This last summer five Roman Catholic cardinals submitted five dubia, literally "doubts" that they had regarding church positions on matters. Specifically they wondered if it wasn't time to reinterpret doctrine to align better with modern perceptions -- with "cultural changes of our time" -- on matters such as same-sex unions, the ordination of women, and whether or not you need to repent in order to be saved and the like. Pope Francis answered.
To the question, "Should we reinterpret Scripture?" Francis answered, "No. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't reevaluate our understanding" -- that we shouldn't "interpret better." That was his answer. However, if by "interpret better" we mean "we come to the opposite conclusion," that can't be "interpret better." To "interpret better" something like, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" (1 Cor 11:3) as "Man is not the head of a woman" (and, oh, by the way, therefore Christ is not the head of every man) is not mere "interpret better." It is erasure. To "interpret better" a text like, "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet" (1 Tim 2:11-14) to read "It's perfectly acceptable for a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man" is a deletion, not "interpret better." These can only be reinterpretations where the Holy Spirit failed in 2,000 years to get the truth across to His followers and now, finally, in this elightened 21st century, we're finally getting right what we got wrong for the prior 2 millennia.
As far as I can see, Pope Francis didn't waver on any of the 5 dubia asked of him. I just want to present that outright. I only bring it up here because of the continuous and overwhelming pressure from within and without to "reinterpret" Scripture in view of "cultural changes of our time." So you'll hear about how the Bible never said anything about "loving homosexual relationships" or that God created the heavens and the earth (as opposed, as we all know now, to Evolution) or that wives are supposed to submit to husbands and the like and we need to change our beliefs because our times have changed. What they mean, however, is not "reinterpretation," but marginalization of Scripture. The thinking is, "I don't like what it says and I don't agree with what it says and, therefore, I either need to eliminate or change what it says." Very clearly this puts "me" -- the reader and interpeter -- in charge of God's Word. Which can never be the case. In fact, I would argue that if you don't ever find yourself challenged by God's Word as to what you believe, you are very likely using your own ideas and beliefs as a legislator of God's Word, a very dangerous place to be.
________
Note: Nothing above should be construed as anti-Pope or pro-Pope. He was only the vehicle I used to get to the problem. For instance, while his response to the dubia seemed fairly sound, he also decided that transgenders could be baptized right after he affirmed that repentance was necessary, so ...?
5 comments:
The timing of this is interesting as I was just reading through Hebrews 13 today. Clearly these people don't believe Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. They believe that doctrine should be changed with the passing whims of the laity. Definitely not signs of good leaders to model our lives after.
Not “good leaders to model our lives after” indeed, David. Rather like the ones Jesus addressed in Matthew chapter 23!
“Dubious” was a fitting title for this post! I am not surprised at all that the RC clergy expressed “doubts” this past summer about their ability (or inability) to synchronize God’s eternal, unchanging truth with their “church positions on matters” (nor that their leader made the contradictory compromise noted in your final paragraph!). As you point out, the proper interpretation of Scripture through the Holy Spirit’s ministry--and our acceptance of and submission to it--are the important issues in view here. God’s truth is not subject to reevaluation or reinterpretation in order to maintain “relevance” as our society slides further towards godlessness; it is the culture that needs adjustment instead. Striving to “interpret better” involves removing worldly influences from our doctrine, not embracing them. Any church leaders worth their salt should hold this foundational position--without a doubt!
It has long been the way of some that the faith needs to change to reflect us, rather than we live in a manner which is a reflection of the faith. They alter what it means to be Christian the same way too many alter what it means to be American, what it means to be a family, what it means to be married, what it means to be a man or a woman. It's a manifestation of the "my truth" lie.
Hey, Marshal Art, I miss seeing your comments here--especially your responses to Stan’s News Weakly posts. As they say, don’t be a stranger!
Post a Comment