Continuing from writings of Timothy Keller in his book “The Reason for God” (previous post. . . March 19, 2021):
“Some texts may not teach what they appear to teach. Some people, however, have studied particular Biblical texts and come to understand what they teach, and yet they still find them outrageous and regressive. What should they do then?
I urge people to consider that their problem with some texts might be based on an unexamined belief in the superiority of their historical moment over all others. We must not universalize our time any more than we should universalize our culture. Think of the implication of the very term “regressive.” To reject the Bible as regressive is to assume that you now have arrived at the ultimate historic moment, from which all that is regressive and progressive can be discerned. That belief is surely as narrow and exclusive as the views in the Bible you regard as offensive.
Consider the views of contemporary British people and how they differ from the views of their ancestors, the Anglo Saxons, a thousand years ago. Imagine that both are reading the Bible and that they come to the gospel of Mark, chapter 14. First they read that Jesus claims to be the Son of Man, who will come with angels at the end of time to judge the whole world according to his righteousness (verse 62). Later they read about Peter, the leading apostle, who denies his master three times and at the end even curses to save his own skin (verse 71). Yet later Peter is forgiven and restored to leadership (Mark 16:7; John 21:15ff.) The first story will make contemporary British people shudder. It sounds so judgmental and exclusive. However, they will love the story of how even Peter can be restored and forgiven. The first story will not bother the Anglo-Saxons at all. They know all about Domesday, and they are glad to get more information about it! However, they will be shocked about the second story. Disloyalty and betrayal at Peter’s level must never be forgiven, in their view. He doesn’t deserve to live, let alone become the foremost disciple. They will be so appalled by this that they will want to throw the Bible down and read it no more.
Of course, we think of Anglo-Saxons as primitive, but someday others will think of us and our culture’s dominant views as primitive. How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive” as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not? Many of the beliefs of our grandparents and great-grandparents now seem silly and even embarrassing to us. The process is not going to stop now. Our grandchildren will find many of our views outmoded as well. Wouldn’t it be tragic if we threw the Bible away over a belief that will soon look pretty weak or wrong? To stay away from Christianity because part of the Bible’s teaching is offensive to you assumes that if there is a God he wouldn’t have any views that would upset you. Does that belief make sense? ~ Timothy Keller, The Reason for God (New York, N.Y.:, Penguin Books 2018), 115-16 . . .continued
Relevant note: It didn’t occur to me until proof reading the above, that it has a modern day parallel. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Book of Mormon give a fresh look that dovetails in support of Bible teachings creating a clearer understanding of both, and resolving confusion on many religious topics to those who will give it a sincere prayerful reading and research. kdm
