Where Mayor Pete Buttigieg's interpretation of Scripture goes awry.

In a recent interview with Rolling Stone magazine's Alex Morris, presidential candidate, and mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg made a variety of comments from his own viewpoint regarding Christianity, faith, and morality.  (The Generous Gospel of Mayor Pete)  Whether one likes Mayor Buttigieg as a candidate or not, there is great import in understanding the way in which he views Scripture as it impacts his interpretation of the Word of God throughout.  From this point forward, I'll interact with the quotations from the article, the portions in italics are from Mayor Pete.

"Well, I think for a lot of us — certainly for me — any encounter with Scripture includes some process of sorting out what connects you with the God versus what simply tells you about the morals of the times when it was written, right? For example, the proposition that you should execute your sister by stoning if she commits adultery. I don’t believe that that was right once upon a time, and then the New Testament came and it was gone. I believe it was always wrong, but it was considered right once, and that found its way into Scripture."

Before delving into the nature of Scripture itself, this first quote contains a dangerous false dichotomy.  What connects us with God is NOT an either/or with the morality contained in Scripture.  What connects us with God is precisely the moral code contained within Scripture.  For it is by measuring our own lives against this standard that we see how woefully short we are apart from God's grace.  The moral code of the Mosaic Law, for example, is not what saves us, for we all would fail to uphold it (Paul's argument in Romans 3), but that code sets a foundation for our encounter with God.  When we, as finite flawed human beings, compare ourselves to the holiness and righteousness of our Creator, we will invariably fall short.  These are not just history lessons about ancient morality, for our amusement if nothing more, they are an indictment again human rebellion, a charge against human self-reliance that will draw those who take it seriously to repentance by assuring even the best among us that we cannot possibly stand before a Holy God without fear and trembling because of our failures to, "be Holy as I am Holy."  

Colossians 2:12-14 English Standard Version (ESV)

12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

The Law is not useless, to be set aside as a quaint reminder of our ancestors viewpoints, it is the legal charge against us that Christ has answered on our behalf.  Let us not dismiss as unnecessary the moral code which propelled Jesus to the Cross on our behalf.

What is Scripture?  How did it come to be, and what does it reflect, God, man, or both?  I myself have recently completed a discourse on the topic that you can watch here: What Every Christian Should Know About: The Bible  The viewpoint that is being put forward by Mayor Buttigieg is a common one, the idea that Scripture is a human creation that perhaps can lead us toward God, but certainly not a divine creation, as evidenced by the term Word of God.  The theological question in focus here is inspiration.  Did the authors of Scripture, nearly all Middle-Eastern Jewish men over a span of about 1,500 years, impart to us their cultural viewpoint or that of God? {Another false dichotomy, it assumes God cannot impart his Holy Word through a time-bound cultural viewpoint without it losing its timeless authority}  If inspiration is viewed simply akin to the talent of an exceptional artist, something rare but purely human, we would expect the Scriptures to be nothing more than a reflection of the culture in which they were written, including its flaws (from our point of view).  If, on the other hand, inspiration entails a communication from God, it will transcend the morality of the men who wrote it and instead reflect the character and nature of God.  That is not to say that God didn't utilize the cultural framework of the authors, including, for example, their cosmology (geocentric with the heavens beyond the firmament), or their understanding of human biology, for how else would a message from the divine be comprehensible to its original audience if it wasn't communicated to them within their own cultural framework?  In the same fashion, God worked with the limitations of his people, offering further fullness of his revelation as time went on (for example: stating clearly the marriage ideal in the beginning of Genesis but not rejecting the Patriarchs despite their tendency toward polygamy, and proclaiming monotheism despite Ancient Israel's ongoing flirtation with polytheism and idolatry).  These efforts of cultural condescension are evidence of the grace of God, not a comprise with the unchanging nature of God's righteousness and holiness.  Thus, while cultural factors are certainly readily apparent throughout the Scriptures, they do not equate with God saying, "Let us do evil that good may result"? (Romans 3:8).  The Scriptures do NOT advocate immorality.  Which brings me to Mayor Buttigieg's apparent understanding of the Mosaic Law.  Unless I'm misunderstanding his point, he believes that the Mosaic Law contains within it a number of evil commands and requirements that the people of the time (Ancient Israel) believed, erroneously, to be moral, when in fact they were always immoral, and thus did NOT reflect the nature/purpose of God.  Are there examples of God's people behaving immorally in Scripture?  Absolutely, the previously mentioned polygamy of the patriarchs is one example, the adultery of David is another, but in such cases the Scriptures are not commending the behavior (and in David's case he is explicitly condemned by God's prophet) only dealing with the flaws of God's messangers.  However, when Scripture declares, "thus says the LORD", and is clear that the viewpoint being represented is that of God, we cannot allow ourselves as a Church to open the Pandora's Box of saying, 'Well, that was just the Israelites (or Early Church), it wasn't God.'  If that door is opened, any and all things which an individual or a culture objects to can be tossed aside, even when Scripture is quoting God (including quoting Jesus in the Gospels) it can be easily dismissed as a human invention not a divine command.  We certainly do need to acknowledge the cultural element of Scripture, we certainly do need to view it as an ancient document written by people with that frame of mind, because if we don't we risk forcing modern interpretations onto the text (Eisegesis instead of proper Exegesis), but we cannot let a proper understanding of the divine/human nature of the text itself convince us to take the step advocated by Mayor Pete of treating the text as a primarily human product that we can sit in judgment over.

And to me that’s not so much cherry-picking as just being serious, because of course there’s so many things in Scripture that are inconsistent internally, and you’ve got to decide what sense to make of it. Jesus speaks so often in hyperbole and parable, in mysterious code, that in my experience, there’s simply no way that a literal understanding of Scripture can fit into the Bible that I find in my hands.

I think this helps explains where Mayor Pete's thinking went astray.  The issues of inspiration addressed above should not be intermixed with the issues of interpretation given here.  The Bible isn't to be taken "literally", no large body of speech or writing can possibly be taken "literally".  The reason is very simple, speech (and hence writing) is full of things like metaphors and hyperbole.  Our tendency to use such figurative language is one of the things that makes translation work difficult, because our idioms and figures of speech are culturally learned and often don't translate well, or at all, into a different language.  However, and this is very important, just because I agree (as do all Christians, even those who insist that they take the Bible 'literally' are not doing so in the poetic/figurative/metaphorical sections) that the Bible cannot be taken 'literally' does NOT mean that I am willing to jettison the need to take the teaching of the Bible authoritatively and seriously.  

I would be interested in learning what Mayor Pete's is talking about when he says, "there's so many things in Scripture that are inconsistent internally".  An inconsistent interpretive framework, especially one built upon faulty premises and techniques, will certainly yield a view of Scripture that is internally inconsistent.  The very existence of interpretive inconsistencies is a strong indication of a poor hermeneutic.  If you believe that the Scriptures are not the Word of God, but rather something much less, a collection of the words of men, one would expect to find inconsistencies, one would expect contradictions and incompatibilities.  The Scriptures themselves, though, are not to blame if people interpret them wrongly, to put the blame on the source material for failures of proper interpretation is egregious.  Because the interpretation that Mayor Peter, and many like-minded people, have arrived at does contain inconsistencies, the solution they have chosen is to arbitrarily declare the portions they agree with to be more important than the portions with which they disagree.  He doesn't think this is 'cherry-picking', but the end result is the same.

Now, I actually think that if you look at an issue like choice, there’s so many parts of the Bible that associate the beginning of life with breath that there’s plenty of scriptural basis to reach different conclusions about that. But only if you believe that the government must legislate these metaphysical questions does the debate about choice have to be about the government deciding where life begins.

Is is possible for Christians to be so skeptical of their own government that they fear the power of the government to be an arbiter or a question as important as when life begins.  That is not what is happening here.  Only a selective reading of Scripture could lend one to conclude that the Bible's stance on the beginning of life is a person's first breath.  We must contend with the whole counsel of God, not just the parts that conform with our desired result.   Below are just two examples that the Bible's viewpoint of life begins far earlier than birth.

Psalm 139:13-14 New International Version (NIV)

13 For you created my inmost being;

    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

    your works are wonderful,

    I know that full well.

Jeremiah 1:5 English Standard Version (ESV)

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

and before you were born I consecrated you;

I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

If I say anything about guns...

As a minister of the Gospel, if I say anything about guns, whichever side I take, half of you will no longer listen to my proclamation of the Word of God.  You will dismiss me as either a socialist or a fascist, and allow your opinion about guns to taint what I say about anything else.  The same danger exists if I say anything about abortion, taxes, immigration, gay marriage, or whichever hot button issue next consumes our political consciousness.  As a minister of the Gospel, I take my oath to proclaim the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ seriously, very seriously, it is the most important idea that I could share with anyone, anywhere.  That being said, I've made no secret of my own decision to self-limit my public comments upon the political/culture war issues, precisely because I don't want to allow anything else to affect the ability of others to hear the Gospel.  There are limited exceptions, when a public issue impinges upon the Church itself, or the discussion at hand is what the Bible itself teaches about an issue, I have no issue with weighing in; hopefully in a constructive and God-honoring way.

Last March I saw firsthand the danger of treading close to this political read line when I wrote a post entitled, "God loves you too much to ignore your sexuality".  In that post, I wrote about God's perspective on human sexuality, not about American laws or politics, focusing upon sexual sin as defined in God's Word in both its heterosexual and homosexual forms, but one comment that I saw in response to my post was, "I used to respect this pastor until I read this..."  Although I was able through conversation to repair that impression, and I think keep that individual from ignoring my words in the future, it pointed to the grave danger facing pastors and Christian apologists all over America today, when we involve ourselves in anything remotely political, half of the audience are hearing our words with their own political rose colored glasses, and the other half are plugging up their ears in disgust.

What does it say of Christians, and those purporting to be Christians, that so many of them are willing to place their devotion to political issues above the Gospel, the Word of God, and the men and women called by God to proclaim it?  It says we're in grave danger as a Church.  There is no such thing as a Republican Church and a Democrat Church, but we've fooled ourselves into thinking that God's Church is really so limited, that God is on our side, whichever one that is, and against their side, that the issues advocated by our politicians are 100% Christian, and those advocated by their politicians are inspired by the devil.  We've cheapened the Church, cheapened the Gospel, and fooled ourselves into thinking Christ died only for people like us.  I say we have done this because it is so widespread in the Church today, I hope that I and my church are free of this disease; I've striven to keep my own mind free of it, and to keep such partisanship out of our congregation, but I'm not proud enough or naive enough to think that it could not infect my own mind or my church in the future.

When Pope Francis spoke out against the danger of the love of money and the need for God's people to have compassion upon the poor, he was branded a communist by loud-mouthed political pundits, and that antipathy toward the Pope was cheered by many Christians.  The problem here is, the Bible absolutely says that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil and demands of God's people that they show compassion to those in need.  The only way to justify condemning such concerns from Pope Francis is through either anti-Catholic bias (i.e. condemn the message because we hate the messenger) or a rejection of what the Church, and Israel before it, have preached (if not always followed) for the past 3,500 years.  

We should not be overly surprised by such things, however, when Jesus declined to choose sides in the contentious issue of his day regarding the paying of taxes to Rome, it only angered further those who wanted to use him for their own narrow purposes, or condemn him based upon his politics.  Throughout the Gospels, Jesus remained focused upon his mission, the one thing that he needed to do that nobody else could, not allowing himself to be distracted by today's issues when eternity was at stake.

If I tell you what I think should be done about school shootings and other gun violence, half of you will no longer listen when I proclaim the Gospel.

If I tell you what I think America's immigration policy should be, half of you will no longer hear me when I proclaim the Word of God.

And so I hold back, not because I don't have the right to my opinions, not because I can't ground my opinions in Christian theology and a Christian worldview, but for your sake because you NEED to hear the Gospel from God's Word far more than you need to hear my political opinions, whether you agree with them or not.

Sermon Video: Why do people get married? - 1 Corinthians 7:36-40

Why do people get married?  While the reasons abound, the Apostle Paul, in finishing the section of his letter to the Church in Corinth that focuses upon sex and marriage, touches upon four of the more common ones: honor, passion, compulsion, and happiness.  The text itself focuses upon issues relating to the decision to marry or not to marry from a 1st century cultural perspective, but the idea of why people choose to get married (and widows/widowers to remarry or not) is certainly relevant for any cultural setting.

In the end, the will of God allows freedom for Christians to decide if they want to be married, and when, within the framework of the Law of God as outlined in his Word.  Within that framework: one man, one wife, for life, it is not a moral issue for a disciple of Jesus Christ to marry or not.  Some will prefer to continue living in celibate singleness, some will decide that after losing one spouse to death that they do not want to remarry, but some will choose to enter into the holy bond of marriage, emphasizing some combination of honor, passion, or the pursuit of happiness in their minds (but hopefully not compulsion).  God wants his people to be happy, as our heavenly Father, God knows that true and lasting happiness is only found in union with him, not rebellion against him.  The Christian worldview thus emphasizes the primacy of obedience to the Law of God, placing issues of love, happiness, rights, or freedoms behind conformity to the dictates of God's righteousness, holiness, and justice (and not just relating to marriage, in all parts of our lives).  Within the framework of marriage (and sexual purity) ordained by God, there is room for us to consider what our honor, passion, and happiness is asking of us.  {FYI, the point in question: to marry or not, is illustrated in the sermon by my retelling of my own proposal of marriage to my beautiful wife Nicole, in October of the year 2000.}

To watch the video, click on the link below:

God loves you too much to ignore your sexuality.

People want to do what they want, when they want to do it, and how they want to do it.  People don't like being told what they can and cannot do.  This isn't a mystery, its obvious, a commonality of us all.  Our feelings about sex and sexuality are no different.  In order to fulfill humanity's desire to be autonomous, to make our own rules, elements of society have always sought to ignore the clear consequences of sexual activity outside of marriage, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, the desire to be autonomous and reject limitations remains the same.
Sexuality has significant consequences for individuals and society that we ignore at our peril.  It can be a force for good when contained within a loving marriage, an expression of fidelity and love, but it can also be a powerful destructive force when it exceeds that boundary, resulting in STD's, divorce, rape, abortions, and all manner of non-marital sexuality, including homosexual expressions.  Sexual expression has to have limits, no society can function without them.  Biology ought to be one obvious restraint on human autonomy, after all, it takes a man and a woman to reproduce, but even this fact of nature comes under assault when people seeking autonomy are willing to ignore nature and embrace homosexual and transgender perspectives.
God isn't interested in ruining fun, God doesn't want to quash happiness or love, but God, as our Heavenly Father and our Creator, is not going to sit by and let human beings pursue dead-end paths that are only self-destructive, he loves you too much.  God, in the created order, has set limits upon our expressions of sexuality.
All sexual expressions outside of the marriage of one man and one woman are sin, not because I say so, but because the Word of God declares it to be so, thus the cheating husband is as equally ignoring God as the person seeking a lesbian sexual relationship.  All sin is an affront against God, if the Church has failed to make clear its opposition to ALL forms of sexual sin, especially our own, that is our failure.  If Christians have seemed more interested in opposing homosexuality than in helping the people of the Church overcome adultery, that is also our failure.  We, the Church, have failed in this arena, far too often.  Holiness begins at home, the people of the Church have failed to live sexually pure lives, for this we need to repent and return to being what God has called us to be.  As a people redeemed by God, we cannot pretend that sin, of any kind, is ok.  It won't be popular to say so, and we shouldn't expect those who don't believe in God to be happy to hear it, but God loves you too much to ignore your sexuality, and as imitators of Jesus Christ, so does his Church.

My words are primarily for myself, my family, my church, and beyond that, the greater Christian community.  If they spur the people of God toward self-examination, and greater efforts at holiness (by God's grace) they will have achieved their purpose.  If my words speak to the Lost, to those without God, let them hear me clearly: God loves you, his Son died to set you free, God wants you to come home to him, whatever your past, whatever your present, God can and will forgive you if you put your faith in him.  When you do believe, join a local church, it is the place where the people who were lost, but now are found, gather together to celebrate God's mercy and grace, and to share his love.

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Genesis 2:24 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Mark 10:8b-9 "So they are no longer two, but one.  Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Matthew 5:28 "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 "It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him.  The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you.  For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life.  Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit."

Thoughts on Pope Francis' speech to Congress

There are only a handful of people in our world today who could receive glowing coverage from CNN and Fox News at the same time.  The recent visit of Pope Francis to the United States saw such a confluence of the American political right and left, both of whom see something in Pope Francis that they would like to claim as their own (either through genuine admiration or hope of politically co-opting his popularity), and at the same time, both sides also see things in what he says and does that trouble them, things that they would rather ignore.  In this reaction, cheering for what we already believe and pretending not to hear what we disagree with, I see a microcosm of how Christians too often respond to the claims of the Gospel.  We embrace those portions of it that conform to our own ideas and try to ignore or twist into something they are not those portions that would require us to change.
For example: Republicans cheered when Pope Francis said, "I cannot hide my concern for the family, which is threatened, perhaps as never before, from within and without.  Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family."  Republicans saw this as a criticism of the legalization of gay marriage in America, they cheered, the Democrats were silent.  Elsewhere, however, it was the turn of Democrats to cheer and Republicans to sit on their hands when Pope Francis said about those hoping to travel north to America, "We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation.  To respond in a way which is always humane, just, and fraternal."  The same pattern existed, among Congress, and no doubt the audience watching at home, when mention was made of protecting the environment, abolishing the death penalty, halting the arms trade, and having an economy that "seeks to be modern, inclusive, and sustainable."
Politicians are happy to claim the Pope's popularity when it suits them, and just as quick to dismiss his ideas on the economy or social issues when what he says would challenge their political beliefs.  It is not necessary to agree with the solutions offered by Pope Francis to any particular issue, but we must, as Christians, at least be intellectually honest with ourselves by admitting when we too, like the politicians, are only listening to what we want to hear.
The teachings of Jesus Christ do not fit in cozily with the political views of either the Republicans or the Democrats, both of whom have made Faustian political compromises for the sake of expediency, Republicans with business interests at the expense of the poor, and Democrats with the intellectual class at the expense of the unborn, just to name the most obvious failure of each camp to follow the Gospel's declaration of the dignity and brotherhood of all men.  You cannot be an honest follower of Jesus Christ and ignore the need to help the poor.  You also cannot be an honest follower of Jesus Christ and ignore the sanctity of life and marriage.  It is not acceptable for Republicans to dismiss Pope Francis' cry to help the poor against the abuses of Capitalism by calling him a Socialist, and it is not acceptable for Democrats to drown out Pope Francis' plea for the unborn by calling the decision to end that life a "choice" or a "right".
Disagree with Pope Francis' politics if you want, this is America and he is just a man, even if he does have a fancy hat and a cool car, but dismiss the claim that the Gospel has upon you to protect the poor, the vulnerable, and the innocent among us at your own peril.  In the end, I'm glad that Pope Francis made both the Republicans and the Democrats uncomfortable in their turn, for as a representative of the Gospel, speaking to a culture in need of its transformative power, their is plenty in American politics and culture that Pope Francis has rightly diagnosed as being in need of change.

Abortion and Gay Rights, Colorado and Indiana

I don't spend much time talking or writing about the issue of gay rights, or gay marriage, largely because this issue is mired in irrational discussions, and also because I don't think that what the government decides to do about their definition of marriage has anything to do with what the Church is doing on this issue; they seem to be linked in the minds of most people, but in reality they are not.  The fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution of the United States should be for everyone, that this has not always been the case, for various minorities and for women, is a blotch on our history as a people.  Things have changed, they're better than they were to be sure, but where more work is needed, to change the law or the culture, that work should be supported by the Church.
The recent furor over the new law in Indiana seems to be a far cry from the battles over "separate but equal" that were the focus during the Civil Rights movement in areas of education, housing, jobs, and other areas concerned very clearly with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  If the focus of this law is truly about cakes and photography for weddings, and not about housing, jobs, etc. it seems that we've lost focus on what truly matters in society: life.
In Indiana people are protesting in the streets about the right to buy services and goods, in Colorado, a woman who was brutally assaulted and had her child cut from her womb and then subsequently left in a bathtub where she died, has to live with the fact that her child's killer will never be charged with a crime toward the child because "it" is not considered to be a person until "it" breathes outside of the womb.  Life is not a primary concern for the law in America.  Life can be taken from the unborn, legally, in all fifty states.  The government supports this "right", the Supreme Court supports this "right", and most of the people who are up in arms about potential denials of the right to buy cake support the "right" of any mother to kill her unborn child, usually until the moment it leaves the birth canal, with no questions asked and no restrictions or limitations (And oh, by the way, the father has no right to protect his child, only the mother to kill him/her).
We live in a society where right and wrong are muddled.  I have a hard time getting upset about the demand that every business you want must participate in a gay marriage when the abortion clinic down the street goes about its gruesome business day after day.  The Supreme Court will soon weigh in on the host of gay marriage laws overturned by judges thus far, and perhaps that will lend some clarity to this highly charged issue, but don't kid yourself into thinking that expanding LGBT rights will make America a just society.  Everyone deserves basic human rights, why aren't the unborn included?

Much of this was inspired by reading an article by Matt Walsh, to view his longer and more impassioned post, click on the link below:
It’s Legal to Kill Babies, But Let’s Worry About a Gay Person’s Right to Cake

* I don't know anything else about Matt's opinions beyond this article, just saw it and thought it thought provoking enough to link to it.*