Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 7 - HOW TO READ)

This series explores the nature of Scripture (specifically those aspects which many of us find uncomfortable) and what our approach to Scripture should be as a consequence. This exploration is needed because our intrinsic human biases cause us to assume that God's nature / aims / priorities / etc all line up with our modernistic worldview, which focuses on detailed accurate synergistic information. However such an approach to Scripture clashes with many of its properties. Our response tends to be to curate Scripture, or to minimize our engagement with the aspects we find difficult to explain. Instead, we should engage with all of Scripture as God designed it, and challenge our perspective on it when needed. What does it look like when we value the uncomfortable aspects of Scripture?

The series so far:

1. Introduction
2. Progressive Revelation
3. Relationships and Cognition
4. Morality and Evil
5. Coping with Evil I
6. Coping with Evil II
7. How to Read (this post)

So far I've spent a long time justifying my belief that God is more interested in the meta-cognitive goals of person-hood, expression, and relationship. Now I want to start exploring the practical aspects of reading Scripture. 

Scripture's purpose, specifically, is to be a collection of some of the individual progressive revelations of God's person-hood throughout history, which taken together He has deemed to be the most universally useful expression toward encouraging relationship with Him. It does this in an incredibly dynamic way. If we focus on cognitive information and a harmonious synthesis of theology, we can miss a lot of what the Bible has to offer toward relationship with God, and at its worst it can lead us to minimize aspects of Scripture to the point that they are almost useless to us. How should we approach Scripture keeping relationship in mind, and balancing the usefulness and limitations of cognition toward this ultimate aim? I have some general principles to share, but this is something I'd like to grow in more, so please share your own thoughts!

How to Read Scripture:

1) Immerse yourself in the passage, allowing every aspect of yourself to be impacted by the experience. We don't expect each expression of a person to be perfect and balanced - and likewise with each revelation - but they are unique and beautiful and insightful. By reading Scripture and inviting the Holy Spirit to speak through it, you are touching an aspect God, a deliberately designed expression of Himself! Never let this slip by you. 

2) Utilize flawed cognition to your relational advantage. Despite its limitations - which I have emphasized in my defense of God's relational aims - cognition is central to our approach to Scripture for obvious reasons. Firstly, Scripture is written in a language, meaning cognition has to be engaged to even start experiencing it with your other non-cognitive faculties. Secondly, 'Immersing yourself in the passage' is something that's not under much of our direct control, since all our faculties are overwhelmingly influenced by external circumstances, our subconscious, and each other. However, cognition is unique in that it is also (at least partly) consciously controlled, which gives us an avenue to steer and focus our other faculties of experience. If we are discussing how we should control our approach to Scripture, this control has to occur through our cognition. 

3) Attempt to cognitively understand what God intended for people to experience from his designed expression in Scripture. How Scripture's designed relational purpose is realized - or whether it is realized at all - varies between individuals. Our cognition needs to understand the intended experience if it is to steer our experience in the right direction. 

4) Deliberately consider multiple different experiences of God from the passage in mind. I think this is one of the most productive ways to attempt to properly experience God's expression through Scripture. These different perspectives help us break out of our worldview and so avoid subconscious worldview hijacking of our cognition, so we can consider God's intentions for the passage more clearly. But more profoundly, they help us stick to the first principle of relational experience (rather than cognitive accuracy). If we understand another person's relational experience, it allows us to experience an echo of God ourselves. In addition to the hypothetical 'universal intended experience' we're trying to understand from a passage, it's as if we were experiencing a personalized expression of God by proxy (albeit one with greater potential for error in our understanding, and with less universal benefit than Scripture itself). 

5) Start with some 'high yield' perspectives. Perhaps most useful is that of the original intended audience or of the author, since these are clearly going to be integral to God's intended experience of his expression in that passage of Scripture[1]. Also helpful to consider are the experiences of early and/or orthodox church consensus[2]. A final group of helpful perspectives are those of individual saints who you discern to be relating well to God in a holistic sense - these may be dead or living saints, famous or privately known[3]. 

6) Allow your cognition to function naturally and form a harmonized view of God as a person. Try to see God through each of the expressions you experience which you deem to be intended by God, or genuine healthy relationships. Remember you are trying to understand a person in the light of all their complex expressions. Don't make a God up who wraps perfectly around all these 'experiences' (this can never take into full consideration the dynamics of person-hood). Instead try to understand the God who expresses Himself in these ways. 

7) Don't let our modernistic worldview hijack your cognition and make an idol of it. This is an imperfect process and does not define 'relationship', though it is useful and natural.  Do not be distracted away from the aim of relationship with God.  Remember that the hypothetical 'universal intended experience' is actually going to be a spectrum of experience, just like any public expression in earthly relationships. Do not become obsessed with the difficulties of forming a harmonized view of God. Focus on God's intentions for Scripture (rather than picking 'the best' interpretation), and focus on God as a person (where Scripture springs from Him, rather than the reverse). Where cognitive perplexity exists, relate to God through this (some perplexity is a normal part of any relationship).

Its more (or less) intuitive

This approach is fairly intuitive and natural - read the passage for what it is, and consider the spectrum of legitimate ways to experience God through it (even if they contain different mixes of cognitive gaps). Despite its simplicity and intuitiveness, this approach IS difficult - because our worldview isn't happy with cognitive gaps, and because this approach requires us to put aside our preferred priorities and seek God as HE wishes to be found.[4][5]

Summary:

Reading Scripture should utilize cognition to focus the rest of our faculties and allow our whole being to experience God as He intends. At the same time we need to be vigilant not to focus excessively on our cognition, or elevate its importance above other aspects of relationship. One way to do this is to deliberately consider the spectrum of legitimate experiences of others through Scripture - including the original audiences and authors, church consensus, and individual saints. We should let our cognition form a harmonized view of God, a God who would express Himself through all these experiences. But there will always be perplexities of person-hood and relationship that our cognition cannot 'solve', and we need to be careful not to assume that this means something is 'wrong', and not to let this distract us from relationship.

• Are there any other reading / interpretation techniques that you feel are important to enhance a proper relationship with God?
• Do you agree that considering a variety of perspectives is important?
• Do you agree that considering the whole experience - not just the cognitive aspects - is important?
• When deciding which experiences are useful to consider in your interpretation of Scripture, how much attention do you pay to the cognitive aspects of that experience?
• How do you feel about accepting inevitable perplexities when it comes to forming a harmonize cognitive view of God?

Coming soon...

• Next I'll deal with some further issues people have with this approach to Scripture, specifically how it can seem to threaten traditional theological processes and the concept of 'inerrancy'.
• After that we'll explore some specific examples of progressive revelation and how a relational approach to Scripture leads ancient and modern saints to Him, but through different cognitive paths. 

Footnotes:

[1 - When attempting to understand the experience of the original audiences and authors, it can be helpful to remember how progressive revelation functions to serve relationship with Christ. Each passage was written to enhance as much as possible the revelation of Christ to the intended audience, taking into account their interpretive bias, and the historical processes God intends to drive as part of his expression to mankind. Thus this consideration can be helped a lot by an understanding of the times and cultures and language etc (which can seem daunting), but a lot of this can be gleaned from the Scripture itself. Important things to remember is that these audiences did not have subsequent revelation to balance their cognitive experience of God, that they had different priorities and worldview to us, and that they had genres of language that we aren't too familiar with in our modernistic society .]

[2 - Church 'concensus' is clearly not unanimous, and has also frequently been plagued by political and selfish motivations. However, the greater unity there is among those who seem driven by a desire to relate to the God of Scripture, the more authority this consensus has as a legitimate intented experience of God.  After all, the church - functioning this way - is the means by which we trust God to have chosen and preserved Scripture in the first place. This kind of concensus can allowing many doctrines labeled as heretical by the modern American/Western church, and can also be troubled by the influence of the current worldview (e.g. Greek thinking paved the way for modernism and tended to idolise cognition).]

[3 - The more you know a person yourself and are persuaded of there relationship with God, the less 'orthodox' their cognitive views need to be in order to be useful. Conversely, some 'orthodox' saints may have an experience of God that is less than convincing, and so may not be worth considering.]

[4 - Our modernistic mind will search for reasons to avoid worldview reform - e.g. by disregarding it as 'post-modernism'. This view is post-modern in the sense that it recognises the problems with modernism, but it is NOT postmodern in the sense of denying the reality or importance of cognition, absolutes, truth, consistency, etc. This approach relies upon the essential foundation of absolute reality and consistency in the person of God - but our experience of God should not derive all its meaning from how well we grasps all the cognitive details of God's absolute reality and consistency. The incarnation reveals how God is more than willing to 'empty himself', forgoing some aspects of His reality in order to better express others (e.g. His willingness and ability to relate to us).]

[5 - Even if we agree with this approach to Scripture, it doesn't make the difficulties go away! Our preference for cognitive information is deeply ingrained in our culture, and makes us constantly think about how this approach deals with cognition. What a shame to miss the beauty of the big picture, because we are thinking too much about how the picture is bigger than the sum of its parts and can't be contained in a cognitive description of it! What a shame to miss Jesus because we're thinking about how a person can't be described well with words alone! It can be good to understand how cognition and relationship interact - but Satan can use anything to distract us from actually relating to Jesus.]

Expressing Doubt Builds Faith

Introduction

Many of us have felt guilty for feeling doubt regarding our faith, whether it be our whole faith or parts of it. I hesitated about using the word doubt in this article because of its potentially negative connotations. However, I choose to use it because it captures the emotion behind what many of us feel when we question or enquire about areas of our faith that we don't understand. Interestingly, Fuller Seminary completed a study on what is most helpful for young people to retain their faith and build maturity, and found that wrestling with doubts was a key. Experiencing doubt can be emotionally draining and a fearful experience, and this needs to be recognised and addressed. When looking at the Bible, it seems to portray God as being merciful (in some cases praising) towards those who express questions or doubts. Faith doesn't seem to be an unquestionable act of trust in God, but more a choice to trust God, whilst acknowledging and wrestling with our doubts.  

 Retrieved from http://www.redletterchristians.org/wp-content/uploads/Faith-in-times-of-uncertainty.jpg

Opening questions to consider:

Is it right or wrong to question our beliefs?

Is it unhelpful or helpful to question our beliefs?

What does God expect us to do?

What does evidence suggest we do?

Two Mindedness is not Necessarily Helpful

I admit that the Bible does emphasise that it is not helpful to be two-minded in our beliefs according to James 1. After looking at many scriptures relating to uncertainty and faith, what James appears to be referring to here is a person who is permanently indecisive and without conviction in life. Most people would say that a person having no conviction about social injustice or various issues would be a person who is unhelpful and impractical to reality. Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

Scripture and Doubt

There are many situations in the Bible where people experience a type of doubt and it is not always seen with disdain. What God appears to respect in His Word is the sincere seeking of truth that people partake in. As the Bible says "seek and you will find".  The prophets would repeatedly appeal to what God has done in the past as evidence of God's power and glory, rather than just claiming that God is God. This suggests that God does not expect blind faith, but faith based on evidence. Paul also took time to argue the gospel reasonably and based on evidence. If faith is based on evidence, then it is based on conviction of that evidence and not a fake conviction of nothing. God is more concerned about the sincerity of heart than about shallow publicly espoused allegiance to Him, as Jesus so often accused the Pharisees of doing. 

Mark 9 shares a story where Jesus answered a doubting man's prayer. Jesus said that he needed to believe in order to receive His assistance. The man replied that he believed, but also asked Jesus to help him with his unbelief! What the man requested seems to be an oxymoron, but Jesus had mercy on him and granted his request. It seems that an admission of faith while experiencing doubt can even have prayers answered! God doesn't seem to need our unwavering faith to bring about His purposes. This story suggests that Jesus is more interested in a sincere pursuit of Him, even if that pursuit involves admission of doubt.

Paul says at the end of Roman 14 that we need to be congruent (consistent) or true to ourselves. He says that if we go against our conscience, it is more or less akin to sin. In the context of doubt, this could mean that acknowledging the doubt and wrestling with it, rather than going on pretending it isn't there, is the more helpful way of living.

Matthew states that even Jesus expressed a form of "doubt" when He cried "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?". I am not saying that Jesus necessarily intellectually doubted His Father's existence, but that He existentially doubted (experiencing emotional or intellectual doubt) God's faithfulness to Him while He was on the cross. We all go through periods in our lives where we experience doubt about God's existence, goodness, or our understanding of "correct" doctrine - whether it be emotional or intellectual. Christ seemed to be free to express his anguish without worrying about the judgement of religious lofty eyes.

Jude 22 also chimes in on how to deal with doubt. He emphasises the mercy that we need to show to those who doubt. Rather than thinking less of those who experience doubt, he appears to imply being slow to judge and quick to hear. 

Expressing Doubt Builds Faith 

I have been reading a book recently by Nancy Pearcy called "Saving Leonardo: A call to resist the secular assault on mind, morals, & meaning".  In it she brings to our attention a fascinating study by Fuller Seminary that investigated High School graduate's tendency to lose their faith after school. In the study they found a key factor that influenced whether youth kept their faith or not. They found that the most effective factor was not prayer or Bible studies, but the safe exploration of questions before leaving home. The college students said that the more they felt they could safely express their doubts meant that they developed higher levels of faith and spiritual maturity. Pearcy believes that the best way for teens to be prepared to give an answer for their faith (1 Peter 3:15) is by personally wrestling with questions. Jesus interestingly said that we are to be child in like some way. Pearcy and Francis Schaeffer said that being childlike is not about believing the first thing we have been told, but about a tendency to ask questions! Pearcy concludes that we need to have the attitude of Paul "Test Everything; Hold fast what is good". 

As counselling theory has well established, safely and honestly exploring our realities (without fear of judgement) helps us to have a greater awareness and understanding which equips us to live more fruitful and sincere lives.   

Doubt and Fear

The alternative extreme to double mindedness is when people engage in a blind following of one belief without questioning it or hearing and entertaining another's viewpoint. I wrote a post recently on the subject of Group Think, its' dangerous tendencies, and how to combat it. I do believe in the usefulness of constructive talk around what we generally see as evidence for the faith (and there is a lot), but if this talk is not balanced it can produce fear amongst people when they doubt something that is taken for granted. Why do we fear? It could be because it has been ingrained into us to believe blindly or else be condemned, instead of engaging honestly with our doubt. I have felt at times that the attitude within church culture can be that to doubt is a sin or a weakness. However, there is a more helpful and God honouring way to view doubt.If I love truth, and God is truth, then I love God. The search for truth comes first, if it doesn't, then we just believe whatever we first come in contact with, or whatever suits our fancy. That would not be honouring God to believe something for the sake of it. On a similar note, if I expect someone else to question their world view in the humble pursuit of truth, then I must also too. God wants us to love Him with our heart, strength and mind. I am not saying that we blow about in the wind 24/7, but how C.S. Lewis put it: "Faith... is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods". People believe things for many reasons, and it would often take a huge amount of evidence before their belief would change anyway. I believe the honest pursuit of truth is the attitude that God would find most helpful to work with, rather than a dogmatic adherence to creeds with the suppression of doubt.    

Conclusion

Scripture suggests that it is not evil to experience doubt, but part of the process of finding out who we are and why we believe what we believe. Instead, we can be true to ourselves. The Fuller Seminary study shows that being real, and safely exploring our doubts leads to a stronger faith. It suggests it is more dangerous to not safely question your faith. However, it is not helpful to always be wavering and double minded, but instead having a humble conviction about what we do have evidence for. Experiencing doubt is not something people can always avoid due to the enquiring minds God has given us, but it can be extremely frightening and painful. One way to help relinquish this fear is by sincerely searching for truth while having an attitude of trust towards God, that if He is truth, He will guide our sincere searching in the most helpful direction. We cannot ever understand everything. Being true to ourselves is the best we can do, and what I believe God wants us to exhibit. I am not suggesting giving up on faith, but suggesting the necessity to express doubt as a part of our faith.

P.S.

Joshua Griffiths is currently doing a series talking about how relationship and the existence of knowledge gaps is essential for a full understanding and experience of faith - Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 3 - RELATIONSHIPS)

Quid est Ecclesia?

What is the Church?

Old Testament terminology equates it to the Temple. The first temple was the Tabernacle or the Tent of Meeting. Everywhere the Jewish nation went they would set up a place to where the priests and Moses could go to God and talk to Him, sacrifice, pray, and worship God. When the physical Temple was built by Solomon all of the symbols and items from the Tabernacle were placed inside, most importantly the Ark placed behind the Veil. The Temple was divided into parts. Depending on who or what you are is where you could go inside the Temple. But only those close enough to God were allowed to go behind the Veil, the curtain that symbolicaaly separates man from God, which Jesus's death caused to be torn in two. For more information on the temple see http://ideasoftimreligion.blogspot.com/2008/08/iv-worship.html. The point here being that no matter where God's people are there is God as well, permanently.

New Testament terminology equates it to us. This new temple is what we are. The Church are not individuals though. The Church is a body. Some are hands. Some are feet. Some are speakers. Some are seers. But these both have something in common and its the same connection the Old Testament Temple had; God is always there. And if God is always there how can you let worldly ideas and actions into the Church and/or Temple?

Keep in mind, the church is not the Church. Small "c" means thet building. Capital "C" means Christ's body.

The Church is suppose to be:

1. Spirit-led, not man-led
2. Glorifying God, not humanistic
3. Use of gifts to help serve people and God, not show casing human ability
4. Holy, not worldly
5. An organism, not an organization
6. Loving, compassionate, hospitable
7. Witnesses!

But what has the Church become?

1. Leaders with egos that can not see past their own accomplishments to see the hurt in some.
2. Worried about growth in numbers instead of growth in spirit.
3. Entertainment focused and "jamming" instead of true worship (putting God first).
4. Lost in culture and becoming immune to the world's sickness.
5. Business and less personal, more worried about reputation than character
6. Divided, hypocritical, worried about reputation instead of character
7. Bad examples because the world sees no difference between living a Christian life and a non-Christian life.

The Church is supposed to be separate from the world for we are not part of this world. Yes, we have to live in it and deal with it but nowhere in the Bible does it say we are to become part of it. The book Animal Farm, although not about Christianity, ends exactly the way what the Church has become.

• "Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to, and from pig to man again but already it was impossible to say which was which."

The pigs who were supposed to be different and make a change ended up taking on what the humans were doing and in the end became just as bad as humans. Now, we are all sinners, so do not take away from this Thought that Christians are "better". That is far from the truth. What it is saying is we are supposed to act better. We are supposed to change the world. But the Church has become so liberal and weak, has watered down the message of Christ so much, has lost the true meaning of worship so much, that the culture ended up changing it. We have allowed the culture to change sermons, our service to people, our charity, our education, and the worst is we allowed it to change our worship. A non-Christian would say that is a good thing because it would make the Church easier to deal with. But due to this changing the Church has become insincere and less relevant to this world. Ask Europe. http://ideasoftimreligion.blogspot.com/2008/10/xiii-church-of-culture.html

Yet, the big problem is those who are supposed to be temples do not live holy and don't see the problem. They want to justify their own beliefs and actions. Church leaders get egos and prideful and blinded. They look for validation from friends and family. The people find excuses to not live outside the culture. The Church is dying because it is not being the Church. The Church is supposed to be a witness to the world. The Temple (you) is with God always. So, how can we as the Church as a whole or as an individual Temple allow the culture inside?

And the last thing, the Church is not INSIDE a building. It goes OUT to the world. Too many people think the church building is the place to get saved. No, technically the church building is for the Church. You get saved in your heart, not a building. But still the church building is there for a reason as well. It is a place of worship and education but it is also a place where people can feel safe and comforted; a haven, if you will. The building is a symbol of where someone cango who is feeling down and out because the world has beaten up on them. When people come into the church building they want to feel safe. They want to forget their troubles that the world and culture has caused them. Yet, what does the Church offer? Programs, sermons, and worship that is filled with the same culture that destroyed the individual in the first place, and mostly just to get a good reputation in the community. It's like an alcoholic goes to church and the Church offers them a drink and people think the church is cool then.

After reading this many will try and rationalize that reaching the culture means we have to use their ways to bring them in. Jesus went into the culture, He did not become part of it. This is not to say that church buildings cannot hold fun events and be entertaining to crowds. But the event has to be real and sincere, it is not a place to showcase one's talents for their own glory. Coffee and donuts never saved anyone. How far can worship service use secular ideas before true worship is sacrificed? Where is the line? Answer: it should stay out as a piece of worship, unless there is a point to it.

Other Thoughts you need to read for more explanation:

http://ideasoftimreligion.blogspot.com/search/label/Worship

Response to Homosexuality

http://weknowawesome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/homesexuality-sin.jpeg

YES

I know this is a sensitive and weighty issue. With all the humility, love, and sincerity I have (which I know is insufficient), I affirm that homosexuality is sinful, and government should not recognize ‘homosexual marriage’ in its legislation. I find this poster emotionally intimidating because we subconsciously feel that if we assent to the 'logical' conclusions, we must also assent to the emotion behind the poster.

I want to ensure people deal with the real issues in this whole debate – partly by dismantling the abundance of straw men in this poster, and partly by highlighting true conflict where it exists. My main hope (and prayer) is that the Holy Spirit will work with my words – not to be logical, but to address the emotion and spirit, so that people will see Christ’s glory as surprisingly beautiful.

This is a relatively quick post, so it will be full of words and I will have missed a lot of pertinent verses. By all means research it yourself! And comment/question at the end!

If you don’t want to read the whole thing, skip to point 7) and the conclusion :)

1) The Bible defines marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, for life.

This is easy to defend from Scripture (Gen 2:24, Mar 10:1-12), and the purposes God designed marriage for: the raising of Godly children (Mal 2:15), and the demonstration of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:21-32). Also nature, and the history and tradition of most of humanity for most of history, testify that this is a reasonable point of view.

Polygamy (and rape) are against God’s design for marriage (1Ti 3:2, 1Co 7:2, Deut 17:17). God commanded marriage in the instances of rape or female slaves/prisoners of war, to protect women in an environment of male leadership (which He knew sinful men would abuse). It was enforcing the natural/traditional order for the good of those involved.

2) Jesus uttered many words relevant to same-sex relationships.

Its not hard to figure out Jesus’ point of view on it. He taught God's view of marriage (Mat 19:5-6), how to apply the Old Testament today (Mat 5:17, Mat 12:8, Joh 4:23-24, Mat 23:23), the importance of humility and selflessness, and ultimately finding more purpose and pleasure in God than sex (or any other earthly pleasure – Luk 18:22, Mat 19:29).

Under these principles, even the following are sinful to God: lust (Mat 5:28), adultery/fornication, polygamy, selfishness in 'traditional/natural' marriage, idolizing your spouse higher than God and His purposes. He raised the standard so high that we all need his grace - even pious 'naturally/traditionally' married people.

3) There is clear guidance in the New Testament (especially from Jesus) on how to apply the OT views of homosexuality to our lives today.

The specifics laws in the OT fulfilled several functions: to keep Israel safe and separated from surrounding nations (God's mission has shifted - for now - to be global), to point toward Christ (Heb 10:1 – we now aim to reflect Christ more directly), and to teach the character of God (intended to direct us to God rather than being a rigid legalistic program). Even the less relevant of these purposes are useful to show us what God is like. And it is easy (especially with the help of the NT) to tell which functions the various laws served.

One aspect to God's character described in the OT is that He is very holy, and jealous about his holiness. He defines good, not us (1Pe 1:16, Psa 16:2, Jas 1:17, Mat 19:16-17). Anything which clouds or muddies or opposes that 'good', is by definition bad for us and God - evil. So there really are no 'grey' zones. Natural/traditional marriage is clearly described for multiple reasons as being 'good' (Pro 18:22, Pro 19:24, Gen 2:18, 1Co 7:9) – anything which confuses this (including homosexuality) is ‘evil’.

4) Its fairly obvious what Paul’s view of homosexuality was.

Paul deliberately focuses not on the lack of commitment in a relationship, but on a lack of adherence and submission to God's character (Rom 1).

The Biblical understanding of sexual complementariansm is extremely protective of women, and challenges husbands to be the most humble, gracious, serving, sensitive, protective men on the planet (Eph 5:25). Marriage is meant to demonstrate two roles - the role of Christ (in loving leadership) and the Church (in loving submission). Both are challenging, sacrificial, and rewarding to do as Christ intends – and easy to abuse or refuse.

5) There is, in fact, an undeniable natural order of things.

The world has not evolved beyond the need for God's purposes. Especially one He thought was important enough to ingrain in our very DNA – male and female design. The only time God overrules his general purposes, is when he calls some (few) people do it out of necessity (not want!) for the sake of focusing on other areas of God’s mission. That’s why God allows people to remain single (1Co 7:34-35).

The fact that some animals commit homosexuality does not make it any more natural. They are usually showing signs of mental disturbance, and are obviously aberrant. There is also a clear natural selection disadvantage. Nothing natural about it. Besides, even truly 'natural' behaviors (such as many male animals eating their young) are grotesque when applied to humans. When you consider humans without a clear gender (e.g. with chromosomal abnormalities or ambiguous genitalia), applying the term 'homosexual' to them is nonsensical anyway. I'm only discussing committed homosexual relationships, as opposed to traditional/natural marriage.

History teaches us that accepting homosexuality as a way of ‘moving forward’ and defining ‘civilized society’, is probably a bad idea. All civilizations in history, no matter how glorious, have fallen into pride and moral and financial strife just prior to their dramatic (often shameful) decline. The hallmark feature of such decline has always been an excessive and increasing focus on experimenting outside traditional/natural sexual behavior. The Bible also predicts this progression (Rom 1).

6) God is the most tolerant and loving being in the universe.

We all deserve punishment for our sins, but God is being patient and continues to show common grace to all, which is meant to draw us to repentance and trust in Him (Rom 2:4). Don't trample Him underfoot by defending the sin He died to save us from. If we fail to understand God’s ways in fullness, at least trust that He knows what’s best for us, others, and Himself. Ultimately you will only find lasting delight in the display of God’s character to you and through you.

7) The Bible does not deny homosexuals the ability to choose.

There is a difference between allowing, and condoning or defending. Government may not have the right to force morality (unless it is harming others) – we have a responsibility to let people choose. But we also have a responsibility to encourage the best (God’s character on display in traditional/natural marriage), and to NOT condone anything which muddies, confuses, or opposes this.

Legal backing cannot be given to a nonsensical entity. Marriage has a meaning – two men cannot be married to each other, just like two bachelors cannot be married to each other. Gays are welcome to marry - find one member of the opposite sex and commit yourself to them for life in love and faithfulness. There are several stories of people with continuing homosexual tendencies (some of which were at one point openly 'gay'), living well in a loving, Christ-honouring, natural/traditional marriage.

People can add legal backing to marriage if they like, but ultimately marriage is spiritual – God designed it from the beginning, and He defines, defends, and rejoices in it. The basis for opposing gays living sinfully together, is not that society or the legal system – or even Christians – think its sinful. Its that God thinks its sinful.

Finally, some notes about the emotion behind the poster.

Maybe some Christians are self-righteous, hateful, unsympathetic, and prideful. But the Bible encourages humility, grace, bearing eachother’s burdens, and respect. We are all sinners before God – we are all sexually broken in some way, and fail to delight in, pursue, or express the character of God as we ought (and need, for our satisfaction).

I don’t know where homosexual people come, what their experience of delight and struggle is, how they tick, or how broken they are. And I don’t pretend to. God alone knows that, and He cares. I just know my own struggles. But one thing I know – we will all only find true delight in God and His glory.

God alone knows ultimate outcomes, how characters will change, and what areas in life we will discover ourselves to be completely wrong about. He along has the ability to know what is ‘good’ for us. He made us so that we would find ultimate purpose and meaning and satisfaction and life and power, when we delight in the full display of His character to and through us. Marriage does this when performed God’s way – part of which means being traditional/natural.

Ultimately, homosexuality only matters because it is a sign of how we treasure Christ. To pridefully integrate homosexuality into your very identity, instead of agreeing with God about it, is evidence of (at best) a serious distraction from this, or (at worst) heartfelt prideful hatred toward Christ. Both of which condemn you like all sin outside of Christ, but both of which Christ can forgive and overcome if you will let Him!

I want God to enable Christians to come alongside homosexuals as fellow strugglers in the battle against sin and for our perfect delight in God’s glory. May we battle together with humility and love and uncompromising devotion to God.

Defining Roman Catholicism

Had a really interesting conversation with a staunch Roman Catholic the other day. Interesting because (as I told him), I'm certain he would have been branded a Protestant and joined the Reformation if he was alive with Martin Luther and John Calvin. And I'm convinced he's saved.

He does hold to many 'official' Catholic doctrines which (I think) we all disagree with, but he holds them in a way which is ALMOST Biblical in my opinion (although I still disagree) :) Even more strange - he is certain that his beliefs are official Vatican-endorsed doctrine. Yet they differ drastically from what I think about Catholicism, based on my experiences with other Catholics, my readings from Roman Catholic authorities, and of course many Protestant teachers.

I'm not going to detail his beliefs here, as he may read this post. And I don't want to mis-represent his views! But I just found it extremely thought-provoking. And I wondered if it would be helpful to discuss it here:

1) What differences are there between Roman Catholicism and Reformed Protestantism?

2) Do these differences actually exist - for the Vatican, for all Catholics, for just some Catholics? Do they (or similar differences) exist between groups of Reformed Protestants?

3) Are these differences actually important? Why? Are they more important than differences that exist between groups of Reformed Protestants? Why?

4) Are there ways to hold to these points in Catholic doctrine, which minimize the difference or minimize its importance?

Please comment away!

God's Sovereignty over the Church's Destiny

This post by John Piper at Desiring God, deals with the issue of how the Christian should view the sovereignty of God - especially as it applies to evangelism & missions, history & the end times, and uncertainty or risk in general.

A summary:

• It is impossible for God take ‘risks’ since He is absolutely sovereign and knows the outcome of all his activity. Instead, He makes ‘sacrifices’ that will certainly result in the ultimate good and delight of His church, in the glory of Christ.
• Any ‘risks’ we take of losing the smaller pleasures of this life (including the gift of life itself on this earth), are actually ‘sacrifices’ that we know will work for the cause of ultimate good. There is no real 'risk' for the Christian.
• Some people see whole history of the church from the First to the Second Coming of Christ, as resting ultimately and without any certainty upon the individual decisions that men make – especially that of the first disciples after Pentecost – with a real and frightening 'risk' of failure and defeat.
• This view is false to Scripture, built on false philosophical presuppositions, damaging to the mission of Christ in the world, and belittling to the glory of God. God can't and doesn't take 'risks'.

Read the post for more details :)

I know John Piper’s views on things reasonably well, so I can say I agree with everything he’s trying to say. However, I wish he had emphasised two (potentially balancing) points, which I know he believes:

• First, there is a very real sense that certain wills and decisions of man ARE NECESSARY for history to occur as it has, and also for Christ’s purposes to prevail in the future. It DOES rest upon the decisions of man, which spring from within himself (i.e. not robotically or coerced – we do it because we actually have decided to do it).
• However, if man’s decisions are necessary steps, it does NOT mean they are ultimate or foundational or self-determining steps, or that there is a possibility of them not occuring. They are merely links in the chain of God’s sovereignty – the whole chain is necessary, but there is NO possibility that it will not form.
• Following on from that, the paradox that God is sovereign and yet we are responsible can be defined more precisely as this: God can pre-determine human decisions, and yet they can still spring from within humanity without coercion and with personal volition.

• Secondly, this paradox – while being a paradox we may never understand fully – is able to be understood more and more as it is contemplated and pursued! I know this from personal experience, from the experience of others far wiser than myself, and from drawing analogies from science.
• For example, science has occasionally had to switch its whole understanding of certain aspects of the world to something completely foreign – Copernican astronomy, Newtonian physics, special and general relativity, genetics and microbiology, quantum physics, atomic chemistry, etc. People have always struggled to understand things which seem to contradict our experience or current understanding, despite the truth of these ideas. Yet those who commit themselves to understanding such models can reach a level of understanding where it actually DOES work in the mind (at least to a greater degree than before).
• I think the same can be said of the sovereignty of God and human ‘free will’. Just because it is a paradox which may not be completely understood, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pursue understanding of it.

Church as 'Missional Communities'

This post by Jeff Vanderstelt (posting at Desiring God) describes ‘missional communities’ in terms of their four essential characteristics – family, missionaries, servants, disciples.

Some people think this is what ‘church’ is meant to be. I personally really like the ideas presented here, and agree to an extent that this is what ‘church’ is meant to be. But I think we should be really careful if we say that...

Firstly we need to define ‘church’. The Bible uses the word ‘church’ to refer to a group of people in a particular city, not to any particular building or activity or event. So the question of what ‘church’ is meant to be is basically asking what a ‘Christian community’ is meant to be. Which makes it a very broad question with broad answers. Essentially, to see Christ, to delight in what we see, and to express what we see in words and actions.

Perhaps it would be more helpful to ask ‘what is church meant to be, that is distinct from private Christian life’. Why did God ask us to be a community of believers rather than lone rangers? Somehow Christ can only fully be expressed in the complex contexts of a community where individuals have different strengths and weaknesses. And as we see Christ more fully in such a community, we delight in this and become more like Christ – we mature in the faith, and thus express Christ more fully ourselves. Discipleship/missions happen as we and others (Christians and non-Christians) are brought into this community Christ-expressing atmosphere and are exposed to the image of Christ. And this Christ-expression and discipleship can happen all of the almost infinite number of contexts that arise in community life.

Which brings me to my second caution: obviously there are contexts that ‘church’ is meant to encompass (at least some of the time) that aren’t directly mentioned in this post and may not arise so naturally in a community – like communion, worship, etc… But I think these could easily be incorporated into this model. In fact, a community that worships and has communion together will more effectively display Christ to those who interact with or within that community.

Finally, any critical analysis of 'church' has the danger of encouraging sin - offense, pride, self-righteousness, legalism, dissatisfaction, selfishness, gossip, disunity, bitterness, fear, etc... These are generally considered bad ;) We have to walk a fine line between having a constructive vision for 'church' that we apply in ways that build the body of Christ and honor God, and having a destructive vision that we apply in ways that destroy the body and dishonor God.

I really appreciate the way this view can expand our view of church and missions to include, essentially, all of life – as it is lived out in community with a gospel intent and the support of other believers. We’ve probably all heard something similar before, but for some reason this particular description makes it seem much more practical and down to earth – and also a lot more faith-filled and exciting and God-glorifying – than many other ways I’ve heard it described… a much needed view I think. God help us joyfully, humbly, and constructively pursue your vision for Church in the power and leading and grace of Your Spirit!

Anyway, what do y’all think?