BIG favor to ask

[Protoevangel]

I have been in an email debate with a person for whom I have a great deal of respect and love for. This person had a heart attack the morning after I sent him a pointed reply. For the past several months, he has not replied, until I sent him two “pings” over a few weeks, asking for at least a statement that he is not going to reply. Now, his response has me confused. He stated that I have “labeled” him, and my email had a “disturbing” tone.

I have composed a draft reply to this last letter, but I was hoping you, my friends online, could look over the recent exchange and let me know where I have offended this good and gentle man.

Our exchange has been about the authority of Scripture. I will begin with my response to his last topical email (which I sent immediately preceding his heart attack), my most recent “ping” email, his reply to that, and my final draft reply which I have not yet sent.

I know you all have lives, and better things to do than read this discussion, but if you would do so, I would be very grateful. Besides, who knows, perhaps it will open up some discussion here.

my response to his last topical email

It seems that we are arguing semantics. I use the words Literal, Conservative and Fundamentalism in their pure, historic sense. I do not bow to the liberal slants that have been intentionally and duplicitously invented to discredit these words and the people who embrace them.

You say: “To speak of literal implies both "word for word," and "exact," that is - not open to interpretation.”

In one sense you are right; the Bible is not open to interpretation; not in the sense of a personal, subjective “it works for me” interpretation, anyway. However, in the true meaning of interpret, “To explain or tell the meaning of; to expound; to translate orally into intelligible or familiar language or terms; to decipher; to define” (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary), the above comment misses the point of literal interpretation on many levels. The fact is that understanding the Bible in the literal sense is simply seeking to understand the meaning which the Holy Ghost inspired the human author to convey. It is not to reject common sense, allegory, metaphors, similes and other poetical language. Literal seeks the truth that is already there; liberal on the other hand, inlays a relativistic, subjective worldly kind of wisdom, in an attempt to make the passage say what they (the liberal interpreter) want it to say. “For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to right teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever they want to hear. They will reject the truth and follow strange myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4 NLT)

So many liberals these days condemn literalism and fundamentalism without even knowing what they are criticizing. To reject literalism is to reject the historic Christian faith. The American Heritage Dictionary has the following as one of its definitions for literal: “Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment.” It is in this spirit that a literal understanding of the Bible has historically been understood. It has only been recently with liberal revisionism that the meaning has begun to change in popular usage. Wherever the Bible is not intended to be literally understood, there are indicators; we do not exaggerate the meanings where the meaning is clear within the context; we do not read metaphor into that which does not clearly call for us to do so; we do not embellish with fictitious details to change the message and make it more palatable. This is the quintessence of the literal hermeneutic.

Recognizing the figurative elements in the Bible is not abandoning literalism; it is embracing literalism in its fullest sense. When Jesus said, “If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out.” (Mark 9:47a NKJV). A literal rendering understands that Jesus was indeed teaching a literal truth with figurative language. Can your eye truly cause you to sin? No, but if it could, it would be beneficial to cut it out, because the literal truth Jesus was teaching is that it is better to enter life, whatever the cost, than to hold on that which is dragging you down into damnation. If one person takes the passage too literalistic, and does cut their eye out, it is a temporal inconvenience, but I am certain that they will not loose their eternal reward. If however another person rejects the passage, or explains it away until it fits their own personal desires, and fails to eliminate that which in their life is drawing them away from God, the tragedy has the potential to become an eternal one.

As far as T. E. Fretheim "About the Bible" goes:

1. “New and different translations of the Bible generate new ways of thinking about texts.”

New ways of thinking about texts, perhaps; new nuances that other English translations have not yet touched upon. But no matter the translation, the true meaning is never lost; the meaning may be hidden, perhaps, to those who stick to the single translation and never delve into the original languages, or fail to approach their study with prayer and submission to the Holy Ghost. But to say the translation changes the truth behind the meaning is to deny reality, to deny truth itself.


2. “Words often have different shades of meaning - in the original Greek or Hebrew, as well as in English. For example the dictionary gives 15 different meanings of the word "new." New might suggest brand-new, redesigned, different, additional, unique, unheard of, advanced or innovative.”

Absolutely, and the true meaning is within the context, if one will diligently seek it out, “he who seeks and keeps on seeking finds” (Luke 11:10b AMP).


3. “Some words and phrases in the Bible invite you to use your imagination to discern meaning rather that to search for an exact definition. (Literal definition) Take metaphors and similes. For example, when the Bible speaks of God as father, you are encouraged to think about the lively world of parent-child relationships rather than just a precise meaning of the word Father.”

As I have said, the literal hermeneutic does not deny metaphor and simile. This is a false dilemma if it is being used to reject the literal hermeneutic.


4. “Bible stories such as Jesus' parables invite you into an imaginative world. These texts encourage you to use your imagination as you reflect on that world. As you make these stories your own over time, their meaning becomes increasingly rich and gains ever-new depth and breadth.”

Jesus’ parables teach literal truth using figurative language; a true literal understanding of the Bible does not stand at odds with this fact. Gaining a deeper understanding, and being able to apply the truth in a wider fashion in your life does not equate to multiple meanings at the expense of a primary, literal truth.


He summarizes:"So, the meaning of the biblical texts is a "many-splendored thing." But, you may ask, does this mean anything goes? no! A text cannot mean anything just because it can mean many things.”

The truth of this lies in what Fretheim means by a "many-splendored thing." Considering the relativistic nature of Terrance’s teaching, I would have to disagree with his assessment. But to avoid being more argumentative than necessary, I’ll just let this one go, though. Besides, my reasons for disagreement are in my statements above and below.


“The safeguards are:

1. The text itself and the type of literature in the text.”

Agreed.


2. “The historical background information on such things as the people, events, and culture of the time when the text was produced.”

Agreed.


3. “The Christian community to which we belong and the confession of faith we make. The Gospel of Jesus Christ provides a center for our reading of the Bible.”

If the Christian community to which we belong and/or the confession of faith which we make is in apostasy or error, then the community or confession is worthless to use as criteria to base our interpretation of the Bible on. If the Gospel we teach is “another gospel” than that of the Christ Jesus that came bodily to our world, then it is hostile to the true Gospel, and in direct opposition to Christ. To claim this as criteria or a “safeguard” to understand the Bible is lacking and flawed. It is only when our Christian community and confession are in alignment with the literal truth of Scripture and the historic Christian faith that this criterion is valid, and even then, the manner in which Fretheim applies it is backward. It is always the community and confession that is subject to the authority of Scripture, not the other way around.


Anyway, I am really enjoying our discussion. I hope that we don’t let this one drop as quickly as the last one did. Sorry for turning this into a book. God bless you, I truly appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me, and I have much love for you, my brother in Christ.

my most recent “ping” email

I was wondering if we were going to be able to continue our discussion that ended on Thursday, May 20, with my reply to you which was titled "Re: Response". I know that soon after I sent the response, you had your heart trouble; I truly hope my email was not a contributing factor by causing you stress or anxiety.

Anyway, to invite further comments, I included in the final paragraph of the email:
“... I am really enjoying our discussion. I hope that we don’t let this one drop as quickly as the last one did ...”

Even if we do not come to an agreement, maybe I can learn to appreciate and understand more of what I now consider as a “liberal” view. A year or so ago, another discussion of ours was dropped after I asked for continued dialogue. I even re-sent my final email to you a second time. If health or time is in the way, please just let me know instead of ignoring me. If this spirited discussion is unhealthy for you, just let me know and I will drop it

his reply

I am willing to continue discussions but I am not always so blessed with time as to be able to respond with the kind of speed you would like or depth I feel necessary. I don't attribute any stress in this fashion to health concerns that have arisen but do not know all the factors involved in my heart attack so I am sorting that all out.

As for your labeling me I don't think that is at all helpful and your tone is a little disturbing but I am sure we can move beyond that.

I will do the best that I can.

 

[Protoevangel]

So my question is, have I labeled him, or taken on a “disturbing” tone?

I ran out of space in the last post, I will post my draft letter to him below:





I am pleased that you are willing and able to continue our discussion. This process of dialogue is both pleasing and helpful to me. Please do not concern yourself overly much about speed of reply; just knowing that the conversation is still open and not abandoned has me elated. If I ever ping you, and you simply have not had the chance to formulate a response, just let me know and I will try to be patient.

Before we continue our earlier conversation, though, there are a couple of things I would like to address.

> As for your labeling me I don't think that is at all helpful

Are you referring to my statement in my last email: “Even if we do not come to an agreement, maybe I can learn to appreciate and understand more of what I now consider as a “liberal” view”? If so, that was not a labeling of you, but the arguments or views that you were presenting in your previous email (which was actually Terrence E. Frethem’s arguments, not your own). That in no way is a reflection on you personally. It was not long ago that I was speaking of Christ’s two natures as if they were divisible. When someone called me on my Nestorian argument, I realized my error and proceeded to correct it. If you started speaking about Mary as Co-Redemptrix, I would have called the view Roman, if you said we are born free of original sin and could act “good” without God’s intervention, I would call the argument Pelagian, and finally, if you claimed we are depraved, sinful creatures, saved only by the work of Christ, and that the Bible is the sole rule and norm of our faith, I would call your statement pure unadulterated, orthodox Lutheranism.

If I have labeled you elsewhere, please point that out to me so I can either explain more accurately what I meant to convey, or correct my offense and beg your forgiveness. My desire here is to speak to the issues, not about the people. If I ever include a personal attack on you or an ad hominem attack on your sources, please call me on it immediately.

Like I have told you, I have no college degree, and no official training in speech, debate, or Theology. That is no excuse for me to act a boor or insensitive, to use fallacious arguments or to opine heterodox doctrine. On the other hand, it is also not an excuse for me to sit quietly when I see my church abandoning the historic catholic faith in favor of false unity, heresy and ambiguity.

> and your tone is a little disturbing but I am sure we can move beyond that.

It is sometimes difficult to convey subtleties and emotion in a sterile medium like email. I think this must be a case of mistaken motive, but please point out where my approach has been less than considerate. I want to both make appropriate amends, and learn my weaknesses, so I can avoid making the same gaffe in the future.

If on the other hand, the “disturbing” tone is that I am confident in my Theology, then I stand guilty as charged. There is plenty that I am not confident of, but of the authority of the entirety of Scripture, and the faithful testimony to the Law and the Gospel by the Lutheran Confessions, of these I am confident and sure. For these I would lay down my life, and solely by this measure I call myself Lutheran, and see all who do not have this confidence as heterodox to the true apostolic historic and catholic faith.

 

[Rechtgläubig]

So my question is, have I labeled him, or taken on a “disturbing” tone?

Dan, I would guess it was the liberal remark.

 

[Protoevangel]

Dan, I would guess it was the liberal remark.

I agree that this is what probably promted his complaint, but does it really appear as if I am attempting to label him? The "liberal" statement was directed specifically at the argument, not at him.

Am I just being butt-headed about this? It wouldn't be the first time!

 

[Rechtgläubig]

I agree that this is what probably promted his complaint, but does it really appear as if I am attempting to label him? The "liberal" statement was directed specifically at the argument, not at him.

Am I just being butt-headed about this? It wouldn't be the first time!

But being an arguement that he might be using maybe he sees it as applying to him? I don't know.

 

[Protoevangel]

You are probably right. Do you think my draft clears up my position better, or do you think an apology might do more to ease tensions?

 

[Rechtgläubig]

You are probably right. Do you think my draft clears up my position better, or do you think an apology might do more to ease tensions?

I don't know, I like what you wrote, but I don't know anything about the person you are writing to.

Sorry I couldn't help much, but it is the middle of the night so you are stuck with my crummy service until morning.

 

[Protoevangel]

You know, it's probably going to be six of one, half a dozen of the other. I'll probably just send the email as is. I leave myself open for more conversation if he is still offended.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Dan,

I tend to be more sensitive than I would ever care to admit and, accordingly, like to consider myself a good judge of written communications that carry a sting.

I honestly don't see your friends take...ya, I can see where he might grasp on to the liberal label but not because you called him that in the letter. The tone? No, it was clear to me in the reading of the first letter that the tone was merely your conviction and nothing remotely denigrating.

Of course I could be wrong but here is what I think it is...conviction...of a different sense, that sense where you are beginning to realize you might be wrong. Do you remember how you felt when someone called your beliefs Nestorian? Wasn't your initial reaction one of anger and then of hurt? I think you may have struck a nerve. The truth will do that.

Then, too, your friend may not really want to carry on a debate with you because of available time, interest, his own mortality staring him in the face after his heart incident. So he may be looking at reasons to "get out" and using the liberal label and perceived tone as a way to do it.

Dan...and I am not just saying this...your communications seem completely respectful to me. There is something more to the liberal and tone comments than what is written...something that probably has nothing to do with "liberal and tone".

Your response is great. (I want to use "girly" terms like lovely but I'll just stick with great. )

Peace

Rose

 

[Phoebe]

It sounds to me like he wanted an excuse to get out of the discussion for whatever reason.
I don't think you were the cause of this. I think he's going through some emotional turmoil, and he thinks you're compounding it. He probably feels like he is being pushed/shoved to make some type of decision on the discussion.

Let him alone for a bit, and see if he comes bcak on his own.

 

[Flipper]

I kind of agree with Phoebe.

 

[Phoebe]

I kind of agree with Phoebe.

Kind of??!!??

 

[Protoevangel]

Dan,

I tend to be more sensitive than I would ever care to admit and, accordingly, like to consider myself a good judge of written communications that carry a sting.

I honestly don't see your friends take...ya, I can see where he might grasp on to the liberal label but not because you called him that in the letter. The tone? No, it was clear to me in the reading of the first letter that the tone was merely your conviction and nothing remotely denigrating.

Of course I could be wrong but here is what I think it is...conviction...of a different sense, that sense where you are beginning to realize you might be wrong. Do you remember how you felt when someone called your beliefs Nestorian? Wasn't your initial reaction one of anger and then of hurt? I think you may have struck a nerve. The truth will do that.

Then, too, your friend may not really want to carry on a debate with you because of available time, interest, his own mortality staring him in the face after his heart incident. So he may be looking at reasons to "get out" and using the liberal label and perceived tone as a way to do it.

Dan...and I am not just saying this...your communications seem completely respectful to me. There is something more to the liberal and tone comments than what is written...something that probably has nothing to do with "liberal and tone".

Your response is great. (I want to use "girly" terms like lovely but I'll just stick with great. )

Peace

Rose

Thank you so much Rose for your critique and for your encouragement. What you said about conviction makes a lot of sense, you are right, my first reaction was resistance.

Thank you again!

 

[Protoevangel]

It sounds to me like he wanted an excuse to get out of the discussion for whatever reason.
I don't think you were the cause of this. I think he's going through some emotional turmoil, and he thinks you're compounding it. He probably feels like he is being pushed/shoved to make some type of decision on the discussion.

Let him alone for a bit, and see if he comes bcak on his own.

Wow, Kim, I didn't realize this until the secod time I read your post, but you may have hit the nail on the head. The person I am debating is an ELCA Pastor, and I often hear people talk about him as a "fence rider". He has not taken a position on the Homosexuality debate, which is exactly what led to this.

Good advice, I think I will back off for awhile.

Thanks.

 

[Flipper]

Kind of??!!??

LOL! I was going to elaborate and add to what you said, then thought different, and glad because after reading Dan's response, I know I would have been wrong.

 

[Protoevangel]

You know, Flipper, it may be a combination of factors. I'd still be interested in hearing what you have to say.

Not to put you on the spot or anything.

 

[Flipper]

Sometimes, when I get into a big discussion/debate with someone, it will start with a few sentences and short paragraphs. Then, all of a sudden, I'll get innundated with what seems like pages of information to prove the person's point. My usual response is to first freak out, then realize that I have a husband and life outside of the messageboard and decide that I don't want to take the time going through all that. That's when I'll usually back out. What you posted seemed like pages of information, and even though it doesn't concern me, the volumn is quite intimidating.

This guy is a pastor, and according to your profile, you get off on this stuff. This should not be a big deal for either of you, so what I'm thinking is probably off base, and what Kim and Rose said is probably more logical.

See, I should have just kept my big mouth shut.

 

[Phoebe]

Wow, Kim, I didn't realize this until the secod time I read your post, but you may have hit the nail on the head. The person I am debating is an ELCA Pastor, and I often hear people talk about him as a "fence rider". He has not taken a position on the Homosexuality debate, which is exactly what led to this.

Good advice, I think I will back off for awhile.

Thanks.

After I posted my thoughts, I went back and read Rose's. It was like I condensed her reply to my nutshell, succinct version.

How does this ELCA pastor feel about ordaining women? If he's anything at all like me, I feel more supportive towards women in the ministry, but less so of ordaining practicing homosexuals. You would think the issues go hand- in- hand. (from an outside perspective)

 

[Protoevangel]

Sometimes, when I get into a big discussion/debate with someone, it will start with a few sentences and short paragraphs. Then, all of a sudden, I'll get innundated with what seems like pages of information to prove the person's point. My usual response is to first freak out, then realize that I have a husband and life outside of the messageboard and decide that I don't want to take the time going through all that. That's when I'll usually back out. What you posted seemed like pages of information, and even though it doesn't concern me, the volumn is quite intimidating.

This guy is a pastor, and according to your profile, you get off on this stuff. This should not be a big deal for either of you, so what I'm thinking is probably off base, and what Kim and Rose said is probably more logical.

See, I should have just kept my big mouth shut.

You know, actually, he did mention that he is "not always so blessed with time as to be able to respond with the kind of speed you would like or depth I feel necessary". So that may have a good deal to do with the situation as well. True, he is a Pastor, but he tends to overwork himself, which is the biggest factor that I think contributed to his heart attack. So your points are well taken; thanks for the thoughts, Flipper!

 

[Protoevangel]

After I posted my thoughts, I went back and read Rose's. It was like I condensed her reply to my nutshell, succinct version.

Yea, all of your replies were very insightful! Between Rose mentioning that conviction and available time being possible contributing factors, your mention of emotional turmoil and him possibly feeing "pushed" to make some kind of decision, and Flipper's comment suggesting that the "book" I wrote may just be overwhelming for him right now, I think I feel better. I was really afraid that I had actually made some kind of subtle character attack without even realizing it. That is the absolute last thing I want to do, I have no desire to hurt his feelings. However, I do really want to discuss the issues with him and try to understand where he is comming from.

How does this ELCA pastor feel about ordaining women? If he's anything at all like me, I feel more supportive towards women in the ministry, but less so of ordaining practicing homosexuals. You would think the issues go hand- in- hand. (from an outside perspective)

He is clearly supportive of the ordination of women.

Regardless of the fact that he has not stated his position on the homosexual issues, I have a strong feeling that he is not as undecided as he is taciturn about it. I sat with him at the last Synod Convention, and he had a definite pattern to his voting, a pattern that suggests to me that he most likely supports ordaning Pastors who are unrepentantly active in homosexual relationships, and identify themselves by this behavior. To be fair though, most of the related resolutions were so poorly written and concieved that I had to abstain from voting on them. So it is possible that I misread his motivation for voting down these resolutions.