Changes in Biblical Morality II

[micatala]

In order to narrow the focus a bit from the other Changes in Biblical Morality thread, this thread will focus on what major event in the early church, described in Acts Ch. 15

1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
18that have been known for ages.[c]

19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

In this passage, Peter convinces the other early church leaders to change Biblical morality and centuries of tradition. No longer were believers required to follow all of the Mosaic law, particularly the law related to circumcision.

Notice all the reasons for allowing the change, two of which I have bolded.

Questions for debate are:

What does this instance tell us about the appropriateness of changing 'moral law' for believers?

Does this passage allow today's Christians the freedom to change moral law with respect to current controversial practices, like homosexuality?

Under what circumstances?

[micatala]

Just because they are doing it, doesn't make it right. Nor do they have the authority to change scripture any more than the Catholics did to justify their Holy wars. Once again, the problem is that the Bible is outdated and almost impossible to apply to todays society. How can one be a Christian, follow scripture and still live in todays world. They cant'.

But you have not answered the question, are they authorized to do so. Some would say that any denomination or church or individual Christian that performs a marriage between a divorced woman and a man has apostatized. So, before going much further, you must address the issue of whether this is progress or heresy.

Reasonable points. At this point in Christian history, we have no centralized authority for deciding what is correct doctrine and what is heresy. This has not existed since the time of the Reformation. Obviously there is an incredible diversity between denominations on these matters.

Perhaps it is time for another 'Church Council' to discuss such matters? Invite representatives from the whole spectrum of Christianity to decide on how interpretive disputes are to be resolved, and if we really want to open up a can of worms, on what should be in scripture. (This sounds like another fun thread, in fact ). Should we have it in Rome? Las Vegas? Tulsa?


More seriously:

If we are talking about 'changing the Bible', then we need to acknowledge that the Bible as it exists today did not exist at the time of Jesus. Did those who decided on the current content of Christian scripture have authority to do this or not? When Protestants made a few deletions to the Catholic Canon, were they authorized to do so? By what or whom?

The glib answer would be the Holy Spirit, and this idea is alluded to in the article cited by McCulloch (which I found interesting, but as the writing of a conservative Anabaptist, perhaps not relevant to most Christians). THis article allowed that church leaders (e.g. Pastors) have authority to give teaching, interpret scriptures, etc., as long as they don't go against what is said in the scriptures. Unfortunately, in some cases there is substantial disagreement about whether particular teachings or practices go against scripture or not.

The more practical, but perhaps less satisfactory and more ambiguous answer, is that 'authority' is determined in the market place of ideas. If sufficient numbers of Christians and Christian denominations come to accept a particular interpretation, or even a teaching that seems counter to scripture, then this new teaching becomes a part of mainstream Christianity. In the absence of direct guidance from Jesus or the Father to the contrary, there is nothing to stop this from happening.

Those who proceed with the new teaching will ultimately answer to God, but if they are comfortable with this prospect, it seems to me they are 'authorized' to make the change. Consider Romans 14.

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.


If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Certainly some would limit the applicability of this passage, but it seems to me that if a Christian, after having examined his conscience and in full faith in God feels that teaching X is correct, then for him it is. He does need to follow the overall 'law of love' and take into account the effect of his actions on others, and should not do anything to cause a brother to stumble. However, with this caveat, it seems to me he is free to act as he sees fit.


In the absence of any centralized 'authorizing authority' that all accept, I am not sure what other mechanism we would apply. I would be open to opinions from others on this, including the non-theists.

[Confused]

Just because they are doing it, doesn't make it right. Nor do they have the authority to change scripture any more than the Catholics did to justify their Holy wars. Once again, the problem is that the Bible is outdated and almost impossible to apply to todays society. How can one be a Christian, follow scripture and still live in todays world. They cant'.

But you have not answered the question, are they authorized to do so. Some would say that any denomination or church or individual Christian that performs a marriage between a divorced woman and a man has apostatized. So, before going much further, you must address the issue of whether this is progress or heresy.

Reasonable points. At this point in Christian history, we have no centralized authority for deciding what is correct doctrine and what is heresy. This has not existed since the time of the Reformation. Obviously there is an incredible diversity between denominations on these matters.

Perhaps it is time for another 'Church Council' to discuss such matters? Invite representatives from the whole spectrum of Christianity to decide on how interpretive disputes are to be resolved, and if we really want to open up a can of worms, on what should be in scripture. (This sounds like another fun thread, in fact ). Should we have it in Rome? Las Vegas? Tulsa?


More seriously:

If we are talking about 'changing the Bible', then we need to acknowledge that the Bible as it exists today did not exist at the time of Jesus. Did those who decided on the current content of Christian scripture have authority to do this or not? When Protestants made a few deletions to the Catholic Canon, were they authorized to do so? By what or whom?

The glib answer would be the Holy Spirit, and this idea is alluded to in the article cited by McCulloch (which I found interesting, but as the writing of a conservative Anabaptist, perhaps not relevant to most Christians). THis article allowed that church leaders (e.g. Pastors) have authority to give teaching, interpret scriptures, etc., as long as they don't go against what is said in the scriptures. Unfortunately, in some cases there is substantial disagreement about whether particular teachings or practices go against scripture or not.

The more practical, but perhaps less satisfactory and more ambiguous answer, is that 'authority' is determined in the market place of ideas. If sufficient numbers of Christians and Christian denominations come to accept a particular interpretation, or even a teaching that seems counter to scripture, then this new teaching becomes a part of mainstream Christianity. In the absence of direct guidance from Jesus or the Father to the contrary, there is nothing to stop this from happening.

Those who proceed with the new teaching will ultimately answer to God, but if they are comfortable with this prospect, it seems to me they are 'authorized' to make the change. Consider Romans 14.

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.


If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Certainly some would limit the applicability of this passage, but it seems to me that if a Christian, after having examined his conscience and in full faith in God feels that teaching X is correct, then for him it is. He does need to follow the overall 'law of love' and take into account the effect of his actions on others, and should not do anything to cause a brother to stumble. However, with this caveat, it seems to me he is free to act as he sees fit.


In the absence of any centralized 'authorizing authority' that all accept, I am not sure what other mechanism we would apply. I would be open to opinions from others on this, including the non-theists.

I am not sure it would be possible to do what you are suggesting. To alter scripture to fit in with todays society is equivalent to making you God. Wouldn't it be curious if this had been done in history a few times already?

[micatala]

I am not sure it would be possible to do what you are suggesting. To alter scripture to fit in with todays society is equivalent to making you God. Wouldn't it be curious if this had been done in history a few times already?

If one proceeds under the assumption that God 'directly authored' the Bible, than I suppose this would be so. In my view, the Bible being inspired does not mean it was directly authored, but rather that the Bible is written by humans under 'the inspiration' of God.

This is not too unusual a view, I believe. Even the article cited by McCulloch, for example, allows that some of what Paul wrote was not 'God's word' but actually Paul's opinion. For example, the passage in I Corinthians 7 where Paul indicates that he thinks being celibate is preferrable to being married. This is not a 'command' but only a suggested practice.

Again, we already know humans are the ones who decided what is in the Bible in the first place, and we even have two slightly different versions of scripture between Protestants and Catholics. Why would we have to accept without question that the Council which decided on Biblical content had God's authority to act as they did, but that we today have no authority a priori to make changes to the text, or even significant alterations in interpretation or applicability of specific doctrines?

[McCulloch]

Just because they are doing it, doesn't make it right. Nor do they have the authority to change scripture any more than the Catholics did to justify their Holy wars. Once again, the problem is that the Bible is outdated and almost impossible to apply to todays society. How can one be a Christian, follow scripture and still live in todays world. They cant'.

Some would say that any denomination or church or individual Christian that performs a marriage between a divorced woman and a man has apostatized. So, before going much further, you must address the issue of whether this is progress or heresy.

Reasonable points. At this point in Christian history, we have no centralized authority for deciding what is correct doctrine and what is heresy. This has not existed since the time of the Reformation. [...]
Perhaps it is time for another 'Church Council' to discuss such matters? Invite representatives from the whole spectrum of Christianity to decide on how interpretive disputes are to be resolved, and if we really want to open up a can of worms, on what should be in scripture. Should we have it in Rome? Las Vegas? Tulsa?

Jerusalem!

If we are talking about 'changing the Bible', then we need to acknowledge that the Bible as it exists today did not exist at the time of Jesus. Did those who decided on the current content of Christian scripture have authority to do this or not? When Protestants made a few deletions to the Catholic Canon, were they authorized to do so? By what or whom?

An issue many modern Christians would not like to face.

The glib answer would be the Holy Spirit,

Why is that a glib answer. The Holy Spirit was promised to the Church to guide them. Is God's promise not reliable?

and this idea is alluded to in the article cited by McCulloch (which I found interesting, but as the writing of a conservative Anabaptist, perhaps not relevant to most Christians).

True. I cited it only because you stated that you were unaware of anyone holding that view. I made no representation that they were the mainstream.

THis article allowed that church leaders (e.g. Pastors) have authority to give teaching, interpret scriptures, etc., as long as they don't go against what is said in the scriptures. Unfortunately, in some cases there is substantial disagreement about whether particular teachings or practices go against scripture or not.

Good point. The Bible is imperfect. I know ( not I know of but I personally know ) some Christians who have argued about whether the use of musical instruments are allowed in worship according to the Bible.

The more practical, but perhaps less satisfactory and more ambiguous answer, is that 'authority' is determined in the market place of ideas. If sufficient numbers of Christians and Christian denominations come to accept a particular interpretation, or even a teaching that seems counter to scripture, then this new teaching becomes a part of mainstream Christianity.

Christians not God define Christianity. I'm for it! The problem is that this way leads to further divisions.

In the absence of direct guidance from Jesus or the Father to the contrary, there is nothing to stop this from happening.

It is certainly gratifying to hear a Christian admit that there is no direct guidance from God (any of the three). I wonder why that would be?

Those who proceed with the new teaching will ultimately answer to God, but if they are comfortable with this prospect, it seems to me they are 'authorized' to make the change. Consider Romans 14.

Certainly some would limit the applicability of this passage, but it seems to me that if a Christian, after having examined his conscience and in full faith in God feels that teaching X is correct, then for him it is.

Isn't that what the fundamentalists call moral relativism!

He does need to follow the overall 'law of love' and take into account the effect of his actions on others, and should not do anything to cause a brother to stumble. However, with this caveat, it seems to me he is free to act as he sees fit.

And if his weak brother is a fundamentalist then he gets to dictate to the rest.

[micatala]

2010 in Jerusalem, then!

The glib answer would be the Holy Spirit,

Why is that a glib answer. The Holy Spirit was promised to the Church to guide them. Is God's promise not reliable?

I guess by 'glib' I mean that it is a claim that is easily made, and is sometimes used to avoid hard questions and settle controversies without actually discussing the issues. I am not saying that the Holy Spirit does not exist or does not provide guidance, but I am saying that I think some Christians abuse this notion. Certainly, if a number of Christians all come to the same conclusion on what the Holy Spirit is saying, especially if they come to these conclusions somewhat independently, this adds strength to the claim.

and this idea is alluded to in the article cited by McCulloch (which I found interesting, but as the writing of a conservative Anabaptist, perhaps not relevant to most Christians).

True. I cited it only because you stated that you were unaware of anyone holding that view. I made no representation that they were the mainstream.

Very good.

Good point. The Bible is imperfect. I know ( not I know of but I personally know ) some Christians who have argued about whether the use of musical instruments are allowed in worship according to the Bible.

That would be boring. No tuba solos in church! How could I ever live with such a thing?!

Christians not God define Christianity. I'm for it! The problem is that this way leads to further divisions.

Perhaps you are right. We clearly already have a lot of division, if measured by numbers of denominations and independent churches.

Certainly some would limit the applicability of this passage, but it seems to me that if a Christian, after having examined his conscience and in full faith in God feels that teaching X is correct, then for him it is.

Isn't that what the fundamentalists call moral relativism!

I tend to think in terms of 'relative degrees of relativism' (how's that for an obtuse phrase). Extreme moral relativism is 'anything goes,' everyone with their own set of morals with no central principles at all. The opposite 'absolutist' extreme is one set of morals that everyone follows. Fundamentalists tend to forget or ignore that they typically practice 'relativism' to some degree. They might claim they are following the absolute word of God as outlined in the KJV and that this is the precise and complete embodiment of morality, but they typically ignore some sections, or claim they don't apply, etc.

My suggestion may make things less uniform, but God and scripture are still involved, even though individuals are given great freedom. I would argue that scripture itself gives us this freedom and that it is 'God-endorsed' so, although others might disagree, I don't see this as 'moral relativism run rampant.' We still have to discuss and agree on the general 'social mores' that we are going to follow, even while allowing individuals great freedom in their personal behavior.

He does need to follow the overall 'law of love' and take into account the effect of his actions on others, and should not do anything to cause a brother to stumble. However, with this caveat, it seems to me he is free to act as he sees fit.

And if his weak brother is a fundamentalist then he gets to dictate to the rest.

This can admitteedly be a difficult situation. However, there is a difference between an action which leads another believer to 'lose faith' and an action which merely offends him or her. We should not deliberately offend others if there is no good to be gained by it, but that does not mean we have to be slaves to others prejudices. Clearly Jesus said and did a lot of things which offended the religious leaders of his day. Much of this was done to promote the larger issue of justice, and combat the sin of hypocrisy. I don't think we need to shy away from this.

However, it is a judgment call in many circumstances. If I am debating a hard core, anti-gay, fundamentalist who pretty clearly is not going to change his view no matter what, and is certainly not going to give up his belief in God as a result of what I say, then I am not going to worry too much. If I am discussing similar issues with a younger person, or someone who is new to the faith, I might be more cautious and certainly much less forceful in my approach. Yes, I might leave some things unsaid that I would say to the first person if, in my judgment, the person was not able to fully appreciate or understand the issues.

[McCulloch]

2010 in Jerusalem, then!

I'll try to be somewhere else.

I am not saying that the Holy Spirit does not exist or does not provide guidance, but I am saying that I think some Christians abuse this notion. Certainly, if a number of Christians all come to the same conclusion on what the Holy Spirit is saying, especially if they come to these conclusions somewhat independently, this adds strength to the claim.

And when a large number of Christians cannot agree on what the Holy Spirit teaches, this weakens the claim of supernatural help that the Christians make.

Perhaps you are right. We clearly already have a lot of division, if measured by numbers of denominations and independent churches.

Yes and no. Some, like me, tend to overstate the divisions within Christianity. Not all of the divisions are doctrinal, some are ethnic, historical or political. On the other hand, enough of them are doctrinal to provide me with ammunition for debate.

I tend to think in terms of 'relative degrees of relativism' (how's that for an obtuse phrase).

Excellent! Quite obtuse.

Extreme moral relativism is 'anything goes,' everyone with their own set of morals with no central principles at all.

Surely, both of us realize this position is a stawman.

The opposite 'absolutist' extreme is one set of morals that everyone follows.

And both of us wish that this position was a strawman!

Fundamentalists tend to forget or ignore that they typically practice 'relativism' to some degree. They might claim they are following the absolute word of God as outlined in the KJV and that this is the precise and complete embodiment of morality, but they typically ignore some sections, or claim they don't apply, etc.

You don't say!

My suggestion may make things less uniform, but God and scripture are still involved, even though individuals are given great freedom. I would argue that scripture itself gives us this freedom and that it is 'God-endorsed' so, although others might disagree, I don't see this as 'moral relativism run rampant.' We still have to discuss and agree on the general 'social mores' that we are going to follow, even while allowing individuals great freedom in their personal behavior.

Good luck with that.

[T]here is a difference between an action which leads another believer to 'lose faith' and an action which merely offends him or her. We should not deliberately offend others if there is no good to be gained by it, but that does not mean we have to be slaves to others prejudices. Clearly Jesus said and did a lot of things which offended the religious leaders of his day. Much of this was done to promote the larger issue of justice, and combat the sin of hypocrisy. I don't think we need to shy away from this.

Good answer!

[micatala]

2010 in Jerusalem, then!

I'll try to be somewhere else.

Aww, c'mon. It'll be fun! What if we move it to Rio?

Extreme moral relativism is 'anything goes,' everyone with their own set of morals with no central principles at all.

Surely, both of us realize this position is a stawman.

If only we could convince everyone else.

Actually, I think most fundamentalists realize this too. However, the specter of 'rampant moral relativism' can be an effective rallying tool. I think it is a matter of control. Moral relativism that happens under the supervision of a fellow 'true Christian' is not scary and is OK. If it is being pushed by someone who one does not feel one can trust, then that is a problem.

[T]here is a difference between an action which leads another believer to 'lose faith' and an action which merely offends him or her. We should not deliberately offend others if there is no good to be gained by it, but that does not mean we have to be slaves to others prejudices. Clearly Jesus said and did a lot of things which offended the religious leaders of his day. Much of this was done to promote the larger issue of justice, and combat the sin of hypocrisy. I don't think we need to shy away from this.

Good answer!

Thanks.

[McCulloch]

2010 in Jerusalem, then!

I'll try to be somewhere else.

Aww, c'mon. It'll be fun! What if we move it to Rio?

No, it really should be in Jerusalem. So many theological traditions and religious history. But way to many nut cases!
Maybe Belfast.