Interpretation and Culture: How They Both Change

Here again is another blog in reference to the theology class I am taking at my church. Something the pastor said made me start thinking. One thing he said was how you have to read the Bible in the light of the culture at the time it was written to correctly interpret it. Last week, I asked him about people taking verses out of the Bible and claiming ridiculous things.  Like the verse “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.” Leviticus 19:28.  People will say that means you can't get a tattoo.  He told me that it had more to do with the pagan worship of the dead than the actual defacing of the body. I see this. You must understand the context of the culture to be able to understand the meaning for us today.

But here's something I find fascinating... I think Christians' interpretations of the Bible change with our own culture and our own personal biases. They shouldn't. And I'll be even more specific. Baptists' interpretation of the Bible changes with our own culture. I'll give you examples. What about the subject of interracial marriages?  Now the Bible is pretty clear to me that there is no problem at all with interracial marriages, but how many Baptist ministers in Mississippi 50 years would marry a black person to a white person in their churches? They might pick some scripture like in 2 Corinthians about being unequally yoked and refuse to marry them. Now? I would hate to think there is a minister out there who would claim that is the right interpretation. (I'm sure they're out there, but they're wrong.) And what about the dancing?  My mother tells me when she was in high school that dancing was seriously sinful. I don't even know where in Scripture someone could argue that, but it was so because of our culture, I suppose. Now, we have dance classes to go with the songs in Vacation Bible School! And we're not just talking arm motions here. We use our hips. *scandalous*

And even still a touchy subject - alcohol. It was honestly within the last ten years when my own current church had a churchwide Sunday School lesson on the sinfulness of alcohol. And, no, I didn't just sit there and let that go on. Somebody was going to SHOW me where it said in the Bible that drinking alcohol in reasonable amounts was sinful. And if it is sinful, then our Savior was sinful, and we all know for certain that is not the case. And don't give me that grape juice garbage. Grape juice doesn't calm your stomach when it's upset. Regardless... I could write a blog on this alone, but you get the drift. I feel pretty certain that even in the Baptist church (although this may be the only church left who tends to have this stance), in another decade, this won't be an absolute prohibition for all Christians to abstain from alcohol. It may be taught to guard against or be cautious with. But I can't see it being taught as outright sinful. It's a change in interpretation based on our culture. (And let me be clear so I'm not quoted incorrectly. There are people who should not drink alcohol. And I understand why leaders at the pulpit can't say, "Go for it and drink what you want!" That would be irresponsible, as would telling everyone they should go eat at the Berry's Seafood Buffet when there are people who should never go to an all-you-can-eat buffet.)

And shall I even get on my soap box about women? Again, it's fascinating to me that our own culture changes the way we look at Scripture.  Would we have women in leadership positions in a Baptist church 50 years ago? 25 years ago? What about the silent women bondage Scripture? ("Let your women keep silent in the churches: For it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husband at home: For it is a shame for a woman to speak in a church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35). Now I don't know what was going on in Corinth for Paul to tell them this, but that's the point. SOMETHING was rotten in the state of Corinth.  I'm not a Biblical scholar to know what it was. I hope to find that out in the class. But I know what Jesus thought of women. I know that in a culture which did not recognize a woman's testimony in a court of law, God allowed women to be the FIRST witnesses of Jesus' resurrection (Luke 24: 1-12; Acts 2: 17-18). In Romans 16:1, Paul recommends a woman named Phoebe, "a deacon of the church of Cenchreae."  Although church offices had not yet been established, the term "deacon" denotes some sort of leadership position in the church.  In this passage (Romans 16: 1-12), Prisca, Mary, Junia, Tryphaena, and Tryphosa function as co-workers in the churches.  How can they be co-workers if they can't speak in the church?  How can Phoebe fulfill the role of deacon if she can't speak out in the assembly?

Galatians 3:28, Paul writes, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female;  for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." It is glaringly obvious that women, married or unmarried, can have leadership positions in the church. And they should be able to do so equally with men and not be relegated to terms such as "Director" instead of "Reverend." We have come a long way, but we still have some issues because of how we have done things based on tradition. In another 50 years, I believe gender equality will happen. In the meantime, all we can do is keep searching for truth and TRY not to let our current culture and personal biases change the way we interpret the Bible. The interpretation should not change. It should be constant. It IS constant. WE are the fickle humans who bend meanings to fit what we want to believe. Again, that's why I am loving this class. It's so cool to dig into Scripture and find out the context and meanings behind passages that have, to many of us, become rote. I am sure there are places in the Bible that I have misinterpreted. I look forward to finding out what those passages are and honestly and open-mindedly discovering what the truth is.

Theology

Hubs and I are taking a theology class at our church. I think I am going to love it. Already my mind is running crazy with questions, and I'm finding answers and differing opinions, and I'm fascinated.  As I was talking out my biggest question from yesterday's first class to hubs, he says, "Well, I don't know the answer, but I know this won't be your only hiccup." True. And I absolutely love that wheels-turning, trying-to-understand feeling. So I thought I'd share my first big area of confusion, and I hope my friends who also like to think and understand such things can help me understand.

Now I am certainly not as intellectual, educated or well-versed in scripture as my pastor, so I'm sure I will miss something or mix something up when I try to express my questions, but I will do my best. Here's my best stab at it:  I agree that at some point in every human, God reveals himself. Whether that be in just looking at the stars in the sky and how perfectly the universe is made and our bodies are made, or whether it be in innately knowing, as C.S. Lewis expresses, that there is right and wrong. Humans who have never heard of God have a conscience. I get that. I totally agree. But knowing the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not naturally revealed. Someone must be told that message. I understand that too. And I know that the Bible says in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

During the class, the pastor said something like this: Now what about the guy on some remote island who never hears the message of Jesus Christ and never has the chance to accept him? He may choose to understand through the natural revelation of God that there is a God, but he would have no way of ever knowing there is a Jesus and what He did on the cross for him and accepting Him. According to that John 14:6 scripture, he would go to hell. I have a prolem with that, and here's why.  If that is true, then babies and little children and unborn babies and mentally handicapped individuals would also go to hell.  When asked that question, words like "age of accountability" and "merciful enough" were spoken.  The pastor said that the term "age of accountability" was not ever used in the Bible, but that would be the point in an individual's life when he or she is mentally able and responsible enough to make a decision to follow Christ. But if God is merciful enough to not send babies and mentally retarded people to hell, then how is the guy on the remote island different? Why wouldn't God's mercy reach to him? If there is a little ignorant-of-the-Gospel family on this remote island including a mom, a dad and a baby, and a hurricane comes through and kills all of them, the baby would go to heaven, but the parents would go to hell? I know what the Bible says, but if I choose to believe that God doesn't send babies to hell (which I do choose, by the way), then it's hard for me to see the difference when it comes to groups of people who never have the chance to choose Jesus.

Now, last night, a very intelligent Bible scholar and uncle of hubby got into a discussion about this which led to his belief in limited atonement, which is that God sent Jesus to save a chosen few, not everyone. He did an amazing job explaining his stance on it, backed by scripture. (Is 53:12, "yet He Himself bore the sin of many.") But I also found scripture last night that backed my stance that Jesus did die for the entire world, not just a select few. (1 John 2:2, "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.") We had a fascinating discussion, and I respect very much his view on it, but I am going to choose to stick with my view on that.  Although, if I did believe in limited atonement, my questions would immediately be answered.  But also in that case, I wouldn't believe in sending missionaries to spread the Gospel, and I know that Bible calls us to be "fishers of men." (John 21:17)  John 3:16 is sort of the basis of Christianity. It's the verse we're all drilled with as children, and it does read "whosoever believes in him," not just a few. 

I wondered if anyone out there would like to add to my understanding of this aspect of the Bible, without arguing for limited atonement. Like I said, I can wrap my brain around it, and it DOES answer my heaven/hell questions, and I respect anyone's choice to believe it, but that's not what I believe, so, given my choice in believing that Christ died for the whole world and that everyone has the option to choose Christ, how do you explain what happens to children and not have it carry through to people who have never heard Christ? I do believe what the Bible says. But it almost seems as if that would mean that even a child would go to hell, and I know my God would not do that. Thoughts?