Tuesday, November 13, 2012

A Post-Election Day Word from Philippians

I think I should say it up front so that there's no confusion. I'm not really upset that Mitt Romney wasn't elected president. He is a mediocre candidate on his best day. But that's not the same thing as being unhappy that Barack Obama was re-elected president.

Let me clarify that: I'm not changing my tune or stepping back my opinion of Romney. This is not sour grapes. I did try to encourage people to vote for Romney. I still have a Romney/Ryan sticker affixed to the bumper of my car - at least until it gets covered by a Los Angeles Angels sticker in a few months.

But despite that, I've never been a major fan of Romney, in particular. If you read my last post on the election that I wrote prior to election day, I think you will find that I'm something less than effusive about Governor Romney - my primary concern was over the issues involved: abortion, gay marriage, etc. For what it's worth, I wasn't all that crazy about any of the other GOP candidates either. Most of them were (and are) self-absorbed egotists.

Ron Paul, when he was talking about foreign affairs, sounded senile. Rick Santorum always struck me as very angry during all the debates, as though he were the only solid conservative running. Herman Cain may have been unfaithful to his wife multiple times (alleged during the campaign until he bowed out). Gary Johnson was apparently a libertarian masquerading as a Republican, while Jon Huntsman was clearly a Democrat-leaning Moderate. Rick Perry, although my favorite of the bunch, seemed to struggle at times to even form sentences coherently, although rumor has it that recent surgery was the culprit. Newt Gingrich brought along so much baggage, both personally and professionally, that's it is doubtful he would have even gotten close to the electoral or popular vote total Romney got. Michelle Bachmann, while more conservative than most of them, had the typical personality of a woman in politics, which put her at about the bottom of my list (You can call me a Chauvinist if you care to, I prefer the term Biblical-realist). And that's just skimming the surface. The simple fact is that all these candidates were terribly flawed.

Romney himself, of course, was a pandering moderate. He shifted more conservative or liberal, depending on who he was addressing.

So why was I pushing his election? Don't I care about principle? Principle is great and all, but the United States is not the church, and the constitution ain't the Bible. If I was considering who I'd want as the pastor of my church, I think that is something you take a lot more care on. But I think far too many Christians misunderstand most of the laws of the Old Testament and their purpose in the Bible's narrative.

My disappointment in the election is for a couple of reasons.

 - First, the consequence of re-electing Barack Obama is that the pro-life agenda is losing ground and more innocent infants will die. Not only because he will support the most liberal legislation on the issue of abortion, but also because he will appoint judges who agree with him - judges who are not elected to term and will be in office until they resign or die.

 - Second, we see in President Obama's re-election a worsening symptom of our country's condition regarding biblical morality. And I don't mean simply where our country stands on so-called gay marriage. Whenever a country becomes so perverse as to support such legislation, it means that it has already moved beyond acceptance and approval of other levels of sexual immorality.

 - Third, I'm an American, humanly speaking. I love my country. It makes me sad to see it going into the dump even more quickly than I imagined it would.

However, as a Christian, while I can't say I always 'feel' this way, in my heart I 'know' that regardless of what happens to my country, it is of minor importance in the grand scheme of things. I mean, I haven't lost my salvation. God is still ruling over all creation, and will for all eternity. Their are still millions in need of salvation in our country (and no doubt millions more who think they're saved and are not).

Why do I say it is of minor importance from a Christian standpoint? I compare it to the argument that Paul made in Philippians 4. His point is not an equal situation to ours, but the point, I believe, still holds.

"10 I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. 11 Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. 12 I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. 13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me. 14 Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. 15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. 16 Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again. 17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit."
(Philippians 4:10-17, ESV).

Paul rejoiced because of their concern for him (manifested in the gift of support that they sent to him) (v.10), not because he needed the gift (v.11), because God always took care of him, whether in times of abundance or in need (v.11-13). He rejoices, rather, for their sake, because their generosity to him is a demonstration that God is bearing fruits of righteousness in them (v.14-17).

In the same way, my sorrow is for America. The election results point to how far gone our nation is. In a elected-representive form of government, the government reflects the people of the country. What we see in this election is that Americans are bearing bad fruit.

While certainly, if the country continues downhill and the church goes through the fire of persecution, obviously it will be harder for us, but Paul's point is that God takes care of us in any situation. My sorrow is over the lives that will be lost, and the judgment that our nation is storing up for itself in the day of Christ.

In regards to believers, this election reminds us that most of our nation is lost in sin. It should motivate us to share the Gospel with the lost, spreading the news of our Savior's love even in our own area that we live in.

36 When [Jesus] saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. 37 Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; 38 therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”
(Matthew 9:36-38, ESV).
"18 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself."
(Philippians 3:18-21, ESV).

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Right? - Dr. James Borror article

Today, Dad brought home an old paper he had found at church by Dr. Borror entitled,

How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Right?

I'd like to copy that down here. It contains invaluable principles for dealing with how to understand Scripture (particularly difficult passages).



"How many times have you heard the old saw, 'Well, that's just your interpretation?' Too many times I would guess. Is there some way to verify whether an interpretation is what the author meant? Here are some guidelines to help.

          Question to Ask:

1. Does it fit the context? Context is the most important rule of interpretation. Always check the context of the passage, book, and writer.

2. Does it square with grammar, esp. the original languages? Good interpretation emphasizes the parts of speech that the writer does, and relates conjunctions, adverbs, and adjectives as they should be.

3. Does it square with the culture? What were 'upper rooms' in the time of Christ? How was water purified (John 2:6)? What did it mean to 'break bread'? A study of Egyptology makes the story of Joseph come to life.

4. Does it square with history? Archaeology, and extra-Biblical writings help us know the history of the time.

5. Does it follow the conventions of  the genre? Poetry, proverbs, narrative, prophecy, and parables all have distinct and different rules of thought.

6. Does it contradict the 'analogy of faith'? If an interpretation contradicts a doctrine accepted as historic Christianity, it is suspect.

7. Does it contradict experience? This is not as important as the text but is a factor to be dealt with. E.g. both Scripture and experience teaches that we do not come to a point in this life where we do not sin.

8. Does it fit with parallel passages? Scripture is its own best interpreter.

9. Does it fit with the best of modern science? We need to be careful here, as science changes, but if an interpretation contradicts a clear, recognized principle of science, it should be questioned.

10. Is it 'what has always been believed everywhere, always, and by all?' This is a Roman Catholic principle but is one that protestant Christians can use in a less than literal sense.

11. Is it Christological? All Scripture revolves around the Savior. Any view that denigrates Christ is wrong.

12. Is it coherent and makes sense?

13. Does the interpretation have a 'sense of spiritual rightness?' we should follow our spiritual instincts until proven wrong from the text.

14. Does it square with the discerning community of believers? (See Praxis 3)

15. Does it stand when tested cross-culturally? The wealth and welfare theology should see if it resonates in Bangladesh.

16. What practices does it legitimize? Polygamists often use their interpretation of Scripture to justify their actions.

17. Who benefits from it (Does it serve the interests of the powerful?) Slave owners in the early days of our country interpreted certain verses to justify their slavery.

          PRAXIS

1. Focus: on the original author and the text. Watch for interpretive abuse: (a) allegorizing or spiritualizing tests and (b) 'reader response' interpretation (what-it-means-to-me).

2. Look for these five areas that provide at least limited verification: 1. Historical setting. 2. Literary context. 3. Grammatical structures (syntax). 4. Contemporary word usage. 5. Relevant parallel passages. 6. Genre.

3. Look for the clearest teaching passage on your subject using: a) 'systematic theology' books; b) reference Bibles; c) concordances; d) study Bibles; e) Bible encyclopedias, handbooks and dictionaries; f) Bible introductions; g) Bible commentaries (at this point in your study, allow the believing community, past and present, to aid and correct your personal study.)

4. Look for a possible paradoxical pair within your subject. Many interpretive conflicts come from proof-texting half of a biblical tension. All of the Bible is inspired, and we must seek out its complete message in order to provide a Scriptural balance to our interpretation.

5. Look for parallels within the same book, same author or same genre.

6. Check that your interpretation does not contain a logical flaw.

7. Do not argue from silence.

8. Do not allegorize the text.

9. Distinguish between interpretation and application.

10. Do not engage in faulty 'proof-texting.'

'In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity.' - Augustine"