Gungor drifts from biblical orthodoxy [Christian musician decides Scripture not accurate]

World Magazine ^ | 8/2/14 | Jeff Koch

[SoFloFreeper]

Dove-award winning artists Michael and Lisa Gungor—whose “Dry Bones” and “Beautiful Things” became worship anthems across the country--are...wandering away from a biblically defined Christianity to a land twixt and tween.

....The band’s new ideas are more clearly set forth in a blog post titled, “What do we Believe?”

...he nails down exactly what he doesn’t believe—in Adam and Eve or the Flood. He has “no more ability to believe in these things then I do to believe in Santa Claus.”

This theological ambivalence is on display on Gungor’s latest project—a collection of EPs released under the name The Liturgists. Working with Pastor Rob Bell—author of Love Wins—and various poets....

[One new work, entitled] "God Our Mother", supports moving beyond the Scriptural formulation of God as Father...

Gungor is clearly still animated and inspired by the person of Jesus. But it was Jesus who upheld the authority of Scripture and whose recipe for divine connection was fairly simple: “Our Father, who is in Heaven, hallowed be your name …”

[Shimmer1]

I recently met a wonderful man (in many respects) We had a couple of nice dates, but it’s just not going to work, ever.

We both feel such peace with each other and like each other’s company very much but although he was a Baptist preacher for 25 years, now he won’t go in a church at all. (that’s not even the problem)

He doesn’t believe in the Bible anymore. He holds his views as truth and everyone who believes in the Bible as unenlightened and wrong. His proof? He believes them, that’s it. There’s more, but that’s enough here.
I was SO disappointed.

[The Grammarian]

The Bible communicates with us in a number of different ways. Metaphors are metaphors, poetry is poetry, etc...and context is also important. When Jesus was speaking in parables, He made that fact clear. When He was speaking plainly, I imagine He expected us to be able to figure that out.

Context (including genre) matters a great deal, and quite frankly, American fundamentalist interpretations don't usually take into account the first-century Jewish context the biblical writers wrote in. Remember, the biblical writers wrote as Jews in a particular place and time, to other Jews (and a few Gentiles) in particular places and times.

What we have in the Gospels is not Jesus speaking, but his faithful eyewitnesses' accounts of his speaking. We have no indication that Jesus had twenty-first century American Christians in mind when he was preaching, nor that 'he expected us to be able to figure it out' without any research into the context of his first-century Jewish culture--nor should we expect first-century Jewish culture to transliterate perfectly into our own twenty-first century American experiences.

[The Grammarian]

So, it’s not clear cut, but I think He had a reason for choosing to portray himself that way.

I agree--but that reason may have been simply that given the male-dominated culture of ancient Israel (consider that a woman's testimony was worthless to first-century Jews--and consider the fact that the first witnesses of the Resurrection were all women too), that was the best way to reach the people he called to be his chosen people.

[CatherineofAragon]

That really is sad. I wonder what on earth happened to him to make him lose his faith. He needs prayer.

I don’t blame you for recognizing that it couldn’t work. I’d think it would be so painful, knowing that the man I cared about had rejected God.

I hope you’re doing well otherwise, Shimmer.

[SoFloFreeper]

And he was a Baptist preacher?

Something happened...just like the guy who worked with Billy Graham and died still insisting Jesus didn’t rise from the dead.

Very sad.

I have known of ministers, too, who fell away. Paul, too, had fellow workers who abandoned the faith.

:(

[SoFloFreeper]

American fundamentalist interpretations don't usually take into account the first-century Jewish context the biblical writers wrote in.

You are correct that the context is critical, especially to the audience and the occasion of the write.

Bit you apparently don't know many American fundamentalists. Or you are defining the term very, very tightly.

The first rule of exegesis for any commentator is to look at the original context. And whatever conclusions or extrapolations any theologian may draw, the ones I see generally do their best to deal first with the context in its original state.

[The Grammarian]

You are correct that the context is critical, especially to the audience and the occasion of the write. Bit you apparently don't know many American fundamentalists. Or you are defining the term very, very tightly.

I'm defining 'fundamentalist' the same way Dr Olson defines it in his post here, although I'm also thinking of my own experiences with people on the fringes of Pentecostalism (i.e. the "Word of Faith" movement).

[DManA]

It is a core belief of the Traditional Christian Faith that God reveals Himself through his Word AND through his creation.

If the clear evidence of His Creation contradicts your interpretation of His Word then you should prayerfully reflect on your interpretation of His Word.

That is how a Faithful person approaches the question.

[Shimmer1]

Yep, for 25 years. What apparently happened was that he put his reasoning above the Most High. We talked a long time about it.

[Shimmer1]

Thank you Catherine, I’m not in any pain or discomfort. I’m just waiting on a surgery date.

[fishtank]

.... or he never was ....

.... or he has fallen into carnality .....

[CatherineofAragon]

Let me know how things are going. Freepmail me anytime, or ping me to any threads you might put up. I’m keeping you in prayer.

[Army Air Corps]

Ah. A friend of mine thinks that Bell is the greatest thing since fire.