Brian posed an excellent proposition at the Pigfest on Friday night.
"Those who speak truth from the word of God (i.e. prophets) should not apologize for telling the truth."
Imagine the prophet Amos ending his book with, "and I am very sorry for what I wrote in chapter 8 about turning your religious feasts into mourning and your singing into weeping. It was insensitive on my part."
Ridiculous.
When we speak God's words truthfully, we should not follow that with an apology. I believe Brian's proposition is correct.
How can we apply this truth?
1. If we are going to speak from God's word to a listening world, we had better learn how to interpret God's word correctly. The name of this discipline is called hermeneutics, and it requires some training. For a brief essay on this topic, read Koukl's Never Read A Bible Verse. For a good book on the subject, read RC Sproul's Knowing Scripture. I understand that Fee and Stuart's book, , is an excellent resource as well. Anyone else have a good resource?
2. If we are going to speak truth, we need to understand that our manner in communicating Biblical truth is nearly as important as the content of what we say Here is a copy of Stand To Reason's Ambassador's Creed, taken from the Stand To Reason website. It is an excellent guide on how to be a wise ambassador. Notice the bullet point labeled "Attractive".
- Ready. An Ambassador is alert for chances to represent Christ and will not back away from a challenge or an opportunity.
- Patient. An Ambassador won’t quarrel, but will listen in order to understand, then with gentleness seek to respectfully correct those in opposition.
- Reasonable. An Ambassador has informed convictions (not just feelings), gives reasons, asks questions, aggressively seeks answers, and will not be stumped by the same challenge twice.
- Tactical. An Ambassador adapts to each unique person and situation, maneuvering with wisdom to challenge bad thinking, presenting the truth in an understandable and compelling way.
- Clear. An Ambassador is careful with language, and will not rely on Christian lingo nor gain unfair advantage with empty rhetoric.
- Fair. An Ambassador is sympathetic and understanding towards the opposition, and will acknowledge the merits of contrary views.
- Honest. An Ambassador is careful with the facts and will not misrepresent his opponent, overstate his own case, or understate the demands of the Gospel.
- Humble. An Ambassador is provisional in his claims, knowing that his understanding of truth is fallible, and will not press a point beyond what his evidence allows.
- Attractive. An Ambassador will act with grace, kindness, and good manners and will not dishonor Christ in his conduct.
- Dependent. An Ambassador knows that effectiveness requires joining his best efforts with God’s power.
3. When we claim to speak truth into this culture, we better be prepared to hear "well that may be true for you, but it is not true for me" ... or ... "many other Christians read the Bible differently than you" ... or ... "the Bible may be an authority for you, but it is not for me." Expect it. Know how to respond.
4. What should we do when a public figure who identifies himself or herself as a Christian mishandles God's word or speaks vindictively. Robertson clearly did that in the Sharon comments. Do you apologize on behalf of the person? Do you attempt to confront the person? Do you publicly denounce what the person said? My own tendency would be to write about what they said and explain why they were wrong to say it. What are the forums to do that? Letters to the editor. Blogs. I would like to hear what others think.
5. Recognize that truth is best communicated by a trusted friend. As I once heard someone say, "people will care to listen once they know you care" ... (or something to that effect). Friendship and community play an important role in creating an environment where truth can be communicated and heard. That said, I fully realize some are called to speak prophetically into culture. The best that they can do in that case is make sure they walk the walk and not just talk the talk. If people see an obvious disconnect between the speaker's words and their life, the words will be quickly ignored. I remember hearing about Mother Teresa's famous talk at the 1994 Prayer Breakfast where she denounced abortion with Hillary and Bill sitting in attendance. Though she spoke about moral truth in a forthright manner, Mother Teresa's words landed with impact because of the power of her life. There is an important lesson in that.
Jeff,
I think it is "People don't care what you know till they know that you care."
I have a slightly different approach to number 4. If a leader has claimed to speak on behalf of God to our culture at large and we believe him to be mistaken and we discern him to be a follower of Jesus we should pray for him/her and encourage other leaders within the church to come along side that leader and exhort him/her using the Text.
We should seek unity within the Body and always strive to restore another follower of Jesus and help them to walk more closely with Him. I know that is an optimistic and perhaps overly simple approach but I think you will understand the intentions.
I pray that leaders of the church today would come alongside Pat Robertson and help him to understand from the Text how he has misinterpreted.
Posted by: Brian | January 16, 2006 at 22:02
I like your idea, Brian. Good stuff.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 16, 2006 at 22:17
I'm a rather new reader here, so please forgive me if I'm a bit overcome by joy and thankfullness at the sight of rational, reasonable (and grammatically correct) discourse about Christianity.
I'm not an outgoing person, so I never fit in very well with my own evangelical upbringing. But I did figure I could do some good merely by being a counter-indication to all of the ignorance and frothing-at-the-mouth that is so common in the Christian community.
And thanks for the links -- I haven't heard of any of these before.
Posted by: carlaviii | January 17, 2006 at 12:13
When we speak God's words truthfully, we should not follow that with an apology.
But what if we speak God's words truthfully but do it in a manner that violates the good principles laid out in that Ambassador's Creed? Isn't an apology sometimes warranted for the manner and/or intention of truthful words? What if the manner is arrogant and the intention hurtful rather than loving?
We also have to be careful, I'm sure you'd agree, about what we mean when we say "speak God's words." Amos was a prophet, uniquely called and gifted by God to reveal God's will directly to Israel. Moroever, in the instances we have recorded in scripture, Amos was uniquely inspired to speak the Word of God as authoritative scripture.
None of us today (I believe) are Prophets, Apostles, or otherwise inspired or authorized such that our speaking would constitute authoritative scripture. Amos had no reason to apologize because what he spoke was God's direct revelation to be enscripturated for Israel and the Church. None of us can claim that privilege. One of the problems with Robertson, IMHO, is his Charismatic tradition, which can tend in practice to conflate perceived "prophetic" gifts with scripture.
Posted by: dopderbeck | January 17, 2006 at 15:38
Carla,
Glad to have you reading and contributing here. Keep coming back.
David,
"Isn't an apology sometimes warranted for the manner and/or intention of truthful words? What if the manner is arrogant and the intention hurtful rather than loving?"
Then an apology is most definitely warranted! I could not agree more. Manner counts. Intention counts.
Some people will call any Biblical truth offensive. I know you realze that, and you are speaking to situations where Christians use truth like a club to beat people. I think I know where you are coming from on this issue.
The thing about our society is that it is on a collision course with a position that any objective moral truth is considered offensive, no matter how nicely it is stated.
I obviously disagree with that extreme.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 18, 2006 at 06:30
"One of the problems with Robertson, IMHO, is his Charismatic tradition, which can tend in practice to conflate perceived "prophetic" gifts with scripture."
I lean heavily toward your side on this issue. There is a lot of abuse in claiming that God told you something and sent you on a mission to spread that message.
I don't want to rule out the possibility that God could give direct revelation. But it is not normative, and that is how many Christians live. They expect to see road signs and messages from God on a regular basis ... i.e., direct revelation.
The canon is closed. We are not getting fresh books from God at this point.
I do see a role from someone speaking "prophetically" to a culture ... they are speaking truth from scripture to an injustice, for example. Didn't MLK, Jr. do that?
He spoke as a prophet ... a voice of conscience. He spoke truth.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 18, 2006 at 06:37
"The canon is closed. We are not getting fresh books from God at this point."
How do you know this? Just curious.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | January 18, 2006 at 15:30
"How do you know this?"
The term "canon" is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. Ultimately it was God who decided what the Biblical canon was. It was just a matter of God convincing the church which books should be included in the Bible. Compared to the New Testament, there was very little controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. The books of the Old Testament were divinely inspired and authoritative the moment they were written. The human recognition of the inspiration was almost always immediate as the writers and prophets were accepted as spokesmen from God. Shortly after the book of Malachi was written (B.C. 430), the Jews officially recognized and closed the Old Testament canon.
For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in (A.D. 170). The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.
The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?
Recommended Resource: The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce.
taken from :
http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 18, 2006 at 17:03
So, basically, men decided which works were canonical and which were not and you accept their choices as divinely ordained? There is no Bible quote that say these books are it and no more?
Posted by: Rob Ryan | January 18, 2006 at 18:02
Well, the last book of the Bible ends with this :
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2022:18;&version=31;
You may want to read F.F. Bruce's book on The Canon of Scripture. It is an interesting read. Bruce is a highly respected scholar.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 18, 2006 at 18:14
Jeff:a position that any objective moral truth is considered offensive, no matter how nicely it is stated.I think this is a straw-man position. I don't think anyone seriously argues this. There may be differences of opinion as to what that moral truth actually is, but I can imagine lots of "truth claims" that people will disagree with without finding them offensive.
Also, Rob may bring a wee bit of smarm to the party, but he raises an excellent point: How can we know for sure that the canon is, in fact, canonical? You would think that God has the power to resolve the apocryphal disputes. If the Catholics can corrupt God's word by wrongly including the apocrypha, or the Protestants can do so by wrongly excluding same, how can we say that God's word hasn't been corrupted in still other ways?
Which brings me to my main point on this discussion, alluded to in the "Humble" STR bullet point: You must always understand that no matter how deeply you believe something is "truth," the possibility remains that it could be you, rather than your opponent, that is wrong. Even from a Christian perspective, humans are fallen and fallible, and as such, anything they've touched holds the possibility of being tainted -- and this includes scripture. If it didn't include scripture, there'd be no apocrypha, and no two translations would significantly differ.
That's the problem with Brian's statement. Truth requires no apology, but as mentioned, only to the extent that it's not used in a hurtful or disingenuous way, and, as not mentioned, only to the extent that you're fairly certain it actually is truth. No, this is not appealing to a wishy-washy definition of truth, but rather to our imperfect understanding of truth.
There's a certain arrogance in thinking that I have the proper understanding of truth and you do not; and it dances dangerously close to that kind of arrogance to be unapologetic about your truth professions and whom they might offend.
Posted by: tgirsch | January 18, 2006 at 18:20
Jeff:
You're assuming that (1) the Book of Revelation actually is canonical; (2) verse 22:18 refers to the entire Bible, and not just the book of revelation; and (3) the punishment threatened therein actually has successfully prevented anyone from ever doing that which is forbidden by it.
I'm not sure 2 and 3 are safe assumptions, especially not #3, given that every other Biblical admonition I can think of has been violated repeatedly by humans over the centuries.
Posted by: tgirsch | January 18, 2006 at 18:24
Thanks for the link, Jeff. I would assume, though, that the book of Revelations would be the one referenced in the line, not the Bible as a whole. I could be wrong, of course, as I'm obviously no Bible scholar. My question was sincere, and I appreciate you handling it as such.
I'm surprised at you, tgirsch; "smarm" has such a negative connotation! And while I am not above taking a swipe at our mutual friend Joe, I observe strict decorum here. Folks here are nice and mellow.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | January 18, 2006 at 20:41
Rob and Tgirsch,
I agree with you both that the apostle John (the author of the book of Revelation) was referencing his own book (i.e. the book of the Revelation) in Rev 22:18.
Interestingly, the book of Revelation is the last book written in terms of chronology as well as location. Is that just a coincidence? I have not seen the point well argued or defended, so this is not a hill to die on. I just thot I would point out the verse since Rob said "there is *no* verse" in the Bible that speaks to the closing of divine revelation ... Rev 22:18 immediately came to mind for me.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 19, 2006 at 08:38
"I observe strict decorum here. Folks here are nice and mellow."
True statement on both accounts. Tank u for your part in de-smarming :-)
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 19, 2006 at 09:42
Rob:There is no Bible quote that say these books are it and no more?That came across to me as a bit smarmy, and perhaps a bit of a dig, although it's certainly possible that my personal biases colored my reading of that. Sorry for the misunderstanding!
Jeff:the apostle John (the author of the book of Revelation)Arrgh! Obviously, Biblical authorship is not one of the issues on which we're ever likely to agree, but the traditional idea that Revelation was written by the apostle John is generally rejected by Biblical scholars:In contrast to the traditional view, several lines of evidence suggest that John of Patmos wrote only Revelation, not the Gospel of John or the Epistles of John. Revelation and the Gospel of John are very dissimilar in many ways. For one, the author of Revelation explicitly identifies himself as John several times, but the author of The Gospel of John remains anonymous, never identifying himself directly. The theology of the Gospel is markedly different from that of Revelation. While both works liken Jesus to a lamb, they consistently use different words for lamb—the Gospel uses "amnos", Revelation uses "arnion". Lastly, the Gospel is written in nearly flawless Greek, but Revelation contains grammatical errors and stylistic abnormalities which indicate its author may not have been as familiar with the Greek language as the Gospel's author. Proponents of the traditional view explain these differences by the collaboration of the author with different scribes.Some theologians also argue that the Gospel of John contains a realized eschatology which contradicts the futurist eschatology contained in Revelation (e.g., chs. 21–22).(Link is Wiki, but it generally agrees with what I learned in college and in other readings.)
As to whether Revelation was the last book written, it may be. It depends on whether some of the disputed authorships of some of the other books are in fact correct. If you don't take the purported authorship at face value, the Epsitle of James may have been written as late as CE 200. Based on cues from within its text, James was written no earlier than CE 50 and no later than CE 200.
Posted by: tgirsch | January 19, 2006 at 11:28
tgirsh,
When you are writing under the direction of the Holy Spirit you are not writing in your own form. "All scripture is inspired by God(2 Tim 3:16). Man had nothing to do with the writing of the bible. Scholars can debate all day on form and function, but God did it in the end.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | January 23, 2006 at 09:24
but the traditional idea that Revelation was written by the apostle John is generally rejected by Biblical scholars
OT, but this isn't so, unless we now also have to debate what "generally rejected" and "Biblical scholars" mean. Some Biblical scholars reject John's authorship, some don't, and it largely boils down to the scholarly presuppositions they bring to the table (e.g., inclined towards higher criticism or not).
Regardless, I do think you raise a good point Tom. While I agree with Jeff that there are good reasons to have confidence in the canon and that the canon is closed, and while Jeff and I would agree that there are sound principles of hermeneutics which should allow us to reach at least ballpark agreement on many Biblical principles, I also agree with you that human statements about the truth are always human statements. No one has everything completely and exactly right; those who think they do are wrong (and I am completely and exactly right about this)
:-). I think this is one reason the Apostle Paul notes that telling the truth "in love" is a mark of maturity (Eph. 4:15).
Posted by: dopderbeck | January 23, 2006 at 10:38
A little while ago I wrote a comment about this on another blog. I have learned so much from direct messages from The Holy Spirit on The Holy Inheritance blog. There simply is no reason to make rules beforehand. The Holy Spirit directs us very specifically in the now moment.
Posted by: A Christian Prophet | January 24, 2006 at 15:10
"Which brings me to my main point on this discussion, alluded to in the "Humble" STR bullet point: You must always understand that no matter how deeply you believe something is "truth," the possibility remains that it could be you, rather than your opponent, that is wrong. Even from a Christian perspective, humans are fallen and fallible, and as such, anything they've tousched holds the possibility of being tainted -- and this includes scripture."
I was with you until you mentioned scripture. Your assumption is that God was not involved in the process ... or He was so powerless that he could not keep His revelation from getting messed up by those humans.
I don't share your assumption. My starting point is that a God powerful enough to speak the universe into existence is plenty powerful enough to keep humans from garbling and tainting His revelation.
God's word is inerrant and infallible ... yet we do bring our fallible mind to the process of interpreting scripture. This is where I lean back in your direction. Just being a Christian does not make you suddenly incapable of mis-interpreting a passage ... it happens all the time.
We must rely on the Holy Spirit and solid hermeneutical principles when we read God's word. Still, there will be minor differences even then ...
This is where Pascal's words are so important ... in the essentials, unity, in the non-essentials, liberty ... in all things, charity.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 24, 2006 at 17:41
"There's a certain arrogance in thinking that I have the proper understanding of truth and you do not; and it dances dangerously close to that kind of arrogance to be unapologetic about your truth professions and whom they might offend."
Your argument just fell on its own sword here ... for the argument presupposes a proper understanding of the truth in order to make the claim that it is arrogant to presuppose one has a proper understanding of truth.
Knowing the truth is not arrogant.
Arrogance enters the picture in the manner in which you communicate truth ... which is why the point about humility is so vital.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 24, 2006 at 17:49
"No one has everything completely and exactly right; those who think they do are wrong (and I am completely and exactly right about this) :-). I think this is one reason the Apostle Paul notes that telling the truth "in love" is a mark of maturity (Eph. 4:15)."
You speaketh truth ... and I know it, and I know it completely. ;-)
My personal feeling is that many who think they are squishy on truth really are not all that squishy on truth ... they have been burned by people who failed to follow the mark of maturity as laid out by Paul in Eph. IOW, they are reacting to people bulldozing others ... and they express it by rejecting truth with their lips.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 24, 2006 at 18:03
"My starting point is that a God powerful enough to speak the universe into existence is plenty powerful enough to keep humans from garbling and tainting His revelation."
Perhaps, but how do you know he intended to?
Posted by: Paul | January 24, 2006 at 22:13
"Perhaps, but how do you know he intended to?"
Because it is very reasonable to assume he intended to. We know God wants to communicate with us. We have the lives of the prophets which attest to that. More significantly, however, we have the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to back it up. God obviously wants to communicate with us ... why else would He have sent His son?
If God wants to communicate with us, and is powerful enough to raise someone bodily from the dead, then He is powerful enough to protect his own revelation.
Again, this is a starting point for me ... but I believe it is a very reasonable starting point.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 25, 2006 at 07:08
I don't deny, at least within your logic, that what you say is reasonable. But that just explains why he wrote them (or rather, caused them to be written). That doesn't mean that they are inerrant. He might have a reason for making them errant (i.e. they say exactly what God intended, which was his message in garbled form). After all, he could have made humans perfect so that we couldn't misunderstand his message, but he chose not to.
Posted by: Paul | January 25, 2006 at 08:05
" My starting point is that a God powerful enough to speak the universe into existence is plenty powerful enough to keep humans from garbling and tainting His revelation."
Then how come you Protestanst keep pumping out Bibles that have the wrong ten Commandments and the books all out of order? ;)
Posted by: kevin | January 25, 2006 at 11:08
"Then how come you Protestants keep pumping out Bibles that have the wrong ten Commandments and the books all out of order? ;)"
You raise an interesting issue. What, in your opinion, are the key differences between the Catholic Bible and a Protestant Bible in terms of the message. IOW, the order is not a big deal ... but the content of the message is ... do you see substantive differences between the two Bibles in terms of the message?
"That doesn't mean that they are inerrant. He might have a reason for making them errant (i.e. they say exactly what God intended, which was his message in garbled form). After all, he could have made humans perfect so that we couldn't misunderstand his message, but he chose not to."
Certainly what you say is possible, but is it reasonable or likely? Lots of things are possible ... including that I am a butterfly dreaming that I am a blogger ...
We have to ask what is reasonable to believe. God certainly could have remained completely silent. That would have been an easy option. Yet we have a historical record of Christ ... his claims, his life, his death, and his resurrection. That does not comport with a God who wants to remain silent and hidden.
Now, if it reasonable to assume God wants to disclose himself, I would argue it is reasonable to assume that he wants to communicate truthfully about Himself. I don't see anything irrational about that assumption.
It seems like the simplest option (versus a God who wanted to spread lies and error) ... I would appeal to the principle of parsimony.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 25, 2006 at 20:06
"You raise an interesting issue. What, in your opinion, are the key differences between the Catholic Bible and a Protestant Bible in terms of the message."
Well, there is a lot more support for the doctrine of works and things like purgatory in the book the Protestants leave out of the old testamanet. Heck, if Luther could have gotten rid of James he would have done that too ;)
Posted by: kevin | January 27, 2006 at 09:55
Jeff:Your assumption is that God was not involved in the process ... or He was so powerless that he could not keep His revelation from getting messed up by those humans.I make no such assumption; it's not whether or not He can, it's whether or not He did. The evidence is on the side of He did not so "protect" His revelation. Exhibit A. This much-debated verse has serious implications on the abortion debate. The translational difference that you'll see on this from that version to ones (like this), preferred by "pro-life" Christians) are not insignificant and not easily ignored. If God were actively protecting His word, he could (and would) prevent such egregious mistranslations from taking place. That He hasn't chosen to is evidence, in my mind, that He has allowed the hand of man to corrupt the word.
Further, as Kevin points out, there are substantial differences between Catholic and Protestent scripture that God didn't prevent either. Your position that God has somehow protected scripture from abuse and misuse defies credulity.God's word is inerrant and infallibleExcept for the whole pi = 3 thing. And the world is flat thing. And the rabbit chewing its cud thing. And the Jesus "I'll be back real soon" thing. :)Your argument just fell on its own sword here ... for the argument presupposes a proper understanding of the truth in order to make the claim that it is arrogant to presuppose one has a proper understanding of truth.I'm not even sure that makes sense, but whatever you say. You're basically painting a false dilemma between being able to have an absolutely clear picture of what the truth is (which runs counter to even your own arguments) and not being able to comment on the nature of truth at all. Sorry, but I'm not buying it.We know God wants to communicate with us.We also know that He hasn't seen fit to do so (at least, not formally) in nearly two millennia. :)
Posted by: tgirsch | February 06, 2006 at 18:17