WARNING: this post gets into some theological discussion that, for most everyone out there, will be neither helpful nor interesting. And it’s way too long (which is why I’ve broken it up into two separate posts). Forgive me and please be gracious.

_____________

Anyone that follows the blog knows that I’m currently thinking through and writing a Lent series on the theological idea that Jesus was slain “before the foundations of the world” (Part 1, Part 2). Even though no one has said anything to this effect, I have felt like somewhat of a hypocrite. As I’ve been doing this, I’ve been haunted by a little voice reminding me that it seems like I’m employing many of the same techniques of interpretation and viewing the Bible that I’ve criticized in others before. This post is my attempt at reconciling this in my own head (in front of all of you).

As J.R.D. Kirk (and others) has often talked about, many of our theological disagreements in the church boil down to a simple question “what is the Bible?”. At the end of the day, we can argue about any number of things appealing to the Bible, but if we believe fundamentally different things about what the Bible is–and how it is that–we will never get anywhere.

And here’s where I’m getting into problems with this series: there are ways of viewing the Bible that, in others, I have criticized as reductionistic, simplistic, and frankly, abusive to the text itself, and I fear that I’m employing many of those same techniques in my thinking through this series. Here are two of those ways (two more later):
Continue reading →