Lee Harmon's Blog, page 96
April 20, 2012
Matthew 5:17-18, Fulfillment of the Law
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
//That was Jesus speaking, in the book of Matthew. These two verses are often quoted with some bewilderment, or as evidence of contradiction in the Bible, because other passages seem to say just the opposite.
Luke 16:17 says, "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached." In the very next verse, Jesus softens the blow, admitting that it's very difficult for the Jews to give up their law as required, because "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." Doesn't that contradict Matthew?
Paul certainly expected the Law to go away. Romans 7:6 explains, "We have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." Galatians 3:13 tells how we have been redeemed by Christ from the "curse of the law," and Galatians 5:8 promises that if we follow the Spirit, we don't need the law.
So what was Matthew saying? Many scholars, noting Matthew's Jewish bent, see his writing as explicitly combating the attempt by other Christians to supersede the Law. But I read it differently.
To me, Matthew, writing some fifteen years or so after the Great War devastated Jerusalem and the Temple, sees in that destruction a fulfillment of the covenantal promises. When Matthew says "not the least stroke of a pen will disappear" from the Law, he means God will not lessen the suffering of his people one iota from what he threatened. Matthew knows this to be true; he watched it happen.
[image error]
//That was Jesus speaking, in the book of Matthew. These two verses are often quoted with some bewilderment, or as evidence of contradiction in the Bible, because other passages seem to say just the opposite.
Luke 16:17 says, "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached." In the very next verse, Jesus softens the blow, admitting that it's very difficult for the Jews to give up their law as required, because "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." Doesn't that contradict Matthew?
Paul certainly expected the Law to go away. Romans 7:6 explains, "We have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." Galatians 3:13 tells how we have been redeemed by Christ from the "curse of the law," and Galatians 5:8 promises that if we follow the Spirit, we don't need the law.
So what was Matthew saying? Many scholars, noting Matthew's Jewish bent, see his writing as explicitly combating the attempt by other Christians to supersede the Law. But I read it differently.
To me, Matthew, writing some fifteen years or so after the Great War devastated Jerusalem and the Temple, sees in that destruction a fulfillment of the covenantal promises. When Matthew says "not the least stroke of a pen will disappear" from the Law, he means God will not lessen the suffering of his people one iota from what he threatened. Matthew knows this to be true; he watched it happen.
[image error]
April 19, 2012
Matthew 5:16, Should your good works be seen of men?
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.
//One of the basic instructions we understand as Christians is to "let our light shine." As 1 Peter 2:12 puts it, keep your "conduct honorable among the Gentiles," that "they may by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation."
But can there be too much of a good thing? The Bible seems to contradict itself on this topic. Matthew says of the scribes and Pharisees, "all their works they do to be seen by men." Check out the sermon on the mount, in Matthew 6, which gives it to us straight:
Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.
So, what do we do? Humbly hide our good works, or proudly let them shine? I'm sure I'm fooling nobody; humility, balance, and moderation should be our guide.
[image error]
//One of the basic instructions we understand as Christians is to "let our light shine." As 1 Peter 2:12 puts it, keep your "conduct honorable among the Gentiles," that "they may by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation."
But can there be too much of a good thing? The Bible seems to contradict itself on this topic. Matthew says of the scribes and Pharisees, "all their works they do to be seen by men." Check out the sermon on the mount, in Matthew 6, which gives it to us straight:
Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.
So, what do we do? Humbly hide our good works, or proudly let them shine? I'm sure I'm fooling nobody; humility, balance, and moderation should be our guide.
[image error]
April 18, 2012
Book review: Genesis People
by Sheila Deeth
★★★★★
Adorable!
If Sheila doesn’t like this word to describe her book, well, she’ll just have to get over it.
45 big-print, two-page stories introduce 45 characters from the book of Genesis, in a Dubious-Disciple-approved way. Real World, Real People, Real God, the subtitle proclaims. You’ll see what she means as soon as you start reading.
So Cain and Abel made their sacrifices. They made a fire and burned the best of the grain, and meat from the best of the animals for God. Then Cain noticed that the smoke from the meat was much thicker and smelled much nicer than the smoke from the grain. “Is that because God likes Abel more than me?” Cain asked. His mother said it was just because the fat from the meat burns hotter, but Cain wasn’t listening to her. The more Cain thought about it, the less he bothered to listen to anyone.
The book reads like one of those sunny children stories written for adults, the kind that leaves you smiling the whole way through. The back cover calls this a “middle-school reader for book-lovers of all ages, telling stories for all time.” I think that about nails it.
[image error]
★★★★★
Adorable!
If Sheila doesn’t like this word to describe her book, well, she’ll just have to get over it.
45 big-print, two-page stories introduce 45 characters from the book of Genesis, in a Dubious-Disciple-approved way. Real World, Real People, Real God, the subtitle proclaims. You’ll see what she means as soon as you start reading.
So Cain and Abel made their sacrifices. They made a fire and burned the best of the grain, and meat from the best of the animals for God. Then Cain noticed that the smoke from the meat was much thicker and smelled much nicer than the smoke from the grain. “Is that because God likes Abel more than me?” Cain asked. His mother said it was just because the fat from the meat burns hotter, but Cain wasn’t listening to her. The more Cain thought about it, the less he bothered to listen to anyone.
The book reads like one of those sunny children stories written for adults, the kind that leaves you smiling the whole way through. The back cover calls this a “middle-school reader for book-lovers of all ages, telling stories for all time.” I think that about nails it.
[image error]
April 17, 2012
Guest post: from Volnaiskra
The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. –John 12:25
//An Australian acquaintance, David Bleja, happened to post this comment on my blog, in response to my review of John J. McGraw’s book, Brian & Belief. After you read his insightful comments, check out his excellent blog at http://www.volnaiskra.com/
I share McGraw's distaste for an idea of the afterlife that revolves around the slavish stroking of a divine ego. But the general death of self that he seems to consider so abhorrent is, for many, a sublime prize worth devoting one's life to.
Many faiths, philosophies and scientific traditions stress that selfhood is a lie - a distortion of reality at best, a lonely prison at worst.
For example, Buddhism rightly points out that if a wave were to be obsessed about how unique and independent it was, it would be both wrong and unhappy, forever afraid of its imminent annihilation. If, however, it learned to see itself not as a wave but as a part of a great ocean, it would appreciate the true purpose, majesty and timelessness of its existence. Or, as Jesus said, a person obsessed with selfhood is to be pitied, just like a seed that frets so much about ceasing to be a seed that it never lets itself become a tree.
It's not just the mystics searching for nirvana who long for dissolution of self. It's also the lovers who long to lose themselves in orgasm, the parents whose focus on children gives their lives higher meaning, the fans who yearn to melt into the crowd in a rock concert, the patrons of S&M clubs who long to surrender entirely to the will of another, or the hippies who cultivate a sense of oneness with Gaia.
Of course on a basic, default level, we all have a strong instinct for self-preservation, and this is what McGraw seems to speak to in the quoted paragraph. That's just part of human nature - but a part that comes largely from the more primitive, reptilian part of the brain. Many have found a worldview that centers around a preservation of selfhood is actually deeply unsatisfactory.[image error]
//An Australian acquaintance, David Bleja, happened to post this comment on my blog, in response to my review of John J. McGraw’s book, Brian & Belief. After you read his insightful comments, check out his excellent blog at http://www.volnaiskra.com/
I share McGraw's distaste for an idea of the afterlife that revolves around the slavish stroking of a divine ego. But the general death of self that he seems to consider so abhorrent is, for many, a sublime prize worth devoting one's life to.
Many faiths, philosophies and scientific traditions stress that selfhood is a lie - a distortion of reality at best, a lonely prison at worst.
For example, Buddhism rightly points out that if a wave were to be obsessed about how unique and independent it was, it would be both wrong and unhappy, forever afraid of its imminent annihilation. If, however, it learned to see itself not as a wave but as a part of a great ocean, it would appreciate the true purpose, majesty and timelessness of its existence. Or, as Jesus said, a person obsessed with selfhood is to be pitied, just like a seed that frets so much about ceasing to be a seed that it never lets itself become a tree.
It's not just the mystics searching for nirvana who long for dissolution of self. It's also the lovers who long to lose themselves in orgasm, the parents whose focus on children gives their lives higher meaning, the fans who yearn to melt into the crowd in a rock concert, the patrons of S&M clubs who long to surrender entirely to the will of another, or the hippies who cultivate a sense of oneness with Gaia.
Of course on a basic, default level, we all have a strong instinct for self-preservation, and this is what McGraw seems to speak to in the quoted paragraph. That's just part of human nature - but a part that comes largely from the more primitive, reptilian part of the brain. Many have found a worldview that centers around a preservation of selfhood is actually deeply unsatisfactory.[image error]
April 16, 2012
Book review: The Power of Parable
by John Dominic Crossan
★★★★★
Crossan ponders, “I had observed that the parabolic stories by Jesus seemed remarkably similar to the resurrection stories about Jesus. Were the latter intended as parables just as much as the former? Had we been reading parable, presuming history, and misunderstanding both?”
In other words, are the stories of Jesus really book-length parables? Crossan presents three such parables in the Old Testament: Job, Ruth and Jonah. Ruth challenges a part of the Bible, Jonah challenges the whole of the Bible, and Job challenges the God of the Bible. But isn’t there a major difference between the Old Testament books and the Gospels? Were the characters in these stories historical, the way we think of Jesus? So Crossan presents the story of Caesar at the Rubicon as “parabolic history” to show how even historical characters can be the subject of the development of parables.
Crossan separates parables by their flavor: riddle, example, challenge, and attack parables. I found the discussion of several New Testament parables insightful, but they served only as a lead-in to the bigger topic. In part 2, Crossan takes on the four Gospels each as a whole, presenting the meaning of them as book-length parables … what they challenge, what they attack.
It is not really the historicity of the Gospels that Crossan contests, but their evangelical purpose. The undercurrent of truth, or lack thereof, is not the focus of his book; it is the way the stories are bent into parable, and what these book-length parables mean. Thought-provoking and well-written, a great read.
★★★★★
Crossan ponders, “I had observed that the parabolic stories by Jesus seemed remarkably similar to the resurrection stories about Jesus. Were the latter intended as parables just as much as the former? Had we been reading parable, presuming history, and misunderstanding both?”
In other words, are the stories of Jesus really book-length parables? Crossan presents three such parables in the Old Testament: Job, Ruth and Jonah. Ruth challenges a part of the Bible, Jonah challenges the whole of the Bible, and Job challenges the God of the Bible. But isn’t there a major difference between the Old Testament books and the Gospels? Were the characters in these stories historical, the way we think of Jesus? So Crossan presents the story of Caesar at the Rubicon as “parabolic history” to show how even historical characters can be the subject of the development of parables.
Crossan separates parables by their flavor: riddle, example, challenge, and attack parables. I found the discussion of several New Testament parables insightful, but they served only as a lead-in to the bigger topic. In part 2, Crossan takes on the four Gospels each as a whole, presenting the meaning of them as book-length parables … what they challenge, what they attack.
It is not really the historicity of the Gospels that Crossan contests, but their evangelical purpose. The undercurrent of truth, or lack thereof, is not the focus of his book; it is the way the stories are bent into parable, and what these book-length parables mean. Thought-provoking and well-written, a great read.
April 15, 2012
Revelation 21:22, What is Eschatology?
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
//I write so often about “eschatology” that I often forget it’s a big, confusing word that most people write off to the world of Bible scholarship. In my upcoming book about John’s Gospel, I define eschatology straightforwardly:
The doctrine of the last or final things, as death, judgment, and the events therewith connected.
But I actually prefer this practical definition by scholar N. T. Wright:
If there is one god, and you are his one people, but you are currently suffering oppression, you must believe that the present state of affairs is temporary. Monotheism and election thus give birth to (what I call) eschatology: the belief that history is going somewhere, that something will happen through which everything will be put right.*
Our Bible abounds in eschatological thinking. Simply turn to any passage that deals with the suffering of the Jewish nation, Old Testament or New, and you find there a promise of better things to come. Wright’s observation is brilliant: eschatological thinking is the belief that history is going somewhere.
Prophets, apologists, and followers have expressed views for 3,000 years about just where history is going, but nearly all agree that something will happen to set things right. Maybe a New Jerusalem will float down from heaven and replace the old (today’s verse in Revelation). Maybe the good guys will float up to heaven and find a new city waiting there. Or, maybe we’ll figure out that our future is in our own hands, and go to work with what we have, to make it better.
Whatever our beliefs about what is to come, there is a question that we must ask ourselves. Are Christians called to participate in the inauguration of the new age, what Jesus called the Kingdom of Heaven? Is Christianity an active or a passive belief system?
Your choice.
*The Meaning of Jesus, c. 1999, p. 32
//I write so often about “eschatology” that I often forget it’s a big, confusing word that most people write off to the world of Bible scholarship. In my upcoming book about John’s Gospel, I define eschatology straightforwardly:
The doctrine of the last or final things, as death, judgment, and the events therewith connected.
But I actually prefer this practical definition by scholar N. T. Wright:
If there is one god, and you are his one people, but you are currently suffering oppression, you must believe that the present state of affairs is temporary. Monotheism and election thus give birth to (what I call) eschatology: the belief that history is going somewhere, that something will happen through which everything will be put right.*
Our Bible abounds in eschatological thinking. Simply turn to any passage that deals with the suffering of the Jewish nation, Old Testament or New, and you find there a promise of better things to come. Wright’s observation is brilliant: eschatological thinking is the belief that history is going somewhere.
Prophets, apologists, and followers have expressed views for 3,000 years about just where history is going, but nearly all agree that something will happen to set things right. Maybe a New Jerusalem will float down from heaven and replace the old (today’s verse in Revelation). Maybe the good guys will float up to heaven and find a new city waiting there. Or, maybe we’ll figure out that our future is in our own hands, and go to work with what we have, to make it better.
Whatever our beliefs about what is to come, there is a question that we must ask ourselves. Are Christians called to participate in the inauguration of the new age, what Jesus called the Kingdom of Heaven? Is Christianity an active or a passive belief system?
Your choice.
*The Meaning of Jesus, c. 1999, p. 32
April 13, 2012
Book review: The Origin of Satan
by Elaine Pagels
★★★★
Not a new book, but since I’ve recently received a couple more to read along this topic, I dug this one out and scanned through it as a reminder.
It’s typical Pagels, opinionated and controversial, but thought-provoking. I love Pagels’ work!
You’ll read a little about the evolution of ideas regarding Satan, but this is really not the book’s focus. Her premise is that Satan evolved over time for a reason, and that reason was to demonize one’s enemies—primarily the enemies of the Christians. No, not ancient Israel; Pagels spends almost the entire book within the context of the New Testament—an appropriate focus, since in the Old Testament Satan is more of an Adversary under God’s employ. By the time of the New Testament, though, Satan has morphed into the Prince of Darkness, the leader of all that is evil in a cosmic battle against good…a battle that found the Christians caught in the middle. Satan is the natural evolution of an us-versus-them atmosphere in the arena of religion.
Like Pagels, I find the war of 70 CE, when the Temple was destroyed and Jerusalem leveled, more than just a little important to understanding the development of Christianity. (In fact, I tend to go a bit overboard on this theme in my books). But Satan isn’t allied only with the Romans; he also takes the side of the Pharisees (read: Rabbinic Judaism), Herod, and pagans everywhere. Finally, in later Christian writings, Satan manages to seduce even Christians, and the war turns against heretics.
Fun book, and a different take from what the title may make you think.
★★★★
Not a new book, but since I’ve recently received a couple more to read along this topic, I dug this one out and scanned through it as a reminder.
It’s typical Pagels, opinionated and controversial, but thought-provoking. I love Pagels’ work!
You’ll read a little about the evolution of ideas regarding Satan, but this is really not the book’s focus. Her premise is that Satan evolved over time for a reason, and that reason was to demonize one’s enemies—primarily the enemies of the Christians. No, not ancient Israel; Pagels spends almost the entire book within the context of the New Testament—an appropriate focus, since in the Old Testament Satan is more of an Adversary under God’s employ. By the time of the New Testament, though, Satan has morphed into the Prince of Darkness, the leader of all that is evil in a cosmic battle against good…a battle that found the Christians caught in the middle. Satan is the natural evolution of an us-versus-them atmosphere in the arena of religion.
Like Pagels, I find the war of 70 CE, when the Temple was destroyed and Jerusalem leveled, more than just a little important to understanding the development of Christianity. (In fact, I tend to go a bit overboard on this theme in my books). But Satan isn’t allied only with the Romans; he also takes the side of the Pharisees (read: Rabbinic Judaism), Herod, and pagans everywhere. Finally, in later Christian writings, Satan manages to seduce even Christians, and the war turns against heretics.
Fun book, and a different take from what the title may make you think.
April 12, 2012
Acts 1:11, Gazing Into Heaven
Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?
//No, I'm not going to embark on another lecture about Christians who waste precious time scanning the skies for their Lord to return. I just thought I'd point out something funny.
Remember Galileo, the astronomer who insisted that the earth rotated around the sun, rather than the sun around the earth? That didn't go over too well with the Church, who preferred to believe that the earth is the center of the universe. Galileo and his misinformed followers, the Church insisted, spent altogether too much time themselves staring up into heaven.
So, today's verse was quoted by a Dominican friar to discourage the use of Galileo's telescope. Note the clever play on Galilee and Galileo.
//No, I'm not going to embark on another lecture about Christians who waste precious time scanning the skies for their Lord to return. I just thought I'd point out something funny.
Remember Galileo, the astronomer who insisted that the earth rotated around the sun, rather than the sun around the earth? That didn't go over too well with the Church, who preferred to believe that the earth is the center of the universe. Galileo and his misinformed followers, the Church insisted, spent altogether too much time themselves staring up into heaven.
So, today's verse was quoted by a Dominican friar to discourage the use of Galileo's telescope. Note the clever play on Galilee and Galileo.
April 11, 2012
Hebrews 11:37, Sawed in two
They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated—
//Today's verse talks about the treatment of the Old Testament faithful. One person, it says, was sawed in two! Any idea who this talks about?
Most scholars believe this refers to an apocryphal book titled The Martyrdom of Isaiah. The Bible says nothing about how Isaiah died, but in this account, Isaiah prophesies his own death being sawed in two, and it comes to pass.
As the story goes, a man named Belchlra accuses Isaiah of false prophecy before King Manasseh, saying:
'Isaiah and those who are with him prophesy against Jerusalem and against the cities of Judah that they shall be laid waste and (against the children of Judah and) Benjamin also that they shall go into captivity, and also against thee, O lord the king, that thou shalt go (bound) with hooks and iron chains.'
Of course, Isaiah's prophecy wasn't false; it turned out to be the truth. Belchlra also said about Isaiah:
And Isaiah himself hath said: 'I see more than Moses the prophet.' But Moses said: 'No man can see God and live': and Isaiah hath said: 'I have seen God and behold I live.' Know, therefore, O king, that he is lying.
The words of Belchilra convinced Manasseh, and …
he sent and seized Isaiah. And he sawed him asunder with a wood-saw. And when Isaiah was being sawn in sunder Balchlra stood up, accusing him, and all the false prophets stood up, laughing and rejoicing because of Isaiah.
//Today's verse talks about the treatment of the Old Testament faithful. One person, it says, was sawed in two! Any idea who this talks about?
Most scholars believe this refers to an apocryphal book titled The Martyrdom of Isaiah. The Bible says nothing about how Isaiah died, but in this account, Isaiah prophesies his own death being sawed in two, and it comes to pass.
As the story goes, a man named Belchlra accuses Isaiah of false prophecy before King Manasseh, saying:
'Isaiah and those who are with him prophesy against Jerusalem and against the cities of Judah that they shall be laid waste and (against the children of Judah and) Benjamin also that they shall go into captivity, and also against thee, O lord the king, that thou shalt go (bound) with hooks and iron chains.'
Of course, Isaiah's prophecy wasn't false; it turned out to be the truth. Belchlra also said about Isaiah:
And Isaiah himself hath said: 'I see more than Moses the prophet.' But Moses said: 'No man can see God and live': and Isaiah hath said: 'I have seen God and behold I live.' Know, therefore, O king, that he is lying.
The words of Belchilra convinced Manasseh, and …
he sent and seized Isaiah. And he sawed him asunder with a wood-saw. And when Isaiah was being sawn in sunder Balchlra stood up, accusing him, and all the false prophets stood up, laughing and rejoicing because of Isaiah.
April 10, 2012
Book review: The Questioning God
by Ant Greenham
★★★★
First, a note about what Greenham means by "the questioning God." He doesn't mean God wonders about the truth; he means God engages us with questions, forcing us to think for ourselves. God asks Adam and Eve, "Where are you?" He asks Abraham, "Can you number the stars?" He asks Moses, "Who has made man's mouth?" He asks Job, "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?"
Given that God is a questioning God, and that we are made in the image of God, Greenham encourages us to freely question as well. God would expect no less. God's basic desire is expressed in this sentence: "I will be their God and they will be my people." However, as individuals turn to God and become his people, it should not be a case of blind acceptance.
Greenham examines the three primary monotheistic religions, concluding that Islam discourages questioning while Judaism liberally encourages it. But there's such a thing as questioning too much. Some questions don't engage us with God, but dismiss him instead. The proper balance (and proper Christianity) seems to fall somewhere in the middle.
An example of how Christians should feel free to question: Consider George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. Christian leaders everywhere opposed Bush's invasion plans, but their voices were drowned in a tide of patriotic endorsement. Few considered the nearly one million Christians living in Iraq. Nobody asked them what we should do. Consequently, one of the greatest catastrophes following the 2003 invasion was the loss of over half of that country's Christian population.
Self-questioning (removing the "logs" from our eyes) is "penetrating and devastating. It is no less demanding than questioning the basis of Islam for a Muslim, or considering Jesus as Messiah for a Jew." But Greenham does have his boundaries! It's apparently fine for Muslims to doubt Islam, and for Jews to contemplate the possibility of Jesus as Messiah, but Greenham stops short of encouraging us to question the Christian Bible. I believe his stance is summed up by this quote:
"I tell people I teach in church and seminary setting not to believe me because I have a Ph.D., but only if they're convinced that my teaching is biblical."
★★★★
First, a note about what Greenham means by "the questioning God." He doesn't mean God wonders about the truth; he means God engages us with questions, forcing us to think for ourselves. God asks Adam and Eve, "Where are you?" He asks Abraham, "Can you number the stars?" He asks Moses, "Who has made man's mouth?" He asks Job, "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?"
Given that God is a questioning God, and that we are made in the image of God, Greenham encourages us to freely question as well. God would expect no less. God's basic desire is expressed in this sentence: "I will be their God and they will be my people." However, as individuals turn to God and become his people, it should not be a case of blind acceptance.
Greenham examines the three primary monotheistic religions, concluding that Islam discourages questioning while Judaism liberally encourages it. But there's such a thing as questioning too much. Some questions don't engage us with God, but dismiss him instead. The proper balance (and proper Christianity) seems to fall somewhere in the middle.
An example of how Christians should feel free to question: Consider George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. Christian leaders everywhere opposed Bush's invasion plans, but their voices were drowned in a tide of patriotic endorsement. Few considered the nearly one million Christians living in Iraq. Nobody asked them what we should do. Consequently, one of the greatest catastrophes following the 2003 invasion was the loss of over half of that country's Christian population.
Self-questioning (removing the "logs" from our eyes) is "penetrating and devastating. It is no less demanding than questioning the basis of Islam for a Muslim, or considering Jesus as Messiah for a Jew." But Greenham does have his boundaries! It's apparently fine for Muslims to doubt Islam, and for Jews to contemplate the possibility of Jesus as Messiah, but Greenham stops short of encouraging us to question the Christian Bible. I believe his stance is summed up by this quote:
"I tell people I teach in church and seminary setting not to believe me because I have a Ph.D., but only if they're convinced that my teaching is biblical."
