Saturday, March 11, 2006

believe, but believe what is most Convenient ?

As an avid reader, I must confess that my viewpoint and ability to argue an argument is not as up to par as I would prefer it to be. With that, I can't help shake, from time to time, all the argumentation over theological matters in Christianity that I run into. I see both view points and I understand even where they are coming from, but isn't it better to have an actual Truth rather then a debate? Unfortunately that is not possible on this broken world, that is to not have debate, not that Truth is not floating around in the midst of it all. So whether you identify yourself as emerging, conservative, protestant, catholic, Episcopal, Baptist or anything else under the umbrella of modern Christianity, I'd love to agree with you, but.....

....What are we all basing this off of? I read arguments that at the end sound as though the sins that you are being saved from once believing in Jesus are only sins that you consider to be sinful. As strange as that sounds, I must ask those people what can Jesus save me from then? Should I try the sins that you are working on first, and then try the ones that I feel as though are sins, but the Christian next to me feels as though those aren't?

And that's just talking about sins and the Bible as a rule book. What about the Trinity debate, the importance of the cross and Jesus' death debate (1 Corinthians 15 is my best answer for that one, but hey, what did Paul know anyway, anything?). How about the argument that Jesus was only preaching to Jews and trying to challenge the Jewish faith in its sincerity, not to create a new movement. One begins to see that there is room for interpretation for anything involving Christianity.

I beg to differ. And I do so because from both the viewpoint of a history major and as well as practicing believer in Jesus, that there is solid ground. Jesus is of course that foundation of solid ground, but all He ever said in those regards was that we should not build our house on the sand but on rock, never referring us to what exactly that rock is. So out of the many things to consider, I love to ponder out loud every now and then about the ideas of a mentally challenged person, or even more milder, just a person with learning difficulties. What are their theological argument to Jesus and His firm stance on many moral subjects? What can that person add to all of these arguments? I'm afraid not the answers we are looking for, but perhaps the actual answer that we need. It would be better to tell that person exactly what the Word of God says, exactly the way those privileged apostles told us about their encounter with God in the flesh.

After all, primary sources are the most persuasive accounts in regards to a historical document. Maybe we should give credit to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John with their primary sources so as to go by them in terms of defining Jesus. I'd also have to say that Paul's conversion and experience at propelling the Church cannot be taken lightly either, and so the more we question what he told us, the more we question what God is capable of doing.

So before we go off saying that we are Christians who enjoy postmodern theology or anything else that allows us to always question and never settle our houses on that Rock, I think it is better to take at face value what Jesus taught us in the Bible, because what other source do we have of His teachings and life?

No comments: