Picking and Choosing

My admiration for Bill Nye grows and grows.  Last night he was on Realtime with Bill Maher, to talk about, among other things, his recent debate with Ken Ham.  Maher is about as hostile to religion as they come, he is a gleeful atheist who jumps on just about any chance he gets to bash the "superstitions" of religious folks.  Maher was giving Nye every opportunity to bash Ham, but Nye was not taking the bait.  It's a comedy show, he could have indulged and vented some of the frustration that he clearly felt about his evening at the Creation Museum, and nobody would have blamed him.
Then I heard him say that the reason he had gone there and entered into that debate was that he expected to uncover Ham as a charlatan, who is exploiting the seething cauldron of American religion in order to become rich and famous.  It was a nuance that was entirely lost on Maher, who pressed forward in order to mock and scorn the whole notion of faith, but Nye was not on board.
Nye seemed, as usual, thoughtful.  He still fundamentally disagrees with the premise that the earth is only 6000 years old, but I think he understands and consequently has a little more empathy for his fellow humans.  Which illustrates the true value of dialogue, even with people who hold so tightly to dogma they will never let go, regardless of something as trite as "data" or "evidence."
What do you really do with people who feel persecuted by facts?
What can you say to someone who feels that carbon dating and fossil evidence challenges their faith in a Creator God?
Not much more than you can say to cynical atheist like Maher.
I have been crashing into this notion of false certainty a lot lately.  To me it is no more intellectually honest to absolutely deny God's existence than it is to absolutely insist on it and swear that no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind.  In both cases, you are really giving into your fear that such evidence exists, and you will suddenly be confronted with it.
I know that I do not take Scripture literally, and I know that almost no one does, including Ken Ham, because I don't know any people with only one eye.  Jesus said, "if your eye causes you to sin pluck it out."  I know my eyes have been deeply complicit in many sinful acts, pretty much on a daily basis, I'm pretty sure Mr. Ham's eyes are also involved in sin of various sorts, yet here we are both with our optic organs in full working order.
I know that there are places where we pick and choose what is sacred communication, and what is stuff to just write off.  Leviticus 19: 9-10 reads as follows: "When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of you harvest.  You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the Lord your God."  That sounds like a welfare state to me folks, where you purposefully leave some valuable profits aside for those who are living in the margins.  And that's Leviticus, a book with a bad reputation for being all kinds of mean and nasty and calling all sorts of things abominations.
The same chapter says you shouldn't get haircuts, or trim your beard, or get tattoos.  All of which I do or have done.  Yet I do not feel at all in danger of the wrath of God when I go to the Hair Cuttery, or trim my beard, or when I go get ink, not even a little, not even a quiver of remorse or any sense that God is even a little bit upset with me.
I worry if I feel like I'm participating in unjust systems, which I feel like I do a lot more than I would like (Lev. 19: 11-16).  I worry if I'm holding a grudge that I just can't seem to let go of (Lev. 19: 18).
How is it that I can feel so absolutely peaceful about breaking some of the rules in Leviticus 19, while simultaneously thinking that not only I, but our society in general, is really testing God's mercy with our willful disregard for other things that are written there?
The answer is that I have resources for interpretation that come from somewhere besides the book.  I have experience, reason, tradition and indeed I have other parts of Scripture, that tell me what is really important to hold.  We all do.  Because those three other parts of the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" necessarily vary from person to person, we all have different opinions.  The reason why it's important to approach Scripture with reverence, is that it has the ability to challenge you.  When you stop reading it as a challenge you lose it's power.
It challenges those who grieve to have hope.
It challenges those who would see justice done to have mercy.
It challenges those who are sure of themselves to be humble.
It it doesn't challenge you in some way, put it down, it's not the right time for you to read it.