Dear Anonymous

A BELATED REPLY TO MY FIRST NEGATIVE COMMENTER

When I started this blog I decided that I would post any and all comments, whether they sided with me or not, as long as they were stated respectfully. Personal attacks, bad language or name-calling are not allowed, but pretty much anything else goes. I also decided that I would not reply to every comment that I received. I did not want to get caught up in a back-and-forth of endless argumentation that would consume my time and energy and deflect the planned trajectory of this blog. So when this post received my first negative comment, I posted it, but said nothing in reply. I would like to revisit it now. It may be a bit after the fact, but my anonymous commenter made some points that I feel I should have addressed. Let me quote the comment in full:

Anonymous said...

Yet, in our current society there is a "cultural conditioning" to view incest as unacceptable. Should we learn to understand this differently as well?

Concerning judging, there are numerous examples throughout Scripture showing God's clear judgment against homosexual *behavior* (while still loving of those with same-sex attraction difficulties). The ELCA, however, views its own politically-correct interpretations of Scripture as higher authority than the Scriptures themselves-and therein lies the problem.

Dear Anonymous,

Thank you for your comment. It is nice to know that someone is reading my work.

I think that you invoke a variation on the Slippery Slope argument. If we allow for gay marriage or homosexual clergy, what is to prevent us from approving of incest? (Some of the more histrionic versions of this argument suggest that the Churchwide Assembly Decisions will open the floodgates to pedophilia and bestiality). There is no reason to think that allowing for consensual same-sex relations will lead to any of these things.

I have actually encountered arguments favoring ethical, consensual incest. I disagree with them for three reasons. First, is the genetic danger of inbreeding. Second, and more important, is my experience working as chaplain to a home for troubled children. Many of the young people I met there had been sexually abused by members of their own families. While ethical, consensual incestuous relationships may exist in theory, in the real world I have only encountered examples of abusive, coercive incest. Third, an important function of marriage is establishing a legal family relationship for the purposes of inheritance, property rights, etc. In the case of blood relations, this already exists.

As for the “numerous examples” of God’s judgment on homosexual behavior in Scripture, there are, in fact, five passages that deal with the subject. I have treated all of them in various posts.

Finally, as regards the ELCA’s “politically-correct” interpretation of Scripture, I would point out that everyone who reads the Bible interprets it. Even the most abject literalism is a form of interpretation. What you call “the Scriptures themselves” is, in fact, your interpretation of the Scriptures. As I have tried to establish by blogging here, the ELCA reads Scripture according to sound Lutheran principles. Understanding the Bible as not only God’s word, but also the product of a particular culture and time, we are not bound to perpetuate homophobic interpretations today. Sometimes, dear Anonymous, political correctness is political, but sometimes it is correct.

God bless you,

Brant

Worth Reading

Back on January 28, Obie Holmen blogged on the question "Is Lutheran CORE Fundamentalist?" He does a nice job of refuting CORE's attitude toward the Bible. Click here to read about it.

Hesitant? Here is a teaser:

There are smart and educated persons in CORE, and they ought to know better than to spout such unscholarly and fossilized views of the canon coupled with accusations that the rest of us are unbiblical. It is not that we don’t take the Bible seriously, as CORE alleges, it is that we take it too seriously to avoid challenging questions informed by reason, experience, and the lessons of scholarship, both traditional and modern.

The Bible Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

At Synod Assembly last June the proposed Social Statement on Human Sexuality and the recommendations concerning ordained ministry were discussed. I am happy to say that, though the issues are contentious and feelings run high, the discussions were conducted with civility and charity.

During a break from the Assembly, I had a private conversation with a friend and colleague who holds a PhD in New Testament. I will not name him in case I quote him incorrectly. What I heard him say was, “The Bible doesn’t say what you think it does about homosexuality. No matter what side of the debate you’re on, the Bible doesn’t say what you think.” I believe my friend was right.

Arguably the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. If we understand homosexuality to be a sexual orientation, the concept did not even exist until the nineteenth century. Nor does the Bible speak to the subject of life-long, committed, covenanted same-sex unions, another concept that did not exist in Bible times.

What the Bible does address is certain homosexual behaviors. The five passages that speak to the subject are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. I specifically omit the story of Sodom (Genesis 19) from this list as it deals with rape and not consensual sex. In each of the five passages listed the described behavior is judged negatively. In the next few posts I will examine each of the five passages. As I look at the Bible’s statements on homosexual behavior, I want to keep these questions in mind:

Do these Scriptures make a universal condemnation of all homosexual behavior?

Do the ancient condemnations still apply in the light of what we now know about homosexuality?

Do the Scriptures view homosexuality, or homosexual behavior, as “inherently sinful?”







There are more than 300 passages of Scripture that address our need to care for the poor. I'm only saying....

Homosexuality

THAT'S RIGHT. I SAID THE H-WORD.

Issues surrounding homosexuality are hot-button topics in both the Church and society today. My beloved Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is currently dealing with the aftermath of a Churchwide Assembly that approved ordination for qualified individuals living in committed same-sex relationships. Some ELCA members find this intolerable and are leaving our church body. They say that the ELCA is going against both Scripture and tradition, that is, the Special Revelation.

It is true that the Christian Church has no tradition for same-sex marriage. It is also true that the Bible, in the five instances where it addresses homosexual behavior, is negative.

But, the best empirical evidence—reason and experience, that is, the General Revelation—has given us a new understanding of homosexuality. We have learned that same sex attraction is neither an illness nor a willful perversion. It is, rather, an innate orientation. Very simply, some people are born gay. In theological terms, God made them that way.

The examples of Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin teach us that the Church gives privilege to the Special Revelation over the General Revelation at its own peril. Mistaking the content of the Special Revelation for the content of the General Revelation not only embarrasses the Church but also puts it at risk of denying the Truth.

I would suggest that, in light of our current best knowledge concerning homosexuality, the questions facing the Church are whether and how persons of homosexual orientation can ethically express their sexuality.

In the next several posts, I intend to examine some of the issues concerning homosexuality, beginning with an understanding of what the Bible says.

How to Read the Bible Like a Lutheran. Part 5

SOLA SCRIPTURA

“Sola Gratia. Sola Fide. Sola Scriptura” (Latin for “Grace Alone. Faith Alone. Scripture Alone”) was the great motto of the Lutheran Reformation in the sixteenth century. The first two of these “three solas” are taken from Ephesians 2:8–9

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast.” (New Revised Standard Version)

Martin Luther set the course for Lutheran Christianity with his absolute commitment to the principle that we are made right with God only by grace through faith. Nothing else can save us. Nothing else is necessary.

The third sola—Sola Scriptura—signified that the Bible contains all that is necessary for the knowledge of salvation. Luther made the Bible the sole “source and norm” of Christian doctrine. That is, the Church’s teaching must be derived from the Bible. And every teaching of the Church must be compared to the Bible to determine its truth.

The principle of Sola Scriptura served a very practical purpose in the Reformation. It gave Luther a way out from under the authority of the Pope. It remains a valuable tool for Christians concerned about the things that are taught in the name of Christ.

From all of this it should be pretty clear that Lutherans hold the Bible in high regard. We read the Bible as the written word of God, both Law and Gospel, revealing Jesus to us. We understand the Bible according to its plain sense and allow the clear teachings of Scripture to illumine the difficult passages. We look to the Bible as the source of our teaching, and we compare our teachings against the Bible.

Because we hold the Bible in such high regard, I would suggest that we should we should use every tool available to understand the Scriptures.

We should also be very careful not to misuse the Bible.

How to Read the Bible Like a Lutheran. Part 4

THE SCRIPTURE PRINCIPLE

So, here we are, reading the Bible like Lutherans. We expect to hear God’s word. We are prepared to encounter Jesus. We are keeping the distinction of Law and Gospel firmly in mind. We are reading the text for its plain meaning, and suddenly we hit a speed bump.

The meaning of the text sometimes is just not that plain.

It is for cases like this that Martin Luther formulated the Scripture Principle. In brief, the Scripture Principle means that when a passage of Scripture is difficult to understand, contradictory or confusing, we interpret it in the light of those parts of Scripture that are clear. Sometimes the Scripture Principle is stated thus: “Scripture interprets Scripture.”

Now many Christians proclaim the Scripture Principle but have gone beyond what Luther meant. For some Christians the idea that Scripture interprets Scripture is used to build elaborate schemes of interpretation that gloss over the differences between books of the Bible. Some have used the Scripture Principle to construct minutely detailed timetables for the end of the ages which are far from the original meaning of the texts.

What Luther had in mind was more along the lines of attending to the grand themes of Scripture. For Luther, the Scripture Principle meant that when we encounter a troubling verse like Psalm 137:9 “Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!” we should read it over and against Jesus' words in Matthew 5:44 “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Martin Luther was well aware of the inconsistencies in the Bible. Biblical authors do not always agree with one another. He also knew that there are some harsh passages in Scripture. Using the Scripture Principle, Lutherans are able to understand these difficult passages in the broader scope of God’s word.




Next time: Sola Scriptura.

How to Read the Bible Like a Lutheran. Part 3

THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE

In Martin Luther’s day Scholastic theologians had devised some pretty fanciful, allegorical ways to interpret the Scripture. They sought to tease hidden meanings out of the text. Luther insisted that, for the Bible to be understood correctly, it should be read according to its plain meaning. The Bible says what it means and means what it says.

I think that when Luther spoke of the “plain sense” of Scripture, he meant that the Bible should be understood as any reasonably intelligent sixteenth century German peasant would understand it. That is just a little problematic. I would argue instead that the plain meaning of a biblical text is the meaning that its original audience would have understood. The Bible, after all, cannot mean what it never meant. For this reason it is important for those who wish to understand the Bible to use every tool at their disposal to understand the times and cultures in which the Scriptures were written.

I would also point out that the Bible contains many different kinds of literature. There are letters, songs, apocalypses, parables, prophetic oracles, and even short novels. The reader should keep the type of literature they are reading in mind as this affects the plain meaning of the text. The plain meaning of a poem is poetic. The plain meaning of a parable is parabolic. The plain meaning of an apocalypse is apocalyptic.

You get the idea.





To sum up: Lutherans read the Bible as the word of God. We meet Jesus in the Scriptures. The Bible is both Law and Gospel, and the two should not be confused. Lutherans believe that the Bible is best interpreted by its plain sense, the sense that its original readers would have understood.

Next time: Scripture interprets Scripture.

How to Read the Bible Like a Lutheran. Part 2

LAW AND GOSPEL

For part one of this series, see the previous post below.


On Tuesday mornings, I study the Scripture readings assigned for the next Sunday with a group of pastors. All but one of us are Lutherans. The remaining member of our group is a pastor of the United Methodist Church. She finds it funny—both odd and amusing—that we Lutherans make such a big distinction between Law and Gospel. We can’t help it. We got it from Martin Luther.

Luther taught us that the word of God is both Law and Gospel and that these two categories should not be confused.

The Law is all of the musts and shalts and shalt-nots. It’s all of the demands and commands and precepts that God lays upon us. The Law serves two purposes. One: it gives order to our life together. Two: because we cannot live up to all of the Law’s demands, it convicts us of our sinfulness and drives us to seek God’s mercy.

The Gospel is the good news that, for Jesus’ sake, God forgives our sins and reconciles us to himself.

Law and Gospel are the bad cop and good cop of Scripture. The Law kills. The Gospel makes alive. The Law convicts. The Gospel justifies. The Law is bad news. The Gospel is good news.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the Law is the Old Testament and the Gospel is the New Testament. Both Law and Gospel are found throughout all of Scripture. There is Law in the New Testament, and Gospel in the Old.

Sometimes the same passage of Scripture may be Law or Gospel depending upon who hears it, or even when they hear it. For example, Mary’s words in Luke 1:53, God, “has filled the hungry with good things, but has sent the rich away empty” is Gospel to the hungry and Law to the rich.

The reason that Lutherans are so adamant that the Law and Gospel must not be confused is because we, along with Luther and the Apostle Paul, believe that we are made right with God by grace, through faith, apart from works of the Law. Our salvation is God’s doing, and only God’s doing. When Law and Gospel are confused, we are given the mistaken idea that we can, in some way, save ourselves.

A friend of mine says, “If it doesn’t sound like good news, it’s not the Gospel.”





To review: Lutherans read the Bible through Jesus goggles. We expect to meet Jesus in the Scriptures. We understand the Scriptures to be both Law and Gospel, but we are careful not to confuse the two.

How to Read the Bible Like a Lutheran. Part 1

THE WORD OF GOD

Lutherans use a specific set of tools to interpret Scripture. We share some of those tools with other Christians. Some of them we use in a particularly Lutheran manner. Taken together, they add up to a uniquely Lutheran way of reading the Bible.

The constitution of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) describes the Bible as "the written word of God." Written is an important modifier, because Lutherans use the phrase "word of God" to describe three separate but closely related things.

First, and most importantly, Jesus Christ is the eternal and incarnate Word of God. The Gospel of John describes Jesus as the Word which existed with God from eternity, and which was God. This Word entered human life at a particular time and place and lived among us, showing us the heart and mind of God.

Second, Lutherans call the Bible the word of God. The Bible is precious to us because in it we find the stories and teachings of Jesus. In the Bible, we meet Jesus. Martin Luther called the Bible "the cradle in which the Christ child is found." Lutherans read the Bible through a pair of Jesus goggles.

Third, Lutherans speak of the proclaimed word of God. That is, the Word (Jesus) expressed in sermon, hymn, liturgy, and in the lives and deeds of believers.

The heart of the matter is this: when Lutherans read the Bible, we do so expecting to hear God's word. We read the Bible expecting to meet Jesus.



If you would like to read the Bible like a Lutheran, I recommend two excellent resources, both published by Augsburg Fortress. First is Lutheran Study Bible, which is thick with introductory materials, footnotes and additional essays. (Don't confuse this book with Concordia's similarly titled The Lutheran Study Bible which I do not recommend). Second is a thin volume titled Opening the Book of Faith, by Diane L. Jacobson, Stanley N. Olson and Mark Allan Powell. Jacobson and Powell do an especially fine job of explaining how Lutherans read, interpret and understand the Bible.