Thank you for your thoughtful treatment of my post (as usual). I think we are getting at the same point and you have done an excellent job of fleshing out the core of what I am saying from another angle. Bravo!

You write, “The Bible provides a default rule set for our lives and we should seek to obey…” When I read the bible, I don’t always get a “default”. In fact, I often find a lot of contradictions and paradoxes! Thomas Merton expresses a similar sentiment,

“There is, in a word, nothing comfortable about the Bible – until we manage to get so used to it that we make it comfortable for ourselves…Have we ceased to question the book and be questioned by it? Have we ceased to fight it? Then perhaps our reading is no longer serious. For most people, the understanding of the Bible is, and should be, a struggle: not merely to find meanings that can be looked up in books of reference, but to come to terms personally with the stark scandal and contradiction of the Bible itself…Let us not be too sure we know the Bible just because we have learned not to be astonished at it, just because we have learned not to have problems with it.”

You also write, “We must acknowledge the fact that God may call us out of the Biblical framework (certainly not to something against His character) and that we must seek him out in all things.” My questions is, how are you defining a “biblical framework”? I don’t see the examples you cited as a deviation from the “biblical framework”, mostly because I don’t see scripture as being quite so black-and-white.

We must interpret scripture in context. When we look at the examples you cited in the context of history and the broader message of the bible, we gain a more holistic perspective:

1) “Peace is a Biblical directive, however God calls David to war”
Is peace the biblical default? Indeed, we serve a God of peace and Jesus came to give us peace. But we also serve a God who had no qualms with commanding the Israelites to wage war on the surrounding nations and Jesus himself says, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword”. I’m not so sure peace as a biblical directive is the black-and-white default.

2)”The Bible commands us not to sacrifice our children, yet He calls Abraham to sacrifice Isaac”
Was God calling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, or was he testing Abraham to see how far his commitment would go? Gen. 22:12 makes me think that God would NOT have allowed Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. I suggest this passage is no way, shape or form condoning child sacrifice and I think it’s unfair to use it as an example of God going against the default. To do so is to miss completely the point of the passage.

3. “The Bible forbids us to marry whores, yet He commands the prophet Hosea to marry a prostitute.” Where does the bible forbid us to marry whores? And, here again, I think it is unfair to use this as an example of God going against the default. When we look at this example in historical context and in the context of the broader message of scripture, we find the point of the story is not that God called Hosea to marry a whore, it’s that God called Hosea to represent His heart for the Israelites. Yancey summarizes this well in his book, The Bible Jesus Read: “…God asks Hosea to act out a shocking parable. Only by living out this drama could Hosea understand, and then relate to others, something of how Israel’s rebuke felt to God.”

4. “The new testament indicates that only men should be in leadership, yet He calls Deborah to lead Israel.” While parts of the NT delineate male headship (ex. 1 Tim 2:11-15, Eph. 5:22-24), there is also a strong precedent set for female leadership (Priscilla instructs Appollos in Acts 18, Nympha and Lydia have house churches, Paul recognizes women as his “co-workers”, Anna is recognized as a prophetess etc.) To make the blanket, black-and-white statement that the default of scripture is that only men should be in leadership is a contradiction to several clear scriptural examples otherwise.

Finally, you write, “Our ultimate responsibility is obedience to the Holy Spirit not to elders, not to ourselves, not to a book, even if the book is written by God.”
I think this statement puts you on thin ice, because you are suggesting that the word of God is fallible. Granted, I agree that elders, ourselves and books are fallible. I’m not sure we can separate the role of the Holy Spirit and the role of the Word of God if we believe that “all scripture is God-breathed”; the two are inextricably linked.

Okay, I suppose I’ve put off Anthropology reading for long enough…Ugh. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and allowing me to share mine.

-Jen

~Brandy