For those who may not have grown up Baptist (or some other evangelical flavor), you may or may not know that every church has a group of deacons who serve as lay volunteers to assist in the church. In the Bible, deacons were appointed specifically to help with the feeding of the poor and redistribution of wealth within the church.
Nowadays, deacons have often devolved into those who also run the church, helping the pastor make monetary, building and other decisions. On the positive side, in most churches, the deacons help keep in touch with church members, make sure they’re doing okay, visit them in times of need…that sort of thing.
And, in some churches, they also help with poverty-related assistance, but this seems to be fairly rare.
In many (most?) Baptist churches, the process for becoming a deacon often involves a time of “grilling” – asking the deacons theological questions to make sure they’re religious enough to be deacons and that they believe correctly.
I bring this up because I was talking to a relative of mine who was recently nominated to be a deacon. Now, this is a fairly conservative relation and, after much prayer and consideration, he decided to give it a shot.
One concern he had was that he drinks alcohol occasionally – a few times a year in small amounts. Being aware that the Bible nowhere condemns the drinking of alcohol (and, in fact, encourages it in small amounts for one’s health), he figured that wasn’t a problem, but he brought it up to his pastor ahead of time to ask if it were a problem.
He said he’d even be willing to forgo drinking alcohol while a deacon, if it were a stumbling block for anyone. But, being a member of a church where biblical literality was essential and since alcohol isn’t condemned biblically, he figured he was okay.
Well, Baptists being what they are, he wasn’t okay. His nomination was rejected out of hand until such time as he’s “been off” alcohol for a few years to prove that he’s not a drinker.
My relation was stung by the “Literalists.”
Although still quite conservative, he was a bit put off by the incident. He didn’t realize that what he needed to believe literally was not the Bible but the traditions of that particular church (and denomination, for the most part).
We agreed that no one takes the Bible literally literally, page-for-page, word-for-word. Anyone who values biblical teaching has to weigh what the Bible says in each part against the whole and against our God-given reason.
And while it’s obvious that no one takes the Bible word-for-word literally (kill disrespectful children, don’t go to banks, don’t invest, free prisoners every seven years, return land to the original owners every 50 years, pluck out our eyes, love our enemies, overcome evil with good, etc, etc, etc), many prefer to think that the beliefs of their church ARE the literal teachings of the Bible – even the ones that contradict biblical teachings.
My relation agreed with me that what IS vital for Bible-believers is that we take the Truths of the Bible literally.
It’s a shame. My family member is a great, compassionate fellow who would have been a kind and responsible deacon.
84 comments:
I actually see the Bible as being filled with "absolutes" and "guidelines".
Examples of "absolutes" are one God, one Lord, one Spirit, one Body and one faith.
An example of "guidelines" are that you reap what you sow. Do we always reap what we sow? No and thank God that we don't.
But "guidelines" should never be made into laws!
It is so amusing when fundamentalists Christians attempt to be more righteous than God. As you pointed out, the Bible in no wise prohibits consuming alcohol.
The dodge and dance is elaborate and amusing. One denomination with which I am familiar employs the most convoluted and tortured logic to "prove" that it was grape juice and not wine at the Last Supper.
My question has always been, what about fat deacons? If you are to prove you are not a 'drinker' for several years, what about proving you are not a glutton?
Also in the list of qualifications for deacon is that they should be a 'man of one wife'. This is often used to keep single men from the deaconship. But what about divorced and remarried deacons?
And smoking? I recall deacons who were trembling and breaking out in a sweat suffering through a two hour service until they could bolt to the front door of the church for some 'burnt offering.' And yet they would rend their garments and give the Nostril Flare of Total Rejection (NFTR) at the thought of a can of beer.
We begin with the way we want to live and then bend and stretch the Bible to fit it. It always works that way and never in the reverse. I challenge anyone to show me a believer who began at a body of teaching and changed their lives rather than beginning with their lives and change the body of teaching.
Deacon is a loan word from Greek and means servant. Modern Christianity (last 1500 years or so) has just about universally taken this to mean someone with authority in the church who goes about his authoritarian task with the attitude of service. But the word 'deacon' properly applied in the Biblical sense would have them cleaning toilets and washing dishes.
Larry, I agree that there are absolutes in the Bible and much that falls into the category of guidelines and much else that falls into the category of "Guidelines for a Particular People in a Particular Place at a Particular Time."
I also think that there is much that is written that sounds like an Absolute (Eating Shrimp is an abomination!, Kill the disrespectful child) and yet, either later teaching or just God-given reason tells us it's not an absolute at all.
I think a problem is that the Bible is not written in such a way as to clearly define which ones are eternal absolutes in every situation. There's no footnote from the Author saying:
"[write this down: it's an absolute] Love your enemies"
Like it or not, we have to rely upon our own flawed reasoning, our own flawed traditions and our own flawed community to sort out the Absolute from the non-absolute.
Or so it seems to me.
"We begin with the way we want to live and then bend and stretch the Bible to fit it. It always works that way and never in the reverse. I challenge anyone to show me..."
Well, I agree with much of what you wrote here, Eleutheros, but I'd offer my position on gay marriage as an example of someone having a true change of heart on a position.
I had a belief system (gays can't marry - to even suggest it is sinful!) where I moved from that belief system to the opposite (it IS okay for gays to marry) after reading the Bible more closely and with an open heart.
I didn't WANT to believe that. It went against what I'd been taught and I was quite comfortable with what I was taught. But I was led to believe otherwise, by my way of thinking, by the Holy Spirit and God's Word.
Does that count?
Make that two of us on the gay thing -- and *that* was just the latest in a sting of cultural taboos I've been forced to drop at the foot of the Cross when overwhelmed by Grace, the first one being racism, and the KKK, when it was resurging in the late '70s-early-'80s when I was 15-18. I couldn't reconcile racism with the Love of Jesus then, and I can't reconcile homophobia with the love of Jesus now.
As for your friend, the would-be deacon: This experience, as painful as it was, will probably be seen before too long as one of the most meaningful in his Christian walk.
Oh, as for biblical literalism:
Check this out. It's pretty dadgum close!
www.fixedearth.com
(Shudder)
You reckon that site is for real or just a mock-literalist site?
Dan,
>I also think that there is much that is written that sounds like an Absolute (Eating Shrimp is an abomination!, Kill the disrespectful child) and yet, either later teaching or just God-given reason tells us it's not an absolute at all.
We've had more than one discussion on this...
The purpose of Christ's coming
That's the difference between the old and new covenants. If you are under the new covenant, then it doesn't make any sense to argue for the letter of the law.
Then why regard the Law at all? Didn't Jesus say the Law was summed us thusly? Love God, love your neighbor. So why are we still even talking about the Law. And, he dared to wonder, why is the OT even part of the non-Jewish Christian canon in the first place?
Dan, I think it's a real site. At my place I have a link to some discussion of how some lawmakers in Georgia and Texas embraasssed themselves by passing it around before they knew what it was about.
I grew up Lutheran but now attend a Baptist church. I like the way Lutherans run. The Pastor is in charge and the deacons are whoever return his phone calls and step up to help.
On a side note Dan, where in the Bible did you find any scripture that says gays can marry or it is ok to be gay in the first place.
You kind of had 2 topics in this one post--one on the nature of deacons and the other on hermeneutics (biblical interpretation). Since most others have commented on the second topic, I'll say something about the first. What Baptists have done is combine 2 biblical offices: elders and deacons. Deacons were originally servants--specifically those who ministered to the poor.
The elders were to help the pastor/shepherd with teaching and with matters requiring discernment (e.g., a case of church discipline or a crisis facing the church).
In theory, Baptist polity in the 17th C. (when we were getting started) collapsed the offices of elder and pastor (reducing the number of elders to one). In practice, the deacons got saddled with the elders' duties.
There is no biblical office specifically for handling finances, so the deacons have been stuck with that, too. The move in our congregation (and some other Baptist congregations) to move from committees to ministry teams, relieves some of the pressure off of deacons--enabling them to return to roles closer the NT norm.
Oooh, oooh! Let me!
"... where in the Bible did you find any scripture that says gays can marry or it is ok to be gay in the first place."
It's in the verse right after the one that says it's "OK" for blacks to marry whites, which is just after the one that says Indians are human beings, which is right after the one that says slaves can be saved, which is right after the one that says women can wear pants and work outside the home -- all of which at one time were ideas opposed by most of Christendom, which has been WRONG every time.
This is a perfect example of conservative Christians being completely out of touch with Christians in pretty much every other country on Earth. Even in Romania (Europe's Bible belt) a lot of Christians drink beer.
On the plus side, I'm sure your friend's church will nominate a female deacon now. ;) You know, like those ones in the Bible.
"On a side note Dan, where in the Bible did you find any scripture that says gays can marry or it is ok to be gay in the first place."
Well, it is a side note and I'll not start this conversation here and now, but here's a link to an earlier discussion on this blog, and here's one to Michael's even more thorough and ongoing discussion of the topic.
Like I said, I don't want to get in to an ongoing discussion off topic, but my brief response to your question, Rusty, is that nowhere in the Bible is gay marriage condemned, as ER has pointed out.
There are roughly five places in the entire Bible that either seem to or do condemn "men laying with men," or some similar allusion to what appears to be homosexual practice.
The problem is that the Bible has a lot of stuff to say about sexuality and relationships and it can be difficult to narrow it down to valid instructions that we ought to employ.
Do we have a harem, as David and others had? Do we treat women as chattel as happens throughout the Bible? Do we offer our daughters up to be raped as Lot did? Do we have mistresses and concubines as many did? Do we not marry at all, as Paul encouraged? Do we have but one wife or husband and, if so, is it permissable to divorce?
The Bible has many models about sexuality and some lessons that still apply and some that we all agree don't apply.
One rule that we nearly all can agree upon is that fidelity is a good thing. Committed relationships are a good thing. Healthy families are a good thing.
So, with the Bible being silent on gay marriage, I go with what we all agree to be good things: Committed healthy relationships and families.
I'll post a related topic again soon so we can have this discussion further, if anyone's interested.
Or, even better, be sure to read Michael's very thorough biblical analysis.
Dan said:>The problem is that the Bible has a lot of stuff to say about sexuality and relationships and it can be difficult to narrow it down to valid instructions that we ought to employ.
Romans resolves this issue:
Romans 1
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
It most certainly does not.
1., if one is same-sex oriented, then your whole premise collapses, since *that* is the expression of their "natural relations."
2., no one here, expect possibly yourself, equates "gay" with "burning in lust"
Lust bad. Love good. Multiple sex partners bad. Monogamy good. And vv. 28-32 are off the subject altogether.
Not necessarily, roger. The context is pretty clear that the people in this passage were first engaging in pagan religious fertility orgies. Only then did God give them over to what was unnatural for them: homosexual behavior.
>Not necessarily, roger. The context is pretty clear that the people in this passage were first engaging in pagan religious fertility orgies. Only then did God give them over to what was unnatural for them: homosexual behavior.
No, the first 3 chapters of Romans speaks to the various sins of all mankind. By the end of it, no one can boast that they were not included in there somewhere. Homosexuality is just one of many sins enumerated.
>Multiple sex partners bad. Monogamy good.
Note: homosexuality is defined and declared to be a sin by definition ('indecent acts', 'perversion') and not qualified by types of relationships. It's another sin listed in the laundry list of man's sins.
I'll ask everyone to withhold comments about homosexuality until the next post dealing with it. Thank you.
Well, I agree with much of what you wrote here, Eleutheros, but I'd offer my position on gay marriage as an example of someone having a true change of heart on a position.
I had a belief system (gays can't marry - to even suggest it is sinful!) where I moved from that belief system to the opposite (it IS okay for gays to marry) after reading the Bible more closely and with an open heart.
I didn't WANT to believe that. It went against what I'd been taught and I was quite comfortable with what I was taught. But I was led to believe otherwise, by my way of thinking, by the Holy Spirit and God's Word. (Dan's post)
You were the one that injected this subject. It is obvious that it is ok until a differing view from the BIBLE is quoted. I think you are having an argument with God. That's how it appears to me.
mom2, I addressed the topic of gay marriage in response to a question that WAS on topic. Not to divert the topic to gay marriage.
Mom2:"Well, I agree with much of what you wrote here, Eleutheros, but I'd offer my position on gay marriage as an example of someone having a true change of heart on a position."
Also to Dan and ER whose examples are similar. I said nothing about a change of heart. Your example, as Dan's and ER's, are clear instances of the very thing I was saying.
At one time you thought Gay marriage (for example) was wrong and your version of Christianity reflected that belief. When you came to see that your former position was mean and immoral, you changed it. And then you changed your version of Christianity to suit it. If you change your mind again, you will change Christianity again.
That's not the same thing as accepting a body of teaching, or a received text, and abiding by it even though at the present your heart doesn't agree with it or and you'd rather think and act some other way except for you acceptance of the authority of the teaching. Then you might say that you were changed by the teaching rather than changing the teaching to suit what you happen to find appealing.
Mom2:"You were the one that injected this subject."
What a ridiculous observation. Dan asks for comments on the qualifications for Deacons and my comment is how in deciding the criteria for deacons, people use their own preferences and biases and try to say they got those from the Bible.
Mom2:"I think you are having an argument with God. That's how it appears to me."
I think you are having an argument with a Sock Puppet. That's how it appears to me and God.
Mom2:"Well, I agree with much of what you wrote here, Eleutheros, but I'd offer my position on gay marriage as an example of someone having a true change of heart on a position."
Also to Dan and ER whose examples are similar. I said nothing about a change of heart. Your example, as Dan's and ER's, are clear instances of the very thing I was saying.
At one time you thought Gay marriage (for example) was wrong and your version of Christianity reflected that belief. When you came to see that your former position was mean and immoral, you changed it. And then you changed your version of Christianity to suit it. If you change your mind again, you will change Christianity again.
That's not the same thing as accepting a body of teaching, or a received text, and abiding by it even though at the present your heart doesn't agree with it or and you'd rather think and act some other way except for you acceptance of the authority of the teaching. Then you might say that you were changed by the teaching rather than changing the teaching to suit what you happen to find appealing.
Mom2:"You were the one that injected this subject."
What a ridiculous observation. Dan asks for comments on the qualifications for Deacons and my comment is how in deciding the criteria for deacons, people use their own preferences and biases and try to say they got those from the Bible.
Mom2:"I think you are having an argument with God. That's how it appears to me."
I think you are having an argument with a Sock Puppet. That's how it appears to me and God.
Sorry, Eleutheros. I know that you are Dan's resident authority and I forgot to bow down to you. Birds of a feather stick together. Nothing better than some good old back slapping. Have a good day, all of you.
>I think you are having an argument with a Sock Puppet. That's how it appears to me and God.
No one is forcing you to believe in the authority of scripture. So, please don't scoff at those that do believe.
Awwwww! Poor little victim.
What victim are you talking about, Daddio? My conservative relative who won't get to be a deacon? Are you mocking conservatives now?
Well, since being a deacon is a position of service that takes hours from the deacon and (ideally) helps people in the church, it would be the church that is the victim in this case.
It just means less work for my conservative relative.
I was speaking of Dan's brother, of course.
"That's how it appears to me and God." -Eluthiwhatever
Seated on his LEFT hand, are you?
I will also apologize to eleutheros for the misquote "Birds of a feather, flock together". Must not show my ignorance, it might offend e.
There really is a God though e and I will not apologize for that statement, plus He has a Son Jesus.
Re, "At one time you thought Gay marriage (for example) was wrong and your version of Christianity reflected that belief. When you came to see that your former position was mean and immoral, you changed it. And then you changed your version of Christianity to suit it. If you change your mind again, you will change Christianity again."
I don't quite see it that way, Eleutheros. Rather, I recognized that my position, and that of other gay-bashing Christians, was mean and immoral and actually went against the core message of the Gospel. I didn't change Christianity. I repented of my arrogance on the subject and quite pretending that my own personal feelings were the voice of God. And *that* is well within the standard concepts of what the Christian life is all about: a dynamic journey, not a static state.
Roger:"No one is forcing you to believe in the authority of scripture. So, please don't scoff at those that do believe."
I wouldn't scoff if I could find one.
So far I haven't found one.
I find a lot of people who have some body of biases and beliefs who use the Scripture to endorse and justify those biases. But so far I have found no one who actually believes in the authority of scripture apart from their own 'druthers.
A person, 'believer' if you will, who accepts the authority of scripture would have in their mind a clear way of deciding what that authority required of them, that is, how they would interpret scripture.
Then they would so interpret it and abide by it no matter how they felt about it or it flew in the face of what they would prefer to believe.
THAT would be accepting the authority of scripture, not taxing the imagination and cleverness of the "believer" to explain away everything the scripture says that they don't like and to inject into it things that they do like - for example, the teaching that says you can't be deacon if you drink at all.
Now to attempt to clarify the point that isn't coming across (small wonder):
We have before us the posit that the Bible is the authoritative Word from God and we must conform ourselves to it (and not it to us).
I recognize the authority of the laws of my state. I don't agree with nor like all the laws. But I obey them none the less. I think many of the laws are to enable big businesses to have a monopoly over their smaller competition to everyone's disadvantage. The reasons I obey the laws is that it leads to a much more peaceable life of not looking over one's shoulder and I recognize that we must have a body of laws of some kind. In the meantime of improving them, the right thing to do is obey them.
And there are people who just don't understand, maybe aren't able to understand, why certain laws are necessary. They don't like those laws and yet by and large they obey them because the recognize the legitimate authority of those laws.
I don't always like the laws of economics, finance, nature, reality. But I must comply with them.
It should be highly suspect, says I, that an encompassing body of teachings such as the Bible and/or Christianity ... one should find that they are comfortable and in agreement with the whole. Surely we mere mortals in all our limitations and imperfections would find some of the Ultimate Writ uncomfortable, incomprehensible, and we (being evil) wouldn't like parts of it.
Yet I find that the conservative who wants to ostracize, interfer with women's reproductive rights, bomb the ungodly, and give the NFTR at the mention of beer is very comfortable with all the Bible's teachings on those subjects.
Likewise I find that the Uber-Liberal who wants to ordain Gay ministers, extort money from the folk to pay them to be a professional peacenik, and take all the miltary budget to support the poor ... they are very comfortable with the what the Bible has to say about those things.
If a person REALLY accepted the authority of the Bible as being a wisdom and insight far beyond their own, there would be man things in that teaching that they would not agree with, would not like, and none the less would comply with them.
If the authority endorses war, then no matter what we think about it personally, war it is. If the authority teaches polygamy (which the Bible does) then polygamy it is. Any reasoning we come up with on why we think it is a mistake or we don't like it does not obtain. We obey anyway.
THAT's what accepting the authority of scriptures would look like. And as yet, I see no one thus accepting it.
Hmm...I came into this conversation a little late, but I want to share what happened to a dear deaf friend of mine who has now gone on to be with the Lord. He was a deacon for many years in a deaf Baptist church. He owned a small business and one day was robbed at gun pont, was shot, and left for dead. A customer came in and found him. His recovery was very long. He almost didn't make it. In the meantime his wife decided to go to a nearby Baptist church that had an interpreted ministry to the deaf rather than drive way across town to the deaf church. They ended up moving their membership because the deaf church was just too far and her husband's recovery too long. The doctor told him to drink a glass of red wine every day to aid in his recovery and healing. There were quite a few deaf people attending this church and, naturally, the next step would be to call him as a deacon at the new church. He, too, had to go through a "grilling" and in the end he was excluded as deacon because of the glass of wine he drank every day for medicinal purposes. It is a real shame. He may not have had the name "deacon" anymore, but he was a servant of the Lord and my family benefited greatly from his love and service. He and his wife, both gone now, were true friends and had a great love in their heart for others.
>THAT's what accepting the authority of scriptures would look like. And as yet, I see no one thus accepting it.
What about you? Do you accept Jesus as the Lord? Scripture plainly teaches that we're all sinners and that there is no way we can save ourselves. He is the only way.
Dang it! I can't edit like I want to.
Roger, no proselytizing. If you want to ask something personal, invite someone to email you.
The topics at hand are deacons and church rules versus biblical teachings. Comment on those topics if you'd like.
Roger, no proselytizing. If you want to ask something personal, invite someone to email you.>
Now, that is a no, no! You can talk about churches and their policies about deacons if you want to criticize, but don't be doing any Matt. 28: 19 stuff on here. That's positive stuff, don't you know? :)
mom2, have you changed your underwear today? Do you ever wear g-strings? What's the worst thing you ever did? You want to tell us all about it?
...
I'd prefer, out of politeness, that we not pry into folk's private business any more than they indicate they want to share.
I'd prefer that we stay on-topic, because a forum such as this is chaotic enough without wandering to and fro, from topic to topic.
You want to enourage your sort of evangelism? That's fine. Do it on your time and at your own place, though.
Thank you.
mom2, have you changed your underwear today? Do you ever wear g-strings? What's the worst thing you ever did? You want to tell us all about it?>
NOW, THAT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS AND VERY SNARKY!, YOUNG MAN.
And you never go to anyone else's site promoting your agendas?
For your info, I bath and wear clean clothes daily, if that means so much to you.
Elueu,
Your last post demonstrated the very reason that there will be no peace on earth as long as man in in charge.
And rightly so!
>I'd prefer that we stay on-topic
Isn't this post about what the church should rightly be doing? Shouldn't the folks debating this be part of the body of Christ - or is the church not led by the Spirit but rather by consensus of men - saved and unsaved?
The question of whether Jesus is Lord has consistently brought either silence or demands to quit proselytizing - hardly the response you'd expect of a sinner who deserves death but has been given life by the grace of Jesus. That's a troubling response any way you slice it.
1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
We can talk all we want about the social and ethical actions of the church - but if that comes at the expense of the spiritual truths of the gospel, then something is terribly wrong.
Dan, would you rather pass by on the other side because you've got somewhere else to be (ie - stay on topic) or do you want to be a good Samaritan and meet needs where they arise?
Years from now nobody will remember what we said about deacons or church rules - however if in the course of that discussion we shared a life-giving truth and as a result someone accepted Christ - then that has an eternal impact.
Aiiiigh! So many dichotomies there my eyes crossed!
...
Jesus is Lord.
There. Now, define that.
In fact, there's my post for the day.
Dan,
Sometimes I am envious of how many people visit and regularly comment on your blog. Then there's days like today--when I thank God that only a few of the jerks who regularly spam your blog ever visit mine--and not nearly as often!
Of the 2 topics on your post, last time I addressed the nature of deacons. This time, I have to say something about biblical interpretation. Eleutheros seems to be of the opinion that ALL Christians treat Scripture like a wax nose--bending it into whatever shape is desired to meet views held on other grounds. While I admit that this happens more often than most of us admit and it is something that all need to beware of, I think it is a distortion of what happens in many cases where Scripture as canon is taken seriously--as is the necessity of interpretation.
In some ways Christianity is like Judaism: We both have fixed canons--and a tradition made up of endless series of conversations (debates, disagreements) over the meaning of that canon. The tradition changes over time--but not all changes are equally faithful nor all interpretations equally valid. Now, some versions of Christianity (e.g.,Roman Catholicism) have an official body that can declare winners and losers in such conversations/debates. But even that can change: St. Thomas Aquinas was originally considered a heretic and now is THE Doctor of the Church for Catholics.
In "Free Church" traditions, such as Baptists (a version of which Dan and I belong to), there is no all-powerful Magisterium to decide such things. We are left with the debates--whoever can persuade the most others is the "winner of the moment," but that can also change.
But, again, that does not mean that all approaches to interpretation are equally valid, all interpretations are equally good--or that the current winners are right. Nor, contra Roger, is any of this "settled" by affirming the authority of Scripture. Scriptural authority CREATES the problem of interpretation; it doesn't solve it.
There are skills and tools one can develop: I have labored to become proficient in Greek and Hebrew (more successfully with Greek than Hebrew!), learned much about the background of texts, tried to learn the skills of good, close readings, etc. But there is also the work of the Spirit--and some people seem to have a gift of interpretation that others lack. (I think of the Presbyterian OT scholar, Walter Brueggemann, for instance, who can look at the same passage I do and see so much more there--and yet, when I check again, he seldom seems to have been "over-reading.")
Michael, thanks for the enlightening comments. However, regarding:
"when I thank God that only a few of the jerks who regularly spam your blog ever visit mine-"
I'll thank you not to call my visitors "jerks," no matter how well-deserved it may seem. I like nearly all my visitors, even those who have trouble staying on topic or who are rude. I have troubles with staying on topic and rudeness myself, so I'm willing to grant them the patience I'd appreciate being offered to me.
Another response to Eleutheros' problem with "accepting the authority of scripture," (although Michael and ER have done a fine job), would be the notion of God's Word or God's Will.
Ultimately, the Bible is not my authority, but God. I don't worship the Bible nor limit my revelation to its pages. God can reveal God's Self to me - us - in any number of ways.
If we were to limit my revelation of God to just the Bible, then we would have had no direct Word telling us to end slavery. Instead, we see in the Bible the reflection of God's person and God's love of humanity and can't square that with slavery and so we step beyond the Bible's pages sometimes to make decisions on matters not contained therein.
This, of course, is dangerous. Why, if we might be inspired outside of God's Word, then who knows what people may say god told them.
"God told me to commit mass suicide with my followers."
"God told me to prepare for Armageddon by holing up in a shack with a bunch of guns and bombs and encourage my people to fight."
But we can very well have this sort of behavior even when we say we limit our revelation to what the Bible actually says.
It's a chaotic world with a bunch of us loons running around with free will and not always a good balance. It is what it is.
Roger, I disagree with your sort of evangelism. Evangelism that begins with "Are you saved? If you died tonight, do you know where you'd spend eternity?", is not in fitting with my idea of Christianity.
You want to practice that sort of evangelism? Knock yerself out, but do it at your place.
Thank you.
"...few of the jerks who regularly spam your blog..."
LOL!
Little old ladies who tie you in knots you mean, Michael?
A little chink in that "namecalling" armor, huh?
Besides...spammers are better than folks whose only intent is to clutter others' blogs with deceit!
Speaking of jerks...
My one visitor for whom I might make an exception to the name-calling rule. Not because I believe in name-calling but because he is most often, in reality, a jerk - one whose sole intent appears to be to spread discontent and untruths but not add anything to the conversation. See above comments for verification.
Daddio. Be on topic or be gone.
Much of what is considered Christian values has more to do with cultural traditions than what the Bible says. The use of alcohol is a good example. My seminary forbids students, faculty, and staff to drink. Although this is probably a good idea for practical reasons, the rule was instituted in the 1920s out of a belief that drinking was unChristian. Contrary to what, you know, the Bible says.
That's why its important that all Christians, especially the laity, engage in conversation about ethical formulation instead of just assuming that tradition=Christianity.
Good post, Dan.
D.Daddio:"Your last post demonstrated the very reason that there will be no peace on earth as long as man in in charge."
Rather it demonstrates the very reason that there will be no peace on earth as long as people with God sock puppets on their fists are in charge.
>Ultimately, the Bible is not my authority, but God.
That's not the narrow path but the widely traveled one Dan. You're in the same theological group as many cults. The end result is that the true God of the Bible is dismissed and an alternate god is chosen.
>God can reveal God's Self to me - us - in any number of ways.
How do you know it is God's self if it's not biblical? Scripture says that Satan (the enemy of God) can sometimes appear to be an angel of God.
Roger, how do you know your interpretation of the Bible is of God and not of Satan?
>Roger, how do you know your interpretation of the Bible is of God and not of Satan?
If my understanding of scripture can't be verified by anything else in scripture, then that's a good sign I have a personal interpretation instead of a truthful understanding of it.
2 Peter 1:19-21
19And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Concerning the One Liner Evangelism as seen here:
Yesterday I just fielded yet another telemarketer call from a time share promoter where, supposedly, you are given an all expense paid 4 day vacation just for viewing the facilities and listening to a 90 minute spiel.
What invariably happens is that after the slide presentation and talk the salesperson will say that you can subscribe to the time share at a very reduced rate but it is a one time offer. You must write them a check for the first payment right then or the deal is off forever.
The weak minded and weak willed who write the check find out later that it's no deal at all, in fact the price and conditions are highly inflated.
So when I get these calls (try this) I simply say that, sure, I'd be interested in taking them up on their offer. Only I must have in my had a document that states whatever offer is made at the time of the presentation is good for 30 days so that I can think about it and compare their offer.
No one takes me up on this. I make my counter offer not because I'd be interested in a time share, but rather to point out to the telemarketer that he or she is participating in a scam. Most of them assure me that such a document will be no problem until they talk to their supervisor who nixes the idea in the bud. They will in no wise compromise their setting up the dupe for the cheap salesman's trick of "one time offer."
It's cheap salesman's tricks that I want to address. At some point in all such discussions as is taking place here on Dan's blog someone pipes up with (to wit) What about you? Do you accept Jesus as the Lord? Scripture plainly teaches that we're all sinners and that there is no way we can save ourselves.
What? Is this the best that God can come up with? God Almighty, Creator and Ruler of the Universe, pantocrator, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent ... and all He can do is have His followers come up with a cheap salesman's trick like this?
As well to put up some balloons, some of those triangle banners, and don the checkered jacket.
Oh, I know the would be evangelist takes every opportunity to quip this spiel and then punches their Evangelism Bingo card once again "witnessing" for Jesus.
So to those who repeat the inane cheap salesman's trick over and over, I know you like to view it as a soul shattering, eternal and cosmic question and you imagine the querant shuttering with wave of cold from the impact of the question, fraught with guilt and fear at being reminded of their state.
But rather it makes you look like a sleazy moronic salesman in a checkered jacket trying to use a cheap salesman's trick to trap the weak minded.
And so that's God's representative, is it?
Okay Roger, I can verify with scripture that we ought to kill disrespectful children. It is taught thusly in the OT and Jesus verifies it in the NT.
I can verify in scripture that we ought to treat women as chattel, that we ought to kill those who worship other gods (even our parents!), that the earth is flat and standing still in the center of the universe!
We can "prove" all manner of stuff using scripture as our reference. That's why we need to rely upon God as our source of Truth even moreso than the Bible (which I love). It's not so much a flaw with the Bible as it is a matter of flaws in our interpretations, it would seem to me.
>What about you? Do you accept Jesus as the Lord? Scripture plainly teaches that we're all sinners and that there is no way we can save ourselves.
God knows what He's talking about when He said that only those born again can honestly confess that Jesus is Lord. There is a spiritual truth there that self militates against the Lordship of Christ - and we can't bring ourselves to publicly confess that if we haven't been saved.
>Okay Roger, I can verify with scripture that we ought to kill disrespectful children. It is taught thusly in the OT and Jesus verifies it in the NT.
Dan, that's the old covenant again. If you're under the new, why are you arguing for the letter of the law?
>I can verify in scripture that we ought to treat women as chattel, that we ought to kill those who worship other gods (even our parents!), that the earth is flat and standing still in the center of the universe!
Where does God treat His creation as subhuman (men often do, but that's not God's standard, is it)? Where is the principle to kill the infidels? Where is God's ignorance of His creation revealed?
>It's not so much a flaw with the Bible as it is a matter of flaws in our interpretations, it would seem to me.
But you're saying the Bible is not our authority - because it's flawed, right? God authored it in such a confusing, contradictory manner that we can't make sense of it. So, we better go with what seems right...?
Proverbs 14:12
There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.
No, I'm not saying the Bible is flawed (didn't you read the words of mine that you quoted?) but rather, I'm saying WE'RE flawed. We have a limited genius and cultural prejudices and it is borne out historically that we HAVE in fact sometimes misread the Bible.
Were/Are those who read the Bible and think it clearly says that the earth is the center of the universe and doesn't move ("The world also is stablished that it cannot be moved." Psalm 93:1), were they wrong? Yes, clearly scientific observation tells us they were wrong.
We HAVE unquestionably got it wrong in the past and we DO get it wrong today. Sometimes.
You stated:
"Dan, that's the old covenant again. If you're under the new, why are you arguing for the letter of the law? "
We were talking about what people can and do find when they read the Bible. Some people find those rules in the Old and New Testaments that you and I may reject. The point is, that people who say they rely upon scripture alone find all manner of oddities to support.
The Bible is not my God. God is my God.
>We were talking about what people can and do find when they read the Bible.
Errors result when we neglect the context:
Psalm 93
The LORD Reigns
1The LORD reigns; he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed; he has put on strength as his belt.
Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
2Your throne is established from of old;
you are from everlasting.
>it clearly says that the earth is the center of the universe and doesn't move
So, how does the Lord literally robe Himself in 'majesty' - or put on a belt of 'strength'? The context illuminates the Lord's characteristics and underscores His unique creative and sustaining abilities - and doesn't seem to be talking about a literal movement of the planet. Verse two confirms that for us.
>I can verify in scripture that we ought to treat women as chattel, that we ought to kill those who worship other gods (even our parents!), that the earth is flat and standing still in the center of the universe!
Are you saying scripture truthfully says that or that people incorrectly interpret it that way?
>We HAVE unquestionably got it wrong in the past and we DO get it wrong today. Sometimes.
That's our problem, and not scripture's, right? For example, if you don't know the local speed limit laws and get caught speeding, you're still guilty and have to pay the fine, right?
>The point is, that people who say they rely upon scripture alone find all manner of oddities to support.
People who don't rely on scripture support all kinds of things too. What does that prove?
>The Bible is not my God. God is my God.
If the bible is God's word and you believe that, how can you separate it from the nature of God Himself?
It's like saying, "I like Dan, but what he has said in his blog is not trustworthy" - which is equivalent to calling Dan a liar.
>No, I'm not saying the Bible is flawed
I know you're not literally saying that but how is that not what you're saying in principle?
Is it God's fault that He didn't author a Bible that 100% of sinful man could interpret rightly? Or is the problem that man is sinful? Why is your problem with His book instead of sinful man who misinterprets it?
Also, do you believe that God will not impart the truth of His word to a truth seeker?
Dan said to me, "I'll thank you not to call my visitors "jerks," no matter how well-deserved it may seem."
Okay, I apologize. That was, however, the most polite term I could think of for people who just refuse to abide by the (very few) rules you have for comments and keep on with their own agendas regardless. But name-calling is hardly ever productive, so I repent.
It's obvious to anyone that reads a thread such as this that it doesn't take long before we've all sinned in some manner in the process of commenting on the very thread. Whether it's not treating people like we'd want to be treated, or name-calling, or whatever. And to think that back in our debate of the sermon on the mount we were reminded that just thinking the thoughts were sinful - let alone acting on them! An impossible standard? Yes - because we're all sinners. Another reminder of our spiritual need. Is it any wonder that Jesus says we can do nothing without Him?
Thanks, Michael.
Roger said:
"do you believe that God will not impart the truth of His word to a truth seeker?"
This is the point where we disagree, Roger. Yes, God can and does impart God's Truth to us. BUT BEING FLAWED HUMAN BEINGS, we sometimes get it wrong. If we got God's Word to us right every time, then we no longer would be human and we would have become gods ourselves.
You apparently think that once we're "truly" saved, then we'll have the magic ability to never be mistaken about knowing God's will. You have said, I believe, that you think that we always know when we sin and it is that deliberate choice to sin which makes it so bad.
I would disagree. I think sometimes we deliberately know something is a bad and do it anyway, BUT SOMETIMES, we don't know the good to embrace and, given a choice, embrace the bad thinking it good.
Let's assume for a minute that you're correct about gay marriage and it's wrong: I don't celebrate gay marriages because I think it's wrong, that'd be ridiculous. I embrace it exactly because I think it's right. Because, after having read the Bible and prayed about it, I think celebrating gay marriage is the right thing to do.
Is it possible I'm wrong? It's always a possibility that I'm wrong, since I'm human and we make mistakes. But I don't think so.
You don't think you're wrong to support Bush's Iraq invasion (or perhaps war in general, I'm not sure of your position on Iraq). You've read the Bible and - despite some pretty clear cut words about what we're to do with enemies - think that it's okay to kill enemies sometimes.
You don't embrace that position out of a desire to do wrong, but rather out of a desire to do right. But you may well be wrong. I certainly think you are.
Yes, yes, yes, God does impart God's truth to anyone who has ears to hear, but sometimes our hearing is not so good.
Dan,
While I certainly agree with you that we worship God and not the Bible, I doubt that many conservatives worship the Bible, either. Not even most inerrantists, though it sometimes seems as if they do. Even those who are cessationists (arguing not only for an inerrant Bible, but that God stopped talking after Revelation was penned) are not really worshipping the Bible. So, that's kind of a red herring.
And, sure, I can endorse the UCC slogan, "God is Still Speaking" and say that God reveals God's Self through nature, experience, miracle, etc. But we judge the validity of these other sources by Scripture. To call a group of writings "Scripture," or a "canon," MEANS that the group which views them in this way will judge all other purported authorities by those. Thus, the problem of interpretation and authority are intrinsically intertwined.
Because I know you, personally, I still think that our views are closer than either of us are to your conservative critics (who sometimes are mine, too). But the way you phrased the whole "worship God or Bible" debate sounded odd--and if I didn't know you, I'd suspect that I was (at least a little) closer to the conservatives than to you on this point.
God speaks through other media than Scripture--but nowhere else does God speak in the same way and with the same authority. I have heard God in Wendell Berry poems, but never been tempted to add them to the Book of Psalms, for instance.
Nor have I, Michael.
Thanks for the comments, I'll take them under consideration.
My comments are in response to this whole, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," approach to the Bible. Yes, the Bible is God's Word to us, but it says a great deal and we have to use our God-given reason to sort through it.
Do we not eat shrimp (which is an abomination in the OT) or is it okay (as in the NT)? Did God change God's mind on the matter - did it USED to be an abomination to eat shrimp but now it's okay?
Do we wage war as happens sometimes in the OT and how do we do that and still love our enemies which we're commanded to do in the NT?
I am sick and tired of those who express matters in terms of "Well God said so in the Bible, so there! You have to agree with me or be damned."
And I'm sure you agree with me on all this and are just as sick of that sort of twisting of the Bible.
I'm just making clear the distinction between following God and following traditions that we've been TOLD were clearly commanded by God in the Bible.
Sturgeon said, "The biggest problem with Christianity are not the opponents of the Bible, but rather, it's proponents."
The Bible without the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit always becomes a legalistic tome.
Larry, with whom I mostly agree has left me with questions. Is that a fence straddling post or what?
Larry, with whom I often disagree, has stated something which I can agree with.
Dan,
Wait till you hear this: I even believe that many Christians make the Bible into an idol to be bowed down before. Rather than bowing before the Living Word.
Have I gone toooo far? Or is this one of those rare red-letter days for Dan and Larry?
Dan,
If man is sinful and can't always be trusted to hear God speaking to them from the pages of scripture, how can he be trusted to hear Him speaking to him personally given the reality of spiritual deception in the unseen realm? Scripture says to test the spirits against scripture - yet you imply that wouldn't be conclusive. You are setting yourself up to be deceived with this doctrine.
You have to remember, that God will hold us accountable to understand what we're capable of understanding. So, mans imperfection (or sinfulness as scripture rightly calls it) is no excuse - it's the very problem!
>Yes, God can and does impart God's Truth to us. BUT BEING FLAWED HUMAN BEINGS, we sometimes get it wrong. If we got God's Word to us right every time, then we no longer would be human and we would have become gods ourselves.
Why don't we get it right? Because of our sin, right? Scripture teaches that we can know truth - but it means that we must be obedient to the Spirit as He leads. Obedience is at the core of this whole discussion. And you know what that means, the accountability is back in our corner. That's why the truthfulness of God's word is such a taboo subject - we don't like to think about accountability for sin (imperfection, flaws, whatever word you want to use). God is not only love, mercy and grace, He's also going to be our judge one day.
>Do we not eat shrimp (which is an abomination in the OT) or is it okay (as in the NT)? Did God change God's mind on the matter - did it USED to be an abomination to eat shrimp but now it's okay?
Scripture answers that for you.
Mark 7:14-23 : not a moral law
Colossians 2:16-17 : no longer necessary because of Christ
Again, God will hold us accountable to understand what we're capable of understanding.
It IS a red-letter day for us, Larry!
Two for two!
Wait till you hear this: I even believe that many Christians make the Bible into an idol to be bowed down before. Rather than bowing before the Living Word.>
How can we know that? It is God that searches the heart, I thought. Would you like to name something better to love than God's Word. His Word is sharper than a two edged sword, so loving the Word should open the heart and understanding. I Know, I better restate that and say that first, We love God above all else.
mom2,
I love the Bible. I love studying scriptures. I believe in the Bible. And obviously, I enjoy debating and writing about scriptures.
But remember this: Jesus is the Truth. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth.
Most of the different Christian streams - pentecostal, charismatic, baptist, etc. - use their revelations as swords to cut up the other groups. And after a while the revelations become like the brass serpent which Moses made in the wilderness according to the Lord's commands. They become idols to be worshipped.
Maybe, we need a new Hezekiah to smash up our brass serpents. Then, we can read the Bible as it should be - in the power of the Holy Spirit.
The early church had no Bible and did miracles and walked in unity. We American Christians have Bibles, few miracles and no unity. Is there something wrong with this picture?
>But remember this: Jesus is the Truth. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth.
Don't forget 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us'. John 1:14
>The early church had no Bible and did miracles and walked in unity. Is there something wrong with this picture?
Miracles and unity are results of the Spirit. So, I guess the logical question is, "Where is the Spirit? What could be hindering Him?"
Re, "Would you like to name something better to love than God's Word."
1. The Lord our God.
2. Our neighbors as ourselves.
Re, "You have to remember, that God will hold us accountable to understand what we're capable of understanding."
Then Jesus died in vain. All any of us ever had to do was understand.
Bah. People who think they can bargain with God for salvation by being righteous, or being "good," or doing "good," or by gaining wisdom and understanding, by being holy or obedient or doing ANYTHING but throwing themsevles down on theor face at the foto of the Cross and saying O, God, save me, a sinner -- haven't even HEARD the Gospel, no matter how well-versed they might be in the Bible. IMHO.
ER, It is not our works that save us but Jesus did say that if you love Me, keep my commandments. Our salvation is by grace, through faith and that not of ourselves lest we should boast. I think that our love and gratefulness for his grace should then show forth by our love and obedience. What better guide to show us how to be obedient, than His Word.
I don't disagreee with you, Mom2. However, we have widely divergent notions about what the Word is, what it says, and what it means.
>Then Jesus died in vain. All any of us ever had to do was understand.
It's not just about understanding, but obedience. The demons know all about Jesus and the truth - but they didn't obey the truth.
>Re, "Would you like to name something better to love than God's Word."
>1. The Lord our God.
>2. Our neighbors as ourselves.
Where did you learn of those? From God's word...
Re, "The early church ... walked in unity."
Not as much as is widely believed.
The early church was widely NOT united. Good grief, you can see some of the earliest conflicts right in the NT--Between Paul and Peter, Paul & James, at Corinth between the party of Paul, the party of Apollos, etc.
The church was disunited from the beginning. The later unity was created by forcing out those who disagreed with the early church councils.
There is one major exception to this: Before Constantine, the church is nearly unanimous in its pacifism. After Constantine the church made peace with militarism and empire. That was the death of true Christianity.
>That was the death of true Christianity.
That's a troubling statement, Michael. Do you believe Christianity is merely social/ethical in nature? Who can kill the Holy Spirit? Truth is evidenced in reality - of who God is and what He does - not in what man declares it to be.
I'd suspect that Michael means that when we rejected Jesus' teaching of peacemaking, it was the death of the faithful church. Of course, nothing can truly destroy the church, it has always had a small remnant that remains faithful.
But the church at large embraced militarism and rejected Jesus' teaching with Constantine.
For years, I've said, with judt a littlr exaggeration, that the worst thing to happen to Christianity was Constantine's "conversion."
Lately, I've been thinking that the worst thing to happen to the Bible was the printing press: Everyman a theologian!
"Lately, I've been thinking that the worst thing to happen to the Bible was the printing press: Everyman a theologian!"
No way. It sounds like you are being facetious, but which option is better. 1) Only a select few have access to the Bible. Their interpretation becomes all the laypeople's interpretation. If these select few get it wrong, well, we are screwed. 2) Everyone has their own interpretation. Some people get it more right than others, but one person getting it wrong doesn't screw everyone else up.
Think of it this way. This particular person has the choice of churches, each with their own interpretation. If only a select few had access to the Bible, they would have fewer choices. The printing press allows everyone to have direct access to God's word, not a pipeline through the pope or anything like that.
Post a Comment