The Evolutionary Trajectory of the Story of God: An Odd Letter

Part One – An Introduction
Part Two – The Mystique
Part Three – Purpose
Part Four – Inerrancy & Inspiration
Part Five – The Problem of the Holy Spirit

“God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.”

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that saying. What the H-E-Double Hockey Sticks does that even mean?

First of all the passage in Hebrews actually says Jesus doesn’t change (not God). But even then, what does that mean?

I think this is a good hermeneutical exercise and will explain a bit of my frustration with contemporary understandings of the Holy Spirit, thus the problem of the Holy Spirit.

So we have this guy who wrote this book “inspired by the Spirit”. So far academic scholarship has narrowed down the possible author to Paul, Luke, Clement, Barnabas, Apollos, Silas, and dare I mention a woman . . . Priscilla. For my money, I’ll take Luke or Apollos. But either way you had this person in the conclusion to their letter (the book of Hebrews) trying to encouraging his/her audience.

So he/she writes, “Live the same way as the people who went before you lived. The Jesus they followed is the same Jesus that you follow.” – Hebrews 13:7-8

So here’s a biblical author that writes something.

And if we don’t believe that the Spirit pulled a Poltergeist and entered into the author’s body . . .

And if we don’t believe that the Spirit robotically controlled the arm and pen of the author . . .

And if we don’t believe that the Spirit showed up in the fire lit room while the author wrote dictating for them the exact, precise words that should be on the parchment . . .

What other options are we left with?

Could it be the simplest answer of all?

Could it be that Paul or Luke or Clement or Barnabas or Apollos or Silas or Priscilla were simply writing an encouraging letter to their two groups of friends who were fighting with each other and divorcing themselves from community with each other over what was kosher and what wasn’t kosher? Could it be that the author . . . at the end of their letter . . . simply wanted to remind them that the God who was FOR the Jews is also the God who is FOR the Gentiles, thus encouraging both sides to reconcile with each other and imitate those who lived in harmony before them?

Could it be that simple?

Instead what do we get today? 2,000 years later, people take one sentence in the conclusion of an ancient, personal, contextual letter and bastardize it by saying that God . . . God the almighty never changes. He’s a rock. And he never changes. And his scripture never changes. And his words never change. And his attitude never changes.

Really?!? We get that from that letter? And I’m the raging liberal who wants to spit on the bible? At least I approach it honestly. I don’t rip stuff out of context to fit my foundational perspective.

Who knows? Maybe God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. But if he is, one sentence, of one letter to a group of people doesn’t seal the deal for me.

I never see the ancient Jewish Hebrews arguing over God’s “immutability” (the great doctrine that we’ve created to make sense of the above sentence in the personal letter). For them God was God and that’s all that really mattered.

I never see the ancient church arguing over God’s “immutability”. For them God was God and that’s all that really mattered.

Think of it like this.

Say I was a friend of a friend of one of the great scientists of our day. One day my scientist friend died. A reporter might come to me to ask me what I thought about his work and his experiments. I might then give a few of my thoughts. About how much I loved him. About how odd he was. About what a good friend he was. Or what a good scientist he was. In a moment of emotion (no less true) I might slip into a minute of exaggeration and say that his experiments were some of the greatest things ever done on this Earth. I may say that my friend was the best scientist ever. And I might say that he was better than all other scientists. These thoughts that I shared with the journalist may find their way to a magazine or newspaper. Of course the journalist would edit them in such a way so that they could fit my reflections into the angle that they already predetermined to write. The journalist would then use bits and pieces of my thoughts, mixed with the bits and pieces of others, and write a collected reflection of my great friend.

Fast forward to 1000 years later. Some guys in the scientific field that my friend started might try to collect some of the teachings and experiments of my friend. To collect them so that others would know how influential he was in history. And how much his odd little experiments actually were helping to make the world a better place. This collection might include some actual experiments and scientific data. It might include some stories from some of his friends. And it might include my loose collection of random thoughts that I shared with a journalist 1000 years earlier. Which had been preserved for all of this time. They would then probably come across my exaggeration of my friend . . . where I said he was the best scientist ever. This was my personal opinion. They might disagree because they knew of another scientist who was more important than my friend. There may have even been some recent developments and a scientist from 200 years earlier may in reality have come up with something different. Not better or worse. Just a newer and more recent development.

They would look at this exaggerated statement of mine that I had made 1000 years earlier in my time of great emotion. They wouldn’t argue that what I had said was “ABSOLUTE TRUTH”. Or that what I said in my personal reflections was “THE SAME YESTERDAY, TODAY, AND TOMORROW”. They would simply see what I said for what it was. My honest reflections about the friend that I loved and admired.

What I said was true. It was what I knew at the time. And it’s what I believed.

My reflections about my friend were true to me and all those who knew him. But it was contextual to the very moment that the journalist asked me. It was contextual before the journalist went to the paper and transcribed or rewrote my reflections to fit the papers needs.

My reflections were contextual. And my reflections were provisional.

Something that the group of scientists 1000 years later who were looking to compile all of this stuff about my friend could never understand.

Let alone the people that came along another 1000 years after them.

They could never understand this.

Somehow in the midst of a wide variety and number of different accounts and recordings . . . my little reflections given to a journalist 2000 years ago became concrete, black and white, solid, foundational, ABSOLUTE Truth. Binding on all generations before me. And binding on all generations after me.

If they didn’t believe my contextual, provisional reflections about my close friend . . . then they would either have to recant . . . or find another faith.

Those are the only options.

But I’ve got another one.

Listening: Antics by Interpol

[tags]Scripture, Bible, Scripture + Evolution[/tags]