I've noticed that anytime I express concern about the evangelical position regarding homosexuality, I am immediately accused of "not taking the Bible seriously" or "picking and choosing." (Never mind that the people doing the accusing don't seem to have a problem with eating shellfish or allowing women to speak in church.)

I'm not sure if the problem is so much with the "sola Scriptura" mantra, (which I think underestimates the authority and influence of church tradition in the Christian faith), but perhaps more with the idea of biblical inerrancy.

Folks seem to think that because the Bible is inerrant, their interpretations are inerrant as well.

The fact is, the Bible doesn't exist in a vacuum. It must ALWAYS be interpreted by fallible human beings. So, for all intents and purposes, can we really claim that the Bible is inerrant?

(Don't tell anyone I asked that question!)

As someone who has a high view of scripture and a somewhat conservative reading of it, I still share Mike's frustration. Why is the choice between chucking the Bible and adhering to every bit as literally true? Why is it swallow the bathwater or give up the baby?

Thank you for sharing this. There needs to be a place for those who aren't ready to walk away from the word, but still think it's living.

The Christian life is one of continual challenge and change. Anyone who says "I believe the same things I did 20 years ago" is either lying or doesn't read much.

As a former, recovering Baptist Fundamentalist pastor I lived many years in a controlled environment. I only read books that confirmed my rightness. I only went to places that affirmed my correctness. My associations were with those who agreed with me.

My world literally fell apart as I began to read books from outside my rut. I visited Churches that were outside my approved environment. I met new, different, and strange people.

I am now 51. The Bible is still true but I am less certain that I have all the answers. I have found that God has his people everywhere……and that good people can differ in their beliefs and opinions.

I try and hear people out. Listening to the perspectives of others is instructive and challenging.

Your last line:

So I have to ask myself if I would rather place my faith in a false god than have that faith challenged. Is my comfort with the familiar more important than following and serving God?

pretty well sums it up for me.

exactly the wall I hit three years ago…..
~truly an eye opener. But once I understood and got past that things started to fall into place. But I agree, it's quite often a very uncomfortable place to be….

Good post – and I'm still jealous that you got to hear Phyllis Tickle…..

The Church didn't even have scripture as we know it today for almost 400 years. It was the Holy Spirit that worked THROUGH the community of believers to put this canon of scripture together. So to say there is "only" scripture is to deny the obvious fact that the Holy Spirit works through the Church.

What kind of authority did people have during these 400 years? Also, how can you say that scripture is the only authority but then deny the authority of the Church that assembled this canon of scripture in the first place?

It's not that different from how I address the question of nature v. nurture. It's both – always both – with weight given more or less to each side depending on the circumstance.

The thing that any interactionist in psychology will tell you is that if there are not moments of dissonance and discomfort, there is no development. Intelligence is build in a structure of tension and release. If you are not uneasy at points where things don't totally make sense, then you are not growing. I want to grow and that means that I have to learn from the pain that change inflicts on me. That pain is integral to what being human means.