Tag Archives: Bible

October 13, 2008 · 3:26 pm

Pastoral epistles as letter???


In talking to pastors, I’ve been taking the angle that we should look again to the pastoral epistles to see how a senior mentor talks to a junior pastor. What is important? What are the dangers? What kind of encouragement is given to these folk who labor in difficult venues?

I am afraid we have used these letters to create doctrinal positions (e.g., who should lead the church, the nature of Scripture, etc.) but have forgotten the pastoral flavor of these little books.

Take a look at 1 Timothy. Here’s my brief summation of Paul’s letter to Timothy:

1. Remember. (ch. 1) Keep at your work in loving prideful and misguided people (who probably all think they should be the leader). Remember our humble origins and calling (v. 12). The goal here? Don’t shipwreck your faith.

2. Act (ch. 2-3) Your first act? Pray for everyone and pray for peace. Your second act? Live a holy life in keeping with the position. Out of this instruct your congregation to…

3. Be Wary (ch. 4-6) Deception is happening to other teachers. It can happen to you. So, live in truth and focus on godliness. There are 2 deceptions (financial gain (and fame) and knowledge). Some see both as a path to godliness but they are not. There is an antidote: Contentment! Seek only the glory of God and not your own.

____

You might ask yourself (and your pastor) these two questions.

1. If Paul were writing to you, what would he put in your letter for you to remember, act, and be wary of?

2. Who knows you and your situation well enough to write this kind of letter to you? If no one exists, why not? And what should you do about it?

Okay, that was more than 2 questions…go ask your pastor!

4 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, Christianity, Doctrine/Theology, pastoral renewal, pastors and pastoring, self-deception

Tagged as , , , ,

July 23, 2008 · 10:51 am

Divorce & Remarriage 12: How did the early church misunderstand Jesus?


We’ve covered 11 chapters thus far in our review of David Instone-Brewer’s Divorce & Remarriage in the Church.  His main point is that the Scriptures in Exodus 21 require marriages to be built on the covenant promise to provide food, clothing, and sexual love. When these were not provided then the woman was allowed to go free. The controversies in the NT are about the “any cause” divorce that some Jewish leaders supported. Jesus, I-B says, is only speaking to this problem in Matt 19 when he says no to “any cause” and only yes to causes that break the covenant. Much of I-B’s argument is based on how early rabbis interpreted the OT and Jesus’ lack of criticism of their interpretations. He also looks at cultural/evangelisticreasons for the matter of submission in Eph. 5 and questions whether these are timeless truthes (last week’s post).

So now we come to a key question in chapter 12: How did the early church misconstrue Paul and Jesus so quickly? Why did they come to believe the texts taught that divorce was never allowed.

I-B suggests the following reasons:

  1.  
    1. The Destruction of Jerusalem of 70AD. He reports that almost all of the various Jewish teachers were killed–with the exception of the Hillel Pharisees who then became the dominant interpreters of Scripture. This is key in that it was the Hillel teachers who argued for the “any cause” divorce. Thus, the no cause but sexual immorality proponents were gone and so the debate that Jesus weighed in on was lost. 
    2.  Changes in word meanings. I-B points out the changes in the meaning of “wicked”, “gay”, and “imbeciles. ” The sentence, “Isn’t it wonderful that so many imbeciles are naturally gay” has obvious meaning differences depending on which generation says it. (p. 143). He also notes the different meaning of “intercourse” (speaking) in the 1800s
    3. Similarly, how we use shorthand phrases change over time. He reminds us that he explored the phrase, “Isn’t it unlawful for a 16 year old to drink” and that it obviously means alcohol to us but may not to later generations. So, shorthand phrases interpreted outside the context have a great chance to be misunderstood. And I-B believes that Matthew uses shorthand phrases regarding divorce because it wasn’t necessary for his readers to say the whole thing.
    4. Punctuation. I-B reminds us that the original Greek text does not have punctuation markers. Translators must provide punctuation. On p. 145 he shows how the addition quotation marks changes Mt 19 from the Pharisees asking if any divorce was legal to whether “any cause” divorces are legal. The church got this wrong, he thinks, because it forget about the “any cause” controversy.

Of course this brings up issues around interpretive process, authorial intent, and how God intends these passages to be timeless, or better yet, for all time. I-B says we ask the wrong questions when we try to ask what it says in plain English or what the traditional interpretation has been. Better, he believes, is to ask what the original audience understood it to mean.

As Christian we have to assume that the Holy Spirit was able to convey truth accurately to the original readers in language and with concepts they would understand. We who come later have to do more work than they did in order to understand the same message, because we have to learn an ancient language and read it through the mindset of ancient thought-forms. p. 147

But if you are following I-B’s argument you can see that he believes we need the historical evidence to interpret the bible correctly. Does he believe we need more than the bible to interpret the bible? Yes! But he does not reject sola scriptura. This means that that while Scripture itself gives us everything we need to know for salvation it does not provide us with the background on things beyond our salvation (i.e., divorce and remarriage principles mentioned in the bible).

He ends with the question of whether there has been a conspiracy to withhold teaching on the background of this issue in the church. It might be understandable that those in the first 2,000 years of the church would get it wrong since they didn’t have access to such resources. But in the modern era, these resources have been available. So, why didn’t they teach us the background? In the next chapter he will take up that matter.

MY THOUGHTS: I-B clearly believes that we need historical records to understand the original intent of Scripture. I think it is important as well. But, I would also assert that the NT writers interpreted the OT in ways that seem not to follow that system. It would seem that they cherry picked verses and gave them entirely different meanings than the original hearers of the OT passages–especially those that they interpreted as foretelling Christ’s birth.

At heart, I-B challenges us to understand the shorthand in Scripture regarding marriage and divorce. It is good for us not to become too self-assured that we have it all right. This doesn’t mean we can’t have convictions but we must be careful here when many good and godly men and women differ in interpretation. For example, John Piper at DesiringGod.org has strong reservations about this book and continues to assert that there should never be divorce and definitely no remarriage. You can check out his thoughts here and find links to Instone-Brewer’s only webpage (HT: Ron Lusk). The point is good Christian scholars disagree. Be careful to avoid being an uninformed know-it-all.

14 Comments

Filed under book reviews, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage, Relationships

Tagged as , , , ,

July 17, 2008 · 12:30 pm

Divorce & Remarriage 11: Where do our vows come from?


In Chapter 11 of Divorce and Remarriage in the Church, David Instone-Brewer explores the origin of the promises made in wedding vows. You know, to honor, cherish, love, obey, etc., depending on cultural contexts. I-B suggests that from good scientific evidence (findings in Cairo of ancient Jewish marriage contracts) we can be confident that vows to honor, cherish, nourish come from Exodus 21:10. But what about “obey” or “submit”? Is that part of Scripture? You might be surprised at what I-B contends. He suggests that this idea comes from Greek moral law. He doesn’t deny that Jewish women didn’t practice submission to their husband, but that it wasn’t part of the contract. He reports that the issue of submission became more significant during the 1st century AD when Roman and Greek women were demanding equality and freedom. In response to these societal shifts, leaders of the day tried to force folks back to the writings of Aristotle who believed that hierarchies in families and between masters and slaves would make for a peaceful, well-working society.

Paul himself picks up on these rules (wives to husband, children to parents, slaves to masters) but with “Christian comments added to it.” (p. 132). Yes, wife submit to husband, but husband should love sacrificially, children submit to parents but fathers should not provoke…and so on.

I-B suggests that Paul encouraged Christians to keep this code so that they wouldn’t be seen as immoral and give a bad impression of Christianity (Tit 2:5, 9-10; 1 Tim 6:1). Interesting. So, are these commands to submit God’s views on what makes for right living or peace? OR, were they given because they would most aid evangelistic efforts. [DOES THIS DISTINCTION MATTER?]

I-B then turns again to the question of whether the church should allow a divorcee to make vows again to honor, cherish, etc. Should the church remarry divorcees. He believes that if they have made an effort to reconcile and cannot then they should be allowed to remarry. However, he does not believe that the divorcee who causes a divorce by his/her adultery should then be allowed to marry the person they slept with. This, he says, would be condoning the sin of adultery. And he argues that the OT and NT Rabbis flatly refused to as well. He admits this position doesn’t have clear biblical support but thinks it makes good sense.

My thoughts?  This chapter has some good points but doesn’t hang together very well. There is good reason to remove the words “obey” as it was an idea designed to make Christianity not be offensive to the surrounding moralistic culture. This helps us understand why women were told not to bejewel themselves (as the out of control women of the day were doing).

Finally, he adds in this interesting line from an early English marriage vow (from 1085) , that the woman promise to, “be bonny and buxom in bed and at board.” He translates this for the readers, which I will give you tomorrow. What would you think it means? Give me your best shot!

3 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, book reviews, Christianity, divorce, Doctrine/Theology

Tagged as , , ,

June 26, 2008 · 5:09 am

Study the Bible at Biblical for the fun of it!


Now there’s a concept: Biblical Seminary offering bible classes for anyone in the surrounding area.

Actually, we’re resurrecting a very popular past-time here at the seminary. In the olden days, seminarians went to school during the day. So, some teachers here decided to offer lay bible classes for the public in the evening. When we switched to night courses for our grad students, these courses disappeared.

But now, you can take a course on either (or both!) the Old Testament or the New Testament. Have you wanted to study the bible a bit deeper but didn’t want to do the homework? Have you ever wanted grad level bible education but didn’t finish your undergraduate degree? Have you wanted a place to get the benefit of top-notch bible teachers but couldn’t commit to a whole semester? Well, now is your chance for a 6 week bible class on Thursday nights in both fall and Spring for the minuscule fee of $79.!! Follow this link for the PDF with details as to when and where.

2 Comments

Filed under Biblical Seminary, Doctrine/Theology

Tagged as , ,

June 11, 2008 · 7:14 am

Divorce & Remarriage 7: Am I still married even though I was divorced?


We come to chapter 7 of Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage in the Church. In this chapter he tackles the question of what ends a marriage. After a couple of lame jokes to make his next point, he asks if a woman who is betrayed and cheated on and then involuntarily divorced by her husband is still married to him. Is she single? Divorced? Still married? I-B says many biblical scholars erroneously say, “married–because only death can end a marriage.” (p. 82) This chapter is designed to debunk the “forever married” doctrine.

People commit adultery or become cruel or abusive, and their marriages start to break down. What happens then? Most marriages can be healed with effort from both partners, but like cancer, if it is left untreated too long, broken vows are terminal because they kill a marriage. (p. 83)

  What to do? I-B suggests 3 options are available at the terminal stage: remain together and suffer (hoping it will get better), separate without divorce, get divorced.

But what does the Bible have to say about these options? Doesn’t the bible suggest lifelong marriage? He reminds the reader that “let no one separate” doesn’t mean it can’t but it is “undesirable”. Beyond this passage, he explores 3 more: Mt 19:9, 1 Cor. 6:15f, and Eph. 5:32. The Matt passage is against any cause divorce and not against all divorce. Paul in 1 Cor 6 says that one flesh relationships are very intimate but not necessarily permanent because if that were the case, those that had been fornicators would have to be warned to stay single. Finally, in Ephesians 5 marriage is referred to as a mystery. Some have treated this as a sacrament (something that can’t be broken) but he and most evangelicals reject this translation/meaning.

I-B then goes on to talk about silence in the NT about divorce in two passages: Rom 7:2 and 1 Cor 7:39. Is it surprising the silence about divorce in these passages? The Romans passage seems on the surface to be about not being able to remarry while a husband is still alive. But I-B says it is really about the relationship we have with the law and with Christ. Just as the parable of the sower isn’t about farming, this one isn’t really about divorce law in that it doesn’t state all the options one might be able to have about divorce–only the part that is appropriate for making Paul’s point about belonging to Christ through death. Divorce is used to illustrate a point, not to teach about divorce here.

This can be summarized thus: People are tied to the law of Moses till they die, just as a wife is tied to her husband till death. If she went with another man this would be adultery, unless her husband died. Therefore God lets you die with Christ, in order to set you free to marry Christ. (p. 89)

1 Cor 7:39 is about what happens to a spouse when the other spouse dies. It is not teaching about divorce here, but is silent on the matter.  What it is teaching on, says I-B is freeing widows from the levirate marriage which would require them to marry their brother-in-law.

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whome she wishes, only in the Lord.

SO I-B ends the chapter with these findings

1. Jesus commands those who have been joined through marriage vows that they should never separate, but a sinner who disregards Jesus’ commands can still break up the marriage [even if they don’t initiate the divorce]

2. “one flesh” is descriptive not prescriptive; “not necessarily permanent.”

3. Some passages may mention marriage and divorce but since the passages aren’t about that, we shouldn’t squeeze meanings unintended from them or try to make much of the silence on the issues. The next chapter will look at when divorce is possible.

So, what do you think of his re-reading of these texts? Do you agree that divorce isn’t really the topic and so therefore we can’t use these texts to try to make them speak to our questions about when it is possible or not possible to divorce or remarry?

1 Comment

Filed under book reviews, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage

Tagged as , , , ,

June 3, 2008 · 12:34 pm

Divorce & Remarriage VI: Paul in 1 Cor 7


We come to chapter 6 of Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage where he discusses Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 7. Before he takes on the text, he surmises that Paul must have been married given that it was mandatory both for Jews (to be fruitful and multiply) and for Romans (made law by Augustus in 18 BC). He notes that Paul contradicts compulsory marriage by making it optional in this passage.

But does he speak against marriage? Well I-B suggests that at that time there was a severe famine going on and so it would be hard for people to care for family. This, he thinks, may have been the “present distress” mentioned in 7:26. Second, he believes that verse 1 of this chapter, “Now for the matters you wrote about: it is good for a man not to marry,” that the phrase “it is good…” is NOT Paul’s belief but only a repetition of what the Corinthians believed and were writing for him to clarify. The NIV study bible also raises this as a possibility since Paul speaks well of marriage elsewhere.

What about depriving each other of sex? What is this about? I-B says this,

Notice that Paul does not say that either partner can demand sexual love, because both should regard the other person as ruling over their body. Love is a matter not of taking but giving….Also, Paul does not define what this love consists of, because in some situations, a cuddle is a warmer expression of conjugal love than intercourse. (p. 73)

I-B mentions that Roman divorces were very easy. They also had no fault divorce. A person had only to leave and separate. One did not have to prove abuse or neglect. So, in verse 10, Paul (per I-B) is telling the Corinthians that they should not seek no-fault separations. If one does seek a separation, then that person should either remain unmarried or seek to reconcile. At this point he goes into some technical translation work about the word separate. Should it be translated as reflexive–separate oneself, or passive (be separated from by someone else’s act). Bottom line:

Paul’s point is that Christians should not use Roman form of divorce-by-separation because it is groundless, therefore it is too easy to divorce people against their will when they have done nothing wrong. Anybody could take it on themselves to separate, and their partner would suddenly find that they had been legally divorced whether they wanted it or not. (p. 77)

IB then asks, “But what if you have used divorce-by separation?” I-B says Paul is teaching that those who enacted separations without cause should seek to reconcile or remain unmarried. And if you are the victim of such a separation, you treat them as an unbeliever and let them go in peace.

He finishes with these concluding points:

1. Believers should never cause divorce (be the one to break the vows. He is not saying they shouldn’t seek a divorce because the other broke the vows).

2. Believers should not use groundless divorces.

3. But questions remain for later chapters: can a believer divorce a partner who breaks their vows unrepentantly; and can a believer remarry after a divorce.

I think I-B brings clarity to Paul’s seeming contradiction in this chapter. However, he may or may not be correct about the famine bit. One would think that if Paul were referring to something like a famine he might have mentioned it. Seems that he is saying something much more eternal. That is good to marry but it is also good to be single and be devoted to the Lord. I also liked what he had to say about our bodies not being our own. Sometimes that is used to demand sex from another. But if we heed this passage, we cannot demand anything at all but only seek to give kindness and love.

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection, book reviews, christian counseling, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage, Relationships

Tagged as , ,

May 7, 2008 · 5:04 am

Divorce & Remarriage III: God as divorcee


In chapter 3 of David Instone-Brewer’s, Divorce and Remarriage in the church (IVP), we find that adultery in the OT results in either literal death or death of the marriage. But do other things also end marriage (abuse, neglect, cruelty)?  Why, I-B asks, “wouldn’t God allow divorce in these situations?”

The author argues that God DOES have other grounds for divorce:

Consider Ex 21:10-11. This text suggests to the author that God makes provision for a woman to be free from the marriage if her husband marries a second wife and fails to provide food, clothes and sex for the first. Instone-Brewer makes the important point that this is considered “case law” and not a statute. 

“Case law is a collection of decisions made by judges in actual cases that established a new legal principle. These rulings can be applied to other cases that share something in common with the case that established the principle….[this passage] is case law, so we ignore the details about slavery and polygamy and look for the principles that apply to all marriages that involve neglect. The rabbis found the following principles in this text, and I think they were right. They reasoned that if a slave wife had the right to divorce a husband who neglected to supply food, clothing and conjugal love, then a free wife would certainly also have this right. And they argued that if one of two wives had this right, so did an only wife.” (p. 36) 

So, I-B argues that there are 4 total grounds for divorce in the OT: neglecting food, clothing, sex, AND adultery. He reports that these 4 obligations are found in Jewish vows. He does admit that in the rabbinical literature, men could not be divorced for adultery since they could choose to have a second wife. And her reminds the reader that Jesus ends this “loophole”  by teaching monogamy.

I-B uses this text to remind the reader that only the victim could choose to enact the divorce. And the OT is replete with evidence that God marries Israel and Judah and both break the marriage vows or covenant/contract. God, the victim of this spiritual adultery, chooses to divorce Israel and separate from Judah (later to be reconciled) (Jer 3:8).

Israel did not know anything about God’s wonderful future plans while she was heading for divorce, and she stubbornly continued to break her marriage vows. All the prophets portray God acting in a forgiving and patient manner–he didn’t divorce her immediately and gave her many changes to repent. But Israel, his wife, continued to sin, refusing to honor her vows, and God reluctantly had to divorce her. The marriage was broken and dead, and God merely carried out the legal formalities of divorce that recognized that fact. (p. 41)

Why does God hate divorce? I-B says it is because he has personal experience of the pain of it.

God does not criticize the legal process of divorce or the person who carries it out; otherwise he would criticize himself, because he had to divorce Israel. God hates the breaking of marriage vows that results in divorce. He says that breaking these vows is being “faithless,” because it breaks the marriage covenant or contract. (p. 42)

So I-B concludes by recognizing the OT view of marriage as a contract (agreeing to be faithful and to provide food, clothes, and love) that can be dissolved (not required to dissolve) by the victim if the contract is broken. He will look next to Jesus’ words in the NT

MY THOUGHTS? The OT is very concerned about abandonment of vulnerable and weak individuals (e.g., widows, orphans, aliens). And so the divorce statements in the OT is to men who have the power to abandon. Women did not. But, I-B seems to make a strong case for these issues to brought forward to today. Where it gets messy is who interprets abandonment? Sinners! Sinners who can shape interpretations to their own benefit. I wanted more sex, more clothes, more of you and less of your work. Are these also all grounds for divorce? While I like I-B’s work with the Ezek. passage it seems like it raises many more questions.  

3 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, book reviews, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , ,

April 30, 2008 · 5:30 am

Divorce & Remarriage II: OT Reflections


Chapters 2-3 of Instone-Brewer’s Divorce & Remarriage in the Church reviews OT reflections on divorce and remarriage. In the first few pages of chapter 2, the author skips much review of Eden and goes right for the problem in marriages after the Fall. Adam and Eve discover, “the difference between good an devil, and at the heart of this discovery was the desire to do what they wanted.” (p. 24) God’s original design of “leaving and cleaving” provides the remedy to our tendency toward individualism and is meant to help us through the hard times.

But what happens when the ideal of leaving and cleaving doesn’t work? What happens to the wife? The Husband? Is there any relief? Instone-Brewer (I-B) then reminds readers that failing marriages is not merely a modern problem. He briefly summarizes the ancient near eastern laws prior to Moses. In short, women have no power, no say. A husband can abandon her and the kids, leave her with nothing (since she can’t own property) and then return and take her back whether she wants to or not.

Enter Moses. I-B says that Law given by Moses brings some things to rights. First, everyone was treated with equal respect and not given different punishments based on importance or personal wealth. Second,

The most impressive differences between the laws of Israel and those of other ancient Near Eastern nations were in the laws of remarriage. In other countries it was difficult for an abandoned woman to get remarried, but in Israel this unfairness was corrected by giving her the right to receive a divorce certificate from her husband….It confirmed that her husband had divorced her and meant that it was safe for another man to marry her… (pp. 28-29)

I-B backs up his contention that she could remarry by speaking of archaeological finds of very early Jewish divorce certificates that contain language, “you are now free to marry any man you wish.”

Lest anyone think the OT supports divorce, I-B attempts to distinguish between what is acceptable and a legal recognition of what has happened. Though divorce is always a sign of something wrong, I-B contends that God provides a means to force a divorcing man to give her a certificate to allow her to remarry.

This chapter is a little campy in places but makes a good point that the divorce certificate allowance was to protect wives from even more damage–to limit the effects of sin. Jesus seems to support this argument in Matt 19:18 when he states that Moses gave them this law because their hearts were hard (i.e., had no concern for their wives and children). Notice that women are not even considered able to divorce their husbands. There are a number of other OT passages that I-B has yet to deal with that I expect will show up in the next chapter. 

1 Comment

Filed under book reviews, Christianity

Tagged as , ,

April 8, 2008 · 5:37 am

Musings from Isaiah 40-45: Our only hope for egocentrism and self-sufficiency


I’ve been sitting in a SS class on Isaiah for the last 8 weeks. This week, we looked at Is. 44-45. One of the beauties of Isaiah is that he doesn’t mince words. In the same book, in the same chapter he points out our sin, God’s judgment and yet also points to God’s saving power. We’d prefer to focus on grace but Isaiah tells us we need both. Thus far in the book we get the truth: God is holy, we are not. Our trust in ourselves, in our leaders, in our ability to capture God have utterly failed. We are blind, dumb and no better (maybe worse) than the enemies of God.

And then we get to chapter 40. Here, we begin to get very clear images of God’s gracious acts along with more doses of the truth:

40:1-2: Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed, that her sin has been pain for, that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins

40:6f …All men are like grass…the grass withers…but the word of our God stands for ever.

And what is that word? Vs. 10f tells us that he comes in power, he tends his flock, carries them, and gently leads them. he will not grow tired or weary. Even though we grow weary, thosw who hope in him will walk and not faint.

In chapter 41 we again see God’s power. The islands see his power and tremble. What has he done with that power? He has chosen and not rejected a people. What are we to do? Not fear even though a war rages around. Can we not fear? Not really. But the Lord himself (v. 14) will help us.

In chapter 42, God will no longer stand idly by but will, like a woman in childbirth, cry out as he makes them trust only in Him. Yes, he handed deaf and dumb over to be plundered. But why? Chapter 43 gives the answer: because there is only one savior who redeems, only one who can be trusted to save. Though we pass through the waters, this savior is with us. Even in our punishment we are not abandoned. The whole Gospel is summed up in 43:11:

I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior.

So, for our sakes, we are sent to Babylon. Why? So we forget our former glories and recognize that only God provides the water and the food. While we would consider this punishment a sign of rejection and hatred, chapter 44 shows us God’s heart for holiness includes grace–even for foolish folk who try to find their comfort and safety in human things. He says, “Remember…I have made you, you are my servant; O Israel, I will not forget you. I have swept away your offenses like a cloud, your sins like the morning mist. Return to me, for I have redeemed you” (v. 21-22).

Chapter 45 shows an amazing picture. God’s victory over sin is sure. He even uses pagans (Cyrus) for the sake of his people (notice even in the temple, they can take no pride in having been the one’s to build it). And at the end of the day our hope comes not from our ability to be righteous but in the Lord’s power to save: “They will say to me, ‘In the Lord alone are righteousness and strength.'” 

I encourage you to read these chapters (especially 44:8; 24-28; 45:1-25) to see where our redemption and hope come from. Avoid trying to apply each little verse but read it as it is: poetry. Look at the description of God’s people, of THE Servant, and of God himself. You will walk away with the overwhelming sense that God is holy, that he keeps his word, and that he is delivering us from ourselves for his own namesake. A good thing to read if you are downcast and worried about yourself. 

2 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection

Tagged as , ,

October 13, 2006 · 10:55 am

Anxiety and the non-use of Scripture in Counseling


During our day long faculty meeting, moderated by Pat Keifert from Luther Seminary, he mentioned an interesting bit of research he had done in the early 90s. His research on the use of the Bible in mainline churches found that when anxiety and distress rise, the positive use of the Scriptures decreases. Does that strike you as a little odd? Wouldn’t we find ourselves running to the Scriptures for comfort during times of anxiety?

Here’s an exerpt of his that describes the results of not having a positive use of the Scriptures during difficult times. You  can find the whole chapter here: http://www.luthersem.edu/word&world/Archives/20-4_Congregation/20-4_Keifert.pdf 

Within many mainline Protestant congregations this defensive stance toward fundamentalism and evangelicalism ends with little positive use of the Bible in the exercise of day-to-day Christian practices. This lack of a positive use of Scripturethreatens the existence of congregations when the anxiety within the congregational system rises. When tough issues relating to congregational life or ethics arise,the positive habits for the use of Scripture that remain in atrophied forms disappear and very dysfunctional patterns arise.

Many Christian counselors also fear looking like a fundamentalist who might use the bible to exhort or beat down someone with the “truth” (e.g., Its sin, stop it; Don’t be afraid). But our lack of using the Scriptures will cripple us and lead us to some distructive responses when we face troubles with our clients (e.g., being overly critical of church leadership, encouraging an easier way out of some kinds of troubles).

In our Christian psychology world, we do not do enough to argue for a better and more God-honoring use of Scripture in the face of trouble. We cannot allow the misuse of it by some to cause us to avoid it alltogether. If we do, we withhold comfort, hope, and direct connection to God from our clients.

 I’ve tried to give some examples of that in my how to use Scripture essay (link found on the bar to the right of this blog).

1 Comment

Filed under biblical counseling

Tagged as