We have all heard the question: What came first, the chicken or the egg? We as Christians could also ask another question: What came first, the Bible or the church? The Roman Catholic view on the this question is in favor of the church. When the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century rejected some long-held Catholic beliefs for their view of things like justification by faith based on what the Bible said, Catholics said that there would be no Bible without the church because the church chose which books were allowed into the canon of scripture. Hence, the church preceded the Bible and gave it authority. Therefore, the church (meaning to them the RC Church) is the authoritative interpreter of scripture and is thereby infallible.
Protestants rightly argued that the church only affirmed the Bible which is the written Word of God. The apostles and their immediate followers wrote the books of the New Testament. The church circulated those documents and most of them were immediately and universally accepted by the churches. Now, "the churches" here does not mean any organization that developed out of the earliest churches (i.e., the RC and Orthodox churches), but the people, including, but not exclusively, the ministers of the church. The four gospels and Paul's writings were accepted as authoritative writings right away. Even when the NT was still being written, Paul's epistles were being called scripture. "Paul also, according to the wisdom given him wrote to you; as in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which some things are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist, as they do the other Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:16)*
Some still note that it took time to write the New Testament and that the early church had no New Testament to read. True, but they did have the same Word of God that we do, only it was preached and not written down yet. The revelation of God's Word was given to the early church because the apostles had revelation from God and most of them were direct followers of Jesus. That same Word that they preached became inscripturated as they wrote down what God had revealed to them. The church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the chief cornerstone." (Ephesians 2:20) The church is built on the Word.The written Word and the preached Word are the same thing in different forms. The church simply recognized the New Testament as the written Word of God based on the apostolic witness.
A New Chicken or Egg question: Do we put Jesus or the Bible first?**
The RC view and the Protestant view of this is clearly at odds. But now we have Protestants who are as confused as the Catholics. A prominent pastor recently said this, "The foundation of our faith is not the Scripture. The foundation of our faith is not the infallibility of the Bible. The foundation of our faith is something that happened in history." He means, of course, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. That might sound good, but it is wrong. It is true that we are saved by the crucifixion and resurrection, but our faith in that is based on the Word of God which we have in the Bible. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." (Romans 10:17) That is the Word preached by the apostles and made into scripture. That is the basis of our faith. We cannot be saved without this Word. If Jesus dies on the cross and nobody hears about it, it does us nobody any good.
Jesus, the living Word, is God's revelation to us, . That revelation was preached by the apostles and written in the New Testament. Some, like this pastor, think that they are exalting Jesus by lowering their view of scripture. That cannot happen. You cannot have a low view of the Bible and a high view of Jesus. Our attitude towards the Bible, the written Word, determines the place that Jesus, the living Word, holds in our life.
The Protestant Reformers held a high view of scripture. Part of that what was called 'Sola Scriptura', Latin for 'Scripture Alone'. This is "the teaching that Scripture is the Church's only infallible and sufficient rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines" (Theopedia). In other words, the Bible is not only perfect in what it affirms but it has everything we need for the Christian life.
Amen to that. No personal revelation or prophecy or education or enlightened conscience can or should be put above the Bible which is God's Word to us today.
*The church took a couple of centuries to bring together and approve the books that would be put into the New Testament. It was not done, as a famous novelist suggested, by a group of bishops wanted to insist on one of a variety of Christianities supposedly present in the fourth century. (I am referring to the Council of Nicea where the 27 books of the NT were accepted, but not newly accepted. The bishops only agreed that what had already been accepted was, in fact, correct.) The church used several criteria for what constituted the new (testament) scriptures. They had to be written by an apostle or the companion of an apostle. They had to be generally useful to the churches. In other words, they could not be a message to an individual or a church that had no application to other individuals and churches. And they must agree with the apostolic tradition passed down through the churches and originating with the apostles themselves.
** I am aware that the chicken and egg analogy does not work exactly in the second case where some Protestants tried to put Jesus 'above' the Bible. It's just a literary device, so I think it works anyway.
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Monday, June 3, 2013
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Are We Reading the Bible Too Narrowly or Not Narrowly Enough?
You might think that those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God would interpret it pretty much the same way. After all, believing, as we do, that the Bible does not contradict itself (a corollary of the truth stated in the first sentence) severely limits how one can interpret most passages. You may be led to a pacifist position regarding warfare by reading the commandment "You shall not kill (murder)", but you should be dissuaded from that interpretation by considering the fact that God actually commanded the Israelites to go to war at various times and authorized the death penalty for a wide variety of offenses against His Law.
So there are limits as to how far we Bible-believing Christians ought go in our explanations of Bible passages. But that hardly stops us from disagreeing about practically any Bible verse. We all have different approaches as to how we interpret the Bible, and one way in which we differ is in how narrowly or broadly we apply certain truths.
Perhaps the most prominent example of this is the well-known passage in Philippians 4:13 which reads, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." It is usually taken to mean that Jesus Christ will give us strength and ability for whatever task we have in front of us. If we have to do something that seems beyond our normal capability, God will gives the strength and power to do it, especially if God has called us to do that very thing.
There are some, though, that disagree with this view of what Paul is saying here. They argue that this verse of scripture does not mean that at all. Rather they think that the above view takes the verse out of context and gives it a meaning that the context does not support. And I partially agree. Here is the part that I agree with: The text in its context says:
"Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me."
In other words, Paul is not talking about God giving him the ability to do something that he is called to do by Him. Instead, he is saying that God has given him the ability to be either in a state of prosperity or in a state of need. It has to do with his material condition, not anything else. Paul could handle life when his needs were not met and he could handle life when things were going great.
Those who say this, who read the passage in its narrowest sense, have a good point here. By simply quoting verse 13 we are lifting the verse out of context and applying well beyond that context. It seems to take on a different meaning.
That's a pretty fair point. We always must be careful to interpret things in their context. Take a simple example. A man pushes an old woman, knocking her to the ground. Another man does the same thing. Are these bad men? Before we can say for sure, we must consider the context. The first man pushed an old woman off a bus. He is a bad man. The second pushed an old woman out of the way of a bus that was going to hit her. He is a good man. We must consider the context to judge what has happened.
Let's get back to our disagreement about the Bible passage. Is it right to take Philippians 4:13 and apply it to all kinds of situations that were not referred to in the rest of the passage? Many would say that we should not. We should only apply the verse to a person's material circumstances. This would be the narrowest reading of the text.
And we must take the passage in its context to determine its meaning. After all, if one lifts the verse out of context and applies it absolutely, it could be meant to say about anything. What if I quoted this verse and said that I was now going to leap over the Empire State Building because Christ will give my strength for ANYTHING. You would be right to say that I have interpreted the passage far beyond the original intention of the author. That is taking this scripture way too broadly.
My take: I do not want to take Bible passages out of context and make them mean something that was not intended. But this does not mean that I will only apply them exactly the way that the author of the passage does. We must always remember that there is a divine author above the human author and a divine intention above the human intention.
Despite my assertion that we must interpret scripture in its context and not isolated from the verses around it, I also know that God is the author of the whole Bible and He has put principles in the Bible that we can use that may go beyond the immediate context. This is especially true when there are other scriptures that back up our application of a principle beyond the context.
So I do not have a problem with using the principle of Phil 4:13 "I can do all things through Christ" and applying it to things like God helping us in difficult circumstances of different kinds and God giving us the ability to do the things that He has called us to do. I think that is legitimate. There is an abundance of evidence in the Bible that God does give His people strength and ability for whatever they are called to do.
So - we do not want to be too narrow in our reading of the Bible, though we must understand the context of the passage. We do not want to absolutize it and make it say something way beyond the Bible. We can apply the principles of the Bible in the context of the whole Bible and not just the immediate context.
So there are limits as to how far we Bible-believing Christians ought go in our explanations of Bible passages. But that hardly stops us from disagreeing about practically any Bible verse. We all have different approaches as to how we interpret the Bible, and one way in which we differ is in how narrowly or broadly we apply certain truths.
Perhaps the most prominent example of this is the well-known passage in Philippians 4:13 which reads, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." It is usually taken to mean that Jesus Christ will give us strength and ability for whatever task we have in front of us. If we have to do something that seems beyond our normal capability, God will gives the strength and power to do it, especially if God has called us to do that very thing.
There are some, though, that disagree with this view of what Paul is saying here. They argue that this verse of scripture does not mean that at all. Rather they think that the above view takes the verse out of context and gives it a meaning that the context does not support. And I partially agree. Here is the part that I agree with: The text in its context says:
"Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me."
In other words, Paul is not talking about God giving him the ability to do something that he is called to do by Him. Instead, he is saying that God has given him the ability to be either in a state of prosperity or in a state of need. It has to do with his material condition, not anything else. Paul could handle life when his needs were not met and he could handle life when things were going great.
Those who say this, who read the passage in its narrowest sense, have a good point here. By simply quoting verse 13 we are lifting the verse out of context and applying well beyond that context. It seems to take on a different meaning.
That's a pretty fair point. We always must be careful to interpret things in their context. Take a simple example. A man pushes an old woman, knocking her to the ground. Another man does the same thing. Are these bad men? Before we can say for sure, we must consider the context. The first man pushed an old woman off a bus. He is a bad man. The second pushed an old woman out of the way of a bus that was going to hit her. He is a good man. We must consider the context to judge what has happened.
Let's get back to our disagreement about the Bible passage. Is it right to take Philippians 4:13 and apply it to all kinds of situations that were not referred to in the rest of the passage? Many would say that we should not. We should only apply the verse to a person's material circumstances. This would be the narrowest reading of the text.
And we must take the passage in its context to determine its meaning. After all, if one lifts the verse out of context and applies it absolutely, it could be meant to say about anything. What if I quoted this verse and said that I was now going to leap over the Empire State Building because Christ will give my strength for ANYTHING. You would be right to say that I have interpreted the passage far beyond the original intention of the author. That is taking this scripture way too broadly.
My take: I do not want to take Bible passages out of context and make them mean something that was not intended. But this does not mean that I will only apply them exactly the way that the author of the passage does. We must always remember that there is a divine author above the human author and a divine intention above the human intention.
Despite my assertion that we must interpret scripture in its context and not isolated from the verses around it, I also know that God is the author of the whole Bible and He has put principles in the Bible that we can use that may go beyond the immediate context. This is especially true when there are other scriptures that back up our application of a principle beyond the context.
So I do not have a problem with using the principle of Phil 4:13 "I can do all things through Christ" and applying it to things like God helping us in difficult circumstances of different kinds and God giving us the ability to do the things that He has called us to do. I think that is legitimate. There is an abundance of evidence in the Bible that God does give His people strength and ability for whatever they are called to do.
So - we do not want to be too narrow in our reading of the Bible, though we must understand the context of the passage. We do not want to absolutize it and make it say something way beyond the Bible. We can apply the principles of the Bible in the context of the whole Bible and not just the immediate context.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Metaphorical nonsense
Well, it happened again. A self-confessed former "fundamentalist" Christian proclaimed on television that he now has a more enlightened view of the Bible. He fooled his family for over a year by telling them he was a homosexual when he was not. His fundamentalist family was shocked, of course, but his mother, at least, learned a supposedly valuable lesson.
After a lifetime of reading the Bible 'literally', he and his mother no longer do so. Seemingly because she loves her son who she thought was actually homosexual, she now does not read the Bible in such a way that makes her believe that homosexual actions are sinful. She now thinks it is okay, as does her son. (I wonder what she thinks about her son lying to her about a very serious matter. Maybe she takes the command not to bear false witness 'metaphorically' as well.)
Now what is the alternative to the supposedly archaic, unenlightened, literal reading of the Bible. The answer, of course, is to take the Bible metaphorically. This is what this young man asserts. But what exactly does it mean to take the Bible literally, or metaphorically.
Let's look at a couple of examples: First, we have the saying of Jesus, "I am the vine and you are the branches." When Jesus calls Himself a 'vine' and his disciples 'branches', should we take this literally or metaphorically? Well, it is obviously a metaphor. The most extreme fundamentalist in the world would not interpret this literally. No sane person does or ever would. Second, we have one of the ten commandments, "Thou shalt not steal." Is it possible to interpret this metaphorically? No, it must be literal. It's not a metaphor for anything.
What can we conclude from this? Very simply that we interpret literal passages literally and metaphorical passages metaphorically. Of course, that is exactly what fundamentalist and evangelical Christians have always done. There is no simple choice between literal and metaphorical interpretation. We have to make the choice for each passage.
How then should we interpret the passages that talk about homosexuality? Are they to be interpreted literally or metaphorically? To answer this we need to examine what kind of statements they are. We find, very simply, that they are among the statements in the Bible that tell us how we ought or ought not to behave. They are moral commands. As we have seen in the case of the commandment not to steal, it and all other commandments regarding morality must be interpreted literally. In other words, the moral law is always interpreted literally. This does not mean it lacks spiritual application, but we easily confuse the spiritual with the metaphorical. They are not the same thing.
Another person who insists that we must interpret the Bible 'metaphorically' says that if we interpret the Bible literally, then we must put homosexuals and adulterers to death because that is what the Old Testament says.
But, once again, this is not interpreting passages according to their kind. While passages that tell us what to do or not do must be interpreted literally, we also must distinguish between different kinds of commands. God told us not to commit adultery, for example, and the OT punishment was death. However, there is a difference between the moral law and the civil law given to the ancient Israelites. The civil law enforced the moral law. The moral law is for all people at all times. The civil law was for Israel when they were a nation. Jesus refused to apply the civil law when the moral law was violated. Remember the woman caught in adultery and brought to Jesus. Jesus effectively made the Jews put down their stones, refused to condemn her, but did tell her to 'go and sin no more'. Jesus affirmed the moral law without applying the civil law from the OT. (The Jews were no longer self-governing; they were under Roman rule.)
Jesus took the moral law literally. He affirmed its verdict on sin, but He also came to wash away our sins. That is much different, and much better, than saying that our sins are okay. They are not.
Those who mock "fundamentalists" who interpret moral commands literally by saying that they prefer a "metaphorical" interpretation of the Bible have no clue what they are talking about. It is not even an intelligent argument, much less enlightened or modern. No, they use this to put down those they disagree with on moral matters all the while pretending that they know more about the Bible than the people who actually study and believe it. They pretend to be morally and intellectually superior to those they look down on. Meanwhile they justify behavior that God clearly condemns.
Just as bad, they pretend to honor a Bible though they will not submit to as God's Word. I have much more respect for a person who comes right out and says that they do not believe the Bible is God's Word than one who pretends that they honor the Bible while they refuse to submit to its teaching. This is nothing but hypocrisy.
After a lifetime of reading the Bible 'literally', he and his mother no longer do so. Seemingly because she loves her son who she thought was actually homosexual, she now does not read the Bible in such a way that makes her believe that homosexual actions are sinful. She now thinks it is okay, as does her son. (I wonder what she thinks about her son lying to her about a very serious matter. Maybe she takes the command not to bear false witness 'metaphorically' as well.)
Now what is the alternative to the supposedly archaic, unenlightened, literal reading of the Bible. The answer, of course, is to take the Bible metaphorically. This is what this young man asserts. But what exactly does it mean to take the Bible literally, or metaphorically.
Let's look at a couple of examples: First, we have the saying of Jesus, "I am the vine and you are the branches." When Jesus calls Himself a 'vine' and his disciples 'branches', should we take this literally or metaphorically? Well, it is obviously a metaphor. The most extreme fundamentalist in the world would not interpret this literally. No sane person does or ever would. Second, we have one of the ten commandments, "Thou shalt not steal." Is it possible to interpret this metaphorically? No, it must be literal. It's not a metaphor for anything.
What can we conclude from this? Very simply that we interpret literal passages literally and metaphorical passages metaphorically. Of course, that is exactly what fundamentalist and evangelical Christians have always done. There is no simple choice between literal and metaphorical interpretation. We have to make the choice for each passage.
How then should we interpret the passages that talk about homosexuality? Are they to be interpreted literally or metaphorically? To answer this we need to examine what kind of statements they are. We find, very simply, that they are among the statements in the Bible that tell us how we ought or ought not to behave. They are moral commands. As we have seen in the case of the commandment not to steal, it and all other commandments regarding morality must be interpreted literally. In other words, the moral law is always interpreted literally. This does not mean it lacks spiritual application, but we easily confuse the spiritual with the metaphorical. They are not the same thing.
Another person who insists that we must interpret the Bible 'metaphorically' says that if we interpret the Bible literally, then we must put homosexuals and adulterers to death because that is what the Old Testament says.
But, once again, this is not interpreting passages according to their kind. While passages that tell us what to do or not do must be interpreted literally, we also must distinguish between different kinds of commands. God told us not to commit adultery, for example, and the OT punishment was death. However, there is a difference between the moral law and the civil law given to the ancient Israelites. The civil law enforced the moral law. The moral law is for all people at all times. The civil law was for Israel when they were a nation. Jesus refused to apply the civil law when the moral law was violated. Remember the woman caught in adultery and brought to Jesus. Jesus effectively made the Jews put down their stones, refused to condemn her, but did tell her to 'go and sin no more'. Jesus affirmed the moral law without applying the civil law from the OT. (The Jews were no longer self-governing; they were under Roman rule.)
Jesus took the moral law literally. He affirmed its verdict on sin, but He also came to wash away our sins. That is much different, and much better, than saying that our sins are okay. They are not.
Those who mock "fundamentalists" who interpret moral commands literally by saying that they prefer a "metaphorical" interpretation of the Bible have no clue what they are talking about. It is not even an intelligent argument, much less enlightened or modern. No, they use this to put down those they disagree with on moral matters all the while pretending that they know more about the Bible than the people who actually study and believe it. They pretend to be morally and intellectually superior to those they look down on. Meanwhile they justify behavior that God clearly condemns.
Just as bad, they pretend to honor a Bible though they will not submit to as God's Word. I have much more respect for a person who comes right out and says that they do not believe the Bible is God's Word than one who pretends that they honor the Bible while they refuse to submit to its teaching. This is nothing but hypocrisy.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Spong is wrong
I trust that my readers know that when I speak of a "liberal" or "progressive" Christian that I am not referring to some political point of view. I mean those in the church who use that term about themselves and who may or may not hold progressive political views. "Progressive" Christians are those who deny one or more of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith or, at least, think that they have a better idea than the biblical authors of what constitutes truly Christian faith and practice(morality). They think that the Bible is basically a human book whose authors had some good ideas about God and maybe from God but were so culture-bound that they could not possibly know what we know now. Supposedly, we have progressed beyond what the ancients knew and, seemingly, beyond what our own grandparents knew.
Some years ago the well-known "progressive" Episcopalian bishop, John Spong, declared that Christianity must change or perish. He thinks that conservative or fundamentalist Christianity is holding back the church from reaching the larger culture. The church, in his view, is to reject the deity of Christ in favor of a merely human Jesus. We should no longer believe that the Bible is inspired or inerrant and that its moral precepts need be followed. Instead, it should be replaced with updated views on theology and morality. He uses as evidence the increasing secularism of our society. He says that unless the church 'catches up' with the modern world it will disappear into history.
However, many years ago one conservative scholar pointed out that it is the increasingly progressive mainline churches that are in serious decline while the conservative denominations are growing. (The most progressive mainline churches are the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church.) The Episcopal Church in 1970 had three million members. In 2000, that number had plummeted to 1 million.Since 2003, when they ordained the first openly homosexual bishop, the church has dropped to 600,000 members. That's an 80% drop in only 42 years. And that's while the US population increased by 50%. The Episcopal Church used have 1.5% of the population; it now has .2%.
Some have countered this argument by noting that the Southern Baptists Convention (the largest denomination in the US) has declined as well and they are mostly conservative churches. But a closer examination of the numbers tells the full story. Southern Baptist churches are in places in the US that are generally losing population and their losses reflect that fact. The losses correlate to the population decline, about 6-8%. Demographic changes cannot explain an 80% decline.
It is also noteworthy that the overseas growth of mainline denominations are conservative and evangelical. Progressive Christianity is no more popular in third world countries than it is here. That alone should wake them up since they claim to speak for the poor and disadvantaged. Those same poor recognize their spiritual needs and the progressives have nothing of real substance to offer them. Like Esau, they have traded their birthright for a pot of stew. They didn't know that they could have kept the true faith and helped the poor with their physical needs as the conservatives have been doing all along.
Additionally, Progressive Christians like to take credit for any progress that the church has ever made. They love to point to the civil rights movement as an example of progressivism. But the civil rights movement was successful because it was based on a conservative reading of the Bible. I used to hear Martin Luther King's speeches on the radio and he always quoted the Bible and called us to live up to it. True progress comes from taking seriously the Bible we proclaim as true, not from denying it.
Another area where we have truly progressed is in the area of women in ministry, especially ordained ministry. Sadly, many women scholars and ministers have been told that they must hold progressive views of the Bible to justify their ministry. However, we do not have to see the biblical writers as patriarchal or culture-bound. We do not have to throw out the principles they taught. Those principles are eternal - they are not subject to change. We cannot change the Word to suit our feelings.
It is unnecessary to alter one's view of the Bible as the eternal Word of God to make needed change. A case in point: Pentecostals, who are among the most conservative and literal interpreters of the Bible, have always had women ministers. How is this? Because they recognized that there were women that were called to ministry and they realized that the Bible did allow for them. In denying them, the church had previously misunderstood and misapplied the scriptures supposedly against women in ministry.
Once again, as in the case of the civil rights movement, God led the church to rightly divide the Word rather than to "progress" beyond it.
As far as Spong's statement is concerned, I would say with Jesus about the church, "the gates of Hell [and progressivism] will not prevail against it".
Some years ago the well-known "progressive" Episcopalian bishop, John Spong, declared that Christianity must change or perish. He thinks that conservative or fundamentalist Christianity is holding back the church from reaching the larger culture. The church, in his view, is to reject the deity of Christ in favor of a merely human Jesus. We should no longer believe that the Bible is inspired or inerrant and that its moral precepts need be followed. Instead, it should be replaced with updated views on theology and morality. He uses as evidence the increasing secularism of our society. He says that unless the church 'catches up' with the modern world it will disappear into history.
However, many years ago one conservative scholar pointed out that it is the increasingly progressive mainline churches that are in serious decline while the conservative denominations are growing. (The most progressive mainline churches are the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church.) The Episcopal Church in 1970 had three million members. In 2000, that number had plummeted to 1 million.Since 2003, when they ordained the first openly homosexual bishop, the church has dropped to 600,000 members. That's an 80% drop in only 42 years. And that's while the US population increased by 50%. The Episcopal Church used have 1.5% of the population; it now has .2%.
Some have countered this argument by noting that the Southern Baptists Convention (the largest denomination in the US) has declined as well and they are mostly conservative churches. But a closer examination of the numbers tells the full story. Southern Baptist churches are in places in the US that are generally losing population and their losses reflect that fact. The losses correlate to the population decline, about 6-8%. Demographic changes cannot explain an 80% decline.
It is also noteworthy that the overseas growth of mainline denominations are conservative and evangelical. Progressive Christianity is no more popular in third world countries than it is here. That alone should wake them up since they claim to speak for the poor and disadvantaged. Those same poor recognize their spiritual needs and the progressives have nothing of real substance to offer them. Like Esau, they have traded their birthright for a pot of stew. They didn't know that they could have kept the true faith and helped the poor with their physical needs as the conservatives have been doing all along.
Additionally, Progressive Christians like to take credit for any progress that the church has ever made. They love to point to the civil rights movement as an example of progressivism. But the civil rights movement was successful because it was based on a conservative reading of the Bible. I used to hear Martin Luther King's speeches on the radio and he always quoted the Bible and called us to live up to it. True progress comes from taking seriously the Bible we proclaim as true, not from denying it.
Another area where we have truly progressed is in the area of women in ministry, especially ordained ministry. Sadly, many women scholars and ministers have been told that they must hold progressive views of the Bible to justify their ministry. However, we do not have to see the biblical writers as patriarchal or culture-bound. We do not have to throw out the principles they taught. Those principles are eternal - they are not subject to change. We cannot change the Word to suit our feelings.
It is unnecessary to alter one's view of the Bible as the eternal Word of God to make needed change. A case in point: Pentecostals, who are among the most conservative and literal interpreters of the Bible, have always had women ministers. How is this? Because they recognized that there were women that were called to ministry and they realized that the Bible did allow for them. In denying them, the church had previously misunderstood and misapplied the scriptures supposedly against women in ministry.
Once again, as in the case of the civil rights movement, God led the church to rightly divide the Word rather than to "progress" beyond it.
As far as Spong's statement is concerned, I would say with Jesus about the church, "the gates of Hell [and progressivism] will not prevail against it".
Monday, January 18, 2010
Facts and Interpretation
Usually when Christians think of the word 'interpretation' they think of interpretation of the Bible. For this blog, however, our subject is the interpretation of facts. But, you may say, do facts need interpretation? Aren't they true all by themselves?
The answer to that is both yes and no. A firmly established fact by itself needs no interpretation. But facts do need interpretation when they are used to promote ideas. For example, the US Civil War (1861-1865) is a historical fact which contains many historical facts. But when we discuss the causes of the Civil War, we must interpret those facts.
One of the big controversies regarding the interpretation of facts is regarding the origins of the universe, the earth and mankind. Secular biology interprets the facts of scientific discovery one way (in accordance with the theory of evolution) and the Creation scientists interpret them another way. [For the purposes of this blog, I will use the laymen's term "theory" instead of the scientific term "hypothesis". The correct terminology is 'hypothesis of evolution' not the common term 'theory of evolution'.] And proponents of Intelligent Design interpret them yet a third way. (Let us not confuse Creation Science with Intelligent Design.)
All three of these views of our origins use the same scientific facts, but use them in different ways. Evolutionists claim that the facts support their theory and so do the Creation Scientists and Intelligent Design advocates. I will not, in this blog, talk about the strengths and weaknesses of each view. I only wish to point out that all qualify as science. Now evolution is the reigning view today, but that does not make it more scientific.
Evolutionists often claim that Creation Science is not science and should only be taught in religion classes (if at all) instead of biology class. They say that teaching Creation Science (or Intelligent Design) in biology class alongside evolution would be like teaching in a history class that the Holocaust never took place. And there some who deny that the Holocaust ever did take place. But that is a different thing entirely. The Holocaust deniers are not offering a different interpretation of historical facts but are denying well-established facts. It is a denial of facts that is the problem here. Certainly, we should not teach any form of history that expressly denies these facts. Creation Science and Intelligent Design do not deny facts; they interpret them differently.
Now let's examine some facts that you often hear cited in Christian circles. One of them is the statistic that people in churches are as likely to be divorced as those outside the church. I have heard this statistic for many years and I have no reason to doubt it. But how should we interpret this fact? Well, here is a case where we really need more information. Fortunately, deeper studies have apparently been done that shed more light on this subject. One study that I heard of examined people in churches and not only their marital status, but also their place in the church and their own history in it.
What they found is very interesting. They found that those who had the most longevity in church and were considered to be the most active and committed within the church were far less likely than the general population to have ever been divorced. Those who are more on the margins and are more recent members are far more likely than the general population to be divorced. It seems that people who have been recently divorced often go to church (or return to church) after their divorce.
So it may be that, overall, church members are as likely to be divorced as anyone else, but it is different for different groups within the church.
Now this makes sense to me. I do know some people who are deeply committed to the Lord and are very active in the church who also have been divorced. I do not have a problem with that. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin. However, I have noticed that more of the longtime 'core' members of the churches that I have attended generally are not.
What we need to take from all this is that we should not base our preaching on these kinds of statistics because statistics may give us one impression but further study and analysis leave quite another. I am not saying that statistics are always misleading, or that they should not be used. We just have to be careful with them and realize that they are not the last word and probably should not be the basis of our teaching and preaching.
There is another statistic that I have heard over and over for more than 30 years. And it sounds very plausible. I am sure you have heard it, usually from youth ministers. It goes something like this: "If a person is not saved by age 15 (or 14 or another age in that range) their chances of being saved are very slim". This is quoted to get church people to support youth programs.
You might be surprised by what I am about to say about this statistic. You might guess from my skeptical tone that I am about to tell you that this statistic is not true, but I am not going to do that. It is a true statistic; unfortunately, it is also completely irrelevant. The reason that it is irrelevant is because of what Jesus said. "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." These are sobering words indeed. Jesus is telling us that only a few find eternal life. These words tell us something statistically. They tell us that only a minority will be saved. That means that if a person is not saved by ANY age, chances are they will not be saved at all. In other words, I could say that if a person is not saved by age 6, chances are that they will never be saved. And I could say the same thing about age 86 as well.
So the statistic about those who do not get saved by their teen years probably will not be saved at all is a true, but irrelevant, statistic. Now, as a person who was saved at age 15 I want to say that I am fully in favor of youth groups and of evangelizing teens. I do not, however, think that we should use this phony statistic to bolster our case. It is unnecessary. If God is leading you to work with the youth, then do so. If you want more support then tell others and let God lead them.
Whenever some statistic seems to bolster our beliefs or arguments, Christians tend to accept it with no examination. This is not good. We have often been taken as suckers. We do not really need statistics to back up our biblical perspective or our ministry. Isn't the Word of God and the leading of the Spirit enough for us? We need to lose our skepticism of the promises of God and the prompting of the Holy Spirit and increase our skepticism of statistics. I think we have it backwards sometimes.
In conclusion, the church needs to use facts and statistics very carefully. Even if they back your own view, do not accept them without examination or further analysis. If more or better information is not available, then lay them aside until you can correctly interpret them.
The answer to that is both yes and no. A firmly established fact by itself needs no interpretation. But facts do need interpretation when they are used to promote ideas. For example, the US Civil War (1861-1865) is a historical fact which contains many historical facts. But when we discuss the causes of the Civil War, we must interpret those facts.
One of the big controversies regarding the interpretation of facts is regarding the origins of the universe, the earth and mankind. Secular biology interprets the facts of scientific discovery one way (in accordance with the theory of evolution) and the Creation scientists interpret them another way. [For the purposes of this blog, I will use the laymen's term "theory" instead of the scientific term "hypothesis". The correct terminology is 'hypothesis of evolution' not the common term 'theory of evolution'.] And proponents of Intelligent Design interpret them yet a third way. (Let us not confuse Creation Science with Intelligent Design.)
All three of these views of our origins use the same scientific facts, but use them in different ways. Evolutionists claim that the facts support their theory and so do the Creation Scientists and Intelligent Design advocates. I will not, in this blog, talk about the strengths and weaknesses of each view. I only wish to point out that all qualify as science. Now evolution is the reigning view today, but that does not make it more scientific.
Evolutionists often claim that Creation Science is not science and should only be taught in religion classes (if at all) instead of biology class. They say that teaching Creation Science (or Intelligent Design) in biology class alongside evolution would be like teaching in a history class that the Holocaust never took place. And there some who deny that the Holocaust ever did take place. But that is a different thing entirely. The Holocaust deniers are not offering a different interpretation of historical facts but are denying well-established facts. It is a denial of facts that is the problem here. Certainly, we should not teach any form of history that expressly denies these facts. Creation Science and Intelligent Design do not deny facts; they interpret them differently.
Now let's examine some facts that you often hear cited in Christian circles. One of them is the statistic that people in churches are as likely to be divorced as those outside the church. I have heard this statistic for many years and I have no reason to doubt it. But how should we interpret this fact? Well, here is a case where we really need more information. Fortunately, deeper studies have apparently been done that shed more light on this subject. One study that I heard of examined people in churches and not only their marital status, but also their place in the church and their own history in it.
What they found is very interesting. They found that those who had the most longevity in church and were considered to be the most active and committed within the church were far less likely than the general population to have ever been divorced. Those who are more on the margins and are more recent members are far more likely than the general population to be divorced. It seems that people who have been recently divorced often go to church (or return to church) after their divorce.
So it may be that, overall, church members are as likely to be divorced as anyone else, but it is different for different groups within the church.
Now this makes sense to me. I do know some people who are deeply committed to the Lord and are very active in the church who also have been divorced. I do not have a problem with that. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin. However, I have noticed that more of the longtime 'core' members of the churches that I have attended generally are not.
What we need to take from all this is that we should not base our preaching on these kinds of statistics because statistics may give us one impression but further study and analysis leave quite another. I am not saying that statistics are always misleading, or that they should not be used. We just have to be careful with them and realize that they are not the last word and probably should not be the basis of our teaching and preaching.
There is another statistic that I have heard over and over for more than 30 years. And it sounds very plausible. I am sure you have heard it, usually from youth ministers. It goes something like this: "If a person is not saved by age 15 (or 14 or another age in that range) their chances of being saved are very slim". This is quoted to get church people to support youth programs.
You might be surprised by what I am about to say about this statistic. You might guess from my skeptical tone that I am about to tell you that this statistic is not true, but I am not going to do that. It is a true statistic; unfortunately, it is also completely irrelevant. The reason that it is irrelevant is because of what Jesus said. "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." These are sobering words indeed. Jesus is telling us that only a few find eternal life. These words tell us something statistically. They tell us that only a minority will be saved. That means that if a person is not saved by ANY age, chances are they will not be saved at all. In other words, I could say that if a person is not saved by age 6, chances are that they will never be saved. And I could say the same thing about age 86 as well.
So the statistic about those who do not get saved by their teen years probably will not be saved at all is a true, but irrelevant, statistic. Now, as a person who was saved at age 15 I want to say that I am fully in favor of youth groups and of evangelizing teens. I do not, however, think that we should use this phony statistic to bolster our case. It is unnecessary. If God is leading you to work with the youth, then do so. If you want more support then tell others and let God lead them.
Whenever some statistic seems to bolster our beliefs or arguments, Christians tend to accept it with no examination. This is not good. We have often been taken as suckers. We do not really need statistics to back up our biblical perspective or our ministry. Isn't the Word of God and the leading of the Spirit enough for us? We need to lose our skepticism of the promises of God and the prompting of the Holy Spirit and increase our skepticism of statistics. I think we have it backwards sometimes.
In conclusion, the church needs to use facts and statistics very carefully. Even if they back your own view, do not accept them without examination or further analysis. If more or better information is not available, then lay them aside until you can correctly interpret them.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Liberal Theology is Idolatry
Liberal theology should not be confused with liberal political or social views. In Christian theology, a liberal is a person, claiming to be a Christian, but denying certain fundamental truths that Christians have held for 2000 years. Two truths that liberal Christians do not believe is in the infallibility of Scripture and the deity of Jesus Christ. There have been those who believe in the infallibility of Scripture and have still denied the deity of Christ through the ages but it requires that one read the scriptures in some extraordinary ways. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses have their own corrupted translation of the Bible in order to deny Christ's full deity.
Liberal Christians use the scriptures in the way that they see fit (in a "scholarly" manner, of course) but do not hold that the scriptures are altogether true. They pick and choose what to believe, or not believe, according to the thinking of the age in which they live. They interpret it as metaphor as it pleases their own modern sensibilities and decry any sort of 'literalism' that would require them to actually believe what it says. They generally interpret clearly historical events such as the Resurrection of Christ as something that happened to the disciples rather that something that happened to Jesus. They deny the physical reality of the Resurrection while claiming to accept the spiritual import of it.
In the nineteenth century, liberal Bible scholars began to interpret Jesus according to their own liking. They felt free to reject the deity of Jesus while accepting him as a great moral teacher or a prophet or whatever suited them. Another liberal scholar, Albert Schweitzer, wrote a book in the early 20th century pointing out that each of these new views of Jesus turned out to support that scholars view. Their own individual "Jesus" agreed with them completely. How convenient. It just so happened that Jesus believed whatever that scholar believed.
What was happening here was obvious. These scholars were trying to make Jesus in their own image and likeness. They were making an idol out of him. It is no different from what Isaiah told the unfaithful Israelites. "He cut down cedars, or perhaps took a cypress or oak. He let it grow among the trees of the forest, or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow. It is man's fuel for burning; some of it he takes and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread. But he also fashions a god and worships it; he makes an idol and bows down to it. Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, Ah! I am warm; I see the fire. From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, Save me; you are my god." Here is a description of the ancient Israelite making an idol for himself. Isaiah shows clearly how foolish this is.
This is no different than the modern, liberal Christian making Jesus into whoever they want him to be. They are making him into an idol. They use their tools (critical scholarship) like the workman in Isaiah. And like that workman they apply the same tools to God's Word that they would to any common book. They have no respect or awe for the Word or for the real Jesus as depicted in the New Testament.
We cannot pick and choose what aspect of Jesus we want to believe in. We have to accept those things about him that offend modern sensibilities (things like miracles, pronouncement of judgments to come, and especially who he claimed to be). We must accept things we do not like and assume that God knows better than we do.
What the modern liberal Christian do is really worship his or her own thoughts. They do not worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. They set up idols in their minds and expect us all to bow down to their 'enlightened' views.
This should be a warning to us conservative, Bible-believing Christians as well. We must make sure that we are not trying to make Jesus into Someone who supports whatever we think or believe. We have no right to believe anything but God's Word. We need to accept what the Word says no matter how it fits our personal theology.
Many times I have had trouble accepting certain things in the Bible because they did not seem right to me. I accepted them anyway. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. (Liberals think that their thoughts are above the Word.) As I have matured in the Lord I began to more fully comprehend some of the things that I had trouble with earlier. I gained wisdom. "[God] lays up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a shield to them that walk upright. He keeps the paths of judgment, and preserves the way of his saints. Then you will understand righteousness, and judgment." Proverbs 2:7-9
So let's not follow down the liberal path of idolatry. Let's renew our minds to the Word.
Liberal Christians use the scriptures in the way that they see fit (in a "scholarly" manner, of course) but do not hold that the scriptures are altogether true. They pick and choose what to believe, or not believe, according to the thinking of the age in which they live. They interpret it as metaphor as it pleases their own modern sensibilities and decry any sort of 'literalism' that would require them to actually believe what it says. They generally interpret clearly historical events such as the Resurrection of Christ as something that happened to the disciples rather that something that happened to Jesus. They deny the physical reality of the Resurrection while claiming to accept the spiritual import of it.
In the nineteenth century, liberal Bible scholars began to interpret Jesus according to their own liking. They felt free to reject the deity of Jesus while accepting him as a great moral teacher or a prophet or whatever suited them. Another liberal scholar, Albert Schweitzer, wrote a book in the early 20th century pointing out that each of these new views of Jesus turned out to support that scholars view. Their own individual "Jesus" agreed with them completely. How convenient. It just so happened that Jesus believed whatever that scholar believed.
What was happening here was obvious. These scholars were trying to make Jesus in their own image and likeness. They were making an idol out of him. It is no different from what Isaiah told the unfaithful Israelites. "He cut down cedars, or perhaps took a cypress or oak. He let it grow among the trees of the forest, or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow. It is man's fuel for burning; some of it he takes and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread. But he also fashions a god and worships it; he makes an idol and bows down to it. Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, Ah! I am warm; I see the fire. From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, Save me; you are my god." Here is a description of the ancient Israelite making an idol for himself. Isaiah shows clearly how foolish this is.
This is no different than the modern, liberal Christian making Jesus into whoever they want him to be. They are making him into an idol. They use their tools (critical scholarship) like the workman in Isaiah. And like that workman they apply the same tools to God's Word that they would to any common book. They have no respect or awe for the Word or for the real Jesus as depicted in the New Testament.
We cannot pick and choose what aspect of Jesus we want to believe in. We have to accept those things about him that offend modern sensibilities (things like miracles, pronouncement of judgments to come, and especially who he claimed to be). We must accept things we do not like and assume that God knows better than we do.
What the modern liberal Christian do is really worship his or her own thoughts. They do not worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. They set up idols in their minds and expect us all to bow down to their 'enlightened' views.
This should be a warning to us conservative, Bible-believing Christians as well. We must make sure that we are not trying to make Jesus into Someone who supports whatever we think or believe. We have no right to believe anything but God's Word. We need to accept what the Word says no matter how it fits our personal theology.
Many times I have had trouble accepting certain things in the Bible because they did not seem right to me. I accepted them anyway. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. (Liberals think that their thoughts are above the Word.) As I have matured in the Lord I began to more fully comprehend some of the things that I had trouble with earlier. I gained wisdom. "[God] lays up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a shield to them that walk upright. He keeps the paths of judgment, and preserves the way of his saints. Then you will understand righteousness, and judgment." Proverbs 2:7-9
So let's not follow down the liberal path of idolatry. Let's renew our minds to the Word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)