{"id":2153,"date":"2012-09-19T11:47:09","date_gmt":"2012-09-19T15:47:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rayvanneste.com\/?p=2153"},"modified":"2013-06-11T16:23:15","modified_gmt":"2013-06-11T20:23:15","slug":"dictionary-of-scripture-ethics-neither-scriptural-nor-ethical","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rayvanneste.com\/?p=2153","title":{"rendered":"Dictionary of Scripture & Ethics: Neither Scriptural nor Ethical"},"content":{"rendered":"

Preparing for my annual survey of commentaries and biblical reference works for Preaching Magazine<\/a> (see last year’s installment<\/a>) which will be out soon I needed to assess Baker Academic’s Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics<\/em> (2011)<\/a>, edited by Joel Green. It is a large reference work so I decided the best way to get a feel for it would be to dip into articles on some hot topic issues. I was surprised by what I found particularly on the issue of homosexuality.<\/p>\n

The entry, “Homosexuality,”\u009d by Jeffrey S. Siker concluded essentially by saying the Church is divided over the issue of whether or not homosexual activity is sinful. The weight of the historic affirmation of the church through the centuries seems to have been missed. The closing sentences of the entry states:<\/p>\n

The Bible serves as a key touchstone for this conversation within the church, though its interpretation, relevance, and application in relation to homosexuality remain points of significant contention, especially as interpreters seek to correlate and integrate the biblical witness with other sources of authority- tradition, reason, and experience.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Since Paul may have only known of negative or abusive “forms of homoerotic activity,”\u009d Siker argues, we cannot be certain his condemnation of homosexuality fits all expressions of it. “Like most Jews of his day, he [Paul] seems to presume heterosexual expression as the norm, though his own preference is for celibacy (1 Cor. 7:7).”\u009d Paul’s apostolic teaching to the church is reduced to first century Jewish presumption and personal preference!<\/p>\n

The central issue here, as Siker notes, is the role and authority of Scripture. This entry elevates “tradition, reason, and experience”\u009d as “other sources of authority”\u009d on the par with Scripture allowing us to overturn the plain statements of Scripture. \u00a0In fact, however, it is primarily reason and experience that are in play here. If tradition had, in fact, been given more weight the conclusion would have to be different. Thus, both Scripture and tradition are demoted.<\/p>\n

Sadly the entry, “Marriage and Divorce,”\u009d by Allen Verhey goes even further. Verhey states:<\/p>\n

We need not regard divorce as good or homosexual acts as good in order to acknowledge fidelity and mutuality between divorced and homosexual persons as good. \u00a0If we allow divorce in a world such as this for the sake of protecting marriage and marriage partners, and remarriage after divorce, then perhaps we should also consider blessing homosexual unions<\/strong> for the sake of nurturing fidelity and mutuality and protecting the homosexual partners. (emphasis added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

If we would respond that the Church cannot bless homosexual unions because the Church’s Head forbids it in His Word, Verhey, in keeping with the previous entry states:<\/p>\n

Scripture is not a timeless code for marriage and divorce, but in Christian community it is somehow<\/strong><\/em> the rule of our individual lives and of our common life. \u00a0We set the stories of our lives, including the stories of our singleness and of our marriages, alongside the story of Scripture to be judged, challenged, formed, re-formed, and sanctified. \u00a0Fidelity to this text and to its story does not require (or permit) us to read Mark (or any other particular text) like a timeless moral code. \u00a0We do not live in Mark’s community (or in Matthew’s or Paul’s), but we do live in memory of Jesus, and we test our lives and our readings for fidelity. \u00a0Fidelity requires creativity. \u00a0And creativity licenses the formation of rules and judgments concerning divorce that need not be identical to Matthew’s concession or Paul’s, but that respect both the vows of marriage and the partners of a marriage, safeguard both the delight and vulnerability of sexuality, protect vulnerable partners, and honor God’s creative and redemptive intentions. (emphasis added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Somehow?! Really, “somehow”? If we are left saying Scripture is “somehow<\/em> the rule of our individual lives and of our common life,” then it is not the rule for our lives. According to this entry we are free to reset the boundaries in ways entirely different from what is seen in Scripture and still call that consistent with the Scriptures.<\/p>\n

That this book has gone forth from an evangelical publisher and is likely to be seen as a standard reference work on scripture and ethics is both sad and alarming. I can only characterize the position of these entries as capitulation, and capitulation on one of the key ethical issues of our day. They obviously do not find their ethical position in Scripture but argue for ways to avoid the clear meaning of the text of Scripture by elevating human reason and experience (and arguably not the best of either of those). Here these authors fail to stand; I wish they could have done other.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Preparing for my annual survey of commentaries and biblical reference works for Preaching Magazine (see last year’s installment) which will be out soon I needed to assess Baker Academic’s Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics (2011), edited by Joel Green. It is a large reference work so I decided the best way to get a feel …<\/p>\n

Continue reading ‘Dictionary of Scripture & Ethics: Neither Scriptural nor Ethical’ »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[12],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rayvanneste.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2153"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rayvanneste.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rayvanneste.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rayvanneste.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rayvanneste.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2153"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"http:\/\/rayvanneste.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2153\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2534,"href":"http:\/\/rayvanneste.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2153\/revisions\/2534"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rayvanneste.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2153"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rayvanneste.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2153"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rayvanneste.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}