Chronological Guide to the Bible

I recently received and have read through the Chronological Guide to the Bible as a part of the Book Sneeze program through Thomas Nelson Publishing. I chose this book for two reasons. First, I was curious about the premise of a chronological order to the Bible. I have known for quite some time that the Bible was no fully in chronological order, but never really knew where to start in reading the Bible in that way. Second, I thought it might be a good reference tool for my library and I believe I was right.

Let me first say that I love the layout of the book. They have divided history into nine epochs and the introduction to each epoch includes some of the major events and developments in history as well as in the Biblical narrative. After this introduction there is a reading list in order to follow along in chronological order which allows this book to be compatible with any translation of the Bible. There are then a few little articles highlighting various thing in certain passages that might correspond to events in history. These articles are very easy to read and understand and really help the reader gain a deeper understanding.

Overall I am very pleased with this product and am looking forward to digging into more and more of the content found inside. In just the week or so that I have been looking through it, I've gained some deeper understanding. I would definitely recommend this book. Just make sure that you read the introduction to the book so that you will understand some of the decisions that were made in putting this book together.

One might wonder...

So I have been reading and studying the book of Acts lately.  I have actually never read through the book from start to finish even though I've said that I wanted to many times.  In light of that I am trying to read a few chapters and week and do some extensive research by reading commentaries and doing some word studies, a la bib ex class in college.

Anyways, I wanted to ask you what your take is on the story of Ananias and Sapphira.  Here is a very interesting story that seems a bit out of place in light of the God that is portrayed in the New Testament.  I have a few thoughts that I will share as the conversation unfold in the comments but wanted to hear from you as well.  The whole story context is found in Acts 4:32-5:11.

The Bible and Missional Listening

This was the title of a talk that Scot McKnight gave at the Missional Theology Conversation gathering I attended last Friday.  His main focus was for us to understand the Bible through a relational approach instead of an authority approach.  I'll try my best to break down what he was talking about and hopefully it will spur some conversation among us as well.

McKnight set up two different approaches to the Bible that we can take.  The first he called the authoritarian approach.  This approach uses a flow that looks something like this.  God-revelation-inspiration-inerrancy-truth-response-submission.  This is an approach that many of us are very familiar with and have spent much of our time in ministry combating.  "God said it, I believe it, and that's good enough for me."  This approach leads to things being very black and white with no room for gray.  McKnight says that the words inerrancy and submission are the most troubling with this approach.  He used Psalm 119 as an example where scripture (or the law) is not for submission purposes but to be followed out of response.  Vs 35, "Lead me in the path of your commandments, for I delight in it." (ESV)  Notice that it doesn't say "your words are authoritative so therefore I submit", instead it's "your words are a delight therefore I will follow."  This authoritarian approach is framed epistemically (knowledge is the desired outcome) and seems not to be what the God of the Bible is desiring.

The approach that McKnight was encouraging us to embrace is what he called the relational approach.  This approach is framed by desiring to know the God of the Bible or the 'I' and 'You' behind the Bible.  Here are a few tenets through which this approach flows.  First, we need to understand that the Bible is God's spoken word to us.  The Bible is not God but it points to God.  The Bible is God's way of assuring us that God is there and is not silent.  Second, we are invited to listen to God through the Bible and respond.  Third, we enter into the Bible's own conversation and the conversation that has been going on throughout church history.  There is a community focus to reading and understanding the Bible.  It cannot be done in a vacuum.

McKnight's claim is that the relational approach leads to a better understanding of who God is and what God has called us to.  The relational approach leads to us being able to respond to God in love and respect instead of fear and submission.  One quote that I especailly loved is that "having the right view of the Bible is not the point, but having a relationship (or engaging) with the God of the Bible is the point."

McKnight then moved on to talking a bit about Missional Listening.  He said that the biggest complaint that God has of the people is that they do not listen.  His call is for us to be attentive enough to hear the words of God, allow them to sink in our very being and then to go and do what they say.  When we engage in missional listening we will truly know God and follow God's desire for us to love and God and to love others.  It is not about gathering information, but it's about how we are following what God has asked us to be about.  Missional listening is inspired and it is a process.

I hope this is a fair summary of what McKnight was presenting to us.  I did buy the DVD so when I get it I'll watch it again.  What do you think?  What is your understanding of the Bible?  If you have shifted away from the authoritarian approach do you ever find yourself reverting back to the old ways?  How can we help others to view the Bible in this way without pushing them over the edge or is that what needs to happen?

By the way, I just received McKnight's new book, The Blue Parakeet, where I believe most of this talk came from.  I will let you know that later on as well.