Recently, I watched the movie "Left Behind" - the screen adaptation of the best-selling apocalyptic novel by Tim LaHaye.  Luckily I had recorded it on Tivo PVR, so could fast forward over the "stare into the distance because of the tragedy of being left behind" bits that would be have been a bit tiresome to actually sit through (this is not a movie review, but I didn't enjoy it - see reviews at IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190524/).  The movie is just worse than the book, which was pretty bad - both as a piece of fiction, AND (much more importantly) as a thinly disguised theology of the end times. 

Anyway, let's leave all those topics for another time.  The movie got me thinking about how we interpret the Bible.  I think this is one of the underlying issues dividing the church at the moment:  traditional vs emerging church; homosexuality; women; and everything else we seem to be fighting about.  At least for those of us with an evangelical background, the deciding question is:  "what does God say in the Bible?" 

The problem, of course, is who gets to decide what the Bible says.  Most conservative Christians favour a literal interpretation.  But, then, they conveniently skip over certain sections that don't fit the literalist approach.  (This same could be said of probably every single approach to the Bible - specifically those that think they are the only way!)

So, for those who prefer a literal approach to all of Scripture, basically ignoring genre and context.  Who decides which verses we must emphasize - and which we ignore - when we decide to be literal about it all?

Let me give you a few examples, from some of the more fun sections of the Bible.

Genesis 1 - 11 is one of the most hotly contested sections of the Bible.  Genesis chapter 1 outlines a 6 day creation story.  Six DAYS, IF (and only IF) you take the passage literally.  If you take it literally, you do no damage whatsoever to the chapter, and need no special powers of exegetical contortion.  BUT, then what do you do with Genesis chapter 2?  This chapter is filled with a Hebrew construction known as the "waw consecutive".  Basically, almost all of the "ands" in chapter 2 should be translated as "and then", indicating a time sequence.  So, God creates the earth, but it is empty.  And then He creates man (2:7).  And then he creates a garden (2:8), and then he creates trees and bushes (2:9).  And then God put Adam in the garden (2:15).  And then God created animals, and brought them to Adam.  And then, He created Eve (2:22).

You will find no Hebrew scholar (or modern day Jew who reads the Old Testament in Hebrew at breakfast) who would disagree with this "and then" version of chapter 2.  So why do most English translations not translate chapter of Genesis correctly?  Simple - if you want to read chapter 1 literally, then there would be no reason not to read chapter 2 literally.  But, if you read BOTH of them literally, they contradict each other.  So, the only way out is to contort the exegesis, or, as the NIV did under the guidance of conservative funders and translators, you simply translate it incorrectly. 

Here’s another fun one, if you want to be literal.  It is said that Eve is the "mother of the living" (3:20 in the NIV).  This is serious mistranslation.  The correct translation of "kal hay" would be that Eve is the mother of "all life", or of "all that lives" (see the same phrase elsewhere, in Gen 8:21, Job 28:21, Job 30:23, Psalm 143:2, Psalm 145:16, amongst others).  This is very clearly - IF you take every word in Genesis 1-11 literally (and who could sit through another lecture on "yom" as it is translated "day"?) - meant to imply that everything living (the Hebrews did not consider plants to be living in this sense, but certainly all animals) is descended from, or through, Eve. 

(It's not my intention to do a Biblical interpretation of these examples, but it strikes me that this interesting phrase provides an easy means to harmonise the overwhelming scientific evidence of an ancient earth, and significant evolutionary events with the Biblical account and God's truthfulness).

There are many other examples.

All I want to know is "who gets to decide how we interpret the Bible"?

For your consideration: if we today, with all our education and 'academic expertise' and multiple different spiritual traditions are having so much difficulty agreeing on HOW to interpret all these 'troublesome' bits of scripture, how can we possibly accept that back in the years leading up to 400 BCE, men like us, with fewer resources and equally great divides, managed to correctly decide which of all these bits of scripture constituted what they passed on down to us as the New Testament, aka The (Ultimate and Final) Word of God? Think about it: if we believe that God was able to inspire those decisions, why are we still fighting, nearly 2000 years later, over how to interpret them? Most of the time, I think people cling to traditional beliefs out of fear of being wrong, rather than conviction of being right. And we end up trapped inside the same little boxes we have tried so hard to contain God in for so long. How very sad for us.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Elle 04 May, 2008 - 10:41:34

Sorry, that should have been 400 CE, not BCE.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Elle 04 May, 2008 - 10:43:15

There is a small word that is inserted into pretty much every church doctrine about the Bible.

The Bible is the INSPIRED Word of God.

This word gets very little mention, even though it's what most church doctrines claim.

The word 'inspired' shows us that the Bible is still written by human beings, inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is important for us -- because it reminds us that every scripture or book needs to be placed in a correct context.

For instance, Daniel's visions and descriptions look remarkably similar to the imagery that was around him at the time (Babylonian.)

Or, the Plagues of Egypt have been shown to be the result of a volcanic island that had erupted at the time. One may ask "why doesn't the Bible say so?" but Genesis and Exodus is written by Moses - a human being.
God uses human things to reveal himself - human imagery, poetry etc. So, when we read the Bible we must remember it is the INSPIRED Word of God, not the LITERAL Word of God. That should change the way we read many things.

Another example : the creation story tells us more about salvation in Christ than it does about how God created the Earth. God seems more concerned about the former than the latter.

Prov 25
2It is the glory of God to conceal things,
but the glory of kings is to search things out.

There really is only one real way to interpret scripture, I think : and that is by the Spirit. The point of the Scriptures is to bring us towards Christ - not to give us a textbook for anything. It is a relational book, not a literal book.

The reason why we have the 66 books we do is because we have the same Spirit that they did in 400 CE. These books were found to be the most inspirational, the most helpful, the most reliable (including their authenticity and authorship.)

The Bible is not authoritative on its own. It requires God to make it authoritative, or - shall I say - the Holy Spirit to make it authoritative. In other words, it depends on revelation and working with God.

So, who's interpretation is correct? Well, all interpretations are human - God revealing something to someone in a specific way. The Spirit works through us all, so the most right interpretation is OURS - not a specific person, but ours collectively. Because, ultimately, the correct interpretation is the Spirit's and we require each other to listen to the Spirit correctly.

But there's a lot more that can be said about that :)

reply to this comment

Posted by: Ryan Peter 04 May, 2008 - 14:08:08

Graeme, surely the answer to your question has many sides to it. Consider this:
If - as we've heard it said - the Bible is God's love letter to us, does it really need an 'interpretation"?

Think of a love letter from a boy to a girl. In the beginning, she may just be bowled over by everything he says, without analyzing. But over time, she could read it again and again, each time picking out words/sentences that she may "re-interpret", esp as she gets to know him better. Her interpretation will very much relate to the current state of their relationship and her feelings towards him.

What if he wrote another letter a year later? Using similar words, would they still have the same meaning?

You know that feeling of reading a passage you know well, but one day you suddenly read it and a whole new meaning seems to spring out of it? Since God doesn't re-write "the letter" to us, but has given the Spirit to guide/teach us, could it be that he does not need to rewrite it because the Spirit provides meaning and insight as we read the letter?

What I'm getting at is - and to take one step back from you question, which assumes that their is "AN" interpretation of the Bible - could it be that we've taken theology a bit too far, trying to arrive at a single point along a continuous journey?

reply to this comment

Posted by: GrayMac 04 May, 2008 - 17:46:08

GrayMac,

I agree with you. But here's the rub...

What happens when we both allow the Spirit to assist us with interpretation, and we come up not only with DIFFERENT interpretations, but with CONTRADICTORY ones?

So, I read the Bible, and it seems obvious to me that women are allowed to lead, preach, be missionaries, or whatever they want. But, someone else reading the Bible comes to the Spirit led conclusion that women must be quiet, wear head coverings and get married early. How do we reconcile our different views?

Who gets to decide between us?

reply to this comment

Posted by: Graeme 04 May, 2008 - 18:17:00

You go back and continue working on it. And you continue working on it together.

I think much of the problem is the lack of working together - I'm all for studying the Scriptures for ourselves, but we're no island when it comes to interpretation.

Personally, I distrust my 'spirit-led' conclusion if it is not inclusive of other thoughts on the verse. The Spirit wants to bring us into unity, and this requires patience and more wrestling.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Ryan Peter 05 May, 2008 - 09:11:14

I wonder if the we're supposed to arrive at such a conclusion either way. I agree with your views, but to me it implies that we're still seeing the Bible as a book about rights and wrongs! What makes it different from a rule-book is that it's "living". So if a woman really felt called to be a missionary or to preach, and her life evidenced her love for God and people, then who's right is it to stop her?

Also, do we still see the kind of authority Paul exercised over the churches of his day in ours?
I think if he was writing Corinthians today, his language would be quite different. In other words, there is a certain degree of culturally specific "truth" or rather, "relevance".

reply to this comment

Posted by: GrayMac 05 May, 2008 - 09:42:25

I agree with you Ryan, but again, is our goal to try and arrive at theological accuracy or to love a dying world?

I believe the measure is love. One's "interpretation" of the Scriptures contradicting another's isn't really the issue if more fundamental issues are compromised.

Which interpretation will lead to kingdom principles and all the other good stuff Jesus talked about (loving the outcasts, the unloved, the poor...even our enemies!)?

reply to this comment

Posted by: GrayMac 05 May, 2008 - 09:52:52

Reading through your article and the attached comments, there's a clear pattern of rejecting a Biblical principle in preference for what seems, how shall I put it, logical or reasonable.

In my own experiences I'm fascinated to see how often I've questioned a Biblical view because my position on a subject has been influenced. I use that word deliberately, because a pervasive opinion on a matter contrary to what you already think does make you cast suspicion on your position. With further experience and reflection I've found without exception that where God's position on a matter has differed with mine, He's always ended up being right.

The Bible does make outlandish claims, especially when you take passages literally, but perhaps, just maybe, society's prevailing anti-Bible positions on some of the key issues are totally wrong. And when you accept that possibility, you will begin to find out how often they are.

If there is a God, undoubtedly His intellect is superior to ours, and our failure to understand it is not proof against it. Are you listening Richard Dawkins?

reply to this comment

Posted by: Eric Savage 05 May, 2008 - 11:01:07

Eric, I'm not quite sure who you're replying to, but I'm sure that neither Graeme nor myself are rejecting any Biblical principles.

At the end of Graeme's post, he merely asked a question. Surely that's allowed?

I hope when you refer to Dawkins, you're not implying that he's influencing any of our Biblical views? His latest best-seller has been largely discredited by many secular scholars as being un-scientific. However, even though he speaks more from his emotions and irrationality, he does have a point about how religion has been abused. Do you agree?

reply to this comment

Posted by: GrayMac 05 May, 2008 - 12:51:13

Hi GrayMac

You said : "is our goal to try and arrive at theological accuracy or to love a dying world?"

I believe this is an excellent point. In my opinion, correct theological accuracy IS loving a dying world. In other words, I question anyone's theological accuracy if they do not love a dying world. Our quest is to love a dying world, and theology should help us to do that in varying ways. When theology is the 'main thing' we've lost 'the main thing.'

I've heard many people say things about local churches like "they're judgemental," or "they're quite strict about dress codes" etc. and then they've counteracted it and said, "but they've got good Bible teaching."

But I thing that if a church is not a doer of the Word, it aint good Bible teaching. It simply is intellectual rambling :)

You said : "I believe the measure is love. One's "interpretation" of the Scriptures contradicting another's isn't really the issue if more fundamental issues are compromised."

I agree with you; except, I don't think we're called to compromise. We're called to grow, and grow together. If we have two different interpretations, we need to be committed to our relationship with each other in a way that allows our interpretations to grow up: to form and merge together. In other words, not compromise, but always find the 'third solution' to a problem. Perhaps the 'thesis' and 'anti-thesis' idea in philosophy (possibly) works here, but only in a true Spirit-led form.

You said : "Which interpretation will lead to kingdom principles and all the other good stuff Jesus talked about (loving the outcasts, the unloved, the poor...even our enemies!)?"

I think it will be the interpretation that places Jesus first; and I mean FIRST. I mean, that places Jesus BEFORE the Bible. The Scriptures are not Jesus, although He is found in them. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was made flesh. He is a person, not a bunch of letters on pages. We need to make sure we use the Bible correctly; it is not God, it was inspired by God and represents God. But it is not God. The Bible has no authority except the authority of God working THROUGH it (not BY it, but THROUGH it.)

reply to this comment

Posted by: Ryan Peter 05 May, 2008 - 15:18:30

Hi GrayMac, just wanted to give my views on this too :)

You said : "What makes [the Bible] different from a rule-book is that it's "living"."
I agree with that, definately.

Then, you said : "So if a woman really felt called to be a missionary or to preach, and her life evidenced her love for God and people, then who's right is it to stop her?"

It gets difficult in practise, because we've got to be careful that we don't say it's a "living book" in one sense, and make a big deal out of our relationship with God (saying things like : "God just wants a relationship") and then also say "we ought to love a dying world" and fail to realise that the number ONE way we love a dying world is through our RELATIONSHIP(s) to this world and with each other.

In other words, I get a little edgy when I hear someone saying "who's right is it to stop her." Please don't get me wrong; I'm not accusing you of anything. But this, for me, is an individualistic thought (or, at least phrased individualistically) and individualistic thought (especially in its extreme forms) flies in the face of the idea of community and true relationship with each other. It's not one's 'right' to stop her, and it's not her 'right' to do what she wants, either. This is not about anyone's rights.

We all need to broaden our callings, or broaden how these callings can work. A woman feeling called 'to preach' doesn't have to be the church's local 'preacher.' Her calling may be totally right, in principle, but how she lives out that calling is what's important. That she has to work it out with her brothers and sisters of the church.

I actually think a lot of woman pastors have limited themselves and their calling to fit into what is the 'pastoral mold.' In other words, a woman pastor does not have to be a 'man-pastor' (a woman fulfilling the role of a man in pastoral duties) but a woman pastor. I hope that makes sense?

You said : "Also, do we still see the kind of authority Paul exercised over the churches of his day in ours?"
We do in many ways, for those churches who have decided to adopt an Apostolic model and so relate to Apostolic teams (such as New Frontiers, NCMI, Pioneers etc.) Although each of these teams are quite organic with how they see this authority work out (organic is probably the right way, too) there is a sense in which, I think, the church is discovering an apostolic model that fits closer to the Bible (inadvertedly, I am nailing my colours to the mast about how I feel about denominationalism but that doesn't mean that I am saying denominationalism is 'wrong' only that I think it has too many limits.)

reply to this comment

Posted by: Ryan Peter 05 May, 2008 - 15:40:45

Sure - perhaps I'm trying too hard to categorise the direction of comments, and by no means am I grouping you with Dawkins (it was just a snide comment!).

I am just interested to see how opinions tend to group themselves. When I find that someone supports evolution and women leadership, very often I'll find that they support same sex marriage and similarly aligned positions. It seems when you begin walking down a certain path, you keep on walking.

At that point I wonder what the watershed is and very often this issue of interpretation of the Bible comes up. I remain concerned that the Bible is approached with a worldview in mind and when a literal translation is discomforting and doesn't sit well then it becomes washed over or explained away.

That religion gets abused is undeniable. But it carries no legitimate argument against the Bible until the very acts of that religion are preached by the Bible. And that has not happened.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Eric Savage 05 May, 2008 - 15:41:06

Oh yes, I wanted to add this. About Paul. Perhaps the way we see the apostles work their theology is the way we should work ours.

Paul's theology was obviously not built in a vacuum, neither was his revelation his alone. It appears that he was accountable to the other apostles, and even to his local church. His authority over churches was a relational one, and those churches had the ability to reject his authority if they wanted (we often see hints of this in his letter.)

It seems, to me, he was also surrounded by a team like Barnabas etc. who, no doubt, had an influence on his theology. Many think that Hebrews is Paul and Barnabas writing together. I don't believe there were any 'one man bands' with the apostles. Each had a function to do, as the body is one with many parts. Just because the scriptures have their name on it doesn't mean that they were these amazing men and woman who thought of everything. Much like we're writing books these days that are collections of our thoughts, which are collections of many thoughts of others; so, it would have been the same. Ultimately, these thoughts are to be put to God and Spirit-led, as the Spirit works in many ways to bring us truth, and then guides us into all truth.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Ryan Peter 05 May, 2008 - 16:04:34

Hee hee... I said 'amazing men and woman' when I referred to those who wrote scripture.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Ryan Peter 05 May, 2008 - 16:06:05

Wow, this post is already becoming a nice, big discussion!

"correct theological accuracy IS loving a dying world." Ryan, I agree, but I've heard Graeme preach a message where he showed how some churches in the US are promoting war and global warming in order to bring on a sooner 2nd coming! They could argue that it IS loving a dying world because the sooner Christ comes, the better. Makes this discussion rather interesting, doesn't it?

You said, "In other words, not compromise, but always find the 'third solution' to a problem". I think that would be great, but how would you apply that in practice to Graeme's example of 2 different views of women in leadership etc.

"..that places Jesus BEFORE the Bible". I agree, Jesus is the initial and the final Word. Not sure how that really plays out in practice though? :-)

Onto your next post, you said, "individualistic thought ...flies in the face of the idea of community and true relationship with each other". Sure, I don't think we were meant to become so individualistic! However, neither are those in leadership supposed to "lord it over the flock", which I believe happens too often/easily.

"We do in many ways, for those churches who have decided to adopt an Apostolic model and so relate to Apostolic teams". What I should have said is, SHOULD we be exercising apostolic authority today? Biblically, I can't find a reason for the cessation of apostles, but in terms of the authority bestowed upon those who saw the risen Christ, I'm not sure it's that easy to accept a lot of apostolic claims today.

"It appears that he was accountable to the other apostles". Indeed, but can you imagine a similar scenario today?? It would never happen.

I used to believe that we should model the early church, but I'm not so convinced anymore.

"Much like we're writing books these days that are collections of our thoughts, which are collections of many thoughts of others".
Now this is an interesting thought- did Paul know his letters were going to become the Bible? A discussion on canonization is another issue entirely, but what makes the writings of a Charles Wesley any less "God-breathed" than Obadiah's? :-)

reply to this comment

Posted by: GrayMac 06 May, 2008 - 10:20:51

"..by no means am I grouping you with Dawkins (it was just a snide comment!)."
I'm a big boy, I can take it '-)

"When I find that someone supports evolution and women leadership, very often I'll find that they support same sex marriage and similarly aligned positions."
Not sure I agree with that!

"..when a literal translation is discomforting and doesn't sit well then it becomes washed over or explained away."
Do you really think the majority of theistic evolutionists are trying to explain away a literal Genesis? Or that people supporting women in leadership are trying to be rebellious towards the traditional church?

IMO, most are sincerely trying to find truth, but they sit between two apparently contradictory views and in that tension, are more inclined to follow the view that makes more sense to their minds/contexts, particularly when that view is more inclusive.

"But it carries no legitimate argument against the Bible until the very acts of that religion are preached by the Bible. And that has not happened."
Sure, it's the abuse of, or misunderstanding of the spirit of the Bible, that often leads to evils being done in the name of God. Eg: the biblical "justification" of apartheid and the like.
However, I believe that relates more to power and greed, than to one's hermeneutic.

Is it really possible to be objective?

reply to this comment

Posted by: GrayMac 06 May, 2008 - 10:40:02

I'm glad to see we're having this discussion, to be honest. It's been on my mind the last few weeks even before it appeared here :) I've had to split my comments because of a word limit at the site.

GrayMac - " I've heard Graeme preach a message where he showed how some churches in the US are promoting war and global warming in order to bring on a sooner 2nd coming! They could argue that it IS loving a dying world because the sooner Christ comes, the better. Makes this discussion rather interesting, doesn't it?"

They could argue it, of course, but it doesn't really stand up with sound reasoning. The argument would be based upon whether you subscribe to their eschatology. This, then, becomes a theological issue : which eschatology do you subscribe to? But there are a number of other problems too. Firstly, everyone probably believes the preacher because he's the preacher - and who is going to question him? Immediately, we can see that there is a church model issue (no accountability) and a discipling issue (a misunderstanding of the priesthood of all believers.) There are other issues as well; which is why it is so important that we all make sure we get the right message to the church (And its leaders.)

GrayMac = "how would you apply that in practice to Graeme's example of 2 different views of women in leadership etc"

I think we ought to be asking the question "what does God say in the Bible" in the framework of "what does God say we should do when we have two different views?" Once we answer that question, we can probably come to a solid conclusion (eventually) on the actual issue at hand.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Ryan Peter 06 May, 2008 - 23:50:54

There are a number of principles. Firstly, Paul exhorts us in Rom 15:1 - "We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves."

So, let's say that someone is actually ahead in faith to another on a particular issue. He ought to bear, in love, with the failings of the weak. That doesn't mean, however, that the 'weak' ought to stay weak forever: it means that the strong need to disciple in a loving way (ie. ditch the whole judgemental thing.)

I think there's another clue in Rom 12 : "For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you."

There is a tendency for everyone on every side of the debate to stop being teachable. To bring it to an issue Graeme speaks of : those both for homosexuality, and those against, need to be teachable. This way, we can learn from each other and arrive at a proper solution.

The NT is chock-a-block of exhortations for us to take our relationships in (or with) the church (the people) seriously. Very seriously. If we make commitments to our relationships the primary matter, we may find ourselves in a much better place to truly find the solutions to interpretation problems.

Some may say I'm being idealistic. Well, perhaps I am. But I also know the Spirit is with us, and God commands we love each other. With the Spirit, we CAN love unconditionally. And love is the point, isn't it? For even with all the knowledge in the world, if we have not love; we are only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

"Jesus is the initial and the final Word. Not sure how that really plays out in practice though? :-)"
For me, the above is really how it plays out in practise. What was Jesus MOST serious about? Relationship.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Ryan Peter 06 May, 2008 - 23:52:07

"I don't think we were meant to become so individualistic! However, neither are those in leadership supposed to "lord it over the flock", which I believe happens too often/easily."

Yeah, it does certainly happen :) Perhaps, and this may be idealistic again, those are the moments when the flock can teach leadership some lessons in humility, unconditional love, and even theology :) I have seen too many people expect their leadership to be perfect and expect their leadership to love them, and be committed to them when they show very little commitment and love to their leadership.

In other words, they ought to challenge their leadership in an effort not 'to be right' but to disciple. We should take the discipling of our own pastors seriously, and challenge them in loving ways that will help them grow as well. Idealistic again? Perhaps. Yet Jesus says 'love your brother.'

"What I should have said is, SHOULD we be exercising apostolic authority today? Biblically, I can't find a reason for the cessation of apostles, but in terms of the authority bestowed upon those who saw the risen Christ, I'm not sure it's that easy to accept a lot of apostolic claims today."
Totally, there are some majorly bogus apostolic claims today. When a guy goes around calling himself 'apostle' this and 'prophet' that, I suspect he has lost the plot in many ways.

Paul calls himself an apostle, but not Apostle Paul. I don't think there's a subtle difference here - the point is that he saw apostle as a FUNCTION not a POSITION and that's the only reason why we DO need apostolic authority today. Someone needs to perform the FUNCTION of Apostle, which is to break barriers and plant churches etc. etc. Their authority, in a true apostolic form, is one only of invitation or through relationship. It's not a lording authority, or a claiming of position over another because they bear the title. Function, not position, IMO is key.

" "It appears that he was accountable to the other apostles". Indeed, but can you imagine a similar scenario today?? It would never happen."
Lol, I think it will and it even does in some circles. Personally, I think we're almost there in terms of finding a correct model that ensures it happens. This requires much explanation, obviously. But one of the keys, I think, is ensuring that the authority of the local church and it's elders is upheld. In other words, an 'apostle' ought to be at a local church and, heck, he even ought to be UNDER the leadership of the elders of that church. If we ditch the idea of position and move to a model of FUNCTION, we would probably find that we can have a more organic structure that allows for one to carry authority in their function, but not in ALL functions (I hope I'm making sense.)

"I used to believe that we should model the early church, but I'm not so convinced anymore."
LOL, I'm more convinced than ever. But we need to model the early church's commitment to each other, because I think there lies the clue as to how we ought to structure things.

In other words, I think we're always looking at the wrong place. We're looking for some sort of blueprint, when we should rather be studying and seeing how the RELATIONSHIPS worked in the early church. A relational model.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Ryan Peter 06 May, 2008 - 23:52:47

"Now this is an interesting thought- did Paul know his letters were going to become the Bible? A discussion on canonization is another issue entirely, but what makes the writings of a Charles Wesley any less "God-breathed" than Obadiah's? :-)"
Personally, I don't think they're any less 'god-breathed' but they certainly lack an authority because of the relationships of the authors of the Bible. These were guys who ate with Jesus. Paul didn't, but he knew those who did. I place more stock in what they wrote than what Wesley wrote, although I don't believe it may be any less 'god-breathed' I do think it is far less reliable.

Those are my opinions anyway :)

reply to this comment

Posted by: Ryan Peter 06 May, 2008 - 23:53:34

I don't really intend to continue two simultaneous threads ... but I'll continue anyway.

"Do you really think the majority of theistic evolutionists are trying to explain away a literal Genesis?"
Yes. "There was evening and there was morning, the first/second/third/etc day." The only reason evolutionary view crept in was because Christians were under the pressure of intense evolutionary dogma being preached outside of Christian circles. The literal translation was not comfortable.

"Or that people supporting women in leadership are trying to be rebellious towards the traditional church?"
Not rebellious, but trying to redefine their position in the contemporary global worldview, without questioning that worldview. The Bible is very clear in differing roles for men and women, which is contrary to modern feminism. Instead of rejecting the modern worldview, a section of theology has been hunting for other references in the Bible to try and support the contemporary view. Wrong way around.

Part of the problem is that modern Christianity has been attempting to make itself more pallatable and easier to preach to non-believers. The reality is that Christianity is an offense. To preach one-way-Jesus is an offense, even to the intellect, let alone the emotions. When you try to cater for the masses, you present a pleasant aroma, but you lose the power that changes people spiritually.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Eric Savage 09 May, 2008 - 09:51:55

This has been a fascinating discussion to watch unfold. But, it seems that finally it is coming down to my original question: who decides what the Bible says? Or, more precisely, who gets to decide which bits are negotiable and which are basic tenets that are not up for discussion?

So, for example, on the issue of evolution versus literal day interpretation of Genesis 1, who gets to decide whether this is a fundamental issue, or a matter where God allows personal choice? And who gets to decide if that matters at all (i.e. who cares)?

This was the heart of my original concern, and it would be great to get back to that. The issues here are not the issues being discussed (creation, women, homosexuality), but rather the meta issue of interpretation.

Contrary to Eric's comments in the previous post, the Bible is NOT as clear as he thinks on most of the issues he's been debating. That's why there is a problem.

To pick up just one comment, you quote "evening, morning, the first day" to <i>prove</i> that literal translation is a fact. There are many ways to refute this view. I'm not going to rehearse those here, except to say that it easily refutable in a number of ways. He then states that "the ONLY reason evolutionary view CREPT in was because Christians were under pressure...". That's an amazing statement, given that for most people, the reason that evolutionary thinking has made an impression is because of the overwhelming scientific evidence for it.

The same thing happened in the time of Copernicus. It is CLEAR from the Bible that the earth is flat, and the sky held up on pillars, and it is obvious from God's character that the world is the center of His creation. So, when Copernicus told the church the world was round, spinning around a small sun in a far off corner of the universe, he was labelled a heretic, and told that he was subverting God's Word on the basis of spurious science. But, he was right.

I find it tough to argue with evolutionary theory (well, msot parts of it). I am not dumbing DOWN the Bible by seeking to harmonise it with our God-given understanding of the world. I am trying to make sense of the full breadth of God's self-revelation - in His Word AND in His creation.

This is a wonderful debate. I'd like to steer it back to the issue of how we decide who gets to decide when we can't find a consensus decision.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Graeme 09 May, 2008 - 10:15:46

Graeme, I think we have to decide WHY we need a consensus decision on theological issues? Knowing the answer to that might help us decide what is fundamental, and what actually isn't.

Why must we reach a consensus about the interpretation of Genesis 1, for instance? What you believe about Genesis 1 is clearly not of momentous importance when it comes to the real issue at hand. But, who gets to decide that it isn't important? That's obviously your question.

What's the real issue at hand? Well, to preach the Gospel of course : that Jesus comes to save the world.

Perhaps, we could say that if we move towards an Apostolic model of church it would, ultimately, be those who are in the function of apostle who decide on the consensus. But the way that the apostolic model needs to work should prohibit dogma, tradition, overlording and bullying, brainwashing etc. etc. from settling in. That's one of the reasons why I think elders should oversee apostles (in a local church environment) and apostles oversee elders (in a larger environment.) Gathered together with apostles comes prophets and teachers; and these, too, decide the consensus.

I'm sure you know Acts 15. Some interesting things here. Firstly, Paul and Barnabus (apostles) are to go to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders there to decide on the doctrinal issue (Acts 15:4.) Why couldn't Paul and Barnabas decide here?

Could be for two reasons : the Antioch Church was under the authority of the Jerusalem apostles, and Paul and Barnabas were members of the Antioch church. Despite their own apostolic authority, they were in a church that was under another. So they didn't get to decide the issue but had to go to the apostolic authority of that church to decide.

Or, the church at large was under the authority of those in Jerusalem (which seems doubtful given Paul's authority, even doctrinally, over churches he had planted later on.) This would imply a papal model, as we could debate that either Peter or James were leading the entire church (again, I doubt this because of many clues in the epistles.)

Acts 15 shows us that James (an elder, or the elder leading the Jerusalem church) makes the final call.

Acts 15:22 shows us more, "then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas."

All in all, everyone is making decision and testing to see what seems good and what the Spirit is saying.

To answer your question directly (and the way I see it) : there is governing authority, and doctrinal authority. The latter is to serve the former (ie. orthodoxy must lead to orthopraxy, as Roger likes to admit.)

Doctrinal authority is a communal decision, and the consenses is reached when a governing issue has to be decided upon. In other words, HOW we deal with the issue must come first; once we decide on that, we can decide on the issue itself.

I'm taking this explanation the long way around just to show the different semantics that are possible. Ultimately, I think that the final consensus is up to those with an apostolic function; who are also under the accountability of elders of a local church, which would include prophets and teachers. So they can't make decisions as an island (ie. a cult system) and, yet, they are to make decisions and have authority to make the decisions when it matters.

Apostolic authority should have one that leads that authority (Paul led his team, Peter perhaps another) and the final call should be his; but, again, he is under the accountability of a local church AND he is in a relational accountability with, perhaps, an apostle that leads another team (the relationship between Peter and Paul is very interesting.)

This way, we avoid a Pope issue, avoid a denominational structure and heirarchy, we avoid an independent church with cultish tendencies; while at the same time ensuring we have leadership and direction; and that the leadership is under accountability and leadership of their own. An organic model with leadership.

If we're going to ask : "who gets to decide when we can't find a consensus decision" we HAVE to talk about Church model. I don't see how we can answer your question any other way. I think that's where this discussion should go?

Finally, if no one can make any form of consensus or decision, we can just ask Graeme Codrington :D

reply to this comment

Posted by: Ryan Peter 10 May, 2008 - 11:08:43

One more quote, from the Acts 15 example. Acts 15:25 (the letter) : "It has seemed good to us, having COME TO ONE ACCORD, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul..."

Together, together, together :)

reply to this comment

Posted by: Ryan Peter 10 May, 2008 - 11:12:52

Long article, but may have some interesting points.. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/003/5.12.html...

reply to this comment

Posted by: GrayMac 14 May, 2008 - 00:16:00

The Wholesale Wedding Gowns belonging to the an excellent high quality Wedding Gown needs to be colorless the clarity or Cheap Wedding Dresses, the capacity of the light to pass readily round the Low Price Wedding Dresses the cut will be the shape of the wholesale wedding gown the cut may also have an effect on the actual short wedding gown all appearance of the designer wedding gown.A poorly cut one will not casual wedding gown. The carat is the weigh from the formal wedding gownthat will have an impact the strapless wedding gowncost of the diamond.If you are trying to find diamond jewelry which simple wedding gown big and striking then a asscher or emerald cheap wedding gown is going to do.

reply to this comment

Posted by: wedding 28 May, 2010 - 08:48:02

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it

Subscribe for email updates updates

Click here to manage subscription