Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged – The Destiny of the Unevangelized 2
• The Theology Program on iTunes
• Theology Unplugged: Special Session – Does God Change?
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 10
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 12

It is a weakness to resist change. It is a fearful thing to even consider it. The problem is, this innate methodology is dishonoring to God, no matter what you are trying to defend. This methodology is sin. We are advocates of truth, not our prejudices,�and we must follow it wherever�it leads, even if it takes us where we do not want to go. God help us all to stop shaming His name by seeking our truth rather than the truth.

The following except is taken from Interpreting the New Testament Text Darrel Bock and Buist Fanning eds. (Crossway, 2006), p. 156.�David Lowery, New Testament�professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes about the importance of validating our studies.�I don’t think�I have ever read a finer�exhortation�concerning the integrity that we must possess when pursuing�truth. While this is written specifically to exegetes (those who interpret the Scripture), you can also apply it to all those who seek truth in any area of study. Please read it carefully.�

“This process may be better understood by clarifying what it is not. It is not a matter of coming to a conclusion about the interpretation in question at the beginning of the process and arguing the case for that point of view by citing the data that seems supportive of it. In other words, an exegete is not an advocate, like a lawyer representing a client. A good lawyer will try to put his client and his case in the best possible light. He knows what conclusion he wants to reach before the trial begins and will seek to discount (or exclude) the relevance of any data that may prove problematic for winning agreement on the point of view he is putting forward

Most of us would welcome a lawyer like this arguing our case in a trial. However, many biblical interpreters are confused about their proper role, and function for all practical purposes like lawyers arguing a point of view. They decide at the beginning of the process what view they regard as most compatible with their theological or ecclesiastical or personal conviction and then work to demonstrate the reasonableness of this interpretation against all competing interpretations. If certain data are problematic for their interpretation, they are ignored or discounted. It is a regrettable fact that many sincere (though misguided) people carry out research and writing as theological lawyers rather than biblical interpreters. Please do not be one of them

I hesitate to belabor this point but want to say as clearly as possible that manipulating the data of the text to support a particular point of view is not authentic exegesis or interpretation, and it is not validation that has any integrity of method associated with it. When you as a researcher detect this bogus approach to exegesis in the writing you are reading (or the lecture you are hearing), regard it as the wishful thinking of its author that it is. If you own writing of this sort, the only reason to read it is as an example of what not to do (libraries, by virtue of their role, routinely find shelf space for work of this sort and must be excused). Let no one say of you that you made up your mind about your conclusion before you started the process of validation. Instead, aim to follow the data to the most probable conclusion. Practice integrity of method. Your conclusion may be unsettling to you and may create more than a little personal tension (a circumstance that may never be resolved for some issues: welcome to life in an imperfect world). But you (and those you minister to) will be better for it if you treat the data with integrity (and you will not be a phony exegete).”

Would it be that every Christian would read this and take it to heart.Similar Posts:

• Doing Theology is About Pursuing Truth, Not Prejudice
• "Nothing Could Be Further from the Truth" . . . and Other Stupid Statements
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
• Why I Won’t Listen to You (or Read Your Writing)
• An argument against atheism?

I thought that it might be interesting to add to the list. What type of things do Christians do that annoy you? Write them out in a response. Come on . . . you know you have them.

I am going to give a few here:

11. Devotionals: Sometimes these become just a 5 minute way to get our spirituality out of the way for the day. If we miss, oh the guilt.

10. Praying before meals: Nothing wrong with this, but sometimes this can be annoying, especially when it is the only time we talk with God. Some people absolutely will not eat a bite until the prayer is said. Doesn’t the Bible say to “pray without ceasing”? Or does it say, “Don’t forget to thank God for each meal.”

9. Hiding our struggles: Christians have questions and struggles too. Many just think that when you become a believer, all your struggles just disappear. This is not true. They will come out sometime. Let’s be honest from the beginning.

8. Reading only books that agree with what we already believe: Why would we do that? If you are only going to read and study with those who agree with you, just write your own book. Are you working for change, or are you already perfect in your beliefs?

7. Proof-texting: I can find a single Scripture that will support just about anything. Scripture is only good when it is understood. Memorizing Scripture is good, but it does not mean that we understand it.

6. “Christian” jargon: Our Christian sub-culture has an entirely different language that even Christians don’t really understand. Why the sub-culture language? Are we not to be priests to the world. We already know what it is like when priests preach in a different language.

5. Thinking we must have an answer for every question: Search hard, but if you don’t know, admit it. Admit it to yourselves, God, and others.

4. Making friends with only those who think the same way we do: Make friends and respect those who don’t think exactly the same as you. They have their reasons for being the way they are and you need to understand and love them. Christ went to the bars to seek the lost. How many of us would be willing to do the same?

3. Getting so offended when people curse: Hey, that is just the way that people speak. If you leave the room every time someone curses, you will not be able to fulfill the great commission. You tell me, which commission is greater: “Go into all the world…making disciples” or “Leave the world with thine fingers in thine ears when people put syllables together that offendeth thee?” As Wayne Grudem says cursing can be compared to the sin of body odor. It is just offensive, nothing more. Don’t get so bent out of shape on this one.

2. Saying “I will pray for you about that” as another way of saying “I am right, you are wrong; only the supernatural power of God can make you see things my way.”

1. Saying “I will pray for you about that” and have no intention of praying at all.Similar Posts:

• Why I Do Not Teach Christian Living Principles
• “Memorize these Two Verses and Call Me in the Morning” or Dealing with Doubt – Part 2
• Are You a Misfit in the Church?
• Dealing with Doubt – Part 1
• On Authenticity, Condemnation and Community

Now I am going to say something that is controversial. I am going to use the “H” word. I often hear it said that God does not care whether we are happy, just joyful. I have never understood the difference, but since it sounded good, I joined in with this way of speaking. I understand the fall has distorted what true happiness is, causing people to seek it in areas that can never satisfy (greed, power, fame, divorce, revenge, bitterness, pride, etc), but does that make happiness itself wrong? Since, often times, people fail to understand where true happiness comes from, does that make the pursuit of such sinful? Is there some particular type of happiness that only Christians can have and all others who profess such are living in denial or self-delusion? I don’t think so. I do believe that Christians are the only ones who can enjoy life with integrity, understanding the true source of happiness, but we don’t have to redefine it with some other terminology like “joyful” to be theologically correct. I am very happy at particular times in my life and I don’t distinguish this from being joyful. Me and my three year old son, Will, go to bed each night and watch an episode of Justice League. He loves to do this with his dad. We lay there and talk about Superman, Auquaman, Green Lantern, Flash and the like. He says when we lay down, “I am Superman, you be Green Lantern.” I say “Okay.” While I lay there with him and talk, I think to myself, “No matter what else is going on in my life, this makes me happy. This must be part of the original intent that still is strong.” Relationships bring happiness. Call it joy, call it peace, or whatever other Christian terminology that you like, it still falls within the accepted semantic domain of “happiness.” Do I think that since I trust in Christ I am the only one who can have this? Not at all. The same giving God who created me with the innate ability and desire to respond to such situations in happiness and satisfaction also did the same for my unbelieving neighbor down the street. He too can sit with his son and enjoy the company in a deeply satisfying way. The difference is not that he cannot enjoy life, for God has still given Him that gift, but that he cannot enjoy life with a true hope that God is in the process of redeeming the type of happiness he feels so that it can last forever. If he does have hope, it can only be seen as a misguided therapeutic remedy to keep his happiness in tact for the moment.

You and I as Christians have permission to be happy and enjoy life. That is what God created us for. Our satisfaction in God and life, knowing that He has not moved to plan B, gives us the hope that can fuel that happiness in whatever situation. Call it joy if you like–it is a good biblical word–but don’t deny God the ability to make you happy, for this brings Him great joy.

Similar Posts:

• Was God’s purpose in creation to glorify Himself?
• Avoid Every Appearance of Evil!
• Questions I Hope No One Asks: Is God an Egotistical Maniac?
• The Scent of a Man
• Men and Women: What they like and don’t like—and why it matters

Let me start by saying that while this sounds really appealing and irrefutable, it is actually a terrible illustration and represents a very modernistic mindset for the requirements of belief. Why? I am glad you asked. Let me turn the tables on you, the one who believes in God. Why couldn’t an atheist use the same illustration for you? You say you believe in God, how certain are you. Absolutely certain? Oh, okay. Well let me draw this circle that represents all knowledge. Now you draw a circle within this circle representing your knowledge. Oh, that small eh? Could it be that the evidence for God’s non-existence is found outside of your circle of knowledge? Yes? Well then, I have just converted you from a theistic worldview to an agnostic worldview.

You see, it works both ways. Don’t use this illustration. The fallacy on both sides is that it assumes that certainty is only attained and belief is only justified when we possess all knowledge. In order to have true belief, we have to have absolute intellectual certainty about the matter. Since none of us do, we are all necessarily suspended in agnosticism about the matter and must adopt a worldview of hard skepticism. But this is not the case. All of us base our beliefs on incomplete data, but this does not mean that it is inaccurate data. The case for atheism and theism lies not in absolute knowledge of all things, but in the preponderance of the evidence in the knowledge that we do have. That creates an obligation to believe or not believe something. Otherwise we would be suspended in a state of perpetual indecisiveness about all issues, spiritual or mundane, and never have justification for any belief at all.

The key here is that belief is not based upon absolute certainty, but upon reliance in the evidence and information we do have. This creates an obligation to trust. This trust is a combination of intellectual, emotional, and experiential data. It creates degrees of trust according to the evidence provided.

We cover this way of thinking in Introduction to Theology of The Theology Program, session 6.5.Similar Posts:

• Is this a good illustration of our belief in the truthfulness of Scripture?
• Is the New Atheism Really Affecting People’s Belief in God?
• Paul Copan on Christian Doubt
• What is Certainty?
• The Sufficiency of Probability in the Christian Belief