top of page

Controversy or Simply A Safe Transparency



I find it interesting among those who follow my daily posts, both on this blog, as well as Facebook, LinkedIn and other social media, in that most simply offer "likes" moreso than comments, though the hits on my blog analysis indicate far more readers than those who react in any certain way. Those who do comment are more likely to do so by way of private response.


My transparency can be seen as an attempt at controversy. Nothing could be further than truth! Rather, a desire to provide a safe space to process the very thoughts that fear often prevents.

A digital "Cabin Talk", as many with whom I meet in private will affirm.


Knowing God as "friend" is truly a complimentary approach to spiritual relationship. (See Jn. 15:15).


Friends will entertain our deepest thoughts and concerns without judgement. Humans, even those most sincere about their faith will often default to judgement, when vulnerability is sensed.


A couple posts back I opened up the thought of "cultural baggage" revealed at times even in scripture, those writers certainly inspired and thus most sincere in their motives, but all human!


Moses, interjecting thoughts found in Mesopotamian writings pre-Abraham, likely learned in the house of Pharoah or by way of oral accounts among his Hebrew friends. Some, for those reasons discount Genesis 1-11 as a blend of both inspiration and folklore.


Luke's genealogy of Jesus counts Adam as a historical figure* vs. Matthew's geneology beginning only with Abraham.


One theologian purports that the two Creation stories in Genesis "makes it clear that adam is not imagined in the first creation account as an individual 

person. That is, adam is not the name of a man, nor a woman, but instead is a collective singular noun which means ‘humanity’ or what older translations rendered as ‘mankind.’ Also, in Genesis 1, adam is a gender differentiated creation (male and female) without hint of hierarchy. There is no first and second sex here, just adam: male and female, with a commission to exercise 

dominion of the rest of the created order, and to multiply and to fill the earth with the human experiment. When God says “I have given you…” the object of that statement is a plural, the 

you being adam: male and female."

-Anthony Rees (United Theological College , CSU School of

Theology)


Here Rees reinforces the thought that Adam was not a historical figure but a term for the collective humanity, male & female, differentiated only for purposes anti-types, i.e. with Paul's First Adam, Second Adam, the latter who was the Christ, who rectifies choices made by humanity.


Then of course, the infamous bias against women in church leadership, now no longer seen as applicable, though then inspired as well.


It is my opinion (pardon my transparency) that ambiguity in scripture simply points to our unknowns, i.e. Judas hanged, vs jumped off cliff (bowels burst out).  King Saul, slain or fell on his sword, etc.


My hope for my readers is that they find a safe place for processing, similar to that found by the "woman at the well"

when challenged by Jesus, his intent that she might find living water, her response, "greater than our father Jacob", her religious dogma.


Shalom!




12 views3 comments

Recent Posts

See All

3 Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
Rated 5 out of 5 stars.

I've seldom found a element of controversy in your posts; therefore no need for apology.

I do sense the transparency! Go John! Keep it up with Christ alive in you!

Like

John Bost
John Bost
Jan 30

Dollar Tree!

Like

Rated 5 out of 5 stars.

Don’t know where y’all got those hats but they are the best

Like
bottom of page