How to take a stand on difficult issues (part 3)

Have I studied the opinions of the church both past and present?

The Bible is a community book. It is a revelation that we share with one another. It is revelation that we share with the community of faith past, present, and future. Modernity has given us the philosophy that our own human reason is enough for discovering truth in scripture. Technology has made such a philosophy practical. And pietism has provided a spiritual justification for such individualistic approaches to the text.

The reality however is that scripture was never intended for mere private consumption. Do I believe in the virtue of individual study of the text? Yes. Certainly. But do I believe in the privatization of the text and studying the text in isolation? No. The Bible is and always has been the word that shapes our community as believers. Our New Testament was originally received through the ears as it was read publicly among the Church.

This has some important implications for us when it comes to navigating difficult theological/hermeneutical issues. Augustine (among many others) argued strongly for what is known as the “rule of faith.” This rule of faith (regula fidei) is closely associated with the T word – tradition. When we come across a text that is difficult to understand or an issue that is tough to figure out, Augustine advocated looking back on what has traditionally been taught in the tradition of the Church.

We modern evangelicals don’t much care for tradition. It’s a word that makes us feel constricted. (“What about freedom?”) It’s a word that we too often associate with “backwardness.” (“What about relevance?”) And to an extent, we are correct. Tradition has oftentimes been appallingly wrong. Those who preached indulgences in the late Middle Ages and those who preached segregation in more recent times come to mind. There have clearly been times where tradition has become more important than the clear teaching of scripture. But to shut the door on tradition altogether seems to me to be very unwise and extremely arrogant. It smacks of the type of generational prejudice that says, “We have got it all figured out. We would never make the types of embarrassing errors made by generations past. All of human history has been anxiously awaiting the wisdom and insight of our generation. You’re welcome!” (I’ve seen the same people turn into young curmudgeons as soon as they start to get passed by the next generation who obviously don’t know anything about anything.)

In light of this, I want to offer this suggestion. When taking a stand on any difficult issue, we should pause and ask, “How has this been handled by the Church historically?” This probably shouldn’t be our first question, but it definitely should be one of the questions we ask. There may be some insight to be gained from looking at 2,000 years of church history.

On a related note, I would also suggest that you should seek out expert opinions on issues from Christians in your own day (particularly Christians who might be outside of your immediate heritage). There are experts who have dedicated substantial time and effort to studying virtually any issue that we might have to deal with. Draw from their insight as they have struggled with the text.

The Bible is a community book. Interpretation does not begin and end with you. And further, let’s get rid of this pietistic error that essentially teaches that the Holy Spirit only (or principally) works on an individual level. The Holy Spirit is active in Christians everywhere and through all times. It could be that the Holy Spirit wants to teach us through the insights of others.

Part 1
Part 2

How to take a stand on difficult issues (part 2)

A couple of weeks ago I began this series of posts about how to take a stand on difficult issues related to scripture and interpretation. You can see my first post here. This is my second guiding principle.

Have I done my exegetical homework?

The belief in the perspicuity of scripture has long been treasured in Protestantism. You could make a case that this doctrine is one of the key convictions that eventually gave birth to the Protestant Reformation. It is the belief in the fundamental clarity of scripture. The Bible is able to be clearly understood by all people (although Luther and especially Calvin would hasten to add that the Holy Spirit must be involved in the process of reading in order to overcome the reader’s sinful nature). The belief in perspicuity moved the locus of authority in interpretation away from sacred tradition and the Church to the individual interpreter. Now Protestants, and especially evangelical Protestants, simply assume that the individual reading scripture on her own is perfectly capable and even expected to understand, meditate upon, and apply that scripture to her life usually within the parameters of a “daily quiet time.”

This isn’t the place to debate the nuances of perspicuity. I accept a certain level of perspicuity as being in line with the original intent of scripture. I believe that scripture is not just for the elites but is for all people in all times and places. However, even champions of the doctrine like Luther clearly believed that not every individual reading of the text was equally correct. There was an essential role for an informed teaching ministry within the community of believers to correct and to train in the proper meaning of scripture.

The reason that I am mentioning this point now is because I have noticed that when it comes to dealing with difficult issues in the text the doctrine of perspicuity is sometimes abused. For instance, take the issue of women’s roles in ministry. This is clearly a difficult issue that the church has been struggling with for years. Exegetically there are a small number of texts in the New Testament that seem to prohibit certain roles for women within the assembly of believers (specifically 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Timothy 2). If we are to ever arrive at a principled position on the role of women in ministry today, these texts have to be studied and “figured out.” There are all sorts of exegetical questions that we have to answer:

1. There are historical-cultural questions to be answered. Was there anything in the specific cultures of ancient Corinth and Ephesus that necessitated Paul’s restrictions on women in those churches? Further, was Paul articulating a general principle to be applied in every one of his churches (and therefore should also be applied in the same way in all of our churches) or was this simply a specific contextualization of a general principle (even the two major texts in question don’t agree on every detail)?
2. There are important contextual questions to be answered. How do these restrictions fit within the context of the letters of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy? What was going on in these churches that would cause Paul to talk in this way? How do these restrictions fit within the broader context of the New Testament? For instance, what are we to make of Paul “tolerating” the teaching ministry of Priscilla and other prophetesses in Acts? What was Jesus’ own understanding of women disciples? How do these texts relate to the general principle of equality outlined by Paul in Galatians 3?
3. There are important grammatical and semantic questions to be answered. What did Paul mean by “authority” or “head” or even “submissiveness?”
4. There are important questions of application as well. Why apply 1 Cor. 14 literally in all churches today but not 1 Cor. 11 which talks about head covering for women? Why permit women to lead worship through song or prayer if they are “not permitted to speak?” At what point are women allowed to teach in the church? Where did we get the idea that it was ok for them to teach boys until the sixth grade but not after that point (as some churches practice)? Is it ok for women to “teach” but not “preach” (even though the word for “preach” is nowhere used by Paul but “teach” is in 1 Tim. 2)? We have to own up to the fact that our application of these texts is laughably inconsistent.  

I bring up these questions not because I’m arguing for a certain position on the issue. I bring them up to illustrate a point. Difficult issues are difficult for a reason. There are a lot of exegetical knots to untie. But when these difficulties are brought up some will respond with arguments about the perspicuity of scripture. “I don’t need a class on studying the Bible to teach me how to read what scripture has clearly said.” In other words, the perspicuity of scripture means that I don’t really have to study it or listen to the perspective of someone who has been trained in how to properly study it. It’s a pre-critical literalism (which somewhat ironically is tied more to the interpreter’s tradition than his actual reading of the text). “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.” But that doesn’t really settle it. There is something missing in that cliché. It should rightly be “The Bible says it. I understand it. I believe it. That settles it…for now.” You aren’t reading scripture well if you aren’t taking the time to actually struggle with it, study it, and understand it. And you aren’t reading scripture well if, after reading the text once or twice, you assume that you have it mastered well enough that you never have to really study it again. Faithful Bible reading requires diligent study.

If we are to take a stand on a difficult issue like women’s roles in ministry (or dozens of other similar issues), we must commit ourselves to understanding the word by doing the difficult work of exegesis.

More adventures in bad exegesis

One of the things that I like to do on this blog is to catalog examples of glaringly bad exegesis. Typically these examples come from the more "lunatic fringe" of biblical exegesis - sometimes from the far right and sometimes from the far left. It is striking to me just how often a really bad interpretation of the text can be directly traced in some way to political leanings on certain issues of government and society - whether it is the supposed emasculation of the American male (as in the famed "pisseth against the wall" video) or the more recent debate about same sex marriage (as in this case). Political agendas are often caustic to attempts at a faithful and humble reading of the text. So, behold the latest example here. What makes this example most alarming is that this is coming from a presiding bishop in a major Christian denomination who should have more common sense than this. She isn't just preaching to a small group of Christians in her living room. Her politicizing of the text is, in my mind, inexcusable but not altogether surprising.

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.