I just don't think the Bible is always the best starting point for faith.
And just to show you that I'm not taking anything out of context, here's the whole paragraph where that quote can be found. It trails over onto p. 65.
I just don't think the Bible is always the best starting point for faith. Abraham didn't believe the Bible when God claimed him to be a righteous man because it hadn't been written yet. Moses didn't read the lived history of his people as devotional material. David didn't meditate on the words of Isaiah. The disciples didn't read the letters of Paul in between conversations with Jesus. The Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, came along in the midst of the story. It is the result of the story of faith, not the cause.
Scripture is the Word of God. Abraham believed the Word of God, as did Moses, David, and the disciples. As did Isaiah and Paul. The fact that Abraham may not have had much of the Scripture does not negate the fact that he believed what God said to him. The fact that David did not have Isaiah's prophecies did not mean that he did not have the Law to meditate on. God's Word, then, was to them very important, I would dare say of the ulmost importance.
Their faith was not in what they thought, or in things they imagined. Their faith was not based paintings, or poems, or things in the temple to false gods, or idols, or false doctrines. As the Bible says, "faith comes by hearing, and that through the Word of God".
I don't think I'm overexaggerating a bit when I say that Pagitt's statement that "I just don't think the Bible is always the best starting point for faith" is one of the really real corkers that I've ever seen. I suppose he would rather they get their faith from the books he and his emergent friends write?
This is usually the point in a conversation where someone starts accusing me of a low view of the Bible, of stripping it of its authority.
You think??? Wow, we wonder why??
Maybe because...that's exactly what he does have??