A brutally poor use of the Bible

I recently read a blog post made by an ordained minister (to keep your mind on topic, I'm not going to mention the name/gender/denomination of the minister) which cited the Biblical reference of Galatians 5:22-23 in a way that was one of the most ridiculously eisegetical misuses of Scripture I have ever read.  The Word of God cannot mean whatever we want it to mean, it cannot be divorced from its original settings, the intent of the author (in this case Paul and God), nor the understanding of the Church as a whole concerning the text throughout history.  If all of these safeguards are ignored, if proper exegesis is not done, you get the type of nonsense I read online.  Let me share the text of Galatians 5:22-23 and then explain what this minister said about it.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.  Against such things there is no law."

I'm also not going to share what particular issue this verse was cited in connection with, because it would also change most people's focus from the text itself to that hot-button issue.  In a nutshell, the minister cited this verse and then declared that something that the Bible in a variety of places calls a sin can no longer be considered a sin because some of those who commit this sin also (in the minister's opinion) display the fruit of the Spirit.  In other words, if the virtues listed by Paul are present in a person's life, whatever behavior that person is also doing, no matter what the Bible says specifically about such behavior, can no longer be judged as sinful and must therefore not only be accepted as legitimate but championed as good, beautiful, and pure.

Do you think that Paul wrote those words in order to destroy the Law of Moses?  Did Paul intend to eliminate the very idea that there are behavior which God has forbidden to not only humanity in general but his people in particular?  How could anyone possibly read these verses, in their context, and come up with such a conclusion?  To abuse Galatians 5:22-23 in this way is a crime against the Word of God, it is having a particular conclusion in mind and searching for a passage of Scripture to back up what you already want to believe.

The very words written by Paul both before and after vs. 22-23 utterly refute the contention that 5:22-23 negate the idea of behavior being sinful, In verse 19-21 Paul wrote, "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.  I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."  Following vs. 22-23, Paul continued, "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires." (vs. 24) The essence of the fruit of the Spirit is not only the presence of virtue, but the absence of vice.  We cannot possibly be living according to the Spirit of God, walking in his will, if we at the same time are indulging in sinful behavior.  And yes, the behavior that this minister was declaring to be good and pure, instead of immoral, is part of the list in vs. 19-21.  Nowhere in the Bible is this idea taught, nowhere does God give man the authority to define right and wrong.

If a thief displays the fruit of the Spirit, should we ignore the fact that he continues to steal?  If a liar displays the fruit of the Spirit, should we ignore the fact that she continues to bear false witness?  If adulterers display the fruit of the Spirit, should we ignore the fact that they are dishonoring their marriage?  The presence of virtue does not negate the presence of vice.  The implications of such an awful interpretation of Scripture are laughably absurd, yet this is the type of thing that people are willing to do to Scripture, bending and twisting, pulling and shoving, to try to make it fit what they want to believe.

Every lay person in the Church should know better, an ordained minister should be ashamed of such behavior.  The Bible is not a tool to suit or fancy, it is the Word of God, it deserves far more respect than that.

The privelage and peril of preaching

Those of you who have listened to my sermons know I'm not one for alliteration (starting each point with the same letter), but that title just slipped out.  Preaching is certainly a privilege, being able to stand before God's people and proclaim what his Word is telling them is a rare honor.  At the same time, preaching is a path full of potential perils (yikes, 4 more "p" words, I can't stop it now!)  There are numerous errors that a preacher can make, lots of mistakes that can creep in, some mostly harmless and some downright frightening.  I recently re-read one of my college texts, D.A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies.  Carson's book explains a whole host of fallacies (errors) that can be made when interpreting Scripture, among them: word-study, grammatical, logical, presuppositional and historical.  The book is excellent, full of helpful reminders, but certainly a challenge to anyone not familiar with English grammar (as a former English teacher, I would say that would be 90% of Americans or more) and those who don't have a minimal knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.
So, what is the person in the pew to do, how can they know that their minister is "rightly diving the word of truth"? (II Timothy 2:15, the AWANA key verse)  At the heart of Carson's warnings is the notion that we need to let the Bible speak to us instead of seeking to find in the Bible that which we already think.  One of the best ways for a preacher to keep the Word speaking through him instead of the other way around is to honor and respect the context of Scripture.  Each and every message brought by a preacher of God's Word needs to be faithful to the text it was taken from, and it needs to be faithful to the message of the Bible as a whole.  We have all seen the damage that can be done when politicians take the words of their opponent out of context, far be it from us to do the same damage with God's Word by not properly representing what the original intent of the Scripture was to it's first audience.  When we understand what God's Word meant then (or at least have a reasonable inference about what it meant), we can begin to understand what God's Word means for us now.
To help keep myself from error is one of the reasons why I choose to preach through passages of Scripture rather than topically.  If I wanted to preach a message about poverty (for example), I would have huge chunks of the Bible to choose from, but isn't the act of choosing itself going to influence my eventual conclusions, won't I be tempted to ignore the passages or verses that aren't on point in favor of ones that seem to be (especially out of context)?  Instead, if I let the Scripture speak by working my way through the entire Sermon on the Mount (for example), I will have to explain everything that Jesus said and not just the things that fit the message I wanted to bring.  Along those same lines, I don't typically write my sermon introduction until I'm finished with the message for the simple reason that I usually don't know exactly what I'm going to be saying about the next passage of Scripture until I actually write it.
I know that a lot of preachers out there always preach topically, citing verse after verse to support their point that are often scattered throughout Scripture; it isn't for me.  The next time you listen to that type of message, jot down each of the references, look up the passages, and see if the verses were used properly based upon their context or not.  There are plenty of Exegetical Fallacies that a preacher can make, that's one I'd rather avoid.