(State of CI: I'm on the river! This is another ghost-post. Sorry I'm missing the IB scores freakout, but I think Bro's rattlesnake-catching should provide a similar atmosphere.)
That is a pretty fantastic Jon Stewart clip highlighting the slippery slope that is using Leviticus in public theology. I've been thinking a lot lately about the rules that people follow in the name of religion and how twisted and re-interpreted everything gets - especially in terms of modern Christianity and how it's represented in the media and politics (which in this case are basically the same thing) and the self/community-appointed leaders who take it upon themselves to interpret the Bible and tell us all what God wants us to legislate - I mean, do.
These verses imply that re-interpreting the Bible's rules according to what seems right at the time is perfectly okay - that "right" is a fluid, flexible concept that changes with culture, with the individual, and with the circumstances:
Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these requirements.
Romans 14:23 If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.
1 Cor. 6:12 You may say "I am allowed to do anything," but I reply, "Not everything is good for you."
1 Cor. 11:16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, all I can say is we have no other custom than this, and all the churches of God feel the same way about it. (About women covering their heads)
1 Timothy 2:2 I do not let women teach men or have authority over them.
These seem to say that God's law is to do what is "right" and that we as humans have a lot of wiggle room when it comes to deciding what is and isn't right. According to these, cultural norms and changing situations can affect what it means to be a follower of God. One main idea of Christianity is that "Jesus lives", which isn't just a neat catchphrase but also a reflection of the faith - if the role model is still here among us; still existing and growing alongside our world - then it makes sense that the religion modeled after Him would also be able to "live" and grow and change. By this definition, homosexuality is no longer a sin because it's becoming accepted, and swearing may not be a sin if it's tolerated within a certain social circle, and with proper physical and emotional protection, certain sexual behaviors might be alright as well. It's also a personal thing - if I believe that not swearing brings me closer to God, then swearing may be sinful for me, but to a Christian who's trying to "life-witness" or doesn't believe in that power of language, it might not be. This allows for an individual faith and less judgment among people regarding how everyone else should behave. Keep in mind a lot of these verses are in the context of witnessing, with the idea being that "within certain parameters, whatever it takes to love on people and relate to them is right by God" - which could mean that God prefers a Christian to laugh along with dirty jokes rather than play the blushing-virgin act if it's going to make them and the faith seem more accessible and less stiff, judgmental and boring.
These verses imply that it is not - that only God really gets to know and gets to decide what is truly "right", and that the nature and the letter of the law never change, regardless of personal feeling or cultural circumstances:
1 Cor. 4:3-4 I don't even trust my own judgment on this point. My conscience is clean, but that isn't what matters. It is the Lord Himself who will examine me and decide.
1 Cor. 9:21 (about fitting in and hanging out with nonbelievers) But I do not discard the law of God; I obey the law of Christ.
Romans 12:2 Don't copy the behaviors and customs of this world...
2 Timothy 2:19 The Lord knows those who are His...Those who claim to belong to the Lord must turn away from all wickedness.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to... teach us what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do right.
1 John 2:4 If someone says "I belong to God," but doesn't obey God's commandments, that person is a liar and does not live in the truth.
One thing I remember strongly from synagogue is the idea that God never ever ever changes. He is eternally the Lord and He'll never change His mind or decide to do things differently. This is one way in which He is set apart from humanity. The God of the Old Testament lays down serious, strict laws with harsh punishments for not following them - and even if one believes that Christ's death cancels out this covenant, the idea that God means business when it comes to rules still transfers through the testaments. So does this mean every specific rule in the New Testament is of the "do not pass Go, do not collect $200*" variety, even if those in Leviticus aren't anymore? (*My mom says that when she wants us to do something NOW and to do it WELL and to do it WITHOUT WHINING.)
These verses imply that questioning the currently accepted interpretations of the Bible is okay:
Romans 16:17 Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset faith by teaching things that are contrary to what you have been taught* (*referring to the original teachings of Jesus and the Apostles)
1 Timothy 4:2 These teachers are hypocrites and liars. They pretend to be religious, but their consciences are dead.
These verses imply that it's not:
1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men.
Romans 13:2 He who rebels against the authority (established by God) is rebelling against what God has instituted.
The tricky part here is figuring out whose authority is endorsed by God and whose is "false." Jesus warns that liars and false teachers will gain great followings and that Satan can disguise himself as an "angel of light"; so how is one to figure out whether or not Bush and Dobson are really qualified to speak with God-given authority? My honest opinion is that their teachings should be checked against the Bible itself, and that if they contradict Biblical teachings, then they are a devil in angel's clothes. The problem is this process tends to go backwards - Dobson says "being gay is evil," and people manage to read that into the Bible, even though there's no verse that says exactly that in the New Testament. It seems kind of unfair of God to say "go with what feels right to you, unless of course it's wrong." I think, though, that most of the "authority" referred to in the bottom posts refers to political, not religious authority. Today that issue is muddied with the combination of political/religious leadership - further evidence to support the fact that the Church is not a political organization and should disentangle itself from Washington asap.
One of my favorite teachings is that Judeo-Christian morality isn't for pushing on non-believers but only for holding fellow believers to:
1 Cor. 5:12 It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your job to just those inside the church who are sinning.
To me, this lines up perfectly with the slogan "Against gay marriage/abortion? Then don't get one." We can believe something is wrong, but nowhere in the New Testament does it say "force nonbelievers to follow our rules." It says "try and get nonbelievers to believe;" but it always says to do this with gentleness and love. Nowhere does it ask or equip the church to get involved in politics or laws. This isn't exactly relevant here, but I like it.
Then there are the verses that imply that the laws of the Old Testament have been obliterated, but which do so in a roundabout way that tends to also imply something much more obtuse:
Romans 7:4 The law no longer holds you in its power, because you died to its power when you died with Christ on the cross.
1 Cor. 9: 20 ...even though I am not subject to the [Jewish] law
Galatians 5:4 For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ!
Colossians 2: 14-23 He canceled the record that contained the charges against us...Don't let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink...such rules are mere human teaching.
There's also the fact that most verses about sex refer only to "sexual immorality," "sexual impurity" or "lustfulness" - and the only specific NT examples of How Not To Use Your Parts are intercourse outside of marriage, incest, and going to prostitutes. Somewhere along the line people decided that this meant any sexual behavior outside of marriage (maybe barring kissing) and certain types of speech and clothing. What would have happened if it was interpreted differently - if people decided "immorality" and "impurity" just meant things that felt wrong or were dangerous or hurtful - like unprotected sex, rape, or sex without honest emotional awareness/commitment? What if the interpretation was that those rules were for health and protection and that thanks to contraceptives and methods of preventing STDs, maybe now intercourse outside of marriage is okay if one is careful, safe, healthy, loving and responsible about it? This jives with "Christianity as a personal, living faith" but not with "God as an unchanging, all-knowing being." Why has our culture evolved to allow Good Christians to drink after 21, to wear shorts and not cover their heads - to enjoy plenty of freedoms not allowed to Christians hundreds of years ago - but the rules that didn't change were sexual? Of all the Thou Shalt Nots in the NT, almost all of them are forbidden because they hurt people (slander, lying, killing, stealing, etc.) but sex isn't allowed just because it's "dirty"?
So what do you guys think? Is the Bible open to interpretation? Do "right" and "Godly" mean the same thing for everyone or is it an individual distinction? Do cultural changes and norms have any bearing on how faith should be expressed? Who gets to decide what God says is okay two thousand years after He last explained things to us? What, exactly, is sin? How much of a jerk is Mr. Dobson?
2 comments:
First things first: Did you cite 1 Timothy 2:2 correctly? I looked it up in my NIV Bible and it says "...for all kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness," as instructions from Paul on worship. I also used studylight.org to look up other translations, but they all say similar phrases and nothing about women.
I just found it, you meant 1Tim2:12. Mine says "i do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." On that note, I don't understand Paul's stance on women.
Moving on.Christ's law exempts us as Christians from the laws of the world, but we must submit to authority. So here, should "laws" be read as customs of the world? Like you said, political authority should be separate from religious authority, so we must hold ourselves to Christ's law of love instead of other interpretations of His law, while still honoring the legislature. When Paul says in 1Cor. 9:21, "I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law," could he not simply be referring to love? Love is the most effective way of witnessing, and if he became like a Jew to win the Jews, he might have ignored his own belief from Colossians 2 about eating regulations, and kept kosher. If so, he would appear to not have found Jewish eating practices to be sinful, just somewhat silly (please ignore alliteration). Which would mean that personal interpretation of what sin is is okay. That what is 'right' is relative to each person. And ultimately, if Christ's law boils down to "Love thy neighbor as thyself," is all the other stuff just a guideline? I'm still in love with the amusement park analogy I heard from Betsie Lover.
Let's say a new amusement park opens, and you're planning a trip. You look at the map, and you pick out all the places you want to go, eat, ride, etc. Then you kind of make a trail that you want to follow, knowing you'll improvise along the way as you see other stuff you want to do. But if you talk to the designer of the park, he will give you the best trail to follow, he'll know when which rides will have the shortest lines, when the food will be freshest at certain eateries, and where the best bargains are for souvenirs. That's the Bible. Our roadmap that Jesus and God planned so that "[we] may have life, and have it to the full," (John 10:10). At bottom, I think that we can only do our best to interpret and act on what we think is right. If we get it wrong and feel bad about it later, we ask for forgiveness. We pray to do better next time. We ask for guidance along the way.
The sexual section of sin is difficult. I think the Bible is very clear that extramarital sex and perversions are not okay, but it's up to each individual to decide if homosexuality is a perversion. It's also up to each individual to decide where their sexual boundaries are. If someone is okay with having premarital sex, because they believe in God's infinite forgiveness, is that okay? That would seriously damage my relationship with God, which is why I've chosen to abstain, among other reasons.
I'm trying to refocus this comment. In terms of cultural definitions of faith, it's not really up to MTV (cliched but oh well) to decide if my faith is real or if i'm a good Christian or if i've got things wrong. But apparently, according to the song from Rent playing in my head right now, "it's between God and me." That's really horrible that that line popped up. The paper my college sent me this week with incoming freshmen tips said that 70% of college students reported losing their faith once they moved out/started college. I don't think our culture is very good at defining faith. It's really good at defining bad religion, or bad examples of religion. But how many times do you see a headline or news story like "Girl Saves Her Boyfriend's Soul By Life-Witnessing?" not often.
responses to this would be awesome. sorry for incoherently rambling.
:D
I loved 1 Cor 5:12. Awesome.
I agree that God seems pretty clear on the no premarital sex bit, and I think with good reason. Unfortunately what this (this being no premarital sex) goes along with is the sanctity of marriage, but with divorce rampant that kind of goes down the toilet and we're not safe anywhere. Nonetheless, I think God's point in saying, "Don't have sex yet" was to keep us whole until our souls - as two made one flesh - can handle the communion of sex and have some sort of insurance that they'll stay whole. It doesn't work, though, when marriage isn't treated as a sacrament. I think that when that happens we kind of decide to kick God out of the whole marriage deal and now we have to invite Him back in if we want a healthy relationship.
Seeing it this way, though, means that marriage as it is defined in our world today isn't what God means for it to be - does that mean that we're exempt from the no-premarital-sex rule? I choose not to believe that because I think that the best way to do the whole one-flesh idea in our world today is to take the marriage we have and treat it like a sacrament - the only reason it's so perverted is because people ruin what can be good to begin with. (Sacrament here referring loosely just to something God's in on.)
I'm at our house in Illinois right now and this morning the family visited this Anglican church up here. I picked up some literature and two of the three brochures I grabbed were on homosexuality. I was absolutely infuriated. This is like saying, to every new visitor that comes to a church, "What are your sexual habits? I hope you know our rules. How have you sinned today? Do you realize that we don't think sinning is okay?" Which, obviously, is something that - thank goodness - is not done. This, along with a conversation I had with my Methodist older sister, ties somewhat into the amusement park idea. In my opinion, there is a reason one of the things Jesus says is more emphasized than everything else - He tells us to love. We're also given a bunch of rules that help us to honor God, his creation, and ourselves. Breaking these rules isn't gonna keep us from getting into heaven, if we have hearts that love God and love others, but it's gonna make us live happier, fuller lives and nurture more whole souls. (Hey look - it goes back to 1 Cor 5:12. Our instructions are to teach people to believe in God. Once we do that we can show them how to live better lives, but it's irrelevant until then, no?)
I'm sorry for being so irrelevant. As for the rest of it - separation of church and state was a good idea in 1776 and it still is.
Post a Comment