Questions Of Perception

First, a warning. This is going to be a contentious post. It also is a blog with more questions than answers. So please don't expect a tidy resolution to the things I raise in this. And feel free to comment and add your contribution!

If you follow my comments section (in the next column, under the pretty pictures) then you can view what readers have said about my posts. Or on occasion, on other comments made by other readers. It makes fascinating reading, and my recent post on Election entitled 'Hand-Picked' generated much opinion. This is no bad thing, as I love it when people disagree with me - providing it is done with both intelligence and grace. Otherwise our responses just generate more heat than light.

I enjoyed reading comments arguing against my position on Election, and the resulting discussion on how we interpret the Bible. I've been pondering this myself recently, trying to decide what I think about how we know what the Bible means when we read it.

Anyone who knows anything about Christianity will know there are many different denominations. These different church groupings have distinct beliefs, doctrines or theologies that differ to other denominations. They can turn to different Bible passages to explain their stand on various practices or views. Yet across the road, a different group of churches will do things very differently, justifying their methodology through different Bible verses.

This throws up a fascinating question - why do so many godly, intelligent people hold such a wide range of contradictory views and practices, all based out from the same document?

This also applies historically. Christian Orthodoxy ("correct belief or opinion") is itself an interesting term - who decides what is orthodox and essentially correct, and what isn't? And why?

When it comes to Christian Orthopraxy ("correct practice") history shows us how the church has done different things and changed and evolved. Music style, preaching style, communion, church discipline, baptism, church leadership and structure have all changed over the centuries. Why?

In many cases, the 21st Century church is very different to the 18th Century church, which is in turn different to the 15th Century Church, and so on all the way back to the Early Church Fathers. What things have brought about these changes? Are all the changes for the best? Have we found better ways of doing things? What things have informed these changes? A huge influence in these things will be the ever changing human culture. Is it wise, right and shrewd for culture to influence practice, or is it foolish, dangerous and compromising?

In my own 'denomination', we have writers and theologians that are recommended by our leaders than other writers. Godly, intelligent, gifted experienced leaders who have taught, mentored and inspired me have recommended such writers as Charles Spurgeon, Wayne Grudem, John Piper and Martyn Lloyd-Jones to name but a few. But interestingly, even with these recommended writers I noticed we (meaning some of my teachers) picked and chose what they agreed and disagreed with. And that in itself is fine, as it is good to challenge and know why you believe what you believe. But where we disagreeing with these writers simply because we didn't like what they were saying? Were we uncomfortable with their exegesis and orthopraxy - and in some cases, orthodoxy - and so just cherry picked our theology?

For example, Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology was held up as the one of the best theology textbooks for us to own and make use of, but I was taught that we don't agree with his view on apostles for today. John Piper's books and sermons were endorsed across the board by different lecturers, yet his views on church government and spiritual gifts were certainly at odds with 'our' taught view. Yet Grudem and Piper are clearly godly, anointed and intelligent men. So why the clear difference of opinion?

Does this mean that ultimately all biblical exegesis (extracting from the text what it means) is subjective? Is it all a matter of opinion? That is a terrifying question. If the answer is yes, then none of us can teach the scriptures with any authority, and there no longer would be such a thing as Liberal Theology - as anything could be justified by finding the right text in the Bible.

I've often used that phrase "the Bible says...." But in reality, I'm actually saying "my interpretation of the Bible says..." There is a massive difference. Anyone who is a Christian claims to be biblical. But why the diversity and difference?

Are tattoo's biblical and right? Leviticus 19:28 has been quoted to me as saying they are wrong. Revelation 19:16 has been used to support the opposite view. Which is right?

What about the infamous passage in 1 Corinthians 14:34 about women remaining silent in church? Is that universally followed? If not, why not?

If plastic surgery or body modification is wrong because it is done out of pride or vanity, what about dying our hair colour as it gets grey?

What about the current hot potato that is the role of women in church leadership. There are two sides in this debate, both who claim to be biblical. Who is right?

For each of the above issues, I have my views that I believe are biblically informed and I therefore would explain why. But I also recognise other people have another view, which to them is just as biblically informed. And they could consider my views not biblically informed. Which of us is right? And why is that person right and the other not?

Rob Bell, in his book Velvet Elvis writes a fascinating thing. He writes;

"Somebody recently told me, "As long as you teach the Bible, I have no problem with you".... What that person was really saying is, "As long as you teach my version of the Bible, I have no problem with you."

Bell goes on to say;

"Where does one go in trying to make sense of what the Bible even is, let alone what it says?.... It has to be interpreted. And if it isn't interpreted, then it can't be put into action. So if we are serious about following God, then we have to interpret the Bible. It is not possible to simply do what the Bible says. We must first make decisions about what it means at this time, in this place, for these people."

I wonder if the principles Paul writes about in 1 Corinthians regarding food sacrificed to idols apply wider than we think. On one side of the fence, one party argued "food consecrated to idols could be influenced by demons and therefore Christians should keep away from it." A totally valid and logical position. The other camp argued "idols are nothing, so they have no power over Christians. So don't worry about it." Again, another logical position. How did Paul handle this debate? He appealed to... wait for it.... conscience!

Rather than use Bible Bullet proof-texts to spiral endless debates about things, would it be better for me to prayerfully consider both sides of the debate, do some prayerful study and research, ask some godly wiser people and come to a prayerful, considered, informed position that sits right with my conscience? I am so aware how subjective and self-centred that sounds, but as we mature spiritually our consciences are sanctified as part of that process. Yet Paul still appeals to the principle of people not going against their consciences.

John's Gospel records Jesus talking about the Holy Spirit being the Spirit of Truth who would guide us into all truth. In the process of prayerful pondering, surely we can trust God to guide us?  But this does have an inherent danger - we could get jumpy when people aren't "guided" to agree with us!

I notice that all the contentious issues that are majorly debated in the main Church not only today, but also historically, have rarely been about issues of central importance to foundational truths. I'm more talking about issues with two sides claiming biblical support in a biblical doctrine yet seeing it in different ways. Scripturally, some things seem clear to me- other than certain elements within them, none of the major Christian denominations question the deity of Jesus, the truth of the Bible, the need for church or mission for example. Of course, elements within them might, but as a whole they wouldn't. Other, almost secondary issues might be contended. Thing is, we need to decide for ourselves those things and what we consider primary and secondary importance.

By asking these questions, have I become liberal and can no longer be considered Evangelical? I don't think that's correct. But some of you might think I have sold out! I still believe wholeheartedly in the inspiration, inerrancy, sufficiency and authority of scripture. But I am questioning how, as individuals, we arrive at our views. And how we deal with other brothers and sisters who hold different and even contradictory views.

Yes, the Spirit guides us in all truth. That in itself is an interesting thing when we see many of us hold different views! The Holy Spirit does not belong to the just to the Charismatic or Pentecostal church. Interestingly enough, many of the world class theologians who have lived weren't Charismatic! What does that say to us Charismatic's?! Its a provocation to me, certainly.

Jesus said "Come to Me". As Christians, we weren't meant to have a relationship with a book, or even through a book! We were made to commune with the Author. But this doesn't detract from the value of the Bible - indeed, it actually heightens it! God has chosen to express and reveal himself through its words. In the Bible, He shows us His heart and His mind in things. The book informs us, but also pushes us to Him. We get into problems when we know the writings better than we know the Writer. Then we commit Bibliolatry - the Bible becomes our idol. I think it's possible to study and learn the Bible so well, yet miss its message - which as Jesus told the Pharisees, is to "point us towards Him."

Ecclesiastes tells us that "a three strand cord isn't easily broken." A three strand cord could be me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit. Without the Spirit, I'll become legalistic in my biblical proof-text approach. Without the Bible, I'll become unstable and without foundations in my Christian walk.

This interwoven cord also reminds me that God is interested in intimacy with me - the journey of discovering more about Him through the Bible as I prayerfully read it.

I can get concerned about all the difficult passages, stories, texts and debates that are circling around me but the reality is this: when I walk through scripture with Him, He walks with me through it. And He narrates every step of the way.

Currently listening to: The Brunettes - Brunettes Against Bubblegum Youth from Structure & Cosmetics