Everyone’s a biblical literalist until you bring up gluttony or divorce, or gossip, or slavery, or head coverings, or Jesus’ teachings
on nonviolence, or the “abomination” of eating shellfish and the hell-worthy sin
of calling other people idiots.
Then we need a little context.
Then we need a little grace.
Then we need a little room to disagree.
I got to thinking about this after I was criticized last week
for my
post about loving gay kids unconditionally. Some folks were very upset that
I had the audacity write an entire blog post about putting a stop to LGBT
bullying without including a Bible-based condemnation of LGBT people, or at
least a theological discussion around the issue of homosexuality and Scripture.
Bible verses were quoted. Open letters were written. End Times predictions were made. Pillows in my home were
thrown record distances.
It’s funny. Yesterday, in Sunday Superlatives, I included a
quote from Mark Twain in which he referred to a snake oil salesman as an
“idiot,” but no one left an angry comment warning me of hell based on Jesus’
teaching in Matthew 5:22 that “if you call someone an idiot, you are in danger
of being brought before the court; and if you curse someone, you are in danger
of the fires of hell.”
Nor did anyone raise any biblical objections regarding
gluttony a few weeks ago when I casually mentioned overdosing on Sweet Frog
frozen yogurt (strawberry, with a pile of chocolate chips, Oreo crumbs, and
chocolate animal crackers on top, if you must know), or about materialism when I
shared pictures of our new car. (Hey, for some people, a brand new Honda Civic
is pretty flashy.)
And in spite of the flood of emails I get each week
condemning my support of women in ministry, I’ve never received so much as an
open letter criticizing my refusal to wear a head covering, even though my Web
site is full of photographic evidence of what the apostle Paul calls a
“disgrace” in 1 Corinthians 11:6.
We may laugh at these examples or dismiss them silly,
but the biblical language employed in these contexts is actually pretty strong:
eating shellfish is an abomination, a bare head is a disgrace, gossips will not
inherit the kingdom of God, careless words are punishable by hell, guys who leer
at women should gouge out their eyes.
Heck, you could make a pretty good biblical case for gluttony
being a “lifestyle sin” that has been normalized by our culture of "Supersized"
portions and overflowing buffet lines, starting with passages like Philippians
3:19 (“their god is their belly”), Psalm 78: 18 (“they tested God in their heart
by demanding the food they craved”), Proverbs 23:20 (“be not among drunkards or
among gluttonous eaters of meat”), Proverbs 23:2 (“put a knife to your throat if
you are given to appetite”), or better yet, Ezekiel 16:49 ("Now this was the sin
of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and
unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.")
Yet you don’t see weigh-ins preceding baptisms or people
holding “God Hates Gluttons” signs outside the den of iniquity that is Ryan’s
Steakhouse.
And we haven’t even touched on materialism, or the fact that
on the day I stuffed my face with froyo, 30,000 kids died from preventable
diseases and many more went hungry.
It seems the more ubiquitous the biblical violation,
the more invisible it becomes.
So why do so many Christians focus on the so-called “clobber
verses” related to homosexuality while ignoring “clobber verses” related to
gluttony or greed, head coverings or divorce? Why is homosexuality the great
biblical debate of this decade and not slavery, (as it
once was) or the increasing problem of materialism and inequity? Why do so
many advocate making gay marriage illegal but not divorce, when Jesus never
referenced the former but spoke quite negatively about the latter?
While there are certainly important hermeneutical and
cultural issues at play, I can’t help but wonder if something more nefarious is
also at work. I can’t help but wonder if biblical condemnation is often a
numbers game.
Though it affects more of us than we tend to realize,
statistically, homosexuality affects far fewer of us than gluttony, materialism,
or divorce. And as Jesus pointed out so often in his ministry, we like to focus
on the biblical violations (real or perceived) of the minority rather than our
own.
In short, we like to gang up. We like to
fashion weapons out of the verses that affect us the least and then “clobber”
the minority with them. Or better yet, conjure up some saccharine language about
speaking the truth in love before breaking out our spec-removing tweezers to
help get our minds off of these uncomfortable logs in our own eyes.
We see this in the story of the religious leaders who ganged
up on the woman caught in adultery. She was such an easy target: a woman,
probably poor, disempowered, and charged with the go-to favorite of the
self-righteous—sexual sin. When they brought her to Jesus, they were using her
as an example to test him, to see how “biblical” his response to her would be.
(See Deuteronomy 22:23-14.) Jesus knelt down and scribbled in the sand before
saying, “He who is without sin can cast the first stone.” They dropped their
stones.
While self-righteousness avoidance certainly affects
our selective literalism , we also have good reasons for not condemning one
another for the more ubiquitous biblical violations (again, real or perceived)
in our culture.
It’s hard for me to flatly condemn divorce, for example, when
I know of several women whose lives, and the lives of their children, may have
been saved by it, or when I hear from people who tell me they would have rather
come from a broken home than grown up in one. We have a
natural revulsion to the idea of checking people’s BMI before accepting them
into the Church, especially when obesity is not necessarily reflective of
gluttony (often, in this country, it is a result of poverty), and when we know
from our own experiences or the experiences of those we love that an unhealthy
weight can result from a variety of factors—from genetics to psychological
components—and when some of our favorite people in the world (or when we
ourselves) wrestle with a complicated relationship with food, whether it’s
through overeating or under-eating.
Again, it’s a numbers game. It’s hard to “other” the
people we know and love the most. It’s become a cliché, but everything changes
when it’s your brother or sister who gets divorced, when it’s your son or
daughter who is gay, when it’s your best friend who struggles with addiction,
when it’s your husband or wife asking some good questions about Christianity you
never thought about before.
Our relationships have a tendency to
destroy our categories, to melt black and white into gray, and I don’t think God
is disappointed or threatened by this. I think God expects it. It happened to
Peter when he encountered Corneilus and Philip when he encountered the Ehtiopian
eunuch. Suddenly it became a lot harder to label your friends "unclean" or
"unworthy."
After all, when God became flesh and lived among us,
the religious accused him of hanging out with “sinners" (even gluttons!) never
realizing that this was the whole point, that there were only “sinners” to hang
out with.
Of course, all of this raises questions about when it’s right
or wrong to “call out” sin, and I confess I’m no good at sorting that out. I’m
as hypocritical as the next person, judgmental of those I deem judgmental,
self-righteous, indulgent, a gossip, too careless with my words, too quick to
get angry at certain people with certain theological views, too easily seduced
by money and notoriety and…my favorite things in the whole entire world…AWARDSI
LISTS! ACCOLADES!
I too need reminding that, for all my big talk
about a “Christocentric hermeneutic,” more often than not, I’m following a
“Rachelcentric hermeneutic” when I read the Bible, complete with my own biases,
preferences, insecurities, and opinions guiding how I “pick and
choose.” (Oh I can wield every Bible verse that challenges
Calvinism like a knife, but I’d rather not talk about how I’m actually applying
the Sermon on the Mount to my life or what I really think about
enemy-love.)
Should we stop discussing which biblical instructions
apply today and how we ought to apply them? Certainly not. Should we
remain silent when the vulnerable are oppressed and exploited or when injustice
and immorality pervades our culture? No. Do we abandon our convictions
about what the Bible says is sin? No, not even when we disagree on that.
Are rhetorical questions overused in blog posts? Yes.
But it’s good to remind ourselves now and then that
just as Southern slaveholders had a vested interest in interpreting Colossians
3:22 literally, so we tend to “pick and choose” to our own
advantage.
And when we
make separate categories for the “real sinners,” when we reduce our fellow human
beings to theological issues up for constant debate who cannot even be told they
are loved without qualifiers, when our hermeneutic conveniently renders others
the problem and us the heroes, maybe it’s time to sit across a table and get to
know one another a little better, to break up some categories and make some new
friends. Maybe it’s time to drop our stones for a while and pass the
bread.
…healthy, whole grain, organic bread, of course.
Source: Rachel Held Evans
No comments:
Post a Comment