Rules of the Game

This continues a series of posts inspired by one of Sid’s tweets. He said that “The Bible is anti-human sexuality outside a very narrowly prescribed range.” My own post will come last. Today’s post is brought to us by Winston Crutchfield from Critical Press Media. Show him some love!

This statement seems designed to provoke a reaction without speaking to the real issue at hand. Let us examine that instead.

The Bible certainly condemns specific behavior. In addition to specific sexual acts and relationships, the Bible also condemns: lying, murder, tax evasion, slander, disobeying one’s parents, idol worship, eating pork, and a whole host of other things. The Bible insists that it is the actual words of God, and that it is to be taken as a whole or rejected as a whole. Any other practice is not consistent with Biblical text.

When applying Biblical teaching to human sexuality, as to any aspect of life, one must first accept the authority and legitimacy of the Bible to govern that aspect of life. If one is to accept that the Bible has this authority, no issue may then be taken against whatever statements may be found therein – whether they condemn us for a sexual act, a malicious act, or even a well-intentioned act.

We may be thankful that the Bible does not teach perfect adherence to Biblical Law as the only means of salvation, but that salvation instead is the free gift of God to all who ask. It further /describes/ the practices of those who are saved, rather than attempting to /proscribe/ the actions of those who have no interest in the teachings of the Bible.

In the act of maintaining citizenship within a country, one agree to the legitimacy of the government to set whatever laws it deems necessary, with or without explaining the necessity of those laws. Only once one has agreed to accept Biblical salvation does any other practice described therein become necessary or prohibited. A salvation which attempts to add to or leave behind any portion of the Bible is inconsistent with Biblical text, and comes from human invention rather than divine revelation.

Many world religions use the Christian Bible as their primary sacred text, but reject the divine authorship and complete nature of the manuscript. These religions, which include the Mormons, the Emerging Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and certain movements within multiple Protestant denominations, are legitimately free to change the nature of salvation doctrine and prohibited human behavior to match their own desires. These religions should not be mistaken for, and often do not claim to be, Biblical Christianity.

Should one find oneself in conflict with any portion of the Biblical text, one may adopt a completely legitimate response in rejecting the text in part or in whole and seeking their own religious path. One who does so must understand without error that the freely-given salvation described in the Bible and internally consistent therin applies only to those who accept the authority of Biblical teaching as a whole.

To sum this argument in modern parlance: “If you want to play the game, you have to abide by the rules. If you change the rules, you’re playing a different game.”

  • sidfaiwu
    "This statement seems designed to provoke a reaction without speaking to the real issue at hand."

    Sounds about right. :)

    I enjoyed reading your contribution. I don't really have much to add or critique.
  • Please provide some explanation for:

    "The Bible insists that it is the actual words of God, and that it is to be taken as a whole or rejected as a whole. Any other practice is not consistent with Biblical text."

    This seems to be a very simplistic and extreme statement and presents a very narrow view of biblical interpretation. Interpreting the scriptures is more than reading everything as "the actual words of God".
  • winstoncrutchfield
    The phrase "actual words of God" should be understood as referring to divine authorship, as in 2Timothy 3:16. This tenet states that canonical scripture is delivered by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through the medium of revelation. A corollary of this statement holds that in order for scripture to remain unadulterated by men who /believe/ they are under the influence of the Holy Spirit, God Himself will always preserve the divine text in its original medium. Religion may then be determined to match or diverge from the original revelatory content. It is important to understand at this point that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek; both of these are "living" languages, and copies of the divine text in its original language remain extant and unaltered.

    That Biblical text is to be taken or rejected as a whole is also taught by Paul in 2Timothy 1:13-14, where Paul instructs Timothy in the pattern of biblical teaching. This statement must then be understood in light of verses like Deuteronomy 4:2, which forbids the qualitative addition or subtraction of material to the Mosaic text. In order for biblical text outside of the Pentatuch to be eligible for canonicity, it must match in substance the original divine text handed to Moses.

    The modern Christian Bible comes to us through a rigorous process of selection by the church fathers, who began with the Hebrew texts and then compared manuscripts for these qualities - evidence of divine revelation, and concurrence with original material. This process led to the exclusion of many popular texts (such as the Books of Enoch and Maccabees) and the inclusion of texts not so popular or accepted (such as the Letter to the Hebrews).

    Interpretation of the Bible is not simplistic, and the structure of biblical text is such that extremism is discouraged in favor of specificity - which bears much of the same appearance. Interpretation of the Bible must always be done in light of the principles above outlined, and in conjunction with an understanding of the purpose of the portion of text currently under consideration. Let's consider solely the Gospels, while all three Gospels are in part a biographical record: Matthew is primarily an exposition of Old Testament prophecy and law; Mark is a dramatic biography; Luke is a historical record; John is a theological treatise. Of the Old Testament: much of it is historical record, much of it is poetry, much of it is prophecy.

    And all of it is internally consistent, demanding to be recognized accepted as such - in whole and not in part.
  • Thanks for the reply Winston. I am still a bit foggy on what you are saying about the phrase "actual words of God". Maybe these two specific examples might clarify your thoughts for me a bit?

    1) Some preachers feel that it is in accord with the scriptures (especially the Psalms) to prayer imprecatory prayers asking God to harm people like President Obama who they do not see as a Christian (see http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_con...).

    2) Some believe that genocide (i.e. the killing of innocent infants) is sometimes in accord with God's will because they read parts of the OT and believe that God literally commanded genocide at times.

    Just a few examples of how some interpret the phrase "actual words of God". I would appreciate your perspective on the two examples above with regard to the phrase "actual words of God". Thanks much.
  • winstoncrutchfield
    Bob I really appreciate your interest and clarity in discussion. Let's see if I can answer your points.

    Regarding the phrase, "actual words of God": 2Tim 3:16 (NIV) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. This means that historical records are perfectly accurate, prophetic passages are equally infallible, doctrinal statements are always internally consistent, and instruction for living reflects the nature and intentions of God for creation.

    1) Let us examine Psalm 3:7 (NIV) Arise, O LORD! Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked. Taking this as a representative sample of the behavior you describe, let us examine the proper way to teach from this passage.

    a) Do not divorce the verse from the whole of it's passage. As has been said, "A text without a context is a pretext".

    b) Consider the passage according to it's literary intent.

    c) Compare the results to other portions of scripture.

    In this case: a) the passage describes King David in need of deliverance, with the reputation and legitimacy of divine authority of God at stake; b) the passage is poetic, describing David's state of mind at the time; c) David calls for the administration of justice and divine protection, both of which are consistent with the revealed nature of God. Surely the lesson here is that we should never be afraid to express the depths of our emotion to God, and to pray in accordance with the nature of God. Remember also that the purpose of temporal judgment is to drive individuals to repentance and reconciliation with God. David's prayer here was granted because of the righteousness of his cause; Balaam, also an acknowledged prophet of God, had his prayers refused by God. We need not fear that our private malice or misunderstanding will persuade the Lord to act improperly.

    2) Let us examine Joshua 6:21 (NIV) They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. The sacking of Jericho surely involved the slaughter of infants and children, as well as the destruction of many resources that could have been put to good use.

    Following our established pattern: a) The Israelites are in a state of war, conquering new land they intend to inhabit for themselves. b) The passage is historical in nature, describing events without apologizing for them. c) The conquest of other portions of Canaan also involved this kind of behavior, some of which was explicitly instructed by God; at other times, God explicitly forbade acts of genocide or the plundering of cities that would result in non-combatants being unable to provide for themselves. If you wish to make a moral lesson involving God's stance on genocide from this material, it will be difficult indeed. Perhaps the easiest conclusion to reach would be that in the absence of prophetic revelation, the rules of war must be extrapolated from those governing legal affairs. "Not in vain does authority bear the sword."

    I hope this speaks to the discussion in the manner you requested.
  • Thanks again for the great response Winston. I think that we agree more than disagree.

    My take-away from your first explanation is that "imprecatory" prayer (i.e. wishing ill on another) is more about the brokenness of the psalmist/pray-er than a doctrinal defense of this kind of prayer. As such this sort of prayer should not be taught as the sort that moves God to hurt people but a way to cathartic-ally interact with him. Of course I might counsel one who consistently prays in this manner to seek help :)

    Regarding genocide and the idea that "some of which was explicitly instructed by God" - I think that one is on shaky ground to always take a literal approach to passages where it is reported that "God said". I find that approach to take literalism to places where it need not go. It is one thing to historically report that the Israelites committed genocide because they believed God ordered it.. it is yet another thing to interpret those passages believing that God actually ordered the events. IMO it takes literalism to an unnecessary extreme.

    Overall I agree with your approach to the scriptures. I appreciate your high regard for content and context. I am enjoying the dialog.

    Blessings, Bob
  • jasonfaylen
    Ahh, yes, thank you! The basic premise of this post is a realization I wish many Christians would make: The Bible does not require non-believers to adhere to its principles, and neither should we!

    I will say though, that I feel like the blanket statement about world religions using the Bible comes off as a little bit elitist- not dissimilar to the Baptist environment I grew up in, which questioned the legitimacy of the salvation of the members of the Baptist church down the street...
  • spiritualtramp
    to be fair though Jason, a lot of what he said re: "other world religions" is true. The RCC, some Protestant denominations, and belief systems that many Christians would consider to be heretical/cultish (the LDS, 7th Day Adventists, Christian Scientists) add things to their religions that can't be found in the Bible at all, even via interpretation.

    That is not to say that adherents to those religions aren't saved. They may well be. That is for God alone to judge.
  • jasonfaylen
    yeah, after reading it again, I realize I was focusing more on the divine authorship part. But adding or removing ideas definitely indicates a disagreement with the completeness, which questions its divine authorship anyway...
    I'm not all that familiar with the Emerging Church, but I'm not sure I would lump them or the RCC in with Mormons. perhaps that is the pendulum swinging the other way from my upbringing...
blog comments powered by Disqus
«
»