[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: penticost (sic) response
Before we get too hasty at accusing authors of childishness or
improprieties, maybe we should consider our own (childish?) views of God
and Scripture. What I am saying is
this, it seems absurd to me to accuse God of describing himself as
childish. In other words, if God's Spirit is behind the
inspiration/writing of Acts somehow, and if the author of Acts presents
God in a "demeaning" manner, then God is somehow guilty of presenting
himself in a demeaning way. I realize that this argument breaks down if
you do away with proposition #1 based on belief or value judgments, but if
you grant some form of #1, then the rest in some sense follow. Let me say
it like this, if the source of our knowledge about God can be judged by us
as "childish" in light of 20th century superior experience/knowledge, then
why bother with first century documents at all?! That is, if we learned
individuals know so much about God, why do we need the Hebrew or Greek
Scriptures? This attitude smacks somewhat of 20th century elitism ("we
know so much more than those poor illiterate peasants and slaves"), and,
quite honestly, I haven't found much reason to believe that 20th century
humans know any more about God than first century ones (but we certainly
are more skeptical than they were!!). But then again, maybe I'm not one of
those "thoughtful people" that are so well acclaimed and have such great
_gnosis_ about the divine. Boy, I hope I meet one soon!!
Leo Percer
PERCERL@BAYLOR.EDU
P.S.--Is it "childish" or "demeaning" to think of God as Creator of the
Universe and the One who could break the rules of logic if he desired, or
is that box too large for our 20th century minds? Are humans made in
God's image or are we attempting to make God in ours (i.e., 20th century
Western, rationalist, scientific, and materialist)?