Governance and the Bible
I was reading an article by Derek Penwell, "9 Arguments From the Bible Fundamentalists Should Have to Make" about conservatives inconsistent use of the Bible to support some of their policies. The basis for the article is, if the support for a ban on same-sex marriage comes from scripture than why isn't the Bible used as the authority for other conservative policies. That naturally leads to a discussion on how to use the Bible in an effort to govern.
Controlling The Word
Generally I didn’t take his list as just a simple list of questions but a
way to discuss the problem with the concept of picking and choosing which passage
to take ‘as gospel’ if you will. Let’s think
back 50 years to when even mixed-race marriages were illegal where the idea same-sex
marriage being legal would have been considered outrageous. Basing the prohibition of same-sex marriage
on a literal reading of a given Biblical passage invites the question of why
not take the whole book literally, if it so aligns with society’s understanding
of right and wrong than why even have a legal code other than the Bible? Of course I’m being a bit facetious there but
it is because I want to take the argument to its logical if extreme conclusion. This makes it easier to illustrate that if we
allow that some passages are not meant to be taken literally but rather as
parables then we have to face the issue of selecting a person or group who gets
to decide on which portions are to be exalted above the others for such
treatment, and woe to those who disagree with their choices. At the heart of it, the modern movement for Biblical
inerrancy, seeing as it has only been around since the late 1800’s, is less
about God’s Will than it is about control over God’s Word. The Roman Catholic Church spent many
centuries developing a consistent theology around how to apply the Bible to
life on planet Earth, they didn’t attempt in all that time to claim that every
single word should be taken literally.
They understood that it was a teaching tool whose power was in making people
see how it could be a guide for situations that Abraham, Moses, or Matthew
could never have imagined. Since the Reformation
there has been a movement to replace Catholic teachings with Protestant ones, basically
an effort to replace Rome as the power deciding what God’s Word means, wishing
to usurp the Pope’s theological monopoly.
In the beginning it was done in a
piecemeal fashion such as Martin Luther’s Theses nailed to the church door but as
each new group wished to separate from those with whom they disagreed they naturally
become more and more separated theologically from the teaching of Rome and it
would be logical to see how the outcome can be groups that want to disallow any
interpretation because it affords too many loopholes for the unrighteous to
claim piety while still living a sinful life, thus the only way to insure no
interpretation is a literal reading.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a group wanting to adhere to a
literal reading but it becomes a problem when that group then wants to claim it
is the one true way and wish to enforce their beliefs upon the rest of society,
while that is to be expected it does not excuse them from picking and choosing
the passages that they want to apply; if the Bible is to be taken literally
then it is everything or nothing because once you pick winners and losers you
are back to allowing for human interpretation.
The Bible and Slavery
I’ll be honest, the Bible’s position on Slavery is one that I really
have a hard time with and saying that it doesn’t condone slavery is letting it
off the hook. There are so many places
where it is quick to declare sin like eating shellfish or wearing clothes of
mixed fibers but there are no qualms about allowing slavery even for the
devout. There is not even a mention such
as ‘it is wrong but it happens so live with it’ somewhat like ‘give unto Caesar
what is Caesars’. If you take the Bible literally
than the taking of a slave is just as acceptable as forcing a rape victim to
marry their rapist. I find it hard to
believe that the author(s) of the Bible would overlook such a fundamental
concept when it would have been easy for Jesus to say, “No follower of mine
should hold slaves.” Whenever He spoke,
he wasn’t making law but making general claims over the definition of what is
right and what is wrong thus it is almost a certainty that no one back then found
slavery as a concept to be morally wrong.
He spoke out about the moneylending in the Temple but was silent on
slavery. In all the litany of
proscriptions and restrictions slavery is not considered to be something that
disqualifies one as righteous, so much so that a claim that the Bible does not
condone slavery has such weak supporting evidence as to be non-existent.
Righteousness
Slavery can also point out a theological quandary too. Let’s separate it out this way with a set of
statements and questions.
- The Bible doesn’t declare holding slaves as a sin, thus a righteous man may have slaves.
- If we believe that the Bible is inerrant than must we also believe that slavery is acceptable to God?
- Over millennia humanity comes to believe that slavery is wrong.
- In a country that outlaws slavery can a righteous man have slaves and remain righteous since there is no Biblical prohibition?
- If it is no longer possible to be considered righteous solely for having slaves than from what authority does righteousness come, and who decides?
- If the Bible doesn’t claim that slavery is wrong than do we have no authority to claim otherwise?
- If we conclude that slavery is wrong than how can we claim the Bible is the sole arbiter of righteousness?
- If we conclude that the Bible is the sole arbiter of righteousness than how do we support a claim that slavery, not being banned by the Bible or otherwise declared sinful, should be outlawed?
And there we have the problem on the horns of a dilemma.
Posts
