It’s important for you to understand about bias because it’s one reason why the stuff I write on this blog and in God’s Plan for Your Success (GPS) Basic Training is different from much of what is seen in the Christian universe. I explained in the “How are we to understand Scripture?” that I believe truth is the key that opens the Scriptures to us. The truth is consistent with itself. Therefore one’s understanding is accurate by the extent to which that understanding is consistent with the face-value assertions of Scripture.
For example, Calvinists tell us that the “all” in Paul’s remark, “This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth” (I Timothy 2:3-4) doesn’t mean all mankind, just all of God’s elect, the people God chose to be saved before the beginning of time (Ephesians 1:3-14). They say this because of their doctrinal conclusions. But many other equally well-educated theologians have concluded that the “all” does embrace all mankind. They do that because that interpretation is consistent with their doctrine. My question: Who’s right? Could both be wrong? Could both be right?
My goal is accurate understanding, and I’m still working to achieve it. My focus has been on practical Christianity, “What’s going on here, and what do you want me to do next, Lord?” I’m not out to protect my turf. I’m out to accurately understand God’s turf, but for lots of scholars I suspect something else is going on. I’ve termed it “academic shift” and believe me when I admit that I’ve felt it personally.
Once a person thinks he has a handle on what the Bible says and means, their goal shifts from discovering the truth to defending their conclusions about it. The shift is subtle but extremely important because their goal has changed. No longer are they in submission to Scripture, but they are in submission to their interpretation of Scripture. Thereafter their time is spent defending their conclusion, not more completely understanding the Scriptures. They begin to see the Scriptures as colored by their bias. Depending on their attitudes, the net result is serious division among Christians more concerned with defending their positions than entertaining the Big Questions and more completely understanding their faith.
For this reason my GPS Basic Training materials are different. They are open, clear, and non judgmental. When I find my conclusions biblically questionable or incorrect, I change them and reflect it in my writing. So, while I know enough now to know that I’m not misleading my students, I also know I’ve got lots more to learn; and that means changing my mind when I’m wrong. Admittedly, life is easier when you know it all like most doctors and preachers, but it’s wiser when you’re in full submission to Scripture and open to the changes maturing in it may bring.
Showing posts with label seeking the truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label seeking the truth. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Bible Study - Seeking the Truth
With every question I had, my second mentor, Robert A. Lillie (Cincinnati Bible Seminary), began with, “Let’s see what the Word says.” For him, the Bible was the final authority. It was the measure against which one could measure anything. As I began my first serious pass through the New Testament, I found the same themes recurring. It made sense to capture those themes and compare what the various passages said about them.
After several attempts at a card file to contain the information, I finally chose a three-ring loose-leaf notebook with alphabetical dividers. Since I wanted to know it all, I followed every theme and idea I found. Not knowing any of the fancy Christian words for things, I identified each idea with the word or phrase that best described it for me.
As I worked on, I realized that Christ and the apostles were teaching from the same body of truth. That defined my goal, to discover the body of truth from which Christ and the apostles taught. I called it “The Apostles’ Truth.” After more than twenty passes through the New Testament and amassing seven three-inch binders of results, I figured I was ready for Bible college.
One other thing: Because my goal was accuracy, I spent all that time working hard NOT to draw conclusions, even the obvious ones. I wanted all the facts before me before I began figuring out what they meant. My allegiance was to the Word, not to any mentor, denomination, or books about the Word. I was then, and remain today, in full submission to the Word. I go where it leads (after I deal with my characteristic stubbornness).
After Bible college (where I discovered how much I didn’t know) I went to work trying to reduce the biblical message to its basics so it could easily be shared with others. My goal was to transplant the Bible college experience into the churches. I knew it was a daunting task, but I figured I could do it in a couple of years. (It’s taken 40, but that’s me. I’m a slow worker.) More than that, my goal remained accuracy in both understanding the message and then in its practical application. On the Day of Judgment I wanted God to at least be able to say, “Nice try, Chuck.”
My first task was to get the Christian message right. With over 200 different sects and denominations roaming the American landscape, lots of opinions demanded attention. Which were accurate? Which were not? So, in the midst of the muddy Christian waters, the doctrinal jungle, where was the safe place to start? I believe my answer to that question makes my results at least worth your consideration.
Realizing that one’s rules of biblical interpretation colored the interpretation, I wanted to find the best rules, God’s rules, if you will. Supported mostly by my friend, Gary Cleaveland, I spend a year and a half studying about Bible study. I went back three generations of Bible scholars trying to discover the safe ground on which to make my stand. Finally I found a book called How To Read A Book. It was written by Mortimer Adler (general editor of Encyclopedia Britannica) and Mark VanDoren (the guy who cheated on that TV quiz show). (I think it was Mark. I've since misplaced the book.) Both were well-known secular scholars and neither had a Christian bias to defend. That was important because many of the Christian books on Bible study championed rules that lead readers to draw a specific doctrinal conclusion, not necessarily God’s.
My favorite bad rule is this one: “The book of Acts is a transitional book and therefore one is unwise to base doctrine on it.”
Acts is transitional in that it documents the transition from the Old Testament to the New, from Jehovah to Christ, from the Law to Grace.
While it seems reasonable to hold that view, the Bible itself makes no such claim. Every book in the Bible, even Philemon, carries the same weight. They are all equally authoritative.
The only doctrinal distinction Scripture makes is the fact that we are now living under the New Covenant. That means the New Testament governs but it does not thereby lessen the authority of the Old Testament. The universal truths that underscore the Old Testament are the same as those that underscore the New. Weakening the authority of the Acts influences at least two controversial Christian doctrines, the role of baptism and the work of the Holy Spirit.
In any event, the How-To-Read-A-Book rules are free of Christian denominational influences. Here are some of the rules that book champions:
The goal of interpretation is to have in your mind when you’re through reading what the original writer had in his when he wrote.
The author can never mean what he never intended to mean. (Although we need to keep in mind that the Bible has two authors, God via the Holy Spirit and the individual human writers.)
One is wiser to understand a piece of writing in the context in which it was written.
One is wiser to understand a piece of writing in terms of the genre in which its author chose to present it.
When you boil down all their rules you get this: “If you can read and understand the newspaper, you can read and understand the Bible.” In Christian terms, the Bible is accessible to anyone wanting to understand it, and that appears consistent with God’s desire for it.
God didn’t give us the Bible so we couldn’t understand it. He gave it to us so we could know the truth, knowing that the truth would set us free. While the Bible is intellectually challenging at many levels—and does in fact contain and allude to various mysteries—its basic message is easily comprehended by those wanting to comprehend it. (Although for some it may take 40 years.)
After several attempts at a card file to contain the information, I finally chose a three-ring loose-leaf notebook with alphabetical dividers. Since I wanted to know it all, I followed every theme and idea I found. Not knowing any of the fancy Christian words for things, I identified each idea with the word or phrase that best described it for me.
As I worked on, I realized that Christ and the apostles were teaching from the same body of truth. That defined my goal, to discover the body of truth from which Christ and the apostles taught. I called it “The Apostles’ Truth.” After more than twenty passes through the New Testament and amassing seven three-inch binders of results, I figured I was ready for Bible college.
One other thing: Because my goal was accuracy, I spent all that time working hard NOT to draw conclusions, even the obvious ones. I wanted all the facts before me before I began figuring out what they meant. My allegiance was to the Word, not to any mentor, denomination, or books about the Word. I was then, and remain today, in full submission to the Word. I go where it leads (after I deal with my characteristic stubbornness).
After Bible college (where I discovered how much I didn’t know) I went to work trying to reduce the biblical message to its basics so it could easily be shared with others. My goal was to transplant the Bible college experience into the churches. I knew it was a daunting task, but I figured I could do it in a couple of years. (It’s taken 40, but that’s me. I’m a slow worker.) More than that, my goal remained accuracy in both understanding the message and then in its practical application. On the Day of Judgment I wanted God to at least be able to say, “Nice try, Chuck.”
My first task was to get the Christian message right. With over 200 different sects and denominations roaming the American landscape, lots of opinions demanded attention. Which were accurate? Which were not? So, in the midst of the muddy Christian waters, the doctrinal jungle, where was the safe place to start? I believe my answer to that question makes my results at least worth your consideration.
Realizing that one’s rules of biblical interpretation colored the interpretation, I wanted to find the best rules, God’s rules, if you will. Supported mostly by my friend, Gary Cleaveland, I spend a year and a half studying about Bible study. I went back three generations of Bible scholars trying to discover the safe ground on which to make my stand. Finally I found a book called How To Read A Book. It was written by Mortimer Adler (general editor of Encyclopedia Britannica) and Mark VanDoren (the guy who cheated on that TV quiz show). (I think it was Mark. I've since misplaced the book.) Both were well-known secular scholars and neither had a Christian bias to defend. That was important because many of the Christian books on Bible study championed rules that lead readers to draw a specific doctrinal conclusion, not necessarily God’s.
My favorite bad rule is this one: “The book of Acts is a transitional book and therefore one is unwise to base doctrine on it.”
Acts is transitional in that it documents the transition from the Old Testament to the New, from Jehovah to Christ, from the Law to Grace.
While it seems reasonable to hold that view, the Bible itself makes no such claim. Every book in the Bible, even Philemon, carries the same weight. They are all equally authoritative.
The only doctrinal distinction Scripture makes is the fact that we are now living under the New Covenant. That means the New Testament governs but it does not thereby lessen the authority of the Old Testament. The universal truths that underscore the Old Testament are the same as those that underscore the New. Weakening the authority of the Acts influences at least two controversial Christian doctrines, the role of baptism and the work of the Holy Spirit.
In any event, the How-To-Read-A-Book rules are free of Christian denominational influences. Here are some of the rules that book champions:
The goal of interpretation is to have in your mind when you’re through reading what the original writer had in his when he wrote.
The author can never mean what he never intended to mean. (Although we need to keep in mind that the Bible has two authors, God via the Holy Spirit and the individual human writers.)
One is wiser to understand a piece of writing in the context in which it was written.
One is wiser to understand a piece of writing in terms of the genre in which its author chose to present it.
When you boil down all their rules you get this: “If you can read and understand the newspaper, you can read and understand the Bible.” In Christian terms, the Bible is accessible to anyone wanting to understand it, and that appears consistent with God’s desire for it.
God didn’t give us the Bible so we couldn’t understand it. He gave it to us so we could know the truth, knowing that the truth would set us free. While the Bible is intellectually challenging at many levels—and does in fact contain and allude to various mysteries—its basic message is easily comprehended by those wanting to comprehend it. (Although for some it may take 40 years.)
Monday, May 18, 2009
My Credentials
It’s important to know who’s the founder here. What are the TheologyFreak’s credentials? Is he worth listening to? How can you measure the value of what he says?
I have a BA in marketing and advertising from Northeastern University in Boston (secular). I have a Masters in communication from Regis University (a Catholic university here in Denver). I have a Bachelors Degree in Christian ministry from Colorado Christian University (Lakewood, Colorado), a Calvinist institution. I have been ordained in the Christian church (Restoration churches and churches of Christ, your friendly neighborhood freewill folks). But those are all pieces of paper, plaques on a wall, authentication from various human institutions, not necessarily authentication from the Lord.
What about the real TheologyFreak? Who is he?
More important than any formal degrees is my calling from Christ, my burdens in him.
My first calling was at age four when I first heard about God in the 1938 hurricane that devastated coastal New England. My mom said it was an act of God. If God was about that kind of devastation, I wanted him on my side. Ever since then I’ve been searching for the truth about him. Finally, at age 40 (1974), I asked Christ into my life. I’ve been studying Scripture ever since
I have the gift of skepticism. I don’t believe something just because some authority figure says it’s so. I believe it when the generally acknowledged facts appear to make the case.
A good part of my life has been about seeking the truth. Truth is my God, and wherever the truth leads, I will follow, often with protests and stubbornness, but eventually in humility and submission.
The first passage that tore me up was John 17:20-26 in which Christ prays for a visible unity among believers. My first Big Question then was “where’s the unity?” Why would God not answer his own son’s prayer for unity, especially when a visible unity played such an important role in the evangelical message?
1. My first burden was for Christian education. Sitting in my systematic theology class at Colorado Christian College, I asked myself why all this wonderful information wasn’t easily available at my church. Someone was screwing up. That gave birth to what eventually became God’s Plan for Your Success (GPS) Basic Training.
2. Nearly 15 years later, my next burden grew to include struggling churches. Why do churches struggle? What are they missing? What are they doing wrong? Why is Christ not blessing them? Up until then, my only experience had been with small, struggling churches. I searched the Scriptures and came up which what I believe is Christ’s answer. Churches struggle because they have lost their first love, their focus on Christ and his mission. Do the job and you will grow. The role of Christ’s church is to teach people to teach people. Build believers in the Lord and then encourage those believers to duplicate and build others. Pass it on like Christ did to the apostles and as the apostles did to others.
3. Then my burdens grew to include the folks who had been screwed over by the organized church. In my case, they were folks I knew and who had been instrumental in my coming to the Lord. They were good folks who, with the church under a new preacher, suddenly realized they were at odds with what the church was becoming. The new preacher felt relieved as the last of the "old guard" left the church, not that some of them didn't have their problems. But good people in pain and tears leaving the church is never a good thing. Too often Christians forget what Christians are supposed to be.
4. Finally, my burden grew to the lost at large, and that’s where I am now as I compose these words: Christian education, struggling churches, folks the church has hurt, and the lost at large, people who don’t understand that the God they know may not be the God that is.
My original goal for this post was to explain my method of biblical interpretation but this is what came of it. What method of biblical interpretation does God want us to use? Stay tuned.
I have a BA in marketing and advertising from Northeastern University in Boston (secular). I have a Masters in communication from Regis University (a Catholic university here in Denver). I have a Bachelors Degree in Christian ministry from Colorado Christian University (Lakewood, Colorado), a Calvinist institution. I have been ordained in the Christian church (Restoration churches and churches of Christ, your friendly neighborhood freewill folks). But those are all pieces of paper, plaques on a wall, authentication from various human institutions, not necessarily authentication from the Lord.
What about the real TheologyFreak? Who is he?
More important than any formal degrees is my calling from Christ, my burdens in him.
My first calling was at age four when I first heard about God in the 1938 hurricane that devastated coastal New England. My mom said it was an act of God. If God was about that kind of devastation, I wanted him on my side. Ever since then I’ve been searching for the truth about him. Finally, at age 40 (1974), I asked Christ into my life. I’ve been studying Scripture ever since
I have the gift of skepticism. I don’t believe something just because some authority figure says it’s so. I believe it when the generally acknowledged facts appear to make the case.
A good part of my life has been about seeking the truth. Truth is my God, and wherever the truth leads, I will follow, often with protests and stubbornness, but eventually in humility and submission.
The first passage that tore me up was John 17:20-26 in which Christ prays for a visible unity among believers. My first Big Question then was “where’s the unity?” Why would God not answer his own son’s prayer for unity, especially when a visible unity played such an important role in the evangelical message?
1. My first burden was for Christian education. Sitting in my systematic theology class at Colorado Christian College, I asked myself why all this wonderful information wasn’t easily available at my church. Someone was screwing up. That gave birth to what eventually became God’s Plan for Your Success (GPS) Basic Training.
2. Nearly 15 years later, my next burden grew to include struggling churches. Why do churches struggle? What are they missing? What are they doing wrong? Why is Christ not blessing them? Up until then, my only experience had been with small, struggling churches. I searched the Scriptures and came up which what I believe is Christ’s answer. Churches struggle because they have lost their first love, their focus on Christ and his mission. Do the job and you will grow. The role of Christ’s church is to teach people to teach people. Build believers in the Lord and then encourage those believers to duplicate and build others. Pass it on like Christ did to the apostles and as the apostles did to others.
3. Then my burdens grew to include the folks who had been screwed over by the organized church. In my case, they were folks I knew and who had been instrumental in my coming to the Lord. They were good folks who, with the church under a new preacher, suddenly realized they were at odds with what the church was becoming. The new preacher felt relieved as the last of the "old guard" left the church, not that some of them didn't have their problems. But good people in pain and tears leaving the church is never a good thing. Too often Christians forget what Christians are supposed to be.
4. Finally, my burden grew to the lost at large, and that’s where I am now as I compose these words: Christian education, struggling churches, folks the church has hurt, and the lost at large, people who don’t understand that the God they know may not be the God that is.
My original goal for this post was to explain my method of biblical interpretation but this is what came of it. What method of biblical interpretation does God want us to use? Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
