Hermeneutics anyone?

[MusicChad]

Anybody want to do a dialogue about hermeneutics (Biblical interpretation)? I find it to be an incredibly fascinating discussion as there are a ton of truly fascinating connections between philosophy, theology/doctrine, hermeneutics, etc. This is a topic I truly enjoy, but it is broad enough that I’ll just sort of float this one out there for the moment and see where the topic takes us…

Perhaps a good starting question would be, “How do you interpret scripture?” Alternatively, “What do you think it is important to consider when trying to understand a passage?”



***PLEASE NOTE***

My desire is opening this discussion is to honor the following:

“As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” Proverbs 27:17

“And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds.” Hebrews 10:24

Should you choose to post on this thread PLEASE be respectful of others realizing that these issues have been debated for centuries by vastly superior theological minds without complete resolution. Feel free, with humility, to share your position, beliefs, and reasoning, but be OK with the fact that others will have different views or disagree.

Let it be our intention to learn from and encourage each other as we engage in meaningful discourse and Godly conversation.

[mattd]

Scripture interpretation is a hard thing. everything cannot be interpretated the same way. for instance, you wouldn't try to interpret the books of Revelation and Genesis the same way, they are two different genres. with that said, i think the second question brings light to the first.


when trying to understand a passage, it is important to note who the author was, who the recepients are, where it was written, what else was going on in the world...the basic stuff that usually precedes the book in the Bible. knowing these things helps the first question in that knowing all that affects how we interpret it. In Romans, Paul is writing to the church at Rome, so we can assume that he is speaking very plainly, not metaphorically. To help in understanding some of those passages we must also know what was going on in Rome at the time, and some of the cultural norms.
to interpret Isaiah, a book of prophecy, we need to understand some of those same issues, but they are not as important. what's more important with that is figuring out some of the metaphors, and who/what they stand for, which leaves a much larger window for interpretation.


with all that said, let me throw another question into the mix: how important is knowing the original languages in studying the Bible today?

[jrc]

with all that said, let me throw another question into the mix: how important is knowing the original languages in studying the Bible today?

That's where I start usually - with a concordance of some type. I have also taken an entry level class in Biblical Hebrew, just to get a feel for the language. Also I generally include the Tanakh when studying OT scripture. I like going to the source.

I also like Dr. Constables Study notes; maybe not the final authority but a strong starting point for sure.

[Crunchyriff]

'Philosophy' & scripture can often be at odds; mainly because the unregenerate (dead) human mind does not think like God does. It can't. This is one glaring reason, for example, that IMHO, psychology has no business being the end-all be all, in the body of Christ. Scripture should always reign supreme, even when it doesn't seem to make sense in the natural. Unfortunately this is often NOT the case.

We often subjugate scripture with God's lofty thoughts & wisdom to come into line with man's academia... and so the power of scripture becomes neutered as we reduce those holy words into something far too humanistic ( or legalistic). We can reason away things all day long because we might have a PhD after our name. This is highly dangerous, & spiritually deadly.

IMHO, one of the most glaring reasons we have so many doctrinal differences, is that scripture is often taken completely out of context; and then a whole doctrine is built around a specific verse without consideration to the historical & cultural backgrounds of that period, or, even more importantly, texts surrounding (both before and after) the specific verse.

For me, what I find for a litmus test is this:
If a specific doctrine is developed from an isolated verse for example, and said doctrinal stances remain deafeningly silent on both the surrounding text, and other verses that might suggest said doctrine is in error; I would obviously find that a big red flag.

Unfortunately, many churches stand on these highly flawed premise(s) because most people are all too willing to take pastor so and so's word for it (or the command center's statement of faith), rather than test said doctrine in the light of scripture themselves. This is no different that the flaws exhibited in the Roman Catholic faith for centuries, aside from the fact that the Vatican barred the layman/peasants from accessing scripture themselves for many years.

Anyway, there's some of my thoughts FWIW, bruddah. :)

[MusicChad]

how important is knowing the original languages in studying the Bible today?

I ended up opting to not take any “Biblical languages” in my course of study, but not without a significant amount of consideration. I actually really WANTED to take them… At the same time, I knew how incredibly poor I am at memorization and how much of a struggle it would have been for me to truly end up with a working knowledge of the language(s) let alone a passing grade…

I consulted with a number of fellow students and professors and essentially came up with this conclusion: There is no substitute for being able to read Scripture in the original language. There are is a lot added in the nuances, grammatical / word construction, word choice, tenses, etc., etc. that really come to “life” when you can see it for yourself. Some even likened it to describing color to a blind man. At the same time, unless you truly gain a mastery of the language, you still would miss a lot of those details. In fact, a weak grasp of the foreign languages could actually serve to cause a WORSE understanding… Many spoke at length about how much of what they learned through their study was just how good most of the English translations and reference works actually were!

The concept that resonated the most with me was like a music student just starting out… There is usually a long stretch where a student “plays at the instrument” but doesn’t “play” the instrument… Even once somebody starts to get the thing going, there still is a lot of work to truly master an instrument and make it something you can use to express emotion, etc. Many would argue that mastery of a Biblical language / instrument is something that cannot ever truly be achieved…

I ended up going with a sort of compromise and took a course called “Intro to Biblical languages” instead… It focused on how the languages were put together grammatically, etc. and gave me enough of an understanding to be able to get into some of the outstanding reference works that are not very easily understood without a basic understanding of Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic… For example, some lexicons are put in alphabetical order… …in Greek… or certain commentaries will point out a change in character but not necessarily reiterate how that changes the tense of the word, etc. Along with the basic understanding of the structure of Hebrew and Greek, quite a bit of time was spent on basic grammar types of things like mood, tense, voice, forms of verbs, etc. just to help when reading a commentary that would state something like, “This verb is in the ‘such and such’ form meaning that the verse should be interpreted in ‘this’ way…” you at least had a clue what they were talking about…

I’m REALLY glad I took that course as it helped a ton. Along with some outstanding computer resources like Logos which do a lot on their own to help understand things in the original languages and compare many translations, I feel like I’m at least able to get a really good dose of the flavor of the original language…

I’d have to say that I occasionally wish I had taken the more intense course of study, but realizing my own strengths and weaknesses could promise that I would have forgotten a large majority of what I had learned and may not really be able draw much out on my own at this point anyway…

In my mind, it is IMPARATIVE that people at least have a SENSE of the fact that the Bible was not written in English and have an awareness of some of the complications or results of the fact that we are reading “translations”… That being said, there are a TON of great English only resources available that can get somebody well down the path to understanding most if not all textual issues…

In conclusion I guess, Take the Biblical languages if you have the mind / time for it and are the type of person that refuses to settle for second best. If not, try to at least find a book or class that talks about some of the challenges faced by translators or introduces some aspects of the Biblical languages as that in reality will get you most of the way there. If none of the above is an available option to you, take GREAT confidence in the work that translators have done and try to learn some of the tricks of Bible study like “comparative analysis” between translations, etc. and know that with decent resources, you can “get it” – at least in my opinion…

I’m sure some of this needs to be clarified and I’ll probably kick myself for not editing this more carefully, but I’ve got to run for the weekend… I’ll see you all Monday! God bless!

[LesStrat]

Context is everything: textual, historical, cultural, etc.

Text without Context is Pretext.

[mattd]

Chad, you're right in that there are many resources out there to help the non-greek speaker understand that language. the strong's concordance/Vine's dictionary combo is what i use and has helped wonders in understanding the language.

i got away with not taking a Biblical language for my bachelor's degree, but if i do my master's (which is a strong possibility right now) i think i'll have to at least do what you did. i really don't want to, cause i know how many struggles i have with German right now.

[Teleguy]

I had a bad case of hermeneutics when I was in Bible College, but at least you could get ointment called Biblical exegesis.

Homiletics was even worse.
I decided right there and then to never start a sermon with three humorous anecdotes.

While I tend to lump these catagories of experience (the academic courses of study) together in my mind, I will admit that Biblical exegesis has its place: it's an aid to reading the map of the territory, but it's not the territory.

"...And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his unction teacheth you of all .... The Spirit of truth will not lie; and he teaches all things..."
1 John 2:27

[Kitty]

these issues have been debated for centuries by vastly superior theological minds
There's the first thing I disagree with... the idea that there are vastly superior theological minds. ;)

(I say that tongue-in-cheek, but I actually mean it in a way.)

I had hermeneutics in school too... "a date with Herman," we would say when having to buckle down for a long study session. :roll:

Kitty

[Jaybo]

In my mind, it is IMPARATIVE that people at least have a SENSE of the fact that the Bible was not written in English and have an awareness of some of the complications or results of the fact that we are reading “translations”… That being said, there are a TON of great English only resources available that can get somebody well down the path to understanding most if not all textual issues…

Whoa, slow down.

Are we saying that Jesus didn't go around, wearing a purple beauty contestant sash, quoting the King James version of the bible and sounding like a Shakespearean theater actor?

Next you're going to say he wasn't white!

:hotcake:

Sorry. That's all I got. :wasntme:

[Jaybo]

I ended up opting to not take any “Biblical languages” in my course of study, but not without a significant amount of consideration. I actually really WANTED to take them… At the same time, I knew how incredibly poor I am at memorization and how much of a struggle it would have been for me to truly end up with a working knowledge of the language(s) let alone a passing grade…

---Good call. My brother is studying for his masters in Greek, Hebrew, language something or other, and he had to study for hours. Even during the summer, he could only take a month off, before putting in some hours of study again.

I could NEVER do that.

I'm happy to let those that can - DO, and hopefully reap the benefits of their hard work. :smart:

[MusicChad]

I'm happy to let those that can - DO, and hopefully reap the benefits of their hard work. :smart:

I was surprised at how many professors (even of Greek but don't tell them I admitted this to you) said that they didn't feel like they knew the language as well as they would like... Don't get me wrong, I would have LOVED to do it, but know it is not the strongest part of my personality, etc. It would have been VERY difficult for me... We are all members of the Body of Christ, and I'm glad for those members who can invest their lives in this stuff and communicate it effectively to others!

[Crunchyriff]

Whoa, slow down.

Are we saying that Jesus didn't go around, wearing a purple beauty contestant sash, quoting the King James version of the bible and sounding like a Shakespearean theater actor?

Next you're going to say he wasn't white!

:hotcake:

Sorry. That's all I got. :wasntme:

I love it. :D

[MusicChad]

I visited a church in Ohio around 1991-ish and was told that my KJV Bible wasn't good enough because it had a BURGANDY cover. Seriously... They didn't mind the red lettering, but the cover was wrong... ARE YOU SERIOUS? KJV only is one thing, but that was something else!

It was particularly surprising because they had Mike Adkins there that night to tell the story "A Man Called Norman"... I was surprised because I wouldn't think a church that strict (read legalistic) would let some guy say funny things from the pulpit...

[Micter]

'Philosophy' & scripture can often be at odds; mainly because the unregenerate (dead) human mind does not think like God does. It can't. This is one glaring reason, for example, that IMHO, psychology has no business being the end-all be all, in the body of Christ. Scripture should always reign supreme, even when it doesn't seem to make sense in the natural. Unfortunately this is often NOT the case.

We often subjugate scripture with God's lofty thoughts & wisdom to come into line with man's academia... and so the power of scripture becomes neutered as we reduce those holy words into something far too humanistic ( or legalistic). We can reason away things all day long because we might have a PhD after our name. This is highly dangerous, & spiritually deadly.

IMHO, one of the most glaring reasons we have so many doctrinal differences, is that scripture is often taken completely out of context; and then a whole doctrine is built around a specific verse without consideration to the historical & cultural backgrounds of that period, or, even more importantly, texts surrounding (both before and after) the specific verse.

For me, what I find for a litmus test is this:
If a specific doctrine is developed from an isolated verse for example, and said doctrinal stances remain deafeningly silent on both the surrounding text, and other verses that might suggest said doctrine is in error; I would obviously find that a big red flag.

Unfortunately, many churches stand on these highly flawed premise(s) because most people are all too willing to take pastor so and so's word for it (or the command center's statement of faith), rather than test said doctrine in the light of scripture themselves. This is no different that the flaws exhibited in the Roman Catholic faith for centuries, aside from the fact that the Vatican barred the layman/peasants from accessing scripture themselves for many years.

Anyway, there's some of my thoughts FWIW, bruddah. :)

We try and read a Hebraic book written in a Jewish cultural mindset with a Hellenistic mindset. You can't read the Bible like it was written by someone in California and be able to grasp the context it was written. We try (in the western culture)to apply an Aristatilian perseption to Hebraic writings. Get me? Deductive reasoning and scripture are at odds with each other. The same way the Jews deduced that Jesus could not be the Messiah because they had reasoned that he was supposed to ride in on a white horse and become their deliverer from Roman rule is the same mindset the western culture tries to apply to scripture. In order to read God's word and have understanding you have to have his spirit reveal the purpose of the writings.

God's word is Spirit and is spiritually discerned. There are way too many people trying to teach about a God they have not personally interacted with.

[Teleguy]

I'm with ya there. I thought the whole purpose of church (and The Word), was to help you develop a relationship with the Holy Spirit.

Now, the Holy Spirit's "leading" in a person's life will never go against Scripture (that's how we check), or against Christ, but developing an ear for that still, small voice, goes beyond religion to relationship.

The "fruit" of the Spirit, in Galations, etc. are important measuring tools, as is Paul's writing on love. But hermanuetics is not required to understand the simple concepts of not drinking blood and keeping ourselve's pure from sexual immorality, and these things are what inhibit the relationship with the Holy Spirit.

[MusicChad]

God's word is Spirit and is spiritually discerned. There are way too many people trying to teach about a God they have not personally interacted with.

VERY TRUE! I believe that one of the primary roles of the Holy Spirit is "illumination" or bringing to light the meaning of scripture in the heart and mind of the believer. It is the same as many other aspects of the Christian walk... It can't just be "head" or "heart" it has to be somewhere in between!

[MusicChad]

But hermanuetics is not required to understand the simple concepts of not drinking blood and keeping ourselve's pure from sexual immorality, and these things are what inhibit the relationship with the Holy Spirit.

I think I get what you are saying but would suggest that all people who read the Bible are "interpreting" what it says in some way... Hermeneutics is the study of how people "interpret" scripture. So while I'd agree %100 that a study of hermeneutics is not required to "understand" scripture, that all who understand scripture have "done" some hermeneutics even if they were not aware of it... They had a cultural perspective, decided if the passage was cultural, what type of passage it was (exhortation, prophetic, etc.), so on and so forth... I'm probably splitting hairs here... I'm just trying to say something here like, "A guy can play guitar even if he hasn't formally studied it... ...he may not know what he is doing, but he is doing it nonetheless." The same would be true in hermeneutics.

[Teleguy]

I think I get what you are saying but would suggest that all people who read the Bible are "interpreting" what it says in some way... Hermeneutics is the study of how people "interpret" scripture. So while I'd agree %100 that a study of hermeneutics is not required to "understand" scripture, that all who understand scripture have "done" some hermeneutics even if they were not aware of it... They had a cultural perspective, decided if the passage was cultural, what type of passage it was (exhortation, prophetic, etc.), so on and so forth... I'm probably splitting hairs here... I'm just trying to say something here like, "A guy can play guitar even if he hasn't formally studied it... ...he may not know what he is doing, but he is doing it nonetheless." The same would be true in hermeneutics.


Very true. I've made the same argument for Literary Criticism. Many book readers don't like analysing Literature in terms of New Historicism; Psychoanalytical; Deconstruction; or what-have-you, but everybody unconsciously does some form or blend of these concepts, whether or not they've made a formal study of the practices.

Many readers enjoy their books all the same. I guess the corellation stands: some people may benefit from and enjoy a deeper understanding using an esoteric process, but it's not mandated in order for one to have Faith, Fruit, or effectiveness.

[MusicChad]

I guess the corellation stands: some people may benefit from and enjoy a deeper understanding using an esoteric process, but it's not mandated in order for one to have Faith, Fruit, or effectiveness.

Agreed %100! My fascination with hermeneutics has less to do with generating some process than it does with realizing what results come out of the methods that certain people use. It would be the same as my enjoyment in studying the history of doctrine or things like that... Many doctrines and beliefs were heavily influenced by things like historical context, cultural events of the day, competing beliefs at the time, trends, etc. and ... ...hermeneutic principles of the day.

I believe that some of the doctrinal differences between denominations today can be traced back in large part to how they interpret scripture... One example would be the debate about gay marriage. There are passages that seem to plainly state that it is "sinful". However, it may be explained away as a "cultural" thing or something that we now have the freedom to explore because of other passages that state that under "grace" the law no longer has "power" over us... Female pastors, sign gifts, or a fun new one "the openness of God" would be some other modern day examples that are closely tied to how a person interprets the Bible.

[Teleguy]

...some of the doctrinal differences between denominations today can be traced back in large part to how they interpret scripture...


I believe that'd be ALL of them!

Denominations in large part seem to develop around a figure, be it Arminius, Calvin, the Cambell Brothers, etc. And it is their interpretation of Scripture that garners a following which develops into a denomination.

Which I guess argues the point for hermanuetics, but I'm not sure from which angle?

[LesStrat]

What? I've never engaged in hermeneutics. In fact, I've never heard of hermeneutics. Who told you I did? What? That one time in youth camp? Well, okay, there was that one time, but I REPENTED!

[refin]

Herman who? :hmm:rofl

[Teleguy]

Herman who? :hmm:rofl

Oh come now. Herman? You dunno Herman?


Herman is the guy who grew the biggest berry in Palestine!

Yeah. People came from all over to see it. He enshrined it.

One day a Roman cohort showed up at Herman's door.
"Have you come to worship my berry?" asked Herman.

"Nay," said the Commander. "We've come to seize the berry, not to praise it!":wasntme:

[Barry]

Hey, watch it now! I never knew this Herman guy, never been to Palestine, nobody has worshiped me, and nobody has seized me!! :yikes:







Huh? :huh:







Oh..... you mean "bErry"... :embarassed:


Sorry, my bad. :wasntme: :D

[Teleguy]

Don't blame me. Blame Flip Wilson.

[Kitty]

"Nay," said the Commander. "We've come to seize the berry, not to praise it!":wasntme:
How we got from "hermeneutics" to bad puns (and I mean bad) I'll never know.

[MusicChad]

I think it has something to do with how the readers... ...um... ...interpreted... ...the previous... posts... ...er... maybe cultural... ...um... timeless principles applied to... ...original... ...language... ...deductive... ...um...

[Teleguy]

From the sublime to the ridiculous.
That's MY motto.

[refin]

How we got from "hermeneutics" to bad puns (and I mean bad) I'll never know.

I confess,I did it.
but who is Herman Neudix?

[LesStrat]

My work here is done...

[SAguitar]

I've tried to study this stuff, and I still can't figure out if David preferred Fender or Gibson instruments... :smart:

[Teleguy]

I've tried to study this stuff, and I still can't figure out if David preferred Fender or Gibson instruments... :smart:


Whichever, but probably put together by a Martin luthier.

[MusicChad]

Whichever, but probably put together by a Martin luthier.

Nice...

I thought he was an SG type of guy... (Saving Grace)???

[Crunchyriff]

If Herman has been neutered, I am speechless.

[MusicChad]

wow...:duh:

[SAguitar]

Man, that's gonna leave a mark... :(

[ptrallan01]

U guys is funny!roflrofl

[ptrallan01]

One thing about the "original" languages. It is likely that several of the new testament books were originally written in aramaic/hebrew then translated to greek. Matthew and Hebrews both come to mind as they were specifically written to a jewish audience probably were not written in greeek. Luke on the other hand was almost definitely written in greeeeeeek to theophilus.

Luke also addresses the issue of the "Q" source by saying that he compared the various written records and interviewed lots of people to be sure that what he wrote was as accurate as he could be.

Herman would be proud of this discussion.

[stephen]

Luke also addresses the issue of the "Q" source by saying that he compared the various written records and interviewed lots of people to be sure that what he wrote was as accurate as he could be.

The "Q" Source is an interesting, bu non-relevant topic in in hermeneutical discussions of transcript sources.

"Q", as it has been branded from the German "Quelle", is a hypothesis that a transcript existed, pre-Markan that Mathew and Luke drew from, as well as Mark. Its called the "Two Source Hypothesis". Many also claim that Paul drew from this "Q" transcript as well.

Now, lets look at the document record that is known and established:
There are nearly countless copies of all four gospels on record, in complete, near complete, and fragmented forms. They have been authenticated numerous times over. There validity is without question, and would pass the "cork-sniffing" test in a court of law, as established fact.

The problem with the "Q document", or the "Q source" is, there are absolutely no irrefutable copies anywhere to be found. Those that have said they have one, are never able to produce it for examination, and 99.9% of the time, it was found to be of fraudulent posturing that they had a copy, even though they never had one.

Another problem I have with the "Q Document" or the" Q Source", is that there are many non-canonical writings, that have tried to use “Q” as there foundation as accepted liturgical writings, especially in the case of the Gospel of Thomas, and if you have not read that book, in my humble opinion, it should never be allowed to be accepted as canonical in any way, shape or form. It attempts to propagate troublesome doctrines, and insights into Jesus’ Ministry, that does not coincide with the Gospel accounts.

Also within the halls of Theological academia, many liberal theologians grasp onto "Q", to help there argument for opposing traditional moral values: Mathew and Luke disagree with Mark, therefore, the prudish moral values injected where not from Christ.

"Q" is also most likely the leading hypothesis that drove people like "the Jesus Seminar" group to totally neuter the gospels, and leave out much of what Jesus said in them. Many passages that they shred, only had Jesus saying, "Truly I say...........amen." Yeah, thats it!

I highly doubt that there was ever a Q Document. At best, there may have been some writings, such as letters that would be available to the authors of Mathew and Luke, but I see no relevant ascribing of "the Q Source" as the heart of where the Gospel writings originated from, simply because of lack of evidence (no copies ever found to date), and writings such as the Gospel of Thomas, that they point to in support of Q, in light of the New Testament writings demonstrating there total inaccuracies.

Here is some good info for the case against Q:
http://ntgateway.com/Q/
http://ntgateway.com/Q/
http://ntgateway.com/Q/endorse.htm
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/

That last one can keep you occupied for hours!

Then finally:

Herman would be proud of this discussion.

I think Herman would be screaming at us from his porch, to “Get off the lawn! And take that ball too! Darn kids……..”

[Strat-tastic]

Q? Never heard of it. Probably some rumour to interest those that cannot accept the pure and simple Truth of the Gospels as presented. Something like The Da Vinci Code nonsense. :roll:

The only Q I know of is a demi-god on Star Trek :cool:

Gospel of Thomas - a book written by a doubter? :hmm: Not too much verity there methinks.

[Kitty]

Gospel of Thomas - a book written by a doubter? :hmm: Not too much verity there methinks.
I don't think there's a true gospel of Thomas either. But I'd like to point out in defense of Thomas the disciple that he was not any more of a doubter than any of the rest of them. He was just more honest about it in his moment of devastation.

Moral of the story: never admit a weakness to another Christian or you'll be judged for it forever.

[Strat-tastic]

UR Wiiiiise Kitty!! :smart:

[SAguitar]

The only Q I'm familiar with is a Vitamin Q capacitor...

http://i8.ebayimg.com/01/i/000/77/81/337a_1.JPG

[stephen]

I'm beginning to wonder if I should have called the Doctrine forum, "Doctrine, ala Larry, Moe and Curly!

We are such dorks.

But the good side of that is, were all proof that God has a great sense of humor! Us and the platypus that is...........

[SAguitar]

Yeah, the platypus... I will remember to ask Him about that when I get there. :)

[maestrovert]

Moral of the story: never admit a weakness to another Christian or you'll be judged for it forever.
Unfortunately, you're not far wrong Kitty....

Onward Christian soldiers !
sorry to say, but after having experienced it myself a time or two, the sad reality is that the Christian Army seems to be the only one that goes out of it's way to persecute and/or shoot it's wounded....all the while claiming to be involved in the "ministry of reconciliation" according to The Word....

please PLEASE remember: He came to heal, and to set the captives free....DWJD !

[stephen]

sorry to say, but after having experienced it myself a time or two, the sad reality is that the Christian Army seems to be the only one that goes out of it's way to persecute and/or shoot it's wounded....all the while claiming to be involved in the "ministry of reconciliation" according to The Word....

I do agree with you.

But now, I'm watching it swing the other way. More and more churches are allowing sin to creep into the church. I'm not talking an "ooops" sin, I'm talking a lifestyle of sin. The oooops sin can be recovered from, the lifestyle sin is a cancer to the church. Look at the opening chapters of Revelation......

I do believe that if someone in a high visibility ministry position has an ooops sin, he/she can be recovered/restored (in general). Maybe a temporary sit-down from ministry, and overseen by elders, and with true repentance, full restoration. but a lifestyle of unrepentant sin is discovered, they need to step down permanently (maybe God may restore them at a later date....), because we should not allow such a thing to continue, nor should we even give the appearance of condoning it.

But the main thing is, in either scenario, the individual can repent and be forgiven. Yes, there can be consequences for their actions (loss of ministry position, jail, loss of family, etc), but if he/she is forgiven, we need to restore such a one to the family of God with open arms. To permanently cast out, I dont find that in the Word. Now if they deny Christ, and turn to a lifestyle of sin, they effectively cast themselves out.

[LesStrat]

To continue that thought:

I have found that one of two things tends to happen the most churches with which I have been associated, and with many of the churches at large (I'm generalizing; obviously some churches do a good job addressing sinful behavior, but not enough of them):

1. Ignore it.
2. Condemn it.

Both approaches are problematic. The former leads to a perception that sin is "ok." The latter MUST be followed by a means of restoration, which I rarely see. For example, I know of a situation in which a teenager was not meeting certain standards to participate in the choir. He was asked to not participate for awhile.

In another situation, the same teenager had an incident in a youth group meeting. The youth pastor informed him that he would not be allowed to participate actively in ministry until he completed a discipleship program with the youth minister's wife. They actively addressed the problem through discipleship.

The first situation was essentially, "Go away for awhile, and maybe you'll get better." The second situation was a fine example of, "You have a problem that we need to work through, and we will HELP you do so and restore you."

The latter case is much more Biblical in its confrontation and resolution. Sadly, I do not believe we do a very good job APPLYING those principals in most situations.

I believe that Herman the Neutered would be pleased with discipleship. I think he would be disappointed with "ignore it and it will go away" or "go away and heal yourself."

[MusicChad]

I've been a part of several "church discipline" issues as a music pastor over the years. Part of what makes this subject so incredibly difficult on a practical level is that it is often impossible if not inappropriate to really lay out the issue fully to the church "at large". In every situation, there were people who felt that the church leadership had acted too strongly and others who felt that the church had not acted firmly enough. Our goal was ALWAYS to see the individual restored to a right relationship with God first and foremost. Keeping that in mind, we didn't always feel it was appropriate to drag an individual's "dirty laundry" out into the open for all the world to see. At the same time, it was important to try to allow enough information to be "known" to squelch gossip as much as possible - again because that is in the best interest of the individual who we wished to see restored.

All told, I've seen a lot of scenarios play out both for the good and bad. I've seen people restored, and I've seen people leave the church that appeared to be very antagonistic towards the church and still needed the Lord to work in their hearts more... I've seen people leave our church and be "restored" in a different church - which for the record was a "win" in my book...

The whole issue becomes extremely complicated simply based on the fact that a person's heart attitude is EVERYTHING a lot of these situations. A person genuinely desiring a closer walk with God will often respond better to "less" while individuals who are more resistant may require more time or consequences... Ultimately, in my opinion, it comes down to this - As a church leader, I had to be continually in prayer that whatever decisions were made would be administered in LOVE and COMPASSION with the ultimate goal of seeing an individual grow and mature in their walk with God.

We were blessed in that we rarely had people challenge the direction the church took... When they did challenge how something was handled, I always BEGGED them to come speak with the church leadership rather than to gossip about it... I would also challenge them with a question like, "How are you praying for the individual and the church leadership?" I was regularly disappointed to discover that there was often more of a desire to "know the dirty family secrets" than an actual interest in a better way to bring about change in an individual's heart. Additionally, there were many times when the person challenging had a sin issue of their own that they were not dealing with. It was actually the Holy Spirit stirring their conscience - yet they didn't want to look inward so they would search for flaws in others or in the process itself, etc. etc.

Again - bottom line to me is this - The ultimate goal is restoration and LOVE. Pray for your church leaders as there are far more issues at hand most of the time than you may be aware of both in number and complexity. Pray that your leaders will not grow weary of truly seeking the face of God and seeking His will in every situation and decision. Pray that they will find the balance of being "in the world" and not "of the world" and that they themselves will not get pulled into gossip or worse yet, the very sins that they are working to free someone else from.

In my opinion, you cannot possibly pray enough. I'd be so bold as to say that about all situations in life for that matter... Just my two cents...

[Teleguy]

Excellent!
Really good stuff there MusicChad.

Being a worker in The Kingdom demands flexibilty only the Lord can bring through the Holy Spirit's fruit. Rules and procedures set in concrete are the world's way of trying to deal with human foibles. Doomed always to be 1/30th of a second behind the moment (or 50 years).

[SAguitar]

Truly said, Chad. You really cannot possibly pray enough. Paul said we should be in prayer unceasingly. Billy Graham has said that the three secrets to living a successful Christian life are: prayer, prayer, and prayer. Go now, and do likewise. :pray:

[maestrovert]

Amen, an' AMEN!!

[LesStrat]

Verily.

[SAguitar]

That's what I'm talkin' about! :clap:

[stephen]

".........For example, I know of a situation in which a teenager was not meeting certain standards to participate in the choir. He was asked to not participate for awhile.

In another situation, the same teenager had an incident in a youth group meeting. The youth pastor informed him that he would not be allowed to participate actively in ministry until he completed a discipleship program with the youth minister's wife. They actively addressed the problem through discipleship.

The first situation was essentially, "Go away for awhile, and maybe you'll get better." The second situation was a fine example of, "You have a problem that we need to work through, and we will HELP you do so and restore you."

The latter case is much more Biblical in its confrontation and resolution. Sadly, I do not believe we do a very good job APPLYING those principals in most situations."

We need to convey this train of thought to all leaders within the church, to parents, husbands. wives and children. We need to disciple through restoration. Not force the restoration, but offer it, and allow them to grab onto it, or walk away from it.

As I type this, it hits me: Yeah, we need this in the church body, but more importantly, we need to teach this and be an example to this in our homes. We need to raise up the next generation in this way. They need it ground into them.

We need to be vigilant in being the leaders in our homes. This is how Christ deals with us, and we need to do the same.

If it where possible that Jesus was deficient in this aspect of leadership, there would be no order to the church body. Everything would be willy-nilly, and no one would be accountable for anything they do in their lives.

We, as parents, have to provide the leadership role (even to our grown kids), in restoration. Not turning a blind eye to the sin, but giving a hand to help guide them back on the course of that narrow, seldom traveled path where God dwells. Standing with conviction born of love, to not participate in the sin, but to show the way to turn from the sin. To allow such restoration in our lives in an open way, if we ourselves need restoration. Leading by example, as Christ lead by example. Then we will disciple in restoration to our kids, and the church will be blessed, because they will have leaders raised in this way.

If we do not, the church will continue to on a course that we read about in Revelation............

Wow. I'm not blowing my own horn, but that felt like a prophetic utterance or something...........

[stephen]

The only Q I know of is a demi-god on Star Trek :cool:

He-he! You trekkie you!

"Q, release my ship!" "Oh mon Capitan! I'm only trying to help!" "We dont need that kind of help!"

Isnt it interesting that they show a "god-like" character, and the "evolved humans" reject the help, because the "god-like" character is after all, a demagogue only out for itself, and he just looks down upon mankind as a bother, a chess piece, a pawn at best.

the last episode of STTNG was interesting to say the least, and sort of demonstrated how the demagogue "Q" was trying to nudge the humans through trials to make the right choice. Sorta like a writer for the series wanted to try and right a wrong when it comes to the perception God as they wrote it into the series

[Strat-tastic]

He-he! You trekkie you!

Guilty as charged Capt Webmaster :)

I think Q has the power that most of us would like, that thing that says 'We can be like God'. Who wouldn't like to click his or her fingers and perform some startling miracle.

Here's a thought, maybe for another thread - is the Q continuum the equivalent of the Q-God?? :hmm: It acts as a check, occasionally, on his behaviour.

[maestrovert]

We need to convey this train of thought to all leaders within the church, to parents, husbands. wives and children. We need to disciple through restoration. Not force the restoration, but offer it, and allow them to grab onto it, or walk away from it.

As I type this, it hits me: Yeah, we need this in the church body, but more importantly, we need to teach this and be an example to this in our homes. We need to raise up the next generation in this way. They need it ground into them.

We need to be vigilant in being the leaders in our homes. This is how Christ deals with us, and we need to do the same.

If it where possible that Jesus was deficient in this aspect of leadership, there would be no order to the church body. Everything would be willy-nilly, and no one would be accountable for anything they do in their lives.

We, as parents, have to provide the leadership role (even to our grown kids), in restoration. Not turning a blind eye to the sin, but giving a hand to help guide them back on the course of that narrow, seldom traveled path where God dwells. Standing with conviction born of love, to not participate in the sin, but to show the way to turn from the sin. To allow such restoration in our lives in an open way, if we ourselves need restoration. Leading by example, as Christ lead by example. Then we will disciple in restoration to our kids, and the church will be blessed, because they will have leaders raised in this way.

If we do not, the church will continue to on a course that we read about in Revelation............

Wow. I'm not blowing my own horn, but that felt like a prophetic utterance or something...........

Remember Jesus' charge to the disciples when Lazarus had been raised ?
"Loose him, and let him go...."

i choose to read that in this light: He didn't expect that one bound up in the things of death should free themselves by their own efforts alone....

[stephen]

Remember Jesus' charge to the disciples when Lazarus had been raised ?
"Loose him, and let him go...."

i choose to read that in this light: He didn't expect that one bound up in the things of death should free themselves by their own efforts alone....

I added the highlights:

Excelent point! That train of thought really points out the abundantly appareant need for fellowship, and how when we follow Christs directions (...loose him...), we help one another with our walk with Him.

[LesStrat]

Another take I've heard on that story is that Jesus asked THEM to remove the stone because HE didn't put it there. In other words, we need to remove obstacles that we place in the way of our blessing/deliverance/rescue.

God can do it, but sometimes we need to do it to remind ourselves how it got there.

[maestrovert]

Another take I've heard on that story is that Jesus asked THEM to remove the stone because HE didn't put it there. In other words, we need to remove obstacles that we place in the way of our blessing/deliverance/rescue.

God can do it, but sometimes we need to do it to remind ourselves how it got there.

that last sentence of your post reminds me of a lyric* in a song on Russ Taff's album "The Way Home" :

HE CAME THROUGH
By Russ Taff

Picture Moses by the Red Sea shore
Pharoah knows they can't run no more
Water's way too deep and wide
They can't swim, and they can't hide
Though he was just a man, Moses raised his hand

And the Lord came through,
He heard their cry
When hope was gone,
He turned the tide
You can shake your head,
But you know it's true
When there was no other way,
The Lord came through

King Darius and all his men
Tossed poor Daniel in the lion's den
He'd done no crime but he had to pay
For praying to the Lord three times a day
At the break of dawn they came looking for his bones

But the Lord came through
And pulled him out
He tamed those cats
And shut their mouths
You can shake your head
But you know it's true
When there was no other way,
The Lord came through

*
Those stories gathered dust upon the shelf
'til i fell into a trap i'd made myself
And all my struggle only brought me pain
'Cause i knew that i could never break those chains

But the Lord came through,
He rescued me
He broke the lock
And set me free
You can shake your head,
But you know it's true
When there was no other way,
The Lord came through
He always does !
With His power
With His love
You can shake your head
But i'm delivered through - yes i am
When there was no other way,
The Lord came through

*Ps 119:9
"Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way ?
By taking heed thereto, according to Thy Word...."

[maestrovert]

well, a Lady in my Sunday school class was telling a younger(both in age and fairly new in the faith) woman that she should put out a "prayer fleece" concerning a decision....

it kinda went like this(i'm paraphrasing from an admittedly faulty memory here):
" Well, put out a "prayer fleece"....if i want to know what God's will is, i pray and ask 'Lord, if you want me to do or have such and such, then You'll make this or that happen.' and whatever i do will depend on what does or doesn't happen"....
The younger woman was nodding and saying "yes, that sounds right, i'll do that..."

However, i'm concerned that the young Lady may be mislead through this and said as much, as i'm of the opinion that this comes under the heading of "...it is written thou shalt not tempt The LORD thy God" Mt4:7
....in my reading of Judges 6, Gideon asks(twice) for a fleece to be either wet or dry as confirmation of what the Lord had already told him....

What say you ? how would you approach this ?

[SAguitar]

I would tell her to run screaming from advice like that.

[maestrovert]

I would tell her to run screaming from advice like that.

Well, Thanx, Bro'....but as i'm the teacher, i'm hoping to make this a "teachable moment" for both Ladies concerned, which means at most a gentle correction, unless/until something stronger is warranted....

[SAguitar]

Well, yeah, of course you can water it down a bit and make it more palatable, more of a "teaching moment" than a brimstone attack. But really, I feel that following stuff like that is at least headed towards tempting the Lord God, and ya don't wanna do that!

[maestrovert]

Well, yeah, of course you can water it down a bit and make it more palatable, more of a "teaching moment" than a brimstone attack. But really, I feel that following stuff like that is at least headed towards tempting the Lord God, and ya don't wanna do that!

Agreed,completely.... and i said as much, as noted in my post.....

hey, i'm all for hellfire an' brimstone preachin' when it's called for, and if you knew me personally you'd know i water nothing down, ever.
but i had to learn the hard way(due to my bullish/blunt nature) that one can be gentle and firm simultaneously, and that nothing is as tender and gentle as true strength !

The "teachable moment" description i used, mostly refers to a readiness on the part of the student to accept the teaching/precepts...the young Lady in question is literally athirst for the things of The Lord !

i also feel that the correction to the one in error must not be done in a way that would alienate them....we're not commissioned to run people off ! however, if they refuse to accept a gentle correction, then i grant you that an escalation of church discipline may then be warranted....

Thanx again Bro'

[SAguitar]

No problem! I'll pray for both of those involved. Oh, and for you too! :pray:

[Kitty]

I suspect neither of the two ladies will understand what putting out a "prayer fleece" has to do with tempting God.

But putting out a fleece is NOT a biblical way of determining God's will.

As you said, when Gideon put out the fleece, it wasn't to determine what God wanted of him -- he already knew what God wanted! He did the fleece thing to get out of it. He asked for God to do something impossible (and even went "best two out of three" with God over it) because he figured then maybe he wouldn't have to be the mighty warrior God wanted him to be. The whole fleece episode was really all about Gideon's fear, but God was gracious and went along with it anyway because God knew Gideon's faith was very small at the time.

The New Testament does seem to teach that we gain wisdom and direction from God through the Holy Spirit, and as we mature in him. Making every difficult (or even easy) decision by putting out a fleece seems like a cheap shortcut which then hinders that maturing process of becoming more attuned to the Spirit's leading.

Kitty

[SAguitar]

Kitty, you always say it better.

Thanks,
Stan

[LesStrat]

Well said, Kitty.

I won't rule out completely "putting out a fleece".

However, as a general rule, it reeks of "prove it, God." I've found that when I insist that God show me in order to prove something to ME, He does not.

Yet when I simply respond with, "I believe," God works miracles all around.

[Kitty]

I won't rule out completely "putting out a fleece".
You know, I don't either. But Gideon's fleece was really about confirmation of something that he just didn't quite have the faith to accept yet; not about figuring out God's will for him.

As I said, God went along with Gideon's fleece anyway because God is very gracious to us. When God appoints you to a task, it doesn't really matter to him how fearful and inadequate you are since HE is the one supplying the power and ability. But he doesn't just slam us into it; he lets us come along in a way that we can handle at the time.

So I'm not saying that God won't use the same type of thing (a fleece -- or really, a miraculous sign) today; there are always exceptions to everything. But that lady's explanation made it sound more like a "sacred Ouija board." I'm with Stan's first response in this case; run in the opposite direction.

Kitty

[Crunchyriff]

May I offer another aspect in fleecing for confirmation? How about that perhaps Gideon (or another individual) looking for confirmation to make sure "it's God" and not self? I would think that plausible.

There are many mysteries that God has allowed in the Kingdom both in Old and New Covenant fellowship. Remember the Urim & Thummim? People still don't know specifically what that was (we have theories but nothing as 100% established fact).. but it was a tool used to consult the Lord in the OT for an answer. Why not just seek out a prophet that was filled with the Spirit? Only the Lord truly knows. God has allowed some very interesting things to ponder.

just my two cents. :)

[LesStrat]

Lots of wise responses here.

[Kitty]

May I offer another aspect in fleecing for confirmation? How about that perhaps Gideon (or another individual) looking for confirmation to make sure "it's God" and not self? I would think that plausible.
Very true, Crunchy. Good point.

Yet in the case brought up here, it doesn't look like that's it at all. But how do we know?

Kitty

[LesStrat]

Now, back to the issue at hand, "Fleecing" God is a very immature response. Methinks a bit more discipleship IS in order. Carry on, Maestro.

[maestrovert]

Now, back to the issue at hand, "Fleecing" God is a very immature response. Methinks a bit more discipleship IS in order. Carry on, Maestro.

Well, i think i've been able to make the point with the younger woman.....
Kitty's "sacred Ouija-board" comment helped cement my response(s) to her queries, so here's a big THANK YOU from me to ya Kitty...

[Strat-tastic]

Now, back to the issue at hand, "Fleecing" God is a very immature response.

It would take a very fine salesman indeed to accomplish it ;)

[Zhangliqun]

On whether we should know original languages, and this from a layman who doesn't know one word of Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek:

In an age where the internet is overrun like army ants with anti-Christian blogs claiming to debunk the bible (not to mention the shelves at Barnes & Noble et al), it may be more important than ever that even laymen like me take some time to learn the original languages so that we be better apologists and "counter-debunk", including going on offense at their blogs at times (the gates of Hell will not prevail against it...)

Which leads me to another thought that likely isn't original, but has a Non-Believers section ever been considered? Come to us with your open, honest bible questions (as a local Christian radio show says) and we will do our best 1 Peter 3:15 for you.

True, 99% who come will likely do so with the intent of toilet-papering the place but they can be ignored/deleted fairly quickly, and a rule would have to be stated that you will get the treatment Jesus gave King Herod (silence) if you transgress. But if just 1% come and get something, it's worth putting up with some slagging and humiliation.

On the other hand, maybe this has been tried before with disastrous results, in which case, ignore...