From: mussack@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The Bible (Again)
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:31:17 GMT

Hi, thanks to the people who responded to my previous post,
this is kind of a follow-up to that post and also to other
things written by others. Some of my ideas are not fully developed 
here but I think you will get my point.

Maybe I look at things differently but regarding
Biblical inerrancy: I still don't "get it".

I read from the Bible almost everyday, as I read it I usually think
"that makes sense." For example, Jesus tells about the good
Samaritan and I think "That's right, I should help people and be a
neighbor to everyone, even my 'enemies'". 
When I read how David didn't kill Saul in the cave when he had
a chance I can admire him.
When I read Job complain "Why am I suffering
when I try to be good?" I think "Yeah, sometimes I suffer when
I don't deserve it." Like, I can relate, man. 8-)

The point is that when I read the Bible it's not the same as
when I read a mortgage contract or a textbook. I don't try to
memorize it or look for subtle technical points, I try to
understand how it relates to me and my life. 

Here's an example:
If I'm driving down the road and someone in the next lane signals
to get in my lane I will let him in. He is just as important as I
am, I should love him as much as I love myself. Do I deserve to
go to heaven because of this small act? No, or as Paul would write,
"of course not." If I didn't let him in would that doom me to hell.
Again, no. But, if I were the type of person that I would begrudge
this fellow traveller of a lane change, then I wouldn't be living
a Christian life. There's no rule about this, if I were day dreaming
and didn't notice it really wouldn't matter.

The point is that in my analysis of the situation the "inerrancy"
of the Bible is irrelevant. I know I should try to follow Jesus'
teaching about love; Jesus gives many examples, other parts of 
the Bible give examples, I claim I understand it and try to follow it.
I don't look in my concordance, I don't find some obscure passage
about ox-carts and try to draw parallels: "Yield thou thy path
unto thy neighbors ox-cart." In fact, if I found some passage that
mentioned ox-carts claiming "Yield not unto the ox-cart, for the Lord
will give his way" I would ignore it as not pertinent to the situation.

Even the phrase "Word of God" is not as significant to me as it 
apparently is to others. Words are symbols, distinct from reality. 
It implies communication between or among people, this communication
is dependent on all parties involved. (If the Bible were written today
would it contain "Diagrams of God" or "Four-color Foldouts of God"?)
It is useful to try to understand the culture of the people involved, 
to understand idioms and background history, 
perhaps we can gain new insights. But claims that the Bible is
"inerrant" and that it is a _necessary_ starting point of our faith
smacks of ... I don't know, like those people who pass geometry
by memorizing every proof in the book. 

As I reread this I realize that I might sound mocking, but in
no way do I mean to mock anyone's faith. I believe that the Bible
can be comforting with its absolute tones, it can also be challenging
with its true to life descriptions of human beings and 
the human condition, and it can be disquieting with its bluntly
presented paradoxes. But it is not the starting point, man had
a relationship with God before writing was invented, if all the
Bibles in the world were destroyed man would still have a relationship
with God.



Chris Mussack (poor man's theologian 8-) )o