Part 1: Introduction to CHIPS (second half)

This is the second part of the introduction to the CHIPS model of Christian case-making. Read the first part here.

All aspects of apologetics - every positive case and every objection -  essentially asks one or more of the following five questions: Is the Bible sufficiently…

1)      Comprehendible?  

“Is it something I can comprehend?”

2)      Historical?             

“Is it an accurate reflection of historical events?”

3)      Interpreted?           

“Is it a proper interpretation of what the author meant to say?”

4)      Preserved?             

“Is it an adequate preservation of the original composition?”

5)      Significant?            

“Is it significant for my own life?”

SO WHY FIVE?

How can we be so sure every case made in favor of Christianity and all challenges fall into these five categories? Could there be more? The way we can be confident in this is by familiarizing ourselves with the adventures of Christianity over the last 2,000 years. We know these five categories are sufficient because those are the only ones that have been raised. It’s certainly possible for a new critic to come up with a challenge never thought of before, but it’s not likely. As much as the “new atheists” trend gives it a fresh face, critics of Christianity are nothing new and neither are their arguments.

A Text Out of Context: 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22

1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 seems to be a passage of Scripture which is prone to all sorts of abuse. The reason I think this is the case is because this passage includes a group of short, pithy statements made by the apostle Paul which can easily be repeated and turned into "stand alone" verses apart from their context. The text reads as follows:

Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil. (NASB)

Probably the two most common phrases I have heard repeated from this passage are the following:

"Don't quench the Spirit!" (v. 19)

"Abstain from all appearances of evil!" (v. 22 KJV)

Hermeneutics 101: The Law

Perhaps no area of the Old Testament is more foreign and confusing to modern-day Christians than the Mosaic Law. When reading through the Pentateuch, many believers breeze through the narrative of Genesis only to hit a roadblock when confronted with the overwhelming number of commandments, statutes, and ordinances in the last half of Exodus (not to mention the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).

A separation of time and culture prevents many Christians today from fully understanding and appreciating the Old Testament, especially the Law. It is certainly true that “the most difficult problem for most Christians with regard to these commandments is the hermeneutical one."(1) Often the problem lies in a failure to grasp the original purpose of the Law and its relation to Christians today.

Hermeneutics 101: Old Testament Narratives

Interpretive conventions for any given text must begin by recognizing the genre, or type of communication, of the text itself. The majority of the Old Testament is comprised of prose narrative. In fact, narrative is the most common literary genre found in the Bible. These narratives “are stories—purposeful stories retelling the historical events of the past that are intended to give meaning and direction for a given people in the present."(1)

Biblical interpreters frequently distinguish between three levels of narrative.(2) The third (or top) level can be classified as the “metanarrative.” This is the grand, overarching, eternal, and universal plan of God worked out through human history. This is the most important level to comprehend because it focuses on God and His plan for His people. The second (or middle) level is the story of God’s people (both Israel and the Church) as found in the Old and New Testaments (or “covenants”). As applied to the Old Testament, this would specifically refer to the Israelites as God’s chosen people. Finally, the first (or lowest) level focuses on the stories of specific individuals within the narrative. Recognizing these three levels within the biblical text should aid the reader in understanding and sound application.

A Text Out Of Context: 2 Chronicles 7:14

One of the most frequently quoted passages from 2 Chronicles is verse 7:14:

If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

I hear this verse often because it is commonly quoted with reference to America. We need revival people! And if America as a nation would only humble itself, pray, seek the face of God, and turn from wickedness, then God would hear from heaven, forgive our sin, and heal our land. Sometimes the verse is applied more specifically to Christians living in America since God refers to "my people." Regardless, notice that God is making a promise: If you do this, then God will do that.

No doubt you have heard this verse quoted every year on the National Day of Prayer. Look for it again this coming May 6, 2010. However, to use 2 Chronicles 7:14 in this manner is to take the passage out of context and skew its application.

Calvary Chapel vs. Calvinism

For a number of years growing up I have attend various Calvary Chapel churches. I have enjoyed the pastors, the congregation, and the ministry outreach. I have even been blessed with the opportunity to speak at a Calvary Chapel on several occasions. I also have great respect for the Calvary Chapel movement in general. God has used the preaching and teaching of Calvary Chapel pastors and their ministry on KWAVE to bring many individuals into a relationship with Him.

Growing up with an interest in apologetics, I have very fond memories of listening to the radio program "To Every Man An Answer" (which is now called Pastor's Perspective). It was a routine of mine to listen to the show after school every day. I learned a great deal over the years and am very grateful for the host, Don Stewart.

I say all this so my critique below is not taken as an angry or bitter resentment toward the Calvary Chapel movement. Ordinarily I wouldn't feel the need to comment but I think the audio clip below deserves a response.

As you will hear, a caller on the show asks about Calvinism (often used synonymously with Reformed theology) and is wondering how to respond to someone very close to her who has just become a very vocal five-point Calvinist.

Listen to the audio clip from the show:

Application Without Exegesis: A Destructive Trend

(Christiantheology.wordpress.com) by Doug Eaton

Exegesis is foundational to understand scripture’s application to our lives. The problem is that many in the church want to hear the application without doing the work of the exegete. In many cases this has also been translated into the way many preachers preach. In order to keep congregants happy, they are given large amounts of life application with little if any scriptural content. This puts both the preacher and the congregant in a dangerous position, because now neither the preacher nor the churchgoer is tethered to the text. Two major problems can arise in the life of the church member because of this. First, even if the application of scripture is correct, when it is challenged by those who disagree, the church member is left defenseless when it comes to defending this truth biblically. And second, if the application is not truly derived from scripture, then the church member has been sold some kind self-help scheme as if were a “biblical principle.” And when this self help scheme eventually lets them down, not only will they be disappointed in the church, but they may even start to believe scripture is no longer trustworthy. This is indeed a destructive trend.

Was the Early Church Communist?

In the book of Acts we are told the following about the early church in Jerusalem:

Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common....There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35)

So is communism the Christian ideal? Individuals who accept Marxist ideology or liberation theology may certainly argue this way, and use this passage as a proof text. But is the Bible really teaching communism as a normative and ideal way of life for Christians?

Jay Richards addresses this question in his book Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem.(1) He points out four important things to remember when examining this passage:

• First, this passage mentions nothing of class warfare or the idea that private property is immoral, as does modern communism. Rather, Christians were sharing freely and spontaneously.

• Second, neither does this passage mention anything about the state. The state is nowhere to be found. It is not the government that is confiscating property and collectivizing industry.

• Third, later in Acts 5 when Peter condemns Ananias and Sapphira, he does not condemn them for keeping part of the proceeds but rather for lying about the amount they received. In fact, in verse 4 Peter explicitly states the property was rightfully theirs even after they sold it: "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal?"

• Fourth, the Bible never makes the communal life of the early church in Jerusalem prescriptive for Christians. Furthermore, it doesn't even seem to be the norm for the Jerusalem church but was rather short lived.

On this last point, Walt Russell in his book Playing with Fire gives us two important criteria for determining whether or not a particular behavior of Christians in the book of Acts should be considered normative and prescriptive for us today (2):

• First, is the behavior repeatedly emphasized or is it a recurring theme within the broader narrative of Acts?

• Second, is this recurring pattern of behavior closely aligned with Luke's main emphasis on a universal, Law-free identity for God's people?

Examining the communal lifestyle of the early church in Jerusalem by these two criteria shows that it fails on both accounts. This behavior is nowhere mentioned again in the book of Acts or even in the entire rest of the New Testament. It also does not fit with Luke's main purpose for writing the book of Acts.

Therefore, given the context and indicators within the passage itself and the fact that this behavior is not to be considered normative or prescriptive, it certainly cannot be argued that communism is in anyway the Christian ideal or was even practiced by the early church. Marxists and liberation theologians will have to find their proof texts elsewhere.
______________________________________________

(1) See Money, Greed, and God, pgs. 22-24.

(2) See Playing with Fire, pgs. 218-223.

Did God Send Saul An Evil Spirit?

One particular passage in the Old Testament that has bothered Christians and fueled critics is found in 1 Samuel 16:14-16:

Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him. Saul's servants then said to him, "Behold now, an evil spirit from God is terrorizing you. Let our lord now command your servants who are before you. Let them seek a man who is a skillful player on the harp; and it shall come about when the evil spirit from God is on you, that he shall play the harp with his hand, and you will be well." (1 Samuel 16:14-16)

What are we to make of this passage? Did God really send Saul an evil spirit?

Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard provide excellent insight into this passage in their book Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. This book serves as an excellent introduction to hermeneutics.(1) Regarding this passage, they state:

The report that God sent Saul an "evil spirit" (1 Sam 16:14-16, et al.) illustrates how easily we may read later information into our reading of the Old Testament. In the NT an "evil spirit" is a demon (e.g., Mk 1:26 par.), so we naturally assume that the same term identifies the tormentor of Saul as a demon. This assumption overlooks two points of background: to read the OT phrase as "an evil spirit from God" implies that God sends demons on people, a theological assumption unsupported by Scripture because it conflicts with the biblical teaching that God does not associate with "evil." In addition, it wrongly assumes that the OT has an awareness of the demonic world, which does not seem to be the case. Instead, we might better translate the Hebrew as "bad spirit" (i.e., "foul mood" or "depression"; cf Judg 9:23).(2)

In other words, when we engage in biblical interpretation, it is important not to read New Testament theology back into Old Testament passages. This can lead to mistaken interpretations of Scripture.

What these authors are pointing out is that the phrase "evil spirit" needs to be interpreted with the original author and audience in mind. In addition, any legitimate interpretation of this passage must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. The "evil spirit" which came upon Saul is not necessarily a demon but may more accurately be regarded as a foul or depressing mood, such as seems to be the case in Judges 9:23.

Is there anything else in the passage which supports this interpretation? Does this interpretation fit the larger context? I think so.

Notice what it says just a few verses later:

So it came about whenever the evil spirit from God came to Saul, David would take the harp and play it with his hand; and Saul would be refreshed and be well, and the evil spirit would depart from him (1 Sam 16:23).

Given this verse, which interpretation of "evil spirit" better fits the context? Does it make more sense to think that a demon would depart from Saul whenever David played the harp? Or, does it make more sense to think Saul's depressing and foul mood would leave whenever David played the harp?

In terms of theology, I have no reason to believe that demons are somehow annoyed by the sound of harps and forced to leave whenever they hear them. On the other hand, I think we all have personally experienced the power of music in being able to lift our spirits and bring us out of a depressing or foul mood.

Therefore, not only does this later interpretation fit the context of the passage as a whole but it also seems to do greater justice to the original author and audience, as well as our own personal reflection on the matter. In light of this interpretation, neither skeptics nor Christians should be troubled by the idea of God sending an "evil spirit" on to Saul.
___________________________________________________

(1) Biblical hermeneutics is the art and science of biblical interpretation.

(2) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 12.

Hermeneutics In Everyday Life*

Suppose you're traveling to work [on an east-west street] and you see a stop sign. What do you do? That depends on how you exegete [interpret] the stop sign:

1. A postmodernist deconstructs the sign (that is, knocks it over with his car) ending forever the tyranny of the north-south traffic over the east-west traffic.

2. Similarly, a Marxist sees a stop sign as an instrument of class conflict. He concludes that the bourgeoisie use the north-south road and obstruct the progress of the workers on the east-west road.

3. A serious and educated Catholic believes that he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretive community and their tradition. Observing that the interpretive community doesn't take it too seriously, he doesn't feel obligated to take it too seriously either.

4. An average Catholic (or Orthodox or Anglican or Methodist or Presbyterian or Coptic or whatever) doesn't bother to read the sign, but he'll stop if the car in front of him does.

5. A fundamentalist, taking the text very literally, stops at the stop sign and waits for it to tell him to go.

6. A preacher might look up "STOP" in his lexicon and discover that it can mean: (1) something which prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain, or a block of wood that prevents a door from closing; or, (2) a location where a train or bus lets off passengers. The big idea of his sermon the next Sunday on this text is: "When you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car."

7. An orthodox Jew takes another route to work that doesn't have a stop sign so that he doesn't risk disobeying the Law.

*Taken from Playing With Fire: How the Bible Ignites Change in Your Soul, by Walt Russell, pg. 49