Posts
A discussion came up tonight between a friend of mine and I after we got out of a class about when is it appropriate to get into a debate about theology and when should we just keep our mouths shut.
It seems as if spiritually young people tend to enjoy debating theology a great deal, especially those who are in the process of learning the finer points of theology. I can remember as I got into Bible college spending many late nights (or should I say early mornings) debating theology with others. My friend mentioned that shortly after he became a Christian, he found himself debating a large number of issues with people, but only found those debates to stir people up into a frenzy of passionate anger. Is this fruitful? My 3:00am debates were typically more subdued, but I think that was only because it was 3:00 in the morning.
Since then, I have found myself feeling less and less inclined to enter into debate. I wonder why this is. Maybe it is theological laxity; the idea that I have ceased to care about the finer points of theology. Or maybe it is wearisome feelings about the idea of debate itself, that I no longer feel I have the energy to enter into debate. Or maybe it is a sign of growth in the maturation process. Personally, I am convinced it is a mixture of all three.
We do need to be cautious. We need to be aware of attacks that come against the Christian faith, because many, if not most, come in very subtle forms. Diligence is required on the part of the shepherd over his flock. We as "professionals in ministry" must remain diligent in equal manner. But we also must approach the defense of the Gospel in a wise and savvy manner. We should not seek to debate theology simply for the purpose of debate (which is what most of those 3am debates were). All that does is create division. Ask this, how often do these debates result in people changing their views. Most of the time it is two or more people willing to press their views while having no interest in what the other person is trying to say. I am convinced that the only time it is appropriate and even necessary to enter into serious theological debate is when foundational theological principles are at stake. These are things that relate directly to the possibility of and even the precise nature of salvation itself. Other things I am willing to discuss with people who have humility in their theology as I seek to have humility in my own, but outside of that is a realm I will no longer enter.
And this is not a new problem. Paul told Titus in 3:9-11 to avoid foolish controversies. I am convinced what Paul was getting at is to avoid those debated issues that are not relevant to the promotion of the Gospel. Notice, if someone attacked the Gospel message, Paul had no problem speaking out. But when it came to lesser issues, Paul avoided them because they were "unprofitable and worthless", only causing "division." I believe this is something those of us particularly living in the academic world of theological studies really need to take to heart. We constantly need to check ourselves and ask what is really important. What must we absolutely stand up for and defend at all costs, and what debates should we leave aside.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
What is Wrong with this Picture
I was recently directed to read an article posted by Christianity Today linked here. From there, there was a link to a better researched and presented article, linked here which I would recommend in spite of the web site's clear bias.
Before commenting on what went wrong, I would like to make a simple statement. I refuse to spread hate against the gay community, for I am wholly convinced this is a wrong approach to dealing with the problem. While I believe homosexual practice is sin, I do not believe our hating on them and ostracizing them is the way of Christ either. Instead, Christ has called us to love, and we are to leave judgment to the only one who can judge justly. However, I do believe it is also important to recognize where error occurs, and lay a defense against it, so as to hopefully save some from being led astray by false teaching.
That said, I did notice at least a couple problems in Boltz's statements.
1. He alludes to the idea that he was fighting under his own strength, and when he realized he wasn't winning the battle, he decided to give in, searching for a way to rationalize the problem (which will be discussed in #2).
The issue here is simple. Christ does not promise us victory from any sinful struggle in this life. He only promises the grace we need each day to fight against sin. Victory will not be fully experienced until the resurrection when our salvation is made complete. Paul talks of a struggle he had which he desperately sought for Christ to remove. What was Christ's response? My grace is sufficient. Latter, Paul tells Timothy, not that he found victory, or that he gave up, but that throughout his life, he pressed on toward the goal. He did not say he arrived, but only that he pressed on, continually running the race, fighting the good fight. This is the example that was set for us. Not that we should give up, give in, rationalize our sin away, but continue to press on. Again, there is no promise that it will be easy, but God does promise he will walk with us in the struggle.
2. Boltz states; “This is what it really comes down to; if this is the way God made me, then this is the way I’m going to live. It’s not like God made me this way and he’ll send me to hell if I am who he created me to be … I really feel closer to God because I no longer hate myself.”
Did God create us as sinners, or did we fall into sin on our own? God created us as heterosexual beings. Romans 1 clearly shows that it was man who sought to pervert this and began desiring same sex relationships. God did not create us sinners, that was our own doing. But if we do rationalize our sin in this way, then it no longer becomes sin, but who determines what is sin and what is not? We must go according to Scripture.
What Ray Boltz is going through is not easy. And I'm sure he will have to endure much more. But hopefully, in our consideration of what he stated, we will all grow in our own understanding of our faith and the difficulty of sin, and we will continue to show Christ's love to this man and pray for him as he must endure this struggle.
Before commenting on what went wrong, I would like to make a simple statement. I refuse to spread hate against the gay community, for I am wholly convinced this is a wrong approach to dealing with the problem. While I believe homosexual practice is sin, I do not believe our hating on them and ostracizing them is the way of Christ either. Instead, Christ has called us to love, and we are to leave judgment to the only one who can judge justly. However, I do believe it is also important to recognize where error occurs, and lay a defense against it, so as to hopefully save some from being led astray by false teaching.
That said, I did notice at least a couple problems in Boltz's statements.
1. He alludes to the idea that he was fighting under his own strength, and when he realized he wasn't winning the battle, he decided to give in, searching for a way to rationalize the problem (which will be discussed in #2).
The issue here is simple. Christ does not promise us victory from any sinful struggle in this life. He only promises the grace we need each day to fight against sin. Victory will not be fully experienced until the resurrection when our salvation is made complete. Paul talks of a struggle he had which he desperately sought for Christ to remove. What was Christ's response? My grace is sufficient. Latter, Paul tells Timothy, not that he found victory, or that he gave up, but that throughout his life, he pressed on toward the goal. He did not say he arrived, but only that he pressed on, continually running the race, fighting the good fight. This is the example that was set for us. Not that we should give up, give in, rationalize our sin away, but continue to press on. Again, there is no promise that it will be easy, but God does promise he will walk with us in the struggle.
2. Boltz states; “This is what it really comes down to; if this is the way God made me, then this is the way I’m going to live. It’s not like God made me this way and he’ll send me to hell if I am who he created me to be … I really feel closer to God because I no longer hate myself.”
Did God create us as sinners, or did we fall into sin on our own? God created us as heterosexual beings. Romans 1 clearly shows that it was man who sought to pervert this and began desiring same sex relationships. God did not create us sinners, that was our own doing. But if we do rationalize our sin in this way, then it no longer becomes sin, but who determines what is sin and what is not? We must go according to Scripture.
What Ray Boltz is going through is not easy. And I'm sure he will have to endure much more. But hopefully, in our consideration of what he stated, we will all grow in our own understanding of our faith and the difficulty of sin, and we will continue to show Christ's love to this man and pray for him as he must endure this struggle.
Friday, August 8, 2008
New Blog
Here is a new blog by Zondervan titled Koinonia; biblical theological conversations for the community of Christ. It consists of many excellent evangelical scholars, including a former proffessor of mine while I was at Moody Bible Institute; John Walton.
I mention him because he wrote an entry titled Hermeneutics and Childrens Curriculum which I found to be very important for today's church. We do need to carefully screen any curriculum we use in our churches, and those who write curriculum need to pay better attention not just to educational principles, but also to bible study methodology. I especially appreciate the notes people have written, noting that this problem is not just with children's curriculum, but also with adult curriculum.
What is important is that while we may not be teaching people hermeneutical methods, we are modeling it for them, and therefore must be careful to practice sound hermeneutics in our lesson planning.
I mention him because he wrote an entry titled Hermeneutics and Childrens Curriculum which I found to be very important for today's church. We do need to carefully screen any curriculum we use in our churches, and those who write curriculum need to pay better attention not just to educational principles, but also to bible study methodology. I especially appreciate the notes people have written, noting that this problem is not just with children's curriculum, but also with adult curriculum.
What is important is that while we may not be teaching people hermeneutical methods, we are modeling it for them, and therefore must be careful to practice sound hermeneutics in our lesson planning.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Is It Worth It?
This past Sunday, Bill Lake, an area representative for Biblical Ministries Worldwide spoke at my home church on the question "Is it worth it?" Given the difficult times the American economy finds itself in and the rising costs of missions work, this question is truly relevant, and one I am sure many are asking but few are getting solid answers for.
In an effort to find a biblical answer to this question, Mr. Lake turned to II Corinthians 4:7-18. If you want to hear the whole of the message, invite him to your church, but here I want to give some of my thoughts and reactions to the question.
Consider the experience of Paul. He himself lists numerous forms of suffering that he endured;
Given these experiences, notice how he regards them in 4:17 - a "light, momentary affliction." The first word translated "light" can be understood as frivolous, fickle, something that bears little weight or significance. He is not saying "it didn't hurt", he is pointing out that at the end of the day, if these moments of suffering are what he must endure for the mission he was called to complete, then his response is "bring it on."
But why was Paul willing to face the suffering? It seems he is looking forward to the glory it will bring him in the rest of the verse, but that does not seem consistent with Paul's attitude elsewhere about his ministry. However, if we look back in the context, the glory seems not directed at himself, but at God. In verse 15 he points out two purposes for his ministry, first for the sake of those who came to believe. The ministry was to bring people to Christ, and thus was to benefit the people being reached. But this was not the main reason. The primary purpose for Paul's ministry was to glorify God. As more people come to a saving faith in Christ, as the church grows, God's glory is magnified.
Does Paul see mission work as being "worth it". I agree with Bill Lake when he believes Paul would answer with a resounding "YES!" Just think what Christ has done in your life, what he is continuing to do, and what he will do when you stand before the judgment seat of God. What will the rest of the world say when they must stand before God? The keys to eternal life were given to the church, and it is our responsibility to tell others, giving them the opportunity to glorify God with us.
It is amazing how quickly we can become focused on our immediate surroundings, a faltering economy, tight budgets, empty or near-empty pocket books. Our prayers generally focus on ourselves and those close to us. But I am convinced that as we learn to focus on the things that are unseen rather than what we do see with our own eyes, we will begin to understand why Paul said "it is worth it", and we too will answer "it was worth every ounce of my being." ...For the glory of God!
In an effort to find a biblical answer to this question, Mr. Lake turned to II Corinthians 4:7-18. If you want to hear the whole of the message, invite him to your church, but here I want to give some of my thoughts and reactions to the question.
Consider the experience of Paul. He himself lists numerous forms of suffering that he endured;
Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one--I am talking like a madman--with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches.
(II Cor. 11:23-28 ESV)
Given these experiences, notice how he regards them in 4:17 - a "light, momentary affliction." The first word translated "light" can be understood as frivolous, fickle, something that bears little weight or significance. He is not saying "it didn't hurt", he is pointing out that at the end of the day, if these moments of suffering are what he must endure for the mission he was called to complete, then his response is "bring it on."
But why was Paul willing to face the suffering? It seems he is looking forward to the glory it will bring him in the rest of the verse, but that does not seem consistent with Paul's attitude elsewhere about his ministry. However, if we look back in the context, the glory seems not directed at himself, but at God. In verse 15 he points out two purposes for his ministry, first for the sake of those who came to believe. The ministry was to bring people to Christ, and thus was to benefit the people being reached. But this was not the main reason. The primary purpose for Paul's ministry was to glorify God. As more people come to a saving faith in Christ, as the church grows, God's glory is magnified.
Does Paul see mission work as being "worth it". I agree with Bill Lake when he believes Paul would answer with a resounding "YES!" Just think what Christ has done in your life, what he is continuing to do, and what he will do when you stand before the judgment seat of God. What will the rest of the world say when they must stand before God? The keys to eternal life were given to the church, and it is our responsibility to tell others, giving them the opportunity to glorify God with us.
It is amazing how quickly we can become focused on our immediate surroundings, a faltering economy, tight budgets, empty or near-empty pocket books. Our prayers generally focus on ourselves and those close to us. But I am convinced that as we learn to focus on the things that are unseen rather than what we do see with our own eyes, we will begin to understand why Paul said "it is worth it", and we too will answer "it was worth every ounce of my being." ...For the glory of God!
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Update to site
A friend recommended I read another blog site and after perusing it, I decided to link it here. It is in the side bar section titled "Blogs to Consider". It is called Jesus Creed. While I do not necessarily agree with with some of the views presented by Scot McNight, he does present some interesting ideas worth considering, if even to hone your own faith. His background is emergent, but he seems to be a little more conservative in his views than some of the other emergent folk out there.
I should mention that some of the sites linked in the sidebar are not ones that I necessarily agree with all the time, but they are ones that cause me to think, just as I ask all of us to do. The goal is zeal for the faith with a knowledge to support that zeal.
I should mention that some of the sites linked in the sidebar are not ones that I necessarily agree with all the time, but they are ones that cause me to think, just as I ask all of us to do. The goal is zeal for the faith with a knowledge to support that zeal.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
It's All About Context
Last night I was able to watch Reverend Jeremiah Wright speak at the National Press Club on CSPAN. In his answers regarding the controversial video clips released of some of his sermons, he responded asking if the questioner knew the context of those statements. Is it safe to say Wright is concerned about context?
At one point the questioner asked; Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me." Do you believe this and do you think Islam is a way to salvation. Wright's response? Jesus also said "other sheep have I who are not of this fold." He then backed away from the podium with a smirk on his face as the audience cheered. But let us consider the context of the verse he quoted. The reference is John 10:16. First, let me quote the context of this verse.
I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. ~John 10:14-16 (ESV)
The overall context of this passage is that Jesus is talking with a group of Jews (cf. vs 19). In the Jews mind, they would immediately understand that Jesus was talking about those who were not a part of Israel, namely the Gentiles. This is a religious issue, but notice that even the Jews rejected him. His point was that he was seeking to gather all those who would follow him. Allow me to quote further from the same chapter.
Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." ~John 10:25-27 (ESV)
So what governs being a part of the flock is belief in the teachings of Jesus. Part of his teaching involved following him and his teachings, something the Muslims do not do. If Muslims were part of the sheep who were not of the fold in verse 16, then why do they not follow Christ? Apparently context is not as important to Wright as he desires. So he has a problem when it is his words that are taken out of context, but has no problem taking Jesus' words out of context? Where is the disconnect?
At another point in the interview he discussed America's alleged feeding of Terrorism and then experiencing terrorists attacks. In his response he quotes a portion Galatians 6:7; what a man sows, that will he also reap. It seems, with the media attacks on his sermons, that this principle is coming back to haunt him.
This serves as a prime example of the importance of context and why we must be careful to study the context of anything that is put in front of us.
At one point the questioner asked; Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me." Do you believe this and do you think Islam is a way to salvation. Wright's response? Jesus also said "other sheep have I who are not of this fold." He then backed away from the podium with a smirk on his face as the audience cheered. But let us consider the context of the verse he quoted. The reference is John 10:16. First, let me quote the context of this verse.
I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. ~John 10:14-16 (ESV)
The overall context of this passage is that Jesus is talking with a group of Jews (cf. vs 19). In the Jews mind, they would immediately understand that Jesus was talking about those who were not a part of Israel, namely the Gentiles. This is a religious issue, but notice that even the Jews rejected him. His point was that he was seeking to gather all those who would follow him. Allow me to quote further from the same chapter.
Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." ~John 10:25-27 (ESV)
So what governs being a part of the flock is belief in the teachings of Jesus. Part of his teaching involved following him and his teachings, something the Muslims do not do. If Muslims were part of the sheep who were not of the fold in verse 16, then why do they not follow Christ? Apparently context is not as important to Wright as he desires. So he has a problem when it is his words that are taken out of context, but has no problem taking Jesus' words out of context? Where is the disconnect?
At another point in the interview he discussed America's alleged feeding of Terrorism and then experiencing terrorists attacks. In his response he quotes a portion Galatians 6:7; what a man sows, that will he also reap. It seems, with the media attacks on his sermons, that this principle is coming back to haunt him.
This serves as a prime example of the importance of context and why we must be careful to study the context of anything that is put in front of us.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Churches and Architecture
Here is an interesting photo essay of mega churches and architecture. I especially appreciate his comments on some of the photos, having a hint of humor and sarcasm.
This does raise an important question. What role, if any, does art and architecture have in corporate worship? Can the design of a church help create an atmosphere of worship?
When I was in a choir in college, I became keenly aware of the importance of architecture and acoustics. I vowed that if I ever had a voice during a church building project, I would seek to incorporate an acoustics engineer in the design process.
Our choir sang in numerous types of churches, most of which were very dead acoustically. The most common acoustically poor design was what one would find in most modern large-church designs; lots of carpet, comfortable padded seats, etc. What was lost in acoustics was made up for in electrical sound systems. The churches that held the best acoustics were typically cathedral-styled. We would often stop at a cathedral just to tour them and before we would leave, we would gather to sing, and it often sounded incredible. One particular time nearly every member of the choir had tears in their eyes. The beauty of the sound mixed with powerful lyrics created an incredible atmosphere for worship, and worship we did.
I was also often impressed by the artistic nature of some of these buildings. Art can create opportunities for worship. The problem though is familiarity. I believe it is possible to become so familiar with certain pieces of art that they loose their impact.
But are these things ok? Or are evangelical churches right in steering away from beauty in architecture? In the reformation process, people began to seek piety even in church structure. They departed from the Roman Catholic tradition of building majestic cathedrals and moved toward simplicity. Now many are seeking even more "piety" by removing any form of religious symbol from the church structure. Is this a positive move? Or is there another choice. Can we include art in church structure without going too far? Can our quest to build something beautiful be God-honoring?
These are not easy questions to answer, and I have yet to take a position. I do lean toward including art in church architecture, though not in an elaborate sense.
This does raise an important question. What role, if any, does art and architecture have in corporate worship? Can the design of a church help create an atmosphere of worship?
When I was in a choir in college, I became keenly aware of the importance of architecture and acoustics. I vowed that if I ever had a voice during a church building project, I would seek to incorporate an acoustics engineer in the design process.
Our choir sang in numerous types of churches, most of which were very dead acoustically. The most common acoustically poor design was what one would find in most modern large-church designs; lots of carpet, comfortable padded seats, etc. What was lost in acoustics was made up for in electrical sound systems. The churches that held the best acoustics were typically cathedral-styled. We would often stop at a cathedral just to tour them and before we would leave, we would gather to sing, and it often sounded incredible. One particular time nearly every member of the choir had tears in their eyes. The beauty of the sound mixed with powerful lyrics created an incredible atmosphere for worship, and worship we did.
I was also often impressed by the artistic nature of some of these buildings. Art can create opportunities for worship. The problem though is familiarity. I believe it is possible to become so familiar with certain pieces of art that they loose their impact.
But are these things ok? Or are evangelical churches right in steering away from beauty in architecture? In the reformation process, people began to seek piety even in church structure. They departed from the Roman Catholic tradition of building majestic cathedrals and moved toward simplicity. Now many are seeking even more "piety" by removing any form of religious symbol from the church structure. Is this a positive move? Or is there another choice. Can we include art in church structure without going too far? Can our quest to build something beautiful be God-honoring?
These are not easy questions to answer, and I have yet to take a position. I do lean toward including art in church architecture, though not in an elaborate sense.
Monday, March 24, 2008
What is Sin?
I highly recommend you read this Newsweek Article titled Has the 'notion of sin' been lost?.
What are your thoughts? Why has sin become so relative in our country? Or is sin relative?
The fact still remains that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and that very problem needs to be dealt with on God's terms and not ours. Maybe the Church needs to wake up and do a better job of preaching sin and the Cross.
What are your thoughts? Why has sin become so relative in our country? Or is sin relative?
The fact still remains that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and that very problem needs to be dealt with on God's terms and not ours. Maybe the Church needs to wake up and do a better job of preaching sin and the Cross.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Moses On Drugs
There was a news article linked from the Drudge Report yesterday titled "Moses was High On Drugs: Israeli Researcher". I recommend you first read it here.
The theological implications of this are huge. If the divine origin of the cultic practice of the Jews is falsified, then the entirety of the Bible is established on false grounds and as Paul would say, we would be the most foolish of them all to believe in such things.
What is wrong with this conclusion?
Shanon notes that he already does not believe in the possibility for the super-natural, so automatically he is going to search for another way of explaining what happened in regards to such events as the burning bush and the giving of the Law. This is a sure-fire example of how presuppositions can govern interpretation.
Another problem is that of the question of what is reasonable. The drugs explanation may be credible for the burning bush account, but to use it to explain the giving of the Law at Sinai is pressing the bounds of what is reasonable. It would require that over a million men, women, and children were all taking this drug. It would also negate the possibility for a naturalistic explanation for the complexity found in the Law. Could someone who is high on these drugs really create such a Law system in its moral/judicial and cultic systems? This stretches the bounds of reason to beyond the breaking point.
Lastly is Shanon's credibility. He said himself that he has taken similar kinds of drugs. Experience in taking them does not make him an expert of what they can do, and makes one question his ability to use proper reason in performing these sorts of studies.
The theological implications of this are huge. If the divine origin of the cultic practice of the Jews is falsified, then the entirety of the Bible is established on false grounds and as Paul would say, we would be the most foolish of them all to believe in such things.
What is wrong with this conclusion?
Shanon notes that he already does not believe in the possibility for the super-natural, so automatically he is going to search for another way of explaining what happened in regards to such events as the burning bush and the giving of the Law. This is a sure-fire example of how presuppositions can govern interpretation.
Another problem is that of the question of what is reasonable. The drugs explanation may be credible for the burning bush account, but to use it to explain the giving of the Law at Sinai is pressing the bounds of what is reasonable. It would require that over a million men, women, and children were all taking this drug. It would also negate the possibility for a naturalistic explanation for the complexity found in the Law. Could someone who is high on these drugs really create such a Law system in its moral/judicial and cultic systems? This stretches the bounds of reason to beyond the breaking point.
Lastly is Shanon's credibility. He said himself that he has taken similar kinds of drugs. Experience in taking them does not make him an expert of what they can do, and makes one question his ability to use proper reason in performing these sorts of studies.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Paying Taxes
Tonight as I was sitting in a coffee shop, I overheard an interesting conversation. Three young people were talking about the idea that people should not have to pay taxes because it is wrong. Their support? The man who was most vocal in the conversation pointed out that the only time tax collectors were presented in a positive light was when they were repentant. His argument immediately went from this point to say that because of this and the fact that all other presentations of taxes in Scripture is negative, paying taxes must be wrong.
What is wrong with this argument? The first and perhaps most obvious is the question of context. What is the nature of the repentance the tax collectors sought? Was it that they collected taxes? Of course not. Their repentance was in regard to the fact that they had collected an unfair amount of taxes above and beyond what they were told to collect for the Roman government. They repented and as one tax collector announced, he would return to the people not just what he over-charged, but even with interest. The group that was discussing this issue in the coffee shop in no way dealt with this aspect of the relevant passages.
Another obvious overlook in their argument is the debate between the religious leaders and Christ. Did not the religious leaders ask if they should pay taxes to Caesar? And what was Jesus' response? "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
This conversation serves as an extreme example of how we can allow our own wishes and desires to govern our interpretation of Scripture. We have a specific desire, such as finding an excuse to not pay taxes, then seek support for our desire, with no regard for context or message. This is considered an inductive fallacy in which evidence is left out (intentionally or not) for the purpose of proving our desired thesis. We really need to be careful when exegeting Scripture, that we are taking into account the whole counsel of God and not just what supports our personal interests.
What is wrong with this argument? The first and perhaps most obvious is the question of context. What is the nature of the repentance the tax collectors sought? Was it that they collected taxes? Of course not. Their repentance was in regard to the fact that they had collected an unfair amount of taxes above and beyond what they were told to collect for the Roman government. They repented and as one tax collector announced, he would return to the people not just what he over-charged, but even with interest. The group that was discussing this issue in the coffee shop in no way dealt with this aspect of the relevant passages.
Another obvious overlook in their argument is the debate between the religious leaders and Christ. Did not the religious leaders ask if they should pay taxes to Caesar? And what was Jesus' response? "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
This conversation serves as an extreme example of how we can allow our own wishes and desires to govern our interpretation of Scripture. We have a specific desire, such as finding an excuse to not pay taxes, then seek support for our desire, with no regard for context or message. This is considered an inductive fallacy in which evidence is left out (intentionally or not) for the purpose of proving our desired thesis. We really need to be careful when exegeting Scripture, that we are taking into account the whole counsel of God and not just what supports our personal interests.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Church Structure
One of the important facets of understanding and interpreting the New Testament is to seek to understand how the authors used and understood the Old Testament. Often times this will enhance our understanding of the New Testament and sometimes even enlighten us on theological points we may have missed before.
I recently have been working through a book study on Titus, and while going through it, I have been seeking out cross-references for each verse. In the first chapter Paul is giving Titus instructions and lists some qualifications for leaders of the church. One curious comparison is to view Titus 1 and 2 Timothy 2 as they relate to Leviticus. Is it possible that Paul is drawing upon the qualifications and mandates made for the priests to establish his own listing of qualifications for elders in the church?
The other question this presents regards the existence and need for church structure. It seems there is a movement in today's church toward a decentralization of authority and a move away from structure. Rather than have certain men placed into a position of authority to lead and teach, we prefer to be 'conversational.' Rather than have established authority within the church, the movement is toward a more fluid understanding of church polity.
Paul is drawing on Old Testament regulations and creating regulations for the church. He is pulling something out of one culture and establishing a more general outline for church leadership. It seems that he has established something supra-cultural.
By taking away leadership within the church and becoming more 'conversational', is it possible that we are opening ourselves up for the entrance of false theology?
I recently have been working through a book study on Titus, and while going through it, I have been seeking out cross-references for each verse. In the first chapter Paul is giving Titus instructions and lists some qualifications for leaders of the church. One curious comparison is to view Titus 1 and 2 Timothy 2 as they relate to Leviticus. Is it possible that Paul is drawing upon the qualifications and mandates made for the priests to establish his own listing of qualifications for elders in the church?
The other question this presents regards the existence and need for church structure. It seems there is a movement in today's church toward a decentralization of authority and a move away from structure. Rather than have certain men placed into a position of authority to lead and teach, we prefer to be 'conversational.' Rather than have established authority within the church, the movement is toward a more fluid understanding of church polity.
Paul is drawing on Old Testament regulations and creating regulations for the church. He is pulling something out of one culture and establishing a more general outline for church leadership. It seems that he has established something supra-cultural.
By taking away leadership within the church and becoming more 'conversational', is it possible that we are opening ourselves up for the entrance of false theology?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)