American Terrorism

This country has talked about and seen its share of terrorist attacks. What we have seen, read and heard of in the news has been appalling. But I want to suggest to you that the greatest terrorist attacks on America’s soil have not been perpetrated by radical Muslims. The three greatest terrorist attacks upon this country have been perpetrated by the Supreme Court of the United States.

First, was the legalization of Abortion on January 22, 1973. 58 million abortions have been committed since 1973. That’s 58 million victims of terror.

You combine all the terrorist attacks on America’s soil since 1973, and you will not come close 58 million deaths that have resulted from abortion.

Back in the early account of Genesis, when Cain murdered his brother, Abel, God came looking for Cain and said to him, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground” (Gen. 4:10). Now if the blood of one person caught the attention of God, what would the blood of 58 million say to the Lord?

The second great act of terror perpetrated by the Supreme Court was the banning of prayer from public schools in June 1962. Since then, there have been waves and waves of terror attacks in our schools and upon our children. Attacks not only coming from bullets, but from godless ideas and philosophies that do more harm and spread evil more rapidly.

The Third great act of terror perpetrated by the Supreme Count was the legalization of same-sex marriage in June 2015.

So we got the destruction of life itself – abortion. We got the destruction of the family – legalizing gay marriages. And we got the destruction of our children – banning prayer from public school. Do you see what is going on? We’re talking about the total annihilation of the family!

No bombs, no explosions, no attacks, and no assault on people physically can come anywhere near that kind of terrorism that has been perpetrated by the Supreme Court of the U.S. Our country is being terrorized by the people most responsible to protect it—those who are to uphold the law.

While we need to be concern about overseas terrorism, let’s NEVER be distracted from the really big issues that have brought more harm to this nation than any Middle Eastern terrorist group. Terrorism should not be defined and limited to radical Muslims. We have in leadership our own brand of terrorists. They may not use guns and bombs, but the effects are just as lethal and damaging.

Is The Bible To Be Interpreted Literally?

Is The Bible To Be Interpreted Literally?  Part 1

Whenever a discussion of the Bible is brought up, invariably the issue of interpretation will be mentioned.  Should we interpret the bible literally or not? How do we interpret the bible?

Clearly, those of us with a high view of Scripture don’t take 

everything in the bible literally. Jesus is the “door” (John 10:7), but He’s not made of wood. We are the “branches” (John 15:5), but we’re not sprouting leaves.

On the other hand, we do take seriously accounts others find fanciful and far-fetched: a man made from mud (Adam, Gen. 2:7), loaves and fishes miraculously multiplied (Mark 6:38-42), vivified corpses rising from graves (Matt. 27:52-53), etc. 

Let’s start with a definition. According to

the New Oxford American Dictionary, the word “literal” means “taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory, free from exaggeration or distortion.” This is an application that we apply to most all documents.  Try reading the newspaper in a non-literal way and see how far that gets you.

But let’s face it, even non-Christians read the Bible in its “usual or most basic sense” most of the time on points that are not controversial. They readily take statements like “love your neighbor as yourself” or “remember the poor” at face value. When citing Jesus’ directive, “Do not judge,” they’re not deterred by the challenge, “You don’t take the Bible literally, do you?”

You see, when critics agree with a point of a passage, they take the words of the Bible in their ordinary and customary sense. Unless, of course, the details of the text troubles them for some reason.  Then they cry out, “The Bible should not be taken literally.”  This is because they are in disagreement with the words.

“Jesus the only way of salvation?” No way. “Homosexuality a sin?” Oh, Please. “A loving God sending anyone to the eternal torture of Hell?” Not a chance.

Notice the objection with these teachings is not based on some ambiguity making alternate interpretations plausible, since the Scripture affirms these truths with the same clarity as “love your neighbor.” No, these verses simply offend. Suddenly, the critic becomes a skeptic and sniffs, “You don’t take the Bible literally, do you?”

So how are we to interpret the bible? More on this in Part 2.

Is The Bible To Be Interpreted Literally?  Part 2

Should the Bible be interpreted literally?

In the Law of Moses, for example, homosexual activity was punishable by death (Lev. 18:22-23 and 20:13). Therefore (the charge goes), any Christian who takes the Bible literally must advocate the execution of homosexuals, right?

Of course, the strategy with this move is obvious: If we don’t promote executing homosexuals, we can’t legitimately condemn their behavior, since both details are in the Bible. If we don’t take the Bible literally in the first case, we shouldn’t in the second case, either. That’s being inconsistent.

How do we escape the horns of this dilemma?

Let’s start by asking a series of questions:  When Moses wrote the Law, did he expect the Jewish people to take those regulations literally? If you’re not sure how to answer, let me ask it another way. When an ordinance is passed in your local state (Hawaii, in my case), do you think the legislators intend its citizens to understand the words of the regulations “in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory, free from exaggeration or distortion”?

Of course they do. Legal codes are not written in figurative language allowing each citizen to get creative with the meaning and come up with their own imaginative meanings. The same would be true for the Mosaic Law. Moses meant it the way he wrote it.

But now, to be consistent, shouldn’t we currently campaign for the death penalty for homosexuals? For that matter, aren’t we obliged to promote execution for disobedient children (cf. Deut. 21:18-21) and Sabbath-breakers (Exod. 31:14), both capital crimes under the Law?

The simple answer is no. Here’s why. Just because a biblical command is 

intended to be understood “literally,” does not mean it is intended to be applied “laterally,” that is, universally across the board to all peoples at all times in all places.

You say, “How can you get away by saying that?” 

I will show you in Part 3

Is The Bible To Be Interpreted Literally?  Part 3

Last time in Part 2, I ended with this statement:  

Just because a biblical command is intended to be understood “literally,” does not mean it is intended to be applied “laterally,” that is, universally across the board to all peoples at all times in all places.

Consider this: Jesus told Peter to cast his net in deep water (Luke 5:4). That’s exactly what Peter did because he took Jesus’ command literally, in its ordinary sense. He had no reason to think otherwise. However, because Jesus’ command to Peter was literal does not mean the same command applies laterally to everyone else. We’re not obliged to cast nets into deep water just because Peter was told to do so.

Also consider this:  No matter what state you live in, the Hawaii legal codes are to be read literally, but don’t have lateral application to all states. They only apply to those in Hawaii.

In the same way, the words of the Mosaic Law (Genesis to Deuteronomy), like those of all laws, are to be taken at face value by anyone who reads them. Yet only those under its jurisdiction are obliged to obey its precepts.

The Jews in the theocracy were expected to obey the legal code God gave them, including the prohibition of and punishment for example of homosexuality. It was not the legal code God gave to us Gentiles, however. Therefore, even if the words of the Mosaic Law are to be taken literally by those under the jurisdiction of that code, this does not mean that in our current circumstances we are governed by the details of the provisions of that Law.

Now I am in no suggesting that nothing written in the Mosaic Law is ever applicable to Christians or other Gentiles or that there are no universal moral obligations that humanity shares with the Jews of Moses’ time. No, I’m not saying that.

Though Moses gave legal statutes for Jews under the theocracy, that Law in some cases still reflects moral universals that have application for those outside the nation of Israel. Yes, we can glean wisdom and moral guidance from the Law of Moses for our own legal codes, but there are limits.  

The question here is not whether we take the Mosaic Law literally, but whether we are now under that legal code. We are not. That law was meant for Jews living under a theocracy defined by their unique covenant with God. Simply because a directive appears in the Mosaic Law does not, by that fact alone, make it obligatory for those living outside of Israel’s commonwealth.

Americans are a mixture of peoples in a representative republic governed by a different set of decrees than the Jews under Moses. We are not obliged to obey everything that came down from Sinai. Just because it was commanded of the Nation of Israel does not necessarily mean it is commanded of us.

Having said, let’s go back to our original question:  When do we take the Bible literally?

More on this in Part 4

Is The Bible To Be Interpreted Literally?  Part 4

If I’m asked if I take the Bible literally, I would say I think that’s the wrong question to ask. I’d clarify by saying instead that I take the Bible in its ordinary sense, that is, I try to take the things recorded with the precision I think the writer intended.

To help clarify what I just said, I would counter with a question of my own:  “Do you read the sports page literally?”  You see, certain factual information is part of every story in that section. However, you wouldn’t take everything written in a literal way that ignores the conventions of the craft.

If the writer seems to be stating a fact—like a score, a location, a player’s name, a description of the plays leading to a touchdown—then I’d take that as literal. If he seems to be using a figure of speech, then I’d read his statement that way, figuratively, not literally.”

Sportswriters use a particular style to communicate the details of athletic contests clearly. They choose precise (and sometimes imaginative) words and phrases to convey a solid sense of the particulars in an entertaining way.

Sportswriters routinely use words like “annihilated,” “crushed,” “mangled,” “mutilated,” “stomped,” and “pounded,” yet no one speculates about literal meanings. Readers don’t scratch their heads wondering if cannibalism was involved when they read “the Waianae Seariders devoured the Pearl City Chargers.”

We recognize such constructions as figures of speech used to communicate in colorful ways events that actually (“literally”) took place. In fact, we never give those details a second thought because we understand how language works.

When a writer seems to be communicating facts in a straightforward fashion, we read them as such. When we encounter obvious figures of speech, we take them that way, too.

In the same way, this is exactly what I’m after when I say, “I take the Bible in its ordinary sense.”  Indeed, misinterpretation is always possible. Conjuring up some meaning that has little to do with the words the writer used, though, is not a legitimate alternative.  Nevertheless, you begin with the mindset that “I am going to read this passage in its ordinary sense, but when I come across figures of speech that demands a second thought, I need to investigate further.

All metaphors (or other forms of figurative writing) rely first on literal definitions before they can be of any use as figures of speech.  No word is a metaphor in itself, since words cannot be used metaphorically unless they’re embedded in a context. Therefore, it makes no sense to ask of a solitary word, “Is the word meant literally?” because the word standing on its own gives no indication.

Remember that metaphors are always meant to clarify, not obscure.

There’s a sense in which figurative speech drives an author’s meaning home in ways that words taken in the ordinary way could never do. “All good allegory,” C.S. Lewis notes, “exists not to hide, but to reveal, to make the inner world more palpable by giving it an (imagined) concrete embodiment.”

Figurative speech communicates literal truth in a more precise and powerful way than ordinary language can on its own. The strictly literal comment, “Honey, your presence makes me feel good today” doesn’t pack the punch that perhaps, “Honey, you presence is like sunshine beaming through the window of my heart,” provides.

When reading the Bible, here is a rule of thumb to always keep before you: NEVER read just one bible verse. Always read a paragraph of the Bible – at least!  Meaning flows from the top down, from the larger context to the smaller.   Thus, the key to the meaning of any verse comes from the paragraph, not just from the individual words.

End of Series 

Is Theology Necessary?

Is Theology Necessary?  Part 1

Some people read the bible, hear a few messages, read some books, attend church for a few months, take a couple of leadership classes, and from there they think they are ready and equipped to lead a bible study, pastor a church and do all sorts of other things. They may have zeal, but it has to be according to knowledge (Prov. 19:2; Rom. 10:2).

Question:  Is theology necessary?

Any preparation for ministry, especially in the role where you will find yourself teaching from the Bible regularly demands, in my humble opinion, a course on systematic theology. 

Why is this?

First, systematic theology is necessary in order to be balanced. 

It is only through Theology that we are able to come to balanced views of the truth of the word of God. Almost inevitably if we study the Bible and do not study it doctrinally it is impossible for us to expect over a long period of time to have some understanding of the Bible in a balanced way.

There a multitudinous examples of this.  Let me add a couple.

Some churches (preachers) show a heavy leaning toward prophecy.  They get all excited over the signs of the times and how many of them match up with the Bible, and then in their excitement, they set dates on the return of Jesus.

But if they studied systematic theology, they would know that although the signs for the soon coming of Jesus are definitely there, Jesus taught that no one knows when He would return (Mark 13:32). 

Furthermore, this kind of person with a great interest in prophecy and a great knowledge in prophecy, often does not have the practical truths to go with his prophecy.  To be sure, if one is unbalanced doctrinally, he or she will be unbalanced on the practical side too.

Then there is the other side, in which a person becomes a Christian and hooks up with an evangelical church in which prophecy is discounted. Frequently all that is served up to the members of the church are simple devotional messages in which there is no real exposition of the word of God in consecutive fashion at all but just texts chosen here and there.

Another example of being unbalanced is seen by how people try to defend their emotional experience of praying in tongues using the Bible. 

I don’t know how many times I have Christians (many of whom are pastors or small group leaders) use passages like:

Romans 8:26:  In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.

Here “wordless groans” is interpreted as the Spirit of God praying through us in gibberish.

Never mind that speaking or praying in tongues is not even mentioned at all in the Book of Romans, especially in the spiritual gift section in chapter 12:3-8.  Never mind that it is not listed at all in the book of Ephesians in the spiritual gift section of chapter 4. Never mind tongues is not mentioned at all in the epistle of 1 Peter in the spiritual gift section of chapter 4. Never mind that the only place where praying in tongues becomes an issue is in 1 Corinthians 12-14, written to a church that was carnal because of its abuse of spiritual gifts, especially tongues.

And of course, my favorite: Jude 1:20: “Praying in the Holy Spirit.” How anyone arrives at praying in tongues from this phrase is a miracle. If I pray in English or in a language that I understand, will that disqualify me from “praying in the Spirit?” Is praying in the Spirit only possible if I pray gibberish?

Of course, the flip side can be dangerous as well.  Some people who are opposed to praying in tongues often get all bent out of shape when they are in a service or a small group that is charged up emotionally with hand clapping, dancing, hands and arms raised, people with their eyes close, crying etc. They see this as “of the devil.” 

But when you read the Word of God, joy is a fruit of the Spirit and it is something you want to see in all church services and small group bible studies.

But you see, unless you take the time to collect all the data from all the New Testament, you will end up being unbalanced doctrinally.

End of Part 1

Is Theology Necessary?  Part 2

Theology is necessary first of all, in order to be balanced (Part 1).

Second, theology is necessary in order to be Preserved from False Doctrine. You might say that sound theology protects the church from food poisoning.

The key is “sound theology.” The way to arrive at sound theology is through the method of “induction.”

What do I mean by induction?  All study whether it is scientific or as you and I may carry on in our private devotional life, is conducted on the basis of certain truths that are assumed.

In other words, we assume we have a sound mind. We assume that the things that we come to by reason of the exercise of the rational process that God has given us are reliable.  Everybody begins with certain assumptions. So when we come to the word of God we begin with certain assumptions of that character.

Secondly by induction, we ascertain, collect and put together the truths that we see through the study of the word of God.

Now we do this spiritually under the guidance of the Spirit of God. In this way we differ from a scientist whom uses the process of reasoning that God has given him.  But nevertheless we collect and combine the truth that we discover as we read the word of God. We then put them together and we do it with carefulness and completeness, if we are going to have good induction.

Example:  In the case of sound theology it’s important for us to not miss and misunderstand our data. We might for example look at the word of God and read that Jesus does not know something, as in the case of Mark 13:32, in which Jesus stated that He did not know the hour of His second coming.  We might conclude from this that Jesus was not omniscient (He did not have knowledge of all things).  But then we read in numerous occasions that He does know in such a way that we have to predicate of Him omniscient.

For example, that when He met Nathaniel, Jesus began to open the conversation by saying, “behold the Israelite in whom there is no guile, i.e. no God” (John 1:47). 

I’m sure that Nathaniel wondered how in the world Jesus was able to see into his character.  But Jesus was not finished. He went onto say to Nathanael, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you” (v. 48). This prompted Nathanael to respond to Jesus in faith and believe that He is the Son of God. Nathanael knew that Jesus was omniscient. 

So one text states that there was something Jesus did now know. Another states that Jesus knows omnisciently.  So as we collect our data from the Bible, we do not want to go off either deep ends and say,  “Jesus knows everything, He cannot be ignorant of anything,” or we might say, “If He is ignorant of this, He could be ignorant of many other things, such as tomorrow things.”

By using inductive reasons and data collecting, we study Jesus’ nature and see that, while in His body, Jesus willingly chose not to know certain things – such as the time of His second coming. However, Jesus was more than a man, He is the God-man. Thus as God, He knows all things.  As a man, Jesus possessed the attributes associated with being human – i.e being ignorant of certain things. As God, He possessed attributes associated with deity -- omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

Now Jesus never possessed any false information. But there were times in His human experience He could say, “There are some things I do not know,” therefore He had “to increase in wisdom” (Luke 2:52).   But at the same time, as God, He possessed all knowledge, both knowable and possible.

Then after we’ve collected all our data then we derive our principles and our teachings from the examination of the data, and come to a sound conclusion.

So theology is possible and necessary when it is carried out by inductive methods of reasoning guided by the Holy Spirit.

End of Series