I cranked out another 5,000 words of that old novel I'm editing and typing up for Kindle publication, which I'm enjoying, as will maybe a half-dozen other people, my mother included. OK, maybe not my mom. She's not really the eBook sort.
And then I went back and reworked a bit of online theological musing I'd done several years ago. The impetus for that was a probing conversation in a Sunday Bible study, in which a young member of my congregation asked about how and in what way the Bible had authority.
It was...well...a bit more of a dialogue than a group discussion, but as we'd already finished up examining the deeply challenging text from Genesis, and I'd asked for general questions, it was cool.
The issue was coming to understand how our sacred texts can have authority if they are not literally inerrant, perfect and without contradiction or flaw. This is a non-trivial issue, so obviously, it's taken some of my processor time over the years. Long of short of it: I view scriptural inerrancy as spiritually analogous to ecclesiastical inerrancy. Both represent human failures to understand the nature of the relationship to God that Jesus calls us to live out.
And so the Neoreformationist Theses returns to the web, tightened up and ready to sit there and look pretty.
It's particularly entertaining, given that a quick run through Google indicates that I'm the only homo sapiens sapiens who actually uses that word. That renders the odds of another person searching for it...oh, gosh, let's see...essentially nil.
Ah well.
Ah well.
Posts
