“The Bible doesn’t say it’s wrong, so I can do it if I want to.”<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, this is a common refrain among protestants and Lutherans looking for some kind of license.\u00a0 We can see this very clearly when it comes to sexuality.\u00a0 One of the most common questions unmarried Christians ask themselves is “how far is too far”?\u00a0 Is it ok to hold hands? To kiss?\u00a0 Make-out?\u00a0 Heavy petting?\u00a0 Sex acts that don’t involve penetration?\u00a0 Intercourse?\u00a0 One can answer these questions with wisdom, but it is hard to do so with proof texts, and so many simply do whichever of these they want.\u00a0 Of course the 6th Commandment says that adultery is wrong, but many consider that this means the unmarried have no obligations.\u00a0 One could point out other passages such as Jesus’ condemnation of lust in the Sermon on the Mount, Paul’s comment on homosexuality in Romans, or the frequent warnings against fornication throughout the epistles.\u00a0 Nevertheless, anyone raised on the NIV reads only the empty label of \u201csexual immorality\u201d where fornication is mentioned (“what I’m doing isn’t sexually immoral!”), homosexuality interests only a small portion of the population, and when one comes to the point where one thinks only adultery and lust are wrong but everything in between is okay, one will necessarily lose one’s understanding of what lust is.\u00a0 And so we end up with the normalcy of premarital sex inside the church and lose any concept of the virtue of chastity.<\/p>\n
We find the same thing happening when we consider the use of post-biblical technology.\u00a0 For example, Rome has long taught that contraception is wrong.\u00a0 Protestants have long responded that the Bible doesn’t specifically condemn it, so it must be ok.\u00a0 Now, however, there are a growing number of protestants and Lutherans who find the Roman arguments on the subject compelling.\u00a0 Some agree with the Roman teaching that contraception is always and without exception morally impermissible.\u00a0 Many others do not go so far as making it a moral absolute, but do recognize that contraception is not simply ok to use whenever and however one wants (and that our typical usage is indeed wrong).\u00a0 But these kinds of moral arguments proceed mostly from natural law and wisdom–they are fortified by Biblical attitudes (such as children being a blessing), but not by specific Biblical commands.\u00a0 We don’t have proof texts, and so most Christians still refrain “the Bible doesn’t say it’s wrong, so we can do whatever we want.”<\/p>\n
But why do so many Christians eschew wisdom in favor of proof-texting?\u00a0 Perhaps because quite frequently, well-meaning pastors and theologians join in the chorus of the license-seekers and claim that Sola Scriptura somehow implies that the Bible is ethically exhaustive.\u00a0 They do not seek license for themselves, but instead do not want anyone to harm their neighbors’ Christian freedom by laying down new oppressive rules.\u00a0 And so they teach that anything the Bible doesn’t specifically command or forbid must therefore be morally neutral–that it’s neither right nor wrong.\u00a0 Indeed, many Lutherans will go so far as to call it morally wrong and harmful to our neighbors to actually discern wickedness anywhere that Scripture doesn’t explicitly point it out.\u00a0 By doing so, they imagine that they are being more faithful to Scripture than those who use reason and natural law to discern right & wrong and broadly apply Biblical principles as they live their lives.<\/p>\n
The irony is that this doesn’t seem to be Scripture’s take on the matter.\u00a0 Rather, Scripture seems to say that whatever Scripture falls silent on is a matter to be discerned by our good judgment.\u00a0 There are, of course, Paul’s famous words in 1 Corinthians 6: “‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful.\u00a0 ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be enslaved by anything.'” \u00a0 There is also Ephesians 5.\u00a0 Paul lays out some instructions, certainly, but they are somewhat vague:\u00a0 we should not involve ourselves in “impurity,”\u00a0 “foolish talk,” “crude joking,”\u00a0 etc.\u00a0 The Bible does not define such terms for us; Paul lays out no flowchart for what counts as crude or impure.\u00a0 Instead, Paul instructs us to “Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.”\u00a0 Once again, our good judgment is required.\u00a0 Elsewhere, Paul even indicates that our good judgment should be informed by the natural order of things:\u00a0 “Judge for yourselves:\u00a0 is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?\u00a0 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair it is her glory?\u00a0 For her hair is given to her for a covering.” (1 Cor 11:13-15a).\u00a0 (as an aside, this video by Rev. Jonathan Fisk<\/a> is an excellent treatment of these verses).\u00a0 The point is that verses like these in no way indicate moral neutrality for everything for which Scripture does not provide a specific command.\u00a0 On the contrary, they indicate good judgment in such cases–and our good judgment may or may not discern the subject to be neutral.\u00a0 It may consider it good and necessary or dangerous or forbidden or neutral or something else entirely.<\/p>\n Now, as good modernists, we like to imprint hyper-individualism onto “use your good judgment” and take it to mean “no one else has any right to say anything on the matter; it relies on your own judgment hermetically sealed from that of others.”\u00a0 This, however, is…\u00a0 well, poor judgment.\u00a0 Humans are social beings.\u00a0 We don’t live in a vacuum and so neither should we exercise judgment in one.\u00a0 We listen to and learn from others.\u00a0 Who among us hasn’t, to some degree, learned how to live well from our parents and mentors–including from their rules?\u00a0 And so if another exercises his judgment, discerns “one must” or “one must not” on a particular matter, and then gives voice to that judgment along with their reasons, it is not necessarily harmful to his neighbors.\u00a0 It may be a precious gift instead, for we all want “our love to abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight so that we may be able to discern what is best.” (Philippians 1:9-10).\u00a0 We most certainly shouldn’t masquerade our good judgment as God’s judgment and call it a new revelation as Rome does, but neither should we pretend our judgment isn’t ultimately about moral goodness in a sense that is in no way God-neutral.<\/p>\n Others who object to using good judgment will point out our sinful natures.\u00a0 Humans love to make new rules for themselves to make themselves righteous and condemn others.\u00a0 This makes our moral judgments unreliable.\u00a0 Reason, after all, is the devil’s whore!\u00a0 When reason and the law are joined, faith immediately loses its virginity!\u00a0 Should we not therefore prefer a source like the Bible that proceeds straight from the mouth of God?\u00a0\u00a0 This question is usually rhetorical, but it does have an answer.\u00a0 Is even our Biblically-informed good judgment fallible?\u00a0 Absolutely!\u00a0 Should we submit to Scripture when it indicates that we are in error?\u00a0 Of course!\u00a0 Any time our good judgment approves what Scripture condemns or condemns what Scripture approves, we must repent of our error.\u00a0 No matter how solid our reasoning seems in such cases, we must let God be true and every man a liar.\u00a0 However, this doesn’t mean that good judgment isn’t our best tool for the job when Scripture is silent.\u00a0 And let’s not over-blow reason being the devil’s whore.\u00a0 Bread is also the devil’s whore (Matthew 4:3-4).\u00a0 That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make diligent use of bread as appropriate & necessary.\u00a0 Likewise, though our good judgment must be subject to and instructed by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, we have been given no command to shelve it where Scripture is silent.<\/p>\n Though the Bible is exhaustive concerning the Gospel and Salvation, it is not exhaustive when it comes to ethics.\u00a0 It was not meant to be because it is not primarily a guide to right living but a declaration that Christ has lived rightly in our stead.\u00a0 Consider the Sermon on the Mount:\u00a0 Jesus issues many instances of “You have heard it said… but I say to you…”\u00a0 For example, “You have heard that it was said, ‘you shall not commit adultery.’\u00a0 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”\u00a0 Here, Jesus disabuses those legalists who thought they were doing ok because they kept the letter of the law.\u00a0 The point is not “you had one rule, but now you have two and I’ve gotcha with the second!”\u00a0 That is still legalism.\u00a0 He is instead telling us that “thou shalt not commit adultery” always went deeper than the barest literal reading.\u00a0 Naturally, Luther agrees, which is why his explanation of the 6th commandment isn’t “do not have intercourse with anyone else if you’re married,” but instead “we should fear and love God so that we live a chaste and decent life in word and deed and each love and honor our spouse.”<\/p>\n Salvation is not simply a ticket to heaven–Christ has given us new lives to lead in Him.\u00a0 These are not truncated quasi-human lives that exclude certain brain functions.\u00a0 They are full and abundant lives that encompass our entire selves.\u00a0 The sinful flesh that still clings to us will sometimes lead us astray, but these sins are likewise paid for.\u00a0 We must lead our lives at the foot of the Cross, but let us not neglect to actually lead them as best we can.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" “The Bible doesn’t say it’s wrong, so I can do it if I want to.” Unfortunately, this is a common refrain among protestants and Lutherans looking for some kind of license.\u00a0 We can see this very clearly when it comes … Continue reading