Kristin Kobes Du Mez - Why Evangelicals Love Donald Trump

The Problem of Church Becoming State

"America is Not a Theocracy... It is a Civic Institution"

by R.E. Slater

June 23, 2022

Yesterday I had posted Caleb Poston's article entitled, "When Your Theology Becomes a Problem."  It felt very related to a comment I had made earlier this week:

Observation

"God's love is a higher priority than God's sovereignty". - Anon

Remark

I was raised in a faith heritage which has become fixated on power. Divine Power. Today, I revel not in Divine Power but in Divine Love.

The former theology teaches withdrawal from the world, militancy against the world, and exclusion to the world.

There can be no mission to people when coming with a sword in hand to conquer, force ideology, or project religious dogma. This would be very much like how Jihadists promote their brand of oppressive Islamic faith which a normal Islamist would denounce and defy except for loss of limbs, imprisonment, or death.

It is the kind of religion "firebrand Christianity" claims to denounce even as it follows Jihadism in spirit but not quite in law (yet). Though we could cite example after example of physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual abuse within fundamentalist churches. Not that it doesn't occur elsewhere - such as the "God-fearing" family - but it occurs especially here in tightknit social circles of like beliefs.

Teaching God's Love does the opposite. It is naturally missional and wholly centered in the other... not one's dogmatism.

It leads with a smile, a handshake, an embrace. It is naturally attractive in its helps, healing, assurance, and welcome to the other. It's transformative power starts (and stays) with the heart, not the head.

This is the kind of Jesus theology evangelicalism should be promoting. It was certainly the kind I had learned until my faith had turned from Jesus to dominionist lusts for power and control. (Which, no surprise... is why neo-Calvinism enjoys its day within the ranks of the confirmed faithful of God.)

Moreover, a proper theology of a God of Love is centered around the incarnational God known as Jesus in the gospels. A God who showed us his heart as Jesus.

God came not by a sword ala the apostle Peter. Neither by a fearful, corrupt religion ala an apostle once named Saul (now known as Paul) who stoned Christians for abandoning their Jewish faith. In difference, another apostle by the name of John seems to have gotten it right in contrast to his friend Thomas who failed in his love and disbelieved the resurrection of Jesus (requiring demonstration by Christ as to his resurrected body).

Sadly, another Jesus disciple named Judas fled from God's love when losing courage to be loved by Jesus, to share Jesus' love with others, or try to love, forgive, or be compassionate to all men, especially the poor. Instead, guilt tore Judas apart and led to his untimely death (along with the ill-willed miscreants, the heathen Jewish priests, who paid a betrayer's wage for his deceit).

God's Love is what God is about. Not naked Power. Not oppressive Power. Not controlling Power. Not worried Power. Not even prideful Power.

God created from love for love in love. Our loving God sustains in love. He relates to all creation in love. God speaks, sings, and flourishes in love. God is wholly about love from which all of God's Self revolves, regenerates, rebirths, and renews.

This is the God I worship now. Whose songs, poetry, teachings, counsel, and theology I speak to, and am in constant wonder not only of my Redeemer, but how my church got it so backwards. So wrong. So confused. So pagan in its outlook.

Of a church doubling down on its Calvinism teaching of a God of wrath and judgment and controlling dogma claiming it as biblical when demonstrating it's own teaching is but a blasphemous idol to the Living God who loves at all times in every fiber of his holy Being.

This is not the God I know. It is the God plucked from the pages of the bible without any understanding of the socio-religious evolution going on its pages. Or should I say its "Spiritos" revolution occurring within its pages as it describes Jewish communities fearing a God of wrath not understanding their borrowing of this belief from the pagan religions around them believing in gods of wrath requiring sacrifice, submission, and quixotic submission (sic, "exceedingly idealistic; unrealistic and impractical").

Thus and thus Jesus came to tell his people that God is not like the pagan gods of wrath, evil, and destruction. That God is a God of love. That God came incarnationally as himself to show us God's Self. The Old Testament, like the New Testament, but describes to us Jewish/Christian communities in transition from pagan ideology to a wholly-loving gospel.

To read Scriptures then is to read of these deeply transitional times in the past-time sense of reading. In today's contemporary-time sense of reading it would seem to me that we, as Jesus followers, have not gone so very far from our ancient past. That our theology hasn't grown very much if at all. Perhaps now would be a good time to start preaching, living, and writing gospels of love... not gospels of condemnation, anathema, and destruction.

Oppression, whether civil or religious, is still oppression. Love does not oppress. It gives, shares, respects, honors, and protects all around itself - whether human or nature. Love nurtures. Love hugs. Love kisses the other in warm fellowship. Hate cannot and never will. God is Love.

Read 1 John... all of it. And then go back and reread the bible as its narratives struggle with who God is based upon a religious community's fears, needs and quest for identity over the centuries in the bible.

- res

To follow Jesus is to serve others, not to subjugate them to your religion

When I came across Kristin Du Mez's interview last night speaking to why evangelicalism refuses to follow Jesus - in preference to following a Republicanism which I, as a former Republican, no longer recognize - I knew her interview required attention. People think that since President Obama's terms I had moved left into the Democrat party. This would be inaccurate. I had never left my Republican party. It left me.

Moreover, I still believe today that I have never moved from my earlier beliefs. That capitalism should be marked with generosity, wise governance, and careful spending within budgetary limits. Unlike Libertarians my common sense tells me large government is here to stay because of America's large, complex society. However, it must always work towards being efficient. To keeping as small a footprint as possible. But when governing 360,000,000 people government will always require heft, expanse, and competency.

Along the way, perhaps during the Reagan years, Christianity began to believe it should join The State rather than remain separate from The State. This was my position. To elect competent, godly, men and women of multiple faiths to lead and direct as there can be found... but to have the church stay to its mission of ministry, not governance. America is NOT a theocracy. It is a civil democratic institution.

Civil... not Religious. Democratic... not Theocratic.  A Republic... not a Kingdom. But after Reagan and Farewell's Moral Majority my evangelical faith left its faith for political power and control and the rest is history (and also the reason I began Relevancy22 back in 2012... way before Trump... to speak out against my heritage's wrong left turn in the 1970s onto the errant lanes of dominionism and kingdom reconstruction).

Hence, I post Kristin's interview with CNN to share that if you, like myself, and Caleb Poston, have noticed a confusion of church identity and identity politics in your civic life, you are not alone. Other Christians have noticed this too and are speaking out.

R.E. Slater

June 23, 2022

* * * * * * *

Kristin Kobes Du Mez:

"...It is important to assess power dynamics within evangelical communities. Dissenters are often marginalized or pushed out of their communities...."

"If Trump runs, he can expect the enthusiastic support of his White evangelical base. If he wins, he will have them to thank. If he loses, he knows he can still depend on their support. A recent [PRRI] survey revealed that 60% of white evangelical Protestants believe the 2020 election was stolen, and that more than a quarter (26%) believe that 'true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save our country.' With the fate of Christian America hanging in the balance, for many, the end will justify the means."

The secret of why evangelicals love

Herschel Walker (and Donald Trump)

Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

Updated 11:38 AM ET, Wed June 22, 2022

(CNN) Over the weekend, Herschel Walker addressed the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a gathering of social conservatives in Nashville, Tennessee. His speech came just days after Walker's campaign publicly acknowledged he had three children by women he was not married to in addition to his son by his ex-wife.

Was the crowd skeptical of the Georgia Republican Senate nominee? Quite the contrary. Politico reported that Walker "received resounding applause from evangelical Christian activists on Saturday."

How to explain that seeming contradiction? Enter Kristin Kobes Du Mez, a professor of history at Calvin University. Du Mez is the author of The New York Times bestseller "Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation," a book that has had a profound impact on how I understand the rise (and continued support) of Donald Trump and his acolytes, like Walker.

I reached out to Du Mez to chat about Walker, Trump and the broader Republican Party. Our conversation -- conducted via email and lightly edited for flow -- is below.

Cillizza: Herschel Walker was cheered by a social conservative crowd over the weekend, just days after he acknowledged he has four kids, not the one most people thought he had. What gives?

Du Mez: We really shouldn't be surprised by this anymore. Every time we see "family values conservatives" rally around a candidate who makes a mockery of family values it can feel jarring, but of course, this is nothing new.

There are a lot of things going on in this particular case. Obviously, there are political reasons for conservatives to stand by their man. It's not easy to find an African American Republican with Walker's name recognition to go up against Sen. Raphael Warnock, and this is a key race in the upcoming midterm elections.

But there's more to this picture.

Republicans have long equated a rugged masculine strength with successful political leadership. This ideal of conservative masculinity, or at least its current manifestation, can be traced back to the 1960s when conservatives accused feminists and antiwar activists of redefining traditional manhood in a way that left families and the nation at risk. This masculine ideal was both personal and political. Men needed to be good fathers and strong fighters, and in this way, "traditional" masculinity ensured both order and security.

Within American conservatism, rugged White men are often seen to embody this masculine ideal, but Black men who support Republican social and political values can also be seen as champions of traditional American manhood. As a social conservative, Republican loyalist, and former football star, Walker was in many ways perfectly positioned to step into this role. He boasted of his business prowess and talked frequently about the problem of absentee fathers.

Within the African American community, an emphasis on fatherhood transcends party lines, but among social conservatives, this rhetoric can also be used for partisan political ends. Rather than looking to systemic racism and structural inequalities, social problems can be blamed on the individual failures of Black men.

In Walker's case, his vocal condemnation of absentee fathers now strikes a hypocritical tone.

Fortunately for him, social conservatives have proven quite ready to forgive and forget when politically convenient to do so. We've seen family values conservatives embrace the likes of Roy Moore, Brett Kavanaugh, and of course, President Trump in recent years, despite allegations of abuse and moral failings.

In fact, in the case of White evangelicals, we've witnessed a dramatic reversal in the last few years in terms of how much personal morality matters when it comes to their support for political candidates. In 2011, just 30% of evangelicals believed that a person who commits an "immoral act" could behave ethically in a public role; in 2016, 72% thought this was possible [according to polling from PRRI/Brookings]. Walker is only the latest Republican man to reap the benefits of this situational morality.

Cillizza: In your book, you write that the rise of Donald Trump fits into a long pattern within the evangelical community. Explain.

Du Mez: When it became clear that White evangelicals overwhelmingly supported Donald Trump, pundits (and some evangelicals themselves) responded with shock and confusion. How could family values evangelicals support a man who seemed the very antithesis of the values they held dear? This question only intensified in the days after the release of the "Access Hollywood" tape, when only a handful of evangelicals wavered in their support of a man caught on video bragging about assaulting women. There is certainly hypocrisy at play here, but as a historian of evangelicalism, I knew that what we were looking at couldn't be explained merely in terms of hypocrisy.

For decades, conservative White evangelicals have championed a rugged, even ruthless "warrior" masculinity. Believing that "gender difference" was the foundation of a God-given social order, evangelicals taught that women and men were opposites. God filled men with testosterone so that they could fulfill their God-ordained role as leaders, as protectors and providers. Testosterone made them aggressive, and it gave them a God-given sex drive. Men needed to channel their aggression, and their sex drives, in ways that strengthened both family and nation.

Generations of evangelicals consumed millions of books and listened to countless sermons expounding these "truths." Within this framework, there was ready forgiveness for male sexual misconduct. It was up to women to avoid tempting men who were not their husbands and meet the sexual needs of men who were. When men went astray, there was always a woman to blame. For men, misdeeds could be written off as too much of a good thing or perhaps a necessary evil, as evidence of red-blooded masculinity that needed only to be channeled in redemptive directions.

Within evangelical communities, we see these values expressed in the way organizations too often turn a blind eye to abuse, blame victims, and defend abusers in the interest of propping up a larger cause -- a man's ministry, an institution's mission, or the broader "witness of the church."

In 2016, we heard precisely this rhetoric in defense of Donald Trump. Trump was a man's man. He would not be cowed by political correctness, but would do what needed to be done. He represented "a John Wayne America," an America where heroic men were not afraid to resort to violence when necessary in pursuit of a greater good. Evangelicals did not embrace Trump in spite of his rough edges, but because of them.

At a time when many evangelicals perceived their values to be under fire, they looked to Trump as their "ultimate fighting champion," a man who would not be afraid to throw his weight around to protect "Christian America" against threats both foreign and domestic.

Trump was not a betrayal of evangelical values, but rather their fulfillment.

Cillizza: Are there dissenting voices within the evangelical community? What is their message? And how is it resonating if at all?

Du Mez: There are certainly dissenting voices within the evangelical community. Depending on how you define "evangelicalism," many Black "evangelicals" dissent from White evangelical politics. But among White evangelicals, too, there are dissenters. If we think about the infamous 81% of White evangelicals who voted for Trump, that leaves 19% who did not.

We can look to prominent evangelicals like Russell Moore, Beth Moore and David French, who have spoken out against Trump, advocated for victims of sexual abuse, and sought to call out the radicalism they see among their fellow evangelicals. There are also many local evangelical pastors and laypeople who are speaking out in these respects. But it is important to assess power dynamics within evangelical communities. Dissenters are often marginalized or pushed out of their communities. Both Beth Moore and Russell Moore were pushed out of the Southern Baptist Convention; Russell Moore abandoned a powerful leadership position and Beth Moore lost nearly two million dollars in ministry revenue. On the local level, too, many pastors find that they speak out against Republican politics at their own peril. Many are grappling with their inability to lead those they had considered their followers.

Cillizza: The New York Times over the weekend reported that gun companies have started using appeals to masculinity to sell guns. Does that surprise you?

Du Mez: Not at all. In this country, guns have long been a symbol of rugged individualism, cowboy justice and masculine power. The myth of the "good guy with a gun" runs deep in American popular culture. In the midst of widening political polarization, growing social distrust, and escalation of perceived threats, firearms manufacturers see ideal market conditions.

Traditionally, gun sales have gone up when Republicans lose elections, but Donald Trump worked hard to maintain an acute level of threat among his base throughout his four years in office. He railed against immigrants and protestors and warned of various threats to "real Americans" and their children. Black Lives Matter protests fueled rhetoric stoking fears of the inability of the government to protect (White) citizens and led to the valorization of Kyle Rittenhouse, a young man who, in their view, took it upon himself to do what the government failed to do. The "Stop the Steal" campaign extends this sense of existential threat to the nation itself.

This rhetoric of perceived danger and necessary militancy unites secular and religious conservatives. In "Jesus and John Wayne," I point out how John Wayne was not an evangelical, but by the 1970s, he had become an icon of conservative American manhood. Over time, as a heroic (White) man who brought order through violence, he also came to represent an idealized vision of "Christian manhood."

As ideals of Christian masculinity shifted, so, too, did the faith itself. Even though the Christian scriptures are filled with teachings about turning the other cheek, loving one's neighbors and one's enemies, and although the Bible instructs Christians to cultivate love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control, many conservative Christians have instead embraced an "us vs. them" mentality that requires a warrior masculinity. Good guys with guns need to protect their families, their faith, and their nation -- by which they mean those deserving of protection, "real Americans," Christian America.

We see evidence of this rhetoric from Christian pastors and worship leaders, throughout the Christian publishing industry, and even on the shelves of evangelical big-box retailer Hobby Lobby, where one can find wall plaques celebrating the Second Amendment, decorative guns to mount on walls, and charming décor warning, "If you don't support our troops feel free to stand in front of them," and, "WE DON'T CALL 911." This goes beyond mere rhetoric. White evangelicals are more likely than other Americans to own a gun; they are bigger proponents of gun rights, more likely to carry a gun with them, and more likely than other Americans to feel safer with a gun in their household. Daniel Defense, a Christian family-owned gun manufacturer, made the gun used by the Uvalde shooter. They had previously advertised their assault weapons by pairing them with a Bible, a cross, and a young child.

Cillizza: Finish this sentence: "If Donald Trump runs again in 2024, evangelicals will __________." Now, explain.

Du Mez: "...Do exactly what they have been doing."

We have seen evangelicals remain remarkably consistent in their support for Trump and for a radicalized form of Republican politics. Stories of dissenters tend to draw popular attention, but that should not distract us from the fact that most dissenters end up marginalized or pushed out of their communities altogether.

We should expect Trump to continue to drum up a sense of impending threat -- that Democrats want to steal the election, that "real Americans" are under siege, that children will be corrupted, and that religious freedoms are endangered. But this time around, fewer evangelicals will feel the need to justify their support for Trump. He delivered on Supreme Court appointments and brought about the likely repeal of Roe v. Wade, so in their minds, the ends have justified the means.

If Trump runs, he can expect the enthusiastic support of his White evangelical base. If he wins, he will have them to thank. If he loses, he knows he can still depend on their support. A recent [PRRI] survey revealed that 60% of white evangelical Protestants believe the 2020 election was stolen, and that more than a quarter (26%) believe that "true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save our country." With the fate of Christian America hanging in the balance, for many, the end will justify the means.

How to Interpret the Bible

How to Interpret the Bible

https://calebposton.com/how-to-interpret-the-bible-186da86dbef8

by Caleb Poston

December 11, 2021

“When we open the Bible and read it, we are eavesdropping on an ancient spiritual journey.” — Pete Enns, from The Bible Tells Me So

When you approach the Scriptures with the goal of interpreting it, the most important step to take is, as I explained in a previous post, to remove yourself from Scripture. Approach it with the understanding that what you are about to read was not written to you. Therefore, it must be interpreted within its context and with the original author and audience in mind. Their assumptions and knowledge must drive interpretation. Remember exegesis — reading truth out of Scripture — and eisegesis — reading your ideas into Scripture. We will first handle one prominent, yet flawed assumption that is often read into the Scriptures, and it touches on what I talked about in a previous post on biblical inspiration: the Holy Spirit is not going to help you interpret the Bible.

Step One: Mindset

So the first step to accurate biblical interpretation: Approach it with the proper mindset. Understand that the Holy Spirit “guiding understanding” is not a biblical concept. I know you’ve heard it; I have heard it too many times to count. “Lord, guide me in my understanding as I read your Word.” Pastors who say it from the pulpit are immediately kicking off a conflict of spirituality between themselves and their congregations, for if the Holy Spirit is guiding understanding, he isn’t going to lead people in different ways, is he? There is only one true interpretation.

If someone says the Holy Spirit guided them to understanding about a particular interpretation, I’m not listening — you shouldn’t either. If I am listening, it’s for entertainment, not enlightenment. Here’s the deal: The Bible never says that the Holy Spirit is an interpreter for you as you read the Bible. I know there are some passages often used to teach that concept, but, once again, those conclusions are reached only when modern assumptions and ideas are read into the passages. Let’s run through these passages quickly:

Hebrews 4:12: “For the word of God is alive and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (ESV). Do some quick research on the meaning of this verse; you will likely find some solid spiritual truths, but you will also find some assumptions we have already covered: Many interpret “word of God” in this passage to refer to the Bible. Hebrews was written at a time in which the completed Bible was not in existence. This passage has also been used to argue that the Bible — again with the assumption that “word of God’ refers to the Bible — is alive and can change from one person to another based on the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Fortunately, this interpretation is not that common anymore because there is nothing in this passage that would imply that, but it has to be mentioned. Any interpretation in which the “word of God” in this passage refers to the physical Bible is an example of reading into the passage a modern assumption and understanding of the “word of God.”

Look at the very next verse: “And no creature is hidden from his sight but all are naked and exposed before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13, ESV). If “word of God” refers to the Bible, now it’s a dude. Also, it has eyes — images of Evil Dead and the Necronomicon come to mind. This is evidently a reference to Jesus Christ, who is definitely alive and is often referred to as the “Word” (John 1:1). And his presence in our lives cuts so deep as to reveal our deepest and most hidden imperfections. His worthiness displays our unworthiness — we can’t hide from him. We can hide from the Bible all day.

Next, John 16:13: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come” (NRSV). This is a big one. Let me solve it quickly. First, if you think Jesus is talking to you, you did that one thing you cannot do: You placed yourself where Jesus used the word “you.” Second, if we go back several verses, we will learn that Jesus is speaking to his disciples and his disciples alone: He is promising them the coming of the Holy Spirit and the guidance it will give them. Third, Jesus never mentions the writing of any New Testament text. He never says, “He will guide you when you write to churches and Christians.” Therefore, although this passage contains the phrase you need — “he will guide you into all the truth” — it lacks the context, content, and audience you need.

As you can see, none of these passages defend this idea that the Holy Spirit helps people discern truth while reading the Bible. Neither talks about the Bible; neither is even talking to modern Christians. This idea can’t be defended because the idea is completely absent from Scripture.

So when you approach the Bible with an interpretive intent, don’t expect an answer to fall from the sky. Don’t even ask — it’s lazy.

Though the New Testament never says the Holy Spirit will help you interpret the Bible, there are plenty of passages that promote diligence and hard work, including 2 Timothy 2:15: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (ESV). This passage was written to Timothy, but its message is also for us; we can apply this idea of hard work and diligence regarding the Word of God to our lives as Christians.

Also, 1 Peter 3:15: “Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you” (NRSV). People will demand from you reasons why you believe what you believe. Answering with “because I have faith,” “because the Bible says so,” or “just read the Bible and let the Spirit guide you to the truth” will not work — you will be laughed at. I have no doubts that the Holy Spirit can move you to seek truth, and that is, in a way, guiding you to truth; he can also both comfort and convict you as you read — guiding you to truth about your own condition. But it in no way takes away our responsibility from the pursuit of truth.

Step Two: Tools

The second step to accurate biblical interpretation: Approach it with the proper tools. When archaeologists dig for ancient artifacts, they use specific tools: transits (used to map the area where the dig will take place), shovels (removing surface material), trowels (taking away individual layers of soil), clippers and saws (removing obstacles, like roots), brushes (wiping off dust and dirt to slowly reveal the artifact), and screens (for separating remaining soil and rocks from the artifact), among other tools. Without these tools, archaeologists could not safely dig an artifact and accurately examine it. Since archaeologists utilize specific tools to dig up and examine ancient artifacts, should we not also utilize specific tools to “dig up” and “examine’’ ancient literature? American Christians, especially evangelicals, have a habit of saying, “This is what the Bible says; I just go with what the Bible says.” If that’s your interpretive approach, your conclusions are going to be jacked up. You must do some digging.

The good news: we live in the best time in the history of biblical scholarship regarding the tools at our disposal. There is absolutely no need to be a Greek or Hebrew scholar. It wouldn’t hurt, but so much information is available today — we just have to know what to use and where to find it. I am about to list some tools that will help unearth the facts from this ancient literature.

First, you need to map out the spot where you will be digging. Instead of closing your eyes, turning the pages, and putting your finger somewhere, be intentional in your search for truth. Find a book, and start at the beginning. Find a section of the Bible (books of the Law in the Old Testament, writings of Paul, etc.) and start there; examine a discourse or poem — be intentional.

Second, you need a shovel to remove some surface area. Find out who the author and audience were. Knowing who wrote the book or section and who first received it will be instrumental in moving forward. This part is simple: Build a personal library of Bible handbooks; buy some Bible software; do a web search. However, don’t pick one resource and stick to it. Acquire several handbooks and some Bible history books to compare. Examine the evidence each book presents for their conclusions to determine which resource has a more honest approach and whose conclusions are more in line with the scholarly consensus.

Third, it’s time to go a little deeper: get yourself a trowel to slowly remove the layers. It takes more than the author and audience; you also need to know the context and culture: when it was written, what was going on when it was written, what the culture of the day was like, what their beliefs were, etc. The dating of a book often determines interpretation, and the context surrounding the book can confirm that interpretation. You can use the same handbooks and online programs here that you used for the second step. However, do a close comparison of each. Also, read other material: history books and books dedicated to different cultures. We all know the phrase, “Put yourself in my shoes.” If you want to properly interpret the Bible — or any ancient text — you must put yourself in their shoes. If you don’t, you’ll be interpreting it in your shoes, and …

you can’t walk the ancient Jordan in Air Jordans.

Fourth, you’re going to have to get out a saw or some clippers and remove some obstacles. The Bible was written a long time ago, so we have some language and literature barriers to get over. Literary genres that were common then are not common now. For example, the apocalypse genre (Revelation) is often misunderstood today; it uses images and symbols that are completely missed by modern readers. Imagine someone in the year 4,130 reading a news story from 2021 that says “it was raining cats and dogs” and taking it literally — we do that with many biblical figures of speech that were never meant to be taken literally (looking at you, John Hagee). The literary styles common in Ancient Near Eastern creation myths can help us interpret Genesis, and Jewish judgment literature really comes in handy when we are examining New Testament prophetic texts. The list goes on and on.

Immerse yourself in literature that can help you accurately identify and interpret literary genres and styles in both Testaments. Fortunately, men like Leland Ryken and discoveries of other ancient texts from the same time period and region have provided us with tools sufficient for getting over the literature obstacle.

Language is the most difficult barrier: the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic; the New Testament was written in Greek. Like I said before, you don’t need to know these languages. You just need to know what resources to access in order to unlock this door to deeper understanding. I don’t know Hebrew and know enough Greek only to identify several words on a page. However, I immerse myself in resources that enable me to bypass this barrier: I use the Apostolic Bible Polyglot — a Greek-English interlinear Bible based on the Greek Septuagint and New Testament manuscripts in the Critical Text tradition, complete with lexicons, dictionaries, and concordances; alongside this amazing tool, I use The Interlinear Bible, a Hebrew-Greek-English interlinear Bible based on the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament and New Testament manuscripts in the Textus Receptus tradition, also with lexicons, etc. With these tools, I have access to quality scholarship on the Old Testament and New Testament texts in their original languages, and they represent each of the major textual families. Keyword studies are imperative in understanding what biblical authors meant when they wrote their books and letters. Without original word meanings, we can be tempted to read into the text our modern word meanings that could not have existed then.

Fifth, once you have the truth unearthed, you’ll have to figure out why it exists in the first place: Brush it off to get the point and purpose of the text. Why did the author write it? What point did he want to get across to his audience? What was their purpose for the text when they received it? Did the book or letter contain information relevant to their — not your — situation? Remember: it wasn’t written to you. Therefore, it had to have a specific purpose and relevance for the original audience, or it wouldn’t have been addressed and sent to them. Read the greater context of the passage you are examining; read history; look for keywords that hint at reasons as to why the author wrote it; if applicable, compare it with other texts written by the author. What encouragement from the author to the audience is present?

Sixth, use a screen to filter out what belongs in the past and what can apply to the present. And you thought I didn’t care about application! I actually do. In my opinion, if you aren’t going to implement, in some way, the truths you discover, then there is no reason to interpret it. Ask yourself this question: what timeless spiritual truths are present in the midst of this ancient literary text? Like I’ve said before, not everything — and, in some cases, most things — will not be directly relevant today. That stuff should stay in the past: You can’t reinterpret it in light of your modern context (eisegesis). However, there is always a timeless truth that you can apply to your personal Christian life.

Seventh, rest.

Now that you’ve rested a moment, let’s talk about it a little more. This can be very time consuming and difficult. There is no easy way to fully understand Scripture. But, as I tell my high school English students, nothing worth doing is easy — to which they often reply with, “breathing is pretty easy.” Yes, but this isn’t breathing. This is intense and intricate stuff. But it’s also important stuff, and you can do it. Like I said, you don’t need to be a Greek or Hebrew scholar; you don’t need to memorize hundreds of verses — you just have to know what to do and what tools to utilize when you get there.

Step Three: Goal

The third step to accurate biblical interpretation: Approach it with the proper goal. Is your goal to discover truth by letting the Bible speak for itself? Or is your goal to defend what you already believe by using the Bible as a box of ammo? This is an important step. If you aren’t approaching the Bible with the intent of discovering truth, you shouldn’t waste your time. I now want to talk about an influence on my life in my own pursuit of truth: René Descartes, a 17th-century French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist.

In his philosophical treatise, The Discourse on Method, Rene Descartes chronicles the process he used in his quest for the discovery of truth. Descartes, being the skeptic he was, could not accept “any of the opinions which had formerly been able to slip into [his] belief without being introduced there by reason.” Since he could not accept knowledge he gained from the disciplines of logic, philosophy, and geometry, Descartes was led to “think that some other method must be sought.”

Therefore, he developed a four-step process for finding truth:

1. “never to accept anything as true when I did not recognize it clearly to be so”
2. “divide each of the difficulties which I should examine into as many portions as were possible”
3. “conduct my thoughts in order, by beginning with the simplest objects, and those most easy to know, so as to mount little by little, as if by steps, to the most complex knowledge”
4. “to make everywhere enumerations so complete, and surveys so wide, that I should be sure of omitting nothing”

I believe we can apply his method of discovering truth to our own methods of discovering biblical truth. Let’s talk about each step as it applies to biblical interpretation:

1. Don’t accept any biblical interpretation that you did not discover, on your own, through a process based on reason and inquiry. This is the same thing I’ve talked about in this post and previous posts: wipe the fog off your windows; erase those assumptions that block the light of truth from coming in. And above all else, remove yourself from Scripture.
2. Look at Step Two above. Several factors must be considered in biblical interpretation: author/audience, context/culture, language/literature, and point/purpose. Deal with each of these individually and …
3. in the proper order: Start simple and move slowly to the more complex. As you dig deeper and deeper, the process becomes more involved, and the tools become more intricate.
4. Leave no stone unturned as you dig for truth. You might think you have one artifact figured out until you discover that there is another just-as-important artifact behind that language barrier you didn’t want to cut out. Dig everywhere, and keep digging until every stone is unturned.

Descartes began his pursuit by removing his assumptions: he did not accept preconceived notions and understood the damage they could do.

Remember this maxim before you pursue biblical truth:

Never underestimate the power of a preconceived notion.

If you approach the Bible with your assumptions, you will fail in your quest to interpret it. That is a 100% guarantee. Yes, you can find the saving power of the Gospel (that spiritual truth has been conveniently placed close to the surface), but you can’t begin to truly appreciate our great God and his written revelation to us until you wipe your window, pack your bag with the essential tools, step out of the box you were born in, start digging, and keep digging until you find truth.

Christianity in Process - Part 3a, Donna Bowman

Introduction - Christianity in Process: Joining God in World Solidarity

Part 1 - The Authority of Scripture - John Cobb

• Part 1a - Authority, Atonement, Abortion, and a Big Hug - Thomas Jay Oord

• Part 1b - The New Evangelicals - Tim Whitaker

Part 2 - God's Incarnation in Jesus - John Cobb

• Part 2a - Theology in Process - Catherine Keller

• Part 2b - Panentheism, Pluralism, & Ecological Civilization - Andrew Schwartz

Part 3 - Divine Relationality - John Cobb

• Part 3a - Flowing with the Living God - Donna Bowman

• Part 3b - The Becoming of a Lutheran Queer Eco-Process Theologian from North Dakota - Jacob Erickson

Part 4 - The Human Experience of God: Law & Grace - John Cobb

• Part 4a - Aesthetic Religion - Jon Gil

• Part 4b - The Mighty Thor & God the Butcher - Ryan Does

Part 5 - The Kingdom of God - John Cobb

• Part 5a - Theology in an Event-Filled World - Joseph Bracken

• Part 5b - Process Theology Q&A - Thomas Jay Oord

Part 6 - Life After Death - John Cobb

• Part 6a - Everyday Mysticism & the Wisdom of Brother Lawrence with Carmen Butcher & Mike Morrel

•  Part 6b - Confronting Whiteness - Ben Boswell

* * * * * * *

June 20, 2022 By Tripp Fuller

I have so much fun talking nerdy with Donna Bowman. I’m so pumped to have her back on the podcast and a part of the Christianity in Process series. Donna Bowman is professor of interdisciplinary studies in the Norbert O. Schedler Honors College at the University of Central Arkansas.

In this conversation we discussed:

• how Donna started as a Southern Baptist and found Process thought
• the nature of an open future
• Tripp complains about John Calvin being very very unBiblical and sub-Christian 🙂
• Donna gives a shout-out to her homeboy Karl Barth
• Should we fear the mystery of God?
• the problem with Christian Triumphalism
• what is happening in worship?
• what is a religious tradition and how does it live?
• Tripp gives a process reading of the song “Every Move I Make”
• the nature of ordinary lived theology
• Donna shares about getting into Blaseball… an online baseball + horror game
• Tripp gets excited about the upcoming Thor film
• how Donna moved beyond an impersonal, Ground of Being style, deity

Donna Bowman: Flowing with the Living God

June 20, 2022

I have so much fun talking nerdy with Donna Bowman. I'm so pumped to have her back on the podcast and a part of the Christianity in Process series.  Donna Bowman is professor of interdisciplinary studies in the Norbert O. Schedler Honors College at the University of Central Arkansas.

Previous Podcast visits from Donna Bowman

Becoming the Best Bag of Bones You Can Be

Politics, Pussy Hats, and Patriarchy

Exploring the Matrix Resurrections!

God and the World Wide Web 

* * * * * * *

COMMENTS BY MAUREEN SMITH

Student of Christianity in Progress

[edits are mine - r.e. slater]

I just listened to the podcast with Tripp interviewing Donna Bowman as part of our class. I never heard of her before and liked her a lot. It was also fun to hear briefly from Tripp’s daughter Cora.

Again with a lot of trepidation, I’m going to tell you some of the highlights that stood out for me. You should definitely listen to the podcast and might want to do that before reading my recap. Anyway, for whatever it’s worth….

I’m going to start where they ended, when Tripp asked Donna “Who is God?” I’m going to put her answer in quotes, even though I couldn’t get it all and there is some paraphrase:

“The God I {Donna Bowman] was able to start reconnecting with had a fatal flaw [in traditional Christianity] —[God was spoken of] not as a person but as a force. That’s why (Karl) Barth became so important to me. He pointed to [a personal God] we know as Jesus. God is a person people met [in the gospels] and were changed by [him].

“I [Donna Bowman] used to put Paul down, but I don’t any more. Paul grabbed onto one thing about Jesus, his death and resurrection. That’s where he saw the story of that person and the living presence of that person. I resonate with that.

“We have that opportunity too. We can resonate with different parts of that person. That was good news to me. Instead of theorizing about God I can encounter God.”

---

Back to the beginning. Donna grew up as a Southern Baptist, as Tripp did. She doesn’t think of God the same way then as she does now. She said it’s the difference between a doctrine or a book that we have to align ourselves with and being in the flow of something that’s moving. (The title of the podcast is “Flowing With the Living God.”)

Donna teaches a class, In Search of a Healthy Religion. One of her students latched onto the idea of a living God. Donna said evangelicals often talk about ”the living God,” but that can be more a slogan than a reality.

The name of Donna’s class made me think: God is such a mystery that none of us can really know what God is like. We have to find a theology that makes sense to us and works for us. Process theology works pretty well for me. I understand that it may not work for others.

When Donna was in college she took a logic class from a professor named Will Power (his real name!) who asked a question that changed her thinking. What if knowing the future is a logical impossibility? She came to understand that it doesn’t limit God to say God can’t know the future any more than to say God can’t make a square circle.

Donna loves Karl Barth. She said Barth inherited Calvinism but didn’t go all the way with Calvin. Calvin put God’s sovereignty above God’s love. Barth put God’s love first. Barth took it all the way to universalism, which is something Donna loves about him but she knows not everyone can go there. (I do.)

---

• She said the biggest problem with the Christianity she grew up with was the triumphalism. Tripp said that is linked to patriarchy and white supremacy and abusive power.

• Donna said creeds and liturgy in worship are important to her because they link her to people all over the globe and across time and put her in touch with a living changing stream. What she means by the words isn’t the same as what others mean, and that’s good. A diversity of interpretation is a strength not a weakness.

• The flow of worship means that she isn’t looking for God through the roof but in the faces of other people and maybe in knowing that nobody else means the words exactly as she does. [hence, the embrace and enjoyment of difference v. sameness - re slater]

• Donna decided some years ago that instead of just writing books about how she sees things she should listen to how ordinary people understand their faith. She interviewed a lot of people, mostly women, about what it meant to them when they made prayer shawls, when they made pussy hats, when they made masks for the pandemic. That sounds so great. I wish she’d said more about it.

• She said that as hellish as the internet and social media can be, God is working there and people are finding community there. I guess we can testify to that.

• This sort of blew my mind, but she said she is super into something called blaseball, a baseball simulation combined with a horror game. People discover solidarity with each other there. They support each other. They recognize each other.

• I think it was Tripp who said “The living and life-giving God is going to call every community and if it can’t happen in a church it can happen somewhere else.”

• Donna said people are breaking out into community, and things look bad on a big scale but she takes hope in the small places people are finding each other. The wind blows where it will.

When Your Theology Becomes A Problem

When Your Theology Becomes A Problem

article link

by Caleb Poston

June 20, 2022

When are your personal theological beliefs a problem? You might be thinking, “What I believe is none of your business!” In a way, you’re right. But when your personal beliefs go beyond the “personal” and affect my life — or anyone else’s — in a negative way, they become a problem.

My wife and I went into Hobby Lobby the other day — you know, because we’re not living through record-breaking inflation or anything — and I glanced at the bookshelf by the checkout line as we were checking out. They had about 10 books for sale. Three stood out to me:

Creation to Babel by Ken Ham

The Harbinger II by Jonathan Cahn

Fault Lines by Voddie Baucham

Do you know what these books have in common? One, they represent the fundamentalist-evangelical leanings of Hobby Lobby, obviously (no big deal — we know where Hobby Lobby stands). Two, and most importantly, they each influence evangelicals’ theology in such a way that they begin to negatively affect other lives.

These books represent the three doctrines evangelicals have used to become a nuisance to others: origins, eschatology, and ethics.

When Your Doctrine of Origins Becomes a Problem

The doctrine of origins, according to Ken Ham, is the foundation for all Christian doctrine. That means that if you don’t get Genesis right (translation: if you don’t agree with his modern interpretation of Genesis), you have no authoritative foundation for anything else you believe. Obviously, that’s preposterous. But I will say that he is on to something:

Your doctrine of origins does determine the importance you place upon truth.

If you accept or are at least open to the scientific realities of evolution and an old earth, for example, that means that you have decided to let truth dictate your beliefs. If you blindly reject the scientific consensus and accept the pseudoscience peddled by Ken Ham and his ilk just because you think it’s “biblical,” you have decided to let your beliefs dictate the “truth” as you want it. So Ken Ham is right: Your doctrine of origins is the foundation. But if you subscribe to his ideas, what a weak foundation it is.

His organization, Answers in Genesis, exists to spread his false doctrines throughout the world, and their ultimate goal (though they wouldn’t put it this way) is to scare Christians away from science. That is a very, very dangerous thing.

I’m a public school English teacher, and science teachers throughout the South have told me that they have to be careful using the term “evolution” in science class because they fear pushback from parents. While our students are learning about evolution in class, I have seen students’ parents share Ken Ham/AiG articles on their Facebook pages as a way to conflict with that is being taught in schools. So Ken Ham has empowered his followers in such a way that they are actually hindering science education in public schools. If this is you …

Your theology has become a problem.

I would argue that one’s beliefs about origins extend to other scientific beliefs as well. You saw it during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. Who were the ones most likely to reject the advice from scientists about mask-wearing and the vaccine? Fundamental evangelicals who already had permission from their faith to reject science. If a scientist also accepts evolution (an almost certainty), why would evangelicals believe them about anything else? Actually, I remember seeing this happen on Facebook: Bill Nye posted a video encouraging mask-wearing, and a prominent faith leader commented with, “Bill Nye rejects God’s creation and accepts evolution, so why would I believe anything he says?” I fear that this phenomenon is common in evangelicalism, and your doctrine of origins has affected your trust of science so that you reject sound medical advice and spread that misinformation to others. If this is you …

Your theology has become a problem.

This mindset also extends to climate change. Indeed, Ken Ham himself said, “Bottom line: if scientists reject the events of history such as the Flood as recorded in the Bible, they will have wrong interpretations about climate change.” Ken Ham’s doctrine of origins directly affects his view on climate change, and since Ken Ham has the ear of millions of evangelicals, he is leading them to reject the threat of climate change for similar reasons. Therefore …

Their theology has become a problem.

When Your Eschatology Becomes a Problem

This presents a great segue to the next problem doctrine: eschatology. Now, to be fair, there are some eschatological systems that aren’t a problem most of the time: postmillennialism suggests that the world will get better before the return of Christ, so postmillennialists are at least trying to make the world a better place (as long as they aren’t part of the dominionist postmillennialists, like DeMar and others of that flavor); preterism teaches that the return has already happened and that the kingdom of Christ is here and is charged with making the world a better place for a future that could extend for thousands or millions of years, so that doctrine actually has positive potential. But the eschatology of fundamental evangelicals — the eschatology of The Harbinger, Left Behind, John MacArthur, Hal Lindsay, etc. et al. — premillennialism, especially dispensationalism, is a different animal; it basically forces its adherents to want the world to burn so their savior will return.

Piggybacking off of the climate change topic, John MacArthur — a devoted dispensationalist— once said regarding climate change, “God intended us to use this planet, to fill this planet for the benefit of man. Never was it intended to be a permanent planet. It is a disposable planet. Christians ought to know that.” In another sermon he said, “It’s just all going to burn up; it’s just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.” John MacArthur doesn’t care about the world. Why? His eschatology teaches him that the world is going to burn up any day now, and it’s God’s plan, so why worry about it? In fact, we shouldn’t hinder God’s plans by trying to save the planet if he plans to destroy it anyway. And the problem is that he has the ear of millions of evangelicals who, likewise, reject climate change and choose to show indifference to the problems of the physical world. If this is you …

Your theology has become a problem.

Faulty eschatology, particularly dispensational premillennialism, also influences bad foreign policy. Ask any American fundamental evangelical what the most important nation on the earth is, and I would bet everything I own that the answer (other than, maybe, America) would be Israel. In the American South, where evangelicalism is the leading faith tradition, you’ll see plenty of Israel flags flying alongside the American flag. You’ll see plenty of “I Stand with Israel” bumper stickers. A large church in my area, World Outreach Church in Murfreesboro, TN, is basically free PR for the Zealous Zionists who back an Israel take-over of the Middle East.

This issue, like others, also involves taking lives. American fundamental evangelicals will align with Israel on almost any issue — they are God’s people, after all. If Israel starts a conflict with an innocent nation, you better believe American evangelicals would side with Israel. In one of John MacArthur’s sermons, he taught that Israel is being guided by God right now to be the light of the world once again. Therefore, pretty much anything they do goes.

It causes American evangelicals to lose it when the U.S. government gives money to clinics that provide abortions but look the other way when they send money to Israel, who is very liberal on abortion; it causes them to make plans to usurp other faiths in the region in order to rebuild some fabled third temple (something they teach but isn’t found in the Bible); it causes them to disregard the tens of thousands of innocent people who have been killed or misplaced through Israel’s settlement expansion over the decades. If this is you …

Your theology has become a problem.

In my opinion, the saddest thing bad eschatology leads Christians to do is to avoid the problems of the world and instead look for escape. Dispensationalists — which is what the majority of American fundamental evangelicals are — believe that a secret rapture will remove Christians from the world before the Great Tribulation. That’s not found in the Bible, but it guides their approach to almost every bad thing that happens in the world.

A tornado wipes out a town: “Oh God, please return and take us away from this suffering.” A child dies from cancer: “Lord, please call us home.” America legalizes gay marriage: “God in Heaven, please return, remove us from this wicked world, and rain your judgment down upon it!” The list could go on and on and on. When a terrible thing happens — either actually terrible, like a devastating tornado, or terrible to evangelicals, like a Democrat being elected — find a news story on social media in an area dominated by fundamental evangelicalism and try to count the comments pleading for God to return and take them from this world. It’s a hobby of mine, but it depresses me.

It’s a problem when your theology leads you to ask God to remove you from the situation instead of helping to clean up a tornado-devastated town; it’s a problem when your theology leads you to ask God to take you away after a child dies from cancer rather than to contribute to the solution. I even saw one person on social media say that Christians shouldn’t try to end homelessness and world hunger because the world must get worse before Jesus returns. Whenever you ask God to give you an escape or to ignore the most vulnerable in the world rather than asking God to empower you to make a positive difference in your current situation …

Your theology has become a problem.

When Your Doctrine of Ethics Becomes a Problem

Asking God to escape from the world means you are choosing to ignore its problems rather than face them. That’s what I think of when I see Voddie Baucham’s Fault Lines sitting on the shelf at Hobby Lobby. What Fault Lines does is offer fundamental evangelicals a way to escape from the reality of racism in the United States. Using his teaching (which is shared by many), fundamental evangelicals have a way to distance themselves from the issues social justice advocates seek to address. By using terms like “woke” and “Marxist” loosely, Baucham helps create the “boogey-man” mindset many Christians have toward any secular solution to the world’s problems. Just as “the flood” is Ken Ham’s answer to any issue raised at his beliefs, “the gospel” is Voddie Baucham’s answer to any issue addressed by social justice advocates. To him, if the gospel can’t fix the problem, then the problem must not really exist.

To Baucham and others, any worldly solution is anti-Christ, and the problem it seeks to address often ceases to be a problem at all in their minds. For example, critical race theory is seen as a “woke” solution to the racist problem that, to them, isn’t much of a problem at all. Therefore, we see many evangelicals neglecting their role of displaying God’s love in the world by ignoring one of the most repugnant issues we face: racism. Even if you don’t agree with every aspect of CRT (like sociologist George Yancey, who approaches the issue differently but still approaches it seriously), you are putting a “gospel” mask on the problem and not actually addressing the root causes, so …

Your theology has become a problem.

Baucham’s family ethics are also affecting lives other than those that believe them. He teaches a level of discipline that borders abuse and feels that Christian parents must basically beat their children into submission. Sure, I received plenty of spankings (though I didn’t deserve any of them, obviously), and most of history has made use of this style of discipline, but modern advances in science, sociology, psychology, and other disciplines show that child discipline is not as black and white as that. Yet many Christians read his words and feel that they must engage in that level of violent discipline in order to please God, even if it isn’t right for their particular child.

Furthermore, Baucham has an archaic view of women. Check out Rick Pidcock’s article about this. Here are a few things he believes: like his friend John MacArthur, he believes that women in abusive marriages should suck it up, suffer for Jesus, and not tell anyone so they don’t bring shame upon the church; he believes that men should witness their potential wife submit to her father so he knows she’ll submit to him; he believes that daughters should stay at home and serve their fathers (often without furthering their own education) until they get married and go with their husbands to stay at home and serve them. Therefore, we see influential “celebrity pastors” like Voddie Baucham influencing Christians in such a way that they could very well end up traumatizing their children — physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually — and negatively affecting their ability to function as adults, as well as purposely holding women back from living out their dreams and potential. If you subscribe to this doctrine of family and gender ethics …

Your theology has become a problem.

The same could be said for guns and the LGBTQ+ community: fundamental evangelicals too often find themselves defending gun rights over victims (even child victims) of senseless gun violence when research confirms that gun control measures would save lives; fundamental evangelicals too often ignore the existence of LGBTQ+ members of society and vote for legislation that would remove their rights to enjoy the freedom all Americans deserve just because their personal interpretation of the Bible tells them that being gay is a sin. In both of these cases (check out this piece about how Christians misinterpret Scripture to support gun rights), these Christians elevate their personal beliefs to a level so that they actually believe they have a right to force their opinions upon others. If this is you; if you believe your personal opinions should dictate how others live their lives …

Your theology has become a problem.

Conclusion

If the single most important aspect of your theology is not loving others, then you’re doing it wrong. And if you truly love others — the way Jesus did — you won’t care about what they wear, where they live, what they believe, who they love, or anything else; you will just love them. And if you love others, you won’t let your personal beliefs get in the way of acting out that love.

If you don’t seriously believe that your faith empowers you to act in a way that brings justice, peace, and love to the world and to contribute to a future that could very well be positive for every one, you don’t really have faith — you have an excuse to do nothing.

In short, if your theology keeps you from pursuing truth, keeps you from trying to make the world a better place, forces you to treat anyone without the respect all people deserve, and doesn’t have true love as its central tenet …

Your theology is a problem.

 

Process Shorts...

PROCESS SHORTS

[brackets are mine - r.e. slater]

R.E. Slater - The unchanging God is always changing!

--- 

Tripp Fuller - Strangely, Christian "orthodoxy" followed a particular philosophy far more than the Bible's [collection of philosophies - re slater]. 

Orthodoxy believed what was really good was what a thing was in itself. That relation(ship)s were limitations on God. That a "proper" God had no relations.

But think [about it] for a moment what God could be before God had created anything when God was all alone by Godself.

• God could not love, for there was nothing to love.

• God could not know, for there was nothing to know.

• God could not cause anything, for there would be no effect.

• Indeed, it is hard to think of God existing at all.

[In contrast], the greater the cosmos which God influences, loves, and knows, the greater God is. It seems rather obvious that a Creator who does not create anything is not much of a Creator.

Moreover, sometimes people don't notice that if they attribute all power to God, they similarly deny any power to God [in other respects to His deity and ontologic Self-history - re slater].

---

R.E. Slater - My definition of Scripture is a  collection of narratives imperfectly describing a loving God. 

This living God-narrative has been with us through the centuries. It's latest rendition being expressed - as it has always been - through all of mankinds beliefs, religions, activities, deeds, structures, art, and such like. 

Some are great. Some are not great. But like its Author, "Spiritos inspiration" was never left within a static, dead book (the bible) but through creation's living incarnational-narratives mimicking Jesus imperfectly, but perfectly, as producing a living, viral salvation.

The writers and commentators of God are God's people regardless of whether they are mentioned in the bible or reside apart from it's page. 

As emissaries of God's love, or of Christ Jesus as the God who serves selflessly, sacrificially, in forgiveness, mercy and grace, this is my broadest definition of the "bible" written upon Creation's hearts of spirit-flesh.

The "written" bible is but a beginning and aspect of the Living God who walks amongst us through His Creation.

Below, Karl carries it more fully as inspirational expressions bedrocked in a relationship between Creator-"C"reation (I like to capitalize the creational "C" as it gives majesty to God's work, rather than detract from it, though it is us who do the subtraction).

---

Karl Streeter - What if we “see” scripture as a “living organism with history and potential? Could it be scripture’s authority lies on whether we engage her with a “I-Thou” relationship instead of a “I-It” relationship? Maybe the deification or demonization comes from the “I-It” relationship? No transformation or inspiration comes from a “I-It” relationship. The evolution of “love your neighbors” to “love your enemies” is the inspiration to move from a “I-It” relationship with others to a transformational relationship of “I-Thou”. Could it be that “you shall not make for yourself an idol” is a warning to engage all things as “living” and not reduce them to an “IT”? True transformation or becoming “anew”(“reborn”) comes from “changing our minds” (repent) from our relationship with reality as an “IT” rather to a relationship as “Thou”. As Process teaches us that we are all in relationship with all things, it is love/life/creativity/freedom which inspires us to encounter those relationship as “otherness” and not in “idolization”.

---

R.E. Slater - Another gem from Karl Streeter speaking to a relational theology pregnant in all its forms throughout our lives and earth's living creational history. His G-d is expressed in a dissatisfied form with the Christianized G-O-D.... and I don't blame him. Though my preference is to spell God as "God" due to my heritage, if I'm dissatisfied with it's expression of G-O-D I do it by stating my disaffection (as you've noticed).

---

Karl Streeter - Some say that the physical is the only reality that exists. If you cannot measure it, see it, touch it or even taste it, it does not exist. Then there are those who say the physical and the spiritual both exist, but the spiritual is the only thing that really matters. The physical is just a shell for the spiritual.

What if the spiritual can be described as love, creativity, freedom, responsibility, potential, and luring/calling and the physical can be described as the other. Then, Incarnation is the spiritual echoing the physical. G-d “spoke”, then there was creation or said differently, creation is the echo of G-d, love, kindness, forgiveness, compassion, creativity, freedom, etc. Incarnation is not about two realities coming together but a relationship of the “two”. The spiritual and physical are partners in all reality. The spiritual does not create the physical, they are in co-relationship with each other. If G-d is relationship and one cannot be in relationship with oneself, then there was not a time when one existed without the other. One might say that incarnation is the covenant of G-d and creation/other.

Are atonement and incarnation related? What if atonement is the mutual cooperation between G-d and "other" or incarnation? Could it be that Jesus’ faithfulness saves us by emulating the mutual cooperation between the spiritual and physical even unto death. Although death cannot “kill” the mutual cooperation of incarnation, it is because of the mutuality of the relationship incarnation re-lives continuously.