Random Potentially Helpful Post...

I decided to toss the contents of an e-mail on here that I wrote to my friends on "The Forum," an e-mail group I am in. This is from March 4th. There was a discussion going on about a bunch of different topics, including the resurrection, the authority of Scripture and how it relates to feeling/experiencing God and whether or not Jesus was attracted to women. I jumped in and knocked out a little response. Jill Sims thought it was helpful so maybe you will, too. It's in quotes below. Also, I should say that I haven't read what I wrote since early March. I suppose I probably still agree with everything I wrote but I'm too lazy to review it.

Any thoughts, Kelli? You know I have a complicated syntax.

"There are really too many things going on at once here. Issues like creation, Noah's Ark, Yam Suph are things that can be studied and understood in a non-fundamentalist way. Genre of writing is important to consider but doesn't mean the events didn't happen. Either way, the resurrection was what started this whole thing and that's a pretty non-compromisable point if you're going to be a Christian. If it didn't happen, we are still followers of Christ but we're just another religion with a book we claim is from God.

Scripture is God-breathed and there is a sense that God guided the development of the 66 books compiled into a closed canon that we now consider the authority and final check point for our faith.

Interpretation is the goal of exegesis and I don't see any problem with this not always being an easy process. Augustine said of scripture that there is enough easy stuff for all to understand and enough tough stuff to keep the brightest scholars wrestling for decades. One of my NT professors said that exegesis requires more spiritual maturity than just about anything because of the humility and high calling of the task. While translation is not perfect, read the preface sometime to your Bibles on how they were interpreted. This isn't something done by one person overnight. God can honor and use faithful scholars for the understanding of Scripture by all and His Spirit ( i.e. still God - try deconstructing God - the Trinity makes it tough) can guide and instruct those reading the words whether or not they are fluent in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic.

Regarding "feeling," I think Christian is trying to discuss conversion. There are human emotions associated with everything we do on earth and God's work in a person's life is one of those areas. However, feelings are not authoritative like core truth. I think, all in all, it's a bit more of a fluid process than one preceding the other. As a clarifying point, the Bible presents conversion (born again) as flowing out of repentance and faith in the person and work of Christ - God became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). It's a journey that begins with being made right in God's eyes that may not begin with overwhelming "feeling" but there will be plenty of feelings along the way as you are made whole in Christ. Salvation is a healing process and means you are part of a new kingdom.

Final note: let's not make the same mistake we make with pastors when talking about seminarians. People who go there are, well, people. Andrew, James-Michael, Greg, whoever - we aren't magical beings. We're people. A good seminary, by my estimation, is not just an academic institution. It should be a place that strives to be a fairly comprehensive but non-exhaustive (we're always in school) training ground for those who sense God's call to fill an office of ministry and/or leadership in His kingdom.

By that measure, plenty of people who go to seminary are not called. Some are. Some just aren't sure. Perhaps one of the reasons people are led astray at some of the more academic focused seminaries is because the seminary has long since lost its mission to do what God wants it to do.

Christ, in the great mystery of fully man/fully God, probably saw the aesthetic beauty of a woman but viewed her as God's (His!) creation not to be lusted after but seen as a daughter/potential daughter in His kingdom. God (Him!) created sexuality to be fulfilling and properly experienced in the bond of marriage. Christ would have fully exemplified these tenets in His sinless life, not lusting sexually after a woman in singleness and properly honoring her beauty as a complement to man.

Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I'm willing to bet Christ didn't have much struggle with lust regarding a woman's ankles."