In Chapter Two of The Theology of Dallas Willard, written by Gary Black Jr., Black writes about a phenomenon which I think is quite intriguing.  He talks of how the creation of scripture must have been based on the human and the divine working in tandem.  Willard believes that the bible contains no evidence to suggest that he writers of the bible were not wholly human, who were merely writing God’s will through their experiences.  Alongside this, Willard does not propose that the bible is without error.  I agree that the bible could contain error, but not in such a way as to derail the purpose of God.  I think that part of what makes the bible beautiful is the harmony of God’s divinity and human capability.  We are not perfect, and the bible reflects this.  An author may have made a mistake but this is just the nature of our being. 

            While the bible is not perfect with respect to historical fact, this is simply because humanity had a major hand in the writing of it.  Indeed, I find it strange when people denounce the bible or even the faith as a whole due to the understanding that God’s book was written by people less than divine.  God would not allow His book to stand for anything other than His intended purpose.  The errors that may be contained in Scripture have not slipped by God’s eyes; He has allowed these errors to occur possibly as a test of faith, but perhaps also as a means to show the divine authority of God and the feebleness of human understanding coexisting in His word.

            I deeply respect Willard’s acceptance that the bible is not without error, but that this does not take away from its authority.  I think that too many people, even Christians, get hung up on this debate and try to convince themselves and others that the bible is less than perfect in a theological sense.

In Chapter 2 of Fortress Introduction to Contemporary Theologies, the author introduces the concept of Christian Realism and Neo-Orthodoxy.  Two brothers, Reinhold and H. Richard Niebuhr were the sons of a German immigrant, and were crucial in the development of American Neo-Orthodoxy.  A major feature of Christian Realism is the understanding that sin is both inevitable and universal.  This thought process transcends Christianity.  Just as Reinhold preferred to be called a social critic or moralist rather than a theologian, so too does Christian Realism strive to apply itself to everyday life rather than just theology. 

            Another son of a German immigrant, Walter Rauschenbusch, took this belief to a deeper level.  He recognized the problem of sin, but dove to uncover the roots of these problems on the social and economic level.  Always an advocate for the poor, Rauschenbusch advocated for labor unions and the socialization of big industry.  While I can see how Rauschenbusch viewed institutions such as unions as a way to help the impoverished, I think that the issue goes deeper than that.  It seems in his theology that Rauschenbusch strove to minimize sin by radically changing the facets of society.  However, I do not think that Rauschenbusch’s philosophy would be effective in the long term.  Sin is always going to present in the secular world.  Reducing poverty may reduce the sins of prostitution or gambling, for example, but sin would find a way to creep into the affluent man’s life nonetheless.  Few would be able to find an example of a man who has amassed earthly riches yet who is also far from sin.  It helps to look to the root of the problem as Rauschenbusch did, but sin is not something that can be eliminated by manmade institutions, unions, or social structures.  Only by living like Christ can sin be conquered.

In Chapter 13 of Fortress Introduction to Contemporary Christian Thought, the author questions the nature of the idea of “post-liberalism”.  He talks of conventional “liberal” ideas such as the willingness to cast away traditions in favor of encouraging more open thought.  Although it is true that many often think of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” in a polarizing manner, the true meaning of liberalism is much different.  Liberalism is merely the idea of interpreting Christian theology in the context of the advancing modern thought.  So much of Christianity is tied up with tradition and culture.  I believe it is very important that we keep our minds open and apply the changing times to our interpretation of scripture.  Though it is imperative to remember and respect the past, it is just as important to look to the future.  With the rapid pace of advancement in technology and science, Christians need to keep up and present theology in a similar light so as to reach and be applicable to the greatest number of people.

            The author writes of how liberal thinkers often put less faith in taking scripture at face value.  Instead, they read between the lines and strive to pull out the timeless truths embedded in the passage, disregarding content that may no longer apply.  I am not sure how I feel about this.  While I do think that there is great value in uncovering the true meaning behind certain passages, I think that when the bible is analyzed in this way, the reader will often begin to treat the bible as any other historical document.  We need to remember that the bible is the word of God, and though it was written many years ago, God would not allow His book to be written in a way that loses its purpose, no matter how old it is.  Times may indeed be changing, but the value of scripture is always present regardless of how closely or in what manner it is analyzed.