How (Not) to Read the Bible

Having recently finished a bachelors degree with a strong focus in theology and biblical studies, I returned home to once again be struck at how many practices I take for granted. One of the most noticeable areas (recently) has been in regards to biblical discipleship, especially pertaining to the study of Gods Word. It was something I noticed but paid little attention to, until I came across this TGC Blog Post: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/05/07/why-bible-study-doesnt-transform-us/

The sum it up, here are a few points I paid special attention to:
"Much of what passes for Bible study in Christian bookstores and church resource libraries just isn't"


" [When] left to our own devices, we pursue a host of unsavory (and un-transformative) self-constructed approaches to "spending time in the Word.""


They continue to give examples of what this looks like practically:


1st-Xanax Approach: Essentially a pain-reliever method of picking the bible apart verse-by-verse looking for situational antidotes. "We ask how the Bible can serve us, rather than how we can serve the God it proclaims"


2nd-Pinball Approach: This is where we turn to a random page hoping for a divine intervention to guide our page-flipping. "The Bible was not written to be read this way." Certainly God is capable of these moments, however becoming a disciple requires us to understand biblical truths within the narrative in which they take place.


3rd- Magic 8-Ball Approach: A random, sometimes frantic, search for quick answers to our questions. "[Demands] that the Bible tell us what to do rather than who to be." Often derived from a misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit's role in revealing Scripture. Discipleship becomes minimal effort in checking the right boxes and completing the proper tasks rather than coming from a sincere desire.


4th- Personal Shopper Approach: Let others do the work---listen to their findings---accept or deny their teachings. "Doesn't help you build "ownership" of Scripture." It stems from a selfish desire to be 'right' and denies the subjective experience of truth; not seeking relationship, but answers and comfort.


5th- Jack Sprat Approach: Thorough study, yet picking and choosing which parts to study; steering clear of difficult or discomforting parts. "We need a balanced diet to grow to maturity." Not open to truth in its entirety, reader is only believing in themselves and their opinion.



I remember my first semester of Greek and learning simple vocabulary translations of single Greek words into English. One of the words that found new meaning in light of its Greek equivalent was disciple---or "learner." To be a disciple of Christ is literally to be a learner of Christ. He has called all of us to be learners (Matt 28:19). I admit I have often defined a disciple as a 'doer' and neglected to see the importance of Gods call for us to be committed learners. However, being a committed learner involves much more than just intellectual assent. It requires humility: to be open to Gods truth, authenticity: to ensure truth becomes a part of our lives, and self-awareness: to know when we have failed in these.
It is no wonder 'discipline' and 'disciple' are only two letters from each other. Learning often involves defeating our faulty assumptions through a confrontation with truth; without first being defeated we will only learn about ourselves.

The Means of Grace: Faith Alone vs Faith + Works

While doing a recent study on Catholic doctrine and practices I ran into a few debates which I found to be much closer than I had anticipated. I found much of what seems to be assumed in many Protestant circles is not quite as assumed throughout Scripture. One of these was the Protestant declaration Sola Fide.

To begin, contemplate the following New Testament declarations:

Faith Alone:

Luke 7:50, John 6:29, Acts 16:30-31, Romans 1:17, 3:20-28, 4:16, 5:1, 10:9-10, 11:6, Galatians 3:11-14, 3:24, 5:6, Ephesians 2:8-9

This is not an all inclusive list, but it does give the basics from which to move forward. While some of the aforementioned may seem to be deal-breakers, there is still more than a fair debate to be found from the other side of the debate.

Faith & Works:

Matthew 7:21, 19:17-21, John 14:12, Romans 2:6-8, Ephesians 2:10, 1 Timothy 5:8, James All of Chapter 2 (more specifically, a common Catholic opposition is to notice James 2:24 as the only place in Scripture where the words “faith alone” are together)

The Catholic position is not so much derived from specific doctrinal verses as it is collected from Scriptural observations; for example, looking at the criteria for judgement in Matthew 25:31-46 and Jesus responses in Matthew 19:16-21 and John 14:15, 21, 15:10. What was their salvation based on? Also, 1^st Corinthians 13:13 “So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” If faith was ALL that was needed for salvation, how could it be given less prominence than love?

Of course, much of this debate has been attributed to the apparent conflicting positions between the writings of Paul and James. This is swiftly refuted by Protestants as Paul’s writings having a more “doctrinal” focus and James is discussing the action that follows faith. In other words, James is noting that a “genuine” Christian faith will result in good works, or else it was not a real Christian conversion.

The Catholic opposition to this is to look at Paul’s writing in context and notice that when Paul makes these statements he is countering the Jewish ‘legalistic’ approach to the law. He is emphasizing salvific faith because many of the Jews were convinced their salvation was to be found in works like circumcision and proper diet (Romans 2:25-29, 3:1, 4:11, 1Cor 7:18-19, Gal 5:2-6). Paul is not countering works of love, rather works of legalism in which there is no salvation.

There is a fair rebuttal for both claims mentioned above (which I may dive into in a later post). One of the interesting things to notice is that both Paul and James use the story from Genesis 15:1-6 where Abraham believed and it was counted to him as righteousness. Paul in Romans Chapter 4 and James in 2:21-24; both interpreting Abraham as an example of their statements. It almost seems as though interpreters are bound to either one or the other, and there are some who hold that view.

The purpose of this is not an attempt to settle the debate, but to examine those simple doctrines we sometimes assume and take for granted. They can be much more ambiguous than we had previously anticipated and should be given the time and attention they deserve.

Missions are the Mountaintop

Physical poverty is a terrible form of poverty, yet it remains far from the most terrible form of poverty. The West feels sorry for the dancing south, while the South feels sorry for the unsatisfied West. We see the rich neighbour labour daily to provide for his families endless wants, yet he dares to feel compassion for his neighbour who supplies only for his needs. When wants become needs, they no longer become a satisfying force in our lives. They become stripped of all meaning to the point of an unsatisfactory selfishness. Therefore the greater poverty does not lie in maintaining only our needs, but in numbing ourselves to the enjoyment of beautiful wants.

People often mistake that it is the greater difficulty to pursue mission work when in fact mission work is the far easier task. Finding God among the persecuted and the poor is like finding water in a valley, where it was meant to be found. The greater difficulty is that of bringing water to the mountaintop where it does not flow so richly; to the place where wants and selfishness take precedence over needs and joyfulness.

The real difficulty is in proving that these buckets were not filled from their luxurious mountaintops, but came from the valleys they desperately seek to raise. For it is from these mountaintops that they claim superiority due to the extent of their observance. How can a valley provide what the majesty of mountains cannot?

So it is that missions have become, for many, a safe haven to the great commission; a means by which their service to God is a guarantee because they dwell in the valley. “Throw no pearls to the swine,” why trudge buckets to a peak that hears nothing but its own greatness? Why, you ask? Because the greatness of the great commission does not reside solely in its expanse.

A Robin Hood tax & limits of individual freedom (A Quick Analysis)

My view of politics is severely undeveloped. I am radically uneducated in its sphere; because of this I do not believe I can really cling to any view more than another, outside of evaluating their motives. However, motives are often unclear or blurred through the means by which people plan on carrying them out. I have once heard it said (from a Christian perspective) that no government should force acts of compassion on their population because it is not god-desiring justice. “The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first.” If this is true, we cannot deny that true justice does not come from the act itself, but through the motive in the act. Therefore individual freedom is the only means by which true justice can be accomplished (Same principle is mirrored in God choosing Free Will over robots).

The question I have is where individual freedom ends. Abortion denies a biblical justice. Forced enslavement denies a biblical justice. So why advocate for complete individual freedom in some areas and not others? Why is the motive of compassion so necessary in our finances and completely irrelevant in times of abortion and human slavery? If people are free to use their money as they wish, because under obligation there is no justice; then why not allow people to abort as they wish, or rule as they wish? Ahh, but you say "That is completely different! The rich are being FORCED to do an act of kindness, where abortions are being 'refrained' from denying the individual “rights” and freedoms of another! Stopping evil is completely different from forcing righteousness!” You continue with your rebuttal that “after all forced acts of righteousness are not even “real” acts of righteousness in the eyes of God!” Quite true. Yet, I cannot help but imagine that God observes both the acts of evil AND good that we have "refrained" from doing.

So a fair question would be: if you have the means to save the life of another and keep what you have while they die, is that the judicial equivalent to murder in the eyes of God? You say God wants the motives of our hearts to be pure, or the act in itself is rendered useless. God does not take pleasure in one who serves the poor out of obligation? I am not sure I whole-heartedly agree. God takes a "shell" of pleasure in acts of righteousness that reflect His nature. Just as a human takes pleasure in a seashell; it has no life, no intimate relationship with us, yet somehow it provides a limited pleasure in our hearts. Is it proper to stop an abortion out of obligation rather than out of a sense of compassion for the child? I think we could agree that God would be pleased with a Government that obligates its people to refrain from that evil, even though it is not "justice" in the sense that they are not saving the child out of compassion, but rather out of obligation. So the question then becomes the "forcing of goodness" (give money to the poor) rather than a "forcing of refrain" from evil (abortion).

I believe the answer lies in what pleases God. That is why we would accept laws against abortion, because individual freedom can only be allowed to the point where it does not interfere with the freedom of another. Is that biblical? Does God delight merely in the obligatory acts of "refrain from evil" and has no delight in obligatory acts of righteousness? His will contains only mandatory “do not’s” and no mandatory “do’s”?  Why do we hold one so adamantly above the other? The reason we find this so offensive is because we hold individual freedom to such a high value. It is to be tampered with as little as possible so that all people are free to do as they wish, without interference. The rich have earned their money and have the right to do with it what they wish. It is theirs. That is where I believe the problem lies: in the compartmentalization of Christ. He can be a part of only our most fierce or agreed upon moral dilemmas.

We believe life and freedom to be gifts from God, but we believe we have gained finances on our own; apart from him. Therefore, since life and freedom are given as gifts from God, they are a “right” that all people should have available. Our finances are not viewed in the same capacity; finances are no longer viewed as a gift from God. They are a manifestation of the hard work of man; because someone who does 5 more years of school DESERVES to be paid more than one who did not. We receive life and freedom freely, therefore they should be made available in the quantity that God has given them to us; but how do we know which quantity of finances God desired for each person? He did not give us each a set amount; we decide that on our own. He who works harder deserves more for his efforts; or else there is no incentive to work, which has drastic practical implications. (Changing the incentive of the population is a topic for another day) I would contrast this point to the fact that it does not matter. It is not for US to decide who gets which quantity of money. However, there is a catch. It is not for us to decide who gets which quantity of money, until the extremes become so widely abused that there are people losing their right to live because others will not share their right to “financial freedom.”

In conclusion, we have become perfectly ok with a government who gives its people a list of “do not’s” in regards to moral purity.  There stands a gap so large between the rich and poor that we have children dying daily from lack of resources while others spend millions on sex, drugs, and alcohol. This is murder. When there no longer remains the absolute physical deprivation of life from lack of resource, then let the rich spend as they please. Until that day, let justice reign.

Kierkegaard’s Spheres of Existence

Kierkegaard observed that people live in one of three spheres of existence: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the faith sphere.

Most people live an aesthetic life in which nothing matters but appearances, pleasures, and happiness. A much smaller group are those people who live in the ethical sphere, who do their best to do the right thing and see past the shallow pleasantries and ideas of society. The third and highest sphere is the faith sphere. To be in the faith sphere, one must give the entirety of oneself to God.

Believe

Disclaimer: if you are looking for an intellectually satisfying answer to the question of salvation, you will most likely be disappointed.

I recently chose to write a paper on one of the most debated issues in theology: soteriology (the study of salvation). As I began writing the paper I quickly realized how little I actually know. I knew the biblical references and understood Paul’s “saved by grace” theology, but there was still the question of what that looks like practically. Is it completely intellectual? Is it through the way we live? I was left with many questions that had unsatisfying answers. I was in my second year of a bachelor’s degree that majors in biblical studies and I could not answer this question with complete confidence.

I began asking myself if I really wanted to know the eternal fate of every living thing. It seemed a bit judgemental for me to claim that I know exactly what needs to be done for you to inherit eternal life and if you have not done what I believe you need to do, you are doomed to hell. But isn’t that a central message of Christianity? Isn’t the answer to the question of salvation the one answer that every Christian carries inherently and lives to provide an answer to? Here I was: stuck, only able to borrow the phrase “that if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)

For many of us, that settles it. As long as I have this intellectual agreement with God, I am saved. If I think the right things, agree with the right ideas, work to perfect my theology, and avoid evil, I will receive divine forgiveness. This, however, begs an answer to the question of people with disabilities who are incapable of this process, or children that die before they are capable of understanding this agreement. The ultimate question that ran through my mind was: “can you be saved without knowing, understanding, or even intellectually affirming Jesus’ death and resurrection?”

Biblically, it is fair to say that God is much less concerned with the belief of the mind than He is with the belief of the heart. As Romans 10:10 goes on to say “it is with your heart that you believe and are justified.” So, what is this belief of the heart?

James Allen has an amazing excerpt from his book Above Life’s Turmoil about the belief of the heart that has helped me tremendously:

“It has been said that a man’s whole life and character is the outcome of his belief, and also that his belief has nothing whatever to do with his life. Both statements are true. The confusion and contradiction of these two statements are only apparent, and are quickly dispelled when it is remembered that there are two entirely distinct kinds of beliefs, namely, Head-belief and Heart-belief.”

Head, or intellectual belief, is not fundamental and causative, but it is superficial and consequent, and that it has no power in the moulding of a man’s character, the most superficial observer may easily see. Take, for instance, half a dozen men from any creed. They not only hold the same theological belief, but confess the same articles of faith in every particular, and yet their characters are vastly different. One will be just as noble as another is ignoble; one will be mild and gentle, another coarse and irascible; one will be honest, another dishonest; one will indulge certain habits which another will rigidly abjure, and so on, plainly indicating that theological belief is not an influential factor in a man’s life.

A man’s theological belief is merely his intellectual opinion or view of the universe. God, The Bible, etc., and behind and underneath this head-belief there lies, deeply rooted in his innermost being, the hidden, silent, secret belief of his heart, and it is this belief which moulds and makes his whole life. It is this which makes those six men who, whilst holding the same theology, are yet so vastly at variance in their deeds – they differ in the vital belief of the heart.”

WHAT, THEN, IS THIS HEART-BELIEF?

It is that which a man loves and clings to and fosters in his soul; for he thus loves and clings to and fosters in his heart, because he believes in them, and believing in them and loving them, he practises them; thus is his life the effect of his belief, but it has no relation to the particular creed which comprises his intellectual belief. One man clings to impure and immoral things because he believes in them; another does not cling to them because he has ceased to believe in them. A man cannot cling to anything unless he believes in it; belief always precedes action, therefore a man’s deeds and life are the fruits of his belief.

The Priest and the Levite who passed by the injured and helpless man, held, no doubt, very strongly to the theological doctrines of their fathers- that was their intellectual belief,- but in their hearts they did not believe in mercy, and so lived and acted accordingly. The good Samaritan may or may not have had any theological beliefs nor was it necessary that he should have; but in his heart he believed in mercy, and acted accordingly.

Strictly speaking, there are only two beliefs which vitally affect the life, and they are, belief in good and belief in evil.

He who believes in all those things that are good, will love them, and live in them; he who believes in those things that are impure and selfish, will love them, and cling to them. The tree is known by its fruits.

A man’s beliefs about God, Jesus, and the Bible are one thing; his life, as bound up in his actions, is another; therefore a man’s theological belief is of no consequence; but the thoughts which he harbours, his attitude of mind towards others, and his actions, these, and these only, determine and demonstrate whether the belief of a man’s heart is fixed in the false or true.

This excerpt is one of the most beautiful explanations of a most deeply rooted biblical concept. We can never know the fate of all living things, perhaps not even our own. It is not our place. Do not let us confuse our intellectual agreements with the belief of the heart. I am tired of looking for satisfying answers that resolve my curiosity and leave me in a state of blissful ignorance to what is truly important.

Obligations to Biblical Principles

What exactly does it mean to let go and let God? Is that really how God operates? Have we seen the evidence of a God that accomplishes things his way all the time because his ways are best? We can just sit on the sidelines and relax because we know that if God wants it done, it will be done?

To explain to you what I mean, I have borrowed an analogy from John Piper:

Suppose that you were about to have a baby and God came to you and said, "This baby is a gift of mine and I promise that she will live to be 100 years old."

So when the baby is born, you take her home from the hospital, but you don't feed her. Your husband says, "Why aren't you feeding the baby?" And you say, "Because God promised me that the baby would live to be 100 years old. So if God is going to make sure that the baby will live 100 years, I don't need to feed it."

Well, this husband is perceptive and says, "How do you know that God didn't mean that he would see to it that the baby gets taken care of till she is 100 years old? How do you know that God won't let an irresponsible mother drop dead so that he can fulfill his promise through a mother who will feed this little girl?" No answer.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/love-one-another-for-love-is-of-god

This interpretation of how Gods inevitable will works is refreshing. Why would God tell a person to do something if they can't help but do it? Or more importantly, why do Christians need to do anything if God’s will is inevitably carried out? Why should we even wake-up in the morning---if God wants these people to be saved, he is capable of saving them. Why doesn’t God just act directly, cutting out humankind as the mediator of his will?

To understand why God designed us with free will, we must learn to understand the entire purpose of creation---relationship. There is no purpose in a machined relationship. Here is an example of what I mean:

Suppose there is a woman with a husband. His every move is flawless and there is not a single time when he does not commit the perfect, loving action. However, he cannot help but do these things. He has no choice, it just happens. When she comes home from work he has her favourite dinner ready and has everything just how she likes it. But she knows he has no choice in these matters and she knows he might not want to do these things, he might despise doing these things, but none the less he is programmed to do them.

How would she know when he is acting out of love and when he is acting out of obligation?

This is why Jesus and the New Testament constantly stress the importance of ambitions and not the actions. Any human being can be the husband that acts out of obligation and yet truly despises the very actions they commit. An example of this in the modern day context is in our offerings. An honest principle I follow (which may sound heretical to some) is that when I don’t want to give, I don’t give. If I give when my heart truly desires not to, it has become legalism and I have become the obligated husband rather than the loving husband. It’s not that I only give to obtain recognition, but the point is that the action of giving in itself has no purpose. I could eat paper and it would mean as much. It is my desire to give that means everything; when this desire has died and I no longer have the willingness to give, God has no desire to see me continue in my giving out of obligation. You might say “of course he still desires for you to give! It is laid out clearly in Scripture that God is pleased with our giving!!” I would point out that is an intensely legalistic way of looking at life. Carefully consider your theology. Yes, absolutely he desires for us to give. But if giving meant anything on its own without the desire to give, there would be no need for free will.

To explain it simply there is somewhat of a base layer of thinking that many of us (including me) need to break through. There are principles that we just know to be things God desires and so these principles are automatically followed, no questions asked. We are working to become as close to the obligated husband as possible because he acts perfectly under every circumstance. That’s what God desires isn’t it? For us to act perfectly according to his principles? What if God doesn’t care whether you read your Bible or not. It means nothing. He doesn’t care how many times you go to church a year or how much you have given to the poor and the needy. These are all roles of the obligated husband. Perhaps that is why John Piper titled his ministry “Desiring God” and not “Doing What God Would Want Us To.”

A proper response to this point of view would be to raise the issue of perseverance. If I stop doing what is right, just because it becomes difficult for me, isn’t that giving up? Aren’t relationships based around persevering with each other even through the tough times? And I agree. Especially in the marriage context, there are many times where there may be a task or chore that you will not desire to do, but do it anyway out of obligation to your wife. Is that wrong? No! Please try to understand that following these “correct principles” is in no way “wrong” however; what I am trying to point is that the actions themselves are meaningless. The right and wrong of the action is completely dependent on your attitude towards it.

Would angrily presenting your wife with news that the trash was finally taken out constitute as a success? No! She would feel just as unappreciated (or perhaps even more), due to your undesirable attitude! The fact that you never desired to appreciate her by doing a simple mundane task was enough to show what your heart truly desired. If what you really desired was to please her and make her feel appreciated, you would have a big smile on your face as that trash hit the road. Do you think her heart would be warmed due to the fact that your garbage would now be safely transported to a waste management facility? Doubtful.

I would relate this to acts of charity by asking you a simple question: if you really believed in your heart that your act of charity was the right thing to do, that your simple act could change a life and show the love of Christ to people, would you really have a hard time doing it? Would it really be difficult for you to settle with a $3,000 car rather than a $30,000 car? This is not a matter of intellectual belief; just as Christianity is not matter of intellectual belief. This is the belief of the heart. In other words: this comes down to what you truly believe, not what you think you believe. Which do you think God is interested in?

Lastly---true, honest, and God-desiring motives are all we need; in every circumstance, under any condition. This post is a plea not to replace these motives with acts of obligation. If you don’t feel like giving, don’t give. Instead do what is more urgently required and ask God to show you what your heart truly desires. It will go far beyond any act of charity.

“If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:3 NIV)