"The times, they are a changing." And as culture seems to be rapidly shifting around us, as Christians should we endorse these changes or should we challenge them? Let me give you some examples.
In 1960
Cohabitation: 450,000 thousand unmarried couples lived together. Today it's around 4.5 million.
Abortion: 292 babies were aborted. In 2005 there were 1.2 million.
Divorce: one in five marriages ended in divorce. Today it's almost one in two.
Homosexuality: the DSM (Diagnosis Manual of Mental Disorders) listed homosexuality among the sociopathic personality disturbances. Today 52% of Americans believe it is "morally acceptable"
Okay so what does all this have to do with understanding and interpreting Scripture. Well, a lot. As cultural views and norms on these issues change, so will views and thoughts about what the Bible has to say about these very issues.
Perfect example, about two weeks ago the pastor of a mega-church in Georgia came-out to his congregation and then told them the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. He went through every verse in the Bible that mentions homosexuality and interpreted each one in a way that permits his life-style. "Gay is okay."
Can you see how important it is to know and understand which verses "we leave behind" due to cultural components compared to those "we take with us" and continue to follow even as culture presses against them! To do this and apply the Bible correctly, you must figure out the cultural components and trans-cultural components of any given passage. Listen people, social change will influence the way we interpret and apply Scripture. You will have to know and argue when that influence goes too far and permits behavior that trans-culturally, the Bible condemns!
Remember the list of commands from the previous blog? Some of these orders have a cultural component so we have left them behind. Some have a tran-scultural component so we take them with us...no matter how different our world is from the world in which the text was written.
With this in mind, go through the list again and identify the ones you this we take with us and the ones we leave behind.
Good job. This is Step 1 in correct interpretation. Step 2 requires you to back up and view the entire Bible through what we call a redemptive-movement hermeneutic framework.
I'll explain what that is tomorrow.
I would be quick to point out that scripture doesn't condemn homosexuality, but the actual physical act itself. It doesn't condemn being tempted by it, or suggesting publicly that you are tempted by it, but condemns the actual physical act itself, which at the time, was also done as a way for a man to further shame another defeated man after he'd already been found inferior in some way. "Gay is okay" as far as, the friendly social acceptance of people who have revealed that they are tempted by same-sex FEELINGS (different than actively practicing same-sex physical intimacy) is part of further doing good.
ReplyDeleteIn Romans 13:1-2, we're to obey the powers that exist now, because they are established by God, in the present tense. The passage also goes on to say that we ought not to cease in "doing good" toward people.
I'm not certain you'll find any interpretation of scripture that suggests being outspoken about the law, but rather being outspoken about the freedom we share from the law.. My position is that we are to be holders of the giant BRIDGE OUT sign, and those who want to keep walking and fall off the bridge into the crag below are welcome to, if they please, knowing that the bridge was out. If someone wants to walk across the bridge, but knows that the bridge is out and bypasses that out-bridge (but still has a temptation to try crossing the out-bridge), would we not treat them friendly, regardless?
I think it's a bit "unforgiving servant" of us condemn behavior in others, rather than just condemn the behavior of our single self as an individual servant. We can politely indicate that certain physical actions are prohibited, but I don't believe we have the grounds to discern whether someone is hellbound because of temptations they choose to publicly reveal they possess..
On the matter of abortion, though: Does the bible consider the unborn to be people? If all people are eligible to be saved, and in order to be saved one must be born AGAIN -- are those who have not been born the first time therefore "people" and also therefore eligible for salvation? For as many times as scripture *declares* the fact that salvation requires being born a second time (in the spirit, which can only be done after being physically born, for Christ says, "after that" in regard to being born of water), compounds how much that the unborn are seeming *not* within a category of people eligible for salvation, when in fact all people are eligible for salvation, no?
I would be quick to point out that scripture doesn't condemn homosexuality, but the actual physical act itself. It doesn't condemn being tempted by it, or suggesting publicly that you are tempted by it, but condemns the actual physical act itself, which at the time, was also done as a way for a man to further shame another defeated man after he'd already been found inferior in some way. "Gay is okay" as far as, the friendly social acceptance of people who have revealed that they are tempted by same-sex FEELINGS (different than actively practicing same-sex physical intimacy) is part of further doing good.
ReplyDeleteIn Romans 13:1-2, we're to obey the powers that exist now, because they are established by God, in the present tense. The passage also goes on to say that we ought not to cease in "doing good" toward people.
I'm not certain you'll find any interpretation of scripture that suggests being outspoken about the law, but rather being outspoken about the freedom we share from the law.. My position is that we are to be holders of the giant BRIDGE OUT sign, and those who want to keep walking and fall off the bridge into the crag below are welcome to, if they please, knowing that the bridge was out. If someone wants to walk across the bridge, but knows that the bridge is out and bypasses that out-bridge (but still has a temptation to try crossing the out-bridge), would we not treat them friendly, regardless?
I think it's a bit "unforgiving servant" of us condemn behavior in others, rather than just condemn the behavior of our single self as an individual servant. We can politely indicate that certain physical actions are prohibited, but I don't believe we have the grounds to discern whether someone is hellbound because of temptations they choose to publicly reveal they possess..
Sorry about the double-post there, the first one gave me an error for being too long =P (This is Mike, the tall/glasses guy you knew from BSM in WF, btw)
ReplyDeleteHey Mike tall/glasses guy!
ReplyDeleteHow you been lately? Good to hear from you.
I totally agree that we should not condemn (God doesn't) a believer to hell if he or she confesses a temptation. If we confess to one another we will be healed! The Bible assumes that we will be making confessions to one another. It has a lot to say about what we do with those temptations.
Question: Do you think a believer can sin in mind and thought just like he can in body?
Reason I'm asking is because I think you have to be careful when you say that God just condemns the "physical act" of homosexuality. Because I could take your line of reasoning here and say that as a heterosexual man, as long as I don't physically engage in sexual activity with the opposite sex, I'm ok. Jesus warns many times that we must not only be pure in body, but also pure in heart and mind.
So for someone struggleing with SSA, if they don't act out on it physically, but engage in lustful thoughts and fantacies, I would argue that they are still sinning.
What do you think?