“Now I have already shook all of your hands haven’t I?” Foreman’s hands paralleled that of an Alaskan grizzly in size. I had expected his hand shake to fracture a couple of my fingers, instead I felt like I had just shook hands with an empty glove, a soft empty glove. Church had emptied rather quickly, so did our conversation. After two church services and a one hour meeting George emptied out his desires, regrets, and philosophy on me that left my mind in a state of critical reflection for sometime.

I am critical when it comes to preaching and teaching, perhaps uber critical, especially in church buildings that are unfamiliar. George Foreman’s style of preaching is entertaining, motivational, but unfortunately at times, unbiblical. Foreman is a believer in Jesus who has been given a heart for people. I love his entire philosophy in his ministry to nurture people in need like babies, feeding them food and milk. It’s an extra bonus to see him talk about it in person to see his hand gestures for it. There is something comical and humbling about a heavyweight champion having his hands cupped by his chest feeding an abnormally tiny imaginary baby.

With his youth center down the street with a 1,000 plus members I can not help but think in terms of a ministry opportunity for his greatest purpose in life.  At the same time George has great potential for having the ability to create a charter school, but through conversation it is not his time or his greatest desire as of right now. Take a functional program that is already successful as far as immersion in the community to create a broader program that includes an after school tutoring with a ministry emphasis. As a pastor of a small church who in my opinion needs to do less teaching, has a tremendous opportunity to see the desires that God has given him play out in a small group of Christian leaders (who hopefully know the Bible a little better than he does) to nurture, love, and serve. I think Mark Driscoll does a great job in this 2-minute clip of explaining a ministry of this style with a an emphasis on theology as its primary foundation http://youtube.com/watch?v=jFYs7ULlE7w 

It would be more than interesting to see what would happen if God laid on George Foreman’s heart a youth center, with after school tutoring incorporated, all in the name of reaching out to those in need (perhaps in the Fifth Ward) to show Gods love by physical and academic help. This will not only serve a present purpose but will lead into an eventual charter school whenever the timing is right. This program borrows elements from a youth center, a church, and a school. After a trip to Vegas seeing The Agassi School, the location and situation of the 5^th Ward will be more than ideal.

Reading the Bible. What's the point? 

If we have spent any time in church at all we have heard it over and over again that we should "read our Bible" as if it's a great burden to being part of the Christian faith. They make it sound much like when we were kids when we were told to "take our vitamins" by our mother. The whole "read your Bible because it is good for you" has started to sound much like "take your vitamins, because they are good for you."

"A.W. Tozer was once reminded of an old Saint who was asked, "Which is more important, the reading of scripture or praying?" In which the old Saint replied "Which is more important to the bird? Its right wing or its left"?"

Is it possible that reading the Bible could go beyond mere responsibility? Beyond making us feel accomplished spiritually by hacking that huge 5 minute devotional which we may or may not remember what we read 5 minutes later? God has revealed (which means unveiled) Himself to us in two main ways. The first way the Creator has revealed himself to the created is through the creature being able to see His creation that is spoke of in the second chapter of Romans. The other main way in which He has revealed Himself to us is through the Bible. In 2 Timothy 3:16 we read that "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" The word "inspired" in that passage literally means "God-breathed". So I would say yes, maybe the Bible can go beyond the "burden of a quite time" and answer our most deepest needs. Maybe instead of reading the Bible "because its good for us" we dig into it searching it day and night so we may know Him, so we may find courage, so we may find out what pleases God most, so we find peace, so we know and are reminded of a  TRUE "agape" love, so we may battle temptation by the Spirit, so we may yield to His ways, so we may know how to be slow to speak and slow to get angry. When we search the scriptures we will find a people contained in the pages a people much like ourselves. A people who were children of God, but yet a people who battled sexual temptation, lust of the eye, lust of the flesh, lust for money, pride, jealousy, drunkenness, idolatry, outbursts of anger, immorality, who bore warts, moles, wrinkles, and blemishes just like ourselves. So yes, the Bible is "relevant", and yes God still speaks. So in a way we yet do have a "responsibity" in reading the Bible, but on the other hand it should be an answer to our intermost thoughts, and the God speaking to us through the Bible should be meeting some of out intermost needs as we search it.

We all know that person, most likely its the Grandma or the pastor we know, that has for some reason spent an "unreasonable" amount of time reading the Bible. How did they get that way? How did that person we know get to the point in which they searched the scriptures day and night? Is it because they are just simply good people who just "know better"? That they were grown up as just a little more righteouss than the rest? The answer to that is simply, no. If you are able to talk to that devoted person long enough you will usually find a deep need, or a "that horrible thing" that God has allowed them to go through to where they had no choice but to turn to God and search His scriptures broken and burdened by the weight of sin and circumstance, and of course at the same time Christs love compels us.  

I remember the date of September 9, 1999 that a Christian of about nine years picked up the Bible for himself and began to seek the scriptures. Was it out of my own goodness and rightousness that I searched the scriptures. No. It was in the midst of an anxiety and fear about eternity that I have no words to describe, rooted with a most serious doubt of His exsistence. Out of that situation and only that situation did I need God to speak to me in a most clear  way that meet the greatest needs of my soul. Of course my question of His exsistence was not answered by reading the Bible in a single night, but rather Himself revealing more and more of His nature to me over a longer period of time through circumstance and prayer, but chiefly speaking to me through his infallible word.

One other reason why reading the Bible is so important is because our "feelings" are extremely unreliable. Our "feeling" and the truth can be two opposite things, both our feelings as emotion and our feelings on who God is in a doctrinal and theological sense. One example of the feeling as an emotion is when you dont "feel like God loves you" at a certain point in time, and at that specific time the only way we my know His love is because it is truth in scripture through the words and actions of Christ whether we "feel" it or not. An example in a doctrinal sense would be more like someone saying "I dont feel that sex before marriage is wrong", because it is "taylored" to their own pleasures at that time when in reality the Truth states quite the contrary.

Lastly we live in a world of confusion, new philosophies, debates, politics, and cults (as there has always been i guess). We gotta know our stuff so to speak not for the sake of arguement, but rather for the sake of Chirst so we are not a people of compromise but rather a people you can give true answers with kindness, love, and respect. Again not for the sake of ourselves in winning debate, but that others may know Him.

Currently Reading Knowing Scripture By Robert Charles Sproul see related

"Knowing Scripture" by R.C. Sproul- A Book Review

With the help of Hurricane Rita(a wave of death and destruction, what?) I was just able to finish off "Knowing Scripture" by R.C. Sproul. At first look at the cover of this book one would think it is a book on "scripture memorization" or the best way to tab your bible findining the main themes of each book, but it is rather based on the correct and safest way to interpret scripture. This book was "off the chain" (thats means it's really really good), its starts out very simple and is targeted for both people who are brand new believers who dont know much about the bible to students of the bible for +years, and later on you will find some big words and complicated sections in a classic R.C. style that will hurt your head if you dont take breaks. As the book goes on you find out some very helpful ways to stay away from misinterpreting scripture or reading things in to scripture that the orignal writers never intended to say. He does not present "the only way to interpret scripture" but rather talks about the different views through out church history, leaving the correct ways and best "rules of thumb" clearly visible and communicated, from the early Catholic Church, to the Luther and the Reformers, to the Puritans. He also brings up some of the more problematic principles that more liberal and philosophical methods used that have come up more recently. If you look at the vast number of "how to intepret the bible correctly" books today you will find Sproul's book referenced frequently, for it is a book that has withstood the test of time. With 125 pages, chapters with titles such as, Why Study the Bible, Personal Bible Study & Private Interpretation, Hermeneutics: The Science of Interpretation, Practical Rules for Biblical Interpratation, Culture and the Bible, and Practical Tools for Bible Study, you can't go wrong.

Sensus Literalis

 Should we take the Bible literally?

       Luther’s principle of interpreting the Bible was by its Sensus Literalis or in other words by its literal sense. The term literal comes from the word litera which actually means letter. To interpret something literally it is to pay attention to and follow the litera, the letters and words being used. To interpret the Bible we must interpret it as literature, not meaning that it is “just another piece of literature or just another book” but rather we should interpret it using the same rules that we interpret literature with, the normal rules of grammar such as speech, syntax, and context. The Bible itself is a book that is inspired by the Holy Spirit but it does not exclude it from falling under the normal rules of grammar for even under this great inspiration a noun is still a noun and a verb is still a verb. The early Protestants principle for interpreting the bible was nothing out of the ordinary of literary analysis. This principal of literal interpretation is a principal that calls for the closest kind of literary scrutiny of the text. With this said we must not take things out of context. Sometimes (especially in some of Paul’s Epistles) we see that Paul was writing a letter to a specific group of people at a specific time. The first question that comes to my mind is should we throw this out? Of course not, for the Bible is indeed inspired by God and infallible, so we must dig a bit deeper to see why Paul said what he did to specific groups of people at times, giving us a greater understanding of living the Christian life. Much of Paul’s writing is Didactic literature, literature that teaches or explains.

            “The relationship between the Gospels and the Epistles (letters) often has been defined in the simple terms of saying that the gospels record what Jesus did and the Epistles interpret the significance of what He did. Such a description is an oversimplification in that the Gospels often teach and interpret as they are giving narration. But it is true that the emphasis in the Gospel is found in the record of events, while the epistles are more concerned with interpreting those events in terms of doctrine, exhortation and application. Since the Epistles are largely interpretative and come after the Gospels in order of organization, the early Reformers maintained the principle that the Epistles should interpret the Gospels rather than the other way around. This rule is not absolute but a helpful rule of thumb. This order of interpretation is puzzling to many since the Gospels contain not only the acts of Jesus but his teaching as well. Does not this mean that Jesus’ words and teaching are given less authority than the apostles? This is certainly not the intent of the principle. Neither the Epistles nor the Gospels or the Epistles were given superior authority over the other by the Reformers. Rather the Gospels and Epistles have equal authority, though there may be a difference in the order of interpretation.”

            The principal of interpreting the narrative by the “Didactic” is not designed to set apostle against apostle or apostle against Christ. It is more of recognizing that one of the most important tasks of the apostle is to interpret the mind of Christ for His people.

            The question that naturally follows this is why do we need someone to interpret the mind of Christ for us? We know the phrase and remember the trend of the bracelets WWJD, and sometimes this is not the wisest thing to ask ourselves because our tasks in being obedient to Jesus do not mean fulfill Christ’s mission. We were not sent into the world to save men from their sins, and can never speak with absolute authority about anything like Jesus did, nor are we the Lord of the Church. The better question to ask rather is “What would Jesus have me do”, and we can know these things from Christ himself and also the mind of Christ seen in the Epistles.

The Second Rule of Hermeneutics: The Bible should be interpreted to its literal sense.

This subject is well exhausted and there is an abundance of literature on how to interpret scripture and if we are to take the Bible literal or not. There is no need in reinventing the wheel on this subject and so much of what I wrote here is paraphrased out of the book “Knowing Scripture” by R.C. Sproul, and it is a repeated recommendation by the great apologist Hank Hanegraaff aka. Bible Answer Man. These few paragraphs fall short of even an intro into biblical interpretation and much more can be explored on this subject.