Continued, Courageous Bible Interpretation:

The "How do I want it to turn out?" question:
Let me start right in with an example.  I came of age in the church in the early 70s.  It was a time when Fundamentalism, of which I was (maybe am) a part, was spelled with a capital "F."  One of the tenents of the brand of Fundamentalism of which I was a part was a total, or almost total condemnation of divorce and remarriage.  When I began examining scripture on this subject one of the objections that was raised against any liberalization of the view on marriage, was basically, If you say this, then they will do that."  In other words let's decide the outcome that we want, and then say that's what the Bible teaches.  It was never blatantly stated, but that was the clear implication.
I've heard the same rational put forth concerning the Bible's teaching about drinking alcohol, and concerning teaching about upholding Christian liberty.
It is legitimate to follow a scriptural interpretation through to its application and ask whether that application is consistent with what we know about scripture and God, but there is a difference between using this "Where does it lead?" question as one of the tests that apply to an interpretation and making it the controlling concern.  We distort the scripture when we ask what interpretation do I need to adopt in order to lead to the ethical teaching I want?"  Instead we need to fearlessly ask, "What does the Bible say?"  Having answered that, then I need to seek to responsibly put that into a consistent Biblical ethic.
There needs to be a certain fearlessness in proper Bible interpretation.
Have the courage to ask, "What does it say?"  not, "What do I want it to say, so it will lead to the behavior I want?"

". . . in ways wonderful to behold."

I have been reading a book that originated as a set of lectures by A. T. Robertson, delivered at Princeton Seminary nearly a 100 year ago.  The Pharisees and Jesus is a worthwhile read--so far anyhow.  Over the course of my ministry I have read a good bit about the Pharisees.  I am always amazed at their hermeneutic and ethical gymnastics.  Robertson made me aware of one routine I hadn't seen before (or had forgotten) Is it acceptable to eat an egg that a hen laid on the Sabbath?  One doesn't have to go farther than the New Testament to observe the contortions Robertson speaks of:  "They either read all the oral law into the written law (eisegesis) or twisted it out of the written law (exegesis) in ways wonderful to behold."* (emphasis added)  Just look at Matthew 23 and Mark 7:9-13 for some examples.
Another good read on Pharisaism is Extreme Righteousness, by Tim Hovestol.  He points out that 21st Century (Well it was still the 20th when he wrote.) Conservative Christians bear a closer resemblance to the Pharisees than they (we) may care to admit.  This premise has been born out in my reading of Robertson, thus far.
One of the similarities of 1st Century Palestinian Pharisees and 21st Century American Evangelicals is our faulty hermeneutics (principles of interpreting scripture).  I hope to explore this concept over the next few posts.  I would welcome your input.


At this point indulge me, and perhaps be amused, while I use humor to make a point.  There are several versions of this joke.  If your version is better, please share it.  A Fortune 500 executive had an important decision to make.  He needed some data.  He called in his lawyer, the head of public relations, an accountant, and an economist.  After explaining the gravity of his situation he told them he needed their best answer to a question.  Each of them were to report separately on, "How much is 2 + 2?"
The accountant was sure that he knew the answer, but had been recently accused of bean-counting and not understanding the nuances and complexities of business, so doubt began to creep into his mind.  He spent a sleepless night wrestling with formulas, and running calculations on several different computers.  The next morning the strain was evident on his face when he fearfully reported, "Four."
The PR guy and the economist likewise stayed up all night plying their trade.  The PR specialist shared various surveys.  "If women spend $2.00 for one item, and $2.00 for another, they consistently report the sum to their husbands as "about $3.00."  On the other hand surveys show that when a fisherman catches two fish each weighing two pounds he reports the total to his fishing buddies as "about five pounds."  With a possibility of error of +or- 3 my research indicates 4."  
Fine the exec said and dismissing him, called in the economist, who after displaying an office full of charts declared that he was comfortable with a range of three to five with things in (insert state of choice) trending toward six."
Giving him time to gather his stuff the decision-maker thanked his employee and sent for his lawyer.  He had stopped off on his way home the evening before for a few games of tennis, after a sumptuous meal he had enjoyed time with his family, and slept soundly.  Tanned and fit he strode into the room, pulled down the window shade, and made sure the door was locked.  Satisfying himself that no one was listening he leaned across the bosses desk and in a low whisper asked, "How much do you want it to be?"


Too often that is the approach that we take in our interpretation of scripture.  We already have a conclusion then we go to the Bible to justify it.  Here are some ways that I have seen this happen:

• The "Which Translation?" question:
  Those of us who are English speakers are blessed with a number of good translations of the Bible.  Generally they say the same thing--perhaps one doing a better job of it than another.  Sometimes though they don't.  I ran into this with the text I was dealing with last Sunday.  In Luke 18:11 some translations indicated that the Pharisee prayed to himself.  Others have him standing by himself praying.  I'll let those more capable than me weigh in on the Greek grammar, etc.  The fact of the matter is, I want the passage to say he prayed to himself, because that translation fits my sermon better.  I came to the conclusion that that is the best translation, for reasons that, no doubt, some of you would regard as inadequate, but the fact of the matter is that I need to restrain the "What do I want it say?" question, (I hope I did.) and work hard (2 Timothy 2:15) to answer the only question that really matters--"What does the text say?"
  Here is a yellow flag for laypersons.  If a book, sermon, or study sheet, quotes from a number of Bible translations, it is fair to ask, "Is the author picking translations that agree with him, or is he using the translation that best captures the sense of the original?"
  Sometimes "things wonderful to behold" take place in this regard.
• The "How Do I Want It To Turn Out?" question:
  Stay tuned.

A Prayer Request for some friends on the other side of the world:

I just posted a prayer request, with fairly lengthy explanation, on Covington Bible Church's Facebook page.  I'm re-posting it here, with even more explanation and links.


A prayer request:
It will require a bit of explanation.  Chuuk, one of the Federated states of Micronesia, is one of the places that missionaries from Liebenzell Mission worked in the last Century.  Churches were started there.  These churches banded together in what amounts to a small denomination, the Evangelical Church of Chuuk (ECC).
The US branch of Liebenzell is an organization with which I am privileged associate.  Missionaries from Liebenzell Germany and US bravely went to the Islands of Micronesia with the Gospel (You can get some basic information about Micronesia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronesia.  Keep in mind that "Micronesia" is the name of a region in the Western Pacific (about the size of the continental US, but with a land mass like Rhode Islands), and at other times is used as an abbreviated reference to the Federated States of Micronesia.  Chuuk, the subject of this prayer request, is the largest of the four states that make up FSM.)
Unfortunately the church organization, and some of the local churches, have been influenced by politics and clan in an unhealthy way.  (The same can be said for many US Evangelical churches, but that is another posting.)  Recently, a major split has taken place within the ECC.  I know people on both sides.  They love the Lord, and on some level are convinced they are right.  I guess, because of broken relationships in my recent past, I am particularly sensitive to this (though I know that much more than feelings are involved.)  When people with whom you formerly wept and worked cut themselves off from you, it is painful.
I know that I don't know what should happen in these lovely Islands.  Perhaps the sound churches within the ECC should simply do what my Fundamental ancestors did--separate and become independent.  Perhaps the young men graduating from solid schools like Pacific Islands University (a majority of our student body is Chuukese) should simply start new assemblies of believers rather than try to work in churches torn by--or at least affected by--the strife.   I raise those questions with a profound knowledge of my ignorance.  I am compelled to pray that God's will be done, Romans 8:26.  I ask you to join me in that prayer.  Knowing the limited resources of Chuuk and the incredible investment that has gone into what has become the ECC, my heart and gut would like to see it redeemed and the conflict resolved.
There have been and are those, both on the islands and off, who, it appears to me, are more interested in building their kingdom, rather than THE Kingdom.  I know this is a charge that is easily made, and just as easily denyed.  I make the observation with humility.  I pray that wherever it is true there will be repentance and a heartfelt praying of the part of the "Lord's Prayer" that says, "THY KINGDOM COME."
Several friends of mine, including Bill Schuit (Global Ministries Director of Liebenzell USA, and leader for the Micronesian area for Liebenzell International), whom many of you know, will be traveling to Chuuk later this month.  Their plan is to meet with, pray with, and encourage leaders on both sides to seek Godly solutions.
Pray for this team.
Some of the key Chuukese leaders that I know are Mokut, Yosta, Switer, and Asael.  Some outsiders with strong influence are Martin, Roland, Steve, Ron, and Sandy.  Pray for them and their colleagues.  There are many others in both groups.
Pray for these leaders on and off Island, who have opportunity to make a difference.
There are many outstanding Chuukese men and women, some recent graduates, who just want to impact their Islands and their world for Christ.  Pray that they will have wisdom and sound guidance in making career decisions.
(By the way it will help you remember to pray if you know how to say the name of the place.  If you say what you do with food and put a "K" on the end you'll be close or say "you" with a "ch" on the front and a "k" on the end you've got it--at least good enough for a small-town American like me.
Please join me in prayer.

Additional resource on the 5/27 message:

The message this morning is on a very Scriptural Memorial, Baptism.
In the message I will mention--at least I plan to--a debate between R. C. Sproule and John MacArthur on the mode of baptism.  This material can be found various places, but here is one link that will lead you there:

http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2007/06/sproulmacarthur-baptism-debate.html

Some thoughts on Democracy, before the flag-waving holidays:

I'll get back to the thoughts on prejudice.  I have already decided.  :)
But, first, here is a package that needs to be delivered before the season is gone.
A slew--well maybe not that many, but several, anyhow--of patriotic holidays are in America's near future.  Of course this fall there is, also, a national election.  One of the goals of political campaigns is to maximize the distinctions (real or imaginary) between their candidate or cause and the opposing side.  Often patriotism and politics takes on troubling, almost, if not completely, idolatrous overtones.  On the other hand among many Christians there seems to exist a cynicism, often reflected in complete non-participation in the electoral process, that has set in.  "They're all the same." or, "A pox on both their houses." becomes the watchword.  As is often the case the truth lies in a position of tension between those two poles.
Here is an article written when the "cold war" was still hot, that articulates some much needed balance and points to some anchor points.  http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/11/004-christianity-and-democracy-43

As I say the article was written at a time when the world could much more easily be divided into two sides--ours and theirs, Democracy and Communism, dare I say, "light and dark."  Some of the trends in the world since then, in particular the rise of militant Islam, highlight the wisdom contained in this article.  The article warns of a system that seeks to achieve monolithic control by either eliminating the religious institutions of a culture, or bringing them under the control of the state.  The Islamic "Theocracies" achieve the same ends by conflating the religious and the secular under one head who holds absolute power.  The trouble they have caused, serve to amplify the argument the article makes
I find the thoughts of the article as applicable today as they were thirty-one years ago.

A couple of credits are due.  Steve Cornell pointed me to the article here.  In his posting Steve gives a twelve point application-focused, summary of the article.  For those not ambitious enough to tackle the longer article I recommend the summary.  For those who read the First Things Article I still recommend it.  My friend Bart Gingerich writes for the Institute on Religion and Democracy.  IRD published the article in First Things when it was still in its infancy.  Anyhow, had it not been for the "Oh, this is Bart's outfit," connection I probably wouldn't have taken time to read the article, so, in a soft sense, he referred me to it as well.

I encourage your conversation around these thoughts.

Some percolations on prejudice:

As a 62 year old, with roots in the South who grew up in the Suburban North, and has lived his adult life in the small-town (barely) South, I have observed a variety of positions in matters related to prejudice.  Historically, in America, prejudice has had to do with skin color, what is wrongly called race. I say "wrongly" not only because of the information in the above article, or this one  which states that has been abandoned "as a biological category during the last quarter of the twentieth century," but, more so, because of my own unscientific observation.  President Obama is our "first Black President," yet his mom is Caucasian.  The same observation can be made in regard to the parentage of Halle Berry, Tiger Woods, and by-and-large the whole so-called "Latino" race.  The fact is racial labels are placed on people because of social, political, and geographic reasons.  Especially in places like America with our melting-pot history these distinctions have little if any relation to genetic reality.  (That is not to say, however, that such things have no reality.  The point of my musings is that unfortunately they do.)

Some of you have heard me tell about my personal acquaintance with the proximity in American history of radical segregation and exemplary racial egalitarianism.  I was helping a sweet older lady get through the horribly slow passage of time while her husband was in surgery.  Knowing she was interested in antiques, and things related to the Civil War, I told her about a gun I had seen a few days before (here is a picture of the type of gun or one similar).  Mrs. Rice got quiet for a moment and then said, "I think cousin so-n-so has Daddy's Civil War gun.  I was having this conversation more than a-hundred years after the surrender at Appomattox, so I assumed either she said "Daddy," but meant "grand"--or even "great-grand daddy," or that she meant "Daddy's gun" in the sense that he had inherited, or bought it somewhere along the line.  Over the next few minutes however, I probed and questioned a bit, and soon came to the startling realization that I was sitting with a true Daughter of the Confederacy.  I never did check, but she had to be one of the last living examples.  Her dad was one of the boy-soldiers who fought for the Confederacy at the end of the War.  He came home, and raised a family.  At some point his wife died.  He remarried, a much younger bride and raised a second family.  Frances was the youngest child of that brood.  Some quick arithmetic led to me realize just how close the war between the states was.  Is it any wonder that during my lifetime we had still been living down, and pushing back on the gross injustices that stemmed from a culture in which one group of people were bought, owned, and sold by another group.  This ongoing issue comes, in large part, from the fact that whether one descended from slave or master is largely clear by the color of ones skin.

A few years later the chairman of our local Democratic Party, a friend of mine and member of the church I pastor, asked me if I would deliver the invocation at a political event.  Mark Warner, current senator from Virginia, was beginning his run for governor of the Old Dominion.   We met on the courthouse steps passed pleasantries and shook hands.  I make an assumption here.  Mark Warner plays basketball.  I figure that at some point in the last few years he has been on the court with our hoop-shooting President.  So, I put my left arm around the shoulders of, and prayed with, a lady whose father fought in the Civil War--a conflict that at the least, had to do with enslavement of people from Africa who had been transported to America-- and with the other hand I shook hands with a man who plays basketball with the first African-American President of the United--a union made secure by the result of that war--States.

Taking the word at its simplest, to judge before, is it any wonder that throughout the past century,  and into this one, many Whites look at people of African extraction, and Black people look at Whites and make up their mind about them before they know anything other than their skin color?

It is explainable, but it is without excuse.  

The Bible gives clear input on the matter of pre-judging. 
“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7:24, NASB)   

"Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God." (1 Corinthians 4:5, NASB)   
Proverbs says,  "To answer before listening— that is folly and shame. (Proverbs 18:13, NIV)


That's enough to chew on for now.  Prejudice is foolish and wicked.  Nuf-sed, for now.

Some thoughts on the current marriage controversy:

I'll get back to that third thing that I've been thinking about, but for now, here is something else that a bunch of us have been thinking about.

Steve Cornell is a good thinker.  He comes from a solid conservative Evangelical mindset.

In this article, http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/more-thoughts-on-gay-marriage/, he raises some questions that have been stewing in my mind.

Like many of you, for me, these questions are not merely theoretical.  I love people who have chosen the gay lifestyle (I say that carefully, knowing that they would likely reject that description.  I mean no disrespect.), so I am not only trying to be Biblically correct, but properly compassionate, as well.

Here, in outline form, are some of the things that have been ruminating in my mind, some of which Steve speaks to.  I would appreciate your thoughts.

1. In this as in other areas we cannot expect the government to do our work for us.  Or to put it another way, not everything that we regard as immoral ought to be illegal.
2. Having said that, there are totally secular reasons to regulate issues related to family and marriage.  Balance . . . 
3. We have to, have to, have to realize that the public in general does not keep track of who is who in the Christian--especially Evangelical--realm.  When I say, with a very calm and reasonable manner, "I have some concerns about homosexual marriage."  many of those who hear me speak equate me with the likes of Fred Phelps.  This is one of the areas where I need to remember that I have a responsibility, and privilege to reach out to all kinds of people.  The primary function of the church is the preach the Gospel not lobby for legislation.
4. It is important to proclaim the truth.  I need to make sure, though, in the words of Micah that I not only "do justly," but, also, "love mercy."  (6:8)

It is something we need to think carefully about.