Would love to hear your response! Ask yourself, do you have any unchanging truths you subscribe true? Why?
It may sound simple, but I focus on the unchanging truth of God's love. In doing so, I must also accept, respect and honor, the unchanging truth of a just Lord. The covenant love God speaks to all Christ-followers is that in which we must strive to display to the world. All of creation. Human or animal. When the world looks at me, it is Christ they should see...
In subscribing to God's love and being an image bearer of that construct, I also follow and obey the laws and rules in which govern my choice as a Christ-follower. As Apostle Paul illustrates throughout many of the New Testament letters, we are called and set apart. Implying that our lives following Christ will look vastly different than those not following the light of the world.
How do they help you live a moral life?
I believe understanding there is a divine governing authority sustaining and over my life, is profoundly humbling and surrendering. Many people find issues with "authority" or dislike acknowledging a power far greater than their own, but I am in awe of God every single day. The breath that is breathed into my lungs, the life-sustaining power that can never be taken for granted.... this truth in and of itself is what keeps me grounded, humbled, and living a moral life...all for God's glory.
Showing posts with label purpose. Show all posts
Showing posts with label purpose. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 4, 2018
Moral Authority of Scripture..What should we think?
I was originally going to respond on the Johnson text, (because of a unique viewpoint I have being native american) however, the whole text is cut in have and unreadable for me, so I will respond to the Gomes text. After a bit of discernment, I can see more deeply of the expansion Gomes provides for us biblically in this text, and it's profoundly refreshing.
To start, Gomes lays out many straight forward (yet complex in context) truths that we as a society, and if we identify as Christ-followers must be willing to embrace:
1) the Bible must not be read and/or interpreted literally
2) cultural values and beliefs and spiritual values and beliefs are intertwined, however we must strive to view them independent of one another
3) The Bible does not present any credible case against homosexuality
While there is a lot more in the conversation that Gomes has, the above are an overview representation of his authority of Scripture.
Gomes clearly implies that in today's contemporary society, there has been much evolution within culture and the ways of life, that in some areas, he renders the Bible irrelevant and in many cases, oppressive. His main scope of investigation is around the central construct of homosexuality.
Because of this scope of focus, Gomes only briefly mentions slavery within the introduction of the text, which could be a small correlation to the Johnson text. However, the depth at which Johnson expands and analyzes the construct of slavery is unmatched.
Gomes continues and contrasts and compares two specific examples found within the Old Testament: The Book of Leviticus and Sodom and Gomorrah and then uses Apostle Paul in the New Testament. I found these choices interesting and possibly troubling in my own opinion, but I see why the author would choose these as stand-alone examples, and therefore they do hold their own weight.
In a nutshell, Gomes simplifies his analysis by saying the Bible has a clear voice on the "fallen nature of humankind." While there are direct references to homosexuality found within scripture, he deduces that the argument for what context is the true debate here.
For the majority of Gomes perspective I can agree with. I can see where their can be contextual arguments and where there is some gray areas. I also can understand the nature of not reading the Bible literally. However, I do struggle with sacrificing the integrity of the overall premise that the Bible is alive and is relevant to any and all human era.
We discussed last semester in a course that for those who are going into ordained ministry, to be careful to not be a "pick and choose" minister. The Bible is not a Golden Corral where you can just pick bits and pieces of food from what you want that day just because it "feels right" or it is what you want. That is not the gospel. While I am not entering into an ordained ministry setting at this time, I do agree with what the professor spoke on. You either take God's word all in, or not at all.
Within that contextual framework however, if you choose to take the Bible "all in" as Christ-followers we must think biblically, historically, spiritually, and above all through the lens of Christ on how we enact God's word. In that manner, we can come to the most christ-centered behavior and decisions as possible, without making the Bible out to be just what we "wished" it would have said.
To start, Gomes lays out many straight forward (yet complex in context) truths that we as a society, and if we identify as Christ-followers must be willing to embrace:
1) the Bible must not be read and/or interpreted literally
2) cultural values and beliefs and spiritual values and beliefs are intertwined, however we must strive to view them independent of one another
3) The Bible does not present any credible case against homosexuality
While there is a lot more in the conversation that Gomes has, the above are an overview representation of his authority of Scripture.
Gomes clearly implies that in today's contemporary society, there has been much evolution within culture and the ways of life, that in some areas, he renders the Bible irrelevant and in many cases, oppressive. His main scope of investigation is around the central construct of homosexuality.
Because of this scope of focus, Gomes only briefly mentions slavery within the introduction of the text, which could be a small correlation to the Johnson text. However, the depth at which Johnson expands and analyzes the construct of slavery is unmatched.
Gomes continues and contrasts and compares two specific examples found within the Old Testament: The Book of Leviticus and Sodom and Gomorrah and then uses Apostle Paul in the New Testament. I found these choices interesting and possibly troubling in my own opinion, but I see why the author would choose these as stand-alone examples, and therefore they do hold their own weight.
In a nutshell, Gomes simplifies his analysis by saying the Bible has a clear voice on the "fallen nature of humankind." While there are direct references to homosexuality found within scripture, he deduces that the argument for what context is the true debate here.
For the majority of Gomes perspective I can agree with. I can see where their can be contextual arguments and where there is some gray areas. I also can understand the nature of not reading the Bible literally. However, I do struggle with sacrificing the integrity of the overall premise that the Bible is alive and is relevant to any and all human era.
We discussed last semester in a course that for those who are going into ordained ministry, to be careful to not be a "pick and choose" minister. The Bible is not a Golden Corral where you can just pick bits and pieces of food from what you want that day just because it "feels right" or it is what you want. That is not the gospel. While I am not entering into an ordained ministry setting at this time, I do agree with what the professor spoke on. You either take God's word all in, or not at all.
Within that contextual framework however, if you choose to take the Bible "all in" as Christ-followers we must think biblically, historically, spiritually, and above all through the lens of Christ on how we enact God's word. In that manner, we can come to the most christ-centered behavior and decisions as possible, without making the Bible out to be just what we "wished" it would have said.
Sunday, November 19, 2017
Is Leviticus (or the whole Old Testament) taken out of context in the 21st century?
One can read through Leviticus and finish feeling discouraged, frustrated, and possibly even confused by all the implications within the book. However, if we keep in mind the element of context we can cultivate more clarity and appreciation for what Leviticus has to provide. To do this, 26:13 spoke strongly to me in relation to God's ultimate covenant love.
"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt so you would no longer be their slaves. I broke the yoke of slavery from your neck so you can walk with your heads held high." Much of Leviticus is a response to something. If we just dove into reading the book, then as the reader we wouldn't fully understand the context or what this is in response to. So understandably, we read all these laws and the protocol laid out for the consequences one would endure in the event that God's commands where not upheld.
But if we read 26 closely, we hear God intermittently weaving in his promises and reminding us of what He had done for the people in the past and also what faithfulness one would expect to witness in the future. Only a God with covenant love for His children would save them from an eternity of slavery and despair. A God of love would reassure His children of who He is. This is encouragement and uplifting. However, a good father is one who will also share what the consequences will be if His child disobeys.
If Leviticus 26 is read closely, yes I believe it could influence and put into context a framework for how to interpret the previous books.
When someone attempts to use this book as a support of their argument, there are many concerns found within this process. On the one hand, if you are clear and objective on the book as a whole and have a decent grasp on what God is intending with loving His children, then the present-day argument may be valid (context-specific). However, too often the old testament in general is highly skewed when attempting to use it in a present-day discussion (i.e., mostly occurs when the individual is picking and choosing passages and putting them together out of context).
I will conclude my thoughts by returning to 26:13 and quoting a commentary on it:
" Imagine the joy of a slave set free. God took the children of Israel out of bitter slavery and gave them freedom and dignity. We, too, are set free when we accept Christ's payment that redeems us from sin's slavery. We no longer need to be bogged down in shame over our past sins: we can walk with dignity because God has forgiven us and forgotten them [sins]. But just as the Israelites were still in danger of returning to a slave mentality, we need to beware of the temptation to return to our former selves."
I can honestly say, I now read Leviticus in a new light.
"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt so you would no longer be their slaves. I broke the yoke of slavery from your neck so you can walk with your heads held high." Much of Leviticus is a response to something. If we just dove into reading the book, then as the reader we wouldn't fully understand the context or what this is in response to. So understandably, we read all these laws and the protocol laid out for the consequences one would endure in the event that God's commands where not upheld.
But if we read 26 closely, we hear God intermittently weaving in his promises and reminding us of what He had done for the people in the past and also what faithfulness one would expect to witness in the future. Only a God with covenant love for His children would save them from an eternity of slavery and despair. A God of love would reassure His children of who He is. This is encouragement and uplifting. However, a good father is one who will also share what the consequences will be if His child disobeys.
If Leviticus 26 is read closely, yes I believe it could influence and put into context a framework for how to interpret the previous books.
When someone attempts to use this book as a support of their argument, there are many concerns found within this process. On the one hand, if you are clear and objective on the book as a whole and have a decent grasp on what God is intending with loving His children, then the present-day argument may be valid (context-specific). However, too often the old testament in general is highly skewed when attempting to use it in a present-day discussion (i.e., mostly occurs when the individual is picking and choosing passages and putting them together out of context).
I will conclude my thoughts by returning to 26:13 and quoting a commentary on it:
" Imagine the joy of a slave set free. God took the children of Israel out of bitter slavery and gave them freedom and dignity. We, too, are set free when we accept Christ's payment that redeems us from sin's slavery. We no longer need to be bogged down in shame over our past sins: we can walk with dignity because God has forgiven us and forgotten them [sins]. But just as the Israelites were still in danger of returning to a slave mentality, we need to beware of the temptation to return to our former selves."
I can honestly say, I now read Leviticus in a new light.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)