Divorce and Remarriage - Part 3

On day one we looked at Luke 16. Yesterday we looked at a number of Scriptures to continue to discover a Biblical Theology of Divorce and Remarriage. Today we'll look specifically at remarriage and critique some faulty conclusions others have made.

The Biblical View of Divorce and Remarriage -- Part 3

What about remarriage? Truthfully the Bible doesn't say nearly as much about remarriage. I'm not sure why. Nonetheless, the fact remains that little is said of it. We know that if a person's spouse dies, the survivor is free to remarry (1Cor 7:39). We can say for certainty that if the divorce is NOT Biblical, then the two are not free to be remarried except to each other (Matt 19:9). However, nothing concrete and clear is said of those who are left after a Biblical divorce.

Brothers and Sisters, where Scripture is silent, we must be as well. Now it is a generally accepted throughout Christian history that remarriage after a Biblical divorce is not forbidden nor sinful. After all, Jesus says "except sexual immorality" in Matt 19:9, and Paul says "a (believer) is not under bondage" in 1Cor 7:15. Not under bondage means, well, NOT UNDER BONDAGE. Certainly it's a reasonable position, even admitting that we lack a concrete passage dealing with remarriage save for 1Cor 7:39. Many great expositors and students of Scripture have taken this position.

John Piper takes a different position. I pause to take a deep breath, and look on in horror as I am forced once again to disagree with Piper, whom I admire and appreciate as a great brother in the Lord. One of these days I'm going to write a tribute to John Piper because he has had an indelible influence on my life and I'm tired of taking him to task. He's right way more often than he's wrong and when he is wrong it is infrequent and on secondary matters.

At any rate, Piper wrote this paper. With all due respect, he's wrong.

I won't pick apart his paper piece by piece, but I will take a few things he says here and show you good examples of eisegesis. Eisegesis is when you inject a meaning into Scripture instead of allowing Scripture to speak for itself and determine it's own meaning.

Take, for example his deconstruction of Matthew 19:

"Before we jump to the conclusion that this absolute statement should be qualified in view of the exception clause ("except for unchastity") mentioned in Matthew 19:9, we should seriously entertain the possibility that the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 should be understood in the light of the absolute statement of Matthew 19:6, ("let no man put asunder") especially since the verses that follow this conversation with the Pharisees in Mark 10 do not contain any exception when they condemn remarriage."

Later he says:

"I began, first of all, by being troubled that the absolute form of Jesus' denunciation of divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18 is not preserved by Matthew, if in fact his exception clause is a loophole for divorce and remarriage. I was bothered by the simple assumption that so many writers make that Matthew is simply making explicit something that would have been implicitly understood by the hearers of Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16.

Would they really have assumed that the absolute statements included exceptions? I have very strong doubts, and therefore my inclination is to inquire whether or not in fact Matthew's exception clause conforms to the absoluteness of Mark and Luke."

For one thing, as I said in part 1, we can not look to Luke 16 as an authoritative Scripture on divorce and remarriage in light of the fact that it was not the thrust of Jesus' point in Luke 16. Mark 10, however, is different and much like the need for reconciliation between Matt 19 and Luke 16, we must also reconcile Matt 19 and Mark 10.

I have a problem with Piper's reconciliation because he is writing a portion of Scripture out of Matthew by essentially erasing it by saying it must conform to Mark 10. Rather, a better handling of Scripture would be to say that Mark 10 leaves some things unsaid, and Matthew 19 says those things. That way BOTH portions of Scripture can say all they need to say and are harmonized perfectly. Pipers method requires an eraser. My method requires a reverence for all of Scripture.

Piper makes some conclusions at the end of his paper and says the following:

"In the New Testament the question about remarriage . . . it is determined by the fact that:

Marriage is a "one-flesh" relationship of divine establishment and extraordinary significance in the eyes of God (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8),
Only God, not man, can end this one-flesh relationship (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9—this is why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus: he assumes that the first marriage is still binding, Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11),
God ends the one-flesh relationship of marriage only through the death of one of the spouses (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39),
The grace and power of God are promised and sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced Christian to be single all this earthly life if necessary (Matthew 19:10-12,26; 1 Corinthians 10:13),
Temporal frustrations and disadvantages are much to be preferred over the disobedience of remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy both in this life and the life to come (Matthew 5:29-30)."

Let's take him point by point, shall we?

1. "Marriage is a "one-flesh" relationship of divine establishment and extraordinary significance in the eyes of God."

This is true. However, to be fair to Scripture, there are instances where this one-flesh relationship ends. If it being one flesh meant that it were always to remain that way, then 1Cor 7:15 and 1Cor 7:39 would be out of place. So while the statement is true, it is limited.


2. "Only God, not man, can end this one-flesh relationship —this is why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus: he assumes that the first marriage is still binding"

Not so. In a 1Cor 7:15 situation, did God end the marriage or did the unbelieving spouse? Is the believer under bondage?


3. "God ends the one-flesh relationship of marriage only through the death of one of the spouses."

While it's true that He does end it that way, by His word he also allows for other endings. Again, you can't erase Jesus' word in Matt 19 or in Matt 5 simply because the statement was incomplete in Mark 10 or Luke 16. You also can't say that Jesus is placing a bondage on those in marriage with Mark 10 and Luke 16 and say that 1Corinthians 7 is wrong to say that a believer is not under bondage.


4. "The grace and power of God are promised and sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced Christian to be single all this earthly life if necessary"

No argument here.


5. "Temporal frustrations and disadvantages are much to be preferred over the disobedience of remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy both in this life and the life to come"

And here is where I have my biggest problem. Piper, and those who agree with him, are taking a poor interpretation and poor handling of Scripture and turning it into a burden on their Biblicaly divorced brothers and sisters. They are putting on them a yoke that they put on no other group and a yoke that is not put on them by Scripture.

Piper has to write an entire position paper in which he ignores parts of Scripture to come to this conclusion. No one can point to a scripture or passage that deals with remarriage in a way that he concludes. Rather, the texts must be massaged and compromised in some cases, to come to his conclusion.

No, divorce for flippant and stupid reasons is not Biblical. One can certainly be sure that remarriage in those cases is exactly what Piper and his compadres are claiming it is. But they cannot ignore Scripture nor can they make a rule where Scripture does not.

Treating Matt 5 and Matt 19 on their own, letting them speak for themselves plainly, we see a clear exception. The same is true for 1 Corinthians 7. This cannot be ignored even if other passages do not have the same clauses. The best interpretation of these passages, without doing them harm, is to take them at their word.

There are exceptions to divorce and the subsequent remarriage clauses that follow are also subject to those exceptions. God has shown tremendous grace to believers in those circumstances and our attitude ought to reflect this grace. We ought to be like Christ and make exception where He does. Moreover, there is a lack of clear teaching dealing directly and solely with remarriage in the circumstances of Biblical divorce. Scripture is silent.

We should take the hint.

In closing, I'd like to beg you, my dear readers, to pray and help my fellow divorced believers. Especially those who are also single parents. It is a lonely place to be. One thing I was struck by when I began being social again after my own marriage fell apart was that modern American Churches are overwhelmingly geared toward families. I often felt out of place, misunderstood, and as if I was falling through the cracks. For me, there were long times of despair and sadness. I thought that no woman would ever understand or want me again. I questioned whether God wanted me.

I'm happy to report that God's grace is amazing. I remain a single man, but I am, thankfully, past the initial stages of depression. Others, however, never find their way out. Single parents and divorced believers need our affection and love. They need to be cared for and helped. They need to see Christ's care for them manifested in His people. The last thing they need is an additional burden not found in Scripture. Yes, many of them will remain single and scarred, but some will not. After these past few days, I hope that you'll see that in some cases, that is a good thing and an occasion to praise God with our divorced brethren, not an occasion for rebuke.

Tweet

Random Crazy Stuff - II

Good day all!

• Love this song:





• Lots of good stuff from Cripplegate lately. A post on the Millennial Kingdom, this longer article on bad leadership, and this review that supports my viewpoint on hermeneutics that I expressed in the mini-series we just went through on this blog.
  
  
• Vox Day points out that Mitt Romney is in the bag for the big banks that want to rule over us all. He's also happy to point out what I've said all along; that this race is between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. He's also a lot more blunt than I would ever be.
  
  
• In more happy government news, it seems that we can finally get rid of all those pesky pro-life activists! YAY! Let's vote for more NEO-CONS who propose this kind of thing! And then there is this delightful monstrosity.
  
  
• By the way:
  
  
  
  Just sayin'. . .
  
  
• Christianity Astray. . . err. . . TODAY doesn't think we should spank. Here is a good response. Here is a better response.
  
  
• In all seriousness, we can rejoice over the closing of one of America's oldest abortion clinics in Rockford IL. Here is the bizarre story of the shenanigans the pro-aborts would resort too told by those who worked to close it down. (No, I don't support the false religion of Catholicism in any fashion, they just happen to have the story.)
  
  
• George Barna is endorsing Newt. Here is more info. It's time to stop listening to George Barna. From his stubborn beliefs in home churches to his ridiculous endorsement of Newt, Barna has ceased to be reliable.
  
  
• Unfortunately, John Piper is getting there too. I'm sad to announce that I've removed John Piper from my recommended resources.
  
  UPDATE: A reader pointed out to me that John Piper has relented and published an apology for endorsing the Lectio Divina. You can read what he says here. Look, everyone makes mistakes. John Piper made a mistake and has repented for it. Good enough for me. Glad to have John Piper back on board.
  
  
• Finally, we have this amusing story about Ed Young Jr. Chris Rosenberg had some hilarious tweets regarding this. Seriously, I don't wish Ed any harm, but I do hope he learned his lesson.
  

Tweet

Why Hermeneutics Matter - Part 4 (A Wrap Up)

Good day all!

This is part four, and the final part, in a mini-series I'm doing on what I regard to be a matter for the soul of the Christian Church. If you missed the previous posts, click here for part one, here for part two, and here for part three. While I believe that God will preserve His Word, as He always has, I note with much trepidation that it is not beyond God to allow many generations to pass with no heart for Him or His word. I write this in hopes that those who read it will awaken to the lack of fidelity to the things we claim to hold near and dear.

Some Closing Thoughts

The past few days have been very challenging in a number of ways. Usually that statement is said in an attitude of sadness, but not for me, not this time. I enjoyed the challenge and believe that it was a fruitful couple of days.

I thought that today I might go through some of the things that have come up in relation to this mini series over the past few days.

• A Google search brought this link to my attention. It's interesting to me that they say the same words almost to the letter, including the "Oprah can't explain him" line. Do you think the results of this Hermeneutic have caused others to praise God, or did they just kneel down before a wafer?
  
  
• This is the church where the young man recorded his video. My impression is that it seems like a fairly solid church. Of course I say that only examining the website for a few minutes. Their stated doctrine seems fine, they have a fairly clear and good Gospel presentation, and they seem to have a certain reverence for God. However, one thing I did notice was that they do not preach in an expository manner. It's not indicative of a bad hermeneutic, but it is not a good sign nonetheless.
  
  
• John MacArthur offers this on Philippians 4. I figure that if my 10 minutes of exposition in part one of this series on Phil 4:6-7 was poor, then listening to MacArthur ought to clear up any misconceptions.
  
  
• A dear friend whom I am certain knows how to handle Scripture properly e-mailed me the following in regards to Numbers 14:13-14
  
  

  "The pillars of cloud and fire were actually visible manifestation of God's presence, and thus the point the boy was making is that Israelites traveled as if God held them by their hand: neck to neck or shoulder to shoulder so to speak. I would not go that far as to say it was Jesus, but I would say that it was the manifestation of God."

  
  
  He continues by pointing out that MacArthur writes:
  
  

  "As a spirit, God is invisible (Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17). He cannot be seen, though He has revealed Himself through physical manifestations. In Old Testament times God revealed His presence through fire, cloud, and the Shekinah (the visible manifestation of God’s glory; see 2 Chron. 7:1–2). The New Testament presents the ultimate revelation of God, when He became a man in the person of Jesus Christ. But God cannot be seen in His essential nature. “No man has seen God at any time,” wrote the apostle John; “the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him”" (John 1:18).

  
  I agree with my friend but point out that the video makes the claim that Jesus IS the Pillar of cloud/fire. This is simply not the case. To say it is a "visible manifestation of God's presence" is a statement I can get behind. God was making a clear demonstration that He was with Israel and was the one leading them through the desert. I just don't think that's what the boy was saying. He said the pillar is Jesus. It isn't. It's cloud and/or fire. It is there because of God and to indicate (which is what a manifestation is) God's presence, but it isn't the person of Jesus. Nonetheless, I appreciate my dear friend provoking me to think through what I said more thoroughly. Always nice to have iron sharpen iron (Prov 27:17).
  
  
• A professional blogger (whom I respect and read daily) made the observation that I was writing this series in a way that the only people who would understand me would be the people who already agreed with me. It got me to thinking and it will likely influence me in future posts. I put a poll on the Blog's Facebook wall today asking my fans opinions. Feel free to vote.
  
  
• A different friend of mine commented on my personal Facebook that he was glad I was writing this. He pointed out Mark 7:7 to Mark 7:13. I admit that it gave me kind of a spring board in writing part 3 which is why I used it there. Thanks CM, I appreciate the input.
  
  
• I made this and never used it. It would be a shame to have it go to waste:
  
  
  
  That guy is Rick Warren. I know, it's not very good. I'm not very good at visual art and whatnot.
  
  
• I said I'd have some closing thoughts yesterday and mostly I've treated this post as a "Crazy Random Stuff" post. Sorry about that. Let me put this bug in your ear. . . Dig into the resources that will help you to understand what God says in his Word. Think seriously about the points I've brought up here. I'm not saying I'm perfect, far from it, but God can use imperfect people to speak about truth. I hope that what I've done these past few days honors God's truth and will give you a desire to put away your own ideas and embrace God's ideas.
  
  
  

Tweet

Why Hermeneutics Matter - Part 3

Good day all!

This is part three in a mini-series I'm doing on what I regard to be a matter for the soul of the Christian Church. If you missed the previous posts, click here for part one, and here for part two. While I believe that God will preserve His Word, as He always has, I note with much trepidation that it is not beyond God to allow many generations to pass with no heart for Him or His word. I write this in hopes that those who read it will awaken to the lack of fidelity to the things we claim to hold near and dear.

Why Should You Care About Hermeneutics?

--The Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC) begins with the question "What is the chief end of man?" The answer is "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." The second question tells us how to do this by asking "What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him?" The foundation of that question is, of course, that God HAS directed us on how to glorify and enjoy Him. The answer to this question is very telling: "The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him."

So, is the WSC correct? More importantly, do you agree?

I'll begin by stating a presupposition: Christians all agree on the answer to the first question. We agree that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. In fact, I'll go a step further and say that if you don't agree with that then you are probably not a Christian.

The second question, however, is where the problem lies, and what the thrust of this mini-series is emphasizing. A lot can be said of the question...
-HAS God given us direction in how to glorify and enjoy Him?
-Are we able to ascertain this direction?
-Is this direction understandable?

To me, the answer is obvious. If God wants us to glorify Him, and we are unable to do this on our own (Eph 2:4-5), that He would have to tell us how we may glorify Him. Otherwise, the task would not only be impossible, but utterly hopeless as well! So, God MUST have told us how to do this.

It follows then that we can understand what He has told us. If God be perfect, and He is, then He must also be perfect in communication. Being perfect in communication, are the problems we have in understanding His communication His fault, or ours?

However, if the problem in our 21st century church were merely that God is not being understood, then I would be writing a very different mini-series. I would instead be writing helpful hints and linking great articles from good men about how to understand God's word. Nonetheless, as I said last time, that isn't the problem. The problem is that most people are content with not understanding, and almost all of these people even prefer not to understand.

Now, I ask you. . . does this glorify God? Does it bring honor to God to take the means, the "rule" as WSC calls it, and to choose not to understand it? Of course not. Hermeneutics is that method by which we understand the Scriptures. A bad hermeneutic and we don't understand them at all, and thus, we don't understand how to glorify God. A good one, and God imparts on us the information He has always desired to tell us.

Why foolishly cling to that which does not glorify God?


--Psalm 119:160 says "The entirety of Your word [is] truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments [endures] forever."

Jesus echos this sentiment when He said: "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth." - Jhn 17:17 NKJV

The truth is an important thing. God, in His infinite wisdom, warns us in Mark 7:7 that teaching the commandments of men is a vain exercise. Paul solidifies this point in 1CR 3:19. Jesus then in Mark 7:8 establishes that the pharisees of His day were exalting their own traditions above the Word of God. Note that they had invented their own traditions and in Mark 7:9 Jesus tells us that they even rejected God's commands to keep their traditions. After giving an example, Jesus sums up the state of such men in a scathing judgement:

"...making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do." - Mark 7:13 NKJV (See Mark 7:11-12 for context)

Jews in Jesus day and prior regarded the Word of God to be sacred. In their worship, they would kiss their Synagogue's copy of the Torah before reading it. Men and Women alike would stand quietly as it was read. Sure, sometimes they were just going through the motions (as the Pharisees were), but the tradition had it's germination in a deep respect for God's word.

In Nehemiah chapter 8, we find a people who had been chastened by the exile of the Jews to Babylon and Persia. Here we have a tiny percentage of Judah returning to the promised land and trying to rebuild their society. They had learned their lesson and now hungered for God. Ezra opens the Word of God and the people stood (Neh 8:5). In Nehemiah chapter 9 it tells us that they would stand for 6 hours out of their day hearing from God's word. It was that important.

The question becomes obvious; how important is it to us? We don't stand when we hear God's word, and many are uninterested in UNDERSTANDING it too. Shouldn't the very words of God mean more to us? Isn't it worth our respect to take the time to properly interpret and apply it to our daily lives?

I say that it is.


-- No human being with an amount of honesty will dispute that we make many mistakes. Why then do we believe that we can do just fine on our own without taking the time to understand properly what God's word says? If we are mistake prone, aren't we mistake prone in our own ideas too? Proverbs has much to say on this:

Proverbs 1:7 tells us that "fools despise wisdom and instruction". Proverbs 3:5 tells us to "lean not on our own understanding."

Good Hermeneutics, by its design, is a VERY careful process. It has many steps, many checks and balances. Yes, we can make an error even following a good system to the letter, but we are much less prone to do so. It also becomes far less likely that we will make the kind of error that comes from hubris, instead we are more likely to merely make simple mistakes rooted in knowledge or judgement. We can't know everything and no system of hermeneutics can overcome that. However a good system can push a believer in the direction of making the errors smaller, more easily manageable. More importantly, it pushes the believer away from making errors that are cataclysmic to their faith.

Why? Because the believer is not despising instruction and is not leaning on his own understanding.

Sure, it is possible to lean then on the mistaken understanding of someone else. However, good hermeneutics will reject human intervention and allow the Word of God to speak for itself. Thus, the believer is leaning on God's wisdom through His word and not on man-made wisdom.

This is worth pursuing.


-- The writer of Hebrews tells us that the God's word is "sharper than any two edged sword" (Heb 4:12). In other words, it is a formidable weapon in the war we fight on this earth and in this life. Why then do many Christians decide not to use it?

My 10 year old likes to tell me about many of his guns. He owns an AK-47, a sub machine gun, a laser gun, a couple of P-90's, and something he calls a rocket booster (don't ask, I have no idea). My son has even shot me many times with his guns. Yet here I sit able to type this blog post to you. You would think that a man who has been shot by a "rocket booster" would need immediate medical attention. However, I assure you that I'm just fine.

You see my son's guns are toys. Replicas of the real thing. Some of them look very real. Some of them even shoot little plastic or rubber bullets. These toys give him hours and hours of fun pretending to save the world from invading aliens or hordes of soldiers looking to harm his dog or I. However, if a thief broke into my home tonight, I would not reach for one of my son's toys. It is limited and serves one purpose: to amuse my son. It has no real world value and in the end brings no useful or lasting purpose.

Many people spend much of their time crafting fun toys with Scripture that, like my son's guns, look much like the real thing, but pale in comparison. In the end, these exercises in man made theology create a lot of entertainment and make for interesting conversation, but have no redeeming value in the real world, and no useful or lasting purpose.

The Master's Seminary Professor Robert Thomas critiqued preterist writer Kenneth Gentry by using a similar analogy. Thomas said that he took his sons to Disney world and described a ride where they were in front of a 3D screen and sitting in a car like device that would shake, roll, and move in congress with the images on the screen. The ride, Thomas tells us, made his son quite ill and afraid. However Thomas tells us that he was not affected by the ride because he was felt safe in the knowledge that this was just a ride. The illusion was ruined for him. Thomas goes on to critique Gentry's sloppy hermeneutics claiming Gentry created an illusion to base his preterist claims upon.

Putting aside Thomas' opinion of Gentry, the basis for his critique is valid. If we are to create an illusion of a firm foundation, is that foundation really firm? Of course not. This is obvious, but what is not so obvious is the heightened sense of danger associated with illusions. When one has no illusions, one is not fooled, and even if one has no idea what reality may be, at least one does not need to be first shaken from a mistaken belief in order to embrace reality when it is found.

Just as it would be a disaster to believe my son's toys, however realistic they may appear, could protect my home, so we must see that a theology built to look like God's word, but absent of any basis in God's Word, would have equally disastrous effects on our faith.


--There is no wisdom in men (1 Cor 2:5). We are sinful wretched creatures (Eccl 7:20). Our hearts are dark and wicked (Jer 17:9). We don't, in and of ourselves, do anything good (Psm 53:3).

We ought, then, to reject the wisdom of men and embrace the wisdom of God. God desires for us to have a right relationship with Him. He will not do this with respect to our conditions or through our means. We must abandon these things. We must embrace Him. This begins and ends with embracing God's word and really believing Sola Scriptura.

Christians, throw down the idols you have made with God's word! Abandon those things that you've embraced instead of His word! Allow the richness of His wisdom to speak to you uninhibited and unaltered. God has given you His word for this exact purpose. It is up to you to listen.

We'll wrap up this mini-series tomorrow with some closing thoughts.


(see part four here)

Tweet

Why Hermeneutics Matter - Part 2

Good Day all!!

This is part two in a mini-series I'm doing on what I regard to be a matter for the soul of the Christian Church. If you missed part one, click here. While I believe that God will preserve His Word, as He always has, I note with much trepidation that it is not beyond God to allow many generations to pass with no heart for Him or His word. I write this in hopes that those who read it will awaken to the lack of fidelity to the things we claim to hold near and dear.

Who Cares about Hermeneutics?

Unfortunately, very few care about Hermeneutics. This is a complete mystery to me. When I discovered Hermeneutics, it was as if God had opened up His Word to me in a whole new way. I was no longer confused by complicated passages. Even if I did feel confused by the Bible at times (Hi-ya second half of Daniel!), I felt empowered to be able to solve my interpretative problems. I had a sense of what I was doing with this book I hold in such high regard. It was exhilarating! God was demonstrating to me that His word was truth and I could trust it in every sense. Truths I had always believed, but somehow seemed mysterious to me, suddenly seemed within reach.

Most importantly, it helped me to really understand Sola Scriptura and to actually increase my reverence for the Word of God. I felt as if I had always been a clumsy child handling a precious artifact. Now I was an adept curator professionally making use of the ancient tool in my hand. It was a great feeling.

Unfortunately, it also "ruined my life". I say this tongue in cheek, of course. I remember remarking to my Pastor (my ever faithful mentor) that I was going to have a T-Shirt made that read "Hermeneutics Ruined My Life" because my life was quite literally never the same. This had its positive points as willful ignorance is a dreadful lot in life. Nonetheless, it had its negatives too. I began to use the things I've learned and realized, much to my horror, the depth of deception of "Christians" that believe ridiculous things and use Scripture (improperly) to justify those beliefs.

What was worse was that I tried to tell my fellow Christians that what they were doing was not right and I was hated for it. Truth be told it was one of the chief experiences that led me to call this blog "That Crazy Christian". Here were a group of people who claimed to hold God and His Word in the highest esteem. I thought that this news would be received like a thirsty man receives a canteen of water. Instead it was as if I had vinegar in my canteen. I was mocked, derided, scolded for being "haughty" and "proud", argued with, and abandoned by people who claimed to believe as I did, and in some cases, those I genuinely cared about.

I admit that I'm not always the best "people person" in the world. Did I make mistakes in how I approached some people? Sure! Could I do better in being a teacher? Yes! However, even knowing this and trying my best to act as Christ would, I was absolutely shocked, and terrified, by the response I received when I talked about this subject.

You see it wasn't that people didn't understand what I was saying. It wasn't that they didn't want to understand what I was saying. It was that they understood what I was saying and still didn't care. Some didn't care because, in their own eyes, they could do no wrong. Some didn't care because they were bored by the subject (which in and of itself is gut wrenching). Mostly though, people didn't care because. . . try though I might. . . my explanations as to why this mattered SO much fell on deaf ears. Deaf to the implications. Deaf to the ramifications. Deaf to the disharmony with their stated beliefs.

When I think back on it, and look at the current battles I have in this arena, I can only conclude that many Christians have made an idol out of their Bibles. The Bible is not Words of Life to the dying, living waters to the parched, to some people. No, instead it's a pliable lump of clay that is to be manipulated and shaped to say whatever they want it to say. It is, in fact, a God in their own image. Instead of taking it at face value and hearing from it the very Word of God in its purest and unadulterated form, they would rather make it to mean what they want to hear. They spend their Sundays singing about how they've "Surrendered All" and what a treasure the Word of God is, but then refuse to surrender their image of the Word to the real thing and instead melt down that treasure to fit their desires.

Harsh? Probably. The truth is harsh sometimes. To paint the complete picture, I think it's worth noting that many Christians act this way because they genuinely believe that by doing so they are honoring God. Which, to me, says that they at the very least desire to honor God. They think, for example, that it helps our cause to show Jesus in every book of the Bible. . . even the books where He isn't there. While I applaud the sentiment to defend the faith or to honor God, it must be pointed out that we don't honor God by mishandling His word.

Nevertheless, this minority of Christians who ignorantly ignore Hermeneutics cease to be ignorant when someone confronts them about their ignorance and shows them the right way. No doubt, this takes a patient and careful approach. It's not the easiest of concepts to grasp and it takes some time to see the truth.

However, once that confrontation is complete, the Christian has some hard questions. Do they really believe Sola Scriptura? Do they really honor God's word? Do they want to do the hard work of understanding the Word? Most of all, do they really care what that Word says?

I can say from personal experience, that most answer that last question with a resounding "no". So, to the church at large, there is nothing wrong with believing that Jesus is the "pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night" even if the basis for that belief amounts to "I simply want to believe it". When you look at the fervor with which they defend their baseless points, you see just how deep this has gone.

Fervor tells us a lot. Someone who will casually defend that Jesus is Lord but passionately defend the honor of their local sports team obviously reveres that sports team more. It's what caused them to be wound up and an attack upon it touched a nerve.

It was the same way in the area of hermeneutics in my experience. I could disagree with them politically and most didn't care. I could be a Calvinist and they Armenian and still not many really cared much about that. Yet, the moment I told them that their handling of Scripture is wrong, I became enemy #1.

Apathy isn't the problem. In fact perhaps they care more about Hermeneutics than I give them credit for. They've adopted one even though they reject the notion that they need one. Funny how that works isn't it? One thing is for sure, what most didn't, and many do not, care about was adopting the proper one.

Tomorrow we talk about why this topic isn't merely a pet peeve, but as I have said, a battle for the heart and soul of the Church.

Stay tuned and stay faithful!

(see part three here)

Tweet

Why Hermeneutics Matter - Part 1

Good day all!!

This is part one in a mini-series I'm doing on what I regard to be a matter for the soul of the Christian Church. While I believe that God will preserve His Word, as He always has, I note with much trepidation that it is not beyond God to allow many generations to pass with no heart for Him or His word. I write this in hopes that those who read it will awaken to the lack of fidelity to the things we claim to hold near and dear.

Ok, I'm just going to come right out and say it. . .

THIS:



. . . is terrible hermeneutics.

Now, before you start virtually stoning me let me say that I'm a single homeschooling father of a 10 year old boy. So, believe me, I understand just what an accomplishment it is for this young man to stand in front of his church, and indirectly, to stand in front of (to date) 800,000+ You Tube viewers, confidently and clearly reciting his lines. Not merely to trod through his part, but to do so PASSIONATELY and with conviction. Good for this kid, he clearly worked hard and deserves credit for a job well done. His parents should be proud of their little one. Most of all, in the end, it's certainly not this child's fault that the lines he's reciting reflect zero understanding of proper hermeneutics.

Three questions are probably on the average christian's mind right now:

• What are you talking about?
  

• Who cares?

• Why should I care?

Let me attempt to answer them...

What am I talking about?

Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting and applying Scripture. As Christians we ought to believe a few things in regards to Scripture. Namely:

1. God's Word is the Bible and the Bible is God's Word.
2. God is a perfect communicator.
3. The responsibility falls on the reader to interpret and apply the Word properly without altering the perfect communication from God.

Good hermeneutics assume the first two points and endeavors to take up the responsibility of the last point.

There are a lot of principles to Hermeneutics. Principles relating to the written word in general, principles relating to different types of written word (Psalms, prophesy, etc.), principles relating to consistency within the Bible, principles relating to application, principles for interpretation, and so on. One of the founding principles, and one so often violated, is the principle of single meaning. It is the principle that is being violated in the video above.

The principle of single meaning is simple; each individual Scripture can have only one single meaning. There are not multiple layers of meaning, there are not hidden meanings, there are not meanings for the time period it was written in and a different meaning today. There is just one meaning.

Another principle is that while meaning might be singular, the application is many. Now this is kind of nuanced, so I'll keep it simple.

Take Philippians 4:6-7:

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. - Phl 4:6-7 NKJV

If we go through the hermeneutical process of looking at the original language, understanding the context of the verse, examining the culture and history of the author and recipient, remembering our interpretative principles, et. al., we come to a simple interpretation.

"Don't be anxious. Bring everything, including your needs, to God in prayer always remembering to give thanks. Let God know what you desire and need. In this process, God's peace (that simply can't be understood, rather it must be experienced) will overcome your anxiety."

Now, for you professionals out there, I'm certain that my 10 minutes studying that verse probably wasn't enough to do a good job. However, that is beside my point. The point is that we can't look at Phl 4:6-7 and come to the conclusion that it means the above AND something else.

However, could I apply this verse to a person who has a fear of failing a test AND to a person who is never comfortable that they have enough money? Yes, yes I could. Because where a Christian has anxiety, this verse applies no matter what that anxiety may be about.

So, one might respond to me that what the child is doing in the above video is simply making different applications of the concepts he's talking about. To which I respond a resounding no.

Take one of his statements:

"In Numbers he's a pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night."

We all remember that story in Numbers. God led the Israelites through the dessert through a very visible way.

And Moses said to the LORD: "Then the Egyptians will hear [it], for by Your might You brought these people up from among them, "and they will tell [it] to the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that You, LORD, [are] among these people; that You, LORD, are seen face to face and Your cloud stands above them, and You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night. - Num 14:13-14 NKJV

Now, what part of that verse do you get the pre-incarnate Christ as being that Pillar of Cloud or of Fire? Yes, the pillars are definitely God's pillars, and they are indeed miraculous. Yet at the end of the day the meaning we conclude from that verse is that God put a visible pillar in night and day to lead Israel in an obvious way. It seems that God did this so that Egypt would see and tell the inhabitants of the land that they know for sure that God is with Israel.

That's it. That's what it means. Now, what application can we get out of it? Well, that depends on what needs to be said to whom you are speaking. Some possible examples would be that God is capable and willing to lead His people. We might also say that Israel had no excuse to deny God. We might talk about God's desire to be glorified or about His faithfulness to Israel. There is a LOT we can get out of the verse.

However just as we can't get out of the verse that God abandoned Israel, we also can't conclude that Jesus IS the pillar. He's not. The Pillar is cloud and fire. Not Jesus. It doesn't say that. Anywhere. To claim that it does say that is to inject YOUR OWN meaning into the text. Most of all, it shows a complete lack of hermeneutical fidelity to the text.

I remind you, this is just one statement in the video. It is replete with this kind of injected meanings.

I have only scratched the surface of this important text. Truthfully, I have only scratched the surface of hermeneutics itself. I recommend two books that can help you to dive in to the world of hermeneutics. Protestant Biblical Interpretation by Benard Ramm & Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New vs. The Old by Robert Thomas. (Also, if you google Robert Thomas+Masters Seminary Journal, you'll find some of the articles in his book. . . like this one.) Both are good beginners texts on the subject. Ramm reads like a beginners guide, and Thomas address many challenges to the field. These are the two books I read (one on my own, and the other in a Men's Bible study. . . Hi guys!). I am BY NO MEANS an expert, but my eyes are certainly open.

Now that you understand what Hermeneutics is (remember I'm only teaching ABOUT hermeneutics, not teaching hermeneutics itself.), you'll be well prepared for the next few days. Over the next few days I'll continue my quest to point out this glaring problem in the church today.

Stay tuned, and stay faithful!

(see part two here)

Tweet

Sex on the Evangelical Brain

Credit where credit is due: I was inspired to write this by reading Phil Johnson's blog post of which I borrowed a moderate amount. You should read it here.

Good day all!!

It seems, once again, the major players in American Christianity are obsessed with sex. Mark Driscoll has kicked off his release his new book (co-authored with his wife) Real Marriage. this comes on the heels of Ed Young Jr. announcing that as a part of his ongoing "Sexperiment", he and his wife will be web-casting themselves from the roof of their "church" while in bed.

I've stared at my screen for the past 15 minutes because, honestly, I don't know what to say about this any more. I could very easily fall into a diatribe about how dumb this is and rail against how this is a reason, and an indicator, of the fall of American Christianity. Likely, what I'm about to say will have elements of this.

Yet, what I really want to express to you is how all of this is simply sad. It is sad in the sense that it is deplorable. Here we have two high profile men not only professing to be Christians, but also leading others in the faith and representing themselves to those outside of the faith. Instead they spend their precious little time on this earth tell those in faith about having better sex. Not about the mortification of sin. Not about the deceit of the human heart. Not of the glorious congruity and sufficiency of God's Word. Not even that Jesus loves them. No, rather they the faithful are told about having a more enjoyable sex life. Church then has become not a place of where we sit under teachers to learn more about our wonderful Lord, but rather a social club that is the equivalent to Cosmo.

Think about that for a moment. Here is the one place that is supposed to preach the one Book that exalts the one Lord that was, is, and always will be the ONLY hope for man. A rare and valuable place indeed. This place is led by men that are charged by the Book they are supposed to preach that they are held to a higher standard and they are responsible for those under their care. Those same men have in their very grasp the ability to give the people under their care the keys to grasping eternal life in the presence of a Heavenly Father. By no means is this something to be taken lightly.

Yet having all of those riches in their hand, they neglect them and clamor for dirt! They choose to talk about having better sex instead of pressing on toward the upward calling (Phl 3:14). How putrid! How paltry!

How pathetic. (see definition 4)


It's also sad that it causes me to feel somber as to why this type of thing is popular to begin with. Look at the majority of churches in our Western World. A vast majority of churches in the western world are:

• Purpose Driven
  

• Seeker Sensitive

• Denominationly Challenged
  

• Outright Heretical

I acknowledge that there is some bleed over between these categories (particularly between Purpose Driven and Seeker Sensitive) and not every bad church everywhere will fall into these categories. I also acknowledge that it is unfair to say that ALL bad churches dive into becoming a worldly sex advice center. Some bad churches are just plain bad.

Nonetheless, it's becoming harder and harder to deny that this is a trend among modern western Christianity and I believe that is explicitly connected to fact that they've abandoned their first love (Rev 2:4-5) and embraced worldliness to begin with. It began by not doing things in church, and in life, in the manner God commands. Instead, they thought that man had a better way. They embraced the wisdom of psychology and pop-culture, believing the traditions of the church and the wisdom of Scripture were tired, old, out of date. Not relevant.

Yet, it's more than that. They've not just replaced traditions (sometimes that's not a bad idea anyway). They've not just abandoned the wisdom of Scripture. They've actually abandoned the God who has given them clear commands. God is clear: they don't exist as a church for the benefit of those who aren't believers, or for those who call Jesus Savior but not Lord. The church exists to edify, teach, and to hold accountable a group of believers who bow their knee fully to Christ; using their spiritual gifts to edify and solidify one another, having fellowship with one another, and worshiping the Lord forever!

It's not about Mark Driscoll or Ed Young Jr. It's not about my pastor. It's not about me. It's not about you.

It's about the Lord our God. The God who gave His life as a ransom. The God who deserves all of our praise and worship.

This trend in Christianity is somber because they taken that wonderful thing and turned it into this:





They've taken the wonderful tradition of exalting God through song and made it into this monstrosity:



You get the despicable picture.

Christians, I implore you to not chase this awful fad. I'm begging you to take Eph 5:3 to Eph 5:12 seriously. This is unbecoming of those who represent our Lord and those who are involved need to repent. Immediately.

Tweet