***Part 1 of my thoughts on Universalist Theology***
The Bible was never intended to end the conversation, but to encourage it. God didn’t fall silent with the last chapter of Revelation. he continues to reveal himself. It makes no sense to glorify the accounts of our ancestors’ encounters with God while dismissing our experience with him today. (From If Grace Is True: Why God Will Save Every Person by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland)
The author of this quote goes on to say that in fact our experiences with God should count as more than the Biblical accounts, and that we should then throw out the biblical accounts that don’t line up with our experience with God.
Now, I can see where he’s coming from. There are clearly some things in the Bible that when we read them seem to reveal to us a God different than the God we see acting in other parts of the Bible, and different than the God we experience. But, who are we to make this decision? What base line do we have for judging whether an experience we have is with God or with something/someone else? The only base line I know of is the Bible, and if we start choosing what parts of the Bible we are actually going to believe then we are adjusting our base line to fit our experience.
When researchers are testing a new product, say a medication, they typically use three groups- control, placebo, and actual drug. When we take our experiences and use them to determine what parts of the Bible are true revelations of God’s character and what parts are misunderstandings or misrepresentations it is the equivalent of taking the group who used the actual drug and using them to determine what the placebo is. It’s backwards, it doesn’t work, it doesn’t make sense. We cannot use that which we are testing to determine what we test it against.
The author argues that indeed we can and should, because that’s exactly what Jesus did. He would often take the Jewish scriptures and spin them or totally refute them. I can’t, and don’t, disagree. The difference is that Jesus never states that we should throw out any of the scripture, he simply challenges our understandings and interpretations of what that scripture is saying. In the words of the author, “Jesus challenged slavish devotion to the written word”. I don’t think choosing to trust that the entire Bible is true is slavish devotion. I think slavish devotion is believing we still must follow every rule/law exactly as written, that we must read the Bible and believe that every single story told is something that happened and not a story told to teach us something about God or humankind or both.
Throwing any part of the Bible out means that I am determining what it is that God is actually saying, rather than opening myself up to hear what he says amid the clutter of that which he is not saying to me. Some parts of the Bible are not specifically relevant to my life today, and perhaps are not even accurate reflections of who God is. But that doesn’t make them any less authentic as accounts of God working in the world through history. And because of that, I cannot be comfortable with any theology that is willing to choose which parts of the Bible are valid accounts of God’s work, and which are not.
