When I talked to someone recently about a biography I read on Johnny Cash, a famously flawed lover of God, she told me about a woman who thought the best biography of a believer was when they came to the Lord and followed faithfully forever after. It made me think how incredibly short the Bible would be if God's criteria was the same. Of the Old Testament saints whose life stories are mentioned in detail, we would have only Joseph and Daniel. (And we probably wouldn't have those if we had more detail.) Jesus's disciples would be brief footnote in the Gospels. Most of the Epistles were written to address problems in the churches, so neither book of Corinthians would make the cut, nor Galatians, Colossians, Titus. Definitely not Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter and Jude. And there would be two, instead of seven, churches addressed in Revelation.
Eliminating the sinful saints would make the Bible much faster and easier to read, but not very helpful. Reading about perfect people is convicting, but not encouraging to imperfect people, which is all of us. And, as most parents know, we reveal more about ourselves and our values to our children when we are in the midst of conflict than in a hundred happy moments. I have been studying some of Paul's epistles lately and, frankly, he sounds kind of "(e)piss(tl)ed off" to me. He is loving and instructive, but he is also firmly addressing a problem. If the early churches weren't so messed up, we would have no scripture to guide us when ours are. So I am thankful the Bible is not about happily ever after believers. We can choose which, if any, biographies we want to read. But the bios God chose for his Book are, for the most part, famously flawed followers of God. One more reason to be thankful the canon was completed before Connie came along.
No comments:
Post a Comment