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.

Apart from other things...

Towards the end of 2 Corinthians, the apostle Paul takes to defending his ministry against the charges of the self-exalting Corinthian "super-apostles". These deceivers boasted of their own greatness, so Paul laid some apostolic smack down. He could boast of everything they could, but he could claim an even greater credential - enduring suffering for the sake of the gospel. The false apostles boasted in their awesomeness and general snazziness. The true apostle regarded that as worthless, and boasted instead in his weaknesses that showed the greatness of Christ.

In the midst of this argument, Paul gave his most extensive list of the sufferings he endured in the name of Christ (and more was still to come!) while the super-apostles demanded to be exalted and live in luxury at the Corinthians' expense. While looking at this passage recently, I was struck like never before by the last item:

Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one—I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one.  Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. (2 Cor 11:23-28)

"The daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches". I've always considered that as another thing that separates him from the false apostles - I love you and am terribly concerned for you, but they don't really care. And no doubt that's part of it. But now I don't think that gets the entire picture.

What I am more inclined to think now is that the relentless concern for the churches is the greatest suffering he endured. It's not just another addition to the list, it's the pinnacle. His anxiety over the churches is a greater burden to bear than being beaten, whipped, stoned, shipwrecked, and everything else combined.

I believe Paul is getting at that here. Suppose he was given a choice: (a) Demas apostasizes, or (b) Demas remains faithful, but to bring it about Paul must be scourged again. How long do you think he'd have to debate it? 0.000001 nanoseconds? Or is that too long?

I first thought that as I was considering my daughters, and how agonizing it would be to see them reject Christ. I can't imagine anything more painful - I can't imagine there is anything I would not endure if it would bring about their repentance. Of course I know that nothing I do can guarantee it - but if hypothetically the choice was offered, it would be the easiest choice ever.

We all can have this level of concern for people we know. But church leaders - pastors and elders - bear this burden continually, anxious for the well-being of people in their care who are more stubborn and self-destructive than sheep. Let us honor them well and make their job a blessing as much as we possibly can.