Consequences. . .

There are always those who insist that they do not believe this or that but they are still Christians and still Lutherans (or whatever).  You have heard them.  I have heard them.  But is it true?  Can you deny this or that in Scripture or reject this doctrine or that and still be the Christian you claim to be?  Note, I am not saying that you are saved or not saved -- this not being my domain at all but God's.  Instead, the point I am making is that there are always consequences for those departing from the body of what is believed or the statement of Scripture.  Often these consequences appear to be small but, in reality, are not only much more profound but lead to living outside the pale of your tradition.

It may not seem like a big thing to reject the language of Genesis 1-2 as history and accept them a poetic mythology.  Who are you going to offend, Adam?  But there are consequences.  Jesus speaks of Adam as a real, historical person.  So by rejecting the language of Genesis as history, the consequence is that you have inadvertently called into question the veracity of Jesus. Or maybe you would explain this away as if Jesus were merely speaking within the accepted framework of belief for the time without actually accepting for Himself.  Jesus is, then, condescending to our limited realm of knowledge and understanding.  The consequence for this is that you then presume that Jesus either lies or at least shades the truth and knows better but is not above lying to us and about what Scripture says.  Tell me that does not have real consequences when it comes to who Jesus is and His trustworthiness.

It may not seem like a big thing to reject most if not all miracles as exaggerated speech or the realm of ignorant folk against the backdrop of our own erudition and education.  Those who do so consistently suggest that the teaching part of the miracle remains the same whether it happened or not.  The consequence here is who knows where to draw the line between that which did occur and that which was merely exaggerated speech reflective of the times.  Take that one step further and it becomes the question of whether Jesus rose bodily on the third day or if His bones are still somewhere in a cave in Palestine.  The consequences are large.  Jesus said He would rise again on the third day and the Church said He did and proclaimed this message to the world.  Was Jesus lying or fibbing or His disciples or the Church right down to the present day?  The consequences are large because it calls into the question anything Jesus ever claimed or said and anything the disciples or the Church has preached.  How much is true and which parts and what does that say about the integrity of Scripture, of Jesus, and of the Church?

You can fill in the blank here with so much that sophisticated folk find too impossible to believe and you can follow the consequences out and they will always lead to a denial of Jesus' own credibility.  Theology and doctrines are not interchangeable parts that can be changed or adjusted or removed without affecting the whole.  Our faith is like a fabric of doctrine and truth woven together into one and it cannot and will not survive those who pull at the threads for whatever reason.  It is not the same faith without Adam and Eve as historical figures and their fall an historical fact.  It is not the same faith without Jesus believing this and commending it to us to be believed.  It is not the same faith by dismissing miracles and especially dismissing the miracle of Jesus' own resurrection.  It is not the same faith by suggesting that marriage is open to reinterpretation or that what has been regarded as disorder or sin can now be mainstreamed.  Pull at the strings and the whole ball of yarn is undone.