How Tall is God?, Part 2

From Part 1... In many ways God is far simpler than the scientific fields because he can be known by even the simple minds of children. On the other hand, he truly is vast and immeasurable and far more complex than all of the scientific disciplines combined. So, why would we ever stop asking questions? How could we ever not think that we have WAY more to learn than we have already discovered? Why would we ever stop examining the Scriptures, reading and evaluating the "experts", and listening to great minds teach about him? I think that we have a tendency to get comfortable with where we are, what we know, and we don't really want to be challenged any more. We have God in our little box and that's where we want to keep him.

I have thought about this post a little more and I have decided that the paragraph above could use a little expansion. The reason being that it's important not just to evaluate, but to evaluate properly. There is a right way to study the scriptures and there are right "experts" and there are wrong "experts." So, ultimately, what makes them right and what makes them wrong and how do we determine this?

How can two people read the scriptures and walk away from them with opposing points of view both equally convinced that their views are correct with what they would consider to be sound biblical arguments? The answer to this question is that they are using different methods of studying the scriptures or bringing different agendas to the scriptures. The fancy shmancy theological answer is that they are using different hermeneutics.

A popular hermeneutic in our current Christian climate is a hermeneutic that I call "progressive revelation". I'm not sure if I heard this somewhere or not, or if there is a better label for it, but this one is pretty descriptive of what it is. This hermeneutic is espoused pretty heavily by some teachers in the emergent camps. In a nutshell it is very similar to the way many political liberals interpret the constitution of the US as a living document that has different meaning based on current cultural values. Right to bear arms is one of the victims of this type of interpretation. Freedom of speech is one that is victimized in the opposing direction.

Ordination of homosexuals and devaluation of roles within marriage are a couple of good examples that spring directly from this hermeneutic. To counteract this faulty hermeneutic, we must do a couple of things. First, we must be aware that it exists and that to some degree or another nearly everyone under the age of 40 has been infected by it. Secondly, we must hold on to the time-proven and tested teachings of the faith.

I heard a pastor once tell how he prepared for sermons (sorry can't remember who it was). He said that he would read the book of the Bible that he was going to teach on numerous times and make annotations on the book each time with thoughts and ideas about what the passage was saying. After this process, he would then finally search out the expert opinions of several commentaries on the book. Then, he would do something that I think is very wise. He would throw out any of his ideas about the meanings that weren't present in any of the commentaries that he studied.

Why do I think this is wise? While the fields of Science are expanding fields with new facts being discovered every day, Christianity is established, stable, true, and without the need or possibility of expansion. The church is built on the life, teachings, and sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, and the teachings of the apostles. These truths are all revealed in the Scriptures and contrary to current cultural forces today truth exists can be known.

So, our quest for truth and learning how to discover the truth that already exists should be the motivating force behind our questions. It's not just about asking the questions. It's about asking the right questions of the right people that will lead to the discovery of truth.