Why this issue is foundational to our cultural future

In what Reuters is calling “a highly unusual development,” the US is sending an advanced anti-missile system to Israel along with American troops to operate it. Meanwhile, a man arrested near a Donald Trump rally is facing gun charges. The county sheriff said, “If you’re asking me right now, I probably did have deputies that prevented the third assassination attempt.” Why, then, am I taking time to discuss the first transgender Star Wars stormtrooper?

The character, named Sister, appears in the new book, Star Wars: The Secrets of the Clone Troopers. Some applauded the move, while others were grieved, myself among them. This is not only a religious liberty and election issue; as John Stonestreet noted yesterday, fourteen thousand children have been “forever harmed” by transgender surgeries, puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormone injections.

But the story points to an even more fundamental disconnect that threatens our cultural future.

We have fought wars in the past and will likely fight them again in the future. But if we cannot agree on what constitutes an ally and an enemy, how can we defend the former from the latter?

Similarly, if we cannot agree on foundational social constructs such as gender and marriage, how can a participatory democracy that depends on consensual morality flourish?

No law and no science?

Yesterday I stated my belief that the Bible is objectively true and should be the stack pole against which we measure human beliefs and opinions. For example, Scripture teaches that life begins at conception (cf. Psalm 139:13–16) and marriage is intended for one man and one woman (cf. Genesis 2:20–25), which is why I am pro-life and for biblical marriage.

However, I can hear someone saying, “That’s just your interpretation of the Bible.” How would I respond?

Let’s begin with some analogies.

The American legal system stands on the belief that our laws can be objectively interpreted. If someone being prosecuted for a crime can successfully argue that the charges are “just the prosecutor’s interpretation of the law,” there can be no law.

Scientists similarly utilize the scientific method to guide their investigations. When they publish findings, if critics can successfully argue that these results are “just the researcher’s interpretation of the data,” there can be no science.

Of course, human subjectivity and error enter the equation. This is why we have courts to weigh legal opinions and judge according to accepted jurisprudence. It is why we have peer review of scientific research. And both legal and scientific positions can change as more information comes to light.

But in neither case do we believe that the enterprise itself is subjective and thus untrustworthy. The same mindset should prevail with regard to biblical study.

When it doesn’t, we should ask whether the skeptic is working on the basis of objective reasoning or rejecting truth claims they don’t happen to appreciate personally. For example, every religious leader I know who changed their stance on the Bible to become an LGBTQ advocate had a personal agenda at work—they either identified as LGBTQ themselves, had family members who were, or had other personal issues related to their new stance.

A seminary course in four steps

How, then, can we interpret the Bible objectively and without bias?

What follows is my brief condensation of content I taught in semester-long seminary courses and published in book-length form. My point is not to be exhaustive but illustrative: it is possible—and, in fact, necessary—to interpret and apply Scripture objectively.

Biblical hermeneutics (the art and science of biblical interpretation and application) follows a four-step method:

• Grammatical: What do the words say? What do word and grammar studies tell us about the author’s intended meaning?
• Historical: What is the larger context of the text? What cultural, political, religious, and environmental factors help us identify the intended meaning?
• Theological: What does the text intend to tell us about God, humanity, and other theological subjects?
• Practical: What practical applications does the author intend us to make today?

Again, interpreters can obviously differ in applying this method, which is why biblical hermeneutics is such a rich and exciting scholarly discipline. But they agree that the method is itself objective and that, used properly, yields objective results.

“The very image of Christ”

Let’s close with one other factor: God intends for us to understand his word. To this end, the same Spirit who inspired the Scriptures (2 Peter 1:21) now interprets their truth to us (John 16:13) as we study God’s word objectively and carefully (2 Timothy 2:15).

When we do so, we meet God in his living word. Unlike any other book ever written, the word of God leads us to the God of the word (John 1:1). We do not just learn truth—we experience the One who is the Truth (John 14:6).

In the preface to his monumentally important edition of the Greek New Testament (1516), the great scholar Erasmus wrote:

These sacred words give you the very image of Christ speaking, healing, dying, rising again and make him so present, that were he before your eyes you would not more truly see him.

When last did you “see” Jesus in the Bible?

Why not today?

Tuesday news to know:

• Hurricane Milton could have an impact on Florida in the long term
• Nobel economics prize goes to inequality researchers Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson
• China ends war games around Taiwan, but leaves door open to more
• SpaceX catches giant Starship booster in fifth flight test
• On this day in 1991: Clarence Thomas confirmed to the Supreme Court

*Denison Forum does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in these stories.

Quote for the day:

“When you open your Bible, God opens his mouth.” —Mark Batterson

 

Denison Forum