Kirk preaches at chapel at the homeless shelter where I stay, the second Wednesday of each month. He appears to have an emotional dependence on the dogma of inerrancy, and often brings up topics related to that, that have no connection to the Christian life.
In September, he said some things I didn’t care for.
Kirk said some things Wednesday night that I didn’t like. He started off with this stuff, that did not have any pertinence to anything else he said; and I somehow missed the very beginning, so I don’t know where he presumed to be coming from. He said the Gospels were written before the Fall of Jerusalem, not after. He said suggesting the later date suggests they’re not accurate. He said the Fall of Jerusalem was such a major event, that if they’d been written after, they’d surely tell about it. A major event like 9/11.
I don’t know what’s at stake here.
On the one hand, they do tell about it. But he may want to hold that the Synoptic apocalypse isn’t an “apocalypse.” In that case, he fails to deal with the confusion of the End Times as their time and the End Times as ours.
On the other hand, the gospels were meant as the story of Jesus’ life, and events of 40 years later are irrelevant. A biography of Martin Luther King, Jr., would have no need to tell about 9/11.
Some folks may find this post easier to understand if one first reads “Two (or more) views of the kingdom,” forthcoming at a undetermined date.