Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The Celibate Homosexual
An article written for publication, but never accepted.
This is not an easy thing to write. There are issues that touch the very heart of one's personality and, at the same time strike into the heart of prejudices and passions of those around. I've been open about these issues in several forums where I am an active participant, and was asked by a friend to consider submitting something to a certain publication. which decided not to accept it.
I am a lifelong Christian, brought up in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, later, after a rather strange and wandering period, moving on to The Episcopal Church as a committed Anglo-Catholic, then becoming a pastor in Pentecostal and Evangelical circles for a quarter-century, before returning to Anglicanism in what is known as a Continuing Anglican Church. Even in my strangest and most rebellious period, my life was bounded by a respect for Scripture and a commitment to a doctrinal and traditional religion, to the person and work of Jesus Christ and to His Word.
Though I did not recognize it until my twenties, it is apparent in retrospect that, even from childhood, I was not entirely a typical boy. I was always both drawn to and nervous in the presence of other boys, and associated most easily with the girls. In high school I was often called such things as ‘queer’, simply because of that difference, though I didn’t yet even know what homosexuality was. In my early twenties I found that that was an identification I was quite comfortable with, and I lived accordingly for a comparatively brief time. It wasn’t a good time in my life.
It was the knowledge of the Scriptures with which I had been instilled that made it impossible for me to continue the life I was leading. I knew that life was wrong, and thus I was called back to celibacy, and lived that way for about 15 years until I met the woman God had in mind for me and married her. Nearly fifteen years later she died of cancer and I was alone once more, celibate again. Through all that, though I earnestly sought a ‘healing’ from the attractions that had always tempted me, that underlying drawing never did pass from me. I still am, though firmly celibate, very much a same-sex attracted male and likely will continue so to be.
That is a bit about who I am, and perhaps explains a bit of what has drawn me to write a piece like this, but just why did I start this paper, and what do I hope to accomplish by it?
Well, it’s like this: Homosexuality has become more and more prominent in our society, recognized, in fact, as a normal aspect of humanity, to the extent that there is very strong agitation for ‘gay’ civil rights of every sort, including the right of ‘gay’ couples to adopt children, and to enter into civil unions much like (or even deemed to be) marriage. This movement does have major implications for the structure and working of our society.
Those who claim the name of Christian have been divided by this issue (impelled, of course, by differing views of what Christianity is) into two warring groups: those who call themselves ‘open and affirming’ and go so far as to celebrate homosexuality as a good thing, and those who reject homosexuals as unclean, to be despised and rejected, and treat the whole issue as one that merits derision, dismissal, and deep anger. I have felt the impact of both ways of thinking. I have been strongly urged to forget my inhibitions and live the ‘gay’ lifestyle, and I have felt the rejection that arises when I admit what temptations it is that I experience, especially when I admit that, though I have never had improper dealing with a minor, my attraction is far stronger toward boys than toward men. I seem to fall into everyone’s category of people most to be despised.
That is how the issue has impacted me personally, but far more important is its effect on the church and on society in general. This has become the single most divisive issue among those called Christians. When the Episcopal Church authorized the consecration of a "partnered gay" bishop, a man who had left his wife to pursue the homosexual lifestyle, those who had endured all sorts of unbiblical and untraditional errors in both teaching and practice finally rose up in rebellion against the leadership that pushed it through. The ordination of women, the toleration and even promotion of those who denied key credal statements, and many other errors all had come to pass, and these "orthodox" were still there. Why this issue? I call it the "yuk factor". Many of the other issues are, if the truth be recognized, far more important as they touch the core truths of that Gospel without which no man is saved. This issue, however, for reasons more social than theological raises up an emotional revulsion unlike the others, a revulsion both for the sin (which, as for other sins, is right) and for the sinner (which is in essence a denial of the very mission of the One who died to save sinners.
I’m writing this because both attitudes are quite wrong, quite out of accord with Christianity, and entirely unsupported by the Scriptures. Homosexual activity has no place in the Church of God, but homosexual people certainly do. We are all sinners, saved by grace. We are all subject to manifold temptations, and sometimes (often) we fall. Christ died for us while we were yet sinners, and there is still no other kind of person in His church.
He lived among the sinners, scorned by the religious leaders as a friend of sinners. He touched the untouchable, the lepers, the woman with an issue of blood. Presented with a woman caught in adultery, he was so bold as to compare her sin to the secret sins of the religious leaders who wanted her stoned. His word to her as to every other sinner is simple: "You are forgiven. Go, and sin no more." Throughout the history of the Church, He has called the most spectacular of sinners to be the most spectacular of servants, persecutors of the Church (like St. Paul), murderers, libertines (like St. Augustine, who prayed, "Lord make me pure, but not right now" and heard in response, "Now."). He is no respecter of persons, but Lover of all.
He found me in 1964, living a desperately sinful life, and trying to justify it with the same arguments homosexulalists are now using. He spoke to my spirit just as He spoke to that woman in John 8. I accepted His invitation and asked His forgiveness, and he said, "Go, and sin no more." It's been forty-three years and a bit, and, by His grace, through no strength of my own, I've not fallen back into those sins (though I am still far from perfect - God help me). I've even been married (though, I fear, far from the ideal husband), but I am what I am; that has not changed. After these many years I am still a homosexually inclined male. When temptation assaults me, that is the form it still takes. Yes, I am tempted, but temptation is not sin. Our Lord was tempted in all points like as we are, wrote the author of Hebrews, yet without sin. The battle is lifelong, as it is for every man. We are tempted. Temptation looks good. Left to our own devices, sooner or later we fall, but, with the help of God, we can triumph over all the assaults of the Devil. We can live holy lives. There is no reason at all that we cannot become saints. It is our calling.
Where does this lead in practical terms? First of all, the Church must bear witness to the fullness of the truth, part of which is the sacredness of sex within the marriage of a man and a woman, and its utter sinfulness whether hetero- or homo-sexual outside that holy state. There is no acceptable compromise with that. Secondly, the Church is not a pleasant haven for saints but a hospital for sinners. No matter what sin is being committed, the perpetrator needs to know, without question that God's love and the love of his people, toward him or her is unconditional, that nothing can destroy that love. Thirdly, the sinner needs to know that true Christian love does indeed involve helping him to identify his sinfulness and to lead him to repentance, to salvation, and to the fellowship of the Church. We can't neglect that or we have failed to love. Fourthly, it needs to be very clear indeed that we are all, as members of the Church, under the same discipline, one of whose principles is that, if we do not marry, we do not have sex, with anyone, and, if we do marry, that gift belongs only to our lawful wedded spouse. According to St. Paul the call to celibacy is a high one, and is to be honored.
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has always had godly celibate priests who are tempted in the ways that I am. Though it appears that, at this stage of my life, I will not be among that number. much as my heart yearns for it, I firmly believe that that is as it should be.
----------Edward W. Pacht
This is not an easy thing to write. There are issues that touch the very heart of one's personality and, at the same time strike into the heart of prejudices and passions of those around. I've been open about these issues in several forums where I am an active participant, and was asked by a friend to consider submitting something to a certain publication. which decided not to accept it.
I am a lifelong Christian, brought up in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, later, after a rather strange and wandering period, moving on to The Episcopal Church as a committed Anglo-Catholic, then becoming a pastor in Pentecostal and Evangelical circles for a quarter-century, before returning to Anglicanism in what is known as a Continuing Anglican Church. Even in my strangest and most rebellious period, my life was bounded by a respect for Scripture and a commitment to a doctrinal and traditional religion, to the person and work of Jesus Christ and to His Word.
Though I did not recognize it until my twenties, it is apparent in retrospect that, even from childhood, I was not entirely a typical boy. I was always both drawn to and nervous in the presence of other boys, and associated most easily with the girls. In high school I was often called such things as ‘queer’, simply because of that difference, though I didn’t yet even know what homosexuality was. In my early twenties I found that that was an identification I was quite comfortable with, and I lived accordingly for a comparatively brief time. It wasn’t a good time in my life.
It was the knowledge of the Scriptures with which I had been instilled that made it impossible for me to continue the life I was leading. I knew that life was wrong, and thus I was called back to celibacy, and lived that way for about 15 years until I met the woman God had in mind for me and married her. Nearly fifteen years later she died of cancer and I was alone once more, celibate again. Through all that, though I earnestly sought a ‘healing’ from the attractions that had always tempted me, that underlying drawing never did pass from me. I still am, though firmly celibate, very much a same-sex attracted male and likely will continue so to be.
That is a bit about who I am, and perhaps explains a bit of what has drawn me to write a piece like this, but just why did I start this paper, and what do I hope to accomplish by it?
Well, it’s like this: Homosexuality has become more and more prominent in our society, recognized, in fact, as a normal aspect of humanity, to the extent that there is very strong agitation for ‘gay’ civil rights of every sort, including the right of ‘gay’ couples to adopt children, and to enter into civil unions much like (or even deemed to be) marriage. This movement does have major implications for the structure and working of our society.
Those who claim the name of Christian have been divided by this issue (impelled, of course, by differing views of what Christianity is) into two warring groups: those who call themselves ‘open and affirming’ and go so far as to celebrate homosexuality as a good thing, and those who reject homosexuals as unclean, to be despised and rejected, and treat the whole issue as one that merits derision, dismissal, and deep anger. I have felt the impact of both ways of thinking. I have been strongly urged to forget my inhibitions and live the ‘gay’ lifestyle, and I have felt the rejection that arises when I admit what temptations it is that I experience, especially when I admit that, though I have never had improper dealing with a minor, my attraction is far stronger toward boys than toward men. I seem to fall into everyone’s category of people most to be despised.
That is how the issue has impacted me personally, but far more important is its effect on the church and on society in general. This has become the single most divisive issue among those called Christians. When the Episcopal Church authorized the consecration of a "partnered gay" bishop, a man who had left his wife to pursue the homosexual lifestyle, those who had endured all sorts of unbiblical and untraditional errors in both teaching and practice finally rose up in rebellion against the leadership that pushed it through. The ordination of women, the toleration and even promotion of those who denied key credal statements, and many other errors all had come to pass, and these "orthodox" were still there. Why this issue? I call it the "yuk factor". Many of the other issues are, if the truth be recognized, far more important as they touch the core truths of that Gospel without which no man is saved. This issue, however, for reasons more social than theological raises up an emotional revulsion unlike the others, a revulsion both for the sin (which, as for other sins, is right) and for the sinner (which is in essence a denial of the very mission of the One who died to save sinners.
I’m writing this because both attitudes are quite wrong, quite out of accord with Christianity, and entirely unsupported by the Scriptures. Homosexual activity has no place in the Church of God, but homosexual people certainly do. We are all sinners, saved by grace. We are all subject to manifold temptations, and sometimes (often) we fall. Christ died for us while we were yet sinners, and there is still no other kind of person in His church.
He lived among the sinners, scorned by the religious leaders as a friend of sinners. He touched the untouchable, the lepers, the woman with an issue of blood. Presented with a woman caught in adultery, he was so bold as to compare her sin to the secret sins of the religious leaders who wanted her stoned. His word to her as to every other sinner is simple: "You are forgiven. Go, and sin no more." Throughout the history of the Church, He has called the most spectacular of sinners to be the most spectacular of servants, persecutors of the Church (like St. Paul), murderers, libertines (like St. Augustine, who prayed, "Lord make me pure, but not right now" and heard in response, "Now."). He is no respecter of persons, but Lover of all.
He found me in 1964, living a desperately sinful life, and trying to justify it with the same arguments homosexulalists are now using. He spoke to my spirit just as He spoke to that woman in John 8. I accepted His invitation and asked His forgiveness, and he said, "Go, and sin no more." It's been forty-three years and a bit, and, by His grace, through no strength of my own, I've not fallen back into those sins (though I am still far from perfect - God help me). I've even been married (though, I fear, far from the ideal husband), but I am what I am; that has not changed. After these many years I am still a homosexually inclined male. When temptation assaults me, that is the form it still takes. Yes, I am tempted, but temptation is not sin. Our Lord was tempted in all points like as we are, wrote the author of Hebrews, yet without sin. The battle is lifelong, as it is for every man. We are tempted. Temptation looks good. Left to our own devices, sooner or later we fall, but, with the help of God, we can triumph over all the assaults of the Devil. We can live holy lives. There is no reason at all that we cannot become saints. It is our calling.
Where does this lead in practical terms? First of all, the Church must bear witness to the fullness of the truth, part of which is the sacredness of sex within the marriage of a man and a woman, and its utter sinfulness whether hetero- or homo-sexual outside that holy state. There is no acceptable compromise with that. Secondly, the Church is not a pleasant haven for saints but a hospital for sinners. No matter what sin is being committed, the perpetrator needs to know, without question that God's love and the love of his people, toward him or her is unconditional, that nothing can destroy that love. Thirdly, the sinner needs to know that true Christian love does indeed involve helping him to identify his sinfulness and to lead him to repentance, to salvation, and to the fellowship of the Church. We can't neglect that or we have failed to love. Fourthly, it needs to be very clear indeed that we are all, as members of the Church, under the same discipline, one of whose principles is that, if we do not marry, we do not have sex, with anyone, and, if we do marry, that gift belongs only to our lawful wedded spouse. According to St. Paul the call to celibacy is a high one, and is to be honored.
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has always had godly celibate priests who are tempted in the ways that I am. Though it appears that, at this stage of my life, I will not be among that number. much as my heart yearns for it, I firmly believe that that is as it should be.
----------Edward W. Pacht
Saturday, April 12, 2008
My other sites
Here's a list of sites I have to do with.
1. My Layreader Homilies based on the 1940 Lectionary of the USA 1928 BCP
www.sermons4layreaders.com
2. The Continuum, a Blog I cohost
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/
3. Anglican Diaspora, a Discussion boeard on which I serve as a moderator:
http://anglodiaspora.proboards85.com/index.cgi?
ed
1. My Layreader Homilies based on the 1940 Lectionary of the USA 1928 BCP
www.sermons4layreaders.com
2. The Continuum, a Blog I cohost
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/
3. Anglican Diaspora, a Discussion boeard on which I serve as a moderator:
http://anglodiaspora.proboards85.com/index.cgi?
ed
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Depression II
My new chapbook, #46 Stones for Seamus is out.
($6.00 postpaid from
ed pacht
223 Wyandotte Falls,
Rochester NH 03867)
This is from the chapbook.
March 8, 2008. For the past few days I've been feeling rather depressed. There seems to be no particular reason for it, but it is there, and very real indeed. There has been a lot of good happening, but also a few things not to my liking. I know better, but my mind and my emotions seem to seize upon what is unpleasant and to bypass all the good. That is not God's fault, nor is it really mine. In the eternal battle of the children of Light against the very real powers of darkness, the temptation to despair is among the enemy's most effective weapons. I'm feeling that force, very much so, but I know better. Depression may be with me, but so is God, and He is good. ...
Depression II
Life is good, and I know it.
God is good, and what He made is good,
and that is also what I know,
but what I know I do not always know,
and what I feel is not always what is true;
and in a world that He has filled with beauty,
often gloomy grayness fills my sight and mind,
and even in the glories of the grand creation,
even in the wonders of the small unseen,
and even in the knowledge that for sin there is redemption,
and that ugliness is outshone by gold,
even knowing as I know, that nothing I can do in error
has the power to undo His loving work;
even then my mind is tinged with darkness,
even then I hover at the edge of bleak despair,
even then I groan, complain, and anguish,
even knowing, as I know, that He is there.
Darkness often seems to fill the world around me,
and the light I know is shining is to me almost unseen,
but in the darkness it is surely shining,
and its beams are pressing up against the gloom,
and the fog of doubt and deep uncertain feeling,
planted by unfriendly, ever-hurtful hands,
and spawned by Hell's fierce darkness of despair,
cannot hold against the unrelenting force of Light,
and shall yield.
And I shall rise,
and shall see beyond the gloom,
where Light forever shines,
and so shall I,
perhaps, it seems, not now, but then,
for God is good and does not ever change.
($6.00 postpaid from
ed pacht
223 Wyandotte Falls,
Rochester NH 03867)
This is from the chapbook.
March 8, 2008. For the past few days I've been feeling rather depressed. There seems to be no particular reason for it, but it is there, and very real indeed. There has been a lot of good happening, but also a few things not to my liking. I know better, but my mind and my emotions seem to seize upon what is unpleasant and to bypass all the good. That is not God's fault, nor is it really mine. In the eternal battle of the children of Light against the very real powers of darkness, the temptation to despair is among the enemy's most effective weapons. I'm feeling that force, very much so, but I know better. Depression may be with me, but so is God, and He is good. ...
Depression II
Life is good, and I know it.
God is good, and what He made is good,
and that is also what I know,
but what I know I do not always know,
and what I feel is not always what is true;
and in a world that He has filled with beauty,
often gloomy grayness fills my sight and mind,
and even in the glories of the grand creation,
even in the wonders of the small unseen,
and even in the knowledge that for sin there is redemption,
and that ugliness is outshone by gold,
even knowing as I know, that nothing I can do in error
has the power to undo His loving work;
even then my mind is tinged with darkness,
even then I hover at the edge of bleak despair,
even then I groan, complain, and anguish,
even knowing, as I know, that He is there.
Darkness often seems to fill the world around me,
and the light I know is shining is to me almost unseen,
but in the darkness it is surely shining,
and its beams are pressing up against the gloom,
and the fog of doubt and deep uncertain feeling,
planted by unfriendly, ever-hurtful hands,
and spawned by Hell's fierce darkness of despair,
cannot hold against the unrelenting force of Light,
and shall yield.
And I shall rise,
and shall see beyond the gloom,
where Light forever shines,
and so shall I,
perhaps, it seems, not now, but then,
for God is good and does not ever change.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Beyond the Dust
Guess I really ought to put something in here once in a while. I wrote this today.
February 6, 2008. Ash Wednesday. Lent began today. I drove up the hill through the cold rain to the solemn, yet joy-filled Mass of the day, and emerged with a dirty face, marked with ashes and the words, "Remember, O Man, that dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return."
Beyond the Dust
Dust,
ashes,
mortality,
an ending deserved,
an outcome worked for,
by denial of life,
by rejection of Him,
who is Life,
who makes life,
who breathes Life into life,
and loves whom He has made,
and grieves at the death
I have chosen.
Dust and ashes have I chosen,
Love and peace I have rejected.
From the dust my life was formed,
and to the dust I shall return it,
for I have spurned the One who made me,
daily have His loving will denied,
and by my choices choose
the sin,
the dust,
the ashes,
and the dread mortality,
and by my choices hope has faded from me,
and I die
and shall not live,
unless ...
unless ...
unless I hear the loving call,
of Him who came into creation,
and, ruling in a reign of love,
a reign begun in pains upon a torture tree,
a reign that passed into the realms of death,
and dying broke those fearsome gates,
rose,
and calls,
and summons me to live,
and leads me past those grey dim ashes
into everlasting life.
--------------------ed pacht
February 6, 2008. Ash Wednesday. Lent began today. I drove up the hill through the cold rain to the solemn, yet joy-filled Mass of the day, and emerged with a dirty face, marked with ashes and the words, "Remember, O Man, that dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return."
Beyond the Dust
Dust,
ashes,
mortality,
an ending deserved,
an outcome worked for,
by denial of life,
by rejection of Him,
who is Life,
who makes life,
who breathes Life into life,
and loves whom He has made,
and grieves at the death
I have chosen.
Dust and ashes have I chosen,
Love and peace I have rejected.
From the dust my life was formed,
and to the dust I shall return it,
for I have spurned the One who made me,
daily have His loving will denied,
and by my choices choose
the sin,
the dust,
the ashes,
and the dread mortality,
and by my choices hope has faded from me,
and I die
and shall not live,
unless ...
unless ...
unless I hear the loving call,
of Him who came into creation,
and, ruling in a reign of love,
a reign begun in pains upon a torture tree,
a reign that passed into the realms of death,
and dying broke those fearsome gates,
rose,
and calls,
and summons me to live,
and leads me past those grey dim ashes
into everlasting life.
--------------------ed pacht
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Bovine Droppings in the House of Prayer - 5. Hermeneutics
This will probably be the final paper of this series that relates directly to Scripture as such, and is a rather difficult one to write for one, like the present writer, who insists on responsible use of Scripture and a fairly rigid orthodoxy of doctrine.
There is a lot of truly dreadful “interpretation” of Scripture being done. There is a dismaying lot of doctrine built upon passages wrest from their context and thoroughly misunderstood. There is, I think, more eisegesis than exegesis being done—more of reading preconceived ideas into the text than of deriving doctrine from the text. There is, moreover, an appalling ignorance among Biblical interpreters of such niceties as historical background, identity of author and audience, and original language, and, just lately, a lot of theology being derived from inadequate contemporary translations.
Opposed to this wasteland of misinterpretation there is a well-developed set of principles which goes under the name of hermeneutics, a set of instructions about context and background, and generally on the ways the intended meaning can be derived from any document. Historical records, scientific texts, other factual and philosophical works, and even works of fiction can be approached in this way and their meaning discerned.
Scripture, too, is usefully approached through the tested rules of hermeneutics. Much is to be learned, and much is to be gained in this way, and one is protected from the worst kinds of misinterpretation, and yet . . .
Jesus said, ‘Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, but they are they which testify of me.’ He said this to the Pharisees, who were satisfied that their interpretation of Scripture was thorough and accurate. Jesus seems to have agreed with that, for another thing he said about them was that people should listen to what the Pharisees taught, because ‘they sit in Moses’ seat.’ Sound interpretation, accurate interpretation, even valuable interpretation, but interpretation that was unable to find Jesus—and He is the reason for the Book, both Old and New Testaments.
One of the things that perplex liberal scholars and even many conservative Evangelicals is the use of Old Testament texts by the New Testament writers. Most of the prophetic statements quoted and applied to the Christ are far from obvious in context. In very truth some of them, at least, when read in their original context, appear to be saying something entirely other than what, say, Matthew quotes them as saying. Furthermore, Paul’s extensive use of OT scripture would get a failing grade from any hermeneutics professor. He wrests from context, makes truly surprising applications, and fails ever to take background into consideration. What’s going on?
The word of God is quick [alive] and powerful [effective] and sharper than any twoedged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)
In effect, it’s alive, and does what a mere unliving book cannot do. It reads the reader. It speaks individually to the individual listener. It says more to those who will seek it out than it appears to be saying. It is, in some sense, the incarnate Christ Himself. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us . . . refers not only to Bethlehem, but also to the written Word that He has chosen to inhabit. God is in it, and He is not a tame God. He does what He wills. Thus it is that readers of Scripture are often surprised. Often, yea very often, one hears in Scripture things that one cannot actually find on the page. Sometimes one is impressed with a teaching truly Biblical, yet not really supported by the particular passage at hand. Many have come to a saving knowledge of Christ through a completely mistaken understanding of a verse.
I find it no wonder that the dispute raged for so many centuries as to whether the Bible should be understood literally or allegorically. Some of the early Fathers did one, and some the other. Who was right? Both . . . and neither. To refuse to reason out the plain meaning of Scripture is to deny that there is a reliable written Word from God, but to bind the Book with unbreakable chains of logic is to banish the living presence of an unbindable God from its pages.
Recommendations
By all means, study the Scriptures systematically, according to good hermeneutical principles. Use the God-given resource of an intelligent mind to find the plain meaning of the text before you. By all means, approach the Bible devotionally. Let it speak as it will to your heart. Hear what it says to you, even outside the plain text you see.
For both reasons Christians, when they gather together, need to listen together to an orderly plan of readings (a lectionary), that Scripture may speak for itself, independently of what explanations teachers may wish to give. Also for both reasons Christians, when they gather together, need to listen together to an orderly and thoughtful teaching of the scriptures
If you learn something new by either approach, hold it loosely. Check with other Christians. Is it in accord with what generations of Christians have found to be true? Is it in accord with what Christians generally believe? If it’s not, it’s most likely a mistake. Though Christ does make everything ’new’, he does not revel in producing ’novelties. If you still believe you have a correct insight not accepted by others, hold it loosely and humbly. It is far better to love than to be correct, and fighting over doctrinal insights is seldom edifying.
But hold fast to the faith once delivered to the saints.
From the droppings of sacred cattle, Good Lord deliver us. Amen.
There is a lot of truly dreadful “interpretation” of Scripture being done. There is a dismaying lot of doctrine built upon passages wrest from their context and thoroughly misunderstood. There is, I think, more eisegesis than exegesis being done—more of reading preconceived ideas into the text than of deriving doctrine from the text. There is, moreover, an appalling ignorance among Biblical interpreters of such niceties as historical background, identity of author and audience, and original language, and, just lately, a lot of theology being derived from inadequate contemporary translations.
Opposed to this wasteland of misinterpretation there is a well-developed set of principles which goes under the name of hermeneutics, a set of instructions about context and background, and generally on the ways the intended meaning can be derived from any document. Historical records, scientific texts, other factual and philosophical works, and even works of fiction can be approached in this way and their meaning discerned.
Scripture, too, is usefully approached through the tested rules of hermeneutics. Much is to be learned, and much is to be gained in this way, and one is protected from the worst kinds of misinterpretation, and yet . . .
Jesus said, ‘Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, but they are they which testify of me.’ He said this to the Pharisees, who were satisfied that their interpretation of Scripture was thorough and accurate. Jesus seems to have agreed with that, for another thing he said about them was that people should listen to what the Pharisees taught, because ‘they sit in Moses’ seat.’ Sound interpretation, accurate interpretation, even valuable interpretation, but interpretation that was unable to find Jesus—and He is the reason for the Book, both Old and New Testaments.
One of the things that perplex liberal scholars and even many conservative Evangelicals is the use of Old Testament texts by the New Testament writers. Most of the prophetic statements quoted and applied to the Christ are far from obvious in context. In very truth some of them, at least, when read in their original context, appear to be saying something entirely other than what, say, Matthew quotes them as saying. Furthermore, Paul’s extensive use of OT scripture would get a failing grade from any hermeneutics professor. He wrests from context, makes truly surprising applications, and fails ever to take background into consideration. What’s going on?
The word of God is quick [alive] and powerful [effective] and sharper than any twoedged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)
In effect, it’s alive, and does what a mere unliving book cannot do. It reads the reader. It speaks individually to the individual listener. It says more to those who will seek it out than it appears to be saying. It is, in some sense, the incarnate Christ Himself. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us . . . refers not only to Bethlehem, but also to the written Word that He has chosen to inhabit. God is in it, and He is not a tame God. He does what He wills. Thus it is that readers of Scripture are often surprised. Often, yea very often, one hears in Scripture things that one cannot actually find on the page. Sometimes one is impressed with a teaching truly Biblical, yet not really supported by the particular passage at hand. Many have come to a saving knowledge of Christ through a completely mistaken understanding of a verse.
I find it no wonder that the dispute raged for so many centuries as to whether the Bible should be understood literally or allegorically. Some of the early Fathers did one, and some the other. Who was right? Both . . . and neither. To refuse to reason out the plain meaning of Scripture is to deny that there is a reliable written Word from God, but to bind the Book with unbreakable chains of logic is to banish the living presence of an unbindable God from its pages.
Recommendations
By all means, study the Scriptures systematically, according to good hermeneutical principles. Use the God-given resource of an intelligent mind to find the plain meaning of the text before you. By all means, approach the Bible devotionally. Let it speak as it will to your heart. Hear what it says to you, even outside the plain text you see.
For both reasons Christians, when they gather together, need to listen together to an orderly plan of readings (a lectionary), that Scripture may speak for itself, independently of what explanations teachers may wish to give. Also for both reasons Christians, when they gather together, need to listen together to an orderly and thoughtful teaching of the scriptures
If you learn something new by either approach, hold it loosely. Check with other Christians. Is it in accord with what generations of Christians have found to be true? Is it in accord with what Christians generally believe? If it’s not, it’s most likely a mistake. Though Christ does make everything ’new’, he does not revel in producing ’novelties. If you still believe you have a correct insight not accepted by others, hold it loosely and humbly. It is far better to love than to be correct, and fighting over doctrinal insights is seldom edifying.
But hold fast to the faith once delivered to the saints.
From the droppings of sacred cattle, Good Lord deliver us. Amen.
Bovine Droppings in the House of Prayer - 4. Verbal Inspiration
It does appear that the first several papers in this series all concern Scripture. This is another, and there will be at least one more. However, concerns about the Bible are not the only concerns to be numbered among my pet peeves. Patience, there will be other themes, but meanwhile, let’s begin with two texts:
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Scripture claims for itself and every conservative, historic, or traditional Christian affirms, that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and constitutes the written Word of God. This, obviously, is true for “Sola Scriptura” Protestants, but can equally be affirmed of Roman Catholics whose reliance on “Scripture and Tradition” still ends up giving Scripture the place of preeminence; and it is equally true of Eastern Orthodox who speak of Scripture as a part of Holy Tradition, but yet treat it as the most important deposit of that tradition.
So it has always been. The Apostles’ Creed does not mention Scripture, but is largely a pastiche of Scriptural phrases. The Nicene Creed mentions Scripture in passing (Jesus rose again “according to the scriptures”; and the Holy Ghost “spake by the prophets”), with an assumption of their authority. The Fathers and every notable writer through the centuries of the early church and the middle ages constantly quoted scripture and affirmed its divine character. The Reformers based their case on Scripture, and the counter-reformation answered with Scripture. Scripture, beyond all debate, was God-breathed, inspired.
However, for a millennium-and-a-half this fact of inspiration was scarcely defined at all. Simply knowing that God had spoken in these writings was sufficient. Truly, prior to the Reformation there doesn’t seem to have been a theory of inspiration at all, and no lack was felt, and what theories were advanced at the Reformation were still a bit sketchy. In actuality, it was not until the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as a response to burgeoning modernism, that the doctrine of inspiration became laden with the heavy burden of verbiage now so fervently insisted upon and argued over. I tend to consider, even under the provocations of the modernist heresies, that this excrescence of more and more detailed terminology is not only not necessary, but absolutely harmful, picking fights in the wrong places and causing orthodox Christians to look a bit foolish, and this without truly adding anything constructive to the ancient doctrine of inspiration. My purpose here is to discuss a few of these terms, and hopefully lay them to rest.
Verbal Inspiration
What precisely is meant by the phrase ‘verbal inspiration’? It certainly is bandied about with great freedom and insisted upon with great vehemence, but just what does it mean? Well, any theory of inspiration of Scripture has to take into account that the Word of God is only expressed by words, and that therefore inspiration has to be inspiration of the words used, or ‘verbal inspiration’. Truly the words used by the Scriptural authors can be seen as inspired words, chosen under God’s prompting to express what God wished to have expressed.
‘Modernists’ and ‘Liberals’ tend to see the Bible as a book like other books, to be accepted or not, in full or in part, insofar as it appears to express truth (as truth is judged by the reader). Inspiration, by them, would be seen, perhaps, as no more than the ‘inspiration’ of a gifted artist or poet painting or writing beauty from the depths of his heart; or, perhaps, there might be a recognition of divine inspiration in the sense that the writers were in touch with God through the impartation of some spark of divine illumination, and reflected this in their writing. This, obviously is not ‘verbal inspiration’, and the phrase could usefully be employed to exclude such a minimalist view. The inspiration of Scripture is manifestly something different and superior to that of, say, Shakespeare or Milton, but is truly God’s chosen means of expressing His own thoughts.
If that were the full meaning of the phrase, one could be content to use it, but such is not the case. “Verbal inspiration” is often used to express a notion that each and every word in the Scripture was specifically chosen by God, that the writers themselves were not free to choose other words than these, and that the Bible, in effect, was dictated to copyists, rather than being written by inspired men. This is, quite simply, unacceptable. God simply does not manipulate puppets. He reveals His will to men and gives them the ability to express His thoughts faithfully, whether in deeds or in writing, but it is holy men of God who speak when they are moved by the Holy Spirit, not puppets, automatons, or mediums. Each book of Scripture is as thoroughly an expression of the personality of its writer as it is of the nature of God.
Could it be that John was deliberate in the oblique language of his Prologue? Could it be that He intended to say something more general about incarnation than just the Christmas event? In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God . . . and the word was made flesh . . . God, in the supreme expression of Himself took flesh of the virgin Mary and the God-man was born. Might this also imply that God, in the revelation of His nature and will, used the flesh of men to write it, and a human-divine book was born, having a dual nature much like that of the Christ? I would not be the first to have advanced such an idea.
For these and other reasons, while holding a high view of inspiration, I simply will not use this phrase ‘verbal inspiration’. It would seem quite sufficient to declare, as the Scripture itself does, that the written Word is ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’, and leave it at that.
Plenary Inspiration
Now this written Word does indeed consist of a number of separate and distinct documents, dictated and/or penned by a number of separate and distinct individuals, with a variety of different ends in view, and that over a quite considerable span of centuries. Could this disparate body of writings indeed be inspired by God in its entirety and in every part? One’s answer here could indeed be considered a fair test of whether one is a traditional orthodox Christian or a modernist liberal. Historic Christianity does answer with a resounding ‘yes’. ‘Plenary’ or “full and complete’ inspiration has this as its basic meaning, but I have observed that the louder one shouts about plenary inspiration the more likely one is to fall into certain basic errors of scriptural interpretation. Does inspiration mean that every passage speaks authoritatively about what is? Well, yes and no. I believe that every statement in the Book is there for a purpose, succeeds in its purpose, and expresses precisely what God would wish to express. However, that does not mean that every passage of Scripture, in and of itself, conveys truth that must be heeded. For many passages inspiration consists in that this is an accurate presentation of error to be avoided, as in the declamations of Job’s friends, parts of which are often quoted as God’s truth, even though God Himself is depicted as refuting them. Other passages, such as 3 John 2, are often made to carry a burden they were never intended to bear. This is not a declaration about healing, or even less about prosperity, but simply a statement of the wishes of a godly old man concerning his addressee. Yes, God desired it to be said, but nowhere did God guarantee that John’s wish was everywhere and always precisely His own.
In short, though I am fully convinced that divine inspiration permeates the entire body of the Scriptures, I refuse to describe it as ‘plenary’. It would seem quite sufficient to declare, as the Scripture itself does, that the written Word is ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’, and leave it at that.
Infallible and Inerrant
These also are popular ways of describing the Scriptures. It is true that God’s written Word will not and can not fail in its purpose. It is also true that God simply does not make mistakes, and that his Scriptures will not therefore contain mistakes. It is therefore not appropriate to do as Liberal theology does, and continually pick and choose among passages we do or do not agree with. However, “infallibility” of the Scriptures is all too often used synonomously with the infallibility of a given way of interpreting them. This becomes most blatantly obvious in the various schemes of prophetic interpretation. Every teacher (and there are a multitude, disagreeing violently one with another) asserts categorically that his scheme of things is what the Bible says. If such a proclamation be believed, what happens when a prophecy goes unfulfilled (as in 1844 when Miller’s prediction of the end did not come to pass)? Did Scripture fail?
“Inerrancy” comes to refer to statements which appear to conflict with discoveries of modern science. Unbelievers will sometimes point to Scriptural statements that appear to conflict with present-day understandings of how the universe works, and use this perceived conflict as a pretext for rejecting the whole thing. Literal minded believers, on the other hand will consistently try to shout down the scientific voices with, “The Bible says . . .” Does either side understand what God, in the Scriptures, is intending to do? I think not.
Divine inspiration means, at the least, that God has placed into this Book precisely what He intends us to hear, the fullness of His eternal truth, the richness of His promise, the surety of His salvation, and so much of His own nature as men are able to comprehend. Human authorship means that those men who are infallibly and inerrantly conveying that message are doing so as men, and are expressing and illustrating it in terms of what they know and have experienced. A work divinely inspired and humanly authored will assuredly present eternal verities, will sometimes reveal matters of fact beyond the author’s prior knowledge, but will always be a work of its own time, presenting the eternal worldview in terms comprehensible to the author’s own worldview. Is it, then, necessary to accept every scientific or historical statement, every number, dimension, or date, in Scripture as absolutely true? Does the truth of the Bible stand and fall on this kind of understanding? By no means! Do I need to accept that the world came into existence in seven twenty-four hour days in 4004 BC? Do I need to accept a literal world-wide flood that submerged every bit of earth’s landsurface? Does my faith as a Christian hang upon these things? Jesus said, “Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, but they are they which testify of me.” There’s the purpose of inspiration. The whole corpus of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, is inspired of God in order that we might see the redemption wrought by God in Christ. It would seem quite sufficient to declare, as the Scripture itself does, that the written Word is ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’, and leave it at that.
BLESSED Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace, and ever hold fast, the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.
From the droppings of sacred cattle, Good Lord deliver us. Amen.
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Scripture claims for itself and every conservative, historic, or traditional Christian affirms, that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and constitutes the written Word of God. This, obviously, is true for “Sola Scriptura” Protestants, but can equally be affirmed of Roman Catholics whose reliance on “Scripture and Tradition” still ends up giving Scripture the place of preeminence; and it is equally true of Eastern Orthodox who speak of Scripture as a part of Holy Tradition, but yet treat it as the most important deposit of that tradition.
So it has always been. The Apostles’ Creed does not mention Scripture, but is largely a pastiche of Scriptural phrases. The Nicene Creed mentions Scripture in passing (Jesus rose again “according to the scriptures”; and the Holy Ghost “spake by the prophets”), with an assumption of their authority. The Fathers and every notable writer through the centuries of the early church and the middle ages constantly quoted scripture and affirmed its divine character. The Reformers based their case on Scripture, and the counter-reformation answered with Scripture. Scripture, beyond all debate, was God-breathed, inspired.
However, for a millennium-and-a-half this fact of inspiration was scarcely defined at all. Simply knowing that God had spoken in these writings was sufficient. Truly, prior to the Reformation there doesn’t seem to have been a theory of inspiration at all, and no lack was felt, and what theories were advanced at the Reformation were still a bit sketchy. In actuality, it was not until the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as a response to burgeoning modernism, that the doctrine of inspiration became laden with the heavy burden of verbiage now so fervently insisted upon and argued over. I tend to consider, even under the provocations of the modernist heresies, that this excrescence of more and more detailed terminology is not only not necessary, but absolutely harmful, picking fights in the wrong places and causing orthodox Christians to look a bit foolish, and this without truly adding anything constructive to the ancient doctrine of inspiration. My purpose here is to discuss a few of these terms, and hopefully lay them to rest.
Verbal Inspiration
What precisely is meant by the phrase ‘verbal inspiration’? It certainly is bandied about with great freedom and insisted upon with great vehemence, but just what does it mean? Well, any theory of inspiration of Scripture has to take into account that the Word of God is only expressed by words, and that therefore inspiration has to be inspiration of the words used, or ‘verbal inspiration’. Truly the words used by the Scriptural authors can be seen as inspired words, chosen under God’s prompting to express what God wished to have expressed.
‘Modernists’ and ‘Liberals’ tend to see the Bible as a book like other books, to be accepted or not, in full or in part, insofar as it appears to express truth (as truth is judged by the reader). Inspiration, by them, would be seen, perhaps, as no more than the ‘inspiration’ of a gifted artist or poet painting or writing beauty from the depths of his heart; or, perhaps, there might be a recognition of divine inspiration in the sense that the writers were in touch with God through the impartation of some spark of divine illumination, and reflected this in their writing. This, obviously is not ‘verbal inspiration’, and the phrase could usefully be employed to exclude such a minimalist view. The inspiration of Scripture is manifestly something different and superior to that of, say, Shakespeare or Milton, but is truly God’s chosen means of expressing His own thoughts.
If that were the full meaning of the phrase, one could be content to use it, but such is not the case. “Verbal inspiration” is often used to express a notion that each and every word in the Scripture was specifically chosen by God, that the writers themselves were not free to choose other words than these, and that the Bible, in effect, was dictated to copyists, rather than being written by inspired men. This is, quite simply, unacceptable. God simply does not manipulate puppets. He reveals His will to men and gives them the ability to express His thoughts faithfully, whether in deeds or in writing, but it is holy men of God who speak when they are moved by the Holy Spirit, not puppets, automatons, or mediums. Each book of Scripture is as thoroughly an expression of the personality of its writer as it is of the nature of God.
Could it be that John was deliberate in the oblique language of his Prologue? Could it be that He intended to say something more general about incarnation than just the Christmas event? In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God . . . and the word was made flesh . . . God, in the supreme expression of Himself took flesh of the virgin Mary and the God-man was born. Might this also imply that God, in the revelation of His nature and will, used the flesh of men to write it, and a human-divine book was born, having a dual nature much like that of the Christ? I would not be the first to have advanced such an idea.
For these and other reasons, while holding a high view of inspiration, I simply will not use this phrase ‘verbal inspiration’. It would seem quite sufficient to declare, as the Scripture itself does, that the written Word is ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’, and leave it at that.
Plenary Inspiration
Now this written Word does indeed consist of a number of separate and distinct documents, dictated and/or penned by a number of separate and distinct individuals, with a variety of different ends in view, and that over a quite considerable span of centuries. Could this disparate body of writings indeed be inspired by God in its entirety and in every part? One’s answer here could indeed be considered a fair test of whether one is a traditional orthodox Christian or a modernist liberal. Historic Christianity does answer with a resounding ‘yes’. ‘Plenary’ or “full and complete’ inspiration has this as its basic meaning, but I have observed that the louder one shouts about plenary inspiration the more likely one is to fall into certain basic errors of scriptural interpretation. Does inspiration mean that every passage speaks authoritatively about what is? Well, yes and no. I believe that every statement in the Book is there for a purpose, succeeds in its purpose, and expresses precisely what God would wish to express. However, that does not mean that every passage of Scripture, in and of itself, conveys truth that must be heeded. For many passages inspiration consists in that this is an accurate presentation of error to be avoided, as in the declamations of Job’s friends, parts of which are often quoted as God’s truth, even though God Himself is depicted as refuting them. Other passages, such as 3 John 2, are often made to carry a burden they were never intended to bear. This is not a declaration about healing, or even less about prosperity, but simply a statement of the wishes of a godly old man concerning his addressee. Yes, God desired it to be said, but nowhere did God guarantee that John’s wish was everywhere and always precisely His own.
In short, though I am fully convinced that divine inspiration permeates the entire body of the Scriptures, I refuse to describe it as ‘plenary’. It would seem quite sufficient to declare, as the Scripture itself does, that the written Word is ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’, and leave it at that.
Infallible and Inerrant
These also are popular ways of describing the Scriptures. It is true that God’s written Word will not and can not fail in its purpose. It is also true that God simply does not make mistakes, and that his Scriptures will not therefore contain mistakes. It is therefore not appropriate to do as Liberal theology does, and continually pick and choose among passages we do or do not agree with. However, “infallibility” of the Scriptures is all too often used synonomously with the infallibility of a given way of interpreting them. This becomes most blatantly obvious in the various schemes of prophetic interpretation. Every teacher (and there are a multitude, disagreeing violently one with another) asserts categorically that his scheme of things is what the Bible says. If such a proclamation be believed, what happens when a prophecy goes unfulfilled (as in 1844 when Miller’s prediction of the end did not come to pass)? Did Scripture fail?
“Inerrancy” comes to refer to statements which appear to conflict with discoveries of modern science. Unbelievers will sometimes point to Scriptural statements that appear to conflict with present-day understandings of how the universe works, and use this perceived conflict as a pretext for rejecting the whole thing. Literal minded believers, on the other hand will consistently try to shout down the scientific voices with, “The Bible says . . .” Does either side understand what God, in the Scriptures, is intending to do? I think not.
Divine inspiration means, at the least, that God has placed into this Book precisely what He intends us to hear, the fullness of His eternal truth, the richness of His promise, the surety of His salvation, and so much of His own nature as men are able to comprehend. Human authorship means that those men who are infallibly and inerrantly conveying that message are doing so as men, and are expressing and illustrating it in terms of what they know and have experienced. A work divinely inspired and humanly authored will assuredly present eternal verities, will sometimes reveal matters of fact beyond the author’s prior knowledge, but will always be a work of its own time, presenting the eternal worldview in terms comprehensible to the author’s own worldview. Is it, then, necessary to accept every scientific or historical statement, every number, dimension, or date, in Scripture as absolutely true? Does the truth of the Bible stand and fall on this kind of understanding? By no means! Do I need to accept that the world came into existence in seven twenty-four hour days in 4004 BC? Do I need to accept a literal world-wide flood that submerged every bit of earth’s landsurface? Does my faith as a Christian hang upon these things? Jesus said, “Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, but they are they which testify of me.” There’s the purpose of inspiration. The whole corpus of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, is inspired of God in order that we might see the redemption wrought by God in Christ. It would seem quite sufficient to declare, as the Scripture itself does, that the written Word is ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’, and leave it at that.
BLESSED Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace, and ever hold fast, the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.
From the droppings of sacred cattle, Good Lord deliver us. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
