A Response to Senator Obama
In 2006 then Senator Obama said this when addressing a
Sojourner’s meeting…
“Which
passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with
Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is
abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays
from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage
that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would
survive its application?”
Yes,
deciding how to apply Scripture present day life is a challenge.
One of my favorite moments in the "Westwing" is
when Bartlett addresses Dr. Jacobs on her selective reading of the Old
Testament. Take a look...
But Bartlett doesn't really deal with the bigger issue of
when Old and New Testaments speak of an issue.
I think the answer to Christian Hermeneutical (thanks to Vince Morris for bringing this up) problem
centers on several linchpins (if that is possible). First we need to view all passages of scripture in the context of
the Bible's overall purpose, i.e. to reveal God and his path of redemption for
mankind. Then we need to remember that
on path of redemption are the two covenants that God made with mankind to bring
about redemption. God made the "old"
covenant with Abraham which brought about the nation of Israel. The chosen one or the Messiah who would be
the savior of the world comes from Israel. Then the Messiah, who fulfills all
the righteous demands of the old covenant makes a new covenant with all people,
Jews and Gentiles alike.
Thus, the civil and ceremonial laws that Israel was
responsible to keep are fulfilled in Christ.
But the moral law defined through the 10 commandments and the
"royal law" of loving God and neighbor, are the laws that Jesus said
were still important for people of faith.
So when applying God's word, both old and new covenants, we
must be comfortable with the saying "that was then, this is
now." This helps us in dealing
with the issues of continuity and discontinuity of the old and new covenants.
God expects new covenant people not to have to live according the old covenant
societal (civil and ceremonial). But the
moral laws that describe God's character and defines the redeemed life are part
of the path of sanctification.
Christians who are new covenant people are to follow the words of Jesus
who through his death began the new covenant.
He and his followers like Peter and Paul, never required dietary, civil
or ceremonial laws. Paul says that new
covenant people are set free from both the condemnation of the old law and free
from having to live legalistically according to it. On some of the ceremonial
laws, Paul would say that there was freedom to follow them or not. But living life legalistically according to
the Old Covenant is not required. Jesus
said, "when the son sets you free, you shall be free indeed." While this refers to being set free from sin, still he seems to infer that being set
from from sin also implies being set free from the law that defined sin.
So, what about shellfish?
They are considered "unclean" and therefore
"inedible" for Israel. But
since that idea comes from the old covenant societal (dietary and ceremonial)
law, the Christian has freedom in this area.
You can eat them or not. What
about stoning your child? Since that is
OT civil law and since Jesus wouldn't
stone an adulteress who broke the old law, then we don't stone our children who
don't follow Jesus. However, this doesn't help us completely when dealing with
homosexual behavior.
On one hand homosexual behavior was not acceptable for the
nation of Israel. On the other hand Paul
says in Romans and 1 Cor. that it is still not acceptable. So here we are, on the horns of a
dilemma. But since we don't the stone
adulteress, we don't stone people for homosexual behavior. But we are still to keep in mind the issue of
"uncleanness." It was a major
Old Covenant theme.
Uncleanness does seem to touch the issue of holiness and
sanctification. We are to grow in
holiness and therefore keep from things that make us "unholy." So both adultery and homosexuality are not on
that path of sanctification. But, they are not the unforgivable sins. Therefore we are to forgive as Jesus forgave
the woman in adultery. And we are to
"go and sin no more" as Jesus commanded. There gain, as concerns homosexuality, we are
on those dilemma horns. Today people want to say homosexual behavior is not
morally wrong, like many people say that adultery is not immoral. So how to we instruct those who think
homosexual behavior is not immoral?
First, we must remember to first love.
Our job is not to condemn but to point people to the source of all love. The as peace makers, we must condemn all
violence based sexual preference.
Tolerance, true tolerance (not acquiescence or political correctness)
must rule.
But what about homosexual marriage? The Christian desiring to follow the Bible
still needs to affirm homosexual behavior is not acceptable. So to sanction it by affirming same sex-marriage
would seem to be a line to draw. Since we do need to protect the rights of
people, same-sex contract or "unions" would seem a reasonable way to
that. But it sends a message of tolerance.
Of course, if churches are required by law to practice same sex
marriage, then civil disobedience is a proper option.
As for requiring the defense department to be governed by
the Sermon on the Mount, it might seem strange to you, but I think it already
is. Words like restraint,
proportionality, precision guidance, etc are all values that our government has
put in place which, I think, reflect the values of the Sermon on the
Mount. While all of our defensive
actions are not successful in bringing peace, that is the goal. As Christians we need to always insist that
our military not go beyond what is necessary to defend the country so people
can live in peace.
Labels: Hermeneutics, Politics