[OBW]

aron,

You have moved into a significantly unsure area, namely what is meant by objective scripture and what is the place of revelation and the frame of reference of the reader.

I will not attempt to respond to your post point-by-point, but by impressions.

When it comes to objective scripture, I have generally come to understand that it is not subject to being overridden by other factors, whether cultural, historical, or even from claimed revelation. But having said that, I do not suppose that every aspect of scripture as recorded is a hard-and-fast rule that has fixed meaning, boundaries and interpretation.

I often make reference to Nee, Lee and others taking words in scripture and then turning right around and telling us that they are saying something different than they actually do say. As an example, while I do not intend to get into a debate on the meaning of “One” in the trinity, when Paul said “ the last Adam, a life-giving spirit” he was not talking about a position in the trinity, but in a form of being — one that was responding to questions about what our resurrected bodies would resemble. So all of that certainty about “Christ becoming” is simply nonsense. It may be true, but that verse did not say it.

Then comes revelation. I fully believe that we can and do receive revelation concerning how we are to live. We may receive revelation that is specific and even not actually contained in scripture. I would say that scripture says nothing concerning the restricted consumption of alcohol. But you may receive revelation to refrain in all cases. That does not actually contradict scripture, so for yourself it would be proper (and even imperative assuming that it is true revelation) to refrain. But as scripture makes no such prohibition, to make it ia point of teaching for others is not scriptural.

But Lee took revelation to another level. There is written evidence of his taking scripture and stating that it is unnecessary to follow certain scriptures because they contradict his doctrine of “God’s economy” or other pet creations. This is not only to put non-scriptural restrictions on believers, but to put believers at odds with requirements of scripture.

Then there is the interpretation from the perspective of the reader. This somewhat comes from a view of scripture as “telling a story” that is not always as significant in minute detail as it is in the whole of the presentation. While there are arguments for and against this view, I believe that it is at least somewhat valid. Within this kind of analysis, it might be less important to understand “what did John mean” in terms of specific words, phrases, and sentences, but in terms of the whole of his statements. While the specific statements are not made unimportant, they become subservient to the whole of what he is saying, just as Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians mentioned above were not about the make-up of the trinity but of the nature of the body He received upon resurrection. Context becomes important.

And when we look at context, that may say something about part of the story being told. In the world cultures of the times of the patriarchs and the Jewish kingdoms, the mentality of the times was to seek revenge even for things that were originally revenge upon your own wrong perpetrated on others. And the sense of duty to seek revenge often succeeded through several generations. (If you think the Hatfields and McCoys were bad, read the OT again.) So we surely would not read scripture today to suggest that we should simply wipe our enemies off the face of the earth. Any such actions by God, or commandments concerning certain adversaries, such as in the taking of the Good Land, were never intended to be read as permanent primers on warfare. It might be reasonable to read those accounts metaphorically to suggest that we should “take no prisoner” when dealing with our own sin. But they were directions within a context.

So what do you do when the context is a society in which women are considered property and are not provided education? You don’t allow them to teach. And that would be more clearly stated if there was a subculture of women who were the holders of power for a pagan cult in which the women were essentially the priests and gods. Do those statements mean that a women is forbidden by God to teach, both then and forever? Not entirely clear. When I read Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians, I can become confused. In one place he seems to allow them and in another to disallow them. Maybe it is not so clear.

So when I come to the question in 2009, what is my context? Educated women who are too often more diligent in seeking after God than many of their male Christian counterparts. Dismiss any arguments about ambition because that is equally true of men, and you might be left with the sound conclusion that all who are willing and capable should be allowed.

But, like much of the job of the rabbis for generations before and after Christ, the application scripture to today’s situation is never as simple as reading scripture to find an exact match. Here, there is a need for a different kind of revelation. The result is a reasonable pattern for applying what the prophets, apostles, and most importantly Jesus/God said to this life in this culture. While I do not suggest that the result is like modern scripture, at some level this is the process of rewriting scripture for today. In the world of the Emerging/Emergent church, there is a popular term — reimaging. To the extent that this means to seek to understand scripture as it is in the context of today, I fully agree with this. We are not required to practice Christianity like 1st century people from Asia Minor, but like whatever we are in 2009. But to the extent that it is meant as a way to rewrite scripture in a manner inconsistent with the unalterable truth within it, I must disagree.

But as much as this, I believe that our faith is as much what we do and practice as what we believe. I do not mean practice in terms of religious rituals, but in how we conduct our lives. Some have questioned whether knowing actually precedes faith. I think that it is always in tandem, progressing from very rudimentary knowledge and action step-by-step through higher and higher levels as sanctification continues. Salvation may be by faith, but without ever seeing something in practical life, I will eventually doubt that faith.

I will make one comment specifically on your post. You mentioned something being "only partially in the reality." While I understand what you are saying and mostly agree, this notion of there being a yardstick that is "being in the reality" is problematic, especially if it leads to something that is not consistent with scripture. I do not think that is where you are headed, but it is the terminology of the LC and they have clearly used that yardstick to create doctrine that is not only not supported by scripture, but even contradictory in some cases. Such a yardstick is subject to personal manipulation, whether willful or accidental. I return to the notion that even if you want to rank things based on "reality," first, it is subjective and therefore dangerous, and second, it must still align with or within scripture.

Clear as mud? This is about as “set in stone” as a drop of oil on a wind-blown lake. I did not think that many examples would make it clearer since each would answer only its own issue and even tend to raise others. If I were to sum up my comments, I would say “Scripture is objective, yet is also is living and breathing. But while there is much to be revealed, it never says anything inconsistent with what is there to observe.”

I will make one comment specifically on your post. You mentioned something being "only partially in the reality." While I understand what you are saying and mostly agree, this notion of there being a yardstick that is "being in the reality" is problematic, especially if it leads to something that is not consistent with scripture. I do not think that is where you are headed, but it is the terminology of the LC and they have clearly used that yardstick to create doctrine that is not only not supported by scripture, but even contradictory in some cases. Such a yeardstick is subject to personal manipulation, whether willfull or accidental. I return to the notion that even if you want to rank things based on "reality" first, it is subjective, and second, it must still align with or within scripture.

Clear as mud? This is about as “set in stone” as a drop of oil on a wind-blown lake. I did not think that many examples would make it clearer since each would answer only its own issue and even tend to raise others. If I were to sum up my comments, I would say “Scripture is objective, yet is also living and breathing. But while there is much to be revealed, it never says anything inconsistent with what is there to observe.”

But from this unclear position I believe that a dynamic faith that is accepted by all Christians (even if not on every jot and tiddle) exists and responds to the questions of today while remaining true to the underlying reality that is the unalterable Word of God.