How to Interpret the Bible Like a Liberal in 8 Easy Steps

By David Norman

Step 1. Redefine a theological term in a way that no Biblical author would recognize.

Step 2. Force that theological redefinition on verses that are not primarily addressing a debated issue.

Step 3. Be sure your interpretation aligns with current cultural standards because they aren’t “archaic” and treat everyone “fairly.”

Step 4. Claim Biblical insight into the debated issue based upon that interpretation and read that new insight into verses that actually address the debated issue.

Step 5. Make an emotionally charged accusation against those who interpret the text in a manner consistent with 2 millennia of church history.

Step 6. Enjoy fellowship with others who share your hermeneutical methodology and break from any traditional reading of the Scriptures.

Step 7. Make Scripture mean whatever you want it to despite authorial intent or other trivial matters such as Biblical fidelity.

Step 8. Declare Scripture to be unclear or inconsistent due to the various interpretation and meanings all traced back to poor hermeneutics.

Homosexuality, yet again!

I have a friend that tells me that talking about gays and homosexuality is my favorite subject. Well, it's not my favourite subject, is actually Jesus. But there is no place or time where I am at, that the homosexuality issue raises its head.

On this subject, Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Seminary, has written for CNN, and I would like to share with you this piece. This will help to to answer the objections and also point a way forward when this issue comes up in conversations and places that you visit.

Without further delay, here it's the article.

My Take: The Bible condemns a lot, but here's why we focus on homosexuality 

Editor's Note: R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.

By R. Albert Mohler Jr., Special to CNN
Are conservative Christians hypocritical and selective when it comes to the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality? With all that the Bible condemns, why the focus on gay sex and same-sex marriage? 

Given the heated nature of our current debates, it’s a question conservative Christians have learned to expect. “Look,” we are told, “the Bible condemns eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics and any number of other things. Why do you ignore those things and insist that the Bible must be obeyed when it comes to sex?” 

On its face, it’s a fair question. But it can be posed in two very different ways.
First, the question can be asked to suggest that the Bible’s clear condemnation of sexual sins can simply be set aside. The other way of posing the question represents a genuine attempt to understand how the Bible is to be rightly applied to life today. 

In truth, those asking the question the first way really don’t want an answer.
An honest consideration of the Bible reveals that most of the biblical laws people point to in asking this question, such as laws against eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics, are part of the holiness code assigned to Israel in the Old Testament. That code was to set Israel, God’s covenant people, apart from all other nations on everything from morality to diet. 

As the Book of Acts makes clear, Christians are not obligated to follow this holiness code. This is made clear in Peter’s vision in Acts 10:15. Peter is told, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 

In other words, there is no kosher code for Christians. Christians are not concerned with eating kosher foods and avoiding all others. That part of the law is no longer binding, and Christians can enjoy shrimp and pork with no injury to conscience. 

The Bible’s commands on sexual behavior, on the other hand, are continued in the New Testament. When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible’s teaching is consistent, pervasive, uniform and set within a larger context of law and Gospel. 

The Old Testament clearly condemns male homosexuality along with adultery, bestiality, incest and any sex outside the covenant of marriage. The New Testament does not lessen this concern but amplifies it. 

The New Testament condemns both male and female homosexual behavior. The Apostle Paul, for example, points specifically to homosexuality as evidence of human sinfulness. His point is not merely that homosexuals are sinners but that all humanity has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. 

The New Testament condemns a full range of sexual sins, and homosexuality is specified among these sins. In Romans, Paul refers to homosexuality in terms of “dishonorable passions,” “contrary to nature” and “shameless.” As New Testament scholar Robert Gagnon has stated, the Bible’s indictment “encompasses every and any form of homosexual behaviour.” 

Some people then ask, “What about slavery and polygamy?” In the first place, the New Testament never commands slavery, and it prizes freedom and human dignity. For this reason, the abolitionist movement was largely led by Christians, armed with Christian conviction. 

The Old Testament did allow for polygamy, though it normalizes heterosexual monogamy. In the New Testament, Jesus made clear that marriage was always meant to be one man and one woman. 

“Have you not read that He who created them made them male and female?” Jesus asked in Matthew. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” For this reason, Christians have opposed polygamy on biblical grounds. 

Why are Christians so concerned with homosexuality? In the first place, that question is answered by the simple fact that it is the most pressing moral question of our times. Christians must be concerned about adultery, pornography, injustice, dishonesty and everything the Bible names as sin. But when my phone rings with a call from a reporter these days, the question I am asked is never adultery or pornography. It is about homosexuality. 

Christians who are seriously committed to the authority of the Bible have no choice but to affirm all that the Bible teaches, including its condemnation of homosexuality. At the same time, our confidence is that God condemns those things that will bring his human creatures harm and commands those things that will lead to true human happiness and flourishing. 

In other words, we understand that the Bible condemns all forms of sin because our Creator knows what is best for us. The Bible names sins specifically so that each of us will recognize our own sinfulness and look to Christ for salvation and the forgiveness of our sins. 

Christian love requires that we believe and teach what the Bible teaches and that we do so with both strong conviction and humble hearts. The Church must repent of our failures in both of these tasks, but we must not be silent where the Bible speaks. 

Are Christians hypocrites in insisting that homosexual behavior is sin? We, too, are sinners, and hypocrisy and inconsistency are perpetual dangers. 

The church failed miserably in the face of the challenge of divorce. This requires an honest admission and strong corrective. 

At the same time, this painful failure must remind us that we must not fail to answer rightly when asked what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. Love requires us to tell the truth. 

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of R. Albert Mohler Jr.

Does Joel Osteen Not Know, or Does He Not Care?

By now, it is clear that Joel Osteen’s carelessness is deliberate and calculated.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
By Albert Mohler.

Here we go again. Joel Osteen is in the news once again, this time for saying that Mormonism is just another form of Christianity. Osteen, pastor of “America’s largest church,” as the media repeat over and over, was speaking toThe Washington Times in an interview that covered a variety of issues. It was the quintessential Joel on display.

Speaking to the newspaper on Monday, Osteen said, “I see faith in America at an all-time high.” His comments came just as a major research project detailed a significant loss of vitality in America’s Christian congregations. That loss of vitality can be traced, among other things, to a loss of theological and biblical conviction. Joel, of course, is proof positive that you can build a crowd without building a church. He is not inclined to deal in much theological conviction.

In the interview, he distilled his message in these words: “Part of our core message is that seasons change, and when you believe, if you don’t get bitter, and you don’t get discouraged, you may not change overnight, but you can get peace.”

That message includes some truth, of course — but it doesn’t even come close to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hell will be filled with people who bloomed where they were planted.He also told the newspaper: “People need to be reminded that every day is a gift from God, and bloom where you’re planted and be happy where you are, and to make that choice to get up every day and be grateful.”

On Mormonism, Joel said:

“I believe that [Mormons] are Christians . . . . I don’t know if it’s the purest form of Christianity, like I grew up with. But you know what, I know Mormons. I hear Mitt Romney — and I’ve never met him — but I hear him say, ‘I believe Jesus is the son of God,’ ‘I believe he’s my savior,’ and that’s one of the core issues.”

“I’m sure there are other issues that we don’t agree on. But you know, I can say that the Baptists and the Methodists and the Catholics don’t all agree on everything. So that would be my take on it.”

Osteen just stated his belief that Mormons are Christians. He then expressed the thought that Mormonism “might not be the purest form of Christianity, like I grew up with,” but he affirmed Mormon statements that Jesus is the Son of God and that He is Savior.

Evaluating Osteen’s boyhood understanding of Christianity would be a project unto itself, given the shifting theology of his preacher father, the late John Osteen.

The main point of concern in Joel’s latest comment is the lack of any biblical standard of judgment and the total abdication of theological responsibility. He relegates doctrinal disagreements between Christians and Mormons to the status of theological debates between Protestant denominations and then includes Roman Catholicism. There are plenty of issues there, and the issues are not the same when comparing Baptists to Methodists, on the one hand, and Protestants and Roman Catholics, on the other. Comparing any form of Trinitarian orthodoxy with Mormonism is another class of question altogether.

Joel reminded the paper’s staff that he has never attended seminary. This is true, of course, but there are thousands of preachers who never had the opportunity to attend seminary who have a sufficient grasp of and commitment to biblical truth that would prevent such carelessness.

By now, it is clear that Joel Osteen’s carelessness is deliberate and calculated. This is not the first time that he has encountered the question of Mormonism. Back in 2007, he told Chris Wallace of FOX News that Mormons are indeed Christians:

“Well, in my mind they are. Mitt Romney has said that he believes in Christ as his savior, and that’s what I believe, so, you know, I’m not the one to judge the little details of it. So I believe they are.”

The little details of it? Mormonism does not differ from historic biblical Christianity in only the “little details,” and a faithful Mormon would be the first to point this out. Mormonism begins with a plurality of gods, not with the monotheism of the Bible. Jesus Christ is an exalted man — not the incarnate Word. The list of categorical doctrinal differences continues throughout the entire belief system.

The very essence of Mormonism is the claim that historic Christianity is fundamentally in error, and that true Christianity did not exist on earth from the time of the Apostles until Joseph Smith. Mormonism can hardly be charged with hiding their movement’s teachings — the Book of Mormon and the other fundamental texts of the Latter Day Saints are published in plain sight.

In a remarkable exchange with Chris Wallace, Osteen muddied the waters further:

WALLACE: So, for instance, when people start talking about Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, and the golden tablets in upstate New York, and God assumes the shape of a man, do you not get hung up in those theological issues?

OSTEEN: I probably don’t get hung up in them because I haven’t really studied them or thought about them. And you know, I just try to let God be the judge of that. I mean, I don’t know.

Here we face a fundamental dilemma. When Joel Osteen hears a summary of Mormon belief that mentions God assuming “the shape of a man,” does he lack the theological discernment to hear how that differs from biblical Christianity, or does it not concern him? In other words, does Joel not know, or does Joel not care?

In the end, we have to conclude that he does not care enough to know, and that is the greater tragedy for a Christian minister. He doesn’t “get hung up” on doctrinal issues, nor has he “really studied them or thought about them.” His own words indict him.

Evangelical Christians are going to face many questions in this season, and the question of Mormonism is now front and center. It will call upon all of us to do what Joel Osteen proudly has not done — to study and think about these issues. In this political moment, we will have to think carefully and act judiciously without confusing the theological questions. We will need the full wealth of Christian conviction.

We will also need deep doctrinal discernment mixed with urgent spiritual concern. The Latter Day Saints include some of the most wonderful and kind people we will ever meet. They put a great emphasis on character and on the moral values of our common concern. They talk freely and passionately about their own beliefs, including their beliefs concerning Jesus Christ. Furthermore, they put action behind their commitments, sending their young people on mission and fueling a worldwide movement that remains one of the fastest-growing on the planet.

But their beliefs concerning Jesus Christ are not those of historic Christianity, and their understanding of salvation differs radically from the message of the New Testament. It is the responsibility of every Christian — and most certainly every Christian minister — to know this.

Joel Osteen told The Washington Times that he is constantly “looking for new ways to influence the culture.” Our culture admires those with low theological commitment and high emphasis on attitude. In Joel Osteen’s case, it is the secular culture that has influenced the minister, and not the minister that is influencing the culture.

Theological education in crisis

Michael Jensen
October 4th, 2011

1. Theological education - meaning 'tertiary level academic theological study' - is under attack, from forces both within and without the church. It is seen by some as too expensive. Other see it as too impractical and too inflexible, in that theological education providers cannot give them the educational setting they would like in an area where online degrees and part-time study is proliferating. It is too academic and therefore too unspiritual in the eyes of some. And it is too slow for impatient young church planters or would-be church leaders who don't want to waste valuable gospelling years in the study.

2. Why do we need theological education? 

a) for the spiritual health of churches, and the Christians in them. Knowledge and learning are not the whole of what it means to grow spiritually in the NT, but they are certainly major components of spiritual health and growth. Paul spends three years teaching the Ephesian elders, for example. Jesus gives the apostles 40 days - Peter's Acts 2 sermon didn't come out of nowhere!

b) for effectiveness in mission Once again, being well thought-through and informed is not the be-all and end-all of mission. But it sure helps! Paul is determined to 'take every thought captive' for the sake of the gospel of Christ (for example). And if we believe that the gospel applies across cultures and times then we commit ourselves to the difficult work of contextualization.

c) for the preparation of ministers for a life-long ministry Full-time ministry is a long haul in difficult conditions. People who are called into this task need as much deep-level preparation as they can get. Souls are at stake. Could we demand any less of them?

3. Who needs theological education?

The short answer: all Christians need to see themselves as learners and in the market for some theological education of whatever kind. And this means that church leaders - pastors, bible study group leaders, lay preachers - are in particular need of a more concentrated level of theological study. It is also the case that those who have particular opportunities to witness in their workplaces would benefit enormously from some higher level theological study - especially teachers and academics, but also many others too.

4. What to avoid in a theological educationa) an institution that majors on flexibility - if an institution is determined to give you what you want and to ask nothing of you, don't go there. Education in general has become a market, and students have become consumers. This has been a disastrous change in mentality - because true education actually asks us to become disciples and to submit to a process of learning from authoritative teachers.

b) an institution that makes sure you don't meet other students Online or distance education is what the market wants at the moment. But we need to keep reminding ourselves it is a poor third best.

c) an institution that doesn't have ministry in view as the goal of theological education - not just professional ministry of course, but the ministry that all Christians share in. Theological education exists to serve the church.

d) an institution that doesn't care or cares little about academic standards. If a college has fallen for the current fashion of ‘dumbing it down’, avoid it like the plague. Do not support it.

5. What to look for in a theological educationa) is the whole Scripture central and authoritative in the institution?You can't claim to be studying the knowledge of God if you aren't taking the Scriptures with utmost seriousness, or if you are prizing other sources above holy Scripture.


b) is it theological?I object to the term 'bible college' because the purpose of theological education is not to know the Bible better: it is to know God better. The word 'theology' indicates that study of the texts is the means and not the end. It also indicates that there will be a prayerful integration of the curriculum, and that the confessions and creeds of church history will have their place.


c) are the original languages emphasised?Not every Christian or even every Christian leader needs to learn Greek and Hebrew to have an effective ministry, but I don't think theological study is really serious if it does not ask you to learn at least one of these languages. Given the choice, most people would NOT learn even Greek. Don't take the easy option - because serious study of the Scripture by someone who would teach God's people demands the harder path!


d) are Church History and Ethics and Philosophy a part of the course?These subjects are all auxiliaries to the study of Theology in a way. But without them the theological task is scarcely complete.


e) is community life emphasised?The nature of theological knowledge is that it is a shared knowledge - learning it on your own is counter to the kind of knowledge it is.


f) is there regular corporate worship and prayer?Goes without saying.


g) are the practical ministry subjects taught in a theological way?You aren't going into theological education to learn secular counselling methods, or bits of pop psychology.


h) is the theological curriculum calibrated for ministry and mission?I would be asking why a theological curriculum does not address itself to the context in which those who are studying it are going to have to work. These days, it is simply not enough to say 'we teach the theology stuff, you work out how to put it into practice where you are'.

A clue is to ask current or recent students about their studies. If they say 'it was hard, but it was good' - then I think you have found a good place. If they say 'we had a ball' - I'd be worried. Proper theological education ought to be an uncomfortable exercise - it ought to stretch the student and challenge the student in ways that are sometimes unpleasant.


But having said that: there ought to be a joy in theological education. The knowledge of God ought to be joyful because it is the knowledge of God - the God of all mercies. There ought to be many, many glimpses of his glory in the experience of theological education!

Michael Jensen teaches doctrine at Sydney's Moore Theological College

Good books for a gospel centre theological reading.

Via Gospel Coalition.

Sometimes we can read the Bible while still missing its overarching perspective with Jesus as the center. These books will help you develop and maintain that Christ-centered focus.

Authors to read for further study on gospel-centered hermeneutics:

* = entry level
** = intermediate level
*** = advanced level

T. Desmond Alexander

*The Servant King: The Bible’s Portrait of the Messiah. Regent College Press, 2003. 172 pp.

*From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology. Kregel, 2009. 208 pp.

G. K. Beale

***A New Testament Biblical Theology: Transformation of the Old Testament in the New. Baker, 2011. 992 pp.

**“The Eschatological Conception of New Testament Theology.” In The Reader Must Understand: Eschatology in Bible and Theology. Edited by K. E Browner and M. W. Elliot. InterVarsity, 1997. 60 pp.

D. A. Carson

*The God Who Is There: Finding Your Place in the Story. Baker, 2010. 240 pp.

Bryan Chapell

**Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon. 2d ed. Baker, 2005. 400 pp. Note especially chapters 10 and 11.

Roy Ciampa

**“The History of Redemption.” In Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity. Edited by Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House. Baker, 2007. 50 pp.

Edmund Clowney

**Preaching Christ in All of Scripture. Crossway, 2003. 192 pp.

**The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament. Presbyterian & Reformed, 1991. 208 pp.

Stephen Dempster

**Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible. InterVarsity: 2003. 267 pp.

William Dumbrell

**The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old Testament. Wipf & Stock:2001. 216 pp.

Graeme Goldsworthy

*According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible. InterVarsity, 2002. 251 pp.

**The Goldsworthy Trilogy (Gospel and Kingdom, Gospel and Wisdom, The Gospel in Revelation). Paternoster, 2001. 586 pp. (esp. Gospel and Kingdom)

***Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation. InterVarsity, 2007. 341 pp.

**Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture: The Application of Biblical Theology to Expository Preaching. Eerdmans, 2000. 287 pp.

Sidney Greidanus

**Preaching Christ from the Old Testament: A Contemporary Hermeneutical Method. Eerdmans, 1999. 392 pp.

Dennis E. Johnson

**Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures. Presbyterian & Reformed, 2007. 494 pp.

Sally Lloyd-Jones

*The Jesus Storybook Bible: Every Story Whispers His Name. Zondervan, 2007. 352 pp.

Vaughan Roberts

*God’s Big Picture: Tracing the Storyline of the Bible. InterVarsity, 2003. 160 pp.

O. Palmer Robertson

**The Christ of the Covenants. Presbyterian & Reformed, 1981. 308 pp.

Colin Smith

*The Plan. TGC Booklets. Crossway, 2011. 30 pp.

Michael Williams

*Far as the Curse Is Found: The Covenant Story of Redemption. Presbyterian & Reformed, 2005. 319 pp.

Christopher J. H. Wright

**Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament. InterVarsity, 1992. 256 pp.