The Evangelical Left: God Got It Wrong

Steve Hays at Triablogue pulled together several quotes from Evangelical liberals in The optional Jesus. For example:

What sort of God would call himself love and then ask that I betray everything I know in my bones to be love in order to worship him?

That means that I am committed to resolving the tension between prima facie contradictory statements.

It seems quite clear that the Laws of Moses were very far from perfect. They are morally substandard in serious and unsalvageable ways. So that’s a problem that’s not neatly resolved.

At times the Bible endorses values we should reject, praises acts we must condemn, and portrays God in ways we cannot accept.

As Christians, we have a moral obligation to critique the assumption that violence is somehow “virtuous,” in spite of what the Bible suggests on numerous occasions.

Or instead of reading the story of the battle of Jericho with the Israelites who are circling the walls, try reading the story from the perspective of the Canaanites sitting inside the city.

When we read responsibly, we refuse to sanitize these troubling texts or the violence sanctioned in them.  Instead, we are honest about the Bible’s limitations and recognize that some things in the Bible are ethically and morally problematic.

[The texts] sometimes condone, sanction, and even celebrate violent acts and attitudes.  This is even true of some of the most beloved Bible stories, like the story of David and Goliath.

Hays quotes Randal Rauser, Rachel Held Evans, Peter Enns and Thom Stark. Read the whole thing, including Hays’ response, at: The optional Jesus.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ; Categories: theology
The above article was posted on February 26, 2013 by Mark Lamprecht.
© 2004-2014. All rights reserved.


{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

1 Larry March 30, 2013 at 12:01 pm

“When we read responsibly, we refuse to sanitize these troubling texts or the violence sanctioned in them. Instead, we are honest about the Bible’s limitations and recognize that some things in the Bible are ethically and morally problematic” I always find this kind of thing interesting. What standard are they using for “ethical and moral?” Clearly the claim is that there is some standard over and apart from the Bible that sits in judgment on it. Well, what is that? Their own personal beliefs? If so, why are their’s any better than anyone else’s?

Previous post:

Next post: