I was in a bookstore just yesterday perusing for some new reading material and came across a most interesting text in the Christian section. It was a book that claimed to have spent years studying the Bible and coming up with Scriptural revelations that allowed for a Christian homosexual marriage to be viewed as a Godly marriage. I didn't actually read it, but as all things that I come across that seem to contradict what I believe, it caused me to ask some questions.
The pressing one at this moment was "Have we reached a place in our society that we are no longer interpreting the Scripture through the lens of the author's intention and context and replacing it with an interpretation that suits our own needs?"
The answer led me to a place that quite frankly, isn't anything even close to new. See, I was looking for something that was theologically sound. A text that I could trust wasn't tainted by the author's intention to sway me to see things his way; rather something that takes Scripture without an end in mind and leads down a logical path to a conclusion that wasn't necessarily forgone.
What I had actually encountered was the idea of relativism. As often as I had heard the term used, I realized that I didn't have the foggiest idea what it actually meant. Thanks to the knowledge and understanding of my beautiful fiancee', plus a little help from several internet sources, I'd like to pass on (briefly) a little bit of what it means when we talk about relativism as well as those that counter it called apologists.
Relativism basically takes the idea that a concept can be true for a single person, and that it's okay for different people to have different truths. In the case of relativism in the church, a lot of it boils down to the idea that what is in the Bible was true in those times, but our times and cultures have changed. Therefore, the truth needs to change to match the times. The inherent problem is that God is unchanging. What was true for His people then is still true for His people now.
Apologetics defend a position much like an attorney defends a client. Using (hopefully) facts, they follow a logical line of thought that comes to a conclusion. For the Christian apologetics, they use this to break apart the relativist's claims that are not Scriptural.
That leads me to, well, me. I questioned what I am actually doing through this blog. While I've been open that I am no theologian, only passing on thoughts and reflections that I have experienced, am I actually falling into the league of relativism? I hope not. I'd like to think that should I follow a line of thought to a conclusion that is in fact flawed, that I would take the Scriptural argument of someone more learned than me and use it to adjust my own perspective. At the very least, I hope that I can remain open minded enough to consider anyone's position and seek Biblical truth and wise counsel in breaking both ideas down.
At the end of the day, I think one of the ways that we become the most dangerous to our enemy is when we look at our beliefs from an open mind. Not one that is willing to entertain anyone's "truth" as fact without regard. But one that considers my own perspective may be (and often is) flawed, but that I am also willing to risk sharing it in an attempt to then look back on what and who God has given us as resources to really find what the truth is.
No comments:
Post a Comment