ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS

When I taught a class called Bible Study Methods at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston, I taught three steps:  observation, interpretation and application and that these steps must be followed in that order.  My usual introductory spiel went something like this (abbreviated):  "The first question we usually ask of a passage of Scripture is, 'What does this mean to me?'  But we have no business asking this question without first asking (and determining) 'What does this mean?'  And we have no business asking 'What does this mean? until we have asked (and determined) 'What does this say?'"

We would spend a great part of the semester doing exercises in observation -- grammar, context, figures of speech, etc. -- attempting to observe what various texts were saying.  After this we would do more exercises in interpretation, attempting to determine as closely as possible the meaning of the text in its context and to its original readers and/or hearers.

It was only after they had gone through all this labor and toil that the students were allowed to do application -- to take the principles learned from their studies and place them in their own contexts -- into their personal situations.  The results were often amazing, frequently bringing tears as these were read in class.

A big problem that kept recurring in this process was that of keeping one's present context out of the first two steps and saving it for the third step.  To a great extent this was impossible.  The students did not arrive in college as blank slates.  Most had some background of biblical knowledge, of psychology and of history.  Much of this was helpful, although much simply got in the way, keeping the students from seeing the Scripture afresh.  I noticed that sometimes those who were relatively ignorant of Scripture were often able to grasp biblical meanings more quickly.

But this is an issue not only for first semester college students, it is a problem for every person who desires to have the Scriptures relevant in his/her life.  It is a constant problem for me, not only in my personal studies, but also in attempting to relate them to the culture around me and to my fellow believers.  I have often seen it in objections raised to things I have written, as well as in my teaching and discussion with students.

Now please don't get me wrong.  I have always appreciated disagreement, even being corrected on faulty reasoning or ignorance on my part (even when my pride gets hurt a bit).  I appreciate listening to other interpretations of Scriptures or theology, or current events.

What bothers me are objections in which, as I see it, the objector inserts his/her own context into the interpretation rather than into the application of Scripture.

A few "for instances" --  (Please pardon me for oversimplifying and forgive me if you feel I'm referring to something you've said.):

First, the argument from experience:  When Jesus commands to "forsake all" and follow Him, that this forsaking is required in order to follow, the reply is given from experience, "But when I chose to follow Jesus, the forsaking came automatically."  Well, maybe so; I can't question your experience; but that's not what Jesus said.  He made an all-or-nothing demand.

Then, there are the hypothetical "what-ifs?"  Jesus says, "...do not resist the evil..."  The question is immediately thrown up, "But what about protecting your family (wife, mother, etc.)?

And, of course, the political or patriotic.  The Bible says to love your neighbor, even the alien.  The reply, "But there are 11 million illegal aliens in this country.  We've got to do something about them."

I'm not saying that these are not legitimate questions; I'm saying they're being asked at the wrong time and place.  These are not interpretation questions, they are application questions.

As those who believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures and claim to believe in the authority of the Scriptures, we are obligated to make every effort to understand the Scripture in its own context.  We must have some understanding of the time and place in which these sayings were made and of the original hearers.  We must seek to clearly determine what Jesus meant when He made these radical demands.  It is only when we have a clear understanding that we can seek how to relate them to our own situation(s).  We dare not insert America, guns, Mom or apple pie into our interpretation of these demands.

But we must insert these demands into our relationship to America, guns, Mom and apple pie.

LIGHTHOUSES

Uni and I grew up, dated, married and started our family in Muskegon, a city on the western shore of Michigan.  Muskegon was a seaport on Lake Michigan.  Ocean-going ships would sail  in through a channel from the big lake into Muskegon Lake, a smaller lake with a deep harbor, around which the city was built.

Growing up in this environment we took for granted the sights, sounds and smells of the "sea."  Sitting on the channel walls, fishing for perch or dipping smelt which ran in the early spring.  Hearing the bellow of the foghorn in the early morning as its deep BEE-OOHH sound carried for miles. 

The ship channel ran in an east-west direction.  On its north side sat a large red lighthouse.  South of the channel a breakwater, made of huge rocks and concrete, extended far out into the big lake.  On the far end of the breakwater, perhaps a quarter mile out sat the ugliest lighthouse ever seen.

 

But to Uni and me it was beautiful.  When we were teenagers we could walk out hand-in-hand on a warm summer day or evening and have a brief few moments alone.  There were times when, of course, we were unable to walk the breakwater, when huge waves went crashing over the top.  In the winter waves would be frozen over it.

 

We didn't have to go far up or down the shoreline to see other lighthouses, each unique.  Michigan has by far the greatest number of lighthouses -- 129 according to one count.  Some of these date back to the 19th century.

 

Songs we sang and heard in church -- old gospel songs -- seemed to fit right in with this "seafaring" atmosphere.  We could visualize them and feel the waves crashing as we sang:

   

"I've anchored my soul in the Haven of Rest.

I'll sail the wild seas no more ..."

"Let the lower lights be burning,

send a gleam across the waves ..." 

"Thank God for the Lighthouse ..."

 

As I said, we simply took these things for granted.  But having lived the greater part of our lives in Texas and now residing in Oklahoma, lighthouses have a great nostalgic -- even romantic appeal.  So every time Uni and I return to our hometown, we take a break from family and old friends to relive our courting days by visiting "our" lighthouse.

This past September we celebrated our 56th wedding anniversary by "honeymooning" along the Wisconsin and Michigan shores of Lake Michigan, spending much of our time seeking out some of the lighthouses, strolling out on the breakwaters, climbing up into some lighthouses, snapping pictures.  (We thought our 56th anniversary was special because '56 was the year we were married.)

Each lighthouse is unique in appearance, in structure, in history, but each also has changed with modern times.

 

Some have ceased to function, having been replaced with simpler, more high-tech (but less romantic) towers.  Of these non-functioning ones some just sit there crumbling, while others have been torn down.
 

Many of those no longer in use have become private property, perhaps used for a family home, even a bed-and-breakfast.
 

Others have become museums, giving visitors glimpses of a by-gone era when these structures were absolute necessities for those who sailed, welcome sights for captains and crews.
 

Those that still function have been updated with more modern, electric and electronic lighting systems; the old kerosene burning lights have long ago been left behind.
 

Now I'm not writing these things as a lament, a longing for the "good old days."  The past is the past.  But as the old gospel songs expressed, those lighthouses serve as a metaphor for the church -- us -- those who know and follow Jesus Christ.
 

"You are the light of the word, a city set on a hill cannot be hidden"

said Jesus (Matthew 5:14)

And I can't help but compare and wonder.
 

Some churches have ceased to function, replaced by something more up-to-date.
 

Some just sit there crumbling, unaware that their light has gone out.

Some have been torn down.
 

Some have become private property -- run by some modern day Diotrephes (3 John 9).

Some have become "bed and breakfasts" -- good for a brief visit only.

And some have become museums, still looking back to, and trying to relive the glorious days of the past.

But some churches have been updated, doing their best to keep the light shining.

GOD, GUNS & GUTS. 2

When I published my post GOD, GUNS & GUTS, I didn't know what to expect as far as comments.  I supposed that either I would receive a few negative comments or that those who disagree with me would simply ignore it.  When I received only 3 comments (all positive), I assumed the latter.  (I received no death threats.)  But then finally, after nearly a month, I received the following:

"You stated 'What bothers me is men who hold their pro-gun positions claim to be followers of Christ.' This seems judgmental, and also speaking where God does not. Our God Does advocate violence when appropriate. He told his disciples to buy a sword, made sure Peter had one handy (which he did). Old Testament is full of God commanding violence, much of it to protect his people from sin. Violence 4 the sake of pride? No! Violence 2 protect others? He was pretty violent in the temple if you remember. Do you think Jesus would have let his mom b raped & told her don't resist? Is self defense discouraged n the Bible. Remember in the law, if you struck someone in the night when they broke into your home, there was no life for life. It was considered justified. A gun allows the week to protect themselves from the strong IF they choose to."

As it contained a few questions as well as an accusation and much of it involved some misunderstanding of biblical interpretation, I felt I needed to reply to the remarks.

-- First of all the claim that my statement quoted above seems judgmental.  Well yes, I guess it did seem judgmental.  But I followed it with a series of rhetorical questions basically questioning how this could be.  I condemned no one.

--The claim that I was "speaking where God does not" could be used of your comment as well.  I don't presume to speak for God where God hasn't spoken.  But I believe He has.  I believe we find a non-violent, non-retaliatory ethic throughout the New Testament, especially in the words of Jesus.

-- I agree that the "Old Testament is full of God commanding violence."  Violence was even one of the methods for furthering God's Kingdom.  However, as a follower of Jesus Christ, I am not under the Old Covenant and Jesus makes it clear that the Old Covenant is not binding on me.  I have felt uncomfortable with the violence promoted there.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye' and 'a tooth for a tooth.'  But I (Jesus) am telling you, don't withstand the evil, but whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him also the other."  (Matthew 5:38, 39)

"...James and John said, 'Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?'  But Jesus turned and rebuked them and said, 'You don't know of what Spirit you are ...'"  (Luke 9:54, 55)

--I admit that the story about Jesus telling His disciples to buy a sword still baffles me, but if we look at the events following, it seems reasonably clear that the sword was not to be used on another human being (and there were only two swords for the whole group, not each one packing).
 

"And He said to them, 'When I sent you out without bag and purse and sandals, you didn't lack anything did you?'  And they said, 'Nothing.'  And He said to them, but now the one who has a bag should take it, likewise also a purse, and he who doesn't have one should sell his garment and buy a sword.'  ...And they said, 'Lord look, here are two swords.'  And He said to them, 'it's enough!'"  (Luke 22:35, 36, 38)

"Then they (the mob) came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him.  And one of those with Jesus reached out his hand, drew his sword, struck the servant of the High Priest and severed his ear.  Then Jesus says to him, 'Put your sword back in its place.  For all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.'"  (Matthew 26:50-52)

--Yes, Jesus got pretty violent in the temple when He chased out the money changers.  But I don't read where He did physical harm to anyone, and I don't understand your apparent implication that he did this to protect others.

-- As far as whether "Jesus would have let His mom be raped," that's one of those questions like how would Jesus vote?  (Democrat or Republican?)  Or what would Jesus drive?  (A pickup or a Prius?)  Or would Jesus wear a Rolex on His television show?  Pure speculation.

As I assumed I made clear, I have no quarrel with guns per se.  As far as my own experience with guns, I grew up around guns.  Many in my family and neighborhood hunted or collected guns.  I fired guns many times though I never hunted.  As a Marine (Reservist) the only medal I ever received was when I qualified as a Marksman on the rifle range (which every Marine did or else received a large boot inserted forcefully in his anus).  Of course, the first gun I owned as a boy was my Red Ryder BB gun.

I write as a follower of Jesus Christ; as such I must build my ethics on His teaching  and example, not on the claims of the NRA, nor on the Old Testament Law of Moses, nor on some eclectic arbitrary mix of these and other systems.

I realize that I'm not there yet.  My questions in the post under discussion were based on what I perceive as the incompatibility between a Christian ethic and the pro-gun position.  I'm still awaiting answers from those who claim to hold both positions at the same time.

BI-POLAR JESUS?

I have been reading the gospels and to some extent studying them for nearly 60 years and I am continually baffled by the things Jesus said and did which often appeared contradictory.  He could be tender and gentle to the weak and needy, and then make seemingly impossible demands on these and others.

In one place we read of Him saying:  "Come to me all who are worn out and burdened down and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you and learn from me because I am gentle and humble in heart, and will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke is pleasant and my load is light" (Matthew 11:28-30).

This certainly sounds nice and comforting, like the old line about "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild," but in the chapter previous to the one where He makes this claim, we read of Him saying something that seems totally contrary to that image:  "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.  Whoever finds his life will lose it and whoever loses his life for My sake will find it!" (Matthew 10:37-39).

 

What gives?  We see Jesus doing this over and over -- switching back and forth between the "gentle Jesus" to the demanding Jesus -- from the humble to the (apparently) egotistical.  If we were examining Jesus as clinicians, we might diagnose Him as bi-polar or schizophrenic.

When I attended seminary I took a class on personality development, taught by a well-known psychiatrist.  Every student was required to take a personality profile, where we answered hundreds of questions which were used to graph our personality traits and (possible) disorders.  As I recall there were two parallel lines running horizontally through the chart.  We were told that though our graph may go up and down, as long as we stayed between this pair of lines, we were considered "normal" (I recall that I bumped the lines in a few places, though I never crossed them).

Our prof informed us that he decided once to take the test and answer the questions as he thought Jesus would have (admitting that this was a dangerous thing to do).  He felt there were many places where Jesus would have crossed the line and been considered as having personality disorders.

While this may seem bizarre to many and even blasphemous to some, we should remember that Jesus was considered by many in His own day as having some problems.

"The Jews answered and said to Him, 'Aren't we correct in saying you're a Samaritan and you have a demon?'"  (John 8:48).

"When they heard, some of His own family went out to seize Him, because they were saying, 'He's out of his mind!" (Mark 3:21).

As I look over my many years of study, I have come to realize that many of my efforts in study have been to bring Jesus back between those two parallel lines.  And as a matter of fact most of the sermons I've heard (and preached), most of the books I've read, most of the lessons I've heard (and taught) have at least to some extent, been directed toward that goal.

I recognize that much of this effort is legitimate.  We need to attempt to interpret the gospels in ways that we can understand what they say.  We need to use proper exegetical methods.  A few examples:

Jesus used figures of speech, much as we do.  Similes and metaphors were common.  He also used hyperbole.  One task of the interpreter is to distinguish when Jesus is speaking matter-of-factly and when he is exaggerating for the sake of emphasis.

We should also recognize that Jesus had many roles, as the titles given to Him and which He claimed for Himself show.  As a healer he was gentle; as Lord and King he was demanding.  And of course He was both God and Man as He claimed!

And Jesus knew people and their individual needs.  While often He spoke in general terms, there were many times when His words were directed toward a particular individual or group.  He tailored His speech toward the need of those addressed.

And having said all this, having used all the interpretive tools we have, we are still confronted with a Savior who frustrates our efforts to fit Him between the lines.

And yet we can trust Him as the One who loved us enough to die in our place on the cross.

And we can yield to the seemingly impossible demands that He makes as our Lord and Master.

 

And we can attempt to follow Him as our example.