Descriptive versus Prescriptive Literature

This concept I wish to illumine is one stemming from common sense as well as holding good academic ground. One can choose a mode of description when one writes, and simply put this mode records the actions as they happened making no moral judgments. Another mode is one of prescription where one marks out which actions are right and should be followed, and which are evil (wrong) and should be avoided. The Bible contains both, and we must be careful to discern the difference in all passages we study. For instance, when Cain killed his brother, that was descriptive, it happened, and we later find it was wrong. That is an extreme case, but it suitable illustrates that just because the Bible mentions something happening, it does not stand that we can follow suit.

Today's sermon failed to make that distinction known to the congregation. The preacher alluded to God allowing us to be angry at Him, because some of the great men of the Bible, God's friends, were angry at (or with) Him, and God didn't seem to mind. No proof was offered other than an allusion (not even a clear reference) to past actions, but that was a portion of descriptive, not prescriptive, literature. We cannot assume that because God did not punish them on the spot for their anger that He was okay with it. We must find clear passages that teach such an attitude before we teach it, for without a clear passage we lack authority to practice the lesson in our lives.

In all fairness the preacher's thrust in his sermon was being honest with God about our emotions and feelings, especially in the midst of a trial (in his case his wife of 20 years died of cancer). He is right, we do need to be honest with God, but I sincerely wish he would have provided us with better argumentation than descriptive passages of the Bible. My friends, let us live by God's prescriptions not descriptions.