But God Gave Me This Verse . . .
In a recent discussion I had with someone over Biblical methods of child-discipline (in particular, whether or not to spank your child), I was given this line of reasoning:
“. . . as I said, I don't look down on anyone who does think that way, though. It is entirely justified by scripture. I just don't think it is required. Proving this is quite easy. All we need do is observe that many people raise their children with strong discipline but without corporal punishment, and if their children turn out to be God-following, God-fearing adults, then the method succeeded. I know several such people. Their children are not foolish or dead, and they never felt prompting from the spirit that they were not following God's ways by not spanking their children, though they honestly sought God's wisdom on the matter.”
-//-
Now while there are a number of problems in the short paragraph above that warrant addressing, I’d like to zero-in on one issue in particular, that being the mindset espoused in the latter half of the last sentence (emphasis mine). I want to address an extremely dangerous trend in the modern church. I’ll first post a familiar passage of Scripture from the apostle Paul’s very last epistle, one which is extremely relevant to my concern:
All Scripture is breathed-out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. -2 Timothy 3:16-17
-//-
With that stated up front, here is a description of two actual incidents involving popular hermeneutics [the art & science of Biblical interpretation]. Let me try to paint those pictures for you now . . .
SCENARIO #1:
1. we have a church-going lady;
2. she is going through marital difficulties;
3. she is already seeing another man;
4. she prays and asks God what she should do (yes - seriously);
5. she then goes to & thumbs through the Bible, searching for the verse that God has for her to remedy her predicament;
6. guess which one that "God" gave her??? . . . . "and put on the NEW man!!!" (and she did put him on . . .)
No kidding -- what's wrong with that picture???
-//-
SCENARIO #2:
1. we have a church-going fellow;
2. he has somewhat of an infatuation for a lady on the praise team;
3. he prays and asks the Lord who specifically he should marry/pursue;
4. he then goes to & thumbs through the Word (because nowhere does the Bible tell him who he should specifically marry), looking for "his Scripture to claim," as God "speaks" to him regarding this incident;
5. guess which one that God “gave” to him??? . . . . "and GRACE be to you!!!" (you guessed it - the woman's name was Grace)
Now what's wrong with this one???
-//-
Well . . . for one thing - I can look at "Scripture X" and Sue can look at "Scripture X" and Bud can look at "Scripture X" . . . and we all three could come to separate conclusions as to the meaning of “Scripture X,” all-the-while claiming that the "Spirit" legitimately lead us all to those variant conclusions. There's a word for this . . . baptized relativism (and the church is absolutely full of this) . . . true for you/not for me stuff.
Remember this: just because someone baptizes their belief or claim in Holy Spirit language doesn't mean that those things are Divine in nature. Attaching God’s name to a claim does not make it so.
I truly believe that many of us unknowingly (and with seemingly good intentions) violate the third commandment (Ex. 20:7) by using God’s name “in vain” to give authority to an unsubstantiated assertion. This probably happens a lot more than we’d like to admit. This is why we guidelines folks; we need a solid standard/measure that is consistent each & every time.
-//-
Should these 2 scenarios be given to different crowds, you're likely to get an interesting reaction each time (this would be a great experiment):
1. On #1, you'll get plenty of groans, moans, comments, and even chuckles along the lines of "you've got to be kidding me," or "c'mon, give me a break." Why? Obviously, these reactions were due to the outcome of her "process" being in direct violation of an already-inspired Biblical command/principle . . . .
2. Now for #2, the reaction is surprisingly different. That is, in response to that second scenario, many folks will say, "You know, now who's to say that God didn't give the brother that promise?", or "We must be careful not to interfere with God's 'leading' in this guy's life. Maybe God did indeed reveal His plans for that guy in that manner this time."
*******Do you see what just happened??*******
In case #1, the folks were upset with the "APPLICATION" only & not (I repeat -- NOT) the "METHODOLOGY" involved and utilized in both cases!!
This is a huge problem that permeates our churches. They are thick with this stuff . . . privatized messages, so-to-speak, that have nothing to do with the original context. To get to the point, where is the Biblical justification for this practice/methodology of interpretation (is it taught in the Bible?)?
We must remember that "all 'Scripture' is inspired by God” . . .
2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is breathed-out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
The word for Scripture there is "graphe" = writings. It's the writings that are inspired, not the privatized messages that we think are coming from the Spirit as we move from a circumstance to hunting and pecking throughout the pages of Scripture. These writings were "breathed-out" by God through the agency (& uniqueness) of the Biblical writers at a particular point in history -- to specific persons -- for definite reasons.
-//-
CONTEXT - CONTEXT - CONTEXT is the key here. In other words . . . NEVER READ A BIBLE VERSE - read at least a paragraph above & below the verse in question.
-//-
Here's the fall-out or consequence from dealing trivially and sloppily with the Bible . . . it actually encourages a profound Biblical illiteracy. We no longer take the time & energy required to study a passage in order to discover its rich meaning (exegesis/interpretation) so that we can put it into daily practice (application). Show me someone who is "application-oriented" to the exclusion of proper hermeneutics, and I'll show you theological trouble. Quite honestly, you can see this work itself out on a weekly basis in our modern-day Sunday School classes (conduits for the post-modernistic mindset). I.e., "Well, I think . . . ", "But I was thinking . . .”, "I feel like . . .", etc., etc. There is no serious textual work happening whatsoever. It’s much more fun to assert what we "feel" to be the case with any particular passage. This is so highly subjective, unfounded, and dangerous, as I know (hope) you would agree.
I can almost hear somebody saying right now, "THEOLOGY, that 7-lettered dirty word . . . it creates too much division." Precisely - it divides truth from error, which is a vital kind of division that we must be making as individuals and as a corporate body of Believers. Walter Martin so clearly stated that "Controversy for the sake of controversy is sin; controversy for the sake of truth is a Divine command!" No - we'd just rather hunt & peck and blame God for it; this is much easier by the way . . . just pick up the Bible when we need a quick answer. Please see this as a sincere reproof and/or corrective warning to all of us Believers, myself included.
Feelings, impressions, & experiences MAY have their peripheral or secondary place, to be sure, but they are not to be primary, not one bit. Furthermore, they must be regulated and guided by the revealed precepts of the Bible. What is popular and common doesn’t necessarily equate to what is Biblical and historical. As one of my former professors put it, it doesn't really matter what we "think." What matters is what IS, & we can come to the knowledge of that through careful contextual study & exegesis. Eisegesis (reading into the text that which really isn't inherent to the text) is not good.
-//-
As somewhat of an appendix to this article, I would say that the reason as to why ambiguous or initially unclear passages are utilized in this manner (i.e., "God gave me this verse") is that with clear statements, like the 10 Commandments, the meaning is totally clear. That is, the usage of certain verses as privatized messages from God is testimony itself that the person is unclear of the contextual meaning to begin with. I mean, why wasn't this seen before? But of course, it wasn't until now that the Spirit gave me the meaning, right? Could you imagine someone saying: "Thou shalt not murder . . . God gave me that verse yesterday."? No, it was their verse to begin with when you think it through.
No comments:
Post a Comment