How to take a stand on difficult issues (Part 1)

One of the things that we talk about every semester in my "Issues in Interpretation" class is how to take a stand on difficult issues of theology and hermeneutics. What are those principles and those virtues that should guide us when debating and conversing about contentious issues related to the Bible, culture, theology, etc.? Now that the semester is finally over, I am going to post over the next several days some of my own principles on how to take a stand on difficult issues. As usual, I welcome your comments.


1. Have I loved the person on the other side of this issue?

There is an Indian proverb that goes something like this: “There is no point in cutting off a person’s nose and then giving him a rose to smell.” Someone else said: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The same person even said to love even your enemies. Jesus came into the world full of both grace and truth. It seems that the manner that he came into the world should be the same manner in which we try to conduct ourselves in the world. The second greatest commandment is not suspended the moment that we enter into a theological debate. This is not to mean that we shouldn’t have a position and defend that position with conviction. (To let a person continue in obvious error without any sort of confrontation may be “nice” and “tolerant,” but it certainly isn’t loving.) And there are some issues (more on this later) which demand a stronger, uncompromising defense. I am simply saying that in the midst of our debates we shouldn’t forget that there is another person on the other side of the debate who is deeply loved by God and should be deeply loved by us as well.

In other words, ask yourself what is the motivation for your debate? I’m worried about the Christian whose sole motivation is to win a debate. We imagine ourselves, like Saul of Tarsus, doing the Lord’s work with righteous zeal. If other people get offended or hurt or angry along the way, that is just the cost of doing battle for the Lord. We are God’s champions. But in the way that we conduct ourselves, we commit violence; violence against our neighbor and brother and ultimately violence against the purpose of Christ. So often what we are defending is not really God anyway. Because of our own insecurity, we end up defending only our own pride. Our theological positions become like idols that demand our devotion and our defense.

Be careful of disembodying your opponent on any difficult issue. We may be tempted to say, “It is the principle that matters. Nothing else.” This sounds a lot more righteous than it actually is. Remember, it was the Greeks who loved to argue about disembodied ideas (Acts 17?). Christian theology is embodied. People matter in the kingdom of God. But sometimes it seems that we love ideas so much more than people. People are messy. People are difficult. People take time. People require our service and our love. Ideas on the other hand are manageable. There is little selflessness in an idea. In fact, I can easily use an idea in my own service. Too often my ideas may seem to be about something else, but really they are about me.

We disembody our opponents in a number of ways. (One way might be in calling them “opponents.”) But one of the most common ways that we disembody others today is by engaging in debate through the safe anonymity of the Internet. The Internet has empowered us to say things to people online that we would never dream of saying to their face. The Internet has made slander convenient. Like a video game that allows us to virtually and safely fight all manner of enemies, the Internet has given us an arena in which to send our disembodied ideas into battle against other disembodied ideas. I’m not saying that we should never dialogue on-line, but we should probably develop the habit of asking ourselves whether or not I would say in person what I’ve just said on-line. If the answer is “no” then you are probably running the risk of disembodying your opponent. And let’s all just admit it. All of our verbal jousting on-line has paid very little actual benefit to the kingdom and in some cases has done a great deal of harm.

Guest Post: A Former Student's Perspective on Homosexuality and the Church

I was contacted this week by a former student. I was priveleged to have this student in several classes during his years at OCC and we have remained in contact since his graduation. I have known about and we have talked about his struggles with homosexuality. He asked me if I would be willing to post his comments annonymously on my blog, and I agreed. I think that it is good, given the heat generated on social media this week, to hear from someone for whom this issue isn't abract or impersonal. He is a committed follower of Christ and passionate for the word of God and for holiness who also happens to struggle with homosexuality. I'm sure he isn't alone. I value his perspective. I also think it is appropriate to post this today - on Good Friday - a day we remember and celebrate each year as the day that all of our sins were atoned for by the blood of Jesus Christ. I offer his comments here without any further commentary.



I'm a graduate from OCC. I graduated in 2009 and since my graduation, I have been hired to lead two ministries and have started working on a Master's Degree in Christian Education.

Did I mention that I used to be involved with homosexuality?

Don't worry. This isn't a post where I am going to lay out an argument that the church need to change its stance on homosexuality because I know that is not God's will as laid out in Scripture. But what I want do to is tell you about my struggles with homosexuality and my life as a ministry leader. Before you post another rant on Facebook about the gay agenda or preach another sermon about homosexuality, I want you think about what you really believe about the sin.

 

Upon graduating college, I went on a search for a ministry position with great references. I was flown all over the country for interviews and was asked about my testimony. I was honest about my testimony. I let them know about my past and how I know I am forgiven that it is not a life I long to live. I long to serve Jesus Christ. That didn't matter. Instead, after giving my testimony, I would be asked questions like:

 

"Have you ever had any sexual contact with a child?" or "If we hire you, could you be able to keep that under wraps so as to not cause problems for our members?"

Eventually, I got hired but by churches that didn't ask for my testimony. When I did talk about my past, I would be told to not tell anybody unless I would risk being fired.

 

I hate that when I go to my local Target and see pictures of either a woman in her underwear or a man in his underwear, I have to look away from the man to fight the urge to lust. It's embarrassing and it's a constant reminder of my past. It's a struggle I have but for some reason, I can't talk about that struggle but we are okay with hearing about another person's struggle with alcohol or drugs or even heterosexual lust.

 

This week everybody is talking about gay marriage. Sadly, what will happen is the same: a preacher will talk about the Bible's views on homosexuality and then point out 1 Corinthians 5 in which Paul writes that the misdeeds are what we "were". Then the preacher will explain a homosexual can leave their life and that they weren't born that way.

 

I agree with this to an extent. I wasn't born to give my life to sin. I can't help the temptations, but I refrain from pursuing their desires, as difficult as it can be at times. But what breaks my heart is that even though this is what we preach, it is clearly not what we practice. As ministry leaders, we would rather the sin be murder than homosexuality.

 

I don't write this as a hate-filled argument for churches. My intent is for some mirror-holding. I hear your sermons. I see your Facebook posts. Yet, what is said in a pulpit isn't really lived out.

As a leader, would you hire a person who is redeemed from the life of homosexuality? What is your excuse to not do so?

 

On a final note, why the silence? Why not let leaders who struggle with homosexuality (I know I'm not the only one) speak out? Wouldn't they be an excellent testimony?

Shades of things to come

At some point, I'd like to be able to dedicate a series of posts to the issues of homosexuality and same-sex marriage and the Church's response. As it is now, I simply don't have the time to give it the attention it deserves. I did want to share this article however. Regardless of your opinions on this opinion piece, this is a great example of how the debate is currently being framed. There is an unblinking equivocation - fair or unfair (I believe unfair) - between the issues of race and sexual orientation. Christians who believe that homosexual sex is a sinful behavior (as I do) should not be surprised when they are labelled as a bigot. "I love gays. I just don't endorse the lifestyle and I don't think that they should be allowed to marry. I'm not a bigot though. I love gay people!" But when the argument is being framed in already long established civil rights lines, you will be perceived as a bigot - regardless of your attitude. A nice racist is still a racist.


Opinion: Bigotry drags marriage back to Supreme Court - CNN.com

Ugh

I'm very confused by this. Schools should offer training in biblical interpretation and fire arm usage? I am not a pacifist and I am not in principle opposed to Christians owning and using fire arms, but the naked equivocation of scripture and fire arms in this picture makes me a little nauseous. Add to it the inherent nationalism...and well....ugh. I've got serious questions about whether or not the creator of this actually does know how to use the Bible.

Gutenberg's Revolution

In 1455 all Europe's printed books could have been carried in a single wagon. Fifty years later, the titles ran to tens of thousands, the individual volumes to millions. Today, books pour off presses at the rate of 10,000 million a year. That's some 50 million tons of paper. Add in 8,000 to 9,000 daily newspapers, and the Sundays, and the magazines, and the figure rises to 130 million tons. (John Man, The Gutenberg Revolution, 4)

One of the most underrated influences on biblical interpretation is the invention of the printing press. Most books on the history of hermeneutics leave a Gutenberg shaped hole in their study. One of our most treasured ideals as Evangelicals - personal, devotional study of scripture leading to a very personal and devotional relationship with Jesus - wasn't even the dream of a possibility before around 1455. Luther would never have become Luther, Calvin would never have become Calvin, and Tyndale would never have become Tyndale without this invention which John Man identifies as the third most important invention in civilization only after the inventions of writing and the alphabet. The Reformation probably wouldn't have happened without the assistance of the press. (Man points out that Muslim nations had access to the new technology but for multiple reasons they rejected it. And Christianity had a major reform movement while Islam did not. This is a simplistic analysis, but it's interesting to think about.)

The Internet is the fourth most important invention according to Man which ought to give all of us a pause. Just as the press allowed a new world to come into being, Internet technology is bringing another world into existence. The press undeniably changed the church and certain assumptions about discipleship. We can only assume that the Internet is having and will continue to have similar effects. The press changed the way that Christians interacted with the Word. Look around your church on Sunday morning and take note of all of the people with their noses buried in their phones and it is clear that Internet based technology is also changing the way that people interact with the Word. The question is "How?" And is it for the better or the worse? But I'll leave those questions to the Leonard Sweets of the world to figure out.

Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals

Just finished Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals by William Webb. The dominant purpose for the book is to provide some guidelines when making judgments about what is cultural and what is transcultural in scripture. In other words, how do we decide if a text in scripture is intended only for its immediate cultural context ("greet one another with a holy kiss") or if it is meant to be applied in every culture ("your sins are forgiven")? Some passages are relatively easy to categorize. Others are notoriously more difficult like Paul's comments about women in 1 Timothy. Webb's observation is that scripture teaches what he calls a multi-level ethic - not a simple static ethic. Scripture establishes a trajectory of faithful applications. We should apply the text differently as the culture changes. This isn't to strip scripture of its authority - quite the opposite. This gives scripture a contextual power whatever culture it may encounter.  In a multi-level ethic the principle and the application of the text are related but different. In a static ethic, the principle and application are seen together. The application may need to be translated into a more contemporary culture, but the application is essentially the same.

Webb calls his approach a redemptive-movement hermeneutic. He uses the case of slavery to illustrate his approach. Scripture does not openly condemn slavery, but it does establish a sort of trajectory which eventually led committed Christians to challenge the institution of slavery from scripture itself. From this case study, he moves on to talk about the situation of women and homosexuals in scripture - two hot button issues in our culture today. In the case of women, Webb argues that the trajectory established by scripture moves from patriarchy to what he calls "complementary egalitarianism." The case with homosexuals is far different however. The trajectory established by scripture is not one of acceptance and endorsement but one of condemnation. You can see a summary of his position here.

I liked this book overall. I think that there were times that he seemed to be stacking the deck in favor of his already decided positions, but it is hard to argue with his observations and methodology. All of us engage in a multi-level ethical understanding of scripture - even those pious "literalists" among us.

Webb gives eighteen criteria from making judgments about what in scripture is culture and what is transcultural (or universal in application). I decided to reproduce them here. Some are more convincing than others, and he also discounted or ignored historical theology and the regula fidei in his approach (especially on the interpretation of various Pauline texts on women), but taken together they provide some nice guidlines in deciding these issues.

Persuasive Criteria (his designation):
1 - Preliminary Movement - A component of a text may be culturally bound if Scripture modifies the original cultural norms in such a way that suggests further movement is possible and even advantageous in a subsequent culture.
2 - Seed Ideas - A component of a text may be cultural if "seed ideas" are present within the rest of Scripture to suggest and encourage further movement on a particular subject.
3 - Breakouts - A component of a text may be culturally confined if the social norms reflected in that text are completely "broken out of" in other biblical texts.
4 - Purpose/Intent Statements - A component of a text may be culturally bound, if by practicing the text one no longer fulfills the text's original intent or purpose.
5 - Basis in Fall or Curse - A component of a text may by transcultural if its basis is rooted in the Fall of humanity or the curse.

Moderately Persuasive Criteria
6 - Basis in Original Creation, Section 1: Patterns - A component of a text may be transcultural if its basis is rooted in the original creation material.
7 - Basis in Original Creation, Section 2: Primogeniture - A component of a text may be transcultural, if it is rooted in the original creation material and, more specifically, its creative order.
8 - Basis in New Creation - A component of a text may be transcultural if it is rooted in new-creation material.
9 - Competing Options - A component of a text is more likely to be transcultural, if presented in a time and setting when other competing options existed in the broader cultures.
10 - Opposition to Original Culture - A component of a text is more likely to be transcultural if it counters or stands in opposition to the original culture.
11 - Closely Related Issues - A component of a text may be cultural if "closely related issues" to that text/issue are also themselves culturally bound.
12 - Penal Code - A prohibited or prescribed action within the text may be culturally bound (at least in its most concrete, nonabstracted form) if the penalty for violation is surprisingly light or not even mentioned. The less severe the penalty for a particular action, the more likely it is of having culturally bound components.
13 - Specific Instructions Versus General Principles - A component of a text may be culturally relative if its specific instructions appear to be at odds with the general principles of Scripture.

Inconclusive Criteria
14 - Basis in Theological Analogy - A component of a text may be transcultural if its basis is rooted in the character of God or Christ through theological analogy.
15 - Contextual Comparisons - A text or something within a text may be transcultural to the degree that other aspects in a specialized context, such as a list or grouping, are transcultural.
16 - Appeal to the Old Testament - A practice within a New Testament text may or may not be transcultural if appeal is (or could be) made to the Old Testament in support of that practice.

Persuasive Extrascriptural Criteria
17 - Pragmatic Basis Between Two Cultures - A component of a biblical imperative may be culturally relative if the pragmatic basis for the instruction cannot be sustained from one culture to another.
18 - Scientific and Social Scientific Evidence - A component of a text may be culturally confined if it is contrary to present-day scientific evidence.

The Bible in History

I just finished reading The Bible in History by David Kling. It is a very in-depth study of the historical importance of various key passages of scripture.

Chapter 1 explained the connection between Matthew 19:16-22 and the rise of the monastic movement.
Chapter 2 explained the rise of the papacy and the various passages - especially Matthew 16 which were sometimes used to justify the power of the Pope.
Chapter 3 talked about Bernard of Clairvaux and his allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs which was the most frequently read and expounded book in the medieval monastery. Kling points out that nearly one hundred extant commentaries survive from the sixth to fifteenth centuries. More than 500 commentaries had been written by 1700 on this book!
Chapter 4 gave the history of the Protestant Reformation and talked about how various passages, especially Romans 1:16-17, were critical in the theological development of men like Luther.
Chapter 5 talked about the Anabaptist tradition which (eventually) took the various teachings of Jesus especially from the Sermon on the Mount on loving your enemy as critical to the practice of their faith.
Chapter 6 explained the influence of the Exodus story on the founding of this nation and in the development of African American theology as a protest theology.
Chapter 7 talked about the roots of Pentecostalism and the importance of the book of Acts in its origin.
Chapter 8 talked about the rise of feminist understandings of scripture rooted in such formative passages as Galatians 3:28.

The question that runs throughout the book is how do scripture and history interact. Do scriptural texts, pregnant with meaning and relevance, find their historical moment so that various passages actually change history? Or do the events of history actually change the sense of certain passages of scripture, so that texts are used or interpreted prejudicially to suit the historical needs of the moment? It's not an easy question to answer, and, like most things, the answer is probably both/and not either/or.

He does offer five conclusions at the end of his study which are worth sharing:

1. Texts have indeed functioned as transforming agents. "Through Christian history, the Bible has functioned not merely as a book of story, instruction, and inspiration but as the vehicle of divine communication and supernatural transformation."
2. Texts have also re-created meaning. "Texts of Scripture are not merely agents of transformation but are re-created and resuscitated int he interpretive and historical process. Texts re-create people, and people re-create texts. New ways of understanding are elicited by contexts. As a particular text works its way through history, it undergoes multiple interpretations and applications."
3. Some select texts have served as comprehending sources. "A particular text of Scripture has functioned as a key text around which other texts of Scripture are illuminated, and these in turn refract back to the original text. Or to change the metaphor: a particular text functions as a centripetal force, drawing other biblical texts into its thematic orbit."
4. Texts serve as hermeneutical keys. "A text functions not only as a comprehending source but also as an interpretive key to unlock the essential meaning of Scripture or resolve tensions within Scripture."
5. Texts work as secondary justifications. "A particular text of Scripture functions to legitimize what has already occurred or to support the current climate of opinion. In a sense, many texts function in this way, for they confirm already existing notions, ideas, or convictions in the mind of the reader."

The Bible in History, 311-312