The Wizard of Oz and the Bible – Part Two
Brian McLaren suggests that the mere fact that the men who wrote the Bible referred to people does not mean that they believed those people were actual historic figures: "Can the Bible writers similarly refer to stories or concepts from their times and not be expected to be affirming of their complete historicity?”
In part one of this post (The Wizard of Oz and the Bible - Part One) we looked at some instances in which the Bible writers referred to people who were not historical figures. We saw that the Bible contains accounts that include non-historical information.
This should not surprise us. In fact, we regularly use similar language in our daily lives. When the weatherman tells us that Old Man Winter is going to be here for several more weeks, we know that he is not referring to an octogenarian with a seasonal name.
When Dick Clark sits high above Times Square on New Years Eve and announces that Father Time is marching on, we know what he means.
When Clark then mentions that he will shortly be joined by the mayor of New York City, we know what Clark means. We do not have to think twice to determine what is meant.
For some strange reason, People who dislike the Bible are unwilling to allow for similar language usage in the Scripture.
McLaren would have us to believe that because of the fact that some of the language in the Bible may refer to fictional characters or non-historic concepts, that we can apparently without limitation quite properly call into question the historicity of a wider range of people, events and concepts mentioned by the Bible writers.
From this notion, the Emergent Church writers wander into the darkness calling into question all kinds of Biblical truths proclaimed by the Biblical writers. For example, they wonder whether homosexuality is really a sin, or whether the atonement is necessary, or whether Jesus is the only way to heaven.
This approach by the Emerging Church writers brought forward the notion that we should call a moratorium on preaching against homosexuality for several years until we can study it further. In other words, in spite of two thousand years of theological reflection and teaching on this topic, we come to find that we are lost at sea in regard to the clear teachings from Romans 1 and several other passages.
The hermeneutical shift is unwarranted and goes like this: Since writer A has in the past made a reference to a non-historic person or to a fictional concept A, then one can rightly bring into question whether writer A meant that concepts B, C and D are historical too. Further, because concept A is non-historical one can not only question the historicity of concepts B, C and D but can also leave the historicity of those concepts open for continuous, ongoing discussion as long as one wishes, based merely on the fictional nature of concept A.
Most people learn how to make the proper distinctions at an early age. That is why children know the difference between the Grinch and Jesus. They don't confuse the notion of which one is real and which one is imaginary.
For adults who have difficulty along those lines, a good hermeneutics course would help. In the meantime, if they continue to struggle with the difference between fact and fiction, perhaps they should do something other than shepherd God's people.
In part one of this post (The Wizard of Oz and the Bible - Part One) we looked at some instances in which the Bible writers referred to people who were not historical figures. We saw that the Bible contains accounts that include non-historical information.
This should not surprise us. In fact, we regularly use similar language in our daily lives. When the weatherman tells us that Old Man Winter is going to be here for several more weeks, we know that he is not referring to an octogenarian with a seasonal name.
When Dick Clark sits high above Times Square on New Years Eve and announces that Father Time is marching on, we know what he means.
When Clark then mentions that he will shortly be joined by the mayor of New York City, we know what Clark means. We do not have to think twice to determine what is meant.
For some strange reason, People who dislike the Bible are unwilling to allow for similar language usage in the Scripture.
McLaren would have us to believe that because of the fact that some of the language in the Bible may refer to fictional characters or non-historic concepts, that we can apparently without limitation quite properly call into question the historicity of a wider range of people, events and concepts mentioned by the Bible writers.
From this notion, the Emergent Church writers wander into the darkness calling into question all kinds of Biblical truths proclaimed by the Biblical writers. For example, they wonder whether homosexuality is really a sin, or whether the atonement is necessary, or whether Jesus is the only way to heaven.
This approach by the Emerging Church writers brought forward the notion that we should call a moratorium on preaching against homosexuality for several years until we can study it further. In other words, in spite of two thousand years of theological reflection and teaching on this topic, we come to find that we are lost at sea in regard to the clear teachings from Romans 1 and several other passages.
The hermeneutical shift is unwarranted and goes like this: Since writer A has in the past made a reference to a non-historic person or to a fictional concept A, then one can rightly bring into question whether writer A meant that concepts B, C and D are historical too. Further, because concept A is non-historical one can not only question the historicity of concepts B, C and D but can also leave the historicity of those concepts open for continuous, ongoing discussion as long as one wishes, based merely on the fictional nature of concept A.
Most people learn how to make the proper distinctions at an early age. That is why children know the difference between the Grinch and Jesus. They don't confuse the notion of which one is real and which one is imaginary.
For adults who have difficulty along those lines, a good hermeneutics course would help. In the meantime, if they continue to struggle with the difference between fact and fiction, perhaps they should do something other than shepherd God's people.
posted by Steve at 4:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home