I had so many great articles I wanted to write this week, but unfortunately my time has been in short supply. The February giveaway ended this week, which required a lot of time, and both of my kids are sick which cuts into my evenings. Also, I currently have nine (count ’em, 9!) different web designs underway have provided several quotes that could well turn into work. This is not to complain, of course, as I have a rather hefty tax bill I need to address in a month or so. But all this work has sure cut into my blogging time, or more specifically, into my research time.
At the top of the list of my planned articles was one to address Michael Spencer’s article on The inerrancy of Scripture. Michael writes “I don’t believe in inerrancy, a view of how scripture is inspired that means well, but just can’t get traction with me. My problems with inerrancy have been going on for a very long time, and I’ve heard it presented and taught by the best. It’s never sat well with me, probably because I have a lot of literary interest in the text of scripture, plus I don’t like to be bullied. I get a rash.” The article contains seven reasons that he does not adhere to inerrancy. Most of them are quite silly. I did not intend to refute each point, but rather to point out what inerrancy is and why it is inseperable from so many other important doctrines. I will attempt to return to this on Sunday or Monday.
In case you have been hiding under a rock this week (or do not read very many blogs), you should know that Al Mohler wrote a fantastic review of Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy. Here is a small sampling of what he writes:
The problem with A Generous Orthodoxy, as the author must surely recognize, is that this orthodoxy bears virtually no resemblance to orthodoxy as it has been known and affirmed by the church throughout the centuries. Honest Christians know that disagreements over issues of biblical truth are inevitable. But we owe each other at least the honesty of taking a position, arguing for that position from Scripture, and facing the consequences of our theological convictions.
Orthodoxy must be generous, but it cannot be so generous that it ceases to be orthodox. Inevitably, Christianity asserts truths that, to the postmodern mind, will appear decidedly ungenerous. Nevertheless, this is the truth that leads to everlasting life. The gospel simply is not up for renegotiation in the twenty-first century. A true Christian generosity recognizes the infinitely generous nature of the truth that genuinely saves. Accept no substitutes.
And while we’re on the subject of Mohler, his thoughts on the newly-discovered homosexuality of Abraham Lincoln are right on the mark. “Andrew Sullivan, a prominent homosexual advocate and political commentator, quickly celebrated the book as a great work of scholarship. Even acknowledging the book’s lack of clear historical evidence, Sullivan is undeterred. “Certainly if you’re looking for clear evidence of sexual relationships between men in Lincoln’s time in the official historical record, you’ll come to the conclusion that no one was gay in the nineteenth century. But of course, many were.” Of course, this is simply not an argument. What Sullivan is really arguing is that the lack of historical evidence should not deter modern interpreters from arguing for a homosexual Lincoln.”
Finally, there is always a lot going on over in the Community Blog, so if you would like to do some interested reading and engage in good conversation, that is the place to be.
