Emotegesis

The Christian view of our relation to scripture goes a little something like this. Because we are sinners, our faculties are corrupted and we by nature oppose the truth. Part of the sanctification process, whereby those who are born again are progressively transformed to maturity, conforming ever more into the image of Christ, is to have our mind set straight by God's word. We understand that God's word is true, and seek to understand what it truly says. Where we disagree with it, we know that we are wrong, and seek to change our minds, and ultimately our behaviors, to what scripture teaches. The truth of scripture molds what we think and guides what we feel, which determines how we will act. See Romans 12:2 or Colossians 1:9-10, for example.

The process of determining what scripture actually says is called exegesis, or drawing the meaning out of the text. What Christians strive to avoid is eisegesis, or reading presuppositions into the text. To name just one example, consider paedobaptists finding support in Acts 16:15; the idea that those baptized included unbelieving infants is supplied by the reader's theological system, not from the text itself. Examples abound and the temptation to slant a passage to meet your system is ever-present. The Christian must always fight this, and make every effort to let the text determine our thoughts and systems, not vice versa.

Lately I've been more aware of a special class of eisegesis. These presuppositions are not a result of coherent thought, but pure emoting, so I call it "emotegesis". When you emotegete, all scriptural interpretation is subject to how it makes you feel - and if the plain meaning makes you feel bad enough, the text is pretty much thrown out completely. There's really no limit to how far a passage can be twisted, or how utterly scripture can be ignored, in service of what you just want it to say.

A typical conversation with someone emotegeting goes something like this.
You: The Bible clearly says [clear teaching]
Emotegete: Yeah, but I want this, and I feel that, and it just can't be wrong.
You: Well, QED, I guess.

Some prominent examples of emotegesis include...

Female pastors. Sure, scripture may be perfectly clear on this. But I really wanna be a pastor, and I feel called to it, and I'd be really good at it, and it's just not fair, so... Then you might get something about kephale meaning "source" and not "head" (as though that makes it less convincing somehow??) and garbage about gender roles being a result of the Fall, or how we just know better now. But ultimately it will come back to "I really really want it, and I can't possibly be wrong".

Homosexuals. The next time you meet someone who thinks God is OK with homosexuality based on textual studies alone, and not because (a) he is subject to homosexual desires himself or (b) someone close to him is a homosexual and so it just can't be wrong, it will be the first time in human history.

Charismatics. Scripture says X about the revelatory/attesting gifts. Their experience is Y. At this point you can either say "Well, Y is not the actual gift", or just redefine scripture to make it include Y. Which do you think will win out, almost every time? (See for example the DA Carson quote here, and his laughable solution here - and note that this is often considered the best defense of modern tongues!)

We are much better off when our feelings are subject to God's Word, and we don't pretend it's the other way around.

The Magnet of God's Word

Our Lord is the same yesterday, today, and forever and He takes His revelation very seriously. Throughout history, God's prophetic revelation has been central to this precious matter of revealing the glory of Christ. Additionally, God's gift of prophetic revelation has been central to the salvation, sanctification, and confirmation of His people within this fallen world. Those who cherish and obey His word reveal themselves to be His children, but those who pursue other voices reveal a different spiritual pedigree. In this sense, God's word is like a magnet; it draws and attracts God's children, while repelling those who are not His. It is in this sense that God's word supplies a crucial, polarizing test among those who claim to be the followers of God.

(From The Fallible Prophets of New Calvinism: An Analysis, Critique, and Exhortation Concerning the Contemporary Doctrine of "Fallible Prophecy", by Michael Beasley; Kindle location 476-485)

Which is better?

Which do you think is better for the church to have: living apostles, or the complete Bible?

I'm open to hearing the dissenting opinion on this, but seeing as how God has given us one but not the other for the last 1900 years, I'm going to say God thinks it's better if we have complete scripture.

Now, assuming the last post about God's provision is correct:
1) What does that say about the sheer awesomeness of the Bible? How should we regard such a precious gift?
2) What does it say about us if we pine for and (feebly) attempt to recreate the apostles?

Reading Plans

You've probably seen one of the numerous plans for reading the Bible in 2013 (if not, there's a big list here). I'd like to encourage you to pick one and go with it. Frankly, I don't care which one you go with, or if you develop your own - just go with something. Why? The old adage remains true: failing to plan is planning to fail.

Whenever an activity is beneficial but unnatural - that is, not something we would do by default - we need to plan to do it. It doesn't matter whether it's reading scripture, praying, exercise, making sales calls (for me - some people actually like that, if you can believe it), if we don't plan to do it and designate time to do it, it won't get done. The time will instead go to something else, or more likely, nothing.

And make no mistake, reading scripture is unnatural. By nature, the last thing we want to know is what God says, as we demonstrated in Genesis 3 and have been perpetually shown ever since. Those of us who are in Christ have been born again with a new nature which loves God - but we still have the old flesh fighting against God with all the strength it has left. The last thing it wants us to do is submit our minds to God's revealed will. So if we don't plan to read God's word, the flesh will do all it can to make sure we don't, and more often than not, it'll win.

Pick a plan, and go with it. I guarantee that if you come up short or fall behind, you'll still be significantly better off than if you never set a plan at all.

Which of those plans did I pick, you axe? This year I made my own, sort of. Last year I spent a few months reading through the incredible God's Glory in Salvation Through Judgment, by Jim Hamilton. Apparently I talked about it so much, my wife decided she needed to read it, too. So this year, we're both reading it as we read through the Bible. That means reading through the Old Testament in the Jewish order of Law, Prophets, Writings, then the New Testament. Each of these four sections is roughly the same length, so that gives us about 3 months on each to get through them all in a year. Of course, we'll continue to read other portions as applicable (what we're preaching through, doing in Bible study, etc).

If that type of plan works for you, great, glad I can help. If something else works better, go for that instead. Regardless, you should get this book - it's only 9 bucks for Kindle, for crying out loud!

Oddball Verses

Every once in a while, you encounter a paragraph in scripture where one line doesn't seem to entirely fit. Every verse is about one topic, but another verse or sentence is about something else entirely.

Or is it?

For those of us who believe that the Bible is God's Word, we must affirm that the scripture is a coherent piece, and that the seemingly oddball verse is integral to the passage. (Actually, that's just common courtesy to believe of an even slightly competent author - knowing that scripture was written by men as carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21) only solidifies it as an absolute.) The question to axe is not "what in the world is this doing where it doesn't belong?", but "how does this verse inform the meaning of the whole passage?"

An example of this is found in Romans 12:14-21. Here is the passage, minus the seemingly oddball verse 16.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep... Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Over and over again, this passage makes the same point from different angles: When people are evil to you, be good to them. Don't take revenge or do evil in return; trust God, and do good.

And what is verse 16, which doesn't seem at first to fit? "Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight." A call to humility and a warning about pride.

So here is where you come in, dear reader. How does verse 16 fit with the rest of the paragraph - actually, how does it form the foundation?

You're not moving? You're not moving. I can't believe you're not moving.

Recently I read through 1 Samuel, thinking a look at the life of David would be good preparation for the Christmas season. Sure enough, I noticed one parallel I hadn't picked out before - not with David per se, but with the ancillary characters.

Early on in 1 Samuel, we read about the lazy, apathetic priest Eli. He of course would go on to lose the priesthood due to his extreme passivity. Others have noted how frequently the scripture mentions him sitting or lying, a subtle way to illustrate that he wasn't exactly a man of action. The most extreme example of this is found in 1 Samuel 3.

Samuel had been given by his parents to tabernacle service, and he was sleeping in the tabernacle when God called to him. Thinking it was Eli, he kept going to ask the old priest what he wanted. The third time, Eli figured out that it was God speaking. Don't let that slip by too quickly - the creator of the universe was speaking! What an incredible occurrence! And Eli, the high priest, whose whole life's work was to be devoted to serving God - when he perceived that God was speaking audibly, how did he respond?


Then Eli perceived that the LORD was calling the young man. Therefore Eli said to Samuel, "Go, lie down, and if he calls you, you shall say, 'Speak, LORD, for your servant hears.'" So Samuel went and lay down in his place.

Yeah, okay. The one person on earth who should have been most excited about this spectacular, earth-shattering news that God was speaking basically said "God called? Take a message. I'm going back to sleep." Oy.

Fast forward a thousand years, give or take. The parallel I see in the Christmas narrative? Can you imagine what the Jewish religious leaders were thinking in Matthew 2 when the magi showed up? Here were people who had traveled a long, long way because they were certain the long-awaited hope of Israel, the Messiah, had been born. The greatest announcement they could imagine had just been made, and how did they respond? At best, they just pointed the magi in the right direction and asked for a report of what they found. Where was the excitement and urgency? Was there no one to celebrate and go with them? This was what they had supposedly been wanting for generations, they even had the promise on the tip of their tongues, and when it was finally here, at best they couldn't be bothered to walk a couple thousand feet to Bethlehem.

And total apathy about the Messiah is the best possible spin. Notice this shocking phrase in verse 3: "When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." Far from being their hope, it seems they found news of the Messiah's birth was terrifying. We could analyze why - fear of Herod trumping fear of God, lack of faith that the Messiah would do what God said he would, love of status with the Romans (a theme which would come back later). Regardless, rather than longing for Messiah's appearing, these guys were at best apathetic towards it and more likely in dread of it.

So what about us?

We have perpetual access to God's word. The creator and sovereign Lord of all that is has spoken - and we have a record of it in the Bible! Is our attitude towards that any better than Eli's apathetic laziness? Is it similar to the Jewish leaders' dread? Do we pay lip service to admiring God's revelation, yet cringe at the thought of actually listening because of what it may cost us? Are we waiting for something 'better' than God's word (I speak as a fool)?

If the fact that God has spoken isn't enough to get us moving, what could it possibly take?

Oh noes - have I been misusing this scripture?

A verse that I've quoted quite often is Psalm 14:1 (also 53:1) - "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Like many, I've used it in reference to atheists, and used the terms 'atheist' and 'fool' interchangeably. But lately I've been thinking that maybe I've been using this scripture inappropriately, and that this comparison is unfair to fools.

See, the verses say that the fool says there is no God - but he only says it in his heart. And the rest of these psalms show the result of such folly - living as if there is no God produces nothing good, to say the least. The fool of the psalms simply pretends there is no God, and proceeds to live like it.

And yet, even in his insane wickedness, there is no indication that the fool would actually be stupid enough to say there is no God. He wishes there is no God, he lives as if there is no God, but to say it out loud? Even that seems to be too ridiculous for the fool.

But in the race towards insane depravity, the modern atheist leaves the biblical fool in the dust. In his wicked quest to spread his rage against his Creator from his own heart to the public, there is nothing so obvious he won't deny it, no line so clear he won't cross it, no rationalization so flimsy he won't cling to it and bet eternity on it. (Case in point - Stephen Hawking. But that'll have to wait for next time.)

So perhaps I owe an apology to all you fools out there. Sorry 'bout that. But you still desperately need to repent.