Generally, it seems to me, that the authors of the Bible (especially the NT) were addressing issues of some sort when writing and understanding these issues can help us comprehend the text of the Bible itself. While a statement may seem historical, theological, etc, it is better to understand its rhetorical force and its place in the larger argument of a particular author than to form propositions based on it.

The wrench in the machine comes when it appears that the earliest reception of the text is actually as history, theology, etc. However, our earliest clear examples of said reception generally date 50+ years after the penning of the documents of the NT (I don’t know as much about the OT in this regard). Thus, we have no access to how the original audience may have received the texts of the Bible. I believe that we can assume that the issues that the authors were hoping to address (factions in 1 Cor, “Judaizers” in Gal, etc) would be clear enough to the communities who were dealing with these very problems.

All of that to say this: generally reading the Bible “literally” means not doing what I just outlined. “Literally” usually means mining the texts for historical and theological propositions. Such actions rip texts from their contexts, usually impose anachronistic constructs on top of them, and generally do a disservice to the message of the gospel.

You did not explicitly say “you are too young to understand.” And I did not say that you explicitly stated as much. Rather I said that you “suggested” this. I was thinking of the definition of that term, “to bring before a person’s mind indirectly or without plain expression.”

You say “your age was never addressed,” but I would differ with you here. You said in your earlier post, “You may assume from my word usage that I am somewhat older than you.” You have mentioned me twice here: (1) you are suggesting that I might make “assumptions” about your age from your post (I did not) and (2) that you are older than me. You then speak of “tides” of opinions rising and falling, which you have had the opportunity to witness because of your age. The implication here is that my point of view is one of these rising tides that will fall.

Further, I’m not sure how your words wouldn’t apply to mine. I spoke of Jesus’ message as being revolutionary. You responded by speaking of the dangers of calling Jesus a revolutionary. Again, you did not explicitly state that I am “guilty of a dangerous trend” but you’ve implied as much. You’ve mentioned “a present day current of thought” that seems to be replying to what I have said (and thus including me in this current of thought).

Finally, let me be a little more clear about my “youth.” I am closer to 30 than high school. Your reference to your “youth ministry” experience and not being “surprised” at my response seems a little misplaced. I don’t imagine you’ve had many 30 year olds in your youth ministry.

In your last response, you have again made an assumption about my “youth.” You say that “young people” are “very sensitive” on the matter of “age.” You suggest that I exhibited such sensitivity in my response. Yes, I am sensitive, but not about age. If you read my comment, I think you will see that my main concern is that you refrain from ad hominem arguments. I am sensitive to such arguments because I feel they are uncivil and unproductive. As I stated before, age is irrelevant to me here. I’m interested in a good argument.

Now, this discussion is getting a little too far from the topic at hand and I may delete it because of its distance from this particular post.

I don’t care whether I’m “edgy.” You think revolutionary means disobedient. Here too, you are technically incorrect. The term refers to “newness” or “change.” I agree that Jesus was completely obedient to God. I think it is his obedience to God that is revolutionary, that is, it is a marked change from the way of the “world.”

In your first comment, you mentioned that people “smilingly demean” fundamentalists. Well, it seems that you have demeaned your opponents with your focus on their character and youth. If you wish to continue responding here, I ask you to refrain from doing so. Please focus on making a good argument. Thank you.

And thank you for your thoughts, Zevgoldman. I am certainly open to dialogue on my blog. I’d like to respond. First, I agree that the Gospel is not “acceptable to our culture.” To read the revolutionary message of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in today’s culture, one quickly realizes how unpopular his message is and always will be amidst those who have not been revolutionized by Jesus’ teaching. Please do not confuse my thoughts with those who wish to make the Gospel message “palatable” to our culture (though I’m not entirely against pointing out its relevance–note that I do not say make it relevant. I do not have to “make” it anything. It already is profoundly relevant.)

I would like to also respond to your question about how Jesus viewed his words and life. You have set up a false dichotomy here, an either/or that need not be. You have said that Jesus viewed his own words and life (of course, we cannot know his intent for sure) either “as fundamental to man’s salvation” (I assume you would also include the salvation of women here) or “to be de-constructed until it was acceptable in academic circles–pulled and tugged from its simple but live giving meaning for the benefit of those who feel free to smilingly demean others who view the scriptures from a fundamentalists perspective.” I think there are some other options.

Let me consider your latter option, because it seems that you are accusing me of such deconstruction. Please correct me if I’m wrong. First, as I suggested, I am not interested in making Jesus’ words “acceptable” for any circle, academic or otherwise. Secondly, I am not “smilingly demeaning” fundamentalists. True, I disagree with the fundamentalist perspective on the Bible, but I do not take joy in demeaning fundamentalists. I have many fundamentalist friends. As I said, I once was a fundamentalist. On the contrary, I am saddened by those who believe the Bible to be “simple.” There are some “simple” ideas in the Bible, but many texts are quite complicated (I don’t think Romans or Revelation is “easy”). A collection of texts so diverse, written over such a huge span of time, reflecting different historical situations can hardly be uncomplicated. I believe when people say the message of the Bible is simple, it demeans the tremendous work of God among the people of God over centuries. It does not recognize the rich depth of meaning that can be found within the texts. Finally, I would also challenge your suggestion that only fundamentalists can find life-giving meaning in Scripture.

Going back to the root of your question (Jesus’ intent in his life and teachings), you did leave one important option out. I believe that Jesus intended for his hearers to change their lives and model his teaching as his disciples (e.g., Mt 7:24). There are others, of course. I don’t think we should break it down to either a simple fundamentalist reading or some “destructive” academic reading. Nuances abound.