I've been listening to Oliver Twist on audio. I think it has a lot to say about our Foster Care system today. Indentured apprenticeship, church-run workhouses, providing for the poor, but not so much that they can have any fun at all... And yet today, we would call Oliver Twist a social commentary.
Yet there was nothing there that runs contrary to Holy Scripture. The bible does not condemn indentured apprenticeships for children as young as 9-though in the bible that would all under the category of "slavery". The bible, in fact, does not condemn child labor either-the father was the head of the household and everyone fell into place...or else. David was 12 (by interpretive extension) when he was in a life threatening occupation of sheep-herding, taking on lions and tigers and bears...oh my... Okay, truth be told, no tiger is recorded in Scripture.
Yes, we founght a war about it in this country, yes, the bloodiest conflict on U.S. soil, yes, slavery is officially banned in this kinder, gentler world. And no, I am not willing to demonstrate in my own life how it might be something to reconsider. But when you take these culturally run structures, when you take the support or condemnation of Holy Scripture, you can make convincing arguments why bad things are good for us.
The thing about slavery is that our choices about whether or not to have slavery were never made by the slaves themselves. People who were not slaves, would never be slaves because of the color of their skin, people of a cultural class who had the capacity to own slaves, they were the ones whose moral compasses pointed them for or against this horrid condition on behalf of those people who were enslaved, or freed from enslavement.
And here we are again, arguing about homosexuality. We who are "free of that condition" are arguing over the fate of those who have "chosen that condition" as it pertains to Scripture and it pertains to the church. And because the interpretation of Holy Scripture is to condemn homosexuality, the conclusion is that people must choose to be homosexual, because God would not condemn his own creation, because God would not condemn homosexuality if that were the "way God made us".
And the trouble on the other side is if support of homosexuality is the theological position of the church, an intentional biblical "set aside" apparently must occur. And we act like we have never done this before.
But if we are just operating on the "plain reading" of Scripture, we have been operating on this "set aside" notion for generations. Slavery, women's inequality, racial inequality, all of these have been successfully argued from the "plain reading" of Scripture. And they have been overturned because there is a more fundamental law running all the way through God's Word.
That is the Law of Love, which transcends cultural and historic circumstances, which transcends legal niceties and moral categories, to go back to that most fundamental relationship of God and us, God's creation. it is what Jesus died for. It is what the Holy Spirit was sent for. It has guided our understanding of God's Word for two millenia. It allows us to live in tension with some very interesting and oddball points of view found in the bible.
And it needs to speak to us again today.
2 comments:
Part 1
Hmmm.....
And here we are again, arguing about homosexuality. We who are "free of that condition" are arguing over the fate of those who have "chosen that condition" as it pertains to Scripture and it pertains to the church. And because the interpretation of Holy Scripture is to condemn homosexuality, the conclusion is that people must choose to be homosexual, because God would not condemn his own creation, because God would not condemn homosexuality if that were the "way God made us".
This strikes me as the classic "Straw Man" argument. You make up an argument for the other side, then shoot it down instead of seriously engaging in the arguments made on the other side. Sin has infected all aspects of our lives - much of what we perceive to be our natural urgings are the result of sin (men typically feel it is "natural" to have multiple sexual partners, the alcholic feels it is "natural" to want another drink, over-eaters feel it is "natural" to eat). God does not "condemn" those who engage in homosexual behavior, but He does call them out of the domination of sin's corruption. God does condemn sin though, no matter how "natural" we might think it is (and isn't that part of Paul's point about setting aside our fleshly desires to pursue the Kingdom?)
And the trouble on the other side is if support of homosexuality is the theological position of the church, an intentional biblical "set aside" apparently must occur. And we act like we have never done this before.
This reads very much like how a lawyer argues to get around a law he or she doesn't like. We can't just toss Scripture aside whenever it doesn't fit in with our cultural attitudes. To approach this with the presupposition that we will stand in judgment over Scripture seems to me to be very wrong-headed. We need to seriously engage with Scripture to see what it is telling us.
But if we are just operating on the "plain reading" of Scripture, we have been operating on this "set aside" notion for generations. Slavery, women's inequality, racial inequality, all of these have been successfully argued from the "plain reading" of Scripture. And they have been overturned because there is a more fundamental law running all the way through God's Word.
Much of this is just plain false. Christianity has been the leading force to eradicate slavery throughout it's history, and has been a leading force to integrate all races and ethnicities. From the beginning!!! It was only when some people listened more to their cultural attitudes justifying racial discrimination that slavery once again reared its ugly head. And it is only when evangelicals pointed again to Scripture that slavery was stopped (see Wilberforce).
Christianity has also been one of the strongest forces to raise the status of women in the world throughout history.
Anybody can assert that Scripture says anything, and frequently people have cultural reasons for so arguing. However, as with slavery, as with racial discrimination, it was actually a RETURN TO SCRIPTURE that ended these practices. With women's equality, again there is much in Scripture that argues in favor of women being equally called by God to Kingdom work.
To assert that the Church moved against Scripture in order to eradicate slavery, racial discrimination and inequality for women is simply false.
Part 2
That is the Law of Love, which transcends cultural and historic circumstances, which transcends legal niceties and moral categories, to go back to that most fundamental relationship of God and us, God's creation. it is what Jesus died for. It is what the Holy Spirit was sent for. It has guided our understanding of God's Word for two millenia. It allows us to live in tension with some very interesting and oddball points of view found in the bible.
But "love" is not some amorphous "whatever". God's love is not God's apathy. Love has a purpose, and God's love for us, why He sent His Son to die for us is to redeem us from the corruption of sin and restore us to a perfect relationship with Him. Love has standards. Remember that "hate" is not the opposite of "love" - rather "apathy" is the opposite of "love". A loving father (or mother) who is told of troubling behavior of their child doesn't just respond "oh, okay, whatever, that's okay, I love him" rather he seeks to redeem his child from that troubling behavior. God's love burns away our impurities (1 Corinthians 3:10-15), it doesn't leave them there.
We in our society have lost the distinction between loving someone and disagreeing with what they believe. This is true in politics where both sides now attack the person instead of the belief system. I see this same confusion here - the belief that if one says "that which you are doing is a sin" to a person, that that means you are condemning them. Certainly, some Christians have been hateful towards those who engage in homosexual behavior, and that is a grievous sin, because none of us are sinless. But the solution to this is not to accept the underlying presupposition (i.e. that condoning behavior equals love; and that not condoning behavior equals hate), but rather to reflect God's love. God's love responds to the individuals need for God FIRST, does not condone the sinful behavior EVER, but doesn't focus on that behavior until the person is ready to be discipled as a Christian.
Post a Comment