What is Acts 29?

You may recall Pastor Winfield Bevins from my post last week. Pastor Bevins’ byline on the Resurgence blog lists him as an “Acts 29 Pastor.” Curious as to what that was, I first tried to look up Acts 29 on Bible Gateway, but apparently it doesn’t exist. (Acts stops at 28.) So, I followed the link at the bottom of the Resurgence site to Acts 29 Network.

I couldn’t find any explicit explanation of the name on their site, but I assume their intention is to imply that their work is the “next chapter,” as it were, of the “Acts of the Apostles” (or the “Acts of the Holy Spirit,” whatever you prefer to call it). Their About section says that “Acts 29 Network exists to start churches that plant churches.” They go on to say that their intention is “to plant 1,000 new churches in the next 10 years.” (That’s one new church about every three and a half days, so… good choice not to have a starting date prominently displayed. Good luck with that!) The page explaining their doctrine says that they are “first Christians, second Evangelicals, third Missional, and fourth Reformed.”

Well, okay, so what does this doctrine actually say? Most of it is pretty straightforward. I did like the line: “First, we are Christians which distinguishes us from other world religions and cults.” Heh. Okay, if you say so. As Evangelicals they “believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God,” and you already know what I think about that subject. I’m curious which parts of the Bible they’re choosing to care about when they say that, as Missionals, they “believe that our local churches must be faithful to the content of unchanging Biblical doctrine,” and I also wonder how their churches can do that and simultaneously “be faithful to the continually changing context of the culture(s) in which they minister.” All the bullet points under the list for being Reformed sound pretty traditional to me; some other time I’ll look into what the term means in this context.

Of perhaps more note are the things which Act 29 Network does not endorse. There is a long list.

For example, they write, “We are not fundamentalists who retreat from cultural involvement and transformation, but rather missionaries faithful both to the content of Scripture and context of ministry.” They also write, “We are not liberals who embrace culture without discernment and compromise the distinctives of the gospel, but rather Christians who believe the truths of the Bible are eternal and therefore fitting for every time, place, and people.” (Aside: note the implication that “liberal” and “Christian” are mutually exclusive… also, that liberals don’t use “discernment.”)

First of all, I’m not sure I would say that fundamentalism is generally known for advocating retreat from attempts to transform culture. But even if we take that for granted, what exactly does it mean when they say they’ll be faithful to the context of ministry, if they think there is one set of rules for everyone at every time in every place? It sure sounds like they respect cultural differences, but they have two distinct bullet points in this list proclaiming that they are not “relativists.” I guess they remain faithful to the context of ministry by telling people to change only in the specific ways they need to. But they’re not fundamentalists! They just think the Bible has only one set of truths which absolutely everyone ought to live by!

They also have a statement called Acts 29 and Alcohol [PDF] which lists vomiting as among one of many sins resulting from drunkenness (citing three verses, none of which seem to really say that it’s a sin, just that it’s nasty). I guess you’re just out of luck if you get the flu or food poisoning!

But my favorite thing that Acts 29 Network doesn’t like, other than fundamentalists, liberals, and vomit, is egalitarianism. Yeah, that totally crazy notion that people should be treated as equals, with the same rights. In a blockquote so you can’t miss it:

We are not egalitarians and do believe that men should head their homes and male elders/pastors should lead their churches with masculine love like Jesus Christ.

Well, that sheds some light on this mysterious no-girls-allowed event that Act 29 is apparently promoting in Columbus, OH called Act Like Men. I know many evangelical Christians think wives should be subservient to their husbands, but I always thought “egalitarian” was an unambiguously positive word. If you were going to say that you didn’t think men and women have equal worth, I’d expect you’d find some more positive way to say it. Maybe you “believe in traditional gender roles,” or perhaps you “believe in celebrating the naturally different strengths of men and women.” Both of those are crap (the first slightly more than the second), but at least they don’t sound so blatantly awful. It’s really demonstrative of exactly how anti-woman this group is, that they don’t even perceive a negative connotation from saying, “We are not egalitarians.” Even a genuinely stingy person would probably describe themselves as frugal instead.

I know that some people are less than thrilled when I do these “somebody is wrong on the internet” kind of posts. To be honest, it’s not my favorite thing either. But it feels important. This isn’t just somebody; this is a large group of somebodies trying to start a new church every three or four days. This is truly a network of organizations, spread out all over the world. The Resurgence blog, just one part of the Acts 29 Network, has a sidebar promoting their Facebook page where they have over 14,000 fans. They have more fans than Fareed Zakaria, even if you add together the page for just himself and for his CNN show. I know that’s a silly, random measure, but I think it’s enough to say that if it’s worth discussing Zakaria’s opinions here, it’s worth discussing Acts 29′s.

Also, I hope that a couple of those 14,000+ fans, and some prospective future ones, stumble across this post and give it some real thought. Does this group’s belief system really make sense to you? (If so, please explain it to me.) Is this really the kind of group you want to be a part of?

January 12, 2010 · Written by Z
Tags: christianity, culture, gender, religion

Comments

19 Responses to “What is Acts 29?”

Z2 on January 17th, 2010 7:49 am

I’m not certain what “masculine love” is, but from what I’ve read of Jesus- I get the feeling he’d be more okay with a woman who’s head of her household than these people.

I’m not sure exactly what they think “Acting like a man” entails, but I don’t think I want to know, either. I can’t help but feel like that conference will be a step backwards for gender issues.
Joshua Walker on March 19th, 2010 11:04 pm

Don’t know this blog, don’t know this author – stumbled across it while LOOKING for information on the “Act Like Men” event. I don’t intend to debate the whole philosophical viewpoint, but it would be worthwhile for me to point out something that might help you understand things a bit. When Acts 29 says they’re not “egalitarians”, they mean they don’t subscribe to the viewpoint of “egalitarianism”, which is one side of an intra-church debate about the authority of Scripture regarding gender roles.

Naturally, inside the context of that debate, you would still oppose Acts 29 and others who advocate “complementarianism”. But it’s worth distinguishing between egalitarianism in the church, and the broader equal-rights, equal-value, equal-worth principle in culture, which Acts 29 wholeheartedly cherishes. (We’re big on everybody being made in the image of God, which OUGHT to squelch all racism, ageism, and sexism. If only.)

Likewise, calling somebody a “liberal” inside the church context is quite different than in other arenas, like politics or classical thought or finances.
Adam B on April 19th, 2010 9:27 am

Don’t know this blog either, but I assume you are a professing Christian and would suggest checking out some of the stuff from the Acts 29 guys before concluding that believing 1Tim/Titus is grounds for them being shovanists or something.

All I got out of this is that you need to do more research and take the motive of peoples hearts before slamming their ministries.

God Bless.
Z on April 26th, 2010 1:18 pm

I was going to let the first comment go, but now that there are two I feel like I should say something to those of you who may find this page and feel compelled to comment about how I just don’t know enough about Acts 29 yet to understand how awesome it is.

I am not a “professing Christian.” I’m surprised that that is not obvious to someone happening upon my blog (in particular someone who alleges to have read this post), but there it is. I’m an atheist.

I think the dichotomy between social and religious egalitarianism is a silly one. Honestly, is there an aspect of your life that you do not think your religious values guide you in? If you believe in a God who only trusts men to teach their children religious values and to guide their families, and believe that men should be in charge and women should follow their commands, you have in fact taken a stance on “the broader equal-rights, equal-value, equal-worth principle in culture.” You are not on the side that squelches sexism.

I do not confuse political liberalism with religious liberalism in this post. I have many friends who are liberal Christians and would resent the implication that liberal and Christian are two separate things. I am not religious at all, and I resent the attempt by any religious person to decree what the one correct way to be religious is.

I subscribe to the Resurgence blog now, out of some kind of morbid fascination or possibly self-loathing, and I am quite familiar with “the stuff coming from the Acts 29 guys” by now. My mind has not been changed. They sound like very friendly people, but religion has long been a disguise to make unfriendly (and ridiculous) beliefs sound loving and inclusive. I could spend my entire time blogging here just refuting things I see them post — but my intention was to have this be a more general-interest blog, not just focus on my atheism and at that, not just focus on one particular flavor of Christianity. It would get dull for everyone.

We could probably all afford to do a bit more research into the motive of people’s hearts before we assume things, eh?

Also, it’s spelled “chauvinists.”
Rev. Sharon Sarles on December 14th, 2010 12:20 am

Yes, I wonder why “be a man for Jesus” seems always to mean “shut up, you women” and “your gifts are no good” and “be disobedient if God called you to do anything other than cleaning up.”

Is that the kind of man Jesus was? No. He scandalously taught the Torah to a woman Luke 10:41 &42 and sent a woman out as the first witness to the Resurrection Matthew 28:10.

Scripture does NOT relegate women ONLY to subservient roles. That is religion. That is a doctrine of the devil who wants to Lord it over others, be archon, ruler/head. Jesus by contrast tells *husbands* to be kephale, source/head to their wives. There is no scripture that read in context says anything about men over women. Even in the home, we submit to one another.

Scripture, in contrast to religion, salutes a woman apostle Romans 16:7 (and a female deacon Rom 16:1), a woman who was AHEAD of her husband in ministry nb: “Priscilla and Aquilla” contrary to the practise of the time, always stating the man first, and a godly female leader (Judges 5:2 nb not merely because the men weren’t willing).

Scripture IS egalitarian: Galatians 3:28. Let’s be inerrantist and obiedient to the high calling of God.

[BTW “evangelical” and “reformed” are normally opposites, but not having a grounding in the history of doctrine is small potatoes compared to miscontruing Scripture in a way that is SO hurtful, that encourages one half of humanity to put down if not enslave the other half, and train them to be disobedient to God.)

Okay, so that is my position. Maybe an atheist’s blog is not the best place for airing it? Don’t know. I apologize if I brought an internal argument to an external place. Still, I think I would rather be appropriately represented to the nonbeliever. Jesus had problems with religious people too.
Z on December 14th, 2010 9:56 am

Hi, Sharon. Your comment is completely welcome here. I’m all about the critical thinking and respectful dialogue, even with (especially with?) people who disagree with me.

I wonder how you feel about 1 Timothy 2:11-15,

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

How do you decide which scripture verses represent God’s actual position on things? Do you count up the ones in favor of stance A, and count up the ones for stance B, and whichever one gets the most tally marks wins? The complementarians have justifying interpretations for many of the lines of scripture you cite for egalitarianism. How should I decide whose interpretation to believe?

Where do you stand on slavery? The Bible actually has nothing at all to say against slavery, and plenty of rules about how slaves and slaveowners should relate to each other — slaves should be obedient, slaveowners shouldn’t beat their slaves so much that they die on that very same day, etc. (In fact, just as Galatians 3:28 which you cite says that Jesus doesn’t care whether you’re male or female, he doesn’t care whether you’re a slave or free — and just as it doesn’t imply that all men should be women, it doesn’t imply that all slaves should be free. Slavery doesn’t matter to Jesus.) Is it possible that your morality is actually drawn from your own intuition and reasoning about actions’ impact on others? It seems to me that people draw from scripture whatever morality they like, reading the text with their own preconceived views as a lens.
Randi on December 20th, 2010 1:40 pm

I have to agree with you on the point that Jesus doesn’t care who we are. He loves us, period. Also people do read into the Bible what they want or how it pertains to them at the moment.

Personally with the whole men and women issue I’ve been on both sides. For the first 6 years of our marriage I was the leader of our household, spiritually and physically. We were both miserable. I was constantly stressed and he was depressed.

We joined a church that had many of the same views as the Acts 29 Network. At first their view on this really bothered me. We women are not incapable of doing anything a man can. I finally started researching myself and studying the scriptures about it.

I believe God did create us differently and that’s how we compliment each other. For example, men usually make decisions with more concrete evidence and women tend to do so with emotions. Because of that a lot of decisions can be made easier by my husband. He’s not thinking about how if he chooses one little thing right now that it will effect our children in 20 years. I do. I think of how this decision MAY effect who my children marry or their career. The thing is it’s just a MAY effect. Scott, my husband, thinks of what it will effect right now, in the present.

I’m not saying a man should be over us and commanding at us to do things. That is not how God intended marriage to be. We’re here for each other. My husband protects our family, I am his helpmate. Does that mean I’m a lesser of a person? Not at all. Does that mean I should do all the housework alone? No. But it means when it comes to decisions, we talk about them and then I respect and trust the decision he makes.

Once I realized how God created us and started learning and accepting the differences it helped me to let go of that control. Once I let it go it’s amazing the freedom I feel now even after almost 2 years. It’s kind of an oxymoron, I know. I let go of control and now I’m free. But here’s the thing. I am no longer trying to be something I wasn’t created to be. I’m now free to be myself. I am free to find out who I am and who God wants me to be. I’m no longer worried about everything and trust my husband and God to lead us. It’s amazing. It’s the hardest thing I’ve ever done but it is the best thing I have ever done.
Rev. Sharon Sarles on December 22nd, 2010 3:41 pm

In response to question on Timothy passage. Please notice that in Greek the word “women” and the word “wives” are the same exact word. One has to tell from context which meaning is meant. If you read I Timothy 2:11-15 in context you will see it is about wives and husbands, not about women and men in general. Another passage about that would be Ep 5, which notice clearly says we are to submit to one another. And I agree that typically in marriage women want to be sure they are loved and men want to be sure that they are respected. If you read I Tim 2 passage to mean, as you suggest, then you also have to read I Tim 2:15 as meaning that women are saved by the bearing of children — and no one does so. Even women are saved by grace through faith, yes?

Further, everyone agrees that one should intrepret in historical and grammatical context. While the foregoing was grammatical, the historical context was that synagogues separated women from men and the culture of the day prevented women, most anyway, from reading. Thus in the church, women were shouting across the aisles to ask their husbands questions, because now they were free to be taught The Way, whereas before “better to burn the Torah than to teach it to a woman” was the custome. You see this also by context: v. 11 “Let a woman recieve instruction.” So actually this passage, given it’s historical context is very — ah, progressive and feminist. (As are others, including Ep 5:28 contrary to a society where women were chattel, Luke 10 notice scandal of a woman being in the living room with the teacher, I Cor 11:5 notice public leadership in worship)

As to your second question, about how I decide which questions represent God. (Quickly let me mention also, that ad hominem attacks are unworthy anywhere.) I don’t feel that your assumption is warranted, although since many make it, and I am tasked with teaching the Bible, please do let me answer it. I am an inerrantist and am in the Faith/Word camp. Thus I have faith that if something doesn’t seem to fit, and I ask God, the Holy Spirit, how it should fit. I believe that we shall be, if we recieve it, led into all Truth. However, that does take submission. I am not going to be so arrogant as to suggest I have already arrived at the comprehension of full Truth, but … I have faith to walk on that path.

Sometimes people do read into a shallow Bible reading, modern perspectives. Hmmm, which foot? Also, btw, is not the whole tenor one of grace and openness now to God, rather than the previous legalism of how the Pharisees’ implemented the Torah?
Rev. Sharon Sarles on December 22nd, 2010 3:42 pm

Maybe a nicer emoticon would be in order?
Rev. Sharon Sarles on December 22nd, 2010 4:37 pm

What you’ve got here is two Christians arguing which position is most Biblical – on a website (public and permanent) hosted by a self-described atheist. So, upon reflection, I figured that a bit of commentary might be needed.

1. Pretty much all Christians adhere to these principles of Bible interpretation:
*Grammatical context
*Comparing Scripture with Scripture
*Can’t be fully or accurately understood with the carnal mind, but rather one must be spiritual/born again. So the text must be illuminated by Holy Spirit.
*Historical context

2. What does “inerrantist” mean? There are several levels of “scripture principle” or levels to which Christians think the Bible is inspired.
In order they would be breifly thus
a. The Bible contains the Word of God. This is the liberal position, that the Bible is very special because parts of it are particularly inspiring, the history of what the community understood about God
b. The Bible is inspired. While this is a quote from the Bible, often this means “let’s be vague about this” for whatever reason.
c. The Bible is the rule of faith and conduct. This means that we accept the moral teachings of the Bible, without getting into problems.
c. The Bible in infallible. Mostly, however, people think it is infallible as to intent. It was written to talk about spiritual matters and not be read like a newspaper or a science book.
c. Inerrancy – the most conservative view, saying there is not one single error, so even scientific facts stated in the Bible should be taken literally.
(There are very few inerrantists in the world. Z’s knees started to knock if he is theologically informed.)

The teacher from whom I learn most says that the Bible IS the Word and we should treat it (not the paper, ink and binding, you understand) like Jesus. I have also been taught, and agree with that the Bible points to Jesus, and not the other way around.
Rev. Sharon Sarles on December 22nd, 2010 4:43 pm

Mr. Z, please! you are not implying that you approve of slavery do you? Jesus is scandal enough without Christians acting — or appearing to act badly, remember. (And, whispering so as to be private — remember that is what started this conversation!)

To answer you about my position on slavery. No, I do not agree that human chattel is acceptable. Scripture for my position? Well Gal3:28 will suffice for now. I understand that we are all equal at the foot of the cross.

To be sure, the NT does not suggest a natural overturning of the then current social order — which would have been the case had it exhorted slavery be abolished. I think you will note, however, that Abolition was preached by Bible believing Christians in American history.

How might I read passages about slaves submitting today — and note, slave holders being kind? I read this about how employers and employees relate. In this world order, unredeemed as it is, we will have hierarchical relationships. And in those, we should be honoring and fulfill our role with agape.

That is how I read it. How about you?
Rev. Sharon Sarles on December 22nd, 2010 4:44 pm

Mrs. Randi,
Thanks for playing, but I was talking about women’s leadership in the church, not about marital relations.

If you want to play, however, here is an assignment: see if you can find the word “helpmate” in the Bible.
Z on December 23rd, 2010 11:01 am

Sharon, I think by emoticon you’re referring to the little face by your name? I’d been using Wavatars, they generate random little faces using your email address as the seed. Sometimes they come out looking sort of unpleasant though. Maybe I’ll switch to Identicons soon. Rest assured it’s nothing personal.

By the way, I’m female. I don’t actually mind so much when I’m misgendered on the internet, but I figured it’s less awkward to say something sooner rather than later.

I understand that there are a variety of ways to interpret the Bible. From my point of view, it’s a lose-lose situation — either you believe what is in the Bible word for word, which means you believe God approves of genocide, slavery, infanticide, oppression, and all sorts of other nasty things, or there are some things in the Bible you believe to be definitely true and some things you don’t. If you see some passages as metaphorical, better suited for ancient times than our day, or clearly a relic of the culture that wrote them down, why those parts and not others? Ultimately it is a concession that your own intuition trumps the Bible, which seems a lot more like an atheist position than a Christian one.

You say that when you encounter something that “doesn’t seem to fit,” you “ask God, the Holy Spirit, how it should fit.” I interpret that to mean that you pray. I don’t see any real difference between this and reflecting on your own moral philosophy / conscience / intuition. You feel guided towards a certain interpretation of the Bible because that interpretation coincides with what you understand to be good on your own.

I certainly don’t approve of slavery. The reason I brought up slavery is because I wanted to understand why you don’t approve of slavery. If God provides your moral compass, I don’t see why you wouldn’t. Or, I don’t see why God would say one thing quite clearly in his holy scriptures but tell you the opposite, privately, when you pray about it.
Rev. Jennifer S. on January 4th, 2011 4:01 pm

I have to say that I am floored by this conversation between Sharon and Z, I recently attended outward church which is part of Acts:29 and have too say I was fairly impressed because you don’t find many churches anymore with the old style beliefs because everything these days are all about woman just as equal as man…. I am only 35 years old and know that is far from the truth, I am a Reverend as well but I also know my roll under man, I will not teach over man nor think I’m more superior over one because of my Title, can women teach the bible?… you bet we can, there are many places in the bible that give examples of that. Man was made first then woman for companionship in Marriage we are one. Everything is so taken out of context because one person gets offended that one is higher than the other, isn’t this how it got started in the first place one wanting to be higher than the other, to feel more superior and I think we have forgotten that. This is why there are hundreds of different religions because one wants to argue with the other and wants to be more superior, if we all just lived by the one book that gives us the rules (not ours but his) I can only imagine how this world would be… There is God above man, he created man, the woman was created from God and man we are under both…. Just like ABC and 123′s They are in order you don’t change them around because you don’t like the order they are in! GOD, MAN, WOMAN in order… however man is to treat theirs WIFE as they would treat themselves for they would not hurt themselves, the bible doesn’t say to treat them more superior, and it doesn’t mean either for woman to shut up it means for us to be silent under man because we are not more superior….. Remember ABC-123- God, Man Woman…. IN ORDER. OH by the way Offense is the enemies best weapon.
Z on January 5th, 2011 3:16 pm

Jennifer — This sentence of yours was very insightful:

isn’t this how it got started in the first place one wanting to be higher than the other, to feel more superior and I think we have forgotten that.

That is exactly how I think religious oppression got started. “My big, strong, invisible protector in the clouds told me I’m better than you! Now do what I say or else he’ll make you burn for an eternity!”

I’m not asking for women to be superior to men. I’m asking for equality. It’s pretty clear that the Bible says that men are superior to women, and you seem to understand that. There may be examples in the Bible of women teaching or speaking, but I don’t see how you get around clear directives such as “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” That’s not just inferior, that’s subservient, that’s invisible.

If you don’t want to exercise your right to have your opinions and ideas considered alongside men’s opinions, fine; if you prefer to live life from the perspective that men are to women as God is to men, fine. But when you go around telling other women that they are inherently worth less than other human beings just because they don’t have penises, we have a problem. You are complicit in the oppression.

Yes, your old book says that men are better than women. But why does it say that? Think about what you wrote — “isn’t this how it got started in the first place one wanting to be higher than the other, to feel more superior” — could it be that the men who wrote the books of your Bible lived in very patriarchal societies, thought of women as inferior, and wrote that into their moral codes as well?

One parting thought — is there anything your God could command you to do that you would find too monstrous, too morally objectionable? If treating women as less human than men is okay, where does it stop? If you heard a message from God but that message told you to commit genocide, or kill babies, or whatever, would you continue to obey because God said so? Is there any point at which you would start to question God’s correctness, or God’s reality?
Rev. Sharon Sarles on January 10th, 2011 9:16 am

Hi Z! I assumed you were male, because nearly all of my friends who take your position are males, but okay, great, thanks for the clarity. Appreciate your sharing. Wish that other Christians heard that. I see your train of thought, but of course it assumes that there is no reality behind the word “God.” So if one assumes that, then, sure, you would assume an answer to prayer is equal to intuition. And your question about what is morally objectionable I think is maybe the most important question of the era. That is why I weighed in. I want my Christian interlocutors to hear that so they can be clearer about what they are thinking. I was in your camp for a few years. I observe that where there is the assumption of God and moral law is where there are boundaries against atrocities, and where there is the reality of injecting love. There are some camps which see the need for this and talk about this, but only in the most committed Christian camps do I see this really working. Yes, there are some moral debates, but there are a lot of things that are not debatable. Devil’s nights where homes are burned, or when old people burglarized and harmed, and where children are hurt — these things are not really debatable. My atheist friends find a way to blame Christians for these, but Christians are the ones who, on the whole, put themselves out to help even when they are hurt, who regularly apportion fractions of their income, who are the mainstay of most of the wholesome movements. Yes, atheists and nonbelievers sometimes help — but who of them tithes? Who of them sacrifices to help others? NO, rather, they make up stories about why Christians do this — as if anyone tithed or politely accepted a slap in the face out of fear. Silly. But the question raised about treatment of women is a serious question. I wanted to speak to the Christians so that they could rethink. And see, what I did? I referred to the Bible. I think they misread the Bible. I think their motives probably are good on average, but without some clarity here, then, it might appear that the atheists have read the situation correctly.
I hope that is clthis commentis not so condense as to be unitll is not too short to be
Rev. Sharon Sarles on January 10th, 2011 9:30 am

LOL Great questions!

I think I am the person who has questioned most radically of anyone I know. I questioned God’s ethicalilty, however, more than God’s reality. I think anyone who thinks God does not exist just has not done empirical testing!

Open minded, non-a priori-answered empirical testing.

BTW, notice it is not Christians who are killing babies.

And it is not now nor was it ever Bible-beliving Christians who committed genocide. (Fairly hard to square with a Lord who gave himself for others’ benefit; remember that is the central doctrine, as all agree.)

Great chat, thanks!
Rev. Sharon Sarles on January 10th, 2011 11:07 pm

Thanks for the better emoticon.
Zychan on June 23rd, 2011 2:12 pm

Hello,

I just wanted to weigh in on one particular paragraph from Z:

***
I understand that there are a variety of ways to interpret the Bible. From my point of view, it’s a lose-lose situation — either you believe what is in the Bible word for word, which means you believe God approves of genocide, slavery, infanticide, oppression, and all sorts of other nasty things, or there are some things in the Bible you believe to be definitely true and some things you don’t. If you see some passages as metaphorical, better suited for ancient times than our day, or clearly a relic of the culture that wrote them down, why those parts and not others? Ultimately it is a concession that your own intuition trumps the Bible, which seems a lot more like an atheist position than a Christian one.
***
To address this briefly, I would say that just because something is in the Bible, does not mean that it is endorsed by God. The Bible is not just a record of God’s dealings with Man and visa-versa, but also a record of Man’s dealings with Man.
As such, you will find all manner of atrocities detailed in the Bible, but that does not mean that God places his stamp of approval upon them. Indeed, how could He address these things without listing them?
And finally, for having to take every word as literal, there is really no conundrum here at all; context is everything. This may not appear so apparent at first when one simply plucks a verse or two out of a book, but when you place it back in and look at the overall context, it will typically become obvious whether it is intended to be literal, metaphoric, poetic, etc. Of course, sometimes it is obvious immediately, and sometimes it takes some more study. The funny thing is, no one thinks a thing of doing textual criticism of Shakespeare, yet it is not so common with the Bible, which as argument goes, would be infinitely more important and immediately pertinent.
Thank you for your time.