A Brief Interruption: Reflections on an Outing
This week the media have been carrying the report of an anti-gay pastor who has been “outed” as a closet homosexual. A conservative Lutheran, the minister had been vocal in his opposition to the ELCA’s decision to ordain openly homosexual ministers. He is now being held up to public shame as a person who experiences same-sex attractions.
According to the publishers of a homosexually-oriented magazine, this pastor has been attending a twelve-step program for men who are trying to live celibate lives while experiencing homosexual attractions. The publishers commissioned a reporter to lie his way into the group. The magazine then published several admissions that the pastor is supposed to have made while under what he imagined to be the confidentiality of the program.
The pastor is now being denounced as a hypocrite both by those who are pro-homosexuality and those who are anti-Christianity. His ministry is in jeopardy. Most people seem to think that he is getting exactly what he deserves.
As of this writing, no one has alleged that the pastor ever actually had a sexual relationship with another man. No one has documented an inconsistency between the man’s profession and his conduct. So far, the case is very different from that of Ted Haggard, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals who stepped down from his post after being accused of a relationship with a homosexual prostitute.
The purpose of this essay is not to determine the guilt or innocence of the pastor in question. Indeed, the essay will name neither the accused pastor nor the publication that has accused him. The episode does, however, contain certain lessons that Christians need to learn.
Those lessons begin with an acknowledgment that the problem of homosexuality cannot simply be ignored. A generation ago, this conduct was considered such a shameful perversion that it was barely mentioned in public. On the rare occasions that churches actually had to confront homosexuals, such persons were rapidly and summarily excluded. The notion of a ministry to and for homosexuals was unthinkable.
The situation is now exactly the opposite. Within the “official” culture of our civilization, homosexuality is no longer viewed as a perversion, a disease, or even an abnormality. It is simply thought of as another way of doing sex, and sexual liberty has become the most inalienable right. Any opposition to homosexuality is viewed as almost intolerable bigotry.
This change in perspective is going to affect churches for the foreseeable future. More of the people in our civilization will have at least experimented with homosexuality. More of the people in our churches will struggle with homosexuality. We are long overdue for a conversation about how we intend to minister to them.
As we conduct that conversation, one distinction needs to be made clearly. Same-sex attraction is a different matter from homosexuality. Being tempted with the sin and being a sinner are two different things.
The same is true of opposite-sex attractions, of course. Married people may find themselves being drawn to individuals other than their spouses. Such temptations are not in themselves necessarily lustful, nor are they necessarily sinful. The temptations become sin when they are harbored and acted upon.
It is possible for a person with opposite-sex attractions to live a life of chastity in mind and in body. By the same token, it is possible for a person with same-sex attractions to live a life of chastity. It is as wrong to call such a person a homosexual as it is to call a faithfully married man an adulterer.
Homosexuality is not simply a matter of desires but of obsessions and actions. Nor is homosexuality a matter of identity. Virtually everybody experiences sexual desires of some sort. Those desires, however, do not define us. Our identity consists in our relationship to God. If we are God’s children and we are in Christ, then our conduct (including the conduct in which we engage in our own inner world) needs to be brought into line with our identity.
Homosexuality is not who a person is, but what a person does. Someone who chooses not to engage in the conduct is not a homosexual. Someone who chooses to stop engaging in the conduct is no longer a homosexual. It was possible for Paul, discussing homosexuality among other sins, to say, “such were some of you” (1 Cor 6:11) Whatever their desires, these people were now washed, sanctified, and justified by Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit.
A word needs to be said about hypocrisy. One does not become a hypocrite by denouncing what one desires. We all have the experience of desiring what we know is wrong. Labeling a thing wrong when we desire it is not hypocritical. Indeed, it is an act of courage.
We do not even become hypocrites when we indulge in vices that we know and profess to be wrong. Unless someone claims to have achieved sinless perfection, we must all admit that we sometimes actually do what we know to be wrong. This admission is not a confession of hypocrisy, however, but of akrasia [editor’s note: “lack of self control,” 1 Cor. 7:5]. When we sin we are weak, but we are not necessarily hypocrites.
Hypocrisy occurs when we knowingly label good to be evil or evil to be good. To be a hypocrite is to pretend to believe one thing when we actually believe another. Hypocrisy means attempting to excuse our conduct on the basis of a principle that we ourselves do not really hold.
So what about the pastor with whom this discussion began? Should such a person be barred from ministry? Should he be expelled from the church?
My response is that same-sex attractions by themselves are no disqualification from church membership. They are no disqualification from church office. They should be no disqualification from the friendship of God’s people. In fact, same-sex attractions by themselves should not even hinder Christians from entering the marriage covenant and bearing children.
Attractions are things to be managed. They can be rejected, or they can be dwelt upon and acted upon. They can be learned and unlearned. Those who reject them and seek to unlearn them are not to be judged as if they had acted upon them.
Helping Christians learn how to respond to wrong and even perverse inclinations is an important part of discipleship. Given the increasingly positive treatment of homosexuality in our civilization, this is an aspect of discipleship that churches no longer can afford to ignore. We cannot insulate our youth entirely from the influences of our culture. More of our young people are going to find that they experience same-sex attractions.
Also, more of the people we reach will have been touched by homosexual desires and practices. When they become Christians, they will have to deal with the attitudes and activities of their past. So will we. This, too, is an aspect of ministry that churches no longer can afford to ignore.
Easter Hymn
Henry Vaughan (1621-1695)
Death and darkness, get you packing:
Nothing now to man is lacking.
All your triumphs now are ended,
And what Adam marred is mended.
Graves are beds now for the weary;
Death a nap, to wake more merry;
Youth now, full of pious duty,
Seeks in thee for perfect beauty;
The weak and aged, tired with length
Of days, from thee look for new strength;
And infants with thy pangs contest,
As pleasant as if with the breast.
Then unto him who thus hath thrown
Even to contempt thy kingdom down,
And by his blood did us advance
Unto his own inheritance—
To him be glory, power, praise,
From this unto the last of days!
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 11 views
There is no Biblical support for viewing same sex attraction and opposite sex attraction on an equal plane. One is clearly described as degrading, dishonoring, vile and unnatural. It is on a lower plane of degeneracy and perversion.I don’t think anyone is saying they are equal in every way. But in equal in some ways. I would encourage readers to check out [URL=http://sharperiron.org/2007/07/11/thinking-biblically-about-homosexuali…] Thinking Biblically About Homosexuality Part 1] regarding Romans 1.
A few things from it: one, the text does not teach that a person can only be tempted by/desire homosexuality be rejecting God and being judged by God in this way. Two, the “lower plane” includes a great many things besides homosexual indulgence if you read to the end of the segment. Three, I deal there with with what dishonoring and unnatural mean. Skinny version: they are meant to communicate humiliation in this context.
In summary, Rom.1—as you have pointed out—describes God’s wrath being expressed in judgment on a group of people who rejected Him. It does not teach that a believer who feels tempted by homosexuality is in any kind of especially spiritually ‘lower’ condition (compared to lots of other temptations and sins in the Book).
Roland, about Matt. 5.28.. you keep asking for proof that Jesus was referring to an act of inner indulgence. The evidence is this:
- He is communicating that men ought not to do what He describes there. Ergo, it is something they are able to decide not to do, ergo it is an act. If you consult a dozen reputable commentaries you’ll find this view in at least ten of them (probably all twelve).
- Jesus says that the act He is describing is committing adultery inwardly.
- The word for “lust” there is a very flexible NT word. In Luke 22.15 Jesus uses it to describe how strongly He has desired to eat the last Passover with His disciples. In Rom. 7:7 Paul uses it to render the OT 10th commandment “you shall not covet.” (Acts 20:33 is a similar use) In 1 Cor.10.6, Paul uses it to say we should “lust after evil” things as the Israelites did. In Heb. 6.11, the writer uses it to express his desire that his readers will be diligent and hold to their faith.
Several of these describe situations where this “desire” is something readers are expected to choose not to experience. Therefore, it is an act. It is desire indulged, but still desire, which is why the word is used. There is nothing in the term that precludes the meaning “committing an inward act of indulgence” in Matt. 5:28.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
One final point… Why is it that our attractions can be so profoundly influenced by our culture, community, family and ethnic backgrounds, but somehow not influenced by the Gospel? Why is it that the best Christians have to offer someone with same sex attraction is to only counsel them that they should not act on their attractions? This is a weak view of the Gospel. Christianity changes everything beginning with our attractions.I overlooked this one in my last post.
You’d know my answer to this already if you waded through my earlier posts, but I don’t blame you for not wading through them! :D
The Gospel promises to transform us into the likeness of Christ and certainly does. It does not promise that all temptations will cease in this lifetime and it—by inference from multiple passages—promises to not change our bodies until after the resurrection. There’s a beautiful, beautiful summary of this in Rom. 8:12-25. Rom 8.23 says we wait for the redemption of our bodies.
What this means in experience is that desires that arise from our sinful nature will grow weaker, less numerous, etc. as we become more like Christ. But desires that arise from our bodies and collide with our circumstances will continue.
So my reasoning is this:
A. We do not know from Scripture that the capacity to be tempted by homosexuality (ie homosexual desire) cannot come merely from physical causes in some cases (We do know that it did not in Rom.1!)
B. We know that the appetites of our bodies are not mitigated by sanctification (though our ability to resist them does grow)
C. Therefore, we cannot rule out on the basis of Scripture that some may experience homosexual desires regardless of their spiritual maturity/Christlikeness
D. In any case, we do not know from Scripture that the capacity to be tempted by homosexuality indicates a person is less sanctified/changed by the gospel than another person who is only tempted by adultery or pride or greed or outbursts of anger or laziness, etc.
In summary, this is not a weak view of the gospel. It’s a view that takes into account the fact that the gospel does not include physical transformation until after this life.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron] If you consult a dozen reputable commentaries you’ll find this view in at least ten of them (probably all twelve).So far, I’m finding that the commentaries are not alot of help. Quite a few just don’t consider the question of any difference between the “desire” in Matt.5:28 and the underlying attraction that makes it possible. Several just use the word “lust” broadly, characterize it as sin and move on. Those who do bother to examine what Jesus is forbidding with any precision, do speak in terms that reflect intentionality in the lust…. something the man is deciding to do.
A few examples
Weirsbe
It is one thing to see and admire an attractive person, but it is quite something else to look for the purpose of lusting in the heart. Jesus said, “Everyone who is looking at a woman in order to indulge his sexual passion for her, already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28, WUEST).Baker enc.
Wiersbe, W. W. (1996). Be patient. An Old Testament study. (117). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.
Jesus also sharpened the OT’s definition of adultery by applying it to a man’s thought life. Any man who fantasizes in lust (as distinct from just being tempted) has committed adultery in mind and intention, he taught, even though there is no physical contact (Mt 5:27, 28; cf. Jb 31:1, 9).Matthew Henry
Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (33). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.
(1.) All appetites to them, all lusting after the forbidden object; this is the beginning of the sin, lust conceiving (James 1:15); it is a bad step towards the sin; and where the lust is dwelt upon and approved, and the wanton desire is rolled under the tongue as a sweet morsel, it is the commission of sin, as far as the heart can do it;Good ol’ Matt Henry.
Henry, M. (1996). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Mt 5:27–32). Peabody: Hendrickson.
On the other hand, WGT Shedd emphasizes the corrupt origins of these desires…
4. Evil desire is forbidden in the tenth commandment (Exod. 20:17; cf. 1 John 2:16). The tenth commandment, which the Septuagint renders ouk epithymēseis, prohibits that internal lusting which is the chief characteristic of the corrupt nature. It is also forbidden by Christ in his exposition of the seventh commandment (Matt. 5:28): “Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer” (1 John 3:15).But note that even he does not deny that this “internal lusting” or “evil desire” is the kind that is chosen… that it is an inward act.
Shedd, W. G. T., & Gomes, A. W. (2003). Dogmatic theology (3rd ed.) (568). Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
A few more questions…
It seems you have bought fully into the concept that our attractions are primarily biological and would put homosexual attraction on the same plane as cancer or other physical deformities. I think there are many reasons to reject this thinking as an explanation for the vast majority of same sex attraction in the world around us and for Christians.
The pervasiveness of homosexuality in some cultures and the absence of it in others suggests the idea that our attractions are profoundly shaped and influenced by our culture. I spent some time in Zambia in the late 90’s. What American men find attractive in women is different than what African men find attractive in women. In America, thin is in and the anorexic look is seen as ideal. In Zambia, being extremely thin was associated with Aids, while a heavy set women was seen at healthy and wealthy and much more to be desired. I have studied Native American cultures in the Northwest. The Flathead Indians would tie a board around the head of their infants to flatten out their foreheads. The flatter the forehead the more attractive they were. In another tribe, the women would tie rope around their legs to make their legs swell. The more swollen their legs, the more attractive they were. In the US, every generation is attracted to a different type of music while being repulsed by another generation’s music. Even our tastes in food are profoundly affected by our culture varying widely in different ethnic groups. The list can go on and on…
The point I am making is that our attractions are profoundly and deeply affected by our culture.
I believe this is the point of Romans 1. Paul is not talking about a small subset of the world, he is talking about mankind. As man rebels against God’s natural order in the religious sphere by refusing to worship God as God and a refusal to be thankful, God actively gives them over to a complete and total rebellion of God’s natural order culminating in the most aggravated and depraved form of rebellion of the natural order, which is homosexuality. This is why homosexuality is mentioned first. This “giving over” manifest itself in our society’s values and attractions and is more cultural than individual. Christians are a part of our culture and therefore also profoundly influenced by our culture’s values and attractions. These attractions are real and deeply imbedded. Dealing properly with same-sex attraction for a Christian, should first begin with properly understanding what shapes his/her attractions. I believe our attractions are shaped more by culture than biology.
[CLeavell] It seems you have bought fully into the concept that our attractions are primarily biological and would put homosexual attraction on the same plane as cancer or other physical deformities.That’s actually not my view. We have to watch out for binary thinking in the whole matter. What I believe is that in some cases the attractions are mainly biological (much as other temptations to overeat, commit indultry in the mind, etc.) and in some cases they aren’t. When a Christian begins to experience this sort of attraction for the first time as a youth (and after he has become a Christian), he doesn’t fit the Romans 1 scenario very well.
I think, to avoid being really repetitive, I’ll repost a chunk of a post from earlier in the thread.
[Aaron B.] A summary of my view…
- Some temptations are predicated on physical appetites alone. Others are predicated on our sinful nature alone (pride, malice, etc.), and many (probably most) are predicated on both.
- A sinful act may be outward or inward.
- A desire may come upon us unwanted, uninvited and unapproaved of—and we are not sinning when we feel these desires, regardless of their objects.
- We are sinning if we invite, encourage, or otherwise indulge a desire to do something wrong.
- Jesus was tempted by the physical desire to eat, but not by any desire to sin. (Though we are sinners, it doesn’t follow that we may not also be tempted by a mere physical desire.)
- Homosexual desire is unnatural (Rom. 1.26). But the Bible does not teach that a person is sinning when he/she feels it (bearing in mind that I distinguish between feeling it and indulging it, the latter involving choice, the former not).
- Desires that arise from our sinful nature grow fewer, less intense and less heinous as we grow in Christlikeness.
- Our ability to resist desires increases as we grow in Christlikeness.
- Homosexual desire—like many others—may be merely physical for some people, physical and spiritual (ie., arising from sin nature) for others. So some see the desires themselves (i.e., feeling tempted) diminish as they grow in grace.
- Habit strengthens desire, so resistance to desires can result in less frequent and intense desires over time (I owe somebody else in the thread for this point. I had completely forgotten about that factor until someone posted about it here).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Again, the phrase “looketh on a woman to lust after her” does not necessarily indicate a premeditated action.Nobody has said anything about the action being premeditated. There are two actions in the passage. The first is looking the second is lusting. The first is physical the second is mental. I believe what RES is saying is that the first is done with intention of doing the second: looking in order to lust. This is one of the two possibilities I mentioned up [URL=http://sharperiron.org/article/brief-interruption-reflections-outing#co…] here[/URL].
The actual wording of the text is interesting and some of the commentaries offer surprising possibilities. I don’t personally think it’s that complicated.
ὁ βλέπων (looks) γυναῖκα (at a woman) πρὸς (in order to) τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι (to lust)
pros doesn’t always have to mean “in order to” but it’s not uncommon.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The implications of blurring all temptation-related desire with commission of sin are nothing to sneeze at.
- creates the expectation in believers that they are failing in some way if temptation A or B (and related desires) don’t completely cease
- encourages guilt feelings in believers who experience momentary attraction/desire to a sin simply because an opportunity they weren’t expecting crossed their path
- sometimes encourages believers to focus their efforts on mysterious inner workings (to make a desire go away) when they ought to focus on ordering their lives away from things that tempt them
- encourages classification of some believers as second class (because they have temptations in some particular area) rather than “such were some of you.”
- may encourage some to think “Well, I’ve desired it. I might as well do it since they’re all sin.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
What I believe is that in some cases the attractions are mainly biological (much as other temptations to overeat, commit indultry in the mind, etc.) and in some cases they aren’t. When a Christian begins to experience this sort of attraction for the first time as a youth (and after he has become a Christian), he doesn’t fit the Romans 1 scenario very well.Do you have any biblical or extra-biblical proof of this statement? There are many biblical and extra-biblical reasons to reject this, especially when Romans 1 seems to give an alternate source for these attractions. The point you seem to be making in relation to Romans 1 is that it is not necessarily referring to all homosexual attraction especially in the case of a believer struggling with these attractions.
If you examine the details of Romans 1, I find that they are relevant in the lives of professing believers today. The terrible sin that demands God’s retribution is that of refusal to worship God and be thankful based on how He is revealed in the natural world. Is there anyone here that would seek to defend the state of worship in American Christianity? I sure hope not. When was the last time you heard anyone thank God for the rain that gave life-giving water to grain used to make bread and grass to feed the cattle, as he sits down for a hamburger at Applebee’s? Most would consider it pretentious and even odd. Most people don’t even think about it.
Also, if you connect covetousness with idolatry as Paul does in Colossians 3:5 then Romans 1 applies directly to American Christianity and is a great explanation for its current condition and struggles of individual members.
I think the main difference I have with your point is that I don’t see any real good backing for the concept that homosexual attraction is biological when there are so many other explanations that are both biblical and extra-biblical.
Again, thanks for the challenging discussion.
[CLeavell] Do you have any biblical or extra-biblical proof of this statement? There are many biblical and extra-biblical reasons to reject this, especially when Romans 1 seems to give an alternate source for these attractions. The point you seem to be making in relation to Romans 1 is that it is not necessarily referring to all homosexual attraction especially in the case of a believer struggling with these attractions.I’m not sure i understand the point here about the state of worship in American Christianity. Are you saying that my son’s same sex attractions are caused by the state of worship in American Christianity? Is he being punished with these attractions because of the way other people are worshipping?
If you examine the details of Romans 1, I find that they are relevant in the lives of professing believers today. The terrible sin that demands God’s retribution is that of refusal to worship God and be thankful based on how He is revealed in the natural world. Is there anyone here that would seek to defend the state of worship in American Christianity? I sure hope not.
My son was saved as a child and has tried to live for the Lord. When he first started feeling same sex attractions, they made him feel so dirty. He knew homosexuality was wrong, and there is no way he would choose it. He was sick with guilt, and he prayed and prayed that God would remove the attractions. God didn’t do it. He even got himself a girlfriend, even though he didn’t have any real attraction to her. He didn’t feel any of the nervous excitement someone might have when they are first dating, or the sweaty palms, or the “flutters” in the stomach. Yet he would feel those things around guys, and he didn’t want those feelings. He didn’t choose them. Can someone just decide to get sweaty palms and “flutters’ when they are with someone? Those are biological responses, and no matter how much my son prayed that they would be removed, God hasn’t removed them. So what should I tell my son? Should I tell him that he is still rebellious against God, or he wouldn’t be sinning by having these attractions?
What i have told him is that no matter what his biological attractions may be, he is still required by God to live Biblically, as are all people who are attracted to anyone. And i’ve told him i will never give up hope that someday God will remove those attractions from him.
And the form of argument that says “Interpretation A of a passage cannot be correct because it fails to explain why the writer did not write A,” is also a well established approach to interpreting texts.
[CLeavell]…reductionism in American Christianity. There is an over preoccupation (as demonstrated on this tread) with trying to fit everything into the categories of sin – not sin. The Bible is filled with other criteria for which to examine behavior, attractions, passions, or anything else in the world. Christians should be thinking in terms like edifying or not edifying, sacred or common, eternal or temporal, valuable or worthless, honoring or dishonoring, wise or foolish, natural or unnatural, amiable or distasteful, enduring or useless and the list could go on and on. Reducing every argument into a sin – not sin debate is a good explanation for shallowness of American ChristianityA couple things about that.
One, I agree that using more descriptive words is important. However, the negative half of each of your pairs here is—when chosen instead of the better half—sin. Two, I’d suggest that on your shallowness point, the opposite is the case. That is, we do not talk about sin enough or characterize our choices in terms of “sin or not sin” enough. It’s fairly comfortable to say “When I did B it was not edifying.” It’s much more disturbing—and still true—to say “When I did B I sinned.” Why? Because “sin” is a God word. It has no meaning apart from Him. So, rightly understood, when we talk about sin vs. not, we are talking about choices that love or fail to love God. The other terms emphasize other qualities less directly related to God. I’m still for using them because they reveal the nature of the sins involved, which is important to correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness.
[Quote=CLeavell]
[Aaron] What I believe is that in some cases the attractions are mainly biological (much as other temptations to overeat, commit indultry in the mind, etc.) and in some cases they aren’t. When a Christian begins to experience this sort of attraction for the first time as a youth (and after he has become a Christian), he doesn’t fit the Romans 1 scenario very well.Do you have any biblical or extra-biblical proof of this statement? There are many biblical and extra-biblical reasons to reject this, especially when Romans 1 seems to give an alternate source for these attractions. The point you seem to be making in relation to Romans 1 is that it is not necessarily referring to all homosexual attraction especially in the case of a believer struggling with these attractions. The closes thing to biblical proof is evidence that physical attractions can be distinct from our sin nature and yet still be a basis for temptation. This is my argument from the temptation of Jesus, who was tempted in all points as we are yet without sin (ie without a sin nature). So, my argument on that point is that as a bodily appetite, sexual desire can be merely physical (vs. spiritual and physical.. it is always at least physical).
I do not characterize this as “proof,” but I offer it as evidence.
External: I have counseled believers who grew up in Christian homes with godly parents and upright lifestyles who began being tempted by homosexual desires as young teenagers. They did not invite these experiences, did not approve of them when they happened and, indeed, did not understand why they happened (since they were told the Romans 1 route is the only way to “get that way.”)
[CLeavell]Relevant, certainly. Relevance takes many forms. We see sins in that section of Romans that have forms and parallels in believers’ lives. However, the context is quite clear that he is referring to people who rejected God and chose idolatry (quite literally) instead. And what happened to them was the expression of God’s wrath. It is not possible for a regenerate child of God (redundancy intentional there for emphasis) to reject God and we are completely released from His wrath (1 Thess 5:9). Would God chasten His adopted child by abandoning him to self-degrading desires? Perhaps (though I think not), but Romans 1 is not about that scenario.
If you examine the details of Romans 1, I find that they are relevant in the lives of professing believers today.
- “20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God…”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[URL=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vii.vi.html Here is John Chrysostom [/URL] (c. 347-407) on Romans 1 for an example of early church thinking on the subject.
You’re entirely free to do that. We don’t have any rules against it. But if I can, I want to help any who might be confused recognize this for what it is.
The principle of “authorial intent” in the interpretation of Scripture is a bedrock idea in all forms of sound exegesis. It has nothing to do with rationalism any more than reading itself does.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
You are judging my motivesThat was’t my intention. I probably put my point too broadly. My intention was just to point out that you’ve employed reason in this discussion frequently without hesitation, but then—when I offered an argument that is very difficult to counter—your response was to label the reasoning “rationalism” and dismiss it. The argument was “If James didn’t mean what he said, then why didn’t he say what he meant?” There is no special kind of reasoning here. It’s the same kind we’ve both been using in this entire discussion. So suddenly declaring reasoning out of bounds is not a very strong answer. So I inferred that you do not have a better answer. If you do, I’d be interested in hearing it.
I am concerned about the plain, literal, commonsense meaning of the text, not some reasoned “authorial intent.”“Authorial intent” is just a way of expressing the principle that words mean things and the meaning is what the writer intended them to mean. In the case of inspired words, the writer also intended what the Spirit intended. (Of course, in the case of recorded statements by God, the writer “intends” to record what God said, whether he understands it or not.)
It’s not speculation, but based on how grammar works. We reason authorial intent whenever we read. “This is a verb… let’s see, who is doing the action? … ah, the subject.” This is reasoning. We usually do it intuitively, but in exegesis, we ask these questions very intentionally. The entire goal is to discern what the writer intended to communicate.
So here’s some “plain, literal, commonsense meaning.”
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, obrings forth death.
Verse 14
- What is “each one” experiencing? Temptation
- How does the temptation proceed?
- a drawing away by desire
- an enticing
Verse 15
- How does the sin occur? Desire gives birth to it.
- What does sin do next? Grows up
- And then? Brings death
Now if words mean anything, James’ intent is not to say that the person being tempted has sinned at some point prior to the birth of sin in v.15. As far the experience of temptation goes, everything before the birth is distinct from the thing born. This is the “plain, literal, common sense meaning.”
Any view that asserts that James meant something quite different—such as “When we’re tempted, we sin by desiring, and then sin more when we sin,” has to explain why he did not say what he meant (i.e., why he detailed this step by step progression if no progression from one thing to another was intended.)
If we abandon authorial intent, exegesis really has no goal and you or I or anybody can just read it and say “I feel that it means ___” and insert whatever we like. The pursuit of authorial intent is not “based on modernist epistemology.” If you can prove that it is, I’d be very interested in seeing that!
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion