We’re too quick to toss out Scripture in support of why homosexuality is a sin and how God created traditional marriage…than to try and love someone even if they’re different.

We don’t have to tolerate agendas designed to redefined marriage but we can love people where they are in life and for wanting something more than what they have.

So because you or I affirm the truth does that make it truthful? Is truth something that seeks our affirmation?Are the plumblines of truth bound by 66 books or God? I would argue that it is dangerous to assume that we humans can come to a place where we say we “know” this is truth. However, I would agree that truth is an experience. But truth is much bigger than one person, one verse or one perspective. Once we bring it to that point, truth becomes reduced to nothing more than either a few bible verses or a few cliches.

I tend to be passionate about how the views saw the world and the scriptures, not because I agree with them, but it makes sense to understand their point of view and why and what they said. It helps us turn the corner properly.

I would reiterate that none of scripture is doctrinal. If you read the definition of doctrine and then apply that phraseology to scripture, it minimizes the intentions of the writers, of which we do not know wholeheartedly. Doctrinal approaches to scripture minimize the force behind the words and intent of the authors who had an audience they were attempting to engage within a certain period of history. I think too many times in churches we get taugh that scripture is this manual we live by or is a plumbline we gauge all we do. When apparently those who were living scripture didn’t do it all the time, and yet God isn’t railing agains them that they are doing something wrong. Sure, he gets frustrated at them…but he never quotes scripture to them directly from his own lips or mouth or personage. Depending on how you see scripture, you might say that God spoke through people, which I would agree with. But, these people are bound to get it wrong as well. And so we must recapture the art of the campfire. The jews sat around and had this bonfires where they would share story after story of how god rescued them and how real he was to them, they didn’t sit around these campfires deliberating doctrines…but encountering the Shekinah face-to-face when they told these stories…awesome stuff!!

Paul likewise affirmed the Law, saying, “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” The Law serves a purpose, that is to say, no one can be justified based upon works.

Did the Jews miss the point of the Law, yes. Probably in the same way that churches attempt to automate Christianity. Maybe this the point of your latest comment.

However, I think it is too simplistic to say, “when the Bible was written it was not attempting to be doctrinal.” Surely, there are books and passages that are not doctrinal. For instance, we do not offer our daughters as burnt offerings just because Jephthah did (Judges 11:39) even though Jephthah was commended for his faith in Hebrews 11.

The Gospel of John is an eyewitness account, as you would say, a story. Yet, John writes, “these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, and life by faith in his name are doctrine and this is the entire purpose of John’s Gospel. They were also non-negotiable. In 1 John, he speaks of antichrists, saying “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” These were those who taught doctrines in opposition to the Gospel which John taught. Paul also stood firm on doctrine in Galatians 1. The entire books of Romans and Hebrews are doctrinal dissertations.

Paul squelched possible objections from the Corinthians saying, “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.” Paul was telling the Corinthians, “This is doctrine!”

Certainly, we interpret Scripture subjectively. Nevertheless, our subjectivity does not alter the underlying truth. Ultimately, what we think does not establish truth about God. God is immutable.

I know that different churches or denominations pull Scripture out of context to establish indefensible traditions. Some of these teachings may be intellectually dishonest. Others may be misinterpretations. We don’t need to trifle with these things. Toss all the extrapolations made by theologians over the centuries, I won’t care, but Scripture and the doctrines of Scripture are foundational. “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of Christ.”

We might disagree on the meaning of a passage, so what? We should affirm the truth of the passage. Paul told the Philippians, “if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.” I think the NIV is inferior here, but I’m quoting it anyway.

As we walk in relationship with Jesus Christ our perceptions and understandings change. This is good. It is called growth.

You and I do not have to agree, but neither should we equivocate our message as you suggest. Our message may be imperfect; Paul tells us, “We know in part and we prophesy in part.” Yet Peter tells us, “If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God.”

This is an awesome privilege. Yet when we speak with authority, our speech (however incomplete) should be consistent with God as he has revealed himself through Scripture (1 Timothy 3:10-17).

i do believe that there are times to correct people, don’t get me wrong, but when it comes to our views of God, I think Paul might have been wrong, but in this instance he was right only because paul was trying to sustain the inclusivity of Christs’ message.

I think within certain circles of Christianity there is this need to feel like we are responsibility to correct one another, and we might even use verses to support this view, but when the Bible was written it was attempting to be doctrinal. Human history has shown that it is men that create doctrines and systems of beliefs, and yet, God is against them. Some might even see the Bible as a plumbline and may even use a verse for this, yet, scripture points us to a person or another way to say it, is that it points us to walk in the way of Jesus, follow God rather than a book. Jesus never points us back to what we now call scripture, when he says law, to a Jew they didn’t think the OT, they thought the law, a document, a record of God interacting with man that they took too seriously and Jesus was reminding them that God, life and the way things should bea are discovered outside of the book by living out our relationship with God.
Sometimes we treat the bible like a manual, when we do this, it minimizes the power of story and how story-driven the book really is and how it is a commentary not on how to do things, but how others did things within their context and time. This view widens up the possibilities of learning immensely, learning about one another, about God, about truth, and about life to name a few. When we seek to quote verses out of a context within which we were never physically present for, there is naturally going to be a subjective element to what we find and claim as truth. So, naturally in this environment, truth becomes subjective. And a psychologist might even add that on earth, there is no fully objective truth because we are created as subjective beings. But, God knows this and isn’t scared of the differences we come up, so I ask, why are we? It seems because we want to control the epistemological development of ideas that by nature are going to subjective. I think it would be healthier to say, “my intepretation of God and scripture leads me to think that correcting one another is beneficial to a relationship”. The Jews defined taking God’s name in vain, not as putting the word damn after God, but actually saying “God said this” or “God told me to tell you this”, why? Because we are subjective and God is objective and they thought a human attaching their authority to a statement God said would cheapen who God was. Amazing stuff…

Thanks!

We are called into a relationship of grace by faith. God’s declaring us righteous based upon faithfulness is one common thread between the Old and New Covenants. Now, grace is not earned, but neither does it come without expectations (Matthew 16:24 and 1 Corinthians 6:20). We are not our own. Nor do we live unto ourselves. According to 1 John, we are called into loving relationships with one another.

The relationships within the assembly are familial. Don’t think I’m saying there needs to be some type of patriarchal hierarchy where some old man is always right. Nevertheless, relationships should like family, and there is a natural order where older look out for younger and stronger look out for the weaker (Romans 15:1).

To the extent that we are family, we are responsible one for another. The writer of Hebrews exhorts, “See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.” The responsibility is collective and relational; Paul speaks to brothers. He goes on to say, “Encourage one another each day as long as it is called today, that none of you should be hardened by sins deceitfulness.” Now “encourage” is a good positive reinforcement kind of word. I like encouragement, but “encourage” is not the only tool in the box.

Paul had no problems publically confronting Peter when Peter was wrong (Galatians 2:11). Paul called attention to Peter’s hypocrisy, but Peter didn’t react by feuding with Paul. In fact, Peter later equates Paul’s letters to “other Scripture.” Peter accepted correction, although it was probably unpleasant at the moment.

Paul told Titus how to deal with those from Crete, “Rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith.” He told Timothy, “Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.” I don’t know how this would work in the context of a mega-church, but I know that it works in a family.

You speak of context. Paul speaks to Titus about the context of his ministry affirming that “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” Titus was not going on an evangelistic trip. He was identifying and appointing elders within the assemblies on Crete. The Cretans were, in fact, liars, evil brutes, and lazy gluttons for whom Christ died.

Paul told Titus, “Encourage and rebuke with all authority.” Titus was to do both, as either became necessary.

Love is not always genteel.

Interestingly enough the word for ‘correct’ is paideu in the Greek it connotes learning with the innocence of a child. Most people might think it means castigate or tell someone that they are wrong. Yet the connotation is more of one that encourages one to rediscover their own innocence.

Also Paul chose his words carefully, I would assume, and if in Timothy he says “scripture is good for…” then Paul is saying scripture is good for it, not that it is our responsibility to do so, but that it is the person’s responsibility to do so. See, the danger is that we have the log in our own eye. Jesus was essentially saying that we all get it wrong, and that he isn’t afraid of us getting it wrong. Now, that is freeing. That is grace. That is dependency.

Also, I would say it is imperative to remember that Paul had a context that we weren’t present for. So we can only assume based on what scholars say for the context. And so, naturally we will already take it out of its context, because we weren’t living in that context. And so, the challenge for us today is to discover what it means to rewrite or write scripture, or even better said, be the pages rather than cull the pages.

Jesus invites us all into relationship, but it is a relationship smothered in grace. And scripture only paints what others thought of God. Their perception of him and how they lived it out and they invite us to do the same thing. To love one another, to love our enemies, to see past all of our faults, and yes, maybe even depend on grace to change people at any expense.

I like the conversation

Until recently, my daughter worked in a residential treatment facility. Without negative consequences for negative behavior those kids would have killed each other, their caregivers, and themselves. They tried to do those very things on multiple occasions. Not all children require that type of rigor. Having raised two great adult children and with two little girls still at home, I can say what works with one does not work with another.

With childrearing, the goal is not to impose a specific set of behaviors, but rather you try to nurture specific skills such as honesty, a work ethic, respect, discretion, and discernment. In the assembly, there is a natural order such as in the family. The elder are supposed to shepherd the younger (1 Peter 5:1-3). The younger are supposed to respect the elder (1 Timothy 5:1-2). The goal within the assembly is perfecting spiritual maturity. Now, some might mistake the desired outcome for a specific set of behaviors, but spiritual maturity is really an unwavering relationship of faith.

In many cases, I must overlook what I see as deficiencies in my brothers’ faith, just as they forbear my deficiencies. I don’t want to nitpick at anyone, nor do I want anyone to nitpick at me. Nevertheless, I have see brothers practicing immorality blatantly and without repentance. I have seen these situations overlooked, and I have seen the devastation that results. I have also seen other brothers rescued from themselves.

Jude writes, “Have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them from the fire; and on some have mercy with fear.” In each case, the goal is the same, but the methodology differs.