Your approach to Scriptural principles.

[tall73]

So let me flip that around and we'll do a thought experiment.

Do you think there are Biblical principles that are unfair, unreasonable or don't work in practice?

A. I think there are some that are unfair. Ie. turn the other cheek, or obey God rather than the government, though it may mean you die. Unfair does not mean that it is not commanded, or not ultimately the right thing to do.

B. unreasonable, according to Matthew 19 the disciples found Jesus advice on Divorce so unreasonable that they said it is better not to get married. Of course, Jesus' principle still stands.

C. Doesn't work in practice? I think everything Jesus says works in practice, but we just haven't put many of them to the test because they are hard. I say we including me. Truly turning the other cheek is hard, and I only manage it part of the time. What one might say doesn't work in practice is not really the point. If Jesus says to do it then it must be done.

If there are Biblical principles that are unfair, unreasonable or don't actually work, then what does that say about the God who inspired the Bible?

That God is not ultimately concerned with our limited understandings of fair or unreasonable or whether something "works" for us.

And if there aren't Biblical principles that are unfair, unreasonable or don't actually work, then what is the problem with people judging those principles according to those standards?

Because God is not limited to what we think of as fair, etc.

My view is that Jesus and Love trump any person's interpretation of Scripture. If the "principle" or "imperative" that someone claims is "biblical" doesn't match the nature of Christ and of love then it shouldn't be followed.

If someone were to ignore direct statements of Scripture on the basis that they don't think it is "love" then they would be missing the point.

Was it love to tell Ezekiel that his wife would die and he would not be allowed to go through the usual mourning ritual as a sign to the people?

It was love, but we would rarely perceive it as such.

Was it love that caused Jesus to call the pharisees and lawyers white washed tombs? Again, it was but we wouldn't always perceive it as such. There is no need to judge Scriptural principles by any of our own limited standards.

Just because something is in the bible, doesn't mean it's something God wants us to do. Remember that even Satan quoted Scripture when it served his purposes.

True. However, those things that are stated as something to do, are to be done.

 

[tall73]

I do have certain things I debate about and speak my mind. I would never do it with a client. I do it here on boards, and I've done it in private conversations in real life. But I would never do it with a client.

I do understand there are "counsellors" out there who call themselves "biblical counsellors" who use scripture to correct and confront. For clients who want this kind of approach, they are welcome to go and see them. Personally, from seeing the very surface of this approach, it's a very condescending approach, self-righteous and can be very shameful/ing for the client. My approach is more of an ally, coming alongside, learning about the client, and using a gentle approach for accountability while honouring their values, not mine (during my work with them). But that's in a work context.

I am Mennonite Brethren. One of our core values is that of peace, non-confrontation, living a quiet life. I personally add "live and let live." So I don't really function well with a lot of conflict in my life.

If someone is way out in left field, it would depend on the issue. Imo, the idea of polygamy is way out in left field. Do I argue with people who believe in it? Not a lot, because our laws protect us from it, and because a surprising number of people (almost all of them men) believe in it. There is a reason I don't challenge a lot of things - people are going to believe something and then twist scripture or take it out of context in order to support their own theory. It's impossible to reason with someone who is unreasonable.

If someone is unreasonable then is any approach going to work?. Unreasonable people tend to be unreasonable regardless. However, if someone is open to the notion of the authority of the Scriptures then they can respond to a Scriptural passage with a desire to bring themselves into line with it.

The times I have talked with couples they didn't seem demeaned. I still correspond with one couple in particular that seemed to really benefit and enjoys keeping in touch, years and miles later.

I am not speaking on how you do your job. It obviously is in a little different context than the one I was in. I don't assume that you could approach it the same as I would with a congregation that is largely going to take the Bible as a given, and in many cases have a similar view of it.

A chaplain that works with folks from all different backgrounds would work much differently than a pastor who works with the church all along.

Some people are more concerned with theology, some with doctrine, some with prophecy, etc. I am more concerned with principles for Christian living. Because this is my concern - for myself as well as for clients - for me it's more important to focus on principles that teach us how to live with other people. So I care about things like boundaries, interpersonal communications, healing past wounds, having emotional intelligence, being of sound mind, etc.

Since I know a little about healing and woundedness, and what it means to be on the wrong end of the bully-whip, and how all that can come out in our behaviour, I would rather approach someone from a place of compassion and inquiry rather than righteous knowledge and correction. I know the former to build trusting rapport, and the latter to be condescending (most of the time, because it is rarely handled the way the Bible says it should be).

As noted before truly wounded people would likely not benefit from a rebuking approach. On the other hand, some people who are really going down a dangerous path have been known to turn back when confronted with that from Scriptures.

 

[tall73]

If people are way off base in their behaviour and their relationships, according to biblical principles, I'm not going to point out scripture to them - typically. Chances are, they know what it says anyway, and don't know why they do the things they do, or do not actually live by what they say they value. This is where I come in (professionally). I help people identify their values, and gain a clear sense of how they are or are not living according to those values. It's not up to me to change those values, but I can challenge them - in the same way my old pastor challenged me to study divorce and remarriage.

Knowing what the Bible says is often not the same with being presented with what it says in the context of a decision to change their life.

Now of course if someone does not regard the Bible, then yes, by all means, work with the values they have. But if they do, why go through all the steps to have them identify their flawed values when you can point to actual values in the Scriptures?

If you are "challenging" them to begin with, why not challenge them with an authority that is beyond themselves which they already acknowledge?

That is not to say I haven't challenged people, because I have. But it is very, very rare, and I usually only use scripture for support. Rather, I will point out how others perceive their behaviour and appeal to their emotion and intelligence. If someone mistreats another, it does no good to say "the Bible says _____ is sin." But if you instead say "Do you love _(name)_"...then find out how it is loving to do _(behaviour)_ against them, that is a way to provide self-revelation regarding the chasm between the person's own value (love) and their behaviour. Iow, if I just tell people what is morally right or wrong, chances are they will hear it but it has not become personal to them. If someone figures it out for themselves, it is revelation and becomes personal, and often this is the catalyst for change. It's one of the tidbits I learned when I trained in motivational interviewing.

I know that's probably way more than you asked for, but there it is.

All I can say is if it works for you great. But when I have presented the notion that something is a sin to couples, those that are there for the right reasons (not forced to come) are willing to do so and then can set about figuring out how to change.

I haven't experienced that they first need to make everything personal, etc. It is already personal, which is why they generally show up in the first place.

Basically if Paul says that the Scriptures are useful for correcting and rebuking and training in righteousness, I just believe it and try to apply them that way. I never felt a need to apologize, or a need to be condescending, and the people I spoke to didn't seem to take it that way either.

 

[tall73]

It's your thread, Tall......so if that's a topic you want to discuss, then it's within the scope of this thread. I see that as falling into the broader topic of "approaches to Scripture" (JMHO).

I had to look Noahide laws up (I'd never heard that mentioned).



That seems contrary to this verse:

Noahide requirements are just one way of looking at the decision of the Acts council of Chapter 15.

There salvation by grace was clearly spelled out as well.

 

[tall73]

I don't know. Other scripture indicates murder is wrong. So does the passage about the covenant with Noah. Maybe it just wasn't a point of controversy, since Gentiles knew murder was wrong.

It is your point there that leads me to believe these may not have just been a recounting of Noahide requirements. There were a great number of imperatives pointed out to Gentiles in the NT. The council however may have mentioned these just because they were hot points of controversy between the two groups.

 

[tall73]

My view is that Jesus and Love trump any person's interpretation of Scripture. If the "principle" or "imperative" that someone claims is "biblical" doesn't match the nature of Christ and of love then it shouldn't be followed.
.

Our comprehension of Christ and what He would do in any given context is limited. The Scriptures on the other hand are inspired and therefore should be above just our notion of what we think lines up with love or Christ. We are often poor judges of it.

At root your view would be that our interpretation of "love" and "Christ" is better than our interpretation of the "Scriptures". Neither comes without interpretation. But the Scriptures come with more guidance to that interpretation, and are endorsed by Christ, by the apostles, etc. in the case of the Old Testament, and at times, even in the New Testament (2 Peter's upholding Paul's letters, for instance).

 

[sdmsanjose]

Originally Posted by ChristianGolfer

My view is that Jesus and Love trump any person's interpretation of Scripture. If the "principle" or "imperative" that someone claims is "biblical" doesn't match the nature of Christ and of love then it shouldn't be followed.
.

By Tall 73
Our comprehension of Christ and what He would do in any given context is limited. The Scriptures on the other hand are inspired and therefore should be above just our notion of what we think lines up with love or Christ. We are often poor judges of it.

At root your view would be that our interpretation of "love" and "Christ" is better than our interpretation of the "Scriptures". Neither comes without interpretation. But the Scriptures come with more guidance to that interpretation, and are endorsed by Christ, by the apostles, etc. in the case of the Old Testament, and at times, even in the New Testament (2 Peter's upholding Paul's letters, for instance).

Don’t we get our interpretation of Jesus and Love from the inspired scriptures?

 

[LinkH]

If we just go with 'love thy neighbor' but don't look at the rest of the Bible to know what love is and how to love, then we can really err.

Let's say your neighbor wants to fornicate or commit adultery. So do you join in to love your neighbor? If you have knowledge of the word of God, you know that joining someone in sin isn't love, or not the kind of love you should be showing.

If some elderly person is in a lot of pain, and you read a book about euthanasia, you might decide to love that person with a painful lethal injection. But if you read the Bible where it says, "Do not murder" then you know better.

If a brother sins against you, you may think the way to love that person is to not say anything so as not to hurt their feelings, but that's not what Jesus taught.

We need some guidance in understanding what the love of Christ looks like.

 

[Hetta]

Regardless of what others do, we are nonetheless called upon to love them. The Bible says even to love your enemy.

 

[seeingeyes]

If we just go with 'love thy neighbor' but don't look at the rest of the Bible to know what love is and how to love, then we can really err.

Let's say your neighbor wants to fornicate or commit adultery. So do you join in to love your neighbor? If you have knowledge of the word of God, you know that joining someone in sin isn't love, or not the kind of love you should be showing.

If some elderly person is in a lot of pain, and you read a book about euthanasia, you might decide to love that person with a painful lethal injection. But if you read the Bible where it says, "Do not murder" then you know better.

If a brother sins against you, you may think the way to love that person is to not say anything so as not to hurt their feelings, but that's not what Jesus taught.

We need some guidance in understanding what the love of Christ looks like.

Likewise, one can see their own parents starving to death in a hovel and read where the Scriptures say "Give ten percent" and decide to tithe instead of feeding their own family.

Jesus said, "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without knowing it.”

One can follow the scriptures and still be an unmarked grave, apparently.

 

[tall73]

Don’t we get our interpretation of Jesus and Love from the inspired scriptures?

Good point.

 

[tall73]

Likewise, one can see their own parents starving to death in a hovel and read where the Scriptures say "Give ten percent" and decide to tithe instead of feeding their own family.

Jesus said, "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without knowing it.”

One can follow the scriptures and still be an unmarked grave, apparently.

That would not be actually following the Scriptures. The following could be pointed out to the person, also from the Scriptures:

1Ti 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

 

[tall73]

Regardless of what others do, we are nonetheless called upon to love them. The Bible says even to love your enemy.

We agree.

However, folks are pointing out that love is spelled out more specifically at times in the Scriptures.

 

[ValleyGal]

If someone is unreasonable then is any approach going to work?. Unreasonable people tend to be unreasonable regardless. However, if someone is open to the notion of the authority of the Scriptures then they can respond to a Scriptural passage with a desire to bring themselves into line with it.

Motivational interviewing is quite helpful for this purpose. Not only that, but even reasonable people struggle with “flesh” and “ego” and IME, most people do not take very well to being “corrected.” There are some wise people who do, and they are the ones who would go seeking it on their own. So there are a lot of factors contributing to whether they should. You were likely successful in using scripture to correct someone because you were a pastor and they expected it coming from you. Additionally, people likely went to you voluntarily, specifically for that purpose.
That is not to say we don’t use scripture in our sessions. We just don’t correct people with it. Instead, when we talk about their values, some of our important questions are “how does God fit into your value system?” and “If I were to ask God what your values are, what would he tell me? Would he tell me they are his values?” Just because we don’t “correct” people, doesn’t mean we don’t use scripture to challenge them or shed light on a situation.

If you are "challenging" them to begin with, why not challenge them with an authority that is beyond themselves which they already acknowledge?

Our challenges are gentle; they are not “rebuke” or “correction.” There is a way to do it that makes it seem like the idea came from them, not from us. In that way, it becomes far more meaningful to the client. We are not in a position of “expertise” or “authority.” They are the expert in their own life, so we do not walk into a coach/client relationship with more knowledge or trying to “teach” them anything.

All I can say is if it works for you great. But when I have presented the notion that something is a sin to couples, those that are there for the right reasons (not forced to come) are willing to do so and then can set about figuring out how to change.

If someone is in sin, rather than point that out to them, we ask questions that lead the client to discover for themselves how it is sin, and what the consequences of their sin is on the people they love. Then we work together to figure out how they would like to address it. But…chances are, there are going to be a lot of “sins” that each person in the couple is going to need to work out. It would be terribly unwise to sit there and point it out because their experience of that would be condemnation.
We also consider the purpose of the relationship. We coach people. That is, we help people figure out how to fill in the gaps in their lives, particularly their gaps between what they say their values are and what their behaviour says their values are. If people value the Bible, but they are not living it, then it’s something we address with them because that is what they are seeking. But if someone is there for a transition from one profession to another or to take a relationship to a next step, etc, then there is absolutely no place for “rebuke.”

 

[mkgal1]

Regardless of what others do, we are nonetheless called upon to love them. The Bible says even to love your enemy

We agree.

However, folks are pointing out that love is spelled out more specifically at times in the Scriptures.

It is.

Are you suggesting that we treat those we are in relationship with the same way we treat our enemies? That when I demonstrate love to my husband......it's going to look just as when I love my enemy?

 

[mkgal1]

In general.....I think two main approaches to our response to God (or Scriptures) is laid out in Luke 15:11-32.

I love Timothy Keller's teaching on these passages titled the Prodigal God. He says that act one is about the younger son.....first alienating himself from God through what we all recognize as "traditional sin" (squandering money on prostitutes), but that son "came to his senses" and realized his sin.

Act 2 is the eldest son. He alienated himself through his righteous deeds. He no longer called his father, "father".....he wasn't willing to come into the father's house......he no longer identified with his brother as family. We aren't told as to whether or not the eldest son was ever brought back into the family:

“But he answered and said to his father, ‘Look! [doesn't call him father] For so many years I have been serving you and I have never neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends; but when this son of yours came [not 'my brother'], who has devoured your wealth with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him.’ “And he said to him, ‘Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. ‘But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.’”

As far as we know......this "good brother" is still lost (but we also see the Father longs to bring him back to "His table").

 

[seeingeyes]

That would not be actually following the Scriptures. The following could be pointed out to the person, also from the Scriptures:

1Ti 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Were the Pharisees that Jesus was talking to innocent of that sin since 1 Timothy hadn't been written yet? Should they have known better? Why?

Jesus was rather clear that the Scriptures were not the be all end all of faith:

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you."

 

[tall73]

Were the Pharisees that Jesus was talking to innocent of that sin since 1 Timothy hadn't been written yet? Should they have known better? Why?

Yes, they should have known better. To honor father and mother was still a command.

Jesus was rather clear that the Scriptures were not the be all end all of faith:

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you."

Studying the Scriptures does not guarantee faith. Agreed.

However, Jesus even in the statement you referenced indicated that these same Scriptures bore witness to Him, and in no way belittled them.

Now that we agree Scripture is not the be-all-end-all of faith, do you think Jesus would endorse ignoring Scripture principles given to us for our help?

 

[tall73]

Motivational interviewing is quite helpful for this purpose. Not only that, but even reasonable people struggle with “flesh” and “ego” and IME, most people do not take very well to being “corrected.” There are some wise people who do, and they are the ones who would go seeking it on their own. So there are a lot of factors contributing to whether they should. You were likely successful in using scripture to correct someone because you were a pastor and they expected it coming from you. Additionally, people likely went to you voluntarily, specifically for that purpose.

In some cases this is true. A couple came to me or a feuding family, and expected correction from a pastor.

But in most cases where I corrected or appealed using Scriptures the person had no idea I was going to even be there before that. I showed up at their door, invited myself in, made an appeal as best I could presenting the Scriptures, and reiterating that we care for them. Quite a few repented.

Old fashioned? Maybe. But so is Paul's advice:

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.


If that sounds like in your face behavior, sometimes it was. What else was there to lose? Sometimes the people had left their family and were in danger of rejecting God altogether. At that point a rebuke that presents the situation for what it is may be the only thing that will wake them up.

There were also a few who did not repent. I tried everything I could to make them understand we loved them, wanted them to reconsider, and that ultimately they could choose what they wanted. I wasn't there to make their choice. But I was definitely there to present the choice to them in a way that clearly showed it was a spiritual decision that would impact their whole life, for good or evil. Some situation really are that and demand no less.

And I have seen it work from non-pastors as well.


I don't suggest this for just any little issue however, and I don't think there is anything wrong with some of the methods you describe, especially in situations where it hasn't gotten to a last ditch effort to save the marriage and the soul of someone who is rejecting God's ways.

And from a personal perspective it is completely uncomfortable. I didn't like those situations at all. However, I still think it was the right thing to do.

That is not to say we don’t use scripture in our sessions. We just don’t correct people with it. Instead, when we talk about their values, some of our important questions are “how does God fit into your value system?” and “If I were to ask God what your values are, what would he tell me? Would he tell me they are his values?” Just because we don’t “correct” people, doesn’t mean we don’t use scripture to challenge them or shed light on a situation.

I think that is fine. And in most cases there is no reason for direct confrontation. However, when you say "challenge" vs. correct, it may be terminology differences as well. You can allow someone to think it through themselves and it is still correction.

Our challenges are gentle; they are not “rebuke” or “correction.” There is a way to do it that makes it seem like the idea came from them, not from us. In that way, it becomes far more meaningful to the client. We are not in a position of “expertise” or “authority.” They are the expert in their own life, so we do not walk into a coach/client relationship with more knowledge or trying to “teach” them anything.

I think that is often appropriate. However, Jesus was not always gentle in rebuke. Paul was not either. And he told Timothy to not be always either.

I do recognize that you have a very good mind for recognizing the details in each relationship and situation, so I do not doubt you know how far to go in the various cases.

I just think that there are times when full out rebuke is still appropriate. Fortunately we don't see them often.

If someone is in sin, rather than point that out to them, we ask questions that lead the client to discover for themselves how it is sin, and what the consequences of their sin is on the people they love. Then we work together to figure out how they would like to address it. But…chances are, there are going to be a lot of “sins” that each person in the couple is going to need to work out. It would be terribly unwise to sit there and point it out because their experience of that would be condemnation.
We also consider the purpose of the relationship. We coach people. That is, we help people figure out how to fill in the gaps in their lives, particularly their gaps between what they say their values are and what their behaviour says their values are. If people value the Bible, but they are not living it, then it’s something we address with them because that is what they are seeking. But if someone is there for a transition from one profession to another or to take a relationship to a next step, etc, then there is absolutely no place for “rebuke.”

I don't think we are too far apart really. I do think though there are times for full rebuke, and many times for "challenging".

 

[tall73]

It is.

Are you suggesting that we treat those we are in relationship with the same way we treat our enemies? That when I demonstrate love to my husband......it's going to look just as when I love my enemy?

I am suggesting that love as a concept is not a specific enough guide to behavior. The rest of the Scriptures, which happen to touch on marriage and enemies for instance, give further guidance.