how to make everything an "A" level issue...

Actual line spoken by Bob last week:
"Dude, just so you know... I will never ask the women of our community to wear head coverings for worship."

Yeah.

So, we had someone decide not to be a part of our church community based on the fact that I wouldn't entertain the idea of asking the women to wear head coverings...

Well, I think it really was more about Scripture and our relationship to it, but the specific hang up was head coverings...

It's a nice example of how to make anything and everything an "A" level issue in one simple step.

The conversation involved myself, a seminary student who had been attending the previous two weeks and my associate pastor Chris. The guy wanted to get together and talk about "doctrine and the place of the Scriptures" in our community.

That kind of told me where we were going...

So we sat down, and right off the bat, the issue was women in leadership. We have them. He, though admitting that through his reading he'd seen the issue wasn't quite as cut and dried as he had believed it to be, still couldn't get there personally in his reading of Scripture. He wanted to know if we were open to discussing that.

"Well, yes and no..." was my answer. I told him that a lot of people at evergreen had different views on the matter, and that we had discussed the issue as a community for a good year or so, the elders had read through some books, prayed for months, and that while anyone was welcome to be a part of evergreen and disagree with our view, practically speaking we needed to have a way of doing things, and our way was to recognize women leaders as they were made apparent to us. So while you are free to disagree with women eldership and be a part of evergreen, you are not free to not have women elders (if we happen to have some on the board at the time).

The problem was, as I started to tell this story of our starting out as a complementarian-oriented community and ending up something slightly different, he wanted to argue the points. As I tried to explain my understanding of 1 Tim 2:15 and place it in the larger context of 1st Tim 2, we quickly (though not by my choice!) ended up at 1 Cor 11...

Headcoverings.

And I have to give it to the guy- at least he's consistent.

In his thinking, if the (apparent) prohibitions in Scripture are based on transcendant, created-order kind of things, then the prohibition is still in effect. That includes headcoverings. And so his wife covers her head. Which is fine, if that's what she wants to do.

I explained that the principles behind what Paul are talking about there are still in effect, but the cultural markers have changed, that to ask 21st century women to conform to a 1st century cultural practice like veiling themselves wouldn't make sense (as in insisting, based on 1 Tim 2 that women not braid their hair or wear gold), but...

That didn't matter. The words on the page said "headcovering" and so...

When I said "Dude, just so you know... I will never ask the women of our community to wear head coverings for worship" he closed his Bible and said "Well, that's all I need to know."

And that's how to make everything and anything an "A" level issue. Equate fidelity to your interpretation of particular Scriptures with fidelity to the Scripture itself. See those who don't read it the same way as you as less-than-faithful to the Sciptures. (note: there are people who say "I know that's what the Bible says, but that was then and this is now and things are different" thus simply disregarding God's Word... that's not what we're talking about)

What bothers me most about the interchange, and why I wish it had gone on a bit longer is that I'm betting that he walked away from our community, not because our women didn't cover their heads, but because in that guy's mind, we just didn't take Scripture seriously enough. And that just ain't so...

Comments

Driscoll dealt with headcoverings this week: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

[Chris Marsden]

At my first full time church, we had a lady yell at a kid, "DON'T YOU KNOW YOU SHOULDN'T WEAR HATS IN CHURCH!" Problem was, it was the kid's first time in church. So even if that is Biblical, no, in fact, he didn't know. Well he didn't come back and I started wearing my hat around the building (not to worship services, just around the building).

A few weeks later, one of the older ladies wouldn't give me my food(Wed. Night Meal) until I took off my hat. Argumentative me..."In the OT, men covered their heads in worship." Her response..."We don't live in the OT." My response..."In the NT, where it says for men to not cover their heads, it says for women to cover their heads. Where is your hat?"

I didn't have a job not too long after that. I am sure it was for the reasons they shared and not because I ticked off the elder's wives (who ran the church).

Since then, I have tried hard not to be so legalistic. There are a lot of cultural things that change with time. There are also a lot of cultural things that vary from region to region or country to country. It is not good to disrespect the culture you find yourself in just because it isn't a "Bible Issue", but it is also not good to just flow with culture.

It was so much easier when it was just the 10 commandments and I could just measure how I did on a simple short list.

[Brian]

Well, at least you can be thankful that he left now. In my experience, folks who are "more committed to scripture" end up doing more dividing rather than kingdom building.

[Toby]

Here's what's weird with the whole headcovering deal...

...the majority of people I know who practice it for the reasons you stated above don't let their women talk/pray/preach publically.

Doesn't the same friggin passage say they can, just as long as they have their headcovering on?

Funny how we take the one and leave the other...because of a cultrual understanding, too!!

And this guy has higher view of Scripture than you? Right. He has a higher view of his own opinion and convictions than he does the Bible.

[bob]

Well... I'm not so much "thankful" (though I do recognize, he's not the "unchurched" or "formerly churched" that we try to exist for... he and his wife seem like cool people, and I'm sure it would have been good had they been able to hang with us. We have this ethos of being a different community because of the presence of individuals among us, but that being said, if someone comes with an agenda of changing us, it's pretty hard.
I don't post this to subject this guy to ridicule- I know he's following his conscience. I just hope he sees at a certain point that he's following it into an ever-tightening corner...

[Tom S.]

It seems to me that he made it into an A level issue more than you. Your statement on never asking the women of your church to wear head coverings would be categorically true given that your community spent much time in deliberation over the issue of the role of women and came to the conclusion that women can in fact be elders/leaders.

If this brother believes in head coverings for women, I can’t believe he would go along with women elders. And I think the women of your church would revolt if you did suggest they wear head coverings especially since the community has interpreted these passages otherwise.

[Toby]

After re-readin my comment...I didn't mean for it to come across like I was ridiculing this guy...just trying to make the point of his view of Scriptures.

[jane]

When I read this yesterday, I thought how ironic it was because of a personal experience I had exactly one week ago Wednesday evening.

I was speaking at a benefit at the University of Guadalajara, a strict Catholic university which is run by Jesuit priests. We had arrived with plenty of time left before the beginning of the program so I decided to walk over to the chapel and pray for a few minutes before we had to be back stage (no-matter how many times I do public speaking, I am always nervous).

Knowing that different cultures within the Catholic religion have different viewpoints on the head covering issue for women (and other issues like bare shoulders in Italy), I was alittle leary of walking inside. By luck, I happened to see a small group standing at the top of the stairs with their backs to me. I silently prayed they spoke English and just asked "should I cover my head before entering?"

Much to my surprise, one young man turned around to answer and he was wearing a white collar. Having grown up in the Catholic church, I immediatly remembered how straight forward the Jesuits are and got a quick reminder with his reply: "Do you think the Lord doesn't know its the year 2006? I think He will want to hear your prayer whether your head is covered or not!"

I thanked him and went in and said my prayer, head uncovered, and Jesus listened because we raised more money that night then we did all the rest of the week. Many children will benefit from that night and I learned even the strictest of the strict, the Jesuits, have moved into the 21st century. And I'm pretty sure they are no less holy for it!

[Logan Bell]

Disclaimer: I am not a member of this community, however I do read Bob's blog along with the forum on the Evergreen site. This is my first posting ever on either site.

With that said, this post disturbs me and these are the reasons why.

1. Nobody has posted/quoted the "controversial" passage. Nor even attempted to put the passage in biblical context, instead writing the passage off as an assumed cultural/historical issue. I mean, that was then, this is now. Do we do this to all passages that are difficult for us to swallow?

2. Does this person deserve to be spoken about in a public forum without his knowledge? or consent?

3. "Equate fidelity to your interpretation of particular Scriptures with fidelity to the Scripture itself." Where do you draw the line? When you rely upon historical context, and believe the scripture cannot support or explain itself, especially in regard to assumed cultural issues, then I believe you are really asking for trouble.

4. Also if you read the entire passage from Paul at the end it says (v16): "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." With that statement, it appears that head coverings weren't explicitly mandated just for the Corinthians, but for the entire church.

Just an internet sojourner thoughts.

[bob]

Logan- thanks for the comments. Points well taken.

My point in this discussion wasn't to comment on headcoverings, which is why I didn't deal with the passage itself, but rather to relate an incident which was typical of what I see as a problem which we all suffer from at times: equating fidelity to our interpretation with fidelity to Scripture.

Please note- I don't write the passage off. My exact words on it were: "the principles behind what Paul are talking about there are still in effect, but the cultural markers have changed, that to ask 21st century women to conform to a 1st century cultural practice like veiling themselves wouldn't make sense (as in insisting, based on 1 Tim 2 that women not braid their hair or wear gold)." In the same way that I believe modesty continues to be a binding principle for God's people, but I would not forbid anyone from wearing gold jewelry or braiding their hair, I will ask women to show respect to their husbands (and vice versa, by the way), but the meaning of "headcovering" is different now. Women who refused to cover their heads in the first century were saying something to the culture around them concerning their morals and their lifestyle. Does anyone believe that same message is conveyed today?

(This is a basic interpretive problem we have: We see Paul correcting some problems and assume that he is setting up universal postives. We should talk more about that later...)

There's a reason I didn't give much detail about the person I was speaking of. I think probably two or three people in our community might know who I'm speaking of and I hope I've been respectful... but again- the issue wasn't the guy. He's a brother in Christ that I happen to disagree with. The issue was the taking of an interpretive issue (and by 99.99% of the Christian world's view, a minor one) and making it an issue of separation.

As for relying on the historical context- I would submit to you that to NOT do so is hugely dangerous. A quick question: DO you believe women should be allowed to braid their hair in direct contravention of 1st Timothy 2:9? Why or why not? I submit that cultural context is indispensible in answering that question. If you'd like a good read on "Where do you draw the line?" I'd recommend Women, Slaves, and Homosexuals by William Webb as he gives a matrix with 16 different factors- questions to ask and ways to tell whether something is culturally bound (like forbidding women from wearing gold) or transcultural and applicable to all people in all times and places.

And as for number four... I assume your (future) wife covers her head in worship then? A sincere question...

[Logan Bell]

First I must apologize. After re-reading my original post, it felt incredibly brazen and ballsy for a first time post, and probably confrontational (which wasn't my intention). Also, thank you for the response; it actually clarified a lot in my mind. Without sounding inconsistent, but to accurately conjure my thoughts, let me establish why I stated what I stated.

1. In order to establish a principle we must establish what the author's original intention with the passage was, which I think the first rule in good hermeneutical interpretations. We just differ as to what Paul's original intended message was in this chapter. My honest and humble interpretation is pure confusion and strangeness, what does verse 10 really mean? Without real concrete historical context, which I don't believe we have, but just historical speculations, how can we interpret this? We have what we have. I honestly believe the Bible has merit and should be able to stand on it’s own without the help of history and the context it was placed, maybe I just have too much Scottish Common Sense Realism.

2. This was probably the catalyst for me writing a response. I just thought it was strange that something like this would be posted into a public forum, and without knowing the person I wanted to rush to his defense. I know, strange...

3. I understand now where you're coming from in regard to your statement: "Equating fidelity to our interpretation with fidelity to Scripture." Of course there is probably even a difference between this and pulling ones own meaning out of the stated scripture, such as the practice of eisegesis interpretation. Historical context is nice to spice up a meaning, add some depth to an already established principle, but I strongly and personally feel that a principle shouldn't be drawn out because of assumed historical meanings. As in this example, we don't have the other side of the letter or what exactly Paul may have been responding to. But if it's something we must know, then God will surely reveal it to us and/or spell it out clearly in scripture. I'm ok with just labeling this passage as confusing (for example most of revelations), and just rest in grace.

4. Finally. No, she would beat me up if I ever tried to pull a stunt like that. And to answer your question in regard to Timothy, no I don't believe a literal interpretation in regard to the jewelry is what Paul intended. But the principle is spelled out, with no need to consult outside sources. The principle is for women to dress modestly.

Basically, maybe my response was slightly hyperbolic, because historical context if used unwisely can skew the context of scripture. Maybe that's why God gave us the Holy Spirit, because our finite minds argue and debate things like this.

Peace

[bob]

Hey man- no sweat. It's hard to talk passionately on the internet about important ideas and strike just the right tone/balance...

On point 1, I would suggest that if we really believe in the literal, historical, grammatical method of hermeneutics, that middle word has to mean something. To take the Scriptures in some kind of vacuum (an impossiblity, but...) and try to divorce it from the culture IN which it was written and TO which it was written is a dangerous thing. Historic understanding is of first, not secondary importance because our understanding of authorial intent may often hings on our understanding of the context in which the author lived and wrote. I understand what you mean when you say "I honestly believe the Bible has merit and should be able to stand on it’s own without the help of history and the context it was placed", but I would submit that the Bible itself never makes such claims and when we lose historical perspective, we get off onto all kinds of crazy tangants...

on 3- again, sometimes historic context is necessary, as is regard for genre, for literary devices... this is the very definition of the standard evangelical hermeneutic: ""[T]his method of interpretation focuses attention not only on literary forms but upon grammatical constructions and historical contexts out of which the Scriptures were written. It is solidly in the 'literal schools' of interpretation, and is the hermeneutical methodology embraced by virtually all evangelical Protestant exegetes and scholars."

As for depending on the Holy Spirit... here's another good quote: ""Some have wrongly argued that knowledge of the culture and languages of biblical times is not necessary, that the Holy Spirit will interpret the text for us. The role of the Holy Spirit is to illumine the believer in order to accept and apply what is found in Scripture. The Bible says that the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:14). The Greek word for "accept" means 'to take something willingly and with pleasure.' The key role of the Spirit is not to add information to the text, or to give us special translating abilities, but to soften our hearts in order to receive what is there.""(Don Closson)

The Holy Spirit doesn't mitigate the need to learn Greek to be able to translate the Scriptures, does He? THen why would He do away with the need to study the historical context?

I find point 4 very interesting. What do you mean Paul didn;t intend us to take him literally??? If he didn't mean "no gold/pearls or braided hair" then why did he say it?
And if you can follow the principle behind that command even while recognizing that the practicalities of it will differ from culture to culture and time to time, why wouldn't the same hermeneutical principle apply to 1 Cor 11?

[bob]

by the way, just for the record... I believe the literal, historical, grammatical method is necessary but not sufficient, that is... it's not the end of the story when it comes to hermeneutics.
I strongly recommend Dr James DeYoung's "Beyond the Obvious" for a great primer on what's necessary beyond the literal, historical, grammatical method...

[Logan Bell]

I believe we agree on the following, a principle is a fundamental truth that can be applied to any culture and in anytime. However, where we differ is how you obtain that truth through the reading of scripture. And again, I firmly believe that 95% of the time the principle is clearly stated in plain text and through the divine work of the holy spirit, as you said, our hearts are softened to understand and accept this truth. However, if there is a passage that doesn't clearly explain itself or even rubs us the wrong way because it doesn't nicely assimilate the truth into our cultural mindset. Well a) we don't like what it says or b) maybe it wasn't written for us. After what we have read and understand what the passage is saying, only then do I believe it's appropriate to add the historical context. Never should historical context be the means to derive the truth. I am no scholar, but it seems to be common sense approach.

Finally to conclude. I believe I was misunderstood in regard to #4. The principle is clearly stated in the passage. No historical context was needed to derive this principal, it is very clearly stated.

I think we're the same wavelength, I just can't accept what maybe the popular way to interpret the Bible. Thanks for the feedback and I'll definitely take your comments to heart and check out those books.

In Christ

[Chris Marsden]

Logan,

I think you are either seeing something, or not seeing something, key to what you are saying here.

In the 1 Timothy passage, you don't feel historical context is necessary because the principle is clearly stated. I agree that Paul states the principle, that women should not draw attention to themselves and detract from worship, but an understanding of historical context would certainly help. Personally, women with long straight hair worn down are more distracting than women who have their hair in braids, so why did Paul mention braided hair and not straight hair? What was the issue that made him mention that specifically and not mention short skirts and low cut blouses? Historically, the short skirts and low cut blouses were not issues, but braided hair apparantly was (If I remember correctly, braided hair has a tie in to prostitution in the 1st century).

As far as the 1 Corinthians passage is concerned, Paul does state the principle. A man dishonors his head (Christ) if he covers his head and a women dishonors her head (husband) if she leaves her head uncovered. The principle being talked about here is showing honor. Obviously, men should still honor Christ when they pray or speak and women should honor their husbands and not dishonor them publically. So the historical question that needs to be asked in order to determine whether we are still bound to the actions implied here are why is it headcoverings that are mentioned. Is there something specific going on in the 1st century culture that makes Paul say this? Why doesn't it fall in line with Jewish practices where men covered their heads to honor God and women left theirs uncovered?

I think that if someone chose to just follow either of these passages literally out of obedience and respect for God, that God would honor their intentions. However, the two people I fear for are the one that teaches people a legalistic form of Christianity and the one who just blindly says "That's oldfashioned" without any research or understanding as to why it is no longer applicable or if it is no longer applicable.

2 Tim. 3:16 says "All scripture is God breathed and useful..." With that in mind, we have to either accept it all literally, or we have to spend some time studying it. This means looking at original language, historical context, cultural issues, and anything else that will affect how we apply it to our lives. We can't simply dismiss parts of it in order to fit our desires, and we can't dismiss parts of it simply because we don't understand. This means further study is necessary.

Just my thoughts, and I know I didn't go into the cultural and historical depth that I said is necessary, but I think the point of this conversation is more about principle than these actual passages anyways.

Peace <><

[Logan Bell]

Bob,

What you have just wrote to me bolsters my point that you cannot not rely upon historical context to derive the truth out of a biblical passage. However, after reading your response, I feel I need to clarify what my definition of historical context is, and how it may not be the proper colloquial term. When I refer to historical context, I am actually referring to extra-historical context, just the same as we wouldn’t refer to extra-biblical context. (Example referring to the apocrypha or any non-canonized books). I do apologize, if my wording was more exact I think this would be avoiding some of the confusion so hopefully my writing is even clearer.

Now, how your points strengthen mine. The Jewish practice of head covering shouldn’t even be applied here or used to justify any meaning out of this text. In fact, the Jewish practice of using the head coverings wasn’t even developed until the middle ages, and it was probably to distinguish themselves from the Christians! Please see this http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Medieval/MedievalSocialTO/Clothing/JewishHat.htm>link. This is exactly why historical context, or more correctly, extra-historical context is very dangerous. So now we have an additional variable to account for when interpreting the Bible, does my fidelity of history negate your fidelity in history or vice versa? I hope not. Another great example is Mathew 19:24 and Jesus’ reference to a camel passing through the eye of a needle. For many years, many Christians, legitimately believed this was a gate in Jerusalem that a camel actually would pass through. This has never been proven and is most likely false. Extra-historical context should not be relied upon.

Now in regard to I Corinthians 11, within the biblical context one can derive a pretty solid principle. In fact if you read the entire passage of 11, verses 1-16 become clear, and even more so after reading the entire book. First, I agree with you, that what Paul was describing was an order of things. This would be verse 1-10, God is Christ’s head, Christ is Man’s head, and Man is Woman’s head. He re-emphasizes this order because woman came from man and also for the sake of the angels. Basically he’s laying out a natural order of things. Although in 11-12, yes Man may have authority over woman, he does come from Woman and everything comes from God (paraphrased), and Man and Woman are not independent from each other. Now in 13-15, it reads like things were out of order in Corinth. Perhaps, men were having long hair and women were cutting their hair, who knows, I wasn’t there. But Paul does say that hair is a natural covering, hence no need for hats today or yesterday. Further, Paul goes into detail about the disorder of their church and he admonishes them in their practice of communion. According to 29, people weren’t even acknowledging the Lord, the body, and their hearts before partaking of the sacrament. The principle for the entire chapter now becomes pretty clear, the church of Corinth was disorganized and people had disregarded all authority and respect for that authority. There was no need to delve into Jewish practices or customs, the historical background of Corinth, or any other outside history sources to see the principle.

Now, without bypassing 1 Timothy, as I have repeated, the principle is within the biblical context of the passage. There is no need to consult outside sources. I also have no idea if prostitutes had braided hair in the 1st century or not. However, if you were to rely upon your source of history, you would think that they were dressing scandalously, may not have been Paul’s point. His point seems to be that how you dress is a reflection of your heart, and good deeds should be reflected instead of the distracting outside clothing.

I hope this clarifies my thoughts and where I’m coming from. The historical context we need is in the bible, and what we need to know shouldn’t have to come what we discover at archeological digs. Also in regard to 2 Tim 3:16, yes all scripture is God breathed and I hope that we can stand upon it to derive the truth without the help of what history or man tells us is truth.

Cheers,
Logan

[Logan Bell]

PS. I plan to visit your church tomorrow. I have moved to the area and am looking for a community.

[bob]

Logan- it's not jewish practices of headcovering that are in view here. Corinth was a greek city, and these were hellenistic Christians...so 1st century Greek culture regarding women and covering/modesty would be very germane.

Also- you are certainly wlecome to come tomorrow... but Elder Sarah Zollner is speaking- Just to warn you :)

[Logan Bell]

Look forward to it. (Tomorrow that is). I understand these were hellenistic Christians, most likely, we don't know for sure. But I was able to come up with the principle without knowing that fact. Of course history does add a bit of sugar and flavor to the background, but again not the machine to determine what was being stated. Anyways, I think we've well established what our viewpoints are, and I've enjoyed this conversation.

Regards

[Nathan]

Bob,

No where did Logan say he wanted women to wear headcoverings, that he didn't like women speaking in church, or that he was against woman elders.

The point is, how do we interpret Scripture? Do I need extra-biblical historical information to understand the authors' main ideas? The issue is not do I need to understand the historical context to interpret the passage, but do I need to look outside the whole Biblical text to find that historical context. I think we must allow some room for some extra-biblical historical input, but we must be very cautious when we do this. As Biblical scholar Al Baylis says once we see the interpretation it should be an interpretation we could have gotten before. And, we should not base any doctrine on a passage interpreted this way. We should also check the authenticity of the Scripture's historical accounts.

Even an interpreter who is trying to be as unbiased as possible, who truly desires to understand the author's intent can be mislead, by a historian, or a historical document that is wrong, misinterpreted, from the wrong time period or wrong geographical area. Only the Bible is "God breathed". Even if something was happening in, lets say Corinth when Paul wrote to the church in Corinth we have absolutely no guarantee that he was referencing that particular historical context unless he himself makes that clear.

We must also ask why God would communicate to the world in a way that only scholars and historian could understand, because only they have a proper understanding of the extra-biblical historical context. Then it would also be too bad for all those people who tried to read the Bible before modern archeology and histrorical investigation.

Nathan

[bob]

Chill man... I was having fun with Logan, Nathan... it's all okay... :)

"We must also ask why God would communicate to the world in a way that only scholars and historian could understand, because only they have a proper understanding of the extra-biblical historical context.Then it would also be too bad for all those people who tried to read the Bible before modern archeology and histrorical investigation."

Overstatement!

The Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Why would God do that? Doesn't he know the vast majority of the world, over the vast majority of History don't speak any of those languages??? Too bad for them, right? :)

So now everyone has to learn all those languages?

No- we get to benefit from the fruit (translations) of those who do.

Same thing with historical context.

Look- I'm not saying that historical context is necessary to understand every verse of every book. In fact- it's vital in VERY FEW AREAS. But where it's vital, it's vital, dig?

What I am saying is two things:

One- to say it's NEVER needed is a dangerous overstatement. For example, I'd like to suggest that's it's nearly impossible to correctly exegete 1 Tim 2:15 without some historical background.
(1 Cor 15:29, Luke 21:7-24, and large chunks of the book of Daniel are pretty tough without some historical context as well...)

Second- To ignore it (historical knowledge) when it's avaliable would be silly. ANYTHING which enhances my understanding of Scripture is a plus, including anything which enhaces my understanding of authorial intent by clueing me in to authorial context.

It's rare that one NEEDS context to understand Scripture. But there's certainly nothing in Scripture which guarantees I won't, right?

[Nathan]

ROTFLMAO

Bob,

You are absolutely correct, most of us, myself included, must rely on others to translate the scripture for us. However I would argue that there is a very big difference between saying we need experts to translate the Bible for us and we need experts to interpret the tricky parts for us. Also, studying the historical development of a words meaning is a bit different then getting the exact historical/culture reference an author was making.

Again, I'm not saying historical context is not important, nor did I say we could never use it. I said using extra-biblical historical information that may, or may not be, the cultural context can be misleading. There are some verses, which we cannot, and may never interpret, because we do not know the context. I do not believe we should ignore historical knowledge. However, what guarantees do we have that it is the pertinent historical knowledge, or that is even correct. Did Josephus never make a mistake? Was history only recently written by the winners?

We always need context, which includes historical context, but if I don't know for sure that some piece of historical information is actually the context of the Scripture I'm attempting to interpret, I should use that information with caution.

[Chris Marsden]

Logan,

This is Chris, btw, not Bob. Before when you replied to me, you apparantly assumed I was Bob continuing the discussion. Another tool in Exegesis, if I remember correctly, was who was writing and who were they writing to. Paul makes seemingly conflicting statements sometimes, but when we understand who he was writing to and how they would have interpretted it knowing their historical context, it helps us realize he is not contradicting himself, but that he is being relevant to the culture he is writing to.

I am not a historian, and apparantly I misunderstood or missed some point in my Bible History classes, but in Exodus it describes a turban (head covering) that the priests were supposed to wear. I seem to recall other passages regarding how the men of israel were supposed to be dressed in the context of worship, but I can't find it right at the moment.

If, as you say, the practice of Jewish headcoverings didn't emerge until the middle ages (I don't doubt you, I just don't know), then this further illustrates that the practice of headcovering or not is a cultural thing that evolved over time.

My point (not sure about Bob's) is how do we know that Paul doesn't mean literally that men should not cover their head and women should, forever, period. While I agree that a principle can be extracted without that historical study, how can we just dismiss scripture without further research? We are dishonoring Christ and our women are dishonoring their husbands, and it turn Christ, by leaving their head uncovered. How can we just randomly decide, "oh, that passage is cultural", if we don't reference the culture (and historical context) they were in?

I agree with Bob, that their are many passages that can be clearly interpretted without aid of Greek studies, historical reference, or any other tools. But some passages require further study to understand what is being said. I also don't feel like this is one of those issues that are going to make or break somone's salvation, and so is it worth the effort of further study (or even debate on some blog), but can we stand before Christ and say "I thought that was a out of date concept."

Jesus made a lot of concepts stricter. Thou shall not lust, instead of though shall not committ adultury (Check out Matthew 5,6,7) but he also simplified the 10 commandments into 2.

Should we base doctrine on how the church historically did things (hanging of the greens the first Sunday after Thanksgiving or we all go to hell)? Probably not. But if history gives us insight into why Paul said something to a particular group at a particular time, should we ignore it? How can we? And if we are going to, then Biblical archeologists and Holy Land tour guides need all find new jobs.

One of the best things about going over to the Holy Land was seeing the proximity of things. It gave me visual contexts to go along with the stories I had read so many times. You can see the temple mount from the Mount of Olives. It is a LONG walk (bus ride for us) from Galilee to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is up from Galilee, even though it is South because it is higher elevation. All of these things aren't a big deal and are not necessary to catch the main points of scripture, but they make it easier to understand some passages. History does the same thing

The Bible is not limited to only those who study Biblical language and history, but we can't negate them.

[Nathan]

Chris,

I'm not trying to answer for Logan, but we've been talking about this topic apart from this blog, so I know a bit where he's coming from.

I think everyone involved in this conversation wants to understand what the Bible is saying so that we can be faithful to the message. Whether we want to use extra-biblical historical context or not, we all want to understand the author's intention. We are all committed to Scripture. Yet even if we use all the same tools we may end up with different interpretations (I think we all actually agree on the head-coverings; we don't think they’re necessary).

As I understand it Bob's point wasn't about head-coverings really, but how being committed to Scripture will not mean we all agree on every interpretation. We need to recognize that just because some one has a different interpretation and conviction that doesn't mean they are more or less committed to Scripture.

Saying that we can't use any extra-biblical historical info is a reaction to the misuse of e.b.h.i. People have been able to use "historical context" to get the Scripture to say anything they want, or to negate anything they don't like. I know that is not Bob or your goal. My hermeneutical stance is probably an over-reaction and I have been coming back towards a balance (I think). The church needs scholars, but we must all remember they are part of the body. Their gifts contribute to the whole, but they are not more important than others in the body and they must never allow their work to actually keep the Scripture from the people-- they must never set themselves up as the only ones qualified to interpret it.

Both Logan and I have been to Israel. It is very beneficial for understanding the Bible. And even if we don't use e.b.h.i to interpret the Bible that doesn't mean trips to Israel and archeology have no purpose.

[Chris Marsden]

Thanks Nathan,

The context you have shared helps in understanding, which I think is my point. Not that you have to have history to interpret the Bible, but that some passages can benefit from some context.

Certainly we won't all agree on Biblical interpretation. I think this is mostly because of our baggage and expectations of scripture. I know for me, personally, I can't help but read passages with my own past doctrines as part of the filter I read with. It is hard to read scripture (or really do anything), completly objectively. Even recognizing that, it is still hard to put aside my existing beliefs and look at God's truth objectively.

Anyways...Thanks for the perspective and while I understand what you are saying about people misusing historical context to prove a point, negating historical context seems more dangerous as it allows us to randomly decide, on our own what, still needs to be applied and what is no longer applicable.