24. March 2008 by Seth.

Some of you left some great comments concerning Sen. Obama’s methods of Biblical interpretation.  Let’s continue the evaluation.

Where is this reference in the Sermon on the Mount to which the Senator is referring?  Great question.  Answer: it’s anyone’s guess.  He did not make it clear, but simply invoked this lengthy passage by name.

Perhaps he was making a veiled reference to Matt. 5:38-48, the well-known section of turning the other cheek to one who has slapped you, of giving your coat when someone takes your shirt, etc.  Or, even more likely, perhaps he was appealing to the first portion of chapter 7—that of judging oneself before one’s brother.

However, for Sen. Obama to claim that these passages support homosexuality is an eisegetical travesty.  The teachings bundled in this section vary from that of Believers remaining fervent in their example as a “city on a hill” (5:13-16), of men and women being guilty of adultery even if they merely lust after another (5:27-28), of giving to the poor (6:1-4), etc.  To invoke this passage by name and declare it a great ally of homosexual conduct would be to ignore the teachings thereof entirely.  Anyone with a KJV, NIV, NASB—or, for that matter, even an NWT—can clearly see that these chapters teach principles of personal conduct, relationships, witness, and that they do not encourage sinful lifestyles.

There is no didactic (teaching) content in favor of homosexuality.  The reference found here to sexuality does nothing to broaden God’s command.  On the contrary, it makes morality in relation to sexuality much tighter.  Indeed, Jesus commands that mere lust is tantamount to fornication.

The Senator’s flippant attitude toward Romans must also be dealt with.  Not only is this passage not in the least obscure, we have no reason to assume that we can merely pick what we want from the Bible and dispose of the rest.  This smorgasbord attitude is that which has produced the neo-pagan, Buddhist-flavored, Christianity-sprinkled New-Agers which populate our country. 

To deny God’s Word, however, is to deny God.  One who chooses to discard commandments from the Father is choosing not to follow the Father.

Indeed, Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15; NASB).  He did not give us access to pick and choose which of those commandments we like.  If we are followers of God, it will naturally follow that we obey Him—and His Word.

Biblical texts may vary in the extent to which they may be easily applied to our lives.  It is quite simple, for example, to see how the Sermon on the Mount ought to guide how we direct our lives.  And, Romans 1:26-27, the “obscure” passage cited by Sen. Obama, can quite readily be applied to our lives in that we are not to engage in the sin it describes.  However, even passages which may not seem to directly apply to us cannot be thrown away.

The Bible is composed of a variety of types of literature—from didactic passages to narratives, from poetry to parables and proverbs, etc.  We must consciously determine which type of literature we are reading as we engage a Biblical text.  Passages which are not didactic in nature will naturally be less quickly applicable to daily life.  However, we cannot declare these unimportant and discard them.

After all, how would our understanding of the long-awaited redemption be cheapened without the epic struggles of the Old Testament, the promise made to Abraham?  How would our understanding of the human condition be affected had we not the poetry of the Psalms which convey the glory of God and the joy of following Him, as well as the despair of the moments during which one feels far from Him?  How could we appreciate the fulfillment of prophecy in Christ had we not access to those prophecies?  How would we properly understand the salvation described in the epistles if we did not have an historical account of the life of Jesus?

However, above all we must note that it is not a text’s usefulness which gains it entry into the canon.  It was placed there by the fathers of old who followed careful criteria, such as, concerning the New Testament, that of a text’s apostolic authority (its link to an apostle).

We cannot uphold only that which we find to be ”central” and discard the rest.  We must properly engage the texts by classifying them into their proper genre.

Yes, there are passages which are obscure, such as Paul’s quick reference to baptism of the dead (I Cor. 15:29).  Even these passages, though, must not be discarded.  Rather, these obscure texts must be interpreted by the more explicit portions of scripture.  We still need to grapple with and attempt to understand them—but we do so by understanding them within the context of the whole Bible, not by merely kicking them out of the canon.

Sen. Obama may need to enroll in Hermeneutics 101 if he wishes to paint himself a devoted Believer.

Posted in Biblical Interpretation, Politics | Print | 2 Comments »

10. March 2008 by Seth.

Jargon, grand visions, empty promises, even a little mud-slinging: these have become the norms of a presidential election year.

But, it is not every candidate who shares with us an insight into his own Biblical hermeneutic—the way in which he interprets God’s Word.  This, Senator Barack Obama did in a recent speech.

His comments: I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That’s my view. But we can have a respectful disagreement on that.

Sen. Obama’s political views are not shocking.  But, his appeal to Biblical texts in order to support these ideas is interesting indeed.

Let’s see what we might learn from Sen. Obama’s hermeneutic:

1.  The Sermon on the Mount is more “central” than other New Testament passages.  Assuming that by “central” he means important, relevant—for he certainly cannot be referring to physical location—according to the Senator, Biblical texts should be arranged on a hierarchy of usefulness.  We need not discuss or consider those texts near the bottom, for it is only the “central” passages which matter.

2.  Obscurity = Paul + Clear description of sin.  The passage to which Sen. Obama refers in Romans (1: 18-32, specifically verses 26-27) is by no means buried within the text.  Indeed, Paul has barely completed his preface and declared his longing to visit Rome when he launches into an account of God’s wrath against mankind because of his sin, including the lust of men toward other men.  This, the Senator argues, is obscure.

3. Disagreement dismisses the argument.  Senator Obama uses phrases like “That’s my view” and “for my faith,” concluding with “we can have a respectful disagreement on that,” almost as if to invoke the cliché “We agree to disagree.”  In doing so, he equates the homosexual debate with that of the Calvinist vs. the Arminian or the discussion among the schools of eschatological thought (that of the “end times”)—debates in which more than one side seems to hold at least some merit. 

Evaluation?

Is the passage in Romans “obscure?” 

Is the debate of homosexuality one in which we simply must “agree to disagree?” 

What of the Senator’s classification of Biblical texts?  Surely we need some framework for understanding the variety of texts we find in the Bible.  Is the above suggested method—that of dividing the “central” from the unimportant, along with a neglect of the latter—the best way for us to do so?  If not, what methods might we employ? 

I’ll reserve my thoughts for Part 2.  First, I’d like to hear your ideas.

Posted in Biblical Interpretation, Politics | Print | 5 Comments »