Tonight Texas plays Ohio State. As an Aggie I have a hard time cheering for the Longhorns, but tonight I will do so. I'm not just as Aggie, but I'm also a Texan. Its Texas vs. Ohio. I have nothing against Ohio although I would differ with their political preferences from time to time, but I wouldn't root against them for that reason alone.

Texas has a remote chance to be voted no. 1 in the nation. If Oklahoma's Bradford throws for 5 interceptions and Tebow fumbles five times while Colt McCoy is 40 for 40 in pass attempts and throws for 600 yards, and Texas defeats Ohio State 72 to 0, then they might sneak into first place. One of the fun things about college football is that no one can actually prove who no.1 is because there is no conclusive on-the-field evidence since there are no playoffs. Think of how many watercooler conversations would be quenched if there were a playoff system. Our conclusions are usually determined by which school I attended or which school is from my state or area.

Many people choose a religious faith for similiar reasons. My family grew up going to this church is like saying all of our family attends Texas or A&M, therefore one or the other is the best school in the country. We in churches of Christ often prefer the church of Christ because we grew up in it. While those that grew up Catholic or Assembly of God prefer their respective churches for the very same reason. Still others prefer Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam for exactly the same reason. Unless our faith is more than a family heritage we have little to offer others.

Many in America have grown up in a secular environment and are like people who never attended a University and thus have no inclination to support a school simply because someone else's family attended it. Do we have the courage to test our faith by facts?

Yesterday morning in our adult class we were studying 2 Peter, chapter 2. When that chapter is compared with Jude, the most reasonable conclusion is that one author had the other writing in his hands or mind when he wrote. I believe that Jude is the earlier document, but such is not as we would say "a salvation issue". Jude speaks of Enoch, 7th from the generation of Adam prophesying and then he presents tw0 verses as quoted from Enoch. Most of us are familiar with the Genesis text that speaks of an Enoch who walked with God. Apparently Jude had this Enoch in mind, but where is his book from which Jude is quoting. Until the last century and a half, scholars knew an Enoch once existed but a copy was not available in its entirity. Finally a copy surfaced in the Ethiopic language. Scholars, after a century and a half analysis, have concluded that the book was written by a jew in the second century B.C.. The book seems to have been written to explain Genesis 6:4 which speaks of "The sons of God marrying the daughters of men". 1 Enoch, as it is now referred to in order to distinguish it from another similiar book written a couple of centuries later called 2 Enoch, identifies the "sons of God" as angels who rebelled against God. After coming to earth and marrying mortal women, they produced offspring labeled "nephilim" or giants. 1 Enoch says the giants were 300 cubits tall or about 450 feet tall, and we thought dinasaurs were impressive.

Enoch says much more that we might question, but the book was clearly held in esteem by Jude because he quotes 1 Enoch 1:9, 10 and calls it prophesy.

Now my question to my reader is what do we do with such a text in light of our understanding of inspiration? If Enoch was a prophet, why was the book not included in the scripture? If it was not an inspired work, what do we do with Jude's quoting his work as prophetic? If he was a prophet, should we not read his work and believe everything it teaches including the existence in the past of giants taller than the length of a football field?

I don't bring up such issues to create doubt, but to insist that our faith be based upon something even more than the inspiration of text. I believe in an inspired text, but my faith must not discount evidence that doesn't square with my understanding. To resort to " I just believe" may satisfy those who have sit next to you on the pew for 30 years, but such will be dismissed by serious searchers.

My point is that we often speak disparagingly about critics of the Bible when there are glaring questions that we have ignored because we have never been searchers but only inheritors. I will welcome your input and will have more to say in response to this issue in a future blog. Thanks for reading and don't give up on me, I am not liberal just because I insist that a meaningful faith must not be afraid of the facts and if we can't harmonize the facts with our assumptions then maybe we don't have all of the facts or maybe we need to question our assumptions. Maybe we will have to revise our interpretations because of new facts that may not be new but are new to me. Only when we are not threatened by truth can we have a meaningful and strong faith. Before we assume that others don't love the truth, we must be sure that we do.

Until next time, have a great interim.