Embracing Humanity?

I was in Sunday School class this morning, and the topic, as we began the study of a new book of the Bible, was the origination of that particular book of Scripture. The book is one of the gospels, and as the discussion went on, the two most educated men in the room were discussing the "inerrancy of Scripture", particularly as it pertained to the gospels. You see, it is my understanding that the gospels were being written a couple of decades following the original events of Jesus' life and death. The gospels themselves explain mostly the same thing and, it was agreed, are extremely reliable and accurate due to the fact that they have been copied and recopied yet remain remarkably similar in content and specifics. The bottom line of the story is that some of the gospels report very similar events but may disagree as to a word or two in a specific line of Jesus' words or to the location, timing, or details of a certain sermon or miracle performed by Him. They generally, largely agree, and I believe that the general consensus among those in the class was that the words were inerrant as they left the pen to the page, but that they may have encountered a slight bit of human reinterpretation along the way. Not to mention that, as it was said in class, if 4 people watched the same accident from a different corner of an intersection they would each have a different story and a different way of telling it.

This line of thinking used to bother me... almost making me feel threatened somehow that the God of the Universe left His only Word to me in some type of error-ridden state that makes it unreliable to this day. However, I know this to be untrue, because it is "living and active" and "God breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16 & Hebrews 4:12) and it speaks to me in beautiful clarity every single day in a way that is completely undeniable. All these things would probably not convince someone who doesn't believe or someone from another religion or someone highly "educated", but it satisfies plain ol' me just fine.

Something that was profoundly freeing "hit" me during the discussion. God has never balked at embracing human frailty. In fact, it's somewhat His signature. He created us for relationship with Him and also knowing we would break that relationship through our sin and denial of Him. He wrestled with Jacob (Genesis 32:23-34). He met personally and intimately with patriarchs from Moses to Abraham - providing for their human frailty ever-so-tenderly (Exodus 33:12-22). He established, right from the beginning of His Word to us - that our frailties were no problem for Him. But they are certainly a problem for us - and for one another. Most of us can pick out an imperfection or something we don't particularly like about another person a mile away. We all of a sudden think ourselves a worthy judge of what is good or bad about another person. Thankfully, our Creator thought us worth close association from the very beginning despite knowing everything about us.

God sent His Son - Jesus. Jesus was fully God and fully man. This is another demonstration that He doesn't mind getting His "hands dirty" with humanity. He took on flesh... our illnesses, frailties, difficulties, dirt... He didn't send us a redeemer that was all God and no man. He gave us the opportunity to participate in the process. He included us. We were an integral part, and He didn't say in a sense, "stand back and let me handle this". He got as intimate as He could with a person. He chose to grow inside of her and be parented by her. Could He have redeemed us without our participation? Sure.

The point I'm trying to make I guess is that the Bible is much the same way. He used men - humanity in all their imperfection - to chronicle His life on earth in the gospels and His heart toward and instructions for us in the epistles. I think it's part of His way of relating with us... involving us. The Bible is not just a story about Him. It's a story about how deeply He desires a close relationship with us. He could have written the Bible with His own hand - thus removing the human element. He did so with the Ten Commandments (Exodus 31:18). He could have made it so that the 4 gospels read identically, but He didn't. Each author's unique writing style and personality shows through and invites mortals to recognize that relationship with God is not unattainable... as the gospel writers had already discovered.

God has reached out to us over and over throughout history - from creation to the present. He wants us to reach back. Why? I have no idea. Why would perfection want to commune with imperfection? Why would God want to relate with man? I mean, we can hardly stand to live with one another sometimes. I joked once to a person who felt ostracized by "churchy people", "I have a talent for making the most loving people at church hate me." I think a lot of us feel that way. I'm sure we all know certain people though - the ones who can't stand our lack of being, well, frankly - more like them. A "The whole world would be better if we were all a lot more like me," philosophy. I think if we were all honest, we would admit having taken that philosophy around the block in our minds once or twice - tried it on for size. We claim we love and accept, and we spread that by trying to browbeat or guilt or reason others into our way of thinking - which is also inevitably just as flawed in a different way. In reality, the most loving thing we could probably do for a person we disagree with is what God does - embrace their humanity, love them "as is", and wait to let Him change their heart if He would. Isaiah 58:8-9 says, "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts,neither are your ways my ways,' declares the LORD. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.'" So basically, giving the world my philosophies on life (which are mostly flawed and rubbish) are not nearly as important as giving them to God. And with that... I'm done.