Reconsidering the Anglican Split
Well, I've only just now had a chance to read through the BBC's Q&A page about the recent developments in the Anglican church, and there's something I want to point out.
Okay, a couple of things stand out.
First, if you don't believe that the Bible is an infallible guide to human conduct, then you're not a Christian. It's as simple as that. If you believe that the Bible's a man-made book that needs to be interpreted and reconsidered, you're welcome to do that, but that's not Christianity. Religion and philosophy are similar, but they're not the same. You can be a Stoic, or a Neo-Platonist, or a Cynic, or an adherent to any of the ancient philosophies and still reject bits and pieces based on modern knowledge. Religion, and the Christian religion in particular, does not allow for that. If you want to interpret the Bible, take what you want from it and dismiss what you don't want from it, that's fine; but don't call yourself a Christian. There are plenty of people who use the Bible as a source of philosophy or morality who dismiss its authority. Let's call a spade a spade.
A lot of people give the example of slavery in the Bible. Most of them don't know the first thing about slavery in the ancient world, and they're especially ignorant of slavery in the Biblical connotation. Slavery existed in the Ancient Near East in ancient times; the Bible allowed for that, because it was an existing institution. Under the precepts set forth in the Bible, a slave was a prisoner of war. If one soldier or warrior bested another, he could either kill him, or spare his life. If the winner spared the life of the loser, the loser went into an indentured servitude for a duration of seven years, after which time he was to be granted his freedom. The Bible does not command slavery, it does not condone chattel slavery, it does not recommend the beating or mistreatment of slaves. How do I know these things? A) I've read the passages in the Bible that discuss slavery and B) I'm an ancient historian, so I've studied slavery in Hebrew, Greek, and Roman cultures.
There were a lot of things that Jesus didn't talk about, and generally speaking, if Jesus didn't choose to talk about something, then it was assumed that the existing commandments and laws were to be left as they were. Jesus didn't speak about a lot of things, but the rest of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, did. The people who use this as an argument are no better than the people who quickly jump to side with the Pope when he criticizes the Coalition invasion of Iraq, then shriek when the Pope condemns homosexual marriage or birth control or something.
Anyway, work's over, week's over, time to go get some food and watch Battlestar Galactica!
Many conservatives say the Bible is an infallible guide to human conduct, which must be followed strictly.
The liberals say the Bible must be interpreted in the light of modern knowledge.
They also point out that some conservatives are selective in choosing which injunctions to obey: nobody now takes the Bible seriously on the treatment of slaves, for instance.
And Jesus himself is not on record as saying anything about homosexuality.
Okay, a couple of things stand out.
First, if you don't believe that the Bible is an infallible guide to human conduct, then you're not a Christian. It's as simple as that. If you believe that the Bible's a man-made book that needs to be interpreted and reconsidered, you're welcome to do that, but that's not Christianity. Religion and philosophy are similar, but they're not the same. You can be a Stoic, or a Neo-Platonist, or a Cynic, or an adherent to any of the ancient philosophies and still reject bits and pieces based on modern knowledge. Religion, and the Christian religion in particular, does not allow for that. If you want to interpret the Bible, take what you want from it and dismiss what you don't want from it, that's fine; but don't call yourself a Christian. There are plenty of people who use the Bible as a source of philosophy or morality who dismiss its authority. Let's call a spade a spade.
A lot of people give the example of slavery in the Bible. Most of them don't know the first thing about slavery in the ancient world, and they're especially ignorant of slavery in the Biblical connotation. Slavery existed in the Ancient Near East in ancient times; the Bible allowed for that, because it was an existing institution. Under the precepts set forth in the Bible, a slave was a prisoner of war. If one soldier or warrior bested another, he could either kill him, or spare his life. If the winner spared the life of the loser, the loser went into an indentured servitude for a duration of seven years, after which time he was to be granted his freedom. The Bible does not command slavery, it does not condone chattel slavery, it does not recommend the beating or mistreatment of slaves. How do I know these things? A) I've read the passages in the Bible that discuss slavery and B) I'm an ancient historian, so I've studied slavery in Hebrew, Greek, and Roman cultures.
There were a lot of things that Jesus didn't talk about, and generally speaking, if Jesus didn't choose to talk about something, then it was assumed that the existing commandments and laws were to be left as they were. Jesus didn't speak about a lot of things, but the rest of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, did. The people who use this as an argument are no better than the people who quickly jump to side with the Pope when he criticizes the Coalition invasion of Iraq, then shriek when the Pope condemns homosexual marriage or birth control or something.
Anyway, work's over, week's over, time to go get some food and watch Battlestar Galactica!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home