Is Seibert at all hesitant in trusting his own notions of morality over the revelation in Scripture? Does he believe that Scripture is revelation? If he believes in the existence of God at all, does he not recognize that our own consciences are derivative - that they are given to us by God who remains the only absolute standard of whether something is right or wrong?

Perhaps, I have misunderstood his position.

I seriously doubt that the author knows God, let alone have His Holy Spirit in him. People from religious or academic stand point, ALWAYS miss the point. Scholars don't always have Spiritual wisdom and this is a good example of someone without the Holy Spirit, claiming something that is false. Anyone who criticizes the Bible usually doesn't know God. The truth is not always what we want it to be, that is why mankind likes to create different religions. Its easy to say that the Bible is wrong, many who don't believe in God say that exact same thing. Why Eric claims to be Christian is beyond me, this is a "conflicting spirit", contrary to the Holy Spirit. I would not read anything this guy says unless you desire to be confused.

The Catholics do not have this trouble--They have the authority to help you with these kind of problems as
Christ gave the Catholic Church authority in this are when he gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter when He told him---What you loose on earth Etc.

Always love it when some self-deluded person tries to insert a sectarian "we're better than you somehow" comment. The Roman church has had popes that have disagreed with previous popes on matter of Scripture and revelation which destroys the entire "infallibility on matters of doctrine" dogma that is a recent invention. Even Catholic theologians write about the problem.

If the Pathos article had any actual evidence or anything more than a conclusion with zippo supporting the conclusion, maybe it would be a discussion.

I wonder how many people commenting here have actually read the article on Pathos?

@ JamesBob It's almost always the overly pious anti-intellectual Christians who are the most oppressive.

So, Christianity Today, is it wrong to kill Canaanites, or not? Inquiring minds want to know.

What grounds do you have for thinking that Messiah College doesn't discuss exactly these kinds of issues with their students? Their "Statement of Faith" that any Christian denomination, scary "mainline" ones or not, would agree with? Don't you think they know their prof writes books?

Don't you think an Anabaptist school, in particular, might have, um, views, about violence?

If the bible had not have had such senseless commands (i.e. kill your children when they disrespect you, etc...) then the coming of Jesus wouldn't have been nearly so praiseworthy. We wouldn't understand why he had to come and die on the cross in the first place.

Sounds like Mr. Seibert is simply using poor hermeneutics and at the core hates God, because Mr. Seibert believes he stands in judgment over God.

Almost every Evangelical stands in judgement over God when they cherry pick and proof text from the Bible or ingeniously explain away texts from Scripture that don't coincide with their theology (And there are many)

I need to give Eric Siebert his due before reaching my conclusions about him. Thus I need to read his words and not depend on second hand sources. I'm sure CT will may plan to do an interview with him in the future for the sake of clarification. In the mean time I'm avoiding the Kangaroo Court unfolding before my eyes.

It is very sad to read the condemnation of Siebert from people who likley do not know him. While I might not agree with his conclusions, it seems that he is raising important questions. People can bury their head in the sand and claim that it is OK for the Bible to demand what we all agree today is immoral (genocide, for example), but do we not need to find some way to reconcile these passages with the God of love, grace, mercy, peace, and forgiveness that we find in Jesus. Marcion saw the dilemma years ago yet many Bible readers seem unwilling to acknowledge it and unsure how to respond to it today

The professor is right.

Wotan is right.

** The Catholics do not have this trouble--They have the authority to help you with these kind of problems **

Of course, the Catholic laity largely rejects the authority of Scrupture and the Pope at the voting booth. Polls show that a majority of Catholics (between 51-54%) are pro-abortion and pro-homosexual marriage.

So "having the authority" while rejecting obedience to that authority is of little value.

that's just your opinion professor Aibert. the Bible cant be immoral and holy at the same time.you therefore should believe the Bible is both immoral and unholy, otherwise you are contradicting yourself.this kind of believe could be disastrous especially to young believers.

It stuns me that people will read a very short article and then attack the character and faith commitments of someone they don't know. In no way does that demonstrate Christ. I know Eric. He lives his faith and deeply loves God. Beyond that his faith has impacted his life significantly more than most believers.

So disagree with his conclusions. Disagree with his processes. Disagree with his work. Why would you say this person hates God or say this person may not know God? Its incredulous and wrong.

I don't agree with all Eric concludes or his processes. But Eric has chosen to deal with a difficult issue and to press the Church to consider challenges in the difficult texts of the OT.

We don't have to agree with him... butt we ought to thank him for helping us think about the issues.

Thanks nilesg for your comments. What is it with so much of evangelicalism that we seem unable to disagree without engaging in personal attacks and character assassination?

The Bible isn't A book, it's a small library of books, poems, songs, epistles written over a considerable time span. While the writers clearly were inspired by God and wanted to do God's will, the Bible isn't God and we were not the intended audiences for the books, poems and epistles. There is no Epistle to the 21st Century Americans.

As L. P. Hartley famously pointed out: "The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there." Even though people are people, then and now, they did things very differently, their societies were very different, they understood things differently and their social constructs, even basic ones like "man" and "woman" are also different. That we can learn from them... not only what they might want us to learn... That we can emphasize and be moved by the writers and the people in the Bible, is a tribute to our common humanity.

It's not the Bible that is immoral... it's simply much too old to be immoral, if nothing else. The immorality that Prof. Seibert points out in how people in the past and today have tried to legtimize with verses from the Bible is their own and our own immorality. It is our neglect of the Golden Rule and our rationalizations for doing what is cheap, calloused and self centered. The Bible isn't immoral and doesn't make us immoral, it's what the Bible warns us over and over again...idolatry... often bibliolatry... and intolerant, exploitative neglect of the Golden Rule, the real "sin of Sodom," that is what is immoral.

Eric Seibert is exercising morality in pointing out our dangerous arrogance, callousness, biblolatry, greed and blind disregard for the ancients' and their societies in our present day readings of that wonderful, ancient, little library we call the Bible.

This post is simply irresponsible. It is clear that the author has not read Eric's book, misquoted the intention of Scot McKnight. In sum, she has clearly not even attempted to engage Seibert in a constructive manner - but prefers a 'witch hunt' type of approach to what is, by any measure, a very difficult topic which all Christians, regardless of their theological position, must struggle with.

The author cites Scot McKnight - but if she actually _read_ Scot's post, it is obvious that Scot only mentions Eric Siebert in passing. And, it is clear that Scot is genuinely embracing the same set of questions as is Eric. McKnight is by no means labeling Seibert a 'heretic'. Note Scot's language about Seibert:

"David responds briefly to Eric Seibert’s (at times Marcion-like) suggestion that the God of the Old Testament, when he doesn’t conform to Jesus, needs to be rejected, but David prefers a method that seeks to get to the bottom of the text in another way."

Scot is only mentioning Eric in passing. Is "at times Marcion-like" mean Scot is labeling Eric a 'heretic'?! Of course not! The bigger question is why the 'witch hunt' by the blog author? Eric is trying to frame his understanding of violence around the figure of Jesus- a historic anabaptist and brethren position of non-violence.

Lastly, personal attacks and proclamations on someone's state-of-salvation is simply uncalled for by fellow followers of Jesus. Eric is a wonderful man with a passion for God, his students, and the mission of Messiah College.

I came across this article through a reference to it in another magazine I happened to pick up at my gym. My curiosity was piqued, so here I am.

I grew up (and remain) in the Jewish faith, and I'm always saddened and even astonished that someone of another faith could be rebuked by his fellow faith-members for thinking in a way that doesn't stick rigidly to the doctrines of that faith.

When I was growing up, I was free to question, disagree with and doubt every part of Judaism. All that was asked of me was that I'd thought it through and had good reasons for my feelings.

As an adult I taught Jewish Sunday School. (Yes, we have that too, because kids are available that day.) One Sunday one of my ten-year-olds suddenly asked me, "How do I know God exists?"

Without even pausing, I answered, "You don't." I then explained that that's a knowledge he could only come to, or not, on his own. No one could give that to him: it had to come, if at all, from within.

I'm proud to say that not one parent complained about my answer.

I've also noticed that Christians tend to group people into "believers" and "non-believers." That word, too, baffles me, since Jews never think in terms of "Do you believe in Judaism?" We never seek belief, only engagement, allowing that engagement to lead, for each individual, wherever it will.

As you're probably aware, we don't, then, teach (or need to teach) eternal punishment for anyone who doesn't "believe" as we do. Indeed, we don’t teach any punishment at all for differing beliefs or non-belief. We only teach it for not treating other people fairly.

If we've survived over unimaginable odds for these many years, I believe it's because we've had to develop, and rely on, our abilities to think. We may indeed have "a covenant with God" that's allowed our survival.

But the heart of that covenant is, I'd argue, our ability to be discerning, and to allow—in fact, to treasure—that in others.

I think Mr. Seibert would make a great Jew--though it's absolutely unnecessary that he become one in order to "gain salvation." I say he'd make a great Jew, not because I agree with his conclusions (although I do), but because he's his own person, using his mind, heart and spirit fully as the gifts God gave him.

Did he "step out of line" with formal dictates of his religion? It seems so--but then, didn't Jesus do that too?

Jews have been doing it ever since. We wouldn't be the vital people we are if we hadn't continually done so when--again--our heart, mind and spirit pointed that way.

And no fellow Jew, apart from the ultra-Orthodox, would ever rebuke us for that. On the contrary, they'd most likely remark, "How Jewish."

Would that Professor Seibert was favored with the same response: "How Christian."

How uplifting are the thoughts from our Jewish partner. I just finished reading Eric Seibert's book. I found it refreshing to see one wrestle with scripture from an ethical perspective. He was using his heart and mind engaging with texts a rational moral person simply cannot affirm. Should we believe in a God who commands the killing of little children, pregnant woman etc? Other portions of the Bible critique the violent sections. Seibert advocates midrash as illustrated by our Jewish colleague.

If Seibert is simply saying that we ought not to function today as though we are Israelites, which we are not, (e.g., stoning adulterers, slaying entire nations of people, sacrificing goats, etc.), he is right. If he is simply saying that we do not have the right to pronounce final judgment on the souls of homosexuals, he is right.

However, if he is saying, as he seems to be saying, that humanity sits in final judgment of God and His ways, he is wrong (see Job). If he is saying, as he seems to be saying, that God and Christians ought not to view homosexuality as a perversion of good, he is wrong.

Scripture itself claims to be authoritative. It claims that its authors are divinely inspired by God in their writings. It claims to be the Word of God in which it, in fact, depicts a God who "command(ed) the killing of little children, pregnant women, etc.," not to mention the slaughter of millions of innocent animals as sin sacrifices. This is not "biblio-idolatry;" it is simply acknowledging what God's Word says about itself.

What's warranted is an improved understanding of why God behaved in this way during that period of history--not the invention of a man-made deity fashioned in the image of Professor Seibert and the like. Perhaps a good starting point is the acknowledgement that we have almost completely lost any concept of holiness and of the completely destructive power of evil and sin. Scripture's presentation is that the power of evil is so pervasive, dangerous, and annihilating that the earth is living under a comprehensive curse because of it. It severed our relationship to our Maker; it has forever spoiled relationships among fellows; it has fractured our moral compass; it has affected every atom of our beings. That might be one of the keys to understanding the severe judgments depicted in Scripture: to show the punishment that everyone of us deserves apart from the atonement of Jesus Christ. Could that be possible?

If Professor Seibert denies the claims of Scripture, which he seems to be doing, it is neither name-calling nor witch-hunting to state the obvious: his views are a denial of God's word--which makes them wrong. They fall well outside of those of historic, orthodox Christianity. And, yes, there is such a thing as historic, orthodox Christianity. Historic, orthodox Christianity has a long history of encountering heresy. And, yes, there is such a thing as heresy. The whole collection of Christian creeds and confessions are responses to those--like Seibert and followers--who challenge this or that aspect of Scripture and seek to replace it with their own supposedly more enlightened ideas.

As one who teaches at the university level, I have observed that those who are the most educated are often the most susceptible to foolishness. They begin to believe that--by virtue of their superior education--they are supra-enlightened. They begin to believe the lie that they no longer need any source of authority or Truth. They quite frequently begin to believe that they are capable of moving (or removing) the boundaries between moral right and wrong; they strongly dislike the concept of authority--unless it is in support of their personal views--in which cases they are ruthless authoritarians (i.e., environmentalism, Darwinism, perspectives on the range of social issues); they largely view Christianity as a primitive fairy tale.

They will denounce in the most arrogant, dismissive, and cruel terms folks who have the insight and courage to state views contrary to their own--all the while claiming to love diversity and tolerance. Quite frankly, they are sophisticated bullies. I'm not saying that Professor Seibert and his defenders fit this description. I'm merely observing how those who object to Professor's Seibert's perspectives in this forum have been called anti-intellectual, witch hunting, narrow-minded, rigid, and bigoted--all because they have simply expressed the basic presuppositions about God and Scriptural authority that have actually defined historic, orthodox Christianity for thousands of years.

If other faiths don't like the idea of divine authority and knowable Truth (not completely knowable Truth about everything, but a sufficient, functional knowledge of Truth to assert certainty where God has asserted it), that's their prerogative. But their rejection of these categories places no obligation on Christianity to do the same. If some don't like or believe in the God of Scripture, they don't have to accept Him; but then they ought to call themselves something other than orthodox Christians. After all, it would be quite foolish of me to say I want to be an accountant but then decide that I don't like or don't want to perform that basic functions of an accountant. And then for me to insist that it's rigid and narrow-minded of other accountants to say that in order for me to really be an accountant, I had to agree to work with numbers.

Categories have definitions; and Christianity has been defined throughout history in specific terms that include the acceptance of Scripture as the word of God and the God of Christianity as the God of Scripture. If other faiths believe that it's somehow profound and brilliant to tell its young people that "You can't know that God exists" as a supposedly enlightened expression of their belief (?), that's up to them. But Scripture says that Jesus Christ came so that humanity could know that God exists; Scripture says that all of creation declares His glorious existence; and so on. And so we ought to tell seekers that God is everywhere revealed and always wants us to know that He is--even when we are struggling with unbelief because of our frailty.

We are certainly to use our reason to the fullest extent within the boundaries and according to presuppositions that Scripture establishes--beginning with the Scriptural assertion that God is wise and we are foolish. God is infinite; we are finite. God is perfectly moral, while our hearts (in Scripture, this means minds) are deceitful and desperately wicked and our understanding has been darkened and corrupted by sin.