Interpretation and Dialogue?

After President Obama’s announcement that he supports the right of homosexuals to marry, people have weighed in on both sides with renewed fervor. Or does it just seem that way? The dialogue (if we dare call it that) has been going on for a long time; though, I’m not sure dialogue is the right word. It is more along the lines of sound bites and rehashed phrases with little substantive argument on either side, at least in the public square.

For instance, NPR has an article front and center today—2nd article, middle column. The article shows people on both sides of the issue using the Bible for their purposes. The article even has someone quoting the oft used line,

“‘When you read the Bible, you can find justification for almost anything,’ she says, ‘including slavery, the subjection of women and an argument that the sun actually revolves around the earth.’” The she is Susan Russell, an Episcopal priest in California. This is true of course; you can find justification for almost anything—if you take things out of context, which is what many Christians do who are on both sides of this issue—and lots of other issues as well.

For instance (rabbit trail alert!), someone this morning sent me a link for a man who was coming to the area to talk about prophecy. So, I went to his website to confirm the fact that I wasn’t going to hear him. He too was weighing in on the homosexual marriage issue (ok, so it’s not that big of a rabbit trail), but with a different slant: why Jesus was coming back soon. And he used the Bible to show why. But his use of the Bible was no different than Susan Russell’s. He, too, pulled things out of context. You can read the article here, but here is a summary of his logic.

1) God destroyed Sodom for their homosexuality. 2) The author says, “Jesus said as the days of Lot so will it [sic] be the time when I return to the earth.” 3) Therefore, since homosexuality is prevalent now as it was then, Jesus must be returning soon.

Ok, let’s break down this logic. 1) While homosexuality (actually, I think there is an argument for rampant sexual perversion, not just homosexuality) was evident in Sodom, that is not the reason for it’s destruction. The sexual perversion of the day was a part of a greater spiritual issue. In Ezekiel 16 we read that Sodom’s pride, material prosperity, and love of pleasure (including sexual perversion) was her downfall. The author has failed to consider the context of not only Genesis but the narrative of the Old Testament as a whole. 2 & 3) The author takes the “days of Lot” phrase out of its context in Luke 17. Jesus was not referring to their sin, but to their going on with life without a care in the world. They were simply going on with the daily activities of life without ever realizing that they were in peril. That is how it will be when Jesus returns, nothing unusual going on. This is sloppy logic and sloppy reading.

Now back to Russell’s quote. The slavery issue is beyond complex. I think she is wrong—with qualifications, but this post would get really, really long, and that misses the point. The other two: subjugation of women and the earth revolving around the sun (did she really say that?) are another issue. People have believed the Bible says this in part because, I think, Christians have acted that way. Therefore, we assume the Bible gave them permission to do so. Yet, the Bible does not, anywhere give Christians permission to subjugate women, nor does the Bible say the sun revolves around the earth, any more than I say it does when I remark, “What a beautiful sunrise!” To use the subjugation of women issue when bringing up homosexuality is not to give the Bible a clear reading. To use the sun/earth example is a subtle attempt, without any rational support, to paint people who are opposed to homosexual marriage as flat earthers, i.e, ignorant. The irony there is palpable.

What is interesting is the author of the article also jumps into the fray, saying that the Bible condones polygamy (which again comes from a failure to read the Bible in context), without giving any justification. Which is another problem I have. People on both sides of issues invoke the authority of the Bible without giving any meaningful proof. And then people say, “You can justify almost anything with the Bible.”

Actually, you can’t, and to throw out that sound bite in hopes of silencing an opponent shows an inability to engage in rational conversation in hopes of changing someone’s mind. We have lost the art of civil discourse in this nation. And we have lost the art of rational discussion. My hope is that we could return to a rational, civil dialogue and engage the Bible in its context without picking and choosing what we like.

I

Andy Stanley and What Has NOT Been Talked About

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recently wrote an article on his blog about megachurches. In the article, he referenced an April 15 sermon (click on message 5: When Gracie Met Truthy) by Andy Stanley of North Point Community Church in Atlanta where Stanley seems to normalize homosexual behavior. After reading the article and listening to the sermon and then reading several other articles, what amazes me is what people weren’t upset about. Of course, many in the evangelical world would be upset about his apparent normalization and acceptance of homosexual behavior, but no one seemed to notice three bigger, underlying issues.

First, Stanley says that Jesus’ love was messy, inconsistent, unfair, and confusing. Granted, he sort of implied that these were from our perspective—but not really. Because he went on to say that when our love seems messy, inconsistent, unfair, and confusing, we must be doing it right. I would disagree. First, while things may have appeared messy, inconsistent, unfair, and confusing from the disciples’ or our point of view, they certainly were not from Jesus’ point of view. And we need to keep that in mind. Stanley says that when we try to figure it out, we are in danger of losing something. Again, I would disagree. We need to understand why Jesus was not inconsistent or unfair (from our point of view) so that we can accurately display God’s love as well. To imply that Jesus was inconsistent and unfair shows a lack of understanding about Jesus’ deity. He was not just a man who changed the rules. Certainly he related to different people in different ways, but he was perfectly consistent in his love, grace, truth, justice, and holiness.

Second, Stanley redefined two key theological terms: grace and truth. In giving a long list of things that grace means, he said, “Grace says, ‘You’re fine.’” But Grace does not say, “You’re fine.” In fact, grace is the loud and clear declaration that we are not fine. Grace is getting something we don’t deserve. If we are fine, we don’t need grace, and therefore, we don’t need God. This is a horrible representation of what grace is. He also said, in a long string of what truth means, that truth says, “You’ve got to work it out.” Truth does not say that in the Bible. Truth says, “You can’t work it out, but God can.” Stanley even pitted grace and truth against each other like two parents raising a child. While he didn’t use this analogy, I came across with the perception of good cop/bad cop sort of deal. But again, this is not correct. God is both grace and truth. They do not battle each other, and certainly grace is not untruth, as Stanley implied. Granted, Stanley did say, on more than one occasion, that Jesus was complete grace and complete truth, and he even had a nice visual to demonstrate this. But the previous long explanation about the differences between the two stayed in my mind as well, and they were what actually stuck with me more than the visual.

Finally, the issue of shepherd and sheep comes into play in the sermon. In the long story he told as his final illustration of the importance of grace and truth, a man and his male partner were allowed to be involved in some ministry team even though one of the men was still married. It took a conversation with the ex-wife of the other man with Andy Stanley and then a phone call to the satellite church for the men to be removed from the ministry team because of the adultery of the married man. How is it that two unmarried people, engaging in extra-marital sex, with both men committing adultery—one on his former wife, the other on his current wife—are allowed to be actively involved in ministry? Was there no one to ask questions? Had the church gotten so big, and desperate, for volunteers that any warm body could sign up to serve?

It appears that North Point is in danger in at least three ways. First, they have diminished the character of the Lord Jesus Christ. Second, they are teaching a false idea of two key theological terms: grace and truth. Third, they have lost control of the ability to monitor the spiritual fitness of  those who desire to serve in ministry. And if these issues aren’t dealt with, it will matter little what North Point’s view of homosexuality is.

Lessons from Losing

It finally happened. Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh finally lost a volleyball match. They last lost in mid August of last year—112 matches. Elaine Youngs and Nicole Branagh, which happens to be the same team they lost to last year, beat them in three sets. Instead of focusing on why they lost, I want to focus Youngs and Branagh’s win. 

When I was in high school, we were in the same district as a multiple state champion. The week before we were to play them, our coaches spent a lot of time talking to us about knowing we could play with them, how well we were matched up with them, and what holes they had that we could exploit. They had us believe that we could actually walk on the field and stay with a team that had not been scored on all year except by a ranked team in a higher classification. 

They looked intimidating on film; they looked intimidating when they took the field. They showed a confidence when they lined up across from us that I had not seen ever. But we believed—no, this is not a Facing the Giants story—we lost 40-something to 8. We were, however, only one of two teams to score on them the whole year, including their playoff run to the state championship. And for a whole half, we actually thought we could win. In our minds, they were frustrated by our tenacity and refusal to role over. 

That changed at the start of the second half. They returned the opening kickoff for a TD. We never recovered.

And that happened at the Olympics. Treanor and Walsh would get down and one could see a spark in their opponents’ eyes. But then they would come back, win the opening set, and I could see the spark go out. 

But Youngs and Branagh were not intimidated. They did not give up. They did not roll over when the 112 match winning streak walked onto the court. Many teams that played the state champs that year lost before the opening kickoff. 

What does that have to do with me or you? Sometimes I see life as that state championship team or Treanor-Walsh. It intimidates me, doesn’t let up, keeps pounding: just this morning, I discovered that my rear brake lights won’t go off. I know—a small thing, but one more thing in the never ending stream of things. Not a hurricane like thing. Not a death like thing. Just a life thing—a slow persistent tapping on my shoulder that I am not in charge. And how should I respond? 

With joy! Joy because the Maker of the universe knows my name. And this is an opportunity for me to walk onto the sand and refuse to believe that I will lose. How do you respond to the little and big annoyances in your life?

Jesus vs. Michael Phelps: Part II

In an earlier post, I wrote about the humanity of Christ. That, however, only tells half the story. This morning I read Revelation 1:17:

When I saw him, I feel at his feet as though dead.

John has seen the Lord Jesus in His glory and it renders him speechless, motionless, unable to do anything—like a dead man. Isaiah has the same reaction to seeing the Lord in glory. When Isaiah, saw Him, he cried out, “Woe is me for I am undone.” 

So while we might not be overly impressed with the human Jesus, might be able to beat him in a foot race or swimming race, might not think he was worth sitting by at the church potluck, much less appear on the cover of GQ, we will respond differently to Him when we see Him again, for we will see Him in His glory.

Michael Phelps has enjoyed great fame and idol status since winning 8 gold medals. He has done countless interviews and appeared before screaming fans. No doubt if he walked into any school auditorium in the coming days, cheers would erupt from those desiring to see him. 

When we see Jesus again, we will not treat him like a celebrity, nor as a good buddy, slapping Him on the back and asking Him how the fishing is in heaven. No, His glory will move us beyond our knees until we fall prostrate as John did. 

Jesus is both God and man. If Jesus held only human characteristics, He would not deserve our worship. If Jesus only appeared in glorious form, we would not be able to approach Him. But He laid aside His glory for our sake, becoming like us, identifying with us that we might be called His brothers. And now He has taken up that glory again. He deserves our worship and adoration. 

I hoped that Michael Phelps would achieve the 8 gold medals. The races were thrilling. But Michael Phelps did none of those things for me. Jesus achieved far more. His accomplishment on the cross made it possible for me, a sinner, to have relationship with the God who created the water and the minds who designed that pool, and the engineers who designed those suits, and the muscles and body frame of Michael Phelps that allowed him to do what he did. I worship Jesus—the God-man.

What’s a Christian To Do?

If you are unsure how to behave in this politically charged season, you can find no end of advice in blogland. 

Here and here and here and here. 

Those took all of two minutes to find. Don’t know if you’ll find anything you like or not. 

But, if my opinion means anything to you, here’s one that I thought was right on the money.

Jesus vs. Michael Phelps

Ran across a bizarre website today thanks to Christian Striver. This triggered the following thoughts (reader discretion advised):

How can he swim in that robe? What’s up with the blood in the water every time you run the cursor over his hands and feet (I know about the crucifixion, but why is he bleeding when out for a swim)? Why does he have a chain in his hand? Could he beat Michael Phelps? I wonder what he’d look like in one of those ultra-fast-space-age swim suits? Could he beat Michael Phelps?

Then I was reminded of a conversation with a student several years ago about the Passion of the Christ. She hated the movie because it didn’t portray Jesus accurately. When I asked her what portrayal she had issues with, she said when he was shown tripping and falling as a boy. At first I thought she was joking, but she was not. She said that since he created everything, he would have known the rock was there and would not have tripped over it. The fall portrays him as imperfect, which he was not.

While an interesting theory, it misses the entire point of the incarnation. God became man, subject to the limitations of the human body. His breath stunk when he woke up in the morning. He passed gas. He got dirt in his eye (no his being God did not allow him to blink at the right time to avoid it). He tripped and skinned his knee as a boy. He had pimples. More then likely he had crooked teeth. He stubbed his toe on the corner of the bed. He might have even picked his nose now and again. And, no, he could not beat Michael Phelps in the 100 m butterfly.

Though he might part the water at the right time and drop him a few feet as a joke.

What do you mean by that? Semantics Part II

We talked about denotation vs. connotation today in English class. It brought my last post to mind. Then I read this post, and it reminded me of this vision statement from the Dismantling Racism Task force of the United Methodist Church’s North Texas Conference (these thought trains can be dangerous):

Through the power of the Holy Spirit, the people of the North Texas Conference of the United Methodist Church seek to fulfill the word of God by committing to the full participation of people of all racial identities including their gifts, their worldviews and their cultures.

I actually had an opportunity to talk to one of the authors of the statement. I asked him if he really thought it was a good idea to fully include someone with Hitler’s worldview. His response: “Well, that’s not what we meant.” Well, that is what it says. Or what about a Muslim worldview. And does full participation mean they can be pastors. Without defining terms, this statement is at best unscriptural and at worst a statement of universalism. 

And what does Pete mean when he says,

[Jesus] would…include anybody who came up to him.

I have read Pete’s blog long enough to know what I think he means by that, and it’s not what I think the North Texas Conference means.  I have been around the Methodist Church long enough to know I really didn’t buy it when I was told, 

That’s not what we meant.

I know that I fail to define terms as well, and now this reminds me to work hard to be clear.

The Shack: Style and Semantics

I have finished listening to The Shack. The recording included an author’s explanation of how the book came about as well as a “friendly” interview (I have also just finished listening to an “unfriendly” interview.) Young answered my concerns about the quality of writing: basically self-published.

As stated in an earlier post, I struggle to comment on the book because I can’t remember the points I wanted to discuss, and I can’t go back and check what I thought I heard (actually, I don’t want to spend time rewinding and hunting, but I could). All that to say, I know some of Young’s theology is suspect, but I also know that he does some other things well. I have thought about commenting on other’s reviews, but you can read those yourself if you are interested.

I do want to comment on one argument in the “unfriendly” interview mentioned above. While Young did fail to answer some of the interviewer’s questions, they also wrangled over semantics. One might say, “We’ll just define your terms and move on.” The problem occurs when someone uses a term differently than how everyone else does. If the majority of Christians use a term one way, and someone else uses the same term differently, confusion can occur. 

When Bultman says he believes in the resurrection, someone might say, “So what’s the big deal?” The big deal is that Bultman does not believe in the same resurrection as most Christians. He believes in a spiritual resurrection. Bultman’s resurrection leaves Jesus in the grave. I can’t reconcile that with 1 Corinthians 15:12-19. 

So we must use care in using our terms, and if we use a term differently than it is normally used, we must define it to avoid confusion at best and accusations of heresy at worst. Young has left himself open to that charge.

Preaching Tips

I see that a few folks from theologyblogs are reading this site. Thought you might be interested in this expository preaching site: short, daily preaching tips.

Going Home

As a man aches for his evening meal when all day long his brace of wine-dark oxen have dragged the bolted plowshare down a fallow field–how welcome the setting sun to him, the going home to supper, yes, though his knees buckle, struggling home at last.

Odysseus longed for home. Do I? Or am I too comfortable here, having someone to run my plow for me over soft, well tilled ground? 

Odysseus’ long hard day was drawing to a close, and despite his weakness and tiredness and temptation to just rest where he was, he knew that home was better.

I am lured by the pleasures of this culture to be content and not long for home. Don’t I have all I need? What could home offer beyond what I have here?

And that is the lie: the lie that has been told from the beginning. The lie that what hangs before my eyes, within my grasp, affords me a better life than what God has promised. I am no different than Eve or Adam, believing that shortcuts are best. Odysseus knew, however, that he belonged at home.