"How the Seminary Can Help the Local Church"

and

"How the Local Church Can Help the Seminary"

I come from a culture of Biblical consumerism. We have been taught to have daily devotions (to either follow a Bible reading plan or use a devotional book, such as My Utmost for His Highest or its relative), and to extract a "lesson" from the text. If it's a Bible reading plan we're following, we are taught to come away from the text with a lesson based on the chapter or chapters we've read. If it's a devotional we're reading, we get our lesson from a verse or two at the top, a brief exposition (supposedly) of the text, a story of application, and four lines from a hymn or poem.

I call this Biblical consumerism because I think this Bible study process is a product of American consumerism. As Americans, we are geared toward consuming things. We want what we want when we want it. If I want a hamburger french fries, and a chocolate milkshake, all I have to do is drive to the nearest McDonald's and order it. To speed up the process, I don't even have to get out of my car! If I want a new DVD or a book, I can order it on Amazon and have it rush delivered, or I can bypass even that and watch it online or download it into my Amazon Kindle book reader. Waiting is so old-fashioned.

We bring this worldview with us whenever we read the Bible. We expect that in a half-hour of Bible/devotional reading, we are to extract some nugget of truth that fits perfectly into our schedules and we expect it to make us feel good and lead healthier lives. There are now endless flavors of devotional books that compete with Baskin Robbins. Just go to any Christian bookstore or website and see. (My not-so favorites are "Sparkling Gems from the Greek" [what some have called Strongnosticism, as if there is some hidden knowledge gained from studying the Greek] and "The Dieter's Prayer Book".

Right now I'm taking a class in the Samuel narratives (the books of 1-2 Samuel). I can see how my American consumerist worldview has been influencing my reading of the text. Whenever we sit in class and I fail to "extract" some "nugget of truth" for my life, I become impatient with the text of Scripture, asking why it didn't "speak to me."

The problem with coming to the text and expecting a chapter to "speak to you" is that chapter divisions were not in the original texts of Scripture. (Okay, the Psalms were most undoubtedly separated, but everything else knew no chapter or verse divisions.) Let's take the book of Jonah for example. If I just read chapter 1, I might conclude something about God like this: "Even if I mess up and abandon God's will, God will save me out if it." Ok, maybe. But maybe He won't. God showed incredibly mercy to Jonah when He saved Him from drowning in the Mediterranean. The consequences for a prophet for abandoning God's will were typically death. (cf. Deut. 18:15-22 and see what standards a prophet is held to!) Jonah was risking his life, and God would have been just to let him sink to the bottom of the sea.

We must think about a book of the Bible in terms of its overall message, and not divide its message arbitrarily by way of chapters. The chapter and verse divisions are there simply to help us find things easier, not to indicate units of thought or lessons. In the same way, we must "respect the text of Scripture." We must not come to it expecting it to speak into our lives the way we want it to. We must submit to what God has said, and hear Him on His terms, not ours. We cannot force a text to say something it never said. If we do that, we will be mislead, for we may be following something that God never intended to communicate.

Away with this culture of Biblical consumerism, and on to a humble and patient reading of His Holy Word!

I've always been skeptical about nouthetic counseling.  Nouthetic counseling is, simply defined, a philosophy of counseling that uses Scripture alone (and strictly rejects any influence of psychology)  in counseling.  The fundamental presupposition is that all "nonorganically-caused problems are considered to be hamartigenic (sin-caused)." (Jay Adams, "Helping People Grow," 155.)

If a person has depression that is clearly caused by a chemical inbalance of the brain, nouthetic counselors would permit anti-depressants to be prescribed.  If, however, the depression is not linked to physical causes alone, the nouthetic counselor, based on the belief above, must believe that the cause of the depression is a specific sin that the person did.  If a child is abused by their parents and comes in for counseling, the counselor does not focus on the sinful behavior of the parents, but seeks to discover any type of sinful responses that the child has done.  (Adams, "Helping," 155.)  Adams says that is it "always necessary" to discover the underlying sin(s) that the child has done.

The focus of nouthetic counseling is threefold: change must happen in the counselee because they have sinned, confrontation must take place by the counselor to the counselee because of the sin, and both of these come from a deepfelt concern for the counselee, not a desire to dominate or come down harshly.  (Adams, 155)

By these standards, Job's three friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar are all nouthetic counselors.  They see suffering (problems) in Job's life, and their conclusion is that Job must have sinned (Job 4-5, 8, 11, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25.)  The counsel of these friends has the appearance of being godly instruction - just read it and see.  They show great theological insight.

The problem is that Job has done nothing to deserve these sufferings.  He has not done some terrible sin that merits such senseless suffering.  (Yes, he is a sinner, but the book makes clear that these problems have not come because of sin.)  The narrator of Job confirms Job's uprightness and blamelessness (Job 1:1, 22, 2:10).  YHWH Himself says repeatedly that Job is upright and blameless (1:8, 2:3).

Job's friends earnestly urge him to repent so that future disaster may not come to him.  Job maintains that he is innocent.  In the end, though Job is instructed to trust God's ways by YHWH Himself, it is Job's friends that need to repent, not Job.  God says to them (though the text singles out Eliphaz, the chief of Job's accusers) that, "You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has." (God says this twice in Job 42:7-8!  And all three of them are in the wrong, as the Hebrew verb "dibbaretem," "you all have spoken" is second person plural). God considers Job to be blameless still in everything he said about Him, so that in the time when the dialogue begins in chapter 3 until God's speech here, there is no indication that Job did anything that merits repentance.

The point of the book of Job is relatively simple: some suffering is not caused by sin.  We know, of course, that some suffering surely comes because of sin.  But to assume that all (non-organic) suffering is caused by sin is not Biblical. (What about the man born blind?)  I believe that this is a fundamental error of nouthetic counseling, which is why I do not accept it.  Job's friends are reprimanded by YHWH Himself for their efforts.

Cold theology multiplies misery.  Job says of his "friends," "Miserable comforters are you all.  Shall windy words have an end?" (Job 16:2-3)  aka, "Are you ever going to shut up?"  Also of them, "they have struck me insolently on the cheek." (16:10)  He also says, "How long will you torment me and break me in pieces with words?  These ten times you have cast reproach upon me; are you not ashamed to wrong me?" (Job 19:2-3)  It is slanderous to accuse a person of sin where there is no sin. 

If a person is suffering, and they come to you for counsel and comfort, learn this lesson from Job: don't jump to the conclusion that they brought it on themselves.  Now, am I saying that no suffering comes from sin?  Absolutely not.  But we are missing the cosmic viewpoint, which is given to us in Job (Job 1:6-12, 2:1-6).  If we could peer into the heavens and see that our problems are just Satan's way of proving that we love God just for the blessings and that God manipulates us with blessings so we will worship Him, life would be a bit more bearable.  Well, would it?  I don't know, and I do not have a wish to find out.  But we just don't know, and as a result, we must trust God for those things when the world comes crashing down on us.  We must comfort others who experience heart-shattering pain.  Yes, if they have sinned, we encourage and admonish them to repent.  But we do not go digging for it in their hearts.  We ask the LORD to search them, and if there be any way in them that is displeasing, we ask Him to lead them in the everlasting way (Ps. 139, cf. Jer, 17). 

God, may we comfort and admonish not in the pattern of Job's friends!

I have often fallen into the trap of thinking that as I cross the thresholds of life, my sinful nature will somehow be quieted within me. Before I went to college, I thought that going to a Christian college would somehow make me holier. Before I got married, I thought that getting married would somehow eliminate any kind of temptation that men face. Before I started seminary, well, I somehow thought that I would feel the impact of my sinful nature less and less.

I'm pretty sure that none of these thoughts come from Scripture, yet I have often believed them. Why? I'm not sure. What I've learned is that this sinful nature of mine is always with me, and, like an injured athlete, I just need to get used to "running with a limp."

I don't think this is resigned spirituality, throwing my hands up and calling it quits - but I do think that it is much closer to the truth than my previous beliefs. I am often thinking of what Jonathan Edwards wrote about his own struggle with his corruptions:

"56. Resolved, Never to give over, nor in the least to slacken, my fight with my corruptions, however unsuccessful I may be."

Never giving up.

Today, I watched a documentary that attempts to reconcile a homosexual lifestyle with the teachings of Scripture. The documentary is titled, "For the Bible Tells Me So," and it is an emotional plea by pro-homosexual Christians to Bible-believing Christians. In the video, the standard homosexual texts - such as Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:24-27, are said to not speak to the issue of homosexuality. Albert Mohler was right when he said, "If homosexual advocates are to succeed, they must either marginalize or neutralize the Bible as an authority."

The Leviticus passage is argued away based on context. For example, we do not follow most of the other commands that Leviticus gives, such as eating non-finned and non-scaled fish (i.e., shellfish, Leviticus 11:9-12), so why should we follow the commandment against homosexuality? This argument I have the most sympathy with, because it brings up the issue of how we are to understand the Old Testament - an issue not easily solved. Do we follow the Old Testament literally, interpret it allegorically, or follow only whatever commands are repeated in the New Testament? Because that issue is too large for me to deal with here, I will not address this one. I never refer to this verse whenever I discuss homosexuality, anyway. With this text, the issue is not about whether it condemns homosexuality. The issue is, how do we understand the Old Testament?

So, let's turn to the New Testament, which is almost universally agreed holds significance for evangelical Christians. Many pro-homosexual Christians point out that Jesus says absolutely nothing about same-sex relationships. The conclusion that usually follows is, "Jesus, then, must have approved of homosexuality." I can think of three objections to this conclusion.

First of all, most people familiar with the rules of logic understand that an argument from silence proves nothing. It is a logical fallacy. The Fifth Amendment rests on this principle. If I was on trial for murder, and I choose to say nothing in my defense, it does not prove that I am guilty, but it also does not prove that I am innocent. It simply proves nothing.

Secondly, homosexuality simply was not very common in first century Palestine. Jesus did not address this because his audience was largely Jewish, and the practice was not very prevalent among first-century Jews. It makes much more sense that the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, would say more on the issue, because homosexuality (though bisexuality was probably more prevalent) was practiced much more by Greeks than Jews. (See Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9, and 1 Tim. 1:10)

Thirdly, when Jesus does talk about marriage, he gives two options: marriage for life between a man and a woman, or complete celibacy. (Matthew 19:1-12) Even though this is a passage on divorce and marriage, I think what Jesus gives in this passage is the strongest argument against homosexuality. He argues from the basis of how God created things to be in the beginning. He quotes Genesis 2:24, and also says, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." (ESV) From the beginning it was not so. I think this is the nail in the coffin on where Jesus stands on homosexuality. Since Jesus takes Genesis as His model for what human sexual relationships should be like, we should do the same. Homosexual relationships "were not so" in the beginning.

Romans 1:24-27 is the most often quoted verse in the New Testament on homosexuality. It says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." (ESV)
When the documentary mentions Romans 1:24-27, it argues that the word "natural" (Gr. "phusis") is referring to abandoning what is natural or traditional in the culture. That is, men abandoned culturally expected relations with women and entered into culturally unexpected relationships with other men. My questions that I would ask in reply to this would be, "Where did these culturally-expected relationship roles come from? Who decides what is normal? Could it be that the norm came from how God created men and women?" For most cultures in most of history, the norm has been one woman and one man. I think this is a strong argument that God's created order is supposed to be the norm, and any deviance from that is deviance from God, which is sin.

Rev. Dr. Mel White, President of Soulforce, the leading organization promoting this reconciliation between the Bible and homosexuality, states that the sin that Paul speaks against in this passage is letting passions have too much control. In other words, the sin Paul condemns is not homosexuality; the sin is lack of self-control.

Another way pro-homosexual advocates interpret this passage is to say that these are examples of heterosexuals abandoning their heterosexual desires for homosexual desires. Since these advocates believe that homosexuality can be a God-given, natural, legitimate desire, they argue that the real sin is going against your God-given nature. If God made you a homosexual, the sin would be to go against homosexual desire; if God made you heterosexual, the sin would be to go against heterosexual desire.

In reply, I would ask Dr. White to look at the context again. Romans 1:18-32 is an argument against mankind because they have abandoned their Creator (notice the references to creation and Creator in verses 20 and 25) and His plan from creation. I think this suggests that when men and women abandoned the "natural" (Gr. "phusis") order of things, they abandoned God's created order, not just cultural customs.

In conclusion, I know that some may say, "Everyone has an interpretation." The unexamined conclusion is that everyone's interpretation is therefore equally valid. This is our Americanness coming out. We don't like to think anyone's interpretation as not equal with another. But we are talking about ideas here, and all ideas are not equal. Some are valid and some are false; all cannot be equal.

I pray that those who have, as Romans 1 says, "suppressed the truth" (Rom. 1:18) would realize how they have done so in this issue and repent of it. God's plan, God's pattern, God's design for intimate relationships is between a man and a woman. In our Master's words, it has been so from the beginning.