A Straight Apology
A Straight Apology from Recycle Your Faith on Vimeo.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
About Me
- Name: Daniel P. (Danny) Coleman
- Location: Seattle, WA, United States
- Presence and Process: A Path Toward Transformative Faith and Inclusive Community
- Available at Amazon or at a book store near you
26 Comments:
Beautiful! Thanks.
There's only one problem.... homosexual behavior is totally inconsistent with the Biblical faith. I know lots of people have tried to explain away the clear teachings of Scripture, but the sad reality is that unrepentant sinners (of any stripe, gay or straight) cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. I've known a lot of gay guys and I've yet to meet one who had a close, loving, affirming relationship with his dad. Somewhere along the way this desire for paternal affection gets mixed up with sexual feelings and thus the gay mindset and lifestyle is set in motion. I don't hate gays, but because I love Jesus and His never changing truth, I have to tell them their behavior separates them from God. To do otherwise is the true hatred.
Hi Household Believer, thanks for visiting and for commenting. When you state that "homosexual behavior is totally inconsistent with the Biblical faith", I think what you mean is that it is totally inconsistent with *how you understand* Biblical faith. If we want to use Biblicality as a measure for what is acceptable in relationships, then we have to conclude that it is OK for adult men to marry teenage girls and to have multiple wives (unless, of course they are church elders). After all, the cessation of polygamy in Judea at the time of Jesus was mostly due to Hellenistic culture, not Jewish religious beliefs. My point is that what we consider "Biblical" or not often has more to do with our cultural lens through which we read the Bible.
Perhaps what you call "the clear teachings of scripture" aren't quite so clear. Rest assured that many Christians (myself included) who support and accept gay believers (just as they are), are every bit as diligent and devout in their Bible study as you are.
I too have known many gay men, including those who had great relationships with their fathers. I have also known many men who had terrible relationships with their fathers, yet did not become homosexual as a result. The claim that men become homosexual out of a mixed up "desire for paternal affection" is a canard that was disproven long ago. Have you considered the possibility that the gay men you have known had difficult relationships with their fathers *because* they were gay, and not the other way around?
The never changing truth about Jesus is this: That He loves us all. We all sin and fall short, but God loves us. Nothing can separate us from that love.
Hi Danny,
Thanks for responding to my comment. You don’t know me, and I don’t know much about you other than the little I’ve seen on your blog, but I take you at your word that you love Jesus Christ and accept the Bible (meaning the 66 books that make up the Bible) as authoritative for followers of Jesus. If either or both of these assumptions are not true, then that would be the place for us to start, because disagreement on either of those points would nullify any possibility of seeing eye to eye on this or any number of other questions.
My view of homosexual behavior being sinful (as opposed to unfulfilled homosexual desires, which are only temptations but not sinful) is of course not limited to myself. This has been the predominant understanding of Jews and Christians of all stripes throughout history, up of course until the last few decades. We both know that the majority is not always right, but in questions like this I think one should seriously consider the testimony of the faithful who have gone before us, and not assume that we somehow have uncovered a heretofore unseen amazing truth that has never been perceived in 2000 years.
You’ve probably heard all this before, so I won’t spend a lot of time on this (unless you want to), but really I don’t see how we can honestly claim to submit ourselves to the authority of Scripture on one had, and endorse homosexuality on the other. God made us male and female, and that is the only sexual relation that is presented positively throughout the Bible. If you want, we can go through each passage, but the OT is replete with condemnations of homosexuality, casting it in the category of abominations worthy of death (the OT judicial law has ceased, but the general underlying moral principles remain true today). Although there have always been distortions of the original male-female pattern (such as polygamy), Jesus makes it clear that in terms of marriage and sexual relations, His plan is for one man and one woman to remain together as long as both live. Jesus was not afraid to confront manmade traditions in His day. It would have been very easy for Him to reverse the OT moral law and endorse homosexuality in His earthly ministry, but there is no hint that He did so. This in itself is not proof that He condemns that practice, but to infer His silence as approval of this practice is a real stretch.
(continued)
When we turn to Paul’s epistles, there is clear and I believe unambiguous rejection of homosexual practice as compatible with the true faith of Christ Jesus. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 includes a fairly lengthy list of wrongdoers and wrongdoing that will exclude one from the Kingdom of God. Among this list are “homosexuals (catamites, those submitting to homosexuals)” and “sodomites.” (We can go more into the underlying Greek on that if you’d like.) In Romans 1:26-27, Paul discusses women who lust for women and men who lust for men, making it clear that such behavior constitutes a rejection of God’s established natural order and will receive judgment in the end.
Elsewhere, Paul describes the relation between Christ and His Church in comparison to a husband and wife. Sure, there are spiritual/mystical dimensions, and both men and women constitute the Church, yet the profound and deep unity experienced in a loving husband-wife union cannot possibly be replicated in a male-male or female-female relationship, and such a relationship is never held up in Scripture as a good thing (please don’t cite David and Jonathan—that’s really bogus in my opinion). Again, it has been universally understood and agreed by all groups of Jews and Christians up until very recent times that these passages (and others) forbid homosexual practice, and that those who practice such in an unrepentant manner cannot be considered faithful followers of Jesus.
Although we cannot prove our position based on personal experience, I think it incontrovertible that early childhood experiences largely form our later sexual development and attitudes. I admit that there may be some gay men who seemed to have decent relations with their dads, but I and others have observed this pattern of dysfunctional families (distant or absent father and masculine or domineering mother) fostering homosexual tendencies. I’m sure there are secular and “liberal Christian” psychologists who disagree with this, but I believe the pattern stands.
Regarding the possibility of a “gay gene,” the science on this is up in the air, but I would say that even if such a gene could be identified, that would not establish the legitimacy of this practice. What if there were a “bestiality gene” or a “thievery gene”? Would we then have to accept those behaviors and ignore clear Scriptural admonitions against such activity? We have to look outside of ourselves to a transcendent authority (i.e., revelation) in order to finally establish right and wrong in these things.
You allude to all of us sinning and falling short and God loving us anyway. Maybe you could clarify this. If you’re saying a person can be a Christian and yet stumble into sin along the way, but then recognize their sin, repent, and be restored to fellowship with God, then yes, I agree. But if you’re saying anyone, anywhere (Christian or not) can commit any sin, never repent, and still be accepted by God, I have to say the Bible does not teach that at all and I could thus never agree with that. If that view is true (universalism), we might as well throw out the entire Scriptures and live as we please, since it doesn’t really matter for eternity—we’ll all make it and enjoy eternal life in the end.
(continued)
The Bible makes it clear there are only two ways: God’s way (the narrow road that leads to life) and the world’s way (the broad path that leads to destruction). I’m not naïve or arrogant enough to think I have it all figured out and only those who see everything my way are on the narrow road. But neither can I join those who think the broad way will somehow end up in the same place as the narrow. It isn’t popular today (and I admit it isn’t pleasant to dwell upon), but there are repeated warnings of a sure and final judgment day coming to us all. Those who have willfully rejected the truth they have been shown will face a fearful condemnation and eternal destruction.
I don’t reject homosexuals as people. I’ve known many of them (including relatives) and frankly for the most part they’re nicer and more fun to be around than most straights! Yet in the end I see that isn’t ultimately up to me to decide what is and is not pleasing to God. If He has spoken to us in an objective way in the Scriptures that can be understood by a sincere and open heart, then we must be willing to humble ourselves and submit to what He says, no matter how painful or costly it may be in terms of our personal preferences or relationships. I really do feel for those struggling with homosexual desires. I have plenty of areas in my own life where I have to constantly battle the carnal nature. Yet I have hope and confidence that by His grace and power, I can overcome these sinful tendencies and learn to practice His way of righteousness.
As Paul beautifully states in 1 Cor. 6:11, right after the verses mentioned above, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus by the Spirit of our God.” That is the answer! Being willing to turn from our sins (whether lying or stealing or adultery or greed or homosexuality or whatever), and cast ourselves wholly upon the grace and mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ! He died on the cross to set us free from sin and rose again bodily that we too might experience newness of life.
God bless you,
David
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I will apologize in advance that my schedule requires me to be more economical than I would like in my reply.
I think you hit the nail on the head in your first paragraph regarding any dialog that we might have. You and I probably approach the Bible in very different ways. I do not view the scriptures as inerrant or infallible. The scriptures themselves don't claim to be such. The closest we get, as I'm sure you well know, is Paul's statement in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture (one ought to pause right there and consider what scripture Paul would have been referring to) is inspired and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (one also ought to consider at this point what Paul might have meant by 'righteousness'--dikaiosune. I understand the word--and its Hebrew equivalent 'tzedakah'--to have had more to do with restorative justice--what some might call "social justice"--than with moral correctness). I believe that the Bible is inspired and very, very useful. However my final authority in matters of faith and life is not the Bible. It is the real presence of the Living God.
I don't know if you have had a chance (or the inclination) to read my story (http://dannycolemanstory.blogspot.com), but a key facet of it is that God established and engaged in relationship with me while I was very much an unrepentant sinner. It was His kindness, actually, that led me into relationship with Him (and still does!). Because these direct experiences were at the foundation of my walk with Christ, a core belief was built upon them: that no one is separated from God. We Quakers like to say that "there is that of God in everyone", which means that we view God as valuing every person and as being actively engaged in every person's life--drawing them to Himself. I have studied the Bible extensively and devoutly over the 27 years that I have been a Christian. I love scripture, but I recognize--as John Wimber used to say--that it is the menu, not the meal (the menu describes the meal). I think it was the Quaker Robert Barclay who likened the Bible to a stream that flows from a fountain. The fountain, which is the Spirit, is the source of the stream. I love to drink from the stream, but we also have access to the fountain.
I am belaboring this point because our fundamental difference in approach will yield fundamentally different results. I am intensely interested in what was written in scripture (and why), but am even more interesting in what the Spirit is saying here and now.
I was taught, like most Evangelical Christians, to read the Bible in a manner sometimes referred to as "constitutional" or "statutory." In other words, as a collection of statutes which can be applied universally without regard to historical and cultural context.
This way of using the Bible is closely akin to the way a prosecuting attorney uses the Criminal Code or the way a banker uses the Federal Reserve Banking Regulations or the way an IRS auditor uses the Tax Code. One looks for the specific statute that addresses a given situation.
Here in Seattle, I can access the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and find every enforceable law and regulation enacted by state legislatures past and present. It will tell me if I can keep chickens (and how many) in my suburban backyard, what the default speed limit is on a two lane road, whether or not I can carry a concealed firearm in a state park, etc. There are hundreds--perhaps thousands--of rules, regulations, laws and statutes. It's all there in black and white. I may even find contradictions, such as a newer law that conflicts with an older law. If I become well-versed in the WAC, I could be a recognized expert--teaching and debating with others on what is contained therein.
I no longer read the Bible in this way, which may prevent us from coming to agreement on various theological topics, such as God's view of homosexuals or (perhaps) the role of women in the church. My starting point on matters such as this is that we have a living guide in the Holy Spirit. I recognize the scriptures as inspired, useful, authoritative even, but not all-inclusive or uncoupled from their original context. The most valuable lesson I ever learned about studying scripture (thanks to Gordon Fee & Douglas Stuart) is to ask "What did this mean to the original hearers?" As Wycliffe put it (in Olde English): "It shall greatly help ye to understande scripture if thou mark not only what is spoken or wrytten, but of whom, and to whom, and what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before, and what followeth."
As to the "statutory" approach to the Bible, here's an example of what I'm getting at: The New Testament doesn't specifically address the evil of slavery beyond admonishments for owners to treat their slaves well and slaves to be loyal and hard-working. Prior to the American Civil War, slave owning Christians used the same methodology you are using regarding homosexuality. They quoted Eph. 6:5-8, Titus 2:9-10 and Col. 3:22-24. They claimed to see no statement in the Bible--not even the New Testament--advocating the abolition of slavery. They were right--there was no specific statement. But of course the entire spirit of the New Testament pointed towards equality and treating others as you would be treated. Still, a statute wasn't to be found in a prooftext.
When confronted with an issue, we both ask, "What does the Word say?" If by "the Word" we mean simply the written scriptures, then we are consigned to the "constitutional" approach and are really asking "Where is it written?" If by "the Word", however, we mean the Living Word; Jesus Christ our risen Lord and Savior, then there is a much bigger world of possibilities and ramifications which He can lead us into. This is a much more liberating but also scarier place to be because the answers aren't always in simple prooftexts and may not be "one size fits all." The overriding answer is always the same though: Love.
In Paul's day, it would have been hard to imagine a world without slavery. The best advice he could give was how to cope within the existing system. In Paul's day it would have been hard to imagine women with equal roles, opportunities and education to men. In Paul's day there was no concept of sexual-orientation or of committed same-sex relationships. Homosexual acts were associated either with pagan temple prostitution or with exploitative pederasty. It would have been completely off of the cultural, theological and historical grid for Paul or Jesus to even make reference to sexual orientation or committed, loving same-sex relationships. They might just as well have spoken about molecular biology or internal combustion engines.
If I understand correctly, your view is that homosexual behavior is sinful. This was once my view also, but my view slowly and incrementally changed, in part due to in-depth study of scripture. Certainly, there are many homosexual (and heterosexual) behaviors that are sinful, but I no longer view non-exploitative homosexual relationships as sinful or as even addressed in scripture. I will grant you that, as you said "...the predominant understanding of Jews and Christians of all stripes throughout history, up of course until the last few decades..." has been that homosexual behavior is sinful and against scripture. I would not, however, share your conviction that we should therefore "...not assume that we somehow have uncovered a heretofore unseen amazing truth that has never been perceived in 2000 years." A great many heretofore unseen amazing truths have been perceived over the course of the last 2,000 years: the heliocentric nature of our solar system; the existence of germs and virii and their role (in place of demons) as the cause of various maladies; the structure of atoms; the complexities of genetics, physiology, human psychology; etc., etc. In fact, it is pretty difficult to find a topic about which we have *not* discovered amazing truths over the course of the last 2,000 years!
You mentioned the importance of early childhood experiences in shaping one's sexuality (and, I would add, a great many other traits) and the inconclusiveness of whether or not a "gay gene" exists (which is a red herring: the role of genetics in human development is incredibly complex and often cannot be reduced down to the identification of specific genes, as if they were Lego blocks): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
The bottom line is that we really don't know what causes sexual orientation, or a great many other human traits. The best working hypotheses at present seems to be that it is the result of a complex interaction of biological, genetic, hormonal and environmental factors. What does seem to be clear is that being homosexual is not a conscious choice.
But let's cut to the chase. The heart of the issue is scripture. Points about early childhood experience or the lack of a clearly identifiable "gay gene" are merely attempts to shore up the central conviction, which is that scripture says homosexuality is wrong.
I won't take the time here to tediously rehash and rebut the handful of scriptures used to condemn homosexuality. I will instead refer you (or the interested reader) to others who have done a much more thorough job than I could:
* I think Mel White covers the key points well. If you have read books by Billy Graham, Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, you may have read the words of Mel White. He was once an in-demand ghost-writer for the Evangelical elite, until he revealed his sexual orientation. As a result of his unique background, he has many really good insights on homosexuality and Evangelical Christianity. His book 'A Stranger at the Gate' played a role in changing my opinions about homosexual Christians. Here is an essay by Mel White entitled 'What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality': http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
* Here is a very quick synopsis of the "major" scriptures used to condemn homosexuality and how they are interpreted by religious conservatives (such as yourself) and religious progressives (such as myself): http://www.religioustolerance.org/homglance.htm
* Lastly, Walter Wink (who's book 'The Powers That Be' ought to be on every Christian's bookshelf) wrote an excellent essay on Biblical sexual morays, including homosexuality: http://www.godweb.org/wink.htm
If one approaches the "homosexual verses" without prejudice and researches them objectively, it is pretty easy to discover that they don't refer to homosexuality in and of itself, but to behaviors that are violent, exploitative or idolatrous.
I'll take a little time to dwell on what is generally considered to be the most relevant and clear Biblical condemnation of homosexuality: Romans 1:26-27.
As you know, Christianity was originally a Jewish sect. The earliest followers of Jesus were all Jews. They saw Jesus as the fulfillment and the future of Judaism. They attended synagogue and, in Jerusalem, participated in temple rituals. There was a great deal of turmoil and contention between the minority of "Christian" Jews and the rest of the Jews. The small "Christian" sect was persecuted by the larger body of Jewish authority. This became worse as Gentiles began to enter the fold without being required to undergo circumcision or participate in Jewish dietary laws, rituals or festivals. There was strife and violence against the Christian Jews (including the Gentile converts). Gradually, the Christians began meeting separately, apart from the larger Jewish population. They began to meet together in houses, instead of at the Jewish synagogues. During the time that Paul's epistles were written, this transition was taking place.
In Rome at this time, as throughout the Roman empire, Christian gatherings (ecclesia) were a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. In approximately 49 A.D., the emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because of riots and turmoil--most likely caused by the growing presence of Christians. One happy result of this edict was that Paul, while in Corinth, "...met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them." (Acts 18:2-3). The sudden absence of Jews from Rome caused the Christian churches, which had been mixed, to become wholly Gentile. Later, when the ban was lifted and the Jews allowed to return to Rome, they found that the churches had got along just fine without them, thank you very much. Imagine if, in present times, you took the African-American Pentecostal church at one end of town and the white Presbyterian church at the other end of town and combined them together into one church! There would be tensions, offenses, misunderstandings--on racial, social, cultural and almost every other level. This is the setting into which Paul writes his epistle to the Romans. The Jewish Christians are looking down on the Gentile Christians and the Gentile Christians are saying to the Jewish Christians "We don't need you."
The primary goal of Paul's letter to the Romans to is deal with divisions within the church between these two factions: Jew vs. Gentile. Throughout the letter, Paul speaks first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles, then back to the Jews, then again to the Gentiles, trying to cajole them into seeing that they are one body. By the way, if you find this historical background interesting, I would highly recommend a series of audio teachings by Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright entitled "Romans in a Week." (http://christianaudio.com/romans-in-a-week-n-t-wright).
In Romans 1:14 Paul clues us in that he is not taking sides. But then in verse 18 he begins a litany of criticism that seems to mirror the Jewish party line. He is echoing the Jewish view of Gentiles: They are idolatrous pagans who do despicable things. As Paul continues his list, you can imagine the Jewish listeners thinking "Yeah, right on!" Paul is setting the bait and drawing them in. Suddenly, beginning at 2:1, he springs the trap: "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself...Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself..." (I'm abbreviating for the same of brevity, but I recommend reading the entire thing).
Paul is excoriating the Jewish Christians for their judgmental attitude towards the Gentile Christians and telling them, in effect, "You're every bit as sinful as they are, so quit judging!" Something about a speck in my brother's eye comes to mind. This clever device which Paul uses at the beginning of Romans acts as the launching pad for the argument that he weaves through the entire rest of the letter as he bounces back and forth, first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. His message could be distilled down to this: Quit judging each other! Love one another and leave the judging up to God!
If we understand Paul's letter to the Romans, including Romans 1:26-27, in this light, it puts us in an interesting position. We can believe that homosexuality is sin, but still must love, accept and not judge people who are homosexual. This is why Tony Campolo, who believes that homosexual behavior is sin, was able to give the keynote speech at the Gay Christian Alliance convention and receive a standing ovation: Because he understands that what is greater than his theological belief about homosexuality is the mandate to love, accept and not judge our brothers and sisters. Campolo's wife, by the way, holds the opposite view and does not believe homosexuality is sin. You can listen to an interesting dialog between Tony and Peggy Campolo on this subject here: http://www.gaychristian.net/campolos.php
Another, and complimentary, way we can look at Paul's reference to homosexuality within his argument to the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, is that he is speaking about a very specific form of homosexual expression, which has to do with Gentile pagan cultic practices, such as temple prostitution (whereby devotees would engage in sex with male and female priests/priestesses as a way of communing with the deities). Again, Paul is listing the things that Jews found repugnant about Gentiles in order to set them up to have their own hearts exposed. The overarching goal of Paul is not to condemn however, it is to build community based on love, grace, tolerance and forbearance.
That should still be our goal.
Sadly, the more popular approach among Evangelical Christians is to lift Romans 1:26-27 out of its context and read it as if it were a statute in a code of law. In doing so, we not only miss what Paul was trying to say, we contradict it.
Danny,
Thanks a lot for your lengthy and thoughtful reply. You make some really interesting points that I would like to further explore. Like you, my schedule is maxed out right now so it may be a week or so before I can get back to you. But Lord willing it will be sooner rather than later, as I think there are some things here that could benefit us both as we go farther along.
God bless you,
David
Hi Danny,
I apologize for the delay in responding and for the brevity of my reply. There is a lot that could be said, but I will try to stay focused on what I take to be the primary issue at hand.
Rather than discussing issues like homosexuality, it appears that this question of the authority of Scripture is the place to start. As you suggest, if we don’t agree on our premises, our conclusions are very unlikely to match.
Let me state for the record that I do accept the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as the infallible, inerrant word of God. I do not believe that my understanding of these books is infallible (far from it—if there’s one thing I know for certain, it’s that I’ve still got a lot to learn). I realize this is not a popular view today, but on the other hand, many bright minds throughout history have held this view as well. We could go down lots of rabbit trails about textual transmission and translation issues. I don’t hold that any one translation is inerrant, though some are better than others. Although only the original manuscripts were inerrant, I believe that God has overseen the transmission of His word to such a degree that we may reliably say the manuscripts we have today are essentially intact and reliable. No other book throughout history has been as carefully transmitted, examined and studied as the Bible. I don’t think that’s accidental.
I’m a little surprised that you state the Scriptures don’t claim infallibility for themselves. If you’ve read much by conservative biblical scholars, they haven’t done a very good job if you’ve missed hearing the Scriptures’ claim to such authority. It’s true that there’s no one verse that says, “The Bible is inerrant,” but the principle runs throughout Scripture, from first to last. The writers frequently claimed divine inspiration for themselves and each other, with the clear implication being that if God inspired it, it is fully true and trustworthy. In addition to 2 Tim. 3:16 (scripture is inspired, literally “God breathed”), there are dozen of verses that could be cited (I’m currently reading the Amplified Bible, but other versions read similarly):
Psalm 19:7-8 (Amplified Bible)
7The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the [whole] person; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. 8The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure and bright, enlightening the eyes.
continued
Revelation 21:5 (Amplified Bible)
5And He Who is seated on the throne said, See! I make all things new. Also He said, Record this, for these sayings are faithful (accurate, incorruptible, and trustworthy) and true (genuine).(A
Hebrews 1:1-2
1IN MANY separate revelations [[a]each of which set forth a portion of the Truth] and in different ways God spoke of old to [our] forefathers in and by the prophets, 2[But] in [b]the last of these days He has spoken to us in [the person of a] Son, Whom He appointed Heir and lawful Owner of all things, also by and through Whom He created the worlds and the reaches of space and the ages of time [He made, produced, built, operated, and arranged them in order].
I could go on with citations, but I think you get the drift. Here’s an article that presents more verses if you’re interested:
http://gospelway.com/bible/bible_inspiration.php
I agree with you that the Bible is not God, and therefore I worship Him and not His word. Yet if the Bible is truly His word in a way that no human message could ever be, then I want to know that word to help me draw closer to Him and understand His will for mankind.
I did read your story and found it very moving and helpful in understanding where you’re coming from a little more. I agree that our personal experience with God (through or apart from the Scriptures) is very precious. Yet I would part company with your view when you write “no one is separated from God,” if by that you mean no one is or can ultimately be spiritually lost, either on earth or for eternity. I agree (based on Scripture) that humans are made in the image and likeness of God, meaning that we can reason, feel, create, have spiritual longings, etc. Yet the Scriptures also plainly teach that as a result of the Fall, man in his natural condition is separated from God, does not seek God, and in fact is “dead” spiritually.
I appreciate the life and work of John Wimber. Perhaps you are more familiar with his teaching than I. However, a cursory review of his writings indicates that he held to the same view of Scripture as I and other conservative evangelicals, namely its inerrancy. In his book The Way in is the Way on, John describes what infallibility means, “Scripture will never deceive us; it will never lead us astray. It is wholly trustworthy and reliable. It contains no mistakes and is incapable of error” (p.97). Referring to inerrancy and quoting John Wesley (another of my heroes), Wimber writes, “If there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth (p.97).”
In defending inerrancy, we’re of course not referring to an occasional misplaced grammatical sign in a manuscript, or whether a discrepancy of one or two words or even a phrase exists between manuscripts. The point is that really did God speak to and through these human writers, and they perfectly recorded what He told them to say. The manuscripts were divinely preserved through the ages to such a degree that the central message of what we hold in our hands today can be fully relied on and taken to be the very words of God.
I agree that apart from the quickening of the Holy Spirit, the Bible will appear as just another book that makes little to no sense. But once one has the Holy Spirit, the words will begin to leap off the page and make sense when they never did before. It is possible (and I have been guilty myself) of viewing Scripture in a purely intellectual manner, without the Spirit of God to illumine our minds. Yet ultimately it is not an either/or proposition when I approach the Scriptures. I go there to encounter the living God, to let Him speak to me through His written word, both to my mind and my spirit.
continued
I appreciate what you say about legal code books, etc. Many do approach the Bible in that way, without spiritual discernment and understanding. Yet to me, the bottom line is this: How do we really and truly know that we know who God is, why we are here, and how we are to live if we do not have some objective, authoritative source to which we may refer? I agree that it is useful to ask what a passage meant to the original hearers, yet I would never limit Scripture (and if I understand their view correctly, Fee and Stuart as well as Wycliffe would concur) to being fixed in a specific cultural milieu. Once we start saying, “Well, Paul wrote (fill in the blank) to the Corinthians, but we know that those instructions were limited just to them” or “Yes, Jesus said to (fill in the blank), but He doesn’t want us to live like that today,” then what are we left with? I say we are left with only personal, subjective opinions that may and generally do clash with others’ personal, subjective opinions. With no common source of authority, we really have nothing at all, no final basis of agreement.
It seems to me that your position really vitiates the Scriptures and leaves them as really not much more than (generally) nice thoughts from which we may glean some good advice, but something that we can’t really put any confidence in because the authors were sometimes (often?) in error, were limited by cultural constraints, and the manuscripts we have today probably aren’t really that reliable anyway. I’m not trying to misrepresent your view, but if I understand you correctly, I’m not really sure why anyone would want to spend a lot of time reading the Bible as opposed to other religious texts, or even good literature (and most certainly wouldn’t want to die, as have many martyrs through the ages, based on what is written therein).
I won’t address your interpretation of what Paul is getting at in Romans 1 at this point, since it appears to me that the bigger issue is the authority of Scripture. After all, if we don’t accept Paul’s words there as the very words of God, why bother debating what he is saying?
This brings me to my concern about the “Quaker approach,” for lack of a better term. I’m not very familiar with “the Quaker way,” as you put it (my main exposure to Quakers has been of the more conservative stripe, including William Penn of old and Scott Savage more recently), and am open to learning more. As I alluded to above, what are we left with if we do not have an objective source of spiritual truth such as the Scriptures? You might say, “we have the Spirit, so what more do we need?” But I’m certain you’re aware of how many different people claim to be speaking by the Spirit, yet giving very different messages. One says, “The Spirit told me that God prefers the white race,” another, “The Spirit told me to throw kittens off the top of a tall building.” That may seem silly, but you know as well as I that all kinds of crazy utterances have been made in the name of the Spirit. My question for you is, how do you discern who is really speaking by the Spirit and who is not? You might reply, “what matches with the law of love?” but I would then say, why should I be concerned about this law? I do desire to follow the law of love, which tells me God loves all races and wants me to be kind to animals, largely because it is written in the Scriptures. Yes, we all have a conscience, but the Scripture also tells me that that conscience in its natural state is deeply marred by sin and is easily subject to deception.
continued
I’m curious how you personally decide whether or not to receive someone who brings you a message that they claim comes from the Spirit. How do you know that they are being truthful? I say we have to have an objective standard that is our final authority (based on God’s authority, of course). Yes, people can and do differ over interpretation of Scripture, but at least they agree that their opinion is supposed to align with the Bible, and if they can be shown they are in error, they will yield to what is written.
1 Timothy 4
1 BUT THE [Holy] Spirit distinctly and expressly declares that in latter times some will turn away from the faith, giving attention to deluding and seducing spirits and doctrines that demons teach, 2Through the hypocrisy and pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared (cauterized)
Because I take the warnings of Scripture as issued by God Himself, I am very careful to consider what someone says who tells me, “The Spirit says such and such.” I know there are deceiving spirits who lead many astray, yes, even finally to the pit of hell itself.
I believe that is why God gave us the Scriptures. Not as a dead letter, but to instruct us, to lead us to Him, and to give us a rod by which to measure spiritual claims. Otherwise, we are left with fallible human opinions, or worse yet, with spiritual deception masquerading in the guise of the Spirit.
Acts 17:11 (Amplified Bible)
11Now these [Jews] were better disposed and more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they were entirely ready and accepted and welcomed the message [[a]concerning the attainment through Christ of eternal salvation in the kingdom of God] with inclination of mind and eagerness, searching and examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
I seek to diligently search the Scriptures, not because they give me life, but because they point me to the One who gives life. These things are written for our benefit. We dismiss or undervalue them at our own peril.
God bless you,
David
Danny,
I forgot to mention another of the main reasons that we can know that the Bible is truly the inerrant word of God. That has to do with the amazing number of prophecies that came true oftentimes hundreds of years after they were made. Perhaps the most remarkable OT prophecies are those that foretold specific details about the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. There are literally dozens of very precise prophecies that He fulfilled. This is one more line of evidence that the Bible is uniquely the written word of God and may be fully trusted in every regard (even if we do not fully understand every passage).
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible
David
Hi David,
Sorry for the delay in responding to your comments. My schedule makes it difficult to engage in the type of extended dialog which you appear to be seeking. I think you have brought up some great points, however. I will endeavor to address some of them in future blog posts. In the meantime, this abbreviated response will have to suffice.
First and foremost, I should clarify that my position on inclusiveness towards homosexual Christians is not dependent upon my position regarding Biblical inerrancy. I know many Bible “inerrantists” who hold the same position that I do about Gay Christians. The exegesis I provided of Romans 1 and 2 is completely independent of any view about Biblical inerrancy or infallibility.
As you alluded to in the opening remarks of your last set of comments--even if we could prove the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, it wouldn't negate our own proclivity for error and fallibility when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Perhaps this is why most ”inerrantists” will add the disclaimer that they believe the original autographs of the scriptures are inerrant. This gets them off the hook when the obvious errors--as well as deviations between translations--are pointed out. But, of course, since the original autographs are long gone, there is no way to prove or disprove the assertion that they were inerrant.
I appreciate you taking the time to list proof-texts which you believe support Biblical inerrancy. Though, I must admit, I do not hold the Amplified Bible in very high regard. One ought to ask: Who's "amplifications" am I reading and how reliable are they? To what extent are the "amplifications" leading one towards the doctrinal biases of those providing the "amplifications"?
Re: Psalms 19:7-8 -- "The Law" would be referring to the Torah. Jesus abrogated portions of the Torah (particularly the Purity Codes), as did His disciples (see Acts 15). Why would Jesus alter something ("You have heard it said ..., but I tell you ...") that was perfect, inerrant and infallible?
Re: Revelation 21:5 -- The author is claiming that what he has written is faithful and true. I take him at his word that he is being faithful to write what he believes God has told him to write. But what has he written? Not the entire Bible. Furthermore, the Book of Revelation--a document which belongs to the Jewish literary genre known as 'Apocalyptic'--has been, without a doubt, the most widely misunderstood and misapplied book in the entire Bible. Perhaps this is why Martin Luther was reluctant to include it in his German translation of the Bible (along with Hebrews, James and Jude). He segmented these four books at the end of his translation, with the following disclaimer: "Up to this point we have had the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation." For more info: http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html
Re: Hebrews 1:1-2 -- I'm surprised that you would cite this text as proof of Biblical inerrancy, since what it says is that God has now spoken to us through a person rather than through a book. As a Quaker, the viewpoint of the author of Hebrews is one that I very much embrace.
In each of these examples (as well as 2 Tim. 3:16) the leap of logic that is being made is to extrapolate an overarching claim of inerrancy for the entire canon of scripture based on statements that say nothing of the sort. A similar leap can be seen in your assertion that "...the Scriptures also plainly teach that as a result of the Fall, man in his natural condition is separated from God, does not seek God, and in fact is “dead” spiritually." There is no text in scripture which says this as you've stated it. Rather, various passages from disparate locations have been taken out of their native context and strung together to create this doctrinal framework. The theological concept of "The Fall" was imported from Greco-Roman thought and codified by Church Fathers (many of whom had been pagan philosophers prior to converting to Christianity) several hundred years after Christ and after the completion of the New Testament canon. In other words, it is a doctrine which was developed later and retroactively imposed upon the scriptures. Such an action is known as eisegesis. Some other popular doctrines which you probably believe to be Biblical have similar origins.
I'm not a follower of Wimber (though I was at one time) and disagree with many of the things he taught, including the statement you quoted. Prior to joining Calvary Chapel and the Vineyard, he was a Quaker. His statement that "The Bible is the menu, not the meal..." is, I suspect, a variation on Barclay's statement about having access to the fountain as well as the stream. Barclay's point had more to do with authority, which I'll get to in a moment. To quote Barclay directly: "...because they [the scriptures] are only a declaration of the fountain, and not the fountain itself, therefore they are not to be esteemed the principal ground of all Truth and knowledge, nor yet the adequate primary rule of faith and manners. Yet because they give a true and faithful testimony of the first foundation, they are and may be esteemed a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit, from which they have all their excellency and certainty: for as by the inward testimony of the Spirit we do alone truly know them, so they testify, that the Spirit is that Guide by which the saints are led into all Truth; therefore, according to the Scriptures, the Spirit is the first and principal leader." I did not mean to infer that Wimber's views were (or remained) the same as Barclay's or that by liking something Wimber once said I was agreeing with everything he ever said.
I should also make it clear that although I do not believe that the documents contained in the Bible are inerrant, I do hold them in extremely high regard. I do not believe that the Bible is filled with errors to the point of being unreliable. But I do believe that diligent, educated and humble study is required in order to avoid misunderstanding and/or misapplying scripture. The documents in the Bible were written by people who encountered God, but those encounters still occurred within the context of their own time, place, knowledge, worldview and culture. So, for example, Biblical authors wrote about God and the earth from a very limited pre-scientific understanding of the cosmos. That doesn't make what they wrote about their encounters with God any less real or valuable. In fact, if we understand the perspective they were writing from, we're much more likely to understand what they were trying to say and how we might apply it in our own milieu.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about: In the book of Jude, verse 14, the author states "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men:" He then goes on to quote from a document called the Book of Enoch (also known as 1 Enoch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch) an Apocryphal book dating from no earlier than 300 BC. The Book of Enoch is a pseudepigraph--a writing whose authorship is falsely attributed by the real writer to some famous person in order to give it more influence. Pseudepigraphs were fairly common in ancient times and the Book of Enoch was massively popular among 1st Century Jews. The point here is that Jude believed that the Book of Enoch was actually written by Enoch, the seventh from Adam. He had no reason not to believe that. We know now that Jude was in error on this matter. As a result, the Book of Jude contains a glaring error. Does it make a huge difference to one's faith? No. At least, it shouldn't, unless one's faith is dependent on complete Biblical inerrancy.
You asked "How do we really and truly know that we know who God is, why we are here, and how we are to live if we do not have some objective, authoritative source to which we may refer?" I will give you a very "Quakerly" answer: We know by knowing God. History is full of examples of people who perpetrated all sorts of evil while claiming they were faithfully following the authority of scripture. The difference between following a book and following the living God is vast. I believe many Christians today are "functional atheists". That is, they don't really believe that God can be experienced, interacted with and closely followed. They prefer to interact with doctrines and letters printed on a page.
You stated, "With no common source of authority, we really have nothing at all, no final basis of agreement." True. How well has it worked trying to make the Bible that "common source of authority"? There are thousands and thousands of different Protestant denominations and sects. Almost all of them claim to subscribe to "Sola Scriptura". Yet they disagree widely (and sometimes violently) on any number of doctrinal matters--each claiming that they are interpreting scripture correctly. The Catholic Church places ultimate authority in the Church hierarchy and its Traditions. Protestantism places ultimate authority in scripture (interpreted in a variety of ways). Quakers place ultimate authority in the direct and real Presence of God. Quakers also place an extremely high priority on community. Although we can (and do) experience and interact with God as individuals, it is when we encounter God in community that we find the "final basis for agreement." It is often thought that Quakers seek consensus, but that isn't really correct. Quakers seek to listen together and to hear God together. This approach--sometimes called "group discernment"--has worked well for 350 years. It is a non-hierarchical submission to group discernment which provides a guard against the kinds of "crazy utterances" and actions that you rightly expressed concern about. The challenge is this: Do you believe that God can and will speak to a group of people today, who gather together to listen for His voice? This practice of group discernment seems to have been almost completely lost (outside of the Quakers). Perhaps it is because people chose instead to place the final authority on Church Tradition or on Scriptural Interpretation.
You asked how I "personally decide whether or not to receive someone who brings you a message that they claim comes from the Spirit." The first criterion is whether or not the person is known and trusted by myself and/or my community. The picture I see of the church in the New Testament is of small, interactive, mutually accountable communities. Just as Agabus brought a prophetic word to the church in Acts 11, if a brother or sister in my community who has a track record of reliable prophetic utterances brings a message, we take it seriously. Then we listen together for clarification and confirmation directly from God.
But, as I've said, scripture is still extremely valuable and useful. I take scripture very, very seriously and have devoted many years to its study. You mentioned Fee & Stuart. Have you read "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth"? I'm dubious because you seem to have only gotten half of the equation: If we begin by endeavoring to understand what a passage meant in its original context (historically, culturally, genre-wise, within the thought and framework of the document that contains it, etc.) then we are in a position to attempt to understand how to apply it. Rather than approaching the Bible as a "flat" book, we are allowing it to become "three-dimensional." Just last week, in a Bible study I lead, we looked at Jesus' interaction with the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15. First we explored what that text would have meant to the original hearers of Matthew's Gospel. This requires research into the history, culture, etc. Ultimately, by getting a feel for how the story would have affected Matthew’s intended audience, we were led to the application of the text by asking "Who would be an equivalent to the 'Canaanite woman' in our culture?" Suddenly, we're living the story, not just reading about it. And we have the same Living Christ who spoke with the Canaanite woman to teach and guide us here and now. George Fox once famously interrupted an Anglican minister mid-sermon by shouting "You tell us 'Paul said this' and 'Peter said that', but what can you say?" In other words, are you living the story or just reading it from a book?
I agree that Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament scriptures, though you and I might have different definitions of what it meant to "fulfill prophecy", since many of the scriptures that Jesus "fulfilled" were not originally predictive in nature. Rather, by His life and teachings, He brought those scriptures into three-dimensions. He continues to do that, through us. To your point though, fulfilled prophecy does not ipso facto equate to overall Biblical inerrancy. That is another one of those leaps.
Here are a few interesting and thoughtful links regarding Biblical Inerrancy, that I think you might enjoy, written by people much smarter than myself. I don't claim to agree with every word, but there is much food for thought here:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/12/if-the-bible-is-not-inerrant-then-christianity-is-false-and-other-stupid-statements/
http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4670&Itemid=134
http://pursiful.com/2009/11/why-i-am-not-an-inerrantist%E2%80%94even-though-i-am-or-vice-versa/
http://rogereolson.com/2010/08/19/why-inerrancy-doesnt-matter/
-Danny
Hi Danny,
I just now saw your comments. Thanks again for taking the time to explain your view.
It's pretty clear that we hold essentially contradictory views of the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, and stemming from that, come to widely divergent understandings of important spiritual questions.
I see and agree that merely upholding the Scriptures as our ultimate authority (based on God's authority) is no guarantee of unity among those holding this view. However, among those who do hold to inerrancy, on the most basic questions concerning the self-revelation of God through Jesus and His plan and will for mankind, there is general and widespread agreement.
I continue to have serious reservations about the Quaker approach, or with any group which places "hearing from the Spirit" above the authority of Scripture. Groups of well-meaning folk have been seriously led astray through such approaches, and I believe, open themselves up to demonic deceptions. I appreciate the phrase of a brother I know: "instructed by the Scriptures and led by the Spirit."
Thus, if I were a part of a group in which everyone else told me "the Spirit says to practice polygamy" (e.g., Mormons), I can say, "I'm sorry, but based on the full Scriptures, I see God's plan as one man and one woman. This practice was tolerated for a period of time under the Old Covenant, but was not God's original plan, which is made clear in the New Covenant." One Spirit-filled man humbly standing on the authority of Scripture (though he should consider thoughtful appeals before disagreeing) has a stronger base on which to stand than does a whole group which rejects the final authority of the written word of God.
We read the Scriptures because they reveal to us the very thoughts of God, but we must have the Spirit dwelling in our lives in order to properly comprehend and apply them.
I will not further pursue this discussion unless you strongly feel we should. I will only add that the alleged refutation of inerrancy based on Jude (as well as other purported errors or contradictions) has been answered by any number of evangelical Bible scholars. If you haven't seen their thoughts on this, you can do a Google search for more discussion. If you're not familiar with Paul Copan, I strongly recommend his work. Mark Roberts' book on the Gospels is great too.
I appreciate your thoughts and pray for you a full and true understanding and experience of the mind of the Lord Jesus Christ.
David
Regarding Jude's quotation of 1 Enoch, I have read a number of explanations by Evangelical Bible scholars. They seem to fall into two basic categories:
1. Yes, Jude quoted from 1 Enoch, but that doesn't mean 1 Enoch should be considered inspired scripture. [This explanation doesn't really answer the issue of inerrancy that I brought up. It seems to try to obfuscate the fact that Jude says he is quoting Enoch himself rather than the Book of Enoch. As a result, this defense does not address Jude's error in thinking the statement from the Book of Enoch was actually made by the historical Enoch.
2. Actually Jude *is* quoting what Enoch (the seventh from Adam) really said. How do we know this? Because Jude is scripture and scripture is inspired, inerrant and infallible. Therefore, if Jude says Enoch said it, Enoch said it. Enoch's statement must have been preserved and passed on orally for thousands of years (including surviving the Noahic Flood). The Book of Enoch (1 Enoch) is pseudephigraphical, but the real Enoch really said what Jude says he said. [This argument elevates the practice of circular reasoning to dizzying heights!]
The other issue with Jude (that I didn't mention) is that echoes (rather than direct quotes) of 1 Enoch run throughout the letter. Jude, clearly believed that the Book of Enoch was legit and applied it as if it were scripture. This is not surprising, since 1 Enoch was very, very popular among Jews and Christians of that time period. Church fathers ranging from Justin Martyr to Irenaeus to Origin to Clement of Alexandria quote from (or reference) the Book of Enoch in their writings. Tertullian refers to the Book of Enoch as "Holy Scripture". They were mistaken, but we don't expect them to be inerrant. We only expect that from Jude because Jude was canonized.
Here's an interesting article noting that the Book of Enoch may have actually been written after Jude. Jude does not claim that he is quoting from that book; therefore you can't validly conclude that is his source, or that Jude was even familiar with that book--it could have been the other way around.
Further, I see no undermining of inerrancy just because Jude includes a quote that is not recorded in the OT. It could be oral history, or have been brought directly to Jude by the Spirit. Neither approach involves circular reasoning.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/1179
Hi David,
I appreciate the link. It says pretty much what I expected and what I've seen before. The last paragraph says it all:
"We probably will never be sure when (or if) Jude received information from earthly sources about Enoch’s writing or The Assumption of Moses. Perhaps Jude heard about it from traditional sources or from the books themselves, but this does not alter the fact that Jude was inspired of God. It is possible that the Holy Spirit, as He inspired Jude, certified that one particular portion of The Book of Enoch is correct, though not inspired. It is altogether certain, however, that despite critics’ allegations, the Bible continues to stand firm as the sole message from the Creator—always accurate and dependable."
That is exactly the kind circular reasoning I was talking about. It is about as close to settled fact as textual analysis of ancient documents permits, that 1 Enoch predates Jude by at least two centuries and that 1 Enoch was widely circulated and very popular in Jude's time.
When I grew beyond needing to believe in inerrancy and a literal approach to scripture, one of the results was tremendous relief that I no longer had to participate in disingenuous rationalizations and logical gymnastics in order to defend inerrancy against simple, honest and solid evidence such as Jude's mistaken reference to Enoch.
-Danny
Post a Comment
<< Home