It’s something Christians – as individuals and as groups – have done since the church first began at Pentecost. We make declarations about what is right and what is wrong, what is acceptable and what is not, what to believe as right and what to reject as wrong. We make these declarations with certainty, generally grounding them in what the Bible says. These declarations, by nature, call for agreement and conformity. Sadly, they almost always create the opposite: disagreement and division.
The earliest example of this practice was the attitude and position of the early church regarding Gentiles. Following the teachings of their Jewish heritage, the early Christians viewed Gentiles as unclean. As a result, Gentiles were excluded from the church, rejected as unacceptable. Acts 10 and 11 records how the Spirit led Peter and, through him, those early believers to a different understanding. That different understanding resulted in the embrace of Gentiles as fellow-believers and their inclusion in the church. This shift in position was not embraced by everyone. Many insisted the Gentiles had to become Jews and follow the law in order to become Christians. The conflict led to a council held in Jerusalem to resolve the issue, Acts 15. The council made a decision that opened the door to the Gentiles.
The most recent example of this practice was the declaration by Southern Baptists that women are not permitted to preach or be pastors. In Methodist life, the splintering of The UMC and the creation of the Global Methodist Church are the result of a fifty-year conflict over a statement in The Book of Discipline declaring homosexuality to be incompatible with biblical teachings. Consequently, homosexuals who lived in an open homosexual relationship are not eligible for ordination, UM clergy are not permitted to perform homosexual weddings, and UM properties are not available for homosexual weddings.
The early church’s shift in position regarding Gentiles serves as a reminder. Some positions, even though based on religious teaching and tradition, can be wrong. New understanding moves us to set them aside as wrong and invalid. The church’s attitude toward slavery is one example. Some United Methodists would say the condemnation of homosexuality is another.
These declarations stating a position regarding belief and practice almost always appeal to scripture. Scripture is viewed as authoritative and the final word regarding the matter. Thus, the position is presented as “the biblical position.”
The appeal to scripture is based on several generally unexamined assumptions. It assumes the Bible is a source book for determining what is right and what is wrong, what is acceptable and what is not, what to believe as right and what to reject as wrong – in other words, a rule book to be followed. It assumes the teachings found in scripture reflects the will of God. It assumes the teachings are correct and unchanging (i.e., the Bible is infallible and inerrant). As such, the Bible’s teaching reflects the only acceptable position. The appeal to scripture assumes there is one, unchanging position expressed throughout scripture. It assumes the issue in question is a simple black-and-white, either-or position. The appeal to scripture attributes equal authority to every verse regardless of the time period out of which the text came or its location in scripture. It assumes a literal reading of scripture is the only way to read scripture, i.e., the right way. It assumes any approach to scripture based on biblical scholarship is intended to undermine the teaching of scripture and is thus to be rejected.
These assumptions overlook the human dimension of scripture – the historical, cultural context out of which the text arose. As a result, a cultural belief is treated as an eternal truth applicable to every culture and time, i.e., women speaking in church, 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36. These assumptions ignore what the New Testament writers said about the partial, incomplete nature of their scriptures – our Old Testament. See Hebrews 1:1. These assumptions do not acknowledge the progression of understanding reflected in scripture. For example, the law of Moses attempted to temper the unlimited retaliation of Lamech (Genesis 4:23-24) with limited retaliation (Leviticus 24:17-22). Jesus went beyond the law of Moses to nonretaliation (Luke 6:27-36) and unlimited forgiveness (Matthew 18:21-35). These assumptions do not deal with how different texts challenge and refute positions expressed in other texts. For example, the books of Jonah and Ruth were written to challenge the ethnic cleansing under Ezra. The book of Job challenged the theology known as divine retribution (God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked) found in the book of Proverbs and some of the Psalms. These assumptions do not acknowledge the New Testament position that the fullest revelation of God and the ways of God is in Jesus - John 1:14, 18; John 14:8-9; Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:15, 19.
Perhaps the greatest drawback to these assumptions is they allow the reader to pick and choose which texts to focus upon, ignoring other texts that might present a different understanding. They allow the reader to use the Bible to support what they already believe. In other words, these assumptions make what the reader already thinks to be the ultimate authority, not the Bible.
The apostle Paul wrote about how to know the will of God – “what is good and acceptable and perfect,” Romans 12:2c. According to Paul, knowing God’s will grows out of the “renewing of your minds,” Romans 12:2b. As our thinking begins to be shaped by the character of God and the ways of God (as opposed to how the world trained us to think – “stop being conformed to this world,” Romans 12:2a), we will be able to discern the will of God. Thinking shaped by the Spirit – what Paul called “the mind of Christ,” 1 Corinthians 2:16 – positions us to know and live in harmony with the will of God. See again 1 Corinthians 2:7-16.
No comments:
Post a Comment