When we read and interpret the Bible, we should seek to do so in a manner that if we were to have a conversation with God, God would have no corrections for us. This means our interpretation should defer to what God intended in a passage, and also how God chose to communicate that passage, through a historical writer. 

When we read our Bible, individually or corporately, we have the opportunity to hear, interpret and apply God’s word.
Hearing comes first, then our minds begin to comprehend, and make assessments of what we are hearing and how it impacts us. When we hear something, we begin to make sense of the sounds (or words) we hear. Once a determination is made, we begin to act in accordance with our assessment of what we’ve heard. It is only after we’ve heard something that we can assess it, and it is only after we’ve assessed something that we can act in response.
If you are driving a car and you hear what sounds like sirens, you may begin to check your various windows and mirrors. You may roll down your window to see if you can further hear which direction the sirens come from. You may slow down or pull over. You may speed up and move to the side. You only can do these actions, after you’ve made an assessment regarding the sound of the sirens.
When reading the Bible, most of us don’t think we are making any interpretations. Yet, when we open the Word and begin to hear we cannot help but begin to make an assessment. We compare what we hear with what we know. In our minds we begin to “play” with the ideas, concepts, and messages we’ve heard. As we are moved by conviction of what we’ve heard we begin to take action. It is in the realm of assessing what we’ve heard, and then applying what we’ve heard to our actions that interpretations take shape.
When we hear something and do nothing, we’ve determined that nothing other than the status quo should be done. Our interpretation of something we’ve heard, which inspires us to do nothing must mean our interpretation made no impression for our immediate life. Sometimes we hear something, and it takes many thoughts, many conversations, many relationships, many days and nights to arrive at an actionable conclusion. Sometimes we hear something (like a siren) and immediately begin to apply what we’ve heard (like moving out of the ambulance or firetruck’s way). Regardless of the speed of application, as soon as we hear something we begin interpreting it. 
It is frequently asked “is there a right way to interpret the Bible?” Often this question arises when people of two persuasions come to a particular impasse. Which way is right when one person interprets X and the other person interprets Y? How can a right interpretation be formed between multiple mutually exclusive interpretations?
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Tuesday, September 10, 2024
Spiritual independence is the notion that the church must resist all attempts, no matter where they originate, to prevent it from faithfully carrying out its divinely ordained ministry. “When it is faithful in this duty” of preserving its independence, “the benefits of union [of church and state] can be appreciated and, if and when necessary,” the union of church and state “will be abandoned . . . in the interests of truth” (Age of Revolution, p. 22). That is to say, as long as the church’s independence is preserved, there are times when circumstances will dictate that a union of church and state is to be rejected, even if it is legitimate in principle.

Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer (1801–1876) was a Dutch Reformed Protestant historian and politician who founded the political party Abraham Kuyper would eventually join and serve in as Prime Minister.
Against Political Atheism
Numerous themes show up repeatedly in Prinsterer’s writings. Two central ones were the danger of the revolutionary ideology unleashed by the French Revolution and the relationship between church and state. These two themes were integrally connected in Prinsterer’s mind: he saw the radical separation of church and state in France as a great peril to the survival of the church in that nation (or any that followed its example).
Prinsterer summed up his basic position on the relationship between church and state in his published lectures entitled Unbelief and Revolution (p. 32, n. 22) like this:
Church and State should not be separated but kept distinct, united in joint consultations from a position of mutual independence . . . . If the Christian church loses it priority, freedom of conscience is without defenses against the intolerance of unbelief. Unbelief becomes the civic religion of a secular state.
Later in this same work he refers to the default position of France as one of state-sanctioned “political atheism” (Unbelief and Revolution, p. 33). France, despite the claims of some at the time, was not a neutral ground on which all religions could compete, but itself had an official religion, albeit an atheistic one. All state institutions (including primary education) were forced to deny the truths of Christianity. In France, “no positive religion whatsoever,” he continued, “shall be tolerated in opposition to the requirements of revolutionary sociability”(Unbelief and Revolution, p. 103). This is not at all dissimilar to what we see in Western nations today regarding moral issues like abortion and sexuality. Religion may be tolerated as long as it remains a purely inward and private affair, but if at any point it threatens the (sexual) revolutionary sociability an attempt will be made to suppress it ruthlessly.
Prinsterer believed firmly that church and state were divine institutions with distinct spheres of authority. The church does not have the right to usurp the power of the state, nor the state the power of the church. Distinction does not entail radical separation, however.
On the Necessity of Political Prudence
Although maintaining such a distinction, Prinsterer’s articulation of the ideal relationship between church and state is not wholly compatible with the contemporary political theory of liberalism. In another work, entitled Christian Political Action in an Age of Revolution, he develops an additional insight of relevance to ongoing discussions in Christian “post-liberal” circles about the relations of church and state.
In this book Prinsterer says emphatically, in response to a critique: “I am an ardent opponent of the separation of church and state, though not as ardent as Mr. Trottet imagines.” What Prinsterer takes issue with in his opponent’s criticism is, as he says, that Trottet advocates “an absolute separation,” of church and state “as a universal truth . . . thus raising it to the rank of an article of faith” (Age of Revolution, p. 21). In his critic’s understanding any formal relationship between church and state is ruled illegitimate as a matter of absolute and inflexible moral principle.
This is similar to the position of many today, even among Protestants who come from a tradition that for centuries vigorously supported a specific kind of formal connection of church and state. It is one thing to say that it is unwise to seek such a relationship today; it is quite another thing to say that that position is categorically wrong. The Reformers and their heirs and not infallible, but one does need to grapple with their actual arguments on church and state instead of superficially dismissing them.
Here is where I think Prinsterer is most interesting and potentially helpful. He argues that there are times when the very “interests of religious freedom” (here understood as the freedom of true Christians to worship freely) necessitate restricting “the exercise of [some] political rights . . .  to members of the State Church” (Age of Revolution, pp. 21-22). As examples of such times he lists the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre (1572) and the Catholic League (1576), both of which set out to murder Protestants and eliminate Protestantism in France, as well as the violent attacks on Protestants during the Thirty-Years War and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), which had granted Protestants toleration in France since 1598.
Read More
Related Posts:

When asked, “Does the PCA ordain homosexuals?” we cannot say, “We can neither confirm nor deny that the PCA ordains homosexuals.” We must either say, “Yes, the PCA ordains homosexuals, but men must claim celibacy from homosexual conduct in order to ordained,” or we will say, “No, but there may be men who count that amongst the temptations they resist.” Put succinctly, we will either be a “Yes, but” or a “No, but” denomination.

Overture 15, answered by General Assembly in the affirmative as amended, places Item 1 before the Presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Item 1 proposes the addition of a new, fourth paragraph to the Book of Church Order (BCO):
7-4. Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.
In what follows, I’ll argue that Item 1 should be answered in the affirmative, for four reasons. The addition of this paragraph is (1) appropriate and (2) needed; (3) the issue it seeks to address is unavoidable; and (4) voting in the negative perpetuates one problem and creates another.
Overture 15 Is Appropriate
First, it is appropriate to add this paragraph to BCO Chapter 7: Church Officers-General Classification. Each paragraph in Chapter 7 deals with the disqualification of someone who may be accepted as a legitimate candidate for ordination in another denomination, but not in ours. Over its history, the PCA has used Chapter 7 to clarify whether church offices are open to charismatics, women, and those preferring a different church government.
Let’s take each paragraph in turn. From 1789, American Presbyterians have rejected the continuation of miraculous gifts. But the 1973 proposed text lacked a statement about gifts related to new revelation, something the PCA wanted to address directly. The second General Assembly adopted a pastoral letter on the issue suggesting that “any view of the tongues as experienced in our time which conceives of it an experience by which revelation is received from God is contrary to the finalized character of revelation in Scripture.” Unsurprisingly, then, the final sentence of BCO 7-1 says, “Such officers and gifts related to new revelation have no successors since God completed His revelation at the conclusion of the Apostolic Age.” PCA History notes, “The current PCA text dates to 1974 and the wording of this paragraph is that which was proposed by the Ad-Interim Committee on Charismatic Gifts.”
It’s appropriate for the PCA to inform those who think they have a special gift of divine revelation that they cannot seek ordination in the PCA. That’s not to exclude them from a PCA church; it’s to be helpfully honest about what they can expect. Remember, Chapter 7 of the BCO is on church officers, not on church membership or attendance.
Similarly, it’s appropriate for the PCA to inform women who think they are called to ordination that they cannot seek ordination in the PCA. Hence this sentence at the end of BCO 7-2: “In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only.” The change occurred in 1980. Since that time, women have not been excluded from PCA churches. On the contrary, they have flourished. Remember, Chapter 7 of the BCO is on church officers, not on church membership or attendance.
Finally, BCO 7-3 notifies would-be archdeacons, archbishops, cardinals, and popes that office holders in the PCA cannot “usurp authority” in the church, by claiming more than one vote in a church court, and that they cannot “receive any official titles of spiritual preeminence, except such as are employed in the Scriptures.” That’s not to exclude them from a PCA church; it’s to be helpfully honest about what they can expect. Remember, Chapter 7 of the BCO is on church officers, not on church membership or attendance.
Given the multiyear conversation about homosexuality we have had in the PCA, it’s appropriate for the PCA to speak on this issue, and the seventh chapter of the BCO is the place to do it. To put it another way, even if you think this particular change should be rejected, its location in the BCO can’t be a reason to reject it. If it’s needed, it’s appropriate to place this sentence in BCO 7, as that chapter serves as the place to clarify, lovingly, those who cannot pursue ordination in the PCA. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs here.
Overture 15 Is Needed
But is it needed? That’s the pressing question. The answer is yes. This paragraph achieves the compromise we have been seeking.
Though I voted for it on the floor of General Assembly, I did not add my name to the minority report as a member of the Overtures Committee, in part because I wondered whether Overture 15 was tight enough. I worried that this overture could provide an admittedly hypothetical person with the following defense: “I should be ordained, in spite of being completely beholden to homosexuality, simply because I do not describe myself as a homosexual.”
I think my initial reservations show how the language of this paragraph is a helpful compromise. Its adoption can help heal the divisions we face in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Think about the two sides of this controversy. One side of the debate worries we are sliding into gospel-abandoning cultural accommodation. I share that concern. It’s always a threat. But the other side of the debate fears we are illegitimately and ungraciously tightening our ordination requirements in a misguided culture war. I share that concern, too. It’s always a threat.
Overture 15 addresses both these concerns. This paragraph may not make anyone completely comfortable, but that’s a feature, not a bug. We are a deliberative assembly, after all.
First, saying that the PCA disqualifies some men because of what they say about themselves shows one side of the debate that the PCA is still a denomination willing to speak with the Bible against the culture. They can rest assured that Presbyteries in large metropolitan areas will not overlook an issue that has caused public scandal in their churches.
Similarly, focusing on what a man actually says avoids the concerns the other side has raised about witch hunts and psychobabble language. If a man has engaged in same-sex activity in the past or struggles against current same-sex attraction in the present, the addition of this fourth paragraph will serve as a protection for him if he seeks ordination. Saying that a man does not now describe himself as a homosexual mitigates against a Presbytery’s inappropriate allergic reaction to this particular sin. Those on this side of the debate can rest assured that, if this overture passes, then Presbyteries in Southern, seersucker parts of the country cannot illegitimately raise the requirement for holiness on this particular sin by itself.
Presbyteries should affirm Item 1, as Overture 15 helpfully addresses an issue we must address.
Overture 15 Addresses an Unavoidable Issue
Let’s be clear: This issue is unavoidable. If Item 1 fails, does anyone really think we won’t face other overtures again next year? There may be some who say they will always vote against any proposed change to the BCO that mentions homosexuality. I find this commitment demoralizing and unwise.
First, I find a commitment never to speak on this issue demoralizing because — forgive me — I want to stop talking about it. We have spent a not insignificant amount of time discussing this issue, and I don’t think I am the only one growing weary. We have been discussing it since 2018. Students can graduate from college or medical school in four years, and law school in three. Can’t we find something new to argue about?
Second, I find a commitment never to add language in the BCO on homosexuality unwise. Such an attitude preemptively denies what we hope to achieve in a deliberative body. If it’s not this particular overture, then what about something next year, or the year after that? It’s also unwise because if the principle is simply that we can’t speak against the ordination of any particular group, it cuts against the grain of the three paragraphs already in BCO 7. It also suggests that we may not need to add another paragraph at some time in the future about another issue, which is something we shouldn’t rule out in advance.
I am hopeful that the addition of this paragraph in the BCO will end our multiyear debate.
So, in summary, Item 1 is appropriate and needed, and it addresses an issue that is unavoidable.
Answering Overture 15 in the Negative Perpetuates One Problem and Creates Another
Now let’s turn from the benefits of answering this proposed amendment in the affirmative to the costs of answering it in the negative. Answering Item 1 in the negative will perpetuate one problem and create another.
First, answering this item in the negative will continue the confusion of what is expected of men who have same-sex attraction as part of their biographies. Continued uncertainty does a disservice to those coming forward for ordination. A man with a sensitive conscience may think himself ineligible for ordination when, in fact, he would sail through ordination in any Presbytery and could even serve as a model for holy living.
Imagine a man who is forthright about his struggles, in the appropriate context, but who affirms, along with the justly acclaimed Ad Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality, that “we name our sins, but are not named by them.” This man would never describe himself as a homosexual; adding this paragraph in the BCO will help him. Voting against this proposed addition deprives him of guidance and leaves us all in a crisis of ambiguity.
Second, we should recognize that answering this item in the negative will generate a new problem. The General Assembly has placed the denomination in a precarious position — in a way I did not realize when we voted last summer. If we say we will not add a paragraph saying that “men who describe themselves as homosexual” are disqualified from holding office, then it suggests, though it does not logically entail, that the PCA is comfortable with men describing themselves as homosexuals. I say “suggests” and not “entails” because to reject the addition of something does not require anyone to accept the addition of its opposite.
Even still, voting in the negative will suggest to people that the PCA is comfortable with its officers calling themselves homosexuals. When asked, “Does the PCA ordain homosexuals?,” we cannot say, “We can neither confirm nor deny that the PCA ordains homosexuals.” We must either say, “Yes, the PCA ordains homosexuals, but men must claim celibacy from homosexual conduct in order to ordained,” or we will say, “No, but there may be men who count that amongst the temptations they resist.” Put succinctly, we will either be a “Yes, but” or a “No, but” denomination.
Item 1 places before us a stark choice: Will we be a yes-but or a no-but denomination? “Yes, we ordain homosexuals, but . . .” or “No, we don’t ordain homosexuals, but . . .”? Will we be a denomination that ordains men who call themselves homosexuals, with caveats, or will we be a denomination that does not ordain such men, with caveats?
I voted in the affirmative on Item 1, because I think the PCA is a no-but and not a yes-but denomination. If we add this paragraph to the Book of Church Order, we will be able to say, when asked whether the PCA ordains homosexuals, that anyone calling himself a homosexual is disqualified for office, per BCO 7-4. If we do not add this paragraph, our people will continue to wonder what kind of denomination we are — and I will, too.
James Bruce is a professor of philosophy at John Brown University, the director of the Center for Faith and Flourishing, and an associate pastor of Covenant Church PCA in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Related Posts: