In my last post, the issue came up about where we can look to find our moral values. I am reminded that as a Christian I have inherited a moral tradition from a number of arenas: the church I grew up in, my family, the Bible, plus a number of others. Each of these, and the following, have a number of difficulties around them, as will become apparent below:
Should we base our morals on what promotes a functioning society? Something could be wrong depending on whether or not it allows society to function well. Works well in explaining why we shouldn't steal but not for issues like exploitation of the poor. This might be considered the utilitarian viewpoint. The problem is that this ignores the individual in favor of the group and ignores the possibility of God and an ultimate morality.
What about on personal experience? Many are influenced to believe homosexuality is immoral because they have known (personally or through the media) homosexuals who were promiscuous and perhaps a little bizarre. Then there are people who have known homosexuals who were nice people and they are more likely to believe that homosexuality is not immoral. If experience is our guide then we claim that our life determines what is universally right or wrong and that is narcissistic in its own right. However, given that we cannot escape it, it can be useful in shaping our beliefs if we put experience in its proper place.
Genetics? As I said in my last post, we can't argue morals based on our design. Just because we have some sort of biological inclination towards some behavior doesn't make it right.
General opinion? I think that's where most people appeal for their morals. Didn't racism become wrong for most of the US only when it became unpopular? The problem is that morality is therefore completely relative.
Divine revelation? Some have argued that the Holy Spirit has made it clear to them that homosexuality is not a sin and others are saying the converse. Well when you have opposite sides claiming the Holy Spirit is on their side, you begin to wonder if the Holy Spirit is even involved at all in their conclusions.
The Bible? Besides the fact that most people don't see it as a moral authority, there is also the problem that there are Christians who believe that the Bible does not say that homosexuality (in terms of two consenting adults) is wrong. While I think that the Bible is the best place to look for authority, since it is the Word of God, the interpretation of it goes through fallible human minds.
In the end, we find ourselves in the precarious position of having to argue for morality with the full knowledge that we don't have a firm grasp on what truth really is. Unlike the anonymous commenter on the last post, I believe we need to look at more than just what the Bible says. We need to look at how the church has traditionally interpreted the Bible, we need to look to reason, we need to our own experiences and then we can humbly realize that we do not know without doubt what is right and wrong.
While that is an uncomfortable position, we must realize that our highest calling is not to protect a moral system but is, in Jesus' own words, to "love one another." In this light we see that we ought to act based on our best judgments as to what the Bible says is truth but keep our interpretations humble. Loving others means doing what we think is best for them, and while we can sometimes argue that our moral tradition would be best for them, we need to love them as servants not as ones who are in a position to command them how to live.
8 comments:
Hi Curt,
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I especially appreciate your final paragraph as it exhibits tenderness for the lost and a concern for their souls. I appreciate that you carefully presented the various reference points for defining morality and then concluded by saying (if I understand you correctly) that morality cannot be ascertained by scripture alone and that we are to love and serve all men. Below are your final paragraphs followed by my comments:
You wrote: "In the end, we find ourselves in the precarious position of having to argue for morality with the full knowledge that we don't have a firm grasp on what truth really is. Unlike the anonymous commenter on the last post, I believe we need to look at more than just what the Bible says. We need to look at how the church has traditionally interpreted the Bible, we need to look to reason, we need to our own experiences and then we can humbly realize that we do not know without doubt what is right and wrong."
(You seem pretty certain about uncertainty. How can you be sure that you are right about the inability to know right and wrong?)
Let me address the uncertainty of truth and a, "need to look at more than just what the Bible says." My understanding is that you are a professing Christian. If so, you are obligated to derive your understanding of morality from scripture as it alone is authoritative on that subject. Your experience is not authoritative; tradition is not authoritative, and neither are social norms. These may be compelling and even correct, but not authoritative. God's word is even authoritative for non-Christians, but we would be naive to expect them to submit to it. Nonetheless we should not shy way from citing it with conviction and compassion as the source of our morality.
To support my premise, I will draw on scripture itself. Paul writes to Timothy, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16) Note that God's word is sufficient. Paul does not say, "Timothy, pursue scripture, but understand that it is incomplete. Pursue other avenues of learning because you cannot acquire a full understanding of truth by scripture alone." Nope, Paul doesn't say that at all, does he?
There is a wrong belief lately that is becoming pervasive among Christians, that truth is unknowable. This perspective is unbiblical. Note that Pontius Pilate asserted this same notion when dealing with our Savior, "What is truth?" (Jn 8:38). I don't think any Christian wants to be associated with him! ;)
Read the entire 3rd chapter of 2nd Timothy. In verse 7, regarding the false teachers, Paul says that they are, "Always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." On the contrary, the assumption is that godly men who submit to God's word can indeed come to certain and clear understanding of the truth! This claim is echoed by Solomon. He tells us that, "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him." (Pr30:5 - ESV)
You wrote: "While that is an uncomfortable position, we must realize that our highest calling is not to protect a moral system but is, in Jesus' own words, to "love one another." In this light we see that we ought to act based on our best judgments as to what the Bible says is truth but keep our interpretations humble. Loving others means doing what we think is best for them, and while we can sometimes argue that our moral tradition would be best for them, we need to love them as servants not as ones who are in a position to command them how to live."
Curt, you are absolutely correct when you say, that, "our highest calling is not to protect a moral system." Sure, I want to live in a society where men do not marry men. And certainly such behavior could be managed by legislation, but that doesn't change hearts. God is always and everywhere interested in the state of men's hearts (1 Sam 16:7). Modifying people's behavior is not the goal of Christianity; changing hearts is. We are called to bring people to knowledge of God's holiness and a need to repent and embrace the Savior. Anything short of this is merely rearranging the kingdom of darkness. Therefore our discussions with the lost should be less about morality and be primarily evangelistic.
One last word of encouragement... We've both heard, and perhaps even said such things ourselves, as, "I just want to love God and love people." That's a fine approach so long as it does not undermine our duty, and joy, to meditate on scripture (Ps 1), treasure it in our hearts (Ps 119:11), be obedient to it (Ps 119:7), and ultimately be transformed by it (Rom 12:2). Unfortunately, this is the not the approach that seems to dominate the Christian culture as evidenced by the conspicuous lack of knowledge regarding what scripture really says. Let’s love one another, but let’s do so in truth.
Thanks, Curt, for the dialog.
I appreciate your thoughtful, thorough response to my post. I think you captured my argument well. I certainly won't deny that the Bible is the ultimate authority in our faith. I believe the Bible is infallible and therefore can teach us what we need to know. However, as I said in my post, human minds are fallible in their interpretation of the Bible. Two examples:
1) Slavery. If you look at Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 4:1, Titus 2:9, 1 Peter 2:18, you will see verses that apparently condone slavery and encourage slaves to remain subservient to their masters. If we did not consider the cultural context, the lack of political power, and many other factors, we could easily assume that slavery was okay. People determined slavery was wrong from seeing slaves mistreated (experience), through understanding that God wants all men to be free (theology/rationality), and from knowing that God led his people out of slavery in Egypt (tradition).
You mention yourself that I should read a passage in its entirety. What Bible verse says that we should do that? I'm teasing of course (forgive me) but I only mean to show that we appeal to other sources when we read the Bible and there's no way we couldn't.
2) Old Testament Law. Why should we assume that any verse in the Old Testament should not be followed to the dot today? If that was the case then we'd have a lot of one eyed men. How do we determine which passages are directed to us and which are not?
I too will cite 2 Timothy 3:16 but I would argue with your exegesis. It clearly says that the Bible is "profitable" or "useful" in teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Paul is not saying that the Bible is ultimate, only that it is profitable or useful, in accomplishing this goal. (And even if I'm wrong doesn't this illustrate that interpretations can be flawed)
Again, while I admire your appreciation of the Bible, I simply believe that it is impossible not to see the actual words through our own unique lens. There is no way to read anything, including the Bible, completely objectively.
One final point. I don't believe the Holy Spirit works through *me*. I believe he works through *us*. While I may get it wrong, I believe the church will get it right. Why else would God entrust his work to us?
Hi again, Curt. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my rather lengthy contributions to your blog.
With all this writing we are doing, you would think that each of us has quite a bit of free time on our hands. :) I certainly don't, and I'll bet you have your hands full as well. To that end, let me distill our disagreement down to the elemental issue: on the one hand, I see scripture as authoritative, and I hold that we can grasp the objective truth it proclaims. On the other hand, while you hold scripture in high esteem, you believe that one's preconceptions prohibit one from really grasping ultimate truth.
Have I succinctly summed up our disagreement? I hope so, because I am going to attempt to argue for my perspective over and against what I perceive to be your position.
Hopefully, we can both agree that God has an intended meaning for the text. Do you accept the premise that the Spirit worked through human authors to convey a specific meaning? In other words, while readers of the word (you and me) might be confused about what the word says, the Spirit surely is not. If we agree on this point, we still have the problem you raised: "It is impossible not to see the actual words through our own unique lens. There is no way to read anything, including the Bible, completely objectively."
The Apostle Peter anticipates this concern, and he addresses it by saying, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Pet 1:20-21). In other words, interpretation is not a personalized matter. There is but one proper interpretation, and we should always strive for it.
So the question is, can we arrive at the correct interpretation? Or do we just throw our hands in the air and say that our preconceptions make it impossible? If you are correct that, "there is no way to read anything, including the Bible, completely objectively" then it is not us who has a problem – God has the problem. God has a problem because He cannot communicate clearly. God is limited by our ability to understand, and He just cannot get through to us with the Bible alone.
Do you truly believe that God is constrained by our preconceptions to make His point clear? If you peel back the layers of your position, this is exactly what you are saying. Recall that the very first satanic attack in human history, and the first recorded for us in scripture is and assault on the clarity of God's word (Gen 3:1). The serpent says, "Indeed, has God said?" Eve's deception and Adam's sin were ultimately initiated by the corruption of God's holy word!
Curt, if God cannot communicate clearly, what are we to do with the words of Isaiah, "So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding {in the matter} for which I sent it." (Is 55:11)
What are we to make of the following scriptures?
Ps 119:130 says, "The unfolding of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple." Is there anything else that has this unique power?
"Like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation." (1 Pet 2:2)
"... Man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD." (Deut 8:3)
God's word is so powerful that our Savior tells us that, "until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Heb 4:12)
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16-17) Note that it is God's word that makes the man of God adequate and equipped – not extra-biblical sources, our own reason, experience, etc.
"In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following." (1 Tim 4:6)
Certainly, Curt, I will concede that there are issues over which godly men disagree due to a failure to apprehend what scripture teaches. But these issues are far smaller in number than many would have us believe. God’s word is clear, and we should submit to it wholeheartedly!
Actually, I just started my Spring Break so I have all the time in the world! :) But I guess spending time debating is not how I had envisioned spending it so this will be the last comment from me, at least for a few days.
As you might expect from someone who thinks objectivity is unattainable, I think your interpretations are off the mark. As I said, all of my experience points to there being no way to objectively read the Bible. If you compare and contrast Bible commentaries on nearly any Biblical passage I think you will find a wide variety of interpretations. But all of this I've said before.
I'd like to expand on the last paragraph of my last comment. I think God's purposes are worked out by the collective debate rather than individual understanding. For example, even though I'm not a pacifist, I appreciate pacifist Christians because I believe that as a whole Christians will pursue the totality of God's purposes which would be individually contradicting (complete peace vs. righteous justice). Since human minds are not capable of holding contradicting thoughts, it would make sense that God would allow ambiguity to allow his purposes to be fulfilled.
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." Proverbs 25:2
In all of this I acknowledge that I speak outside of my authority, these are the thoughts of a young man trying to make sense of his faith. You may have the last word now if you wish.
Curt,
Your claim is correct that there are many different ways to interpret scripture. But there is only one right way that we must strive for. Christians must apply proper hermeneutics to understand what the Bible says; otherwise we will draw wrong theological conclusions. We must also approach God's word with humility, submitting to it with teachable spirits.
I presented you with many passages that demonstrate the Bible’s authority and clarity. All of these passages are straightforward and easy to understand even without rigorous hermeneutics. Rather than acknowledge the truth of these passages, you disagreed, relying on a verse from the book of Proverbs. Ironically the very thing you deny we can understand is what you cite to justify your position! That is self-defeating reasoning.
I suspect that the challenge you face with scripture is not a failure to apply a proper method. I perceive that the problem you face is pride that manifests in an unwillingness to submit to scripture. Statements like the following sound humble enough, "In all of this I acknowledge that I speak outside of my authority, these are the thoughts of a young man trying to make sense of his faith." But is this true humility?
If you were humble, you would acknowledge the clear teaching of scripture. A humble man clings to God’s word to, “Make sense of his faith.” (Curt, I strongly urge you to meditate on Ps 119.)
I suspect that the problem is not that you can't understand the exact meaning of God’s word. Your problem is that you just don't like what it says.
You left me Proverbs 25:2. I leave you with Proverbs 13:13, “Whoever despises the word brings destruction on himself, but he who reveres the commandment will be rewarded.”
ews
I must admit I was disappointed to see this discussion turn personal. But at the same time I can appreciate a rebuke when it is given. I needed to take a few days to chew on what you said and I've noticed you've checked my blog often to see if I've responded. Perhaps you were correct that I was showing false humility by qualifying my statements. I reflected on when I wrote it and I put that statement in partly because it "proved" I was willing to be wrong. That was partly done as a reminder to myself that I can be wrong but also partly done to make myself look better. For that I can acknowledge I was in the wrong.
As for my apparent dismissal of the verses you cited, I didn't see the need to get into a debate on interpretations. I had previously wrote how I interpreted 2 Timothy 3:16 to say something different than what you understood it to say. As for most of the other verses you quoted, I did not think they were evidence that you can clearly understand Scripture objectively. I saw in all of the verses a personal, subjective appreciation of Scripture as God's word.
A few verses I had to look up in context. 2 Peter 1:20 is arguing that the prophets, when they prophesied, were not interpreting God's word but were merely dictating it. The passage is not about our interpretations of Scripture but about the prophets declaring God's truth.
Then you suggested I read the entire chapter of 2 Timothy 3 but I only saw that the false teachers were the ones who "knew" the truth but did not obey it and thus did not truly know it.
It seems that you made the mistake to see my lack of reply to the verses you quoted as being indicative of ignoring Scripture when in fact I simply did not want to exert the time and effort into writing a response to each verse. It is obvious you put time and effort into your comments but I make no promises to match your efforts.
Saying I don't respect Scripture because I'm unwilling to obey it was therefore rather harsh and unjustified. Perhaps you should consider giving others the benefit of the doubt sometimes, or at least rebuking them more gently.
Curt, I believe you are correct: my rebuke was too harsh. It was not in keeping with the tone of the discussion. For this offense I ask your forgiveness.
While I confess that my tone was out of line, I am concerned that my assessment of your disposition toward scripture is correct. (I hope I am wrong!)
Throughout our discussion you have made a number of statements that stand out:
"All of my experience points to there being no way to objectively read the Bible."
"There is no way to read anything, including the Bible, completely objectively."
"I think God's purposes are worked out by the collective debate rather than individual understanding... Since human minds are not capable of holding contradicting thoughts, it would make sense that God would allow ambiguity to allow his purposes to be fulfilled."
(This last statement assumes that scripture is purposely unclear—despite its claim to the contrary—and that consensus has more authority than Almighty God's holy word. It also suggests that God somehow harmonizes real contradictions.)
Do you acknowledge that the Bible claims to be the voice of objective truth? Certainly there is much interpretive confusion, some of which is legitimate. Equally as importantly, do you believe that God expects that man can understand His word? If man cannot understand it, what is its purpose? (Hint: collective debate is not the answer.)
Can you not see that the generalization that God's word is unclear and cannot be understood is a symptom of pride? Isn't this the same line of reasoning that atheists and agnostics employ for their unbelief? They claim that there is no clear empirical evidence and that God's word cannot be trusted. And yet you, a professing Christian, make the same claim.
Curt, when the Pharisees questioned Christ about marriage in Heaven, how did Our Savior respond? He said to them, "Have you not read...?" (Matt 22:31) You see, Christ's assumption is that God's word is clear.
My hope for you is that you embrace the word of God. That you cling to it, hide it in your heart, that you are transformed by it—that in it you find life, peace, and truth.
I appreciate the apology. That comment felt out of character from the rest of your comments, which have been very cordial.
I echo your hope for myself to be transformed by the Word. Although I do not see my view of Scripture as being objective, I still cling to God's word as truth and seek to live by it.
I once interpreted the Bible as saying women should not be allowed to do certain functions in the church. But as the result of studying and seeing the gifts of women, I changed my opinion. I could not have changed my mind unless I believed that there was a possibility I was wrong. When I acknowledged the possibility that I could be wrong, I could accept the truth of Scripture.
I believe I am now closer to the truth as a result of seeing Scripture in this light. Believing that I'm not yet seeing the objective truth has allowed my views to change and grow. I hope this means I am teachable rather than hard hearted as you suggest I might be.
Does this mean God is unclear? No, it means God is looking to grow us as persons not to just impart knowledge into us. God is perfect in his purposes.
In the end, I think this is what it boils down to for me: If I think that at any given point I have Scripture figured out, then I will have closed myself off from continued learning. I would no longer be receiving the truth, I'd own it.
I believe that God has given us the Bible so that we can live with him, being enlightened by the Holy Spirit, coming closer to the truth as we ourselves grow. That is what it means to me when I say we cannot know Scripture objectively.
And while we have a relationship with God himself, he also wants us to have meaningful relationships with others: being taught and discipled by them and reciprocating with others. That is why I do not think it disrespects God to say that we need to learn from one another. I think my position appreciates God's concerns for our relationship with the rest of the body. Again, it is not simply about communicating truth, but helping truth be embodied.
While I respect your position, because it comes with such high regard for Scripture (and I think you've argued it well), I cannot accept a position that seems like it would stagnate my growth, rather than enhance it, by keeping me from considering that my views may be wrong and from considering the views of others who may be more mature in the faith than I am. For me, that is the logical end of your position.
Post a Comment