Sex! Woohoo!

[tonyenglish7]

Yea, I understand now, sure, some sins are morally more reprehensible then others. It becomes even less clear when we as Christians lose our saltiness.

Hi Tony,
I have not commented on your posts before, but I have been watching your conversaion on this thread, particularly with Scott. I understand your concerns with Scott's comments, and I thought he explained himself well. As a relatively conservative evangelical Christian, I have no issue with Scott's comments.
I am not so sure about your comment here. In previous posts, it seemed as though the context of culture point rubbed you the wrong way. However, your comment about Christians "losing" saltiness seems to refer to the relevance of Christians in their culture.
Can you explain what you meant or give an example?

I was not rubbed the wrong way regarding culture, but we have to define morality based upon the instructions of an unchanging God, not based upon culture. If a culture starts to use a word different from the meaning used by the biblical writer, it is incumbent upon us to remain true to the meaning and push against the changing definition, especially if we are talking about moral instructions.

Some things are cultural and we are instructed to become all things to all men in an effort to win them to Christ. And since we are all under the umbrella of sin, it is sometimes a mute point theoretically. Since all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God, it doesn't follow that we need to push for lower "cultural" standards for sin in an effort to escape.

However, we should not be changing the definition of sin to make it more acceptable to live in sin. As Christians, we are called to be a preservative (salt) to the world. We are the ones that understand the sovereignty of God and the moral imperative that his existence brings. The light is the "good news" but the "good news" is meaningless if the culture is blind about the bad news they are under. However, if we stop telling the truth, we have lost our influence and will be useless. I posted this to Scott but here it is again.

Matthew 5:13  ¶“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
14  ¶“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.
15  Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.
16  In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
17  ¶“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[TheFonz]

Yea, I understand now, sure, some sins are morally more reprehensible then others. It becomes even less clear when we as Christians lose our saltiness.

So what are you saying here, Tony?

It seems to me you are in the unenviable position to defend fornication as either not a sin or not as bad as other sins. I am conceding it is not as bad as worse sins.

Regarding the Salt referrence....
Matthew 5:13  ¶“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
14  ¶“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.
15  Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.
16  In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
17  ¶“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I think that explains my position.

Hmmm...not really, Tony. That passage explains God's position on Christians place place in the world and interacting with non-Christians. You equated Christian moral decline (losing saltiness) with the fact that some sins are more morally reprehensible than others. I was looking for an example of this connection in order to sow how culture does define a behavior, as Scott advocated.
But I think I get your point anyway.

[TheFonz]

The Fonz

aaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

[tonyenglish7]

Hmmm...not really, Tony. That passage explains God's position on Christians place place in the world and interacting with non-Christians. You equated Christian moral decline (losing saltiness) with the fact that some sins are more morally reprehensible than others. I was looking for an example of this connection in order to sow how culture does define a behavior, as Scott advocated.
But I think I get your point anyway.

[/quote]

Sorry I didn't answer your question. I think there are two different points, one, there are some sins that are worse then others, and two, culture defines some behavior. On the second one, maybe ask Scott. But I agree that some things in society are cultural and we as Christians need to be wise in deciding these things. Some things are clearly moral issues. Everything in not cultural!

One example of an intertwined issue is the way women dress. It is moral for Christian women to dress appropriately based upon the instruction in the bible. However, in culture, what is provocative in one culture is not in another. In some cultures, women feel no need to wear a top, in others it is considered provocative to show leg. I think this is the sort of thing Scott is saying. But what I am saying is the moral point that women should not be out to seduce men at church, is true. How that get's worked out is cultural.

Regarding fornication, it is very clear what that is. There is no gray area the way Scott is trying to paint it in my opinion. This is clear from the intention of the writer, the common historical interpretation and can be seen as a common moral standard seen in other cultures.

[ScottBarger]

Fonz, Tony, et al.

Interpreting the Bible is quite a thing, isn't it? A worthy but difficult pursuit. In my opinion one of the most troublesome aspects of biblical interpretation is that there is no biblically mandated method of interpretation. In other words, God has not ordained a specific method of interpretation. He has essentially let it up to us. Who's to say that I shouldn't interpret the gospels allegorically or the Pentateuch as ancient mythology? This should cause the Christian community to practice humility as we seek to interpret and apply the teachings of the Bible.

To the topic at hand. It is interesting to me how often our interpretation is influenced by our culture. Tony gave the example of women dressing modestly. Great example. Let me make a couple of observations about the passage Tony seems to be referencing.

It's 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and it reads this way:

"2:9 Likewise the women are to dress in suitable apparel, with modesty and self-control. Their adornment must not be with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothing, 2:10 but with good deeds, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God." (NET Bible)

Most present day evangelical Christians read this passage and interpret it this way "Women shouldn't dress immodestly or be preoccupied with their outward appearance, instead they should be preoccupied with living a pious life." We tend not to interpret this passage as a prohibition against wearing gold, pearls, expensive clothes or braided hair... even though the passage explicitly makes such a prohibition. We have, for whatever reasons (probably cultural ones) have said "Well Paul said this, but he means that."

Another example...

In 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 Paul gives the following teaching,

"...As in all the churches of the saints, 14:34 the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says. 14:35 If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home, because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church."

Most Christians do not impose strict silence on women in church gatherings, even though this passage explicitly mandates as much. Why? We interpret the meaning in light of Paul's culture and our own.

So there are some passages where we gloss over explicit teachings while favoring a more general interpretation and application (ie Paul wasn't saying women can't braid their hair, he was teaching on the virtues of modesty and piety). There are many examples of these kinds of interpretational "glossings" within present day Christianity. It is obvious we have become quite comfortable interpreting the bible through the lens of our own culture. We do it all the time.

I would further argue that in the same way that there are specific teachings we gloss over in favor of more general, culturally derived interpretations, there are also somewhat general teachings we specifically define in favor of more articulated, culturally derived interpretations. I think teachings against sexual immorality fall into that category. Sexual immorality is not defined as specifically as modesty is in 1 Timothy or the role of women in the church in 1 Corinthians, yet we apply it very specifically. Tony would say the biblical concept of "sexual immorality" is a prohibition against vaginal intercourse. Is it also a prohibition against hand holding? The text does not specifically say, so we interpret/apply it via culture. Some might say it's OK to kiss someone's mouth before marriage, but not OK to kiss their genitals before marriage. How would one determine that specific line for moral/immoral behavior? Certainly not from explicit biblical teaching.

All I have been trying to argue is that these specific applications of the biblical teaching against "sexual immorality" are derived through a culturally driven interpretation of the Bible. It is clear that sexual immorality is prohibited for the follower of Jesus, but the task of defining "sexual immorality" is perhaps best left to individual communities of Christians as they wrestle with these texts and try to understand the moral implications of living according to what they teach. There will undoubtedly be differences of application between one community and the next, but in those cases I think grace and humility should govern our interactions with each other.

[StillSearching]

Well put Scott. It's obvious that there is a wide range of interpretation, even among Christians, of the lessons put forth in the Bible. We have already nullified or modified many of the laws and rules therein. If you cease to allow anything other than a literal following of all the rules, as Tony alluded to by quoting Matt 5, then you've opened a can of worms. We have to go back to avoiding mixed fibers, owning slaves, growing untrimmed beards, smashing idols, stoning adulterers and blasphemers, not putting up Christmas trees, no praying in public . . . shall I go on? There's about 700 more.

Tony, you just can't convince me that there are any morals that come from God and he alone. There are those that are nearly universally agreed upon: Thou shalt not kill seems pretty clear, and I think the vast majority of us agree that it's bad to take another life. But even this has gray area. Are there no moments at which killing is acceptable? War? Defense of your own life or the life of a loved one? The carrying out of a DNR order? We make concessions even to this seemingly immutable law. If you take every word as truth in the Bible, God himself contradicts this law many times, according to his desires.

Premarital sex is a far cry from murder, and you can't convince me that there is an immovable line on this issue. Premarital sex was a particularly bad idea in ancient cultures. Contraception was virtually non-existent. Non-virgin women were less desirable and valuable in that time, hence the monetary penalty that Scott pointed out.

Does that mean we should ignore the topic of sex? Should we teach our children to just screw, lick, suck, fondle, etc. whatever they please, whenever they please, with whomever they please? Absolutely not, and to imply that anyone here is advocating such a strategy is flat-out bloated self-righteousness. What us middle-of-the-roaders want is intelligent, informed discussion. Discussion that includes discretion, moderation, modesty, safety, contraception, and yes, marriage and abstinence. If you want NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE, PERIOD all I have to say is good luck. I don't envy you that battle.

[tonyenglish7]

Fonz, Tony, et al.

It's 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and it reads this way:

"2:9 Likewise the women are to dress in suitable apparel, with modesty and self-control. Their adornment must not be with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothing, 2:10 but with good deeds, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God." (NET Bible)

Most present day evangelical Christians read this passage and interpret it this way "Women shouldn't dress immodestly or be preoccupied with their outward appearance, instead they should be preoccupied with living a pious life." We tend not to interpret this passage as a prohibition against wearing gold, pearls, expensive clothes or braided hair... even though the passage explicitly makes such a prohibition. We have, for whatever reasons (probably cultural ones) have said "Well Paul said this, but he means that."

This one is talking allegorically about adornment, not being pearls but deeds and reverence. This is not a prohibition against braided hair but a warning about modesty with the emphasis being on piousness.
Another example...

In 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 Paul gives the following teaching,

"...As in all the churches of the saints, 14:34 the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says. 14:35 If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home, because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church."

Most Christians do not impose strict silence on women in church gatherings, even though this passage explicitly mandates as much. Why? We interpret the meaning in light of Paul's culture and our own.

So there are some passages where we gloss over explicit teachings while favoring a more general interpretation and application (ie Paul wasn't saying women can't braid their hair, he was teaching on the virtues of modesty and piety). There are many examples of these kinds of interpretational "glossings" within present day Christianity. It is obvious we have become quite comfortable interpreting the bible through the lens of our own culture. We do it all the time.

I would further argue that in the same way that there are specific teachings we gloss over in favor of more general, culturally derived interpretations, there are also somewhat general teachings we specifically define in favor of more articulated, culturally derived interpretations. I think teachings against sexual immorality fall into that category. Sexual immorality is not defined as specifically as modesty is in 1 Timothy or the role of women in the church in 1 Corinthians, yet we apply it very specifically. Tony would say the biblical concept of "sexual immorality" is a prohibition against vaginal intercourse. Is it also a prohibition against hand holding? The text does not specifically say, so we interpret/apply it via culture. Some might say it's OK to kiss someone's mouth before marriage, but not OK to kiss their genitals before marriage. How would one determine that specific line for moral/immoral behavior? Certainly not from explicit biblical teaching.

All I have been trying to argue is that these specific applications of the biblical teaching against "sexual immorality" are derived through a culturally driven interpretation of the Bible. It is clear that sexual immorality is prohibited for the follower of Jesus, but the task of defining "sexual immorality" is perhaps best left to individual communities of Christians as they wrestle with these texts and try to understand the moral implications of living according to what they teach. There will undoubtedly be differences of application between one community and the next, but in those cases I think grace and humility should govern our interactions with each other.

No one verse should be used for a doctrine of Christianity, rather all scripture should be interpreted by the whole of revelation. This verse, Paul is quickly listing some things for this church to obey. They were very charismatic and they were getting out of control apparently. Paul was bringing order to this church.

When we look at the rest of the bible we see women in prominent roles so this one verse is not strong enough to keep women from ever speaking in church when evaluated via the whole word of God. It must have been limited in some other way. I understand this is the challenging verse you could use for your argument towards cultural relativism, but it is not strong enough to make it a free-for-all in adjusting any teaching using cultural relativism. At the very least we can see a hierarchy for gender roles.

And regarding your claim that the bible doesn't tell us how to interpret the bible. I would point out that Jesus taught that the scripture could not be broken and that Paul and Jesus were constantly saying things like "that the scriptures would be fulfilled." And Jesus would chastise the disciples for "not knowing the scriptures". So, we see that the scripture is the guide to determine these things. It is not that everything is perfectly clear or easy but we do have instruction on how we are to decide these things. Just because there are some things that are difficult, doesn't mean we can just open the flood gates to any personal interpretation.

2 Timothy 3:16  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,...

[tonyenglish7]

[quote="StillSearching"]
Tony, you just can't convince me that there are any morals that come from God and he alone. There are those that are nearly universally agreed upon: Thou shalt not kill seems pretty clear, and I think the vast majority of us agree that it's bad to take another life. But even this has gray area. Are there no moments at which killing is acceptable? War? Defense of your own life or the life of a loved one? The carrying out of a DNR order? We make concessions even to this seemingly immutable law. If you take every word as truth in the Bible, God himself contradicts this law many times, according to his desires. [quote]

All morals come from God alone. If there was no God, then morals would be a physical effect of evolution and an illusion not based upon reality but gene mutations that made people think morals exist when they actually do not, simply enhancing survival but not reflecting anything in reality. Those that came to this knowledge would be able to justify anything they wanted.

If morals are not based upon God, yet God exists, then God would have to live under the moral laws which makes him not God and leave the question as to where are morals based? And if God just randomly makes up any laws he wants then God would not be good.

So the only other logical option is that morals are based upon the actual existence of a all powerful God who is good in Himself and in his own nature grounds what is moral. He is the center of everything and all things revolve and exist for Him. So when we talk about what is right and wrong, it is dependent upon God's nature and God's opinion. We have been made in his image and we are endowed with the ability to have a general sense of morals that are real, with oughtness...

[TheFonz]

Sorry I didn't answer your question. I think there are two different points, one, there are some sins that are worse then others, and two, culture defines some behavior. On the second one, maybe ask Scott. But I agree that some things in society are cultural and we as Christians need to be wise in deciding these things. Some things are clearly moral issues. Everything in not cultural!

One example of an intertwined issue is the way women dress. It is moral for Christian women to dress appropriately based upon the instruction in the bible. However, in culture, what is provocative in one culture is not in another. In some cultures, women feel no need to wear a top, in others it is considered provocative to show leg. I think this is the sort of thing Scott is saying. But what I am saying is the moral point that women should not be out to seduce men at church, is true. How that get's worked out is cultural.

Regarding fornication, it is very clear what that is. There is no gray area the way Scott is trying to paint it in my opinion. This is clear from the intention of the writer, the common historical interpretation and can be seen as a common moral standard seen in other cultures.

Thanks for the comments, Tony. You made your position clear. I am not sure I agree with you, but I get it.
From my perspective, you can put your position and Scott's position on a cultural relativism continuum. Obviously you lean more towards literal interpretation and Scott leans more towards the context of culture. I would fall somewhere in the middle, but perhaps a little closer to Scott.
Here is why:
It is foolish for Christians to try to present the God of the Bible to unbelievers using a literal interpretation. There are just too many weird things (for lack of a better descriptor). How do we take Jesus' warning about lust or the teaching on fornication literally, but the whole pluck your eye out thing figuratively? How can we basically drop the whole Old Testament as a different dispensation or Covenant and then claim teachings from Psalms and Proverbs? How can we say "love thy neighbor" When Jesus wasn't exactly friendly with the Pharisees?
These are simplistic examples, I know. But the bottom line is context is king. The context of the Bible is profoundly influenced by the culture of the Bible. As a result, there are gray areas. Where the Bible is gray, so should we.
Have you done the word studies on "fornication"? Have you checked more than a few lexicons? If not, I suggest it. You might just find some shades of gray.

[ScottBarger]

This one is talking allegorically about adornment, not being pearls but deeds and reverence. This is not a prohibition against braided hair but a warning about modesty with the emphasis being on piousness.

Tony I am not sure you actually mean "allegorical" here. If so, I think you would be the only Christian I have very talked to or read who thinks this teaching ought to be interpreted allegorically. Now, if you choose to interpret this passage in such a way that the specific prohibitions are not actually meant to be prescriptive instructions but descriptive (cultural examples of what the writer was teaching) then you will have problems later in the same text where the writer teaches that elders ought to be "the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money" (1 Ti 3:2-3, NET Bible) are these also descriptors that are not meant to be followed?

The very fact that you are interpreting this passage in a general way and relegating specific prohibitions to the category of "cultural examples that are not meant to be literally obeyed," proves my point that our interpretations/applications are often culturally derived.

No one verse should be used for a doctrine of Christianity, rather all scripture should be interpreted by the whole of revelation. This verse, Paul is quickly listing some things for this church to obey. They were very charismatic and they were getting out of control apparently. Paul was bringing order to this church.

The assumptions you make here, namely, that no one verse should be used for Christian doctrine and all scripture should be interpreted by the whole of revelation, are theological conclusions that are not explicitly taught in scripture. Furthermore, the cultural/historical context you provide to help you interpret is speculitive (we have no record of the precise problems faced by the Church in Corinth and thus must infer the context by what we read within the text) and reflects a hermeneutic that is not explicitly taught in scripture. This validates my point.

When we look at the rest of the bible we see women in prominent roles so this one verse is not strong enough to keep women from ever speaking in church when evaluated via the whole word of God. It must have been limited in some other way. I understand this is the challenging verse you could use for your argument towards cultural relativism, but it is not strong enough to make it a free-for-all in adjusting any teaching using cultural relativism. At the very least we can see a hierarchy for gender roles.

My point is evident in your comments here as well. The assertion that Paul's words ought to be tempered and understood in light of the whole of biblical revelation is a theological/hemerneutical conclusion not explicitly taught by the Bible itself. You have taken a specific prohibition and said "this doesn't mean what is says, it means something else." A Christian who followed these prohibitions carefully might look at you and say "You are watering down the plain meaning of scripture because the teaching is too hard for you."

And regarding your claim that the bible doesn't tell us how to interpret the bible. I would point out that Jesus taught that the scripture could not be broken and that Paul and Jesus were constantly saying things like "that the scriptures would be fulfilled." And Jesus would chastise the disciples for "not knowing the scriptures". So, we see that the scripture is the guide to determine these things. It is not that everything is perfectly clear or easy but we do have instruction on how we are to decide these things.

The examples you cite here have little to do with the method of interpreting scripture and more to do with the authority of scripture. When you actually look at examples of NT writers interpreting the OT, their method is a bit scary.

Just because there are some things that are difficult, doesn't mean we can just open the flood gates to any personal interpretation.

True, I am not an advocate of "personal interpretation." Communal interpretation, maybe, personal interpretation, not at all. I am suggesting that in the absence of a biblically prescribed method of interpretation, any method we embrace will necessarily be open to critique and culturally influenced.

2 Timothy 3:16  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,...

Again this passage does not speak to method of interpretation, but to the authority and usefulness of the Scripture. An interesting side note, to the best of our knowledge the man who penned these words had no idea which books the Bible would include. In fact, as far as we know, there is no divinely inspired list of which texts should be considered scripture and which should not.

[NH Baritone]

Is anyone else amused that the Christians cannot get their sex act together?

[ScottBarger]

NH,

It's the cost of doing business when you make a commitment to live in community and learn from a 2000 year old collection of writings. I mean, look how much trouble we Americans have figuring out what our Constitution says/means...and that document is only 200 years old and it was written in English!

[NH Baritone]

NH,

It's the cost of doing business when you make a commitment to live in community and learn from a 2000 year old collection of writings. I mean, look how much trouble we Americans have figuring out what our Constitution says/means...and that document is only 200 years old and it was written in English!

Don't take my comment as negative. I consider this better entertainment than the sitcoms on TV.

[whoosanightowl]

Scott wrote:

It's the cost of doing business when you make a commitment to live in community and learn from a 2000 year old collection of writings. I mean, look how much trouble we Americans have figuring out what our Constitution says/means...and that document is only 200 years old and it was written in English!

Scott, I've heard this analogy used before, and I understand and agree with it---as long as we're comparing 2 documents authored by fallible human beings. But if you want to claim the bible is God's word with all it's contents God breathed, then that changes things a bit. Something that is authored by a perfect being should not be difficult to understand and should be easy for everyone to agree on it's meaning. Especially since this God being wants us to use his manual to direct our lives.
At least that's the way I see it.

Sue

[ScottBarger]

Sue,

I don't want to knock this thread to far afield, but I don't think the Bible claims to be perfect and it's quite obvious that it has the smudgy fingerprints of human beings all over it. Yet, for some reason, I think God breathed life into it and said something like "Yeah, learn from these words, they will teach you the better life." Why didn't God make it simpler, or tidier, or more logical? I don't know...but it seems to me that he values the process and the messiness of it all.

If you are anything like other atheist friends of mine, this is the point where you will say something like, "If my eternal destiny depends on me understanding and beleiving the words of the Bible, then why did the divine author make it so difficult to understand? So difficult that his own followers can't agree on what it means?!?"

My only response to that question is to say that maybe your eternal destiny doesn't depend on your understanding at all...which makes me either a callous Calvinist who gets off on God's sovereignty, or a milquetoast universalist who likes to obsess about God's mercy, forgiveness, and grace. Either way I'm doomed.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback.