Following of Sacred Texts

It is necessary to follow teachings that are put forth in a sacred text?

The emphasis that Christianity places upon sacred texts for doctrine and social teaching is troubling. Certainly not all texts are created equally. The Book of Revelation, for example is not equal to the Gospels -- at least in my opinion. However, the apocalyptic versions of Christianity place their emphasis upon the apocalyptic message of Revelations and not the message of peace from the Sermon on the Mount from the Gospel of Matthew. It seems strange that the Gospel message would be displaced by obscure interpretations of Revelations.

I was in a discussion group recently and to topic of "Can you be gay and religious." The simple solution to this question is absolutely, and why is this question even being asked? However, the discussion changed when one fellow, a young man in his early 20s, indicated that it was OK to be gay but not to act on it. I asked if people are born gay or if they choose it, he responded that they are probably born that way because god is testing them. I responded with, "So do gay people have more original sin than do straight people?" I followed up with, "If that is the case then why doesn't baptism wash away the gay?" We went back and forth, and others came into the discussion. It was a friendly discussion, but frustrating. As evangelical as they wanted to consider themselves their knowledge of the Bible wasn't very good and mine needed some polishing (I wasn't prepared to debate). My point? All of their conclusions came from their interpretation of the Bible, or what someone has told them is an interpretation of the Bible.

I was reading "The Brothers Karamozov" by Fyodor Dostoevsky recently and found it to be a fabulous book with many insights. Even though there is much insightful material in this text I'm not going to revere it as absolute and definitive and ultimately the word of God! Likewise, I'm not going to take and revere any e-mail, letter, or book written today by anyone as definitive and without criticism. Such would be absurd. However, this is what has happened with "Sacred Scripture."

Should the texts of the Bible be honored and respected? Absolutely. Should they be read and studied? Absolutely. Should they be followed blindly? Absolutely NOT!

I would even go so far as to "de-canonize" the whole of the Christian Bible. Still make it available and for study. But remove its pedestal of infallibility. Let us also study other 1st and 2nd century texts with the same vigor that we have the canonical texts, perhaps there are insights that could enlighten the Churches. De-canonize the Bible, don't throw it away. Exclaim, "We cherish and honor these sacred texts, but we acknowledge that God uses many means to speak to the people and this is not the only means."

Faith, as Kierkegaard proposed and I accept, is a paradox and cannot be proven by reason. If this is the case then faith is an individual endeavor. People can congregate together, but faith still remains an individual phenomenon. This being the case, the emphasis of the "Church" and of clergy should not be the emphasis of faith but the emphasis on praxis. I cannot make anyone have faith, but I can show them the practices that might help them. I can offer the sacraments, I can pray, and I can read the many scriptures out there in hopes that it will have an affect upon me. My faith, however, is a personal thing and cannot be legislated in a book.