For students, faculty, and staff of Southern Wesleyan University to share information about research and resources.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Reflections @ Rickman
Is there a difference between viewing social issues from an "ultra-conservative" perspective and viewing them from a biblical perspective? How do you determine what the biblical perspective is?
There is a HUGE difference. However, to define that difference, you must first define biblical perspective.
First of all, is the Bible inerrant? If so, it cannot reasonably be interpreted literally. Resolving the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible often requires the text to be interpreted figuratively, not to mention the poetry and parables. But then, which passages should be taken literally? The same problem arises with assuming the Bible is fallible and subject to the biases of its writers, who were human. Did God really will the slaughter of the enemies of the Israelites--every man, woman, and child? Surely even in an "evil" society the children at least can still be saved. The brutal conquest of the Israelites has always been a point of contention for me taking the Bible as inerrant. It contradicts the merciful, loving, and just nature of God, and it happens often within the Old Testament.
There is also the problem of translation, and the bias of the translators of the Bible. This is largely the source of the blanket condemnation of homosexuality. It does condemn homosexual acts in the same ways it condemns heterosexual acts: rape, adultery, fornication, temple prostitution, etc. It does not condemn loving, monogamous, homosexual relationships (i.e. Kevin's aunts), though many evangelical Christians do not believe such a relationship can exist. This is merely a prejudice of society that continues to be justified by the Bible, just as slavery once was. That's very clear by the special attention paid to the supposed condemnation of homosexuality compared to the other sins mentioned in the same passages. People tend not to understand those different from themselves. They tend to distrust and fear them, and they will stretch to look for any justification for their ill will. In short, there is no one biblical perspective. Not amongst humans, anyway. Mine almost certainly differs from the norm on this campus by a few degrees, but I think as Christians we can all agree on the important points:
-Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected.
-Sin is generally defined by the Ten Commandments and in more detail in the words of Jesus.
-God is just, yet loving and merciful at the same time.
Now, the ultra-conservative perspective, as advocated by the late Jerry Falwell: (not meant to be compared with the list above; just organizing my thoughts)
-Condemns those who do not share the same beliefs.
-Forces religious beliefs on nonbelievers.
-Attempts to merge nationalism and religion.
In a biblical view, God is the judge of man. The words of Jesus tell us that it is not our place to pass judgment on our neighbors. In contrast, the ultra-conservative view supports legislation and enforcement of religious law. (or morality, as they see it) This view is inherently judgmental and condemning.
The ultra-conservative view holds that the state of things does not need to be changed, or needs to be returned to the way of a past time. In the words my father often likes to use, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Western traditions--though not necessarily rooted in the Bible--are held above all others as being morally correct. This has proven to be dangerous logic to minorities and has been used to oppress people throughout history.
I found Falwell's endorsement of capitalism and condemnation of socialism particularly interesting. Really, I've always found religious conservatives opposition to socialism and socialist measures, such as nationalized healthcare, odd. Capitalism and its effects run counter to Christ's teachings on wealth, materialism, and caring for the poor. These teachings are very obviously disregarded by most Christians and religious conservatives in particular. The "American Dream" is not the Christian dream, but Falwell's views and many religious conservatives would make it seem so. By Christian standards, an ideal society would not be capitalist. But that doesn't fit with our nation's ideals. Unfortunately, politicians have promoted national agendas and ideals as being based in Christianity, or the will of God. Also unfortunately, Christians have embraced this merger of American nationalism and Christianity, believing the United States to be God's chosen country. There is no biblical or sensible basis for such a belief.
I'm afraid I'm starting to rant.
Anyway, I believe the difference between the perspectives is that the ultra-conservative perspective is a worldly perspective; though some of its tenets may be rooted in the Bible, it warps the words of the Bible to support worldly ends--namely the self-righteous judgment, condemnation, and oppression of those ideas and people considered enemies. On the contrary, a biblical perspective teaches us to love our enemies. In viewing social issues the ultra-conservative perspective condemns that which it opposes. We've seen this in the form of Jim Crow laws and continue to see it today with anti-gay legislation. I believe a biblical view would call a sin a sin, but leave it up to God to judge in the case of victimless "crimes." A biblical view would also actively emphasize caring for the poor and protecting basic human rights around the world, as Jesus calls us to do.
People here might jump on my views as heresy, but I think everyone needs to take a step back and hold their political views up to the Bible. See how those views match up with their professed beliefs. Should we really be making legislation in the name of Jesus that makes it harder for people to live? Should we be condemning others because they do not live as we do, when we do not live perfect lives? When Christians do this, it only pushes others farther and farther away from seeking to become Christians.
We determine what the Biblical perspective is by finding out what the Bible really says, as best we can. Sometimes it's hard to know what it says, and it doesn't say anything direct about some issues.
The ultra-conservative, as I understand him/her, works from ultra-conservative political beliefs, and assumes that the Bible is ultra-conservative. The place to start, for Christians, should be from the Bible, not from ultra-conservative political positions.
Example -- the current ultra-conservative antagonism toward illegal aliens in the US. I have never read anyone who claimed that that was a Biblical position. It's a political position. It can't really be squared with the Bible's admonitions to be kind to strangers, including non-Jews, in the OT, or with Christ's teachings in the NT.
There is a HUGE difference. However, to define that difference, you must first define biblical perspective.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, is the Bible inerrant? If so, it cannot reasonably be interpreted literally. Resolving the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible often requires the text to be interpreted figuratively, not to mention the poetry and parables. But then, which passages should be taken literally? The same problem arises with assuming the Bible is fallible and subject to the biases of its writers, who were human. Did God really will the slaughter of the enemies of the Israelites--every man, woman, and child? Surely even in an "evil" society the children at least can still be saved. The brutal conquest of the Israelites has always been a point of contention for me taking the Bible as inerrant. It contradicts the merciful, loving, and just nature of God, and it happens often within the Old Testament.
There is also the problem of translation, and the bias of the translators of the Bible. This is largely the source of the blanket condemnation of homosexuality. It does condemn homosexual acts in the same ways it condemns heterosexual acts: rape, adultery, fornication, temple prostitution, etc. It does not condemn loving, monogamous, homosexual relationships (i.e. Kevin's aunts), though many evangelical Christians do not believe such a relationship can exist. This is merely a prejudice of society that continues to be justified by the Bible, just as slavery once was. That's very clear by the special attention paid to the supposed condemnation of homosexuality compared to the other sins mentioned in the same passages. People tend not to understand those different from themselves. They tend to distrust and fear them, and they will stretch to look for any justification for their ill will. In short, there is no one biblical perspective. Not amongst humans, anyway. Mine almost certainly differs from the norm on this campus by a few degrees, but I think as Christians we can all agree on the important points:
-Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected.
-Sin is generally defined by the Ten
Commandments and in more detail in the words of Jesus.
-God is just, yet loving and merciful at the same time.
Now, the ultra-conservative perspective, as advocated by the late Jerry Falwell: (not meant to be compared with the list above; just organizing my thoughts)
ReplyDelete-Condemns those who do not share the same beliefs.
-Forces religious beliefs on nonbelievers.
-Attempts to merge nationalism and religion.
In a biblical view, God is the judge of man. The words of Jesus tell us that it is not our place to pass judgment on our neighbors. In contrast, the ultra-conservative view supports legislation and enforcement of religious law. (or morality, as they see it) This view is inherently judgmental and condemning.
The ultra-conservative view holds that the state of things does not need to be changed, or needs to be returned to the way of a past time. In the words my father often likes to use, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Western traditions--though not necessarily rooted in the Bible--are held above all others as being morally correct. This has proven to be dangerous logic to minorities and has been used to oppress people throughout history.
I found Falwell's endorsement of capitalism and condemnation of socialism particularly interesting. Really, I've always found religious conservatives opposition to socialism and socialist measures, such as nationalized healthcare, odd. Capitalism and its effects run counter to Christ's teachings on wealth, materialism, and caring for the poor. These teachings are very obviously disregarded by most Christians and religious conservatives in particular. The "American Dream" is not the Christian dream, but Falwell's views and many religious conservatives would make it seem so. By Christian standards, an ideal society would not be capitalist. But that doesn't fit with our nation's ideals. Unfortunately, politicians have promoted national agendas and ideals as being based in Christianity, or the will of God. Also unfortunately, Christians have embraced this merger of American nationalism and Christianity, believing the United States to be God's chosen country. There is no biblical or sensible basis for such a belief.
I'm afraid I'm starting to rant.
Anyway, I believe the difference between the perspectives is that the ultra-conservative perspective is a worldly perspective; though some of its tenets may be rooted in the Bible, it warps the words of the Bible to support worldly ends--namely the self-righteous judgment, condemnation, and oppression of those ideas and people considered enemies. On the contrary, a biblical perspective teaches us to love our enemies. In viewing social issues the ultra-conservative perspective condemns that which it opposes. We've seen this in the form of Jim Crow laws and continue to see it today with anti-gay legislation. I believe a biblical view would call a sin a sin, but leave it up to God to judge in the case of victimless "crimes." A biblical view would also actively emphasize caring for the poor and protecting basic human rights around the world, as Jesus calls us to do.
People here might jump on my views as heresy, but I think everyone needs to take a step back and hold their political views up to the Bible. See how those views match up with their professed beliefs. Should we really be making legislation in the name of Jesus that makes it harder for people to live? Should we be condemning others because they do not live as we do, when we do not live perfect lives? When Christians do this, it only pushes others farther and farther away from seeking to become Christians.
So...anyone else care to discuss?
We determine what the Biblical perspective is by finding out what the Bible really says, as best we can. Sometimes it's hard to know what it says, and it doesn't say anything direct about some issues.
ReplyDeleteThe ultra-conservative, as I understand him/her, works from ultra-conservative political beliefs, and assumes that the Bible is ultra-conservative. The place to start, for Christians, should be from the Bible, not from ultra-conservative political positions.
Example -- the current ultra-conservative antagonism toward illegal aliens in the US. I have never read anyone who claimed that that was a Biblical position. It's a political position. It can't really be squared with the Bible's admonitions to be kind to strangers, including non-Jews, in the OT, or with Christ's teachings in the NT.