Monday, 08 June 2009

• YOU'RE GAY?....PART II

   

   

  DOGMATIC:

   What To Be In The Face of Bad Theology.

   

  

    dog⋅mat⋅ic /dɔgˈmætɪk, dɒg-/  [dawg-mat-ik, dog-] 

  –adjective

  1.	of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas; doctrinal.

  2.	asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated.

   

  During a conversation on another person's site 'dogmatism', became a defining word for the conversation. 

   

  "I'm arguing that people who are absolutely sure that they are correct in their interpretation of the bible need to take a humility pill and realize that while strict dogmatism seems to be a tradition of the church, the doctrines themselves have not been as unchangeable as people like to believe."

   

  Here's the thing, I agree with this statement, and it's basic premise.  What I do not agree with is the application of this in the way that the author uses it.   That the Bible may be interpreted many different ways is not a good or reasonable argument for us to interpret the Bible as we like.   The Bible says of itself that it is "God's word; is God breathed."   If the Bible is God's word then the mandate is not to find as many interpretations as possible, but to find what the Bible says for itself.  To understand Scripture one must do a hermeneutically sound exegesis:  Translation: follow sound rules and methodology when studying a text from another time and culture.  

   

  There are more places in the Bible, where the Bible clearly speaks to a moral matter, than places in the Bible which are questionable, and open to interpretation.  "Thou shalt not commit adultery."   Interpretation:  "Don't have sexual relations with anyone other than the person you are married to."   Later, Jesus clarifies the interpretation of this commandment. 

   

   "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

  Matthew5:27-28

   

  Jesus was correcting some bad theology which had been imposed on God's commandment.  Christ's interpretation is in keeping with another commandment. 

  ^"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s."

  Exodus 20:17

   

  Jesus does show us something about God's word:  Context is an important part of Biblical interpretation.  Also the Bible's message is moderated internally.  In most cases a difficult to understand portion of Scripture is cleared up, by what another portion of Scripture teaches. 

   

  In Genesis God tells Abraham to take his only son Isaac to a place God shows him, and to sacrifice Isaac.   This is an incredibly difficult portion of Scripture to understand, taken by itself.    In context, God is telling Abraham to commit an act God absolutely condemns; child sacrifice to a god.  The most logical, reasonable interpretation is that God is a hypocrite.   

   

  In order to get the fullest understanding you'll need to read the story to it's completion.   When Abraham goes to kill his son, God stops him, and provides a substitution for Issac.   It is a powerful picture of what God Himself will do when He sacrifices His own Son Jesus, on a Roman cross.   Jesus speaks of this in John 8:56  "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad."   Jesus confirms that what God intended to show Abraham was Jesus and what God would accomplish through Him.   If we want to fully appreciate what God says, we need to understand what God says within the context of  the entire Bible.   

   

  That people have come up with many ways of interpreting the Bible is a lousy reason to accept those interpretations.   Fred Phelps interprets the Bible and the God of the Bible as hateful and cruel.  Do we accept his bad theology, because the Bible can be made to say what Fred Phelps makes it say?  Even Christ's Apostles had to deal with the very bad theology of those who wanted to enforce a meaning on Scripture it did not inherently have.  Paul says of "judaizers" that he wished they'd go beyond circumcision and emasculate themselves.  Should we take from this that bad teaching is a serious matter??   There was lots of bad theology going around the early church.   There is still lots of bad theology going around the church today.

   

  Christians are warned to stand against those who misuse and misinterpret the Bible.   Being dogmatic when dogmatism is called for, is not prideful or mean.  1 Timothy 1:8-11 is one of the places in Scripture where we are warned not to give into those who misuse and misinterpret Scripture. 

   

  "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane,for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted."

   

  Notice the first line, the one I've put in bold type.   This is the exact reason I'm writing this series of posts, offering gay people a way to defend themselves Biblically.   Those who use the Bible to condemn gay people do not use the law of God lawfully.   Using the Law to condemn people is horrible theology, which is just as bad as Gay Theology, Word of Faith Theology, Process Theology, Feminist Theology, and etc.   The power of God to overcome bad theology, sin, and the wisdom of the world has never changed.   God is not a hypocrite, and the Church cannot continue to make God appear to be a hypocrite.   God has created and calls the Church to serve His purposes.   We do not allow any and every interpretation to sway us, because we fear and respect God.  We serve God's purposes, and those of His Bible.    

   

  There is a very good rule all of us in the Church should follow when dealing with believers from different traditions.  

   

  In essential matters, unity; in non-essential matters, freedom; in all things, love."

   

  That's my paraphrase of course, but it's the right message. 

   

  When dealing with those who interpret the Scriptures, in ways, which are not in keeping with what the Bible clearly teaches,  we should be loving, but dogmatic.   Any who disagree with sound Biblical exegesis should be encouraged to do hermeneutically sound exegesis.   

   

   

   

  This was not my intended second part, but 'dogmatism' needed to be addressed in the context of this series.   But even when we hold to a strict understanding of what the Bible says about homosexuality, that is not a reason to misuse the Scriptures in an unlawful way.   

   

         

    Let me make something absolutely clear:

   

  I want to right a wrong with this series of posts.  The Christian/religious person who uses the Law to condemn is using the word of God unlawfully.  I wish someone had taught me how to confront the lawless Christian when I self-identified as gay.   The only real way to deal with the lawless Christian is to understand how they are being lawless.  Any attempt to appeal to gay theology will simply fail.   The Bible is the Christians home turf.   Changing or interpreting the Bible incorrectly is powerless and pointless during confrontation.   The LGBT person must learn to argue from what the Bible teaches is the unlawful use of the law.  

   

  PLEASE NOTE: WHAT I AM NOT SAYING TO LGBT PERSONS:

   

  I am not saying that LGBT persons must believe the arguments themselves.  You don't have to believe the Bible at all to make these arguments.  The point is; Bible centric Christians do believe the Bible.   The LGBT person may believe anything they like.  

   

   

  NEXT POST, IN THE SERIES:

   

   Christian Argument #2,  Romans 1: 18-32.       

   

   

   

   

  • 4:04 PM
  • 22 Views
  • 2 eProps
  • 1 Comment