Catacomb Resident Blog

Misreading Scripture: Rules and Relationships 03

29 March 2024

Because of the Enlightenment secularism, the definition of "natural" versus "supernatural" has shifted over the years. What used to be the acts of God have become fewer as decoding the mechanisms caused more and more to be "natural". R/OB tell us that, "Once we understand a rule of the universe, we cut God out of any relationship to it."

The authors differentiate between scientific research and the philosophy of naturalism. The latter bites deep into the western Christian thinking. Indonesian students at the Christian school thought one of the authors had no real faith in God. Whenever someone got sick with a cold or flu, he simply gave them the common over-the-counter medications and walked away. The other students always gathered around to pray for them, medicine or not.

As the chapter concludes, the authors tell us that there is a huge debate over whether Paul referred to Junia as an apostle (Romans 16:7) because it is most assuredly a female name. Some English translations try to make it masculine because the syntax of that verse in Greek is far more ambiguous than it appears in English translations. It could read that the two named were among the apostles. It's our western habits of absolutism and rules over relationships. If one woman can be an apostle, then all women can, right?

How about the forensic language western evangelical theologians use to describe our standing before God? It's all about the rules, not the relationship itself. The terms "grace" "faith" and "holiness" are markers of relationships, not decrees from a court.

The authors refer to rules over relationships, and correctness over community. Thus, we have an instinct to correct the theology of others who happen to come up with different answers, instead of obeying the command to build a community. Is that how we become "one" as Jesus prayed? In Acts 21, Paul does not contradict James' assertion that Gentile Christians cannot eat meat offered to idols, yet Paul did teach that it wasn't really a big deal (1 Corinthians 8). How many of us would let that sort of thing go to avoid unnecessary tensions? (My question: Was it really a doctrine, or was James just trying to be helpful with tensions between Gentile and Hebrew Christians?)

Jesus portrayed it properly when He discussed snacking on raw grain heads on the Sabbath. It was a matter of His Father's priorities, not the Pharisees' rules. It was a matter of keeping a strong loyalty and submission to God. The Decalogue starts off with a reminder that what follows was based on the relationship of Israel to God: "I am the God who brought you out of Egypt."

The authors mention how we have bought into the mentality of the Medes and Persians who insisted that the emperor was bound by his own decrees and laws. We act like God is not actually sovereign. Even the Indonesians have it better. Their traditions assert that whoever is in charge of a particular office is the one who must decide when there are exceptions to the rules.

The chapter questions follow.

  1. Do you suppose that "cessationists" (re: 1 Corinthians 12) are infected with this creeping secularism and rationalism about rules of nature?
  2. How do you understand 1 Corinthians 8 in light of relationships versus rules?
  3. Does it make you uncomfortable to be told that the rules do not apply in all cases?
  4. Church folks are known for keeping some of Moses, but not all. How do we pick and choose?
  5. Does it take God out of things when science discovers new rules about how the natural world works?

This document is public domain; spread the message.