Umberella, Reading the Bible, and “Fee and Me pt. 2”

a)
Was pretty excited when I found out that Mandy Moore (Danny S.’s big crush) had performed her rendition of Rihanna’s Umbrella for Yahoo Music (available online at: music.yahoo.com/promo-42778155-53-20070813). But then I was pretty sad - no one is laughing, its not smile inducing; it is pretty humourless. She takes all the fun out of the song :(.

However, after the three minutes were over, I kinda felt like she had captured the original intent of the song better than Rihanna. It was actually the first time I’d heard the song’s lyrics:

When the sun shines
We’ll shine together
Told you I'll be here forever
Said I'll always be your friend
Took an oath
I'm a stick it out 'till the end
Now that it's raining more than ever
Know that we still have each other
You can stand under my Umbrella

Anyways, not that these big feelings are big insights into human nature, but just thought it was interesting that as I watched Mandy Moore sing these lyrics while the Rihanna video played in the background, it was more the irony of Rihanna’s over-sexed top 40’s attitude juxtaposed to its lyrical content that demanded ridicule than the perhaps over-earnestness of Mandy Moore’s remake.

b)
An old belief of the Reformation (when the Protestants split from Rome) is the perspicuity of Scripture. What that means is simple: the Bible is not like latin or c++, it was written to ordinary people. It takes work to understand, including reading a passage in context, knowing the historical period in which it was written, and getting guidance from teachers you can trust who know the original languages. But when it says something really plain (like John 3:16) you don’t need four years of Theological education to understand it at its basic level.

But there are a bunch of people who want you to believe you can’t trust the clear meaning of the Bible. They want you to know that the Bible is a big code that people have misunderstood for years, but now we know that what appeared to be its clear meaning was incorrect. But what you need to know is that those people are not the Conservative Evangelicals. Those people are the liberals – those who read the Bible and then back up feminism, weird “charismatic” practices, the idea that the Bible doesn’t have anything to do with getting saved, the idea that Jesus came primarily so that we would bring cultural and economic healing to our world, and, as I read the other day, the idea that Jesus didn’t mean what he said about divorce.

You can check it out on Piper’s blog: http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/880_instonebrewer_responds_to_piper/. I won’t repeat everything, and I want to be real clear about what I believe to be true:

The Bible (specifically Jesus) puts up a very high standard for keeping the covenant of marriage. And I think it’s true that it affects women way more than men. Being with a husband who neglects his duties as a father or a provider, or with an emotionally or physically abusive husband is far worse than what I’d imagine a man would have to endure to stay in a bad marriage. However, Jesus’s teaching is clear (Matthew 19) and we have to trust God’s Word - that it is for our best, even in the worst of evils.

Anyways, Piper explains what’s wrong with the argument in Christianity Today on his site, I don’t need to get into that, but it does lead me into:

c)
I actually didn’t want to talk about this too much, but since its relevant to what I just wrote, and cause Shelly commented on it, I wanna say something about Fee’s treatment on gender roles (in the Bible book).

(Again: I’m enjoying this book, just think some things are bad)

He gives typical evangelical feminist arguments. However, he fits them all into one paragraph and doesn’t explain them at all. Most of the arguments he lists are based on really specific (and in my opinion, wrong) interpretations of short “proof texts” (more like verses) (you can see this on page 82). That he would state so many claims, ones that he knows major theologians disagree on, as facts is just bad writing. He does not even reference any books that give an explanation for his claims.

He gives a very typical argument for why Paul’s writings on women don’t apply to today:

“to determine the role of women in the twenty-first-century church, one should take into account that there were few educational opportunities for women in the first century, whereas such education is the expected norm in our society. This may affect our understanding of such texts as 1 Timothy 2:9-15…” – 84

“that 1 Timothy 2:11-12might be culturally relative can be supported first of all by exegesis of all three of the Pastoral Epistles. Certain women were troublesome in the church at Ephesus...” - 85

Sounds good – he takes the text in its original historical context and in its context in the Bible. But that’s not what Paul says! Whatever 1 Timothy 2 precisely means, its grounded not on events at the Church of Ephesus but on the Old Testament (2:13-14). That text is maybe difficult to understand, and I don’t claim to know it that well. But I am sure that it doesn’t mean what Fee makes it mean. Fee essentially makes it mean nothing.

When the Bible says something, you can’t make it say the opposite.