Why People Interpret the Bible Differently and Why It Matters

Have you ever wondered why there are so many different opinions about different biblical passages, ethical issues, and other matters addressed in the Bible?

It's a good question.

After all, why (or even better, how) could people reading the same Bible and the same scriptural passage come to such diametrically opposed positions on different issues?

Some, for example, read Genesis 19 as God metes out punishment on Sodom and Gomorrah, and conclude that God punished those cities after multiple warnings and rebellion over unrepentant sin, particularly sexual/homosexual sin, while others (such as those sympathetic to homosexuality) will say that God punished the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for a lack of hospitality to its divine guests/angelic visitors.

Other examples abound. There are people who profess to be Christians who believe in "just war" and others who believe the Bible teaches pacifism. Some believe in capital punishment while others believe in rehabilitation of prisoners without thinking of incarceration as either a deterrent or extracting hard time to "pay back society" for evils done. Other self-described Christians believe in abortion, while others strongly oppose it.

People use scriptural passages to posit teachings and perspectives that are quite novel. For example, some read the Bible and come, somehow, to believe that Jesus was not a historical figure and the Bible is not an accurate record of his life. Others believe Jesus was a real man, but that he was a homosexual who enjoyed frequent orgies with his Twelve Disciples and women having troubled pasts, like Mary Magdalene-- whom many believe was a former, reformed prostitute. These are only a handful of examples but, really, need I continue?

So, what about the two questions I have posed?


Why Do People Interpret the Bible Differently?

If you'll stick with me, I'll use a couple of technical words-- but I believe it'll make perfect sense. I think it's important, however, to keep in mind that the problem I've described is usually due to all of the following issues I'll describe, so it's important to keep them all in front of you when you discuss matters like this with those whom you disagree.

People claiming to be Christians come to different opinions about ethical and other matters because of: differing views on biblical inspiration, different hermeneutics, different exegesis, and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, who helps illuminate one's mind to 'truth.'

1. Differing Views of Inspiration

How you "approach" the Bible makes all the difference in how you interpret it. There are numerous different approaches to or "views of" inspiration. These range from vague notions where the biblical writers felt 'inspired to write' just as Shakespeare was inspired... to views of inspiration that imply the human recorders of scripture fell into a trance where they were controlled by a divine force who wrote through them, without regard to their own experiences, emotions, or perspectives-- they were merely "mediums" or something like that.

Those who take a "low" or loose view of scripture invariably come to looser and more liberal views of ethics, morality, and biblical teachings-- while those who take a high view of scripture invariably come to a more solid view of Biblical teachings and, generally, come to hold views more consistent with a clear, straight-forward reading of the Bible-- which is often considered more conservative or progressive, but not often liberal.

How does one decide which view to take? It's simple... If one is a believer in Christ OR if one has come to believe that the Holy Bible is from God and that it articulates God's perspective and, literally, "truth," then that person would hold a high view of scripture. Such people naturally believe that God is our ultimate authority, so they want to know exactly what He says. In addition, those people believe that God knows everything-- so learning from Him and seeking to live consistently with scriptural teachings-- is a way to live a blessed life and one with great meaning, regardless of how much pain life may or may not deal out. In this view, pain doesn't imply God's disfavor-- what matters is devotion to God, obedience to His Word, and seeking His perspective in order to gain meaning in life.


2. Different Hermeneutical Methods

Hermeneutics simply means "the art and science of interpretation." More specifically, it is the discipline that investigates the principles and theories that govern how to properly interpret a text-- especially the Bible, and its different parts.

As such, hermeneutics is also concerned with understanding how the human author of a particular Bible book should relate to the content being presented, and how that should relate to the original readers of the biblical passage and to those who read those same verses of scripture today. So that is the so-called "hermeneutical bridge"-- namely, what did it mean in the mind of the writer as that person understood the mind of God, and what did that mean to the people to whom it was addressed... and what application does that timeless truth have for us today? That is the job of hermeneutics-- and that is the job of every person who teaches the Bible or seeks to properly interpret the Bible.


3. Different Approaches to Exegesis

People also come to different beliefs on ethical/moral/biblical issues because of their "exegetical approach" which is closely related to their hermeneutic, mentioned above. Exegesis is related to the word "educate" but, in this sense, means "to draw meaning out of." To educate means "to draw out" or "to lead." Certainly, when one does proper exegesis, he or she is educating a person in the purest sense of the word.

At any rate, exegesis is the process of seeking to understand what a text means or communicates in its unretouched, unfiltered original meaning. In other words, good exegesis seeks to provide the plain sense of what a particular portion of scripture (verse/verses) means. Metaphorically, it implies looking closely at the scriptures with spiritual glasses that have exacting and accurate lens that are able to view the accurate meaning of the original author. Exegesis is concerned with telling us what the original author meant-- as opposed to simply telling us "what it means TO US." The point of exegesis is that it doesn't matter what we think of it UNTIL WE FIRST find out what it meant originally. Only after we apprehend the original meaning can we properly and accurately apply it to us. So in this way, hermeneutics provide the means for us to exegete scripture. Proper hermeneutics leads to proper exegesis-- and that can safely lead us to an accurate interpretation and application of God's Word on all matters of importance in human life (2 Timothy 3:16-17).


4. The indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, who helps illuminate one's mind to 'truth.'

1 Corinthians 1:18-through chapter 2 in the New Testament talks a lot about this. In short, it simply means that people who profess to be Christians but who do not possess the presence of God within them, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, may be religionists or socially religious practitioners, but they fail to meet the biblical description of a person who is a biblical or born-again Christian (1 John, chapters 4-5), especially 1 John 4:13-17.

When a person has this type of intimate, indwelling reality of "Christ in us," such a person is given a special type of relationship with God in which truth is more readily realized, perceived, and experienced. Illumination has to do with God guiding you in and toward "truth." People without this indwelling-- whether or not they 'profess' to be Christians (because professing and possessing are two different things), do not have the same capacity to apprehend truth as a person who legitimately enjoys a relationship with God through Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God.

Why Does It Matter?

The reason it is important to properly interpret the scriptures and where they land on different issues, is because "truth matters." Truth represents reality. And if we are incorrect on our view of what is true, that means we are living in a false reality. Our perception does not create reality-- all that really matters is what is ACTUAL and REAL. When we base our beliefs on false ideas that are not true, but only propaganda, the problem is that we then ACT on those false beliefs. When we act on false beliefs, ramifications follow-- and those ramifications are often destructive.

So when a person interprets something wrong or comes up with the incorrect position on a moral or ethical or political or economic view, there are real consequences to those ideas. This could include making mistakes that lead to many detrimental effects on our lives that affect both ourselves and others. That is why, however painful reality can be, it's less painful than living in false hope, holding onto a lie, that only ends up allowing one's life to collapse like a house of cards. "And great was the fall of that house, for it was not built upon a rock."

That's why truth matters.

Orthodoxy and Neo-Orthodoxy

Well, another friend of mine asked me to address the following question. It took me so long to type it out, I figured more than only one person may have this question, so here goes. It's late, so I probably shouldn't be writing technical pieces like this... and I'm certainly not an expert-- but I do understand a little about it and hope it's a helpful discussion to get you thinking about how things, especially theology, "works." She asked:

Question: I'm confused. What is the difference between Neo-Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy?

The confusion comes from the fact that these two ideas (Orthodoxy and Neo-Orthodoxy) are TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES of things.

* Orthodoxy is not completely related to NEO-Orthodoxy-- at least, not in the exact way they are often used today. They just happen to have the same words in them. But in my discussion below, I will relate them to one another in a way that may make sense.

Orthodoxy has two definitions. It can EITHER BE (a) The large body of Christian believers, the Orthodox Church-- similar to Roman Catholicism. So that's "one type" of Orthodoxy: The "Orthodox Church." But that's probably not what you're thinking about. The second type of orthodoxy is (b) the essential beliefs of the Christian faith. Meaning, the irreducible minimum of convictions and beliefs that one must affirm in order to legitimately be a born-again believer.

Note: Those essentials of the faith, this irreducible minimum that I’ll outline, are typically the same beliefs that we call “Evangelical Theology.” So you could say that, generally speaking, Evangelical Theology is BUILT ON this original concept of orthodoxy—these primary beliefs I’ll list below.

* Neo-Orthodoxy is a WAY OF LOOKING AT THEOLOGY-- it's a type or view of theology. It could be compared to (a) evangelical theology and (b) process theology and (c) liberal theology and (d) so on. Neo-Orthodoxy is a view that drifted from the fundamentals of the faith (orthodoxy) and rejected some of those major views that comprised orthodoxy.

Orthodox means "right beliefs." The right beliefs that comprise orthodoxy are the same as essential, biblical conservative evangelical Christianity. They include:

• authority of God's Word (usually certain and specific views, be it inspiration, infallability, and/or inerrancy)
• virginal conception/virgin birth
• deity of Christ
  
• substitutionary atonement in Christ's blood/necessity of new birth for salvation
• literal physical resurrection of Christ
• holy trinity as Godhead

Well, neo-orthodoxy rejected at least the absolute authority of the Holy Bible as absolutely necessary. They rejected that former view of orthodoxy I just gave, and established a NEW ORTHODOXY-- a new set of standards about what comprised 'correct beliefs.' In other words, they changed the rules. They reinterpreted what 'truth' meant. They moved the goal lines. They decided they didn't like those essential rules, and changed the rules of belief. It's like going from a gold standard where a dollar EQUALS a dollar, to devaluing your money and a dollar being equal to only .29 cents, but still "calling it" a dollar, despite the inflationary value of the dollar bill.

So that's what lots of theologians at that time did. It originated in Europe, particularly Switzerland and Germany, if I’m not mistaken.

Europe was increasingly liberal. Many of the schools there had long before outright objected orthodox convictions and had gone WAY OUT, completely departing from anything even remotely similar to biblical beliefs. They were social Christians, called Christian as far as religion goes, but were not convictionally biblical in their teachings.

But this group of theologians who would become neo-orthodox didn’t want to go that far. In fact, they rejected the far-out liberal views. They wanted something in-between. Not too restrictive and fundamental, but not as far out as flat out liberalism.

So they knew they were drifting far from true biblical beliefs and true orthodoxy (the 5/6 fundamentals of the faith I described). So, instead of feeling that way, they decided as a collective group of theologians to begin thinking a different way. Those theologians who felt that way rejected orthodoxy, created new rules-- and Neo-Orthodoxy was established. And any person who used their basic beliefs AS THE STARTING POINT (OR THEIR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT GOD, TRUTH, THE BIBLE) OF DOING THEOLOGY (THINKING ABOUT GOD, LIFE, ETERNITY, THE BIBLE), WERE FROM THEN ON CALLED "Neo-Orthodox Theologians."

After a while, people who trained in Europe under those theologians naturally began to be swayed-- and they began to believe the same things. So Neo-Orthodoxy's influence spread.

People began, in lots of places, looking at the Bible differently. They began looking at “church” differently. They began thinking of Christianity differently. And these schools who were now teaching Theology and Bible from a Neo-Orthodox perspective, began to produce graduates who (naturally) came to accept much or all of what they were taught. This led to at least 3 big things.

1.Graduates from European Neo-Orthodox seminaries were hired by those faculties at the seminaries at which they studied. This ensured that neo-orthodox views would continue to be taught generation to generation.

Graduates with advanced degrees from European Neo-Orthodox seminaries were hired by faculties in the US and elsewhere—further establishing Neo-Orthodox views in other places. Since it is often considered avant garde in educational institutions to hire people with novel ideas and who were trained abroad—to broaden people’s perspectives and allow for liberal academic freedom, those graduates were/are hired in many schools.

3. The majority of graduates from schools with heavy percentages of Neo-Orthodox faculty tended to become neo-orthodox in perspective themselves, and assumed leadership positions in (a) churches who would accept those views or didn’t know any better and (b) in denominational agencies who hired them. Since denominational agencies seek people with advanced degrees, lots of neo-orthodox graduates were hired for leading roles in those denominations, which further pushed (over a period of time) those denominations in a certain theological direction—typically AWAY FROM biblical Christianity (orthodoxy) and TOWARD Neo-Orthodox views of theology (meaning, toward a new way of looking at orthodoxy—a new way of looking at spiritual things).

That is how neo-orthodoxy got so rooted into things.

So, what is Neo-Orthodoxy then?

Neo-Orthodoxy came primarily, originally, from the early 1900s from two main people—Karl Barth (pronounced with a silent “h” meaning pronounced “bart”) and Emil Brunner. These men wrote books about their views (the most well-known possibly being Barth’s Doctrine of the Word of God and Christian Dogmatics, among others. They attracted other minds, such as Soren Kierkegaard and Rudolph Bultmann, and Donald Bloesch and Bernard Ramm, etc.

Neo-Orthodoxy is complex, but these major points are important.

· God is enormously transcendent. Most Christians believe this concept—but Neo-Orthodox take it way farther. They view God as far, far, far beyond us or our ability to truly comprehend and know. This makes some of those groups sound like they are preaching a great and holy God, but one that is really, really distant from us and perhaps not as close and as intimate as we would like Him to be.

· Interesting Note: Some churches that tend to be more neo-orthodox tend to ‘feel’ less intimate in worship and in their approach to discipleship and knowing God intimately. (This includes SOME Reformed, Lutheran, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, etc. This would also include SOME, fewer groups like Methodism, Disciples/Christian Church, Episcopals, etc. Some of those latter groups I just mentioned ended up in full on Liberal Theology- and others ended up more Evangelical in theology.

· The big issue with Neo-Orthodoxy is their view of the Bible. This view is that, and I may be oversimplifying here—and I’m not an expert on this—but the gist of it is that there is the Word of God (the Bible) and the Revealed Word of God (the spirit-empowered essence of truth). And while I believe that the Holy Bible IS the Word of God as it is written in the Bible, they would believe that the words in the Bible are words… that BECOME the Word of God at certain times and in certain experiences when God speaks to us. In this way, a Neo-Orthodox wouldn’t completely focus on the Bible and its teachings, but may focus more on personal experience, and religious experience, and truth then isn’t just what is said by God in the Bible—but really, something we experience—and what we believe and what is true is more subjective and relative, and we may believe and experience something that is “truth for us” even if it contradicts specific teachings in the Bible—since “we are not under the law, but under grace” and so on.

That view of the Bible and truth and the Word of God changes everything about truth—and that opens the door to views and beliefs that are, well, unorthodox.

When You Feel Like Life's Beating You Down

Earlier today, a friend of mine told me that life was beating him down. He asked what I thought about it, and I wanted to share it with you.

When Life Beats You Down

When you feel this way, I suggest that you determine whether what is happening is (a) God (b) Satan or (c) a little of both- - and, hint, it's probably "c."

If God is doing it. First, if it's God that's doing it, then whatever pain you're going through is designed for your good and for your betterment. If God crushes us, it's not for our destruction, but to squeeze the bad stuff out-- those things that will drag us down and, ultimately, destroy us. Also, the crushing is allowed in order to build our character and to strengthen us for the opportunities ahead. The idea is that unless God replaces our "little boy" (or "little girl") with "manhood" (womanhood), then the weak little boy/girl inside of us will wimper and pout when tough times come-- and we won't be strong enough and MAN/WOMAN ENOUGH to do what He wants us to do.

So this is a necessary part of making us 100% man. As you know, lots of guys who are 20, 30, even 40-- are older, but they've never become men yet. So God places an opportunity before you. If we face it down, handle the pain and push through-- then we become all He's made us to be, and when the opportunities come-- we meet the challenge and capitalize and rock it. So, opportunity WILL COME- the question is, will be ready for it when it happens?

So work hard at eating these challenges and the pain, and use the pain as fuel and allow it to capitalize and strengthen your inner being. You're tough on the outside-- you can take tons of punishment. So IF God's doing it, then it's for your good.

If it's Satan doing it. You know, I've said many, many times to my wife Kristy that life tries to crush you in your late 20s and early 30s. God sometimes allows Satan to get to us-- and when he does, two things are going on. On God's side, it's to push out impurities and build strength. On Satan's side, it's intended to crush you.

Now, remember 1 Corinthians 10:13. I'd read that. Basically the point of it is that God promises never to let us face more than we can bear. So know that IF you have these problems you're facing-- then you already know that God has determined that you are strong enough to overcome it. But that doesn't mean you're necessarily going to win and learn all you should. God will let you make mistakes and fail sometimes, as you know. But Satan is given sometimes the opportunity to work you over.

Now, while God means it for good, Satan wants to spank you and to discourage you and to cause you to settle for second (um, third, even fourth) best. These are the years that many people get the beat down-- and if... IF-- watch that, "IF" you can push through the pain, the disappointment, the hurt, and the frustration... and IF you make the decision to stubbornly refuse to quit and decide to get up every time-- then the forces that want to force you to settle will ULTIMATELY submit. And sooner or later, you'll make it through the woods and out of the desert. And when you do, you'll have a type of unstoppablity that few experience.

Think of it this way-- where God wants to take you in life-- He knows you won't be able to get there and be successful unless He does this major work of maturing and strengthening you. I think most people settle or God doesn't even allow them to be tested in the ways others are tested.

So, it's all in how you approach it.

Eavesdropping in my Conversation with a Friend about the Canonization of Scripture, Part 1 of 2

Question Posed To Me By a Good Friend (that I thought I might make available to you)

I'd like you to shed some light on the idea of "Divine Inspiration" of the Holy Bible and the selection of the books we consider to be the "Word of God." Is there a theological concept of 'divine selection?' There are different 'canonizations' out there, like the Jewish Bible, the Deuterocanonical writings, and the various Vulgate versions (e.g., Jerome's, Gutenberg, Clementine, and the Nova Vulgate).


My Thoughts

Good questions.

I started to write a really long treatise on this, because it is so important and needs treatment on any number of levels to be an adequate answer.

What I then did was to locate this "summary article" that is written by one of the best thinkers in the world, one whom I respect and who taught at a school that I formerly attended. I'm going to give the link below, but will also give some other perspective, just so you can get a few specific tidbits about the specific questions you have. Still, this article is so outstanding, it will help you clarify these issues greatly, giving you lots of inner peace.

Beyond that, here are a few other tid bits.

The key to divine inspiration is that the Bible represents the only divinely authorized sacred text in existence. Meaning, this is God's self-disclosure and only authorized autobiographical/biographi

cal work in existence. But, as you've asked, beyond that-- how do we think about the selection of the books?

It's important to understand that the books "recognized" as authoritative and "scripture" were not haphazardly chosen, which is what some who wish to have unbounded moral freedom would have us believe. They believe that, if they cast doubt on the selection of books, then that jeopardizes the authorship and, hence, the authority of the Bible.

Essentially, it worked this way: The books were given by what conservative evangelicals and others call "Verbal Plenary Inspiration." This is one of about 7-9 views of inspiration. Those theories of inspiration range from viewing "inspiration" as being nothing more than a slightly heightened sense of awareness... to the human writers being nothing more than entranced copyists who fell into a divinely-induced trance. Serious Bible-Believing Scholars generally agree that the Bible was given by verbal-plenary inspiration, meaning that God gave the content of the book and, while allowing freedom to the author to express his or her general attitudes, personalities, emotions, and so on-- that God superintended the ULTIMATE PRODUCT so that (a) the writer was supernaturally enabled to ensure that the individual words chosen were in accordance with God intended and were free from error-- and (b) that the final autographs (the original book the writer completed) were wholly, as a complete document, free from error (inerrant). Then, Bible-believing scholars agree (and insist, due to specific passages of scripture such as 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:19-21) that though thousands of copies of those originals (autographs) were copied (viz., manuscripts), that the careful evaluation of those as a whole by qualified biblical scholars has given us a clear and still accurate understanding of exactly what God originally intended. This is a view called "preservation." We know from textual evidence (the 24000 partial, whole, and fragmental pieces of ancient manuscripts, including the 5200 or so complete ancient manuscripts), that even the copyists of those originals were in 96% agreement, with (a) the remaining 4% of differences being on non-essential and non-doctrinal issues (unspecific, minor words) and (b) that those 4% can be explained by obvious slips of the quill of the copyists, alternative spellings for words between different dialects of languages, and obsolete words that were replaced by future generations, and the like. ALL OF THAT TO SAY that we have solid certainty about the authority of the text in general.

Then, 5 tests (described in the document I sent-- I checked to make sure it was in there) were applied by the church and its global leadership to ensure that the books which were being evaluated for inclusion into the Holy Bible met each and every of these obvious and clearly biblical standards.

That said, though you are right in saying that there are some differences in opinion between Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Judaism today, it's more easily explained than it seems. But first note that, those branches of modern churches are not authoritative on these matters, because believers of the ancient Jewish faith before Christ and the Early Church, as a whole, established these facts about what was and wasn't scripture. More recent waffling on these issues doesn't change the global and collective agreement that stood for centuries. But the gist of it is this: Deuterocanonical works are just that-- deutero (secondary) canonical (standards). Meaning, they are "edifying reading" but not authoritative-- but still generally better than, say, a romance novel. So they have some historical or religious merit, but are not scripture. Think of them as ancient Christian novels or ancient Christian historical-narratives, with some bias and some potential errors (factual and/or theological), but still... somewhat valuable. Now, of course, we have newer reflections on things that exceed the value and accuracy of the deuterocanonical writings, so many of those newer writings are of greater insight, accuracy and worth than the DC writings-- hence, I study those more than I take time for DC books like Judith, Ecclesiasticus, etc. But those DC books were NEVER considered scripture, equal to the Bible. But because of Roman Catholic elevation of them and their relative value in the early centuries of the church, they were sometimes included as Christian writings after the biblical writings-- but never simply interspersed with the scriptures themselves.. They would appear in groupings, etc. Other words, such as the Pseudopigrapha in particular-- (pseudo/false pigraph/writings-- are known to be spurious, so they are even further out and less reliable than even the DC writings (apocrypha), so they hardly, if ever, appear beside scripture. These are books like the Gospel of Thomas (which wasn't)... that things like the DaVinci Code was based on, and so forth.

When scripture was established by the global community of faith-- there was nearly immediately universal agreement on the books of scripture. The Old Testament canon was established very early as it was being written (through the tests of canonicity) and the New Testament was as well. The only exceptions were very limited and regional differences among some smaller factions (such as a group that may have objected to including Esther because the name of God didn't technically appear), but those disagreements were dispensed with quickly and global consensus cleared up those matters. Only later, as less informed people and even unbelievers crept into churches and began to push the legitimacy of some books (e.g., such as today, where many Roman Catholics value certain DC books-- but aren't, themselves, even bonafide and legitimate believers who honor biblical teachings on what salvation and the church are, for example). So, yes, on the surface, this seems to have confused the issue-- but no Bible belieiving Christian who is abreast on the facts is confused by these things.

One other thing-- differences in things like the Vulgate, though I'm not an expert on it-- are due to a few things (a) the fact that the Vulgate represents a less technical and 'vulgar' or 'low brow, colloquial' type of language-- as opposed to the higher, technical language that would be more appropriate for theological language-- but less suited for a less-educated populus (think of how more accurate you could explain something with the complete English language versus explaining technical issues with only a 600 word vocabulary that is under the 7th grade reading level-- you get the idea); (b) as time went on and language changed-- as all living languages do, nuances and etymologies and meanings of some words changed, leading to variances of words between dialects, regions (just like Cuban Spanish and Mexican Spanish may differ), and so on-- so that affected how some words were understood and written; (c) finally, for the sake of time and brevity, different publishers and scholars had varying opinions and budgets to work from, and some we know chose to include footnotes in the text and explanatory notes, historical pieces that shed light on some texts, and other glosses as they may be called, and this led to the differences. Just as different writing styles and formatting approaches (like APA, MLA, and so on are used today here, and different ones may be used elsewhere in the world), different companies publishing Bibles with different scholars included different things.

Eavesdropping in my Conversation With a Friend About Canonization of Scripture (Part 2 of 2)

Follow Up Question (related to the last blog I wrote):

Are you saying that, as the books of the Bible were being written that they were becoming canonized (pronounced as Holy Writ and placed in the Bible as scripture)? That is to say, were we working with an open canon for quite some time, during both the Old and New Testament times?


Answer

It worked this way.

As the texts were being written... (around 1500BC-400BC for the Old Testament, and 40-100 AD for the New Testament), there were these general understandings that the People of Israel/Jews had about this literature they were exposed to, as there were with the New Testament writings (which, again, came MUCH closer together and were more widely circulated, because the Christian Church was geographically spread apart than Israel and Judah). So there were a 'little' differences between Jewish perspectives about authoritative tests and that of the Christian church, but that's too technical to really matter here.

So let's don't get tripped up on the word 'canonized.' That's showing a more Roman Catholic perspective, and we want to think in terms of the New Testament period and that of ancient Judaism, not to suspend a several-centuries later perspective on it.

So what happened was that the people of God were exposed to both false prophets and prophets/apostles of God throughout time. Some of them had writings that were ostensibly received from God. As the people of God heard or read these things, the Spirit of God bore witness in the hearts of people, along with the tests of canonicity-- general principles that were taken into consideration, that these were (or were not) the Word of God. (Keep in mind, when you read the Gospel of Mark, you don't have to be a theologian with a Ph.D. to know it is God speaking, if you follow me). But the people of God quickly and immediately identified certain books as scripture. And as they were being identified and written, more and more were accepted (and others were universally rejected, like the apocrypha and pseudopigrapha, etc.). And as this happened in real time, over centuries, as God dynamically gave His word and self-revelation to people, the 'canon' grew. When the Old Testament was completed in or around the 400s, it was already an established fact which books were official. Later on, like in the article below, because of some later challenges by smaller factions of people who probably weren't even true believers and the like, there were sometimes a need to 'reaffirm' or 'clarify' officially what was universally known, accepted, believed, and taught all along. So when groups like this met, they sometimes reminded people of what they believed and sometimes offered a statement publically to summarize their beliefs. So, like at Jamnia below, there were times when the "canon" was identified in writing and it became a part of the historical record we have. And that's fine and no problem.

The problem is that, because churches like Catholicism think that their church and their bishops speak for God in an official authoritative way-- in ways that go beyond scripture, I might add-- and when they do this, they make statements that make the untrained theological eye believe that they had the authority to make official pronouncements about canonizing scripture and establishing what scripture was, etc. While, in fact, that was already established by the people of God, universally, in the past. There was no need for any canonization because (and this is my central point), HUMANITY CANNOT 'CANONIZE' AND DICTATE WHAT GOD'S WORD IS OR WHAT THE BIBLE IS-- GOD DOES THAT. GOD DICTATES WHAT HIS WORD IS AND HE DETERMINES WHAT THE BIBLE BOOKS ARE... THEY DON'T NEED THE APPROVAL OF SOME CHURCH BODY LED BY IMPERFECT PRIESTS. The fact that they are from God is a self-justifying reality and they are easily identified as scripture, and it is God (not we) who establishes the canon. We only recognize and affirm what it is, we don't determine it. However, through discernment, we can compare other writings against the established canon, and through that, we speak to establish what ISN'T THE CANON. So the church's job is one of polemics and apologetics.

Polemics is when Christian leaders speak to the church and clear up confusion to people inside the church and call out on the carpet false teachers pushing false teachings and false books. Apologetics is when Christians defend the faith against unbelievers outside the church. I hope that makes sense.

So, like at Jamnia, the point wasn't to "try to figure out what books will be included in the Bible" but to come to consensus among those people (who didn't have universal authority in the church in the first place) regarding issues about certain scriptural questions they had. Just like today, if there was an issue we needed to really establish clarity on, we could call a church council to discuss and try to DISCOVER what God said about the matter-- and not to create a policy about it. God has spoken, and our job is to discover what He said and to then communicate that-- our job isn't to speak for Him by putting words in his mouth.

So canonicity was God's people agreeing publically and "for the record" stating the obvious and helping, once and for all, to promote ideas that were already widely understood and accepted-- and to clarify minor issues related to those topics as well.

Final point:

Because the Bible came to us not as one finished book, but as it was being revealed in real time in history by God at the appointed time-- it HAD to be 'open' during those days.

But, at the completion of Revelation, God made it clear there (in chapter 21 or 22) that it was the concluding authoritative book, and said so. This officially CLOSED the canon, so now we know that any and all books (form the pseudopigrapha to the Quran to others) that claim equal status to scripture are in error, because God made that clear. And that's why there has never been any serious challenge to what is authentic canon since that time. Only small factions of uninformed activists ever dream up these ideas, but the universal church speaks against those things and they never materalize, because it's clear to the church what is and what isn't scripture.

The Christian's Secret to Living With Abandon

This post is a follow up to a previous post. To locate that post, simply click the title "The Christian's Secret to Living With Abandon" above.


Only a few short months before the death of Dr. Jerry Falwell, founder of Thomas Road Baptist Church and my alma mater, Liberty University, the seminary at which I teach invited Dr. Falwell to our campus.

In the way that only he could, he unleashed a powerful torrent of ideas and perspectives in a packed house. Having been around him numerous times and, again on that day, being able to have a conversation with him, I was struck at the freedom of spirit he enjoyed-- and the unmistakable sense of liberty in his life... He truly lived with abandon.

You could imagine my shock as, only a few months later, the 74 year old leader was felled by a massive heart attack. In the days that passed, I was able to spend intimate time with some people who knew him much better than I-- people who were close personal friends with Falwell-- who traveled with him regularly and, the real test of closeness, had his personal home and cell phone number.

That's when I learned that Jerry had struggled with a long history of physical problems, particularly with the "granddaddy of them all," his heart. In fact, I learned that on perhaps two separate occasions, Falwell had been taken in and had emergency heart operations- and that, at least once, he had to be revived from death (that took place some two years before his final demise). Now, it's one thing to have a hang nail or some other minor health issue-- that's par for the course... But living with a condition of major heart disease is another.

That led me to wonder... "How can a man (person) facing such known physical threats like heart disease, not only function so powerfully in leading a movement and an empire of sorts-- but also, do it while living with such abandon, in the face of it all?


So I sought to discern how this principle worked, and now I want to share what I've learned. Now, I'm the first to say that there is more to be said and that I need to work on how to articulate some of these ideas, but I at least have enough understanding that I want to share what I've come to believe and understand, in hopes it can help someone.


How It Works for Christians

First, I strongly believe that being a devoted follower of Christ makes all the difference in this area. Note that I'm not talking about outwardly-pious religionists-- I'm talking about people who are normal, like you and me, but who happen to wrap their existence around the teachings of Jesus and seek to live consistently with what he said to do.

Why do I think it's different for these people? Predominately because they sense an absolute calm when it comes to the ultimate problem of death and destiny. Because they believe (know) that their eternity is covered, and that the "worse that can happen" is leaving an imperfect world in order to enter a perfect eternal existence-- that lowers the threat level of death immeasurably.

So, in that case, death is not something to be "avoided" per se-- even though it's not something to be 'pursued' either. It is what it is, it happens when it does, and though one might seek to take necessary precautions to avoid stupid (e.g., driving drunk on a motorcycle at 120 mph) or unwise (trying to break the world record for chain smoking) decisions that lead to what might be called a "premature death," otherwise, little concern or thought is given to death as an event.

The only exception might be allowing the sobriety of one's/another's death to raise one's awareness of the importance of living one's life wisely, since time is a gift that, once used, cannot be regained. So death teaches and reminds the devoted Christian believer of the importance of how time should be invested, but otherwise, it's essentially a non-issue.

Other Faiths and Their Solutions

One might ask, "Sure, but what about people of other religions? Isn't it the same with them?" No, not really. Christianity alone offers confidence towards death for the believer. Were Hinduism or Buddhism to be true, the only real 'hope' of those faiths is to re-enter a world of suffering (their words, not mine) and hope, ultimately, to be drawn into the ultimate reality of an impersonal force-- where one's identity and personhood is extinguished (Nirvana or Moksha). This is hardly any real hope, and there is no concept or assurance in those faiths as to if or when this might occur. Similar, but different concepts, are shared by different animistic religions around the world who hold to a "cyclical" view of reality-- unlike Christianity's linear view of truth and time.

One could refer then to Islam or even Judaism. But even in these, there is no sense of absolute certainty as to one's salvation. Though some overtones and similarities exist between Judaism and Christianity, Judaism has no sense of a system of teaching with regard to salvation in the way Christianity does. Their faith is based largely on their own efforts, hoping they are sufficient for making the cut. Islam is even less hopeful. They believe God is a sometimes-capricious deity who may or may not allow the faithful to join Him in His eternal abode.

All of that to say, the beliefs of these religious traditions offer no certainty to their adherents about the probability or certainty of security in eternal life-- and I believe the consciences of those religions' followers also bear witness of this uncertainty. They generally have a fear of death and, as a result, live with reticence. Frank discussions with people of these faiths about these issues easily prove my point.

Now, all of that could be perceived as amounting to 'religious pride' but anyone who knows me knows that's not where I am coming from. First of all, all persons have freedom to acknowledge any (or no) faith, and though I am concerned about those who live without a confident faith-- I am not responsible for their choice of a faith that doesn't provide any confidence or security about the afterlife. That's on them. My obligation is to communicate the truth of Christianity to them, in hopes they will be convinced and acknowledge for themselves what truth is-- and enter into the same peace and eternal security that I enjoy moment by moment.

But back to the main issue-- this idea of living with abandon.

The primary point I was making is that a main pre-condition of living with abandon in life is the undergirding confidence that one's afterlife is secure. That is one great piece of this puzzle. And without that piece in place (feeling secure about the life after this life), I believe that fear and uncertainty and insecurity and a sense of threat is inevitable to every person who seriously thinks about their mortality. What can I say?

What Else Is Required To Live With Abandon?

But then, one may say "I have known Christians who did not have this sense of living with abandon, and were uneasy about death." I have too. This includes people who were close to me-- and that's horrible. I regret and grieve over the fact that they felt insecure in an area that God never intended for them to feel insecure. However, it wasn't that this peace and security I've described were not available to them, but that they failed to understand and practice the other insights that I have gained in this search of mine.

Loving Obedience

I have also found that, when people are not walking (living) in intimate obedience to Christ trying to appropriate his teaching to their lives, they nearly always live fearfully. They live (ironically) in fear that includes feeling threatened in their relationship with God, as ironic as that may sound. But I've been there too, at times. What I mean is that, when people live in obedience to Christ, they know that life is completely in His hands and, because they are fully and completely trusting Him and living consistently in His principles, they do not live fearfully or threatened. But when people are resistant to fully trusting in Christ, because all things (including death) are subject to him, they begin to fear death and all manner of other maladies that could befall them.

Why? This is key. Because when people know they aren't intimate with God, living close to Him, they are naturally uncomfortable with where they stand with them. They know that they have betrayed themselves and violated their consciences. They know that they cannot be trusted-- and as such, they don't trust God, because they know that whatever may come-- their lack of obedience makes them unguarded and the fear of getting what they deserve, and enduring it without the sweet confidence of God's soothing presence and intimacy is too much to bear... So they are naturally afraid. Who wouldn't be? Again, I've been there-- but understanding this is keeping me from going back.

Let me try to wrap this up...


Surrendered Submission

When a person lives in surrendered submission to God, they learn to live with fearless abandon. Fully and cheerfully submitting to the sovereign and benevolent God... regardless of what befalls them. That's because they know that regardless of what befalls them, since He commands and controls every detail of their lives, and (whether directly or indirectly) that nothing can happen outside His ultimate permittance.

And even though people can appear to be carefree, deep within there must be a sense of reservation and uncertainty. We can either try to live in avoidance of our Inner Voice and coax a superficial confidence, but that doesn't protect our hearts and minds from the unguarded moment when our hearts are prone to fear.

On Government and Politics

The Direction of Our Country

After a serious conversation with some friends earlier this evening about national and world events, I became even more convinced than ever about the fact that America is in clear and present danger.

Government=the People

Part of the reason our country in in turmoil is because of the condition of our government. But then, the government is essentially nothing more than a microcosm of society at large. Meaning-- one cannot separate a government from its people... In the United States, the government IS the people-- it is "of" the people and "by" the people. (Whether or not it is "for" the people is another question).

Government and Politics Explained

Government is essentially which particular system (controlling political theory and people) rules and exercises control over the people, territories, and structures (businesses, organizations, etc.) in its purview. Politics are the specific political theory a group has ABOUT government-- and the actions those people take to make their views and positions the law of the land or the primary controlling perspective. Different nations have different political systems and, in America, we have a democracy.

People sometimes rail on Democracy, because (in a democracy) one party rules over all others. Of course, the alternative is a Monarchy (where one FAMILY rules over all others), or a Dictatorship (where one PERSON rules over all others), or an Oligarchy (where on GROUP rules over all others, like a tiny communist party or a powerful band of government thugs)-- so, I'll stick with a Democracy, thank you very much.

But every human government is flawed, because every human is flawed. Even so, just because no human government is morally perfect does not mean that one political philosophy is not better than all others. That's why, in spite of its limitations, I prefer and believe that Democracy is the greatest political system on earth. In a pluralistic society, people are allowed the freedom to believe what they want, but government is still designed to protect the rights of the minority population and protect the general public as well. This is done by (a) ensuring that laws are morally and ethically sound, and (b) by government punishing those who break the law and by government also upholding the law.

Understanding How Democracy Works: The Representative Form of Government

In a democracy, since free voting elects representatives, by the very act of choosing elected officials, those who hold office are "representative" of the people who elected them. In other words, the people, character, decisions, and values seen in our communities' and nation's government are nothing more than a representative sample of the voting population. Think about that, if you want to see what America is made of.

So, when America votes a candidate or political party "in" or "out" of office, that represents the collective opinion of the nation's voting public (we, the people) concerning our values, ethics, opinions, perspectives, mores, and convictions about life. As such, the person who is elected assumes that, since he or she has been elected, he may freely vote or promote his views within the area of government to which he is assigned. And we live with the consequences.

Ironically, we often don't like the consequences of the decisions of elected officials who hold office. This leads me to a few observations: (1) The problem could simply be that we didn't vote in the first place and our lack of exercising the right to vote led to the lack of a voice in the selection of who would lead our government, rendering us powerless in the political process (and partially to blame through our apathy about voting in the first place), OR (2) We voted but our candidate lost-- which would reveal the need for greater involvement and effort to get the candidate of our choice elected, OR (3) We elected who we wanted-- and that person had similar values to us-- but the decisions they made (which were the same we would have made) had unexpected and unintended consequences... which may cause us to reconsider our political views and vote differently in the future.

Political Parties and What They Mean

People who vote do so according to "Party Affiliation" (Green, Independent, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc.) AND/OR according to personal values or convictions. It's funny that even "Independents" who want to be known for being "independent" are themselves even represented by a party-- the irony.

And what is a Political Party? A "party" is a body politic that represents a core constituency (a group of people) who hold similar views about a number of issues that influence politics. Each party identifies with certain views on issues-- and these party views are called "planks." Each political party (and candidate) has a number of "planks" or positions on specific issues. That said, being a member of a political party does not mean a person agrees with every major position of that party... it just means that, for the most important positions for that person, a specific party seeks to advance their perspective in society.

So, for example, a person who is a pacifist or a pro-choice or for capital punishment would typically vote with the political party that is most likely to push that agenda through the various parts of government, in order to enforce that particular value. So, contrary to popular opinion that holds that 'you can't legislate morality,' the truth is that ALL LEGISLATION is seeking to legislate morality-- that's the WHOLE POINT OF POLITICS--- to advance and codify and to enforce a certain set of values and behaviors... and to make illegal and punishable doing otherwise. Think about it!

But I regress...

The main point I am making is that America's representative government is a mirror of who and what the voting American public is. Those who don't/didn't vote voluntarily choose to have no voice about what their government does and how they will be governed--- they are at the mercy of others' whims.

People Choosing Who Govern Us Are Often Ignorant of What Government and Politics Are (**and what government is supposed to do**)

The frightening thing I realized through some close listening and thinking I've been doing lately, however, is that the direction of our nation is being dictated by people (voters) who may or may not even understand what government and politics are "about" in the first place. Especially critical regarding this situation is that I fear (as a Christian) that many Christians are ignorant of this as well. As a result, Christians may be complicit in allowing our nation to move in the wrong direction (farther from God and away from the best solutions for a better society) because of this ignorance.


One may ask, "Why is having an understanding of Government and Politics important" Well, simply because if one doesn't understand the nature of government/politics, then he will not understand what government is SUPPOSED TO "DO." And getting that wrong can cause us to (unwittingly) allow our nation and communities in exactly the WRONG direction.

So what? Well, when our nation moves in the wrong direction, it negatively affects everything that government touches, which is, well, EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. Does that make sense?

So, government is important because it has a daily impact on us in areas like: schooling, punishment, zoning laws for businesses and establishments, health and fairness regulations, taxes, government policies, entitlement programs, and the list goes on.

That's why we should understand the role of government and politics. To be ignorant or apathetic affects YOU, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR COMMUNITY, YOUR MONEY, YOUR SAFETY, YOUR SECURITY, YOUR WELL-BEING, YOUR HEALTH, AND EVERYTHING ELSE YOU CAN IMAGINE.


The Moral of the Story

I believe that America's primary problem is related to people's relationship to God, collectively. But, because America is a nation and since nations are governed by political processes and political groups, that implies that the nation COULD BE BETTER OFF if we paid more attention to the political process and put our brightest and best people in office. But the central key to this helping us get out of the situation we are in as a nation, is partially related to American's understanding what politics are, how they work, and what should govern how we vote and who we choose for elected office.


I hope to address that point in a future post-- perhaps my next one.