I’ve been working on a narrative statement of faith — something that would tell the story of the historical Christian faith, which could be used in a church setting in lieu of the usual bullet-point summaries evangelical churches often favor. I wouldn’t say this is necessarily what I think of as the core of the core of the core of the faith, but it expresses for me the contours of what I think it would be good to express as the basic story in which a local church becomes embodied. It probably is still too “propositional” and not “narrative” enough, and I don’t claim to be an authoritative source, but here is what I’ve come up with:
There are many different kinds of “Christians,” but we all share at least one very important thing in common: “Christians” seek to follow Christ. As Jesus taught us, we are learning together how to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. This kind of love is the grand summary of everything we want to be about at [insert name] Church.
But the story starts much farther back. When we speak of “God” we speak, in many ways, of a mystery: the “triune” God, or “trinity,” of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three persons in one God. God always was, and he never needed anything. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit danced together and could have gone on dancing without us.
But in his goodness and love, God made room for – created – the heavens and the earth. Everything that exists is the result of God’s choice to create. Things continue to exist because God in his love desires it to be so.
Human beings are a very special part of God’s creation. He made each one of us to live in loving relationship with Himself, each other, and the created world. Yet from the very beginning, human beings have rebelled against God. Each of us continually turns away from the good things God has planned for us. We each try to go our own way, even though our ways lead to brokenness, injustice, and the separation of death. We all sin.
But God pursues us. In the person of the Son, Jesus, God became a person like us. He experienced hunger and pain, loneliness and temptation, separation and loss . . . yet, unlike us, he did so without rebelling against God. In fact, we proclaim a mystery: that Jesus became fully man and yet remained fully God.
As the God-man, Jesus died a terrible death on a Roman cross. His death is a paradox because, unlike any other death in history, Jesus’ death was a victory. In his death, Jesus took on himself all of the consequences of our sin. All of the hurt we have caused, and all of the hurt we deserve, he willingly suffered.
Jesus’ death was a victory because he did not remain in the grave. We shout, along with all the generations of Christians who have lived during the two thousand years from the time of Christ until today: “He is risen!”
Christ left the Earth but lives today and reigns with God the Father. Christians wait eagerly for the time when, as he promised, Christ will return to Earth to “make all things new,” to wipe every tear from our eyes, to complete the victory he won on the cross over sin and all the brokenness it causes. We live now in a time-in-between – a time of hoping, waiting, working, expecting, rejoicing-in-part, seeing-in-part, and sometimes suffering – while we wait for the time of restoration and peace Jesus called the “Kingdom of God.”
We are not alone in this twilight time. God the Holy Spirit dwells in each person who trusts in Christ, to empower, comfort, guide and correct. The community of all Christians through the ages forms a family called the Church. We meet together in local representations of this global community, in churches like [insert name] Church and in countless other varieties, to worship God, to support each other, and to learn how to love more like Jesus.
In addition to the community of His people and the presence of the Holy Spirit, God gave us his written word, the Bible, to teach and direct us. The Bible is the ultimate norm for Christian faith and practice. It is the standard for all our thinking and teaching about who God is, how He expects us to relate to each other, and how He expects us to love and worship Him.
When we meet together as the local Church, we practice certain customs that Christians have always found vital to the life of faith. These include singing songs of worship and praise to God, offering back to God a portion of the wealth with which He has blessed us, and receiving the proclamation of the word of God from the Bible. These also include special symbols or “sacraments” given by Christ to the Church, in particular baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In baptism, those who have trusted Christ publicly confess their faith and demonstrate how they have been brought up from the dark waters of sin into the fresh air of the new life of faith. In the Lord’s Supper, the bread and wine remind us of the body of Jesus, broken on the cross, and of his blood, spilled for our sins.
As we meet together, God the Holy Spirit acts in and through us to change us and to change the world. In this way, we “already” experience the Kingdom of God, even as we know the “not yet” completion of the Kingdom awaits Christ’s return. We do this soberly, knowing that the powers of selfishness and evil actively oppose it, and that God will honor the choices of those who reject the free gift of forgiveness and grace He extends through the cross of Christ. Yet we also do this eagerly and joyfully, knowing that it is the very work of God in bringing peace to the world.
19 replies on “Narrative Statement of Faith”
Did you ever notice that the Nicene Creed is a narrative, unlike the aforementioned bullet point statements of faith?
What about sin? What about the struggle to put to death the flesh that so easily entangles? It seems your narrative puts a great deal of emphasis on “love” – but “love” without definition – is meaningless. We “love” God because He first “loved” us.
Love particularly as it relates to God is demonstrated in OBEDIENCE, the call to holy living, the call to sanctification.
Your narrative – which seems to be an attempt to bridge the generations of Christianity emphasizes nothing of what has always been a STRONG emphasis in the existence of the Church.
Biblical submission to the standards and kingdom principles are nearly absent in your narrative…
Um…. how about this, which is right in the middle of the statement: “Yet from the very beginning, human beings have rebelled against God. Each of us continually turns away from the good things God has planned for us. We each try to go our own way, even though our ways lead to brokenness, injustice, and the separation of death. We all sin.”
So I repeat…
What about the call to Obedience, the call to Holy living, the call to sanctification…
Biblical submission to the TEXT as authoritative.
God is far more concerned about our obedience than our sacrifice… (i.e. worship/sacraments)
What I was attempting to explain is that it is not a fuzzy feeling of “love” or “fellowship” that God extends to us. Rather He is our ROCK in all that we face. He is a bulwark. He is GOD, we are not. It’s not about emphasizing His love separate from his call to obedience. The two can not be separated.
And most amazingly of all – He does not separate them out of His love for us.
Yes – your narrative gave a hat-tip to sin. But sin is not merely an aside to the issue – it is the primary road block between the God who made us, who does not need us, and is not obligated to us in any way – extending an arm of grace (something we do not deserve) and drawing us to Himself.
Out of GRATITUDE we then take on the great and joyous mystery and pursuit of sanctification… something we need not be scared of.
Fundamentally – living in obedience is the best life of all. And it bears fruit to those around us by restoring “common grace” to a world that also desperately needs it.
I might also add that sin and the rebellion of pride is also what the new “seeker” or “emerging” movement seem to immerse themselves in.
“Look at how great we speak of God’s love… what you do, or how you live beyond that experience isn’t important – just ‘love God’.”
Yet that is a great lie.
Loving God does not occur from obeying God. We all do miss the mark at it – but for what it’s worth – there is not nearly enough admonition to AIM for it from the pulpits today…
Well, it’s hardly a “hat tip” — it’s at least as central here as it is in the great Nice and Apostle’s Creeds. And given that Jesus himself said that love for God and neighbor is the fullfillment of the law (Mark 12), it seems to me that love is the epitome of what it means to live in obedience.
I also think your critique of emerging and seeker sensitive stuff is way off the mark — probably because it’s so unfocused and vague.
BTW you shouldn’t conclude that I think sexual sin or other “sins of commission” are unimportant. All sin ultimately distorts the properly peaceful and loving relationships God desires for us to have. For men in our western culture in particular, this can be a big deal. Personally I think it’s important for men to be in accountable relationships with each other for this very reason.
Having spent a fair amount of time with, behind the scenes of, and in the midst of the bigger players in the “seeker” and “emerging” movements I will tell you – even THEY are confessing their poor job in discipling and growing obedient vibrant Christians.
Hybels – to his credit admitting so publicly in 2007 after an in depth church wide survey turned up the results.
What you get from the lectern in those houses of worship consistently is motivational pap – not textual exegesis. The lack of textual explanation, understanding, and application finally caught up with them (at least Hybels) and the reality that much deeper instruction on spiritual development of the person is missing. And that is truly the lasting form of the Christian life that begins to have long term impact.
If the begger tells the other begger where he found food – certainly that is a wonderful thing.
How much better would it be for a farmer to be able to say to a begger, “I know what that begging is like, someone was kind enough to show me how to plant seeds, and I can do the same for you?”
Yes the second illustration requires long term a bit more effort on the part of the begger, but what has been given in return is the knowledge of real help, genuine love that changes the scale of his entire life, not just the immediate gratification of one meal.
I was glad Hybels did that too. But that’s a strength of his, isn’t it — a willingness to continually evaluate and question — semper reformanda. I think that vibe is what makes much of the emerging / missional stuff great.
I can’t claim to have hung personally with many of the emergent big shots, but I have had correspondence with some of them. I don’t get exactly the same sense you do from them. I think the sense is that the Church in North America has been systemically failing to grow vibrant Christians — and I’m very glad they’re asking good questions about how that can start to change.
I spent many, many years in the kind of church that hates the seeker and emergent vibes. Like any other church, there were some wonderful, vibrant people there, and some people who were just crusty hard-hearted dogmatists whose supposed orthodoxy croweded out any kind of real love for people. Believe me, I experienced that personally, and it caused me unending pain. The emergent / missional sensibility saved my heart in many ways. Nobody has it completely right, and no one in this world is perfect. I at least appreciate that many of the emergent / missional leaders are willing to admit faults and hear criticisms. In my personal experience, many of the critics are only interested in pulling the splinters out of everyone else’s eyes.
Aside from Hybels, I just don’t see that semper reformanda in effect. And it was a shameful reality – that he had to see data to understand what some of his advisers and friends had been telling him for a few years prior to the survey being taken.
Dave, I understand the crusty side of where SOME fundamentalists have left people behind. I’ve been through a similar road to the present day.
But the fundamentals are not something to fear – rather they are strengths we can embrace. The certainty of what we believe is a strong foundation.
I too benefited for a season of my journey through the ministry of the seeker church.
But in creating a generation of overly milked spiritual infants is not healthy. Discipleship, sanctification, regeneration through Christ-likeness – these things are goals in that transformation that can not be achieved on one’s own. The church MUST do the work of the church – to teach, disciple, and grow.
Likewise we pew-sitters have a hefty call on us as well… live holy, practice justice, righteousness, and sacrificial love, and yes – evangelize.
I think we have the seeker movement to thank for the re-infusion of worship. I think a good deal of evangelism strategy has emerged from these circles that traditional churches let fall by the wayside. All good things…
Obviously Cornerstone has benefited from both of these elements. Thankfully we have rejected the non-exegetical teaching methods, the relevancy for relevancy sake, and spiritual pablum that unfortunately has accompanied some of these churches as well.
Thankfully Cornerstone wouldn’t host Barack Obama – IN THE PULPIT – and let him preach his Gospel of Condoms. And certainly Fred wouldn’t let it stand without Biblical perspective being used to counter its anti-biblical message of “indulge your impulses because you can not control them.”
And Dave… mission doesn’t just happen when you sit down and have lunch with someone. Mission happens when you help meet a need in their hour of need. Mission happens when you – for their own sake – discuss, even laboring in the discussion about God’s ideal – and WHY it is good for them. Mission happens when we humbly, but definitively speak to our school board, elected officials, and even our church leadership – as to the purity, and consistency of God’s intentions for society.
You have mentioned at least twice now that perhaps the church is to live in a period of suffering. I would argue in places like China they already are. And they are suffering for speaking truth – against the law of the City of Man, and against a Government that opposes God himself.
So how is that happening?
Those who are without hope – see the great hope that the Christians have and they are attracted to it.
They don’t need a “get to know me” lunch to share the gospel. It is shared every day that they live their lives.
KMC,
As the leader of an emergent cohort affiliated with Emergent Village, I can safely say that your definition of “emergent” as associated with seeker sensitive movements a la Willow Creek is at best misinformed and at worst just the spread of hearsay and lies. It is discouraging that Christians continue to smear one another with gross exaggerations and fallacies in an attempt to placate the dogma of the localized denomination or sect that they affiliate with.
As to the tone of your comments it is too simplistic to equate a purely text-based, exegetical hermeneutic with the sustainability of an individualized discipleship process (farmer-beggar parable). The point of a narrative statement of faith is to draw individuals out of the personal, individualized religious framework of legalism and dogmatic fundamentals and into a communal story. Communities in and of themselves are detrimental to a proper understanding of the sociological aspects of faith, thus Grenz and Franke rightly define a new unit of sociological focus called the individual-in-community. The individual and community must be equally balanced in order to maintain a proper understanding of discipleship, worship, and justification (N.T. Wright’s commentary on justification of individuals within faith communities, particularly in What Saint Paul Really Said is helpful).
The dualism you espouse in the separation of obedience from sacrifice is symptomatic of an Enlightenment understanding of the separation of exegesis, theology, and orthodoxy (what you describe as fundamentals) from lectio divina, theo-praxis/spiritual theology, and ortho-praxis. It is not enough to live in obedience of faith, as James writes faith without works is dead. The point must be conceded that works without faith are dead as well. Therefore, the dualism of obedience (textualization of faith) and sacrifice (the liturgical and communal aspects of religious life) must be deconstructed as an Enlightenment determination of facts that undermines emotional, local knowledge, and mosaic of knowledge. Only in a narrative, the story of a community that demands individual participation, do the facts (or exegesis) of the biblical text form a cohesive norm for living sacrificially and obediently. Obedience to the text is the focus of sacrifice in everyday life as everyday life is how we gain wisdom and mentoring in obedient living.
The key aspect to the narrative statement of faith that supersedes the Enlightenment construct of doctrinal statements consisting solely of presuppositions is the presence of Spirit as the energizer of our individual-in-community story with the Word who proceeds from the Father. As we view Christianity not as a dualism of obedience and sacrifice as you espouse but as a way of life found in the Perichoresis of the Godhead (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perichoresis) represented in our faith communities, marriage, family, and the individual a narrative statement of faith is far superior to a dogmatic statement of faith made up of presuppositions. As Wendell Berry writes, “facts in isolation are false. The more isolated a fact or set of facts is, the more false it is. A fact is true in the absolute sense only in association with all facts.” (from the essay “Going to Work”). What David has done here with the narrative statement of faith is to remove facts from the isolation of the over-rationalization of theology and creedal statements based on the Enlightenment definition of fact and begun to weave the facts of our common faith together into a beautiful wonderful story that we all love, put faith in, and live (and die) for. We do not die for creeds, we die for the way, the truth, and the life found not in presuppositions but in the drama of God in Creation, communities, and our daily lives.
Grace and Peace,
Thom
Kevin, you said: “Mission happens when we humbly, but definitively speak to our school board, elected officials, and even our church leadership – as to the purity, and consistency of God’s intentions for society.”
I agree. Goodness, I’m a law professor — this is what I hope I’m doing for a living. But I don’t see any humility at all in the FRC email I’m responding to — none at all. And honestly, I don’t see much humility at all in any of the political stuff I get from them. What I see is anger, and politics, and that’s it.
Well thanks Thom for smearing me and accusing me of lies. I appreciate the tolerant patience you express for a supposed brother.
I assume you would only refer to me as a supposed brother because I do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Yet for all your supposed theory there is one inescapable fundamental that can not be changed – or even challenged.
You sir are a created being, HE is God.
You can reject the authority of the text and claim for all the psycho-semantic reasons you can squeeze into a comment thread as to why relevant feelings about individual experience is important – fine. That’s what you choose.
But the text is what is authoritative. Your experience – in nor out of community – is NEVER. Because of what one other unchangeable theological reality (something we use to call truth: Man’s depravity.
Left to ourselves, to our own devices, our own ways – we will reliably choose the wrong direction. IT’S BANKABLE!
As to individuals-in-communities – it begins with a community of two. God and I. He IS and I am not.
And there is very sound reasoning behind the tenets of scripture and the call by God Himself to draw us out of sin, and towards His Son, and His Righteousness. You call it dogmatic, you drip with scorn on the veracity and the ability to KNOW the mind and heart of the Creator WITH CERTAINTY.
You assume that approach the Christian journey as a dichotomy of obedience and sacrifice. Perhaps based on my statements above and in reaction to what I perceive to be a coordinated non-emphasis on obedience you might have done so.
But you would be wrong.
Sacrifice, worship, fellowship with believers, discipleship, and evangelism are all out-growths of obedience.
Jesus Christ was dogmatic and UNYIELDING when he said, “I am THE Truth, THE Light, and THE Way! No man comes to the Father – but through Me!”
That’s not fuzzy…
The truth historically is that doctrine and even the Apostle’s Creed serve as guide posts for the boundaries of truth – especially when based upon Biblical veracity – which I would concur the Apostle’s creed is.
You want a statement of faith narrative? The Apostle’s Creed is it… and has been for all wings of Christendom since its inception.
I would strongly recommend a revisit of the issue for you from Ray Pritchard in the form of his book Credo (a la 2006 or 2007).
And while emmergent types get all twisted in the wind because someone questions the textual soundness of their practice and fruit… Please allow we shallow, dogmatic, opinionated, Wal-Mart shoppers to do what we can to minister to our families, share the Gospel with our neighbors, give to the poor, and on the first day of the week open our heart to God, Confess Him as Lord and ask Him to cleanse, change, mold, and make…
But then again – that’s just my overly simplified, purely text-based, exegetical hermeneutic speaking…
Dave,
Good enough – you didn’t see love and hope in FRC’s e-mail. An e-mail that was sent to believers to wake them from slumber and come to action on an item of Biblical stewardship in the society that we are charged with.
Fine…
And I get that you’re a law professor – I’m impressed – you’re way smarter than me – and you’ve reminded me at every turn in our discussion – no matter how I have hope and prayed that we could be united as brothers. I know you SAY you’re not into labels – but that law professor thing sure keeps poppin’ up.
As does your disdain for ME – which – though you SAY you don’t wish to use a label on – you eagerly swipe with ‘religious right’.
I don’t share your perspective that we should usher in an immoral culture just for the eagerness of potential suffering at the hands of the state. I DO think that legitimate chaos was unleashed though it be sophisticated and dripping with allure to the church, the culture, and the nation.
I DO believe that we as believers have a responsibility to expose evil. I mean – if its in the New Testament and all – but there goes that nasty text issue again.
I ALSO DO believe that in every single personal discussion I have with an active homosexual or a Christian brother who despises me for lack-of-law-professorness, that my job is to communicate truth – as lovingly as I can.
I ALSO believe further that the church is not ONLY to be a voice of compassion to those who struggle, and a harbor for those who seek God, but also prophetic to a culture that turns its back on Him.
I BELIEVE that the church can and MUST do ALL THREE to be the reality of the church that we are called to be.
You use anger and politics with looks of scorn upon your face – yet Jesus commanded our involvement in politics and told us to be angry without sinning.
I DON’T see sin in the words of FRC’s one e-mail. Not that it isn’t possible that they have possibly sinned many many times in many other e-mails. Humans do sin…
And if we REALLY want to examine that issue let’s crack open the legal codes and see what the law profession has advocated in part or as a whole over a given length of time.
In fact I wonder but that they had not commented on the item at all – if FRC could have said anything you would have found to be humble, loving, or kind.
If you argue against Christian activism, if you think we should all shut up and be persecuted… why torture yourself with involvement with FRC at all?
And evidently you’ve had beefs with them that you did not reveal to me going back a good bit.
Look – I AM the beggar. I DON’T think of myself as anything of worth – apart from God’s grace. But I DO love my family, I want children, and I want to leave for them a world – as much as I could contribute to that reinforces the ideals of scripture – not one that takes them away.
I am haunted by my RESPONSIBILITY to be a steward – of my time, focus, money, and attention. I GREATLY desire to leave a legacy for my children of spiritual wealth, discernment, and knowledge. Yet in order to do that – I MUST advocate in the public arena for their future – it is part and parcel of being the Kind of Man Every Man Should Be.
And given my already far to revealing – and honest struggles in my own life as to why – it is as task that is harder, deeper, more meaningful, and more important in my case in particular.
Dave, I will never be a law professor. I’m impressed by people who are. But I love truth, and I will seek it the rest of my days… and I would hope that as spiritual brothers we could at least agree to that…
Ok guys, let’s keep it civil on all sides. We won’t get anywhere if we charicature each other. I know both of you personally, and I have no doubt that you both love Christ and want to be faithful to him.
Kevin — in this and the other thread, you seem to make inerrancy the one affirmation that would determine whether you consider someone a Christian brother. Am I right about that? I responded in some more detail on the other thread, but I wouldn’t use this to demarcate who is or is not my brother in Christ. First, as I set out in the other thread, exactly what this term means and doesn’t mean is debateable and hotly debated even among evangelicals who affirm it. Second, I’d suggest that what makes someone our brother is faith in Christ and the confession that he is Lord. I’d revert here, among other places, to 1 John. 4:15-16: “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.”
I would agree that confessing Jesus as the Son of God ultimately must lead a person to submission to the authority of scripture. However, I would not agree that this basic confession necessarily leads to one particular formulation of what the inspiration and authority of scripture entails, nor would I make any particular formulation of the inspiration and authority of scripture equivalent to confession of the Lordship of Christ. If you confess Jesus as Lord, I recognize you as my brother — it’s as simple as that.
Kevin — just saw your comment on the law professor thing — forgive me that this came across the way you’ve read it. Honestly, truly, I did not intend to imply from that any intellectual or other superiority — really, I didn’t. All I meant by that is to agree with you that it’s important for Christians to engage in the public square — to illustrate that I care about this too. I’m the first person to acknowledge that I’m probably the dumbest person on my law school’s faculty, and I attribute my presence on the faculty to God’s grace and want only to use it to provide for my family and hopefully to train ethical and compassionate lawyers and maybe to contribute something worthwhile to the intellectual life of the Church. Also, if citing various books and things comes across as arrogant in the same way, forgive me — I do that only to show that I’ve tried to think about my views very carefully, and to offer some examples of people I admire whose views are somewhat consonant with my own.
I think we’re having a very good discussion on the whole, given the limits of blog posts. The LAST thing I want is for this to become something angry or some kind of one-upsmanship. All i want to do is show that my cards are pretty much on the table, this is where the Lord has brought me in my thinking at this point in my life, and hopefully to foster a mutual respect that lets us maybe disagree but still worship together as friends.
Dave, I appreciate the tone of the last entry in particular.
As to scripture’s authority. It is God’s word – or it is worthless. It is reliable – given contextual hermeneutics YES – but reliable nonetheless. OR… it is useless.
Small groups are powerful – but not authoritative. Church fellowships are encouraging – but filled with flawed people. Pastoral ministry is important – even vital – but can be manipulated.
The Psalmist lavished praise upon the Word of God. The Apostle John explained why – because it is the revelation of the Creator.
It is more than a guidebook. Because if it is merely a guidebook – it ceases to be God’s word.
Yes – the text of scripture is he basis for the church. It is the greatest statement of faith narrative ever told. But it is also the Word of God.
Anything less – makes it just a fluffy play toy for man.
And in my hours of doubt, seasons of pain, decades of suffering – I have found miraculous comfort and truth, insight and guidance, offense and then CONVICTION in its call to repentance that could not be described in other way – than Holy!
Yes – the handling of the text is a “hang-up” for me. A big one, because it is the only OBJECTIVE source for truth in our lives today.
And if its not – then we’ve all been taken in the biggest scam ever accomplished.
I mostly agree with you up until the statement that the Bible is the only objective source of truth for our lives today. I think that sells general revelation, natural law, natural theology, etc way too short — and also, the witness of the Holy Spirit speaking in and to the Church (the community) as it continually reflects on the tradition of the faith.
All truth is God’s truth, and in that sense, all truth is objective, whether it comes from the Bible or not. The statement “the common cold is caused by a virus” is objectively true, though it isn’t found anywhere in the Bible and isn’t derivable from anything contained in the Bible. I use “objective” here to mean simply that which everyone must take as reality, without precommiting to any particular view of epistemology or linguistics. Given that my epistemology is basically critical realist and my apologetic tends towards presuppositionalism, I don’t think any human being qua human being is ever fully “objective” — so there is “objective” truth but it is never apprehended completely and “objectively” by human beings (only God knows truth completely and objectively) — but I digress. Certainly I agree with scripture’s normative role for faith and practice (the norma normans) and with its unique power to transform lives.
I don’t fully agree with your final sentence. If Christ is not raised, we’re taken in a big scam. But Christ’s resurrection isn’t dependent, IMHO, on a particular formulation of scripture’s inspiration or authority. I think we have to start with Christ and then work our way out towards a doctrine of scripture, rather than starting with a doctrine of scripture and trying to work in to Christ. Again, my epistemology and apologetic are consistent with this approach.
But, look — we’ve already gone way, way past what most people think and talk about here. In my view, there are some real substantive differences we have on this, but like the Fuller Seminary statement I mentioned in that other post says, compared to the gulf between our respective views and a version of the faith that is merely existential, these shouldn’t be viewed as a major gulf.
I must say that after reading this lengthy discussion that I am humbled by the eloquent thought and combined wisdom displayed in it. I don’t pretend on any level to possess the knowledge or wisdom of any of you, but I do not relinquish the fact that I bring a unique perspective to this discussion. I myself have been working on a narrative theology to present to my church, and chewing on this debate has helped in my perspective of it. I believe you must come from and “end game” stance to understand the necessity of any narrative theology or statement of faith. My desire and motive for writing one is that I can relay the basic foundational truths of the inerrant Word of God in a way that is understandable and thought provoking. In no way do I desire to replace or one up scripture, only to magnify the truth contained it.
KMC – You had an amazing fervor for the inerrancy of scripture, but I did not see an emphasis of scripture in its “original writings”. The average new believer has no idea how to attack and decode the Word of God and often becomes frustrated trying to do so. They also rarely understand the difference between The Message Bible and the “original writings”. I urge you to consider that God’s “end game” for creating scripture was for our revelation of Himself to us. It was not to prove that the style and grammar of the human authors was perfect. My aim is to have this same end game mentality as God does. In no way do I want to water down any truth, but I have extensive experience in seeing the bible presented to new believer after new believer to no avail. I applaud you all for your efforts, and I hope we all continue to foster these sort of discussions in search of truth. I give you all full license to shoot as many holes in my ideas and perspective as you can, Lord knows that I do not have it all figured out.