Wednesday, September 02, 2015

The Arbiter of Righteousness


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.

 

2 comments:

Craig said...

Two years later, I presume it is as good a time as any to address some of the claims made in this post. :-)

These are largely questions that should be informed by hermeneutics (the principles used to interpret the Bible). Inerrancy is largely a fundamentalist doctrine that conflates Christ and the Bible as the Word of God. Christianity is not Islam, where the Koran is literally the Word of God. In Christianity, Christ is the Word of God and the Bible is a witness of Jesus and His Gospel. When viewed from this perspective, many of these questions in the article become non-sensical. The Bible is not a political treatise or even a moral treatise. To try to make it into those is to miss the point and ask silly questions like why it doesn't condemn slavery or condone universal healthcare.

Craig said...

With this in mind, there is a worldview that the Scriptures set forth, establishing patterns that are normative and governing. One might wonder about the why behind these, but they are regardless of our ponderings. One might wonder what the fifth (or Nth since we don't know) dimensional source / cause of gravity is, but our desire to understand does not change the effects of gravity as a force in our universe. Likewise, the moral forces at play in our universe are there and impact us even though we might not understand fully.

Re: slavery - humans fell and sin reigns in the world and in human's hearts. Men and women were created equal (Gen 2), but people in their sin loved power more than their neighbors. The strong enslaved the weak and oppressed the poor. God constantly rails against this and makes clear that He is on the side of poor, the widows and the orphans. What's more, in Galatians 3, St.Paul proclaims that in Christ there is neither slave nor free - equality and freedom have been restored in Christ.

One could set up a similar Scriptural governing narrative for marriage, but I'll stop here for now.