

The Genesis account of creation cut the cancer of idolatry out of human discourse. It took a long time to prevail; but at last even the charming Greek and Roman gods withered under the stroke. Genesis is the dividing line between contemporary intelligence and primitive muddle in the realm of first and last things. As such, I do not see how it will ever be superseded…

Men still prize Genesis. Modern thinkers now take it for granted – as the rabbis long ago suggested – that Genesis is a mystic vision of the origin of things, put in the purest and strongest words, intelligible to the child, inspiring to adult genius, clear enough to survive in primitive eras, and deep enough to challenge sophisticated cultures.