In response to my question:
> << 3. The question then becomes, How does one tell the difference between a
> text that (1) is a set of _divine revelations_ whose written form has, by
> the Spirit's direction, been crafted in the conceptual vocabulary, literary
> styles and limited knowledge base of the "rude and unlearned," or (2)
> actually is a thoroughly _human account_ of an authentic human experience of
> the divine presence, written in the conceptual vocabulary, literary styles
> and limited knowledge base of the writers?
Wayne wrote:
> I suspect it comes down to whether you
> believe the integrity of the people who wrote the Bible. When you
> read Jeramiah, is it a message that speak to your heart? Do you see him
> as a self deluded mad man raving at the world, or do you think he has
> a message that you should be listening to? When you
> read the Gospel, or the Epistles of Paul, do you think these people
> were frauds, or self serving opportunists? In short, do you think
> these are people who have come into contact with the living God, or
> are they just another band of bamboozling schlockmeisters?
I do respect the integrity of the people whose writings were included in the
canon. Their writings were evaluated and selected by communities usually in
a position to separate wheat from chaff. I'm not fearful that the writers
were deluded, or raving mad, or frauds, or self-serving opportunists, or
bamboozling schlockmeisters. My option (2) was in no way intended to suggest
that.
The intended distinction was between (1) direct divine revelation, disguised
to look like human writing and (2) human writing that benefits from an
awareness of God. Option (1) often leads to Book worship insulated from
critical evaluation, while (2) invites continuing evaluation in the light of
the totality of human experience. (1) invites the "say as they said"
syndrome; (2) invites the "do as they did" strategy that I favor.
Cordially,
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 27 2001 - 15:45:41 EST