Cut and paste theology

"Well, you cant just cut out the parts of the Bible you dont like"

As i've begun to have not-so-traditional interpretations of the Bible and Christianity, Ive heard this phrase more and more. The ironic thing always being that I never recall asking that we "cut out" any part of scripture to begin with. Of course what people usually mean by this is that we should make sure not to just ignore certain parts of the Bible, and instead interpret each verse/passage with the whole of scripture in mind. And while I agree with that idea, I contend that doing so does not magically lead you to one unassailable Biblical perspective...as those who use this phrase seem to think.

The first reason for this, is simply that every person who reads the Bible comes to it with prior assumptions. These may come from a sermon you heard last week, something your parents told you when you were young, a book you read by Joel Olsteen, or dare I say that which you desire to be true or false. All these things and more help create the lens by which we view and read the Bible(or really anything else in life). In some cases it helps us connect ideas and events in a way that aids our understanding. A simple a connection I remember making at a young age was from the story in Genesis 22; where God tells Abraham to sacrifice his only son, but at the altar provides Abraham with a ram to sacrifice instead. I quickly saw that story as a foretaste of Christ's future atonement , that I probably wouldnt have seen had I not been already familiar with the Gospels.

However in other cases, our presumptions hinder us from seeing things that otherwise would maybe be more apparent. This is because some of our presumptions are very "set in stone"(or what I call core beliefs). If one is to define something as a core, unmovable belief, then any passage or verse that seems in opposition to that, is systematically going to be interpreted around that core belief. One of the typical core beliefs of a Christian, for example, is the deity of Christ. So when they read a verse like, Ephesians 1:2 where Paul says, "Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ."

Its not likely they are going to assume that Paul means that Jesus isnt God, even though Paul references God and Jesus here almost as if they are two separate beings entirely. Rather, one might say, Paul's simply refering to Jesus and the Father in a "trinitarian" sense (Thats not the greatest example, but you get the idea). Now, with that said, many peoples core beliefs do change on occasion. But it happens more slowly and a lot less often than our perspectives on more "minor" biblical issues(such as baby baptisms and the rapture). Core beliefs are usually so deeply hardwired into our hearts and minds, that to modify them requires a major reassessment of our world and biblical view. So even in the face of considerable evidence it is only natural that we fight for these ideas tooth and nail...even to our "theological death" so to speak.

Our presuppositions on the Bible are also developed through our readings of other parts of the Bible. Each interpretation we make about a particular verse/passage will in some way affect how we see another verse/passage...be that in the same chapter or 8 books later. One particular conflict that is solved in such a way, is in regards to Jesus being the savior of "all men" and the existence of an "eternal" Hell. Both are concepts founded on several verses, but at face value we logically cant believe both ideas. Jesus cannot save all mankind and yet, some be lost eternally to Hell...its a contradiction, so we have to make some interpretations here. We may interpret that Jesus is the savior of all, but only in the sense that He can potentially save all, thus allowing for the existence of a never ending Hell for some. Or we may interpret that the Hell texts do not speak of a literally unending punishment and that any punishment God gives is for our ultimate good, thus allowing for Jesus to be the savior of every single person at some point. The reasonings for both conclusions can be debated of course, but in both cases one interpretation gives way to another.

This is how we make sense of the Bible, by subliminally bending texts around the poles of our core beliefs. Which is why I find the phrase "You're just twisting scripture to say what you want it to say!" to be as pointless as the cutting out scripture phrase . Because everyone, in some sense "twists" verses around their deepest held theological ideas to compile a coherent perspective on the Bible and what it says about God, life and us. Theres pretty much no way not to do that, because without it the Bible is nothing more than contradictory books and letters that adhere to no rhyme, reason or purpose. Some verses/passages have to be assigned minor roles, if you will, so that the main concepts of the Bible can play on the center stage of our interpretations. This doesnt in any way mean you ignore certain verses, it just means you arrange them so that coherency can exist among them. Without our ability to give order to concepts and ideas presented in scripture, I think it loses its most important quality which is its spiritual quality. And the only way to do this is by praying and listening to what God is saying to us as we read. Otherwise you may arrange a coherent sounding theology, but it'll just be a big tower of cleverly stacked falsehoods.

Lately, this realization has caused me to lose a bit of interest in debating, particularly in regards to Bible verse meanings. It can be fun, and I think its actually somewhat of a necessity to challenge one another on them for personal growth and understanding. But there are just so many different ways to look at and connect its themes, that it seems pretty prideful for me or anyone to jump up and shout "EUREKA! I have constructed the perfect grid for which to arrange all Biblical concepts!". Obviously I feel the way that my theological grid arranges the main concepts of the Bible is the most compelling, or I would simply just believe something else. But its not my place to tell people how they have to interpret things, I can only share the reasons why I interpret things the way I do and politely leave it at that.

To preach, or not to preach?

So as many of you know by now, I'm beginning to believe that I am called to be a pastor, or something ministry related at least. There are a number of reasons that have been more or less "snow balling" within me, however I believe the conclusion was finally triggered a few days ago. And so Im going to attempt to walk through the process that brought me here, in hopes to clarify to myself (and to others) what I'm thinking on this...

The last several weeks/months have left me very frustrated with life, what with my car dying, my job giving me less and less hours, and my graphic design leads giving me less than stellar results. I had been feeling for a few months now that maybe I was supposed to do something that didnt strictly pertain to my graphic design degree, but I wasnt sure just what. That and I tried to avoid thinking about it, since I didnt want to be one of those American morons that spent years going to college for something, only to realize afterwards that they wanted to pursue something else entirely. But the doors of opportunity appear all but open in this crappy economy. So finally I prayed in desperation, asking God to tell me what I was supposed to do even if I didnt want to hear it, and the idea of a pastor and ministry immediately came to mind. Being as its something ive only passingly entertained in my mind before, I naturally asked God if He had gone completely mad or if I was just hearing things.

After mulling it over for awhile though it began to make more sense. Over the past several months I've heard time and time again, from both Christians and non-Christians, that I should be a pastor...though I'd always respond how I didn't feel cut out for that line of spiritual duty (and Im still wondering if I am). After all, who am I really? Just some artist/musician guy who writes religious blogs and works at a supermarket. I have a number of issues that cause me not to be the model Christian more often than not(ex. impatience, laziness, selfishness) , and I struggled with giving speeches in both high school and college. So I certainly wouldn't seem to be the most likely candidate for a preacher-type.

Though I guess when you think about it, Jesus chose some pretty unlikely people to first spread His word; A couple of them were fishermen, Matthew was a tax collector and the apostle Paul murdered Christians before Jesus appeared to Him. Prior to Jesus calling them, none of them probably had a clue as to the great roles they would play in God's story. And perhaps in a similar way, God has used other people to call me to something I never would have considered in years past.

Another thing thats helped spur me in this direction, is my over all frustration with "church" and Christianity in general. As ive stated before, its really been a struggle finding my place within a system that I no longer believe in. I love God, I love the scriptures, I love all my Christian brothers and sisters and I support many things that churches are doing throughout the world. However, going to church in the attempt to salvage what truth I can and plant seeds of knowledge, has been an endeavor that has left me more frustrated than uplifted. All you are given in church today, are traditional interpretations and ideas(with small variances here and there) in a manner that leaves little room for personal interpretation. And if you are so bold as to question the clergy's interpretation, you are often looked down upon and told how you cannot possibly be right. Which makes my biggest problem with Christianity not the fact that I disagree with it on a couple key beliefs, but that it has fooled itself into thinking its beliefs are beyond reconsideration.

As long as Christianity lives in that delusion, it will continue to discourage its participators from thinking and discerning for themselves. As long as people arent discerning for themselves, they will continue to commit the most tragic crime of religion: elevating man-made beliefs above God's conviction within us. And the more I realize this, the harder it is to simply sit by while good-intending leaders of faith, direct people down a path that can cripple their spiritual growth (as it did mine). Thats why, God willingly, I want to bring believers together in a setting where people arent guilt-tripped into believing a certain set of doctrines, but are free to have their own interpretations. A place where I can give a message according to what I feel God is showing me, but also let everyone voice their opinion. A place where I can tell people about Gods truly unconditional love and salvation for humanity, that I never learned about in "church". A place where I and others are truly unbound by fundamentalism, to search the scriptures ourselves and see what is true. Perhaps some meetings we wont even talk about the God, but simply go out into the community and reflect God in deed. And the only setting I can think of that this would be realistic would be in like in a home or some other non-formal location.

Im not sure whether God is really calling me to ministry or not, or just how exactly I am supposed to go about that. And my views on any of the above ideals could change or become more specific, especially in my ordination process (which is part of the reason I want to go through with it, to give me time to sort out my vision). But if He is calling me to minister, I hope I can help give people the tools to search out God themselves through the scriptures, and underpin it with the fact that God's spirit is the ultimate teacher...not a creed, not a church, not a theologian, and certainly not me.

So to preach, or not to preach? I dont know, but either way I'll still make annoying Facebook statuses ;)