Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
More Blogs 2
Friday, 4 July 2014
Honest to the Word

     I have to confess. In my younger years, when I longed so much to get married, I had a hard time accepting the passage in the bible when Jesus talked about the resurrection. Some religious people asked him who would a certain woman be married to in the world to come if she had seven husbands, who died after the other, in the present world. Jesus answered that in the world to come, people will not marry and be given in marriage, just like the angels. I must admit that at that time, Jesus' answer depressed me. Therefore, I adapted the interpretation that Jeus is just talking about the fact that there would be no more death, and just used marriage as an illustration. However, I believed that it does not say anything about whether there would still be intimate relations between men and women in the world to come.

      The interpretation I adapted may or may not be right. My point in writing this is to say that my interpretation is influenced by the desire of my heart. It is possible that in the homosexual debate, those struggling with homosexual desires want so much to have their relationships validated. Therefore, in the face of plain passages against homosexual practice, they go to great lenghts to find another interpretation. This mingling of our desires with how we see the text or the world for that matter (a child for example would have a hard time believing that his parent would purposefully hurt him), is part of our human makeup. They are put there by God to be filled in his own way and in his time, not in our own way or in our time. If our desire is blatantly opposed to God's word, it has to be repented of, not legitimized. 

     Am I saying then that the plain text is always the right way to interpret? No, it may not be what is intended or it may run counter to other passages or trajectories in scripture, but it needs to be taken seriously. Think about our society where the pursuit of wealth is a proper enterprise. The early Christians in the Book of Acts gave everything they have for the support of the poor. Many Christians are quick to say this is not communism and Christians are not required to give up what they have. It is curious that this is the first reaction and not a genuine wrestling with the text. It seems that the coming of the Spirit produced an outgrowth of generority. That call to generosity is echoed in the letters of the Apostles. Then why is our first reaction to reject the practice as non-normative. Because our hearts resist the call to give what we have. I include myself in this. I would rather use my money for something I enjoy than give it away, especially when giving would prevent my enjoyment. Self-sacrificing generosity is an ideal virtue.

     On the other hand, the aposle Paul does condemn the man who does not support his family. The biblical teaching seems to be that the support of the family comes first but we must practice self-giving generosity. This is a paradox, but that is how God's word sometimes come to us. The battle concerning women in ministry has to take seriously the trajectory of equality in scripture (men and women are equal and both are gifted by the spirit), and the call for women to take on a more submissive stance (with the men called to servant leadership). 

    Some may make this blog to be an invitation to intellectual debate. However, before going to the intellectual, I ask that you examine your heart because at the end of the day, it is what is important. 

      

     


Posted by eeviray at 8:47 AM CDT
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

View Latest Entries

« July 2014 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
Entries by Topic
All topics  «