Sola Scriptura

I have come to a place where I no longer accept this basic tenet of Protestantism. I believe Sola Scriptura is a self-refuting concept. The Old Testament, by long tradition, was the accepted Word of God and was held intact by careful preservation through the ages. All references in the New Testament to the "Word" refer to this body of work. The New Testament, as we know it today, did not exist in its present form until at least 300-400 A.D. As such, it is incomplete (Paul's reference to an earlier Corinthian letter, for example). There is still debate between Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants about the Apocrypha. In brief, we did not receive the books of the Old or New Testament out of the sky, directly from God's hand in either King James or NIV language. These books (particularly the New Testament) were chosen for inclusion based on men's (or more specifically, the church's) traditions. Therefore, Sola Scriptura has attached to it, umbilically, the tradition of the church as to what should be included. Luther himself even disputed the inclusion of James, and Revelation through the ages was much disputed. So, we must respect church tradition when considering our present Bible.

The Galileo Problem

Clearly, the Church has not always been correct. Take, for example, the geocentric view of the universe (the Earth is at the center of all things).

There are verses in Chronicles and Psalms that mention the earth standing firm on its foundations (I Chronicles 16:30; Psalms 93:1;96:10;104:5) and there is a passage in Joshua that had him commanding the sun to stand still (Joshua 10:12-13) implying, of course, that it was the sun which rotated around the earth. A careful reading of Scripture seems to place the Earth at the center of everything, and proposes that the Earth is indeed flat (references to the "foundations of the Earth," "the four corners of the Earth," etc.) This is what the Christian church believed (and everyone else, surely) for thousands of years. In the Christian church's case, they believed this for at least 1600 years. It is plain that the Earth has no foundation in the builder's sense, and the shape of the Earth is not in question. The Bible, literally, says the Earth is little more than 6000 years old. This is plainly ridiculous.

Polish astronomer Copernicus, in the 16th century (Luther's time), put forth the heliocentric view of the Universe (the Sun was at the center). Galileo, in 1602, expanded upon this theory and was roundly excommunicated. He was finally reinstated in the late 20th Century to the Church's good graces. Even Luther, Protestantism's great founder, thought Copernicus to be an "upstart astrologer" and a "fool." Luther had opinions. Luther was wrong. The Church thought the Earth was central to the Universe. The Church was dead wrong for over 1600 years.

Now, that being said, I believe the spirit of God did inspire the Bible writers, but only within the sphere of knowledge they had at the time. That is, God did not speak to them about integral calculus, or Einsteinian relativity, because that knowledge had not been discovered by man yet. A heliocentric, spherical Earth worldview would have been as foreign to the Bible writers as the concept of an ATM. So, God only gave the basics. This is why I think it is foolish to ascribe "literalness" to the Bible regarding the creation of the world. It is in simplified form, for a people who had no idea of hydrogen fusion going on in the sun, or of circular orbits of the planets around the sun, or of a day representing a period of the Earth's rotation, or a year representing the period of the Earth's solar orbit.

Worship

When did rock and roll become the official worship style of Protestant churches? Why do I have to endure non-words like "gonna" and "wanna" and "na na nananana na" in worship? Why do mike checks and sound checks and "worship rehearsal" take all the fun and joy out of worship? Why do we spend precious time adjusting monitors, and amps, and getting a substitute bass player? What if...horrors...we just worshipped through song? No instruments? What if, like, the congregation carried worship and not the Protestant, hip, rock and roll band? Who gave anyone permission to replace the theologically-filled hymns with lightweight Christian pop? To "appeal to the youth?" Heck with 'em.

I am Now an English Major

I recently changed my major from Math to English. I believe I can excel at English. To continue in Math, while possible, would have extended my education beyond my planned May 2007 graduation date. I need to go back to work.

I feel much better now.

School is Hard

I am in the midst of finals at CSUDH. I am a Math major, with a Theater minor. It has not been a fun semester. In fact, it has been so not fun I am thinking of changing my major to English. I think I can still get out in two years.

Highlight of this semester was doing A Doll's House at the Edison Theater at school. Everything else blew.

Just Got Cast

My wife and I just got cast in the Torrance Theater Company's production of The Nerd, to be produced in July. We are playing husband and wife, Waldgrave and Clelia. It is a crazy show, rated PG for some mild language (mostly by my character). But it is funny.

Also tried out for Camelot for the same company. I have July and August off from school so I am trying to have fun. I love doing theater, and I love the people in this company.

My Spiritual Journey

Last three years -

It started with a reevaluation of eschatology (last days study). Consider this verse from I Cor. 10:11: "These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come." Now, Paul believed he was in the time of the end, or "fulfillment of the ages." He did not speak these words to us in the 21st century, but rather to the Corinthians in the First century. That's plain. If he was wrong, then the information was recorded in the Bible correctly, but the information itself is wrong. On the other hand, if Paul was correct and the words are correct, then we have to look at 70 AD as "the fulfillment of the ages," since most people living during this time would have seen this momentous event take place - the physical destruction of Israel and the entire Old Covenant system. Where do we go from here?

Did Paul and the apostles believe they were writing Scripture? I don't know. Would they be horrified that we have collected their writings and call it "The New Testament" today, treating it as God's Word? I don't know.

Most Christians, while saying they believe the Bible is God's inerrant word, do not really believe that. Jesus said divorcing and remarrying is adultery, period. Yet how many pastors, elders, deacons, et al, are on their second, third, or more marriages? We seem to give light credence to that particular condition (right out of Jesus' mouth), yet get in a frenzy when someone contradicts Paul's words. Interesting.

We also know that Paul preferred the single life to marriage, and recommended it (I Cor 7:1). This sure flies in the face of "be fruitful and multiply," yet there are many Christian leaders who go so far as to say it's practically sinful to limit your children to a fixed amount. Here, they seem to favor the Genesis admonition to Paul's advice. So, I guess it works both ways.

Bottom line: we all pick and choose our Bible verses, which to believe, which to overlook. To paraphrase the late Pope John Paul II, we practice cafeteria-style Christianity. All of us.

What's the answer? Beats me. I just default to knowing nothing else but "Jesus Christ, and him crucified."

My View on the Schiavo Case

First of all, it's pronounced "shee ah vo" or "ski ah vo," depending on geography. Just like it's spelled. I have a hard time listening to anyone's view if they can't get past the pronunciation. It tells me they aren't thinking clearly to begin with.

A feeding tube for a temporary condition is one thing. A feeding tube for 15 years and on is just...well, it's artificially keeping someone alive. Frankensteinian.

With electrical impulses you can make a heart beat outside the body. Should we keep the heart hooked up forever?

We have these powers and we are using them to prolong death, not life. Like with everything else, we have a choice. I subscribe to the "Prairie Rule." Let me explain.

If you were living on the prairie during the 1800s, and you were conked on the head or likewise had some injury that left you unable to eat or drink, with limited mobility, unable to speak...in other words, brain damaged...what would happen? Would you think God would wish for some grotesque, unnatural way to keep you alive, just for the sake of saying "Look! We are keeping her alive!" Or would you just pass quietly, when it was your time? Is that not God's timing?

I believe Terri should be left to go naturally, if that is her caregiver's choice. No one can say for certain what her wishes were or are. She is under the care of her husband. So, I say he is within his rights. If he wished to prolong her life, then fine. But if legally he has the choice, then I am fine with whatever he chooses.

Certainly, I would be thrilled beyond measure to see Terri sit up, be restored and declare that God had healed her. Let it happen. God can do it. If it doesn't happen, then if/when she expires naturally, I will be at peace knowing it was her time to go.