Notice: This page represents a project in development, and perhaps a very slow development at that; and does not yet represent a settled opinion as of 4/12/03. It is more a musing and wondering at this stage. For more current essays see Wesley and/or Romans.
1/30/97 Thursday 5:10 AM This is an exchange with a brother in Christ about the subject of bible believing:
TE had said:
> I am not always certain when you have your tongue firmly in cheek (I
> accidentally typed "check", perhaps a Freudian slip). Almost all
> Biblical Christians (the others are probably only nominal Christians)
> agreed on basic meaning of Scriptures but may differ on when Scriptural
> literature is to be interpreted as figurative. While RC's claim
> literalism when Jesus said the Passover wine and bread were His body,
> Protestants see Him as speaking symbolically. Other verses are
> oppositely interpreted. Very few Christians accept as literal Jesus
> supposed admonition to pluck out ones eye or cut off ones limb to avoid
> Hell. If one understands the context and language, one can understand
> the meanings, especially if one interprets Scripture with other
> Scripture.
>
> The problem with unbelievers who teach in UM and other seminaries and
> preach in too many pulpits is that they don't believe Scripture is
> inspired of God and try to come up with all kinds of explanations why
> different epistles weren't written by who the text says and why someone
> taught in a direct line of teachers from Jesus could not know the falsity
> of some epistles in 180 AD whereas someone in 1900 AD can. Believers in
> good faith can differ over interpretation, but what separates the
> liberal non-believers from the believers is faith in God's primary
> communication with mankind, which by definition includes women.
>
> You did not explain why those who claim Wesleyan heritage tend to deny
> God's communication with earthlings through Scripture more than
> those of other heritages, including Baptists.
>
Philip said in reply:
I have heard it said, surely as a joke, that a Methodist is a Baptist who
>learned how to read. I wonder if that is the answer to your question at the
>bottom.
TE replied:
[Since Methodist tend not to read the Bible and Baptist do, it is not particularly apropos.]
>
>
Philip had said (TE quoting):
I gather you mean below that people who do not believe that the Bible is
>the sole source of truth, i.e., all Lutherans, all methodist, all Anglican,
>all Greeks, all Romans, all Salvation army people, are not Christian
>(except nominally). You contrast bible believers with nominal Christians,
>the implication being that if you do not believe the bible is entirely
>accurate or if you believe other sources of truth along with the bible, you
>simply are not a Christian. Yours in a new creed, if I am not mistaken,
>although I think I remember Jerry Farwell saying something like that.
TE had replied:
[As usual you pervert everything anybody else says and try to win an
> argument by knocking down straw men (shemen) you established. You ask to
> be read and taken seriously in your long essays but make fun of anyone
> else's arguments. That is hardly the mark of a sincere seeker of truth.
> Therefore, I shall end any attempt to dialogue with you.]
>
>Philip had said:
I doubt that the sky is a metallic dome, and I doubt that God
> said to kill the infants of Jericho (I almost said Bethlehem), ergo I am
> no Christian. Curious!
>
Now Philip says:
I apologize for the bite in my speech in this exchange. I am a bit sensitive about the pain that I see caused in the world by bible believers, so-called, whom I take for the most part as literalists, but who, it seems to me, pick and chose their literalism and then often utilize it, perhaps reluctantly (I do not know), to cause pain to others. So please forgive me. I shall now try to answer your letter more responsibly.
Your complaints and objections have help make me realize again and anew the importance of the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) in the dissection of the scriptures between law and prophet on the one hand and human dross on the other, like Moses' intimations on divorce (Matthew 19:7-9).
I wonder how it is possible for anyone to come to the bible as it is and to make the distinction that Paul and we do between the law and manners, since the law (don't murder) and manners (don't eat pork or touch dead bodies) are given in the same authoritarian way in the bible. But then we see what Jesus does, i.e., he distinguish morality and decency and righteousness from manners by means of the golden rule. If you don't want someone to do something to you, then that is a law and you must do not that to them, etc.; and especially in its positive rendering, namely it is the will of God that you do unto others that which you would want done to you if you were that person (and not merely if you were in the place of that person).
Therefore when we begin with Christ and return to the Old Testament, we are able to make short shrift of the work and then insist, as Methodists are wont to do, that the moral commandments are still in force, while the rest is merely a device for the benefit of the recently freed Hebrew slaves and based on the understanding of the leadership at that time, e.g., killing the infants of Jericho.*
[* A complaint against the Baptist and other "bible believers" is this: when I say: X order the death of infants in Y, then I must first identity X and Y as Joshua and Jericho, respectively, in order for a "moral" judgment to be made in this regard, for I could just have easily have spoken of Herod and Bethlehem, respectively, in which case the judgment would be different. That is materialism of the rankest sort, and an error which can only be made by moral novices, such as those who must be told what is right and wrong and must them memorize it.]
But this differentiation (of the moral from mere manners and customs) is difficult to do if you avoid standing on your own feet (as Matthew 7:12 requires)* and instead let Paul or Jesus or someone else tell you what this differentiation results in, for then you are substituting Paul's thinking (or even Jesus') for your own, and you are back into tutelage again, and merely think that you are liberated.
[* Perhaps here is the "truth" in the joke about Methodist and Baptists and reading. The verse says (emphasis added); Do unto others as you would want them to do to you; for this is the law and the prophet. When I take the plain words as they are given, then I am almost awe struck and wonder if Jesus could have meant this literally. Do you, TE, believe in the literal meaning of this verse? or is this merely hyperbole? I assume you have read the essay on the Golden Rule-Spiritual Proxy on my home page. Drawing on our reading lessons do we see what is not the authority here? there is no mention of what Jesus wants or what Paul wants but rather only what you would want. Likewise this is not what the law and prophet hang on, but rather what they are. Am I being too literal?!]
The most interesting aspect of this discussion, I suppose, is homosexuality. St. Mark was recently referred to as the church of Sodom and Gomorrah because we have opened our doors to the world and many homosexuals, practicing and even promiscuous* (I would suppose), have come in.
[* My church condemns (read: suggests that the thoughtful readers of Matthew 7:12 will see) promiscuous behavior as inconsistent with the worth of any individual, for there we are treating other people as instruments for our own pleasure without any concern about their own well being; where it is a form of mutual prostitution where looks take the place of money.]
When I turn and read the passage on Sodom and Gomorrah I see a clear example of material reading and spiritual reading which, I think, characterizes Baptist and Wesleyan thinking, respectively. The Baptist see that the two angels (presumably looking like men) lusted after by the men of the town, and thus exemplifying homosexual lust and therefore exemplifying homosexuality. But a closer reading reveals that the men of the town were offered Lot's daughters (a grotesque episode if the passage were taken literally and not merely instructively) which they turned down in favor of the men. But you don't offer women to homosexuals!* I am sorry (for the kink this puts in Baptist thinking), but that is a fact. Homosexuals cannot get aroused by women and it is only in arousal that a sexual play can take place (as far as men are concerned).
[* It has been brought to my attention by an thoughtful reader that it is conceivable that the men of the town were bisexual, and therefore that it would not be unreasonable to expect them to take Lot's kind offer of his daughters. But if they were bisexual, then why did they not accept Lot's offer? Presumably in order to humiliate the visitors by insisting upon the them, i.e., that the taking by force was the arousal and not the sexual act itself. The same effect then could have been achieved by bisexual men who could have easily have had men for the satisfaction of their sexual drive, but who insist upon defenseless women in order to satiate rather a lust for violent power and conquest. But the focus of the comparison is the reception of male visitors in strange settings, i.e., Abraham's camp and the city of Sodom, and so the vehicle of comparison is male. 10/26/97]
We read further into the previous chapter of Genesis (taking the lead from the wonderful Disciple II bible study series) and find how gracious and eager Abraham is in his hospitality to the Lord (or the angles) when they come to his neck of the woods. Quite a contrast from the environment of Lot (who had his pick of the sites)! Lot seeks to exemplify the same hospitality as Abraham, but is thwarted in his effort by the insatiable men of his town.
Now we see a context where the men of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are actually straight men who have become so jaded with their sexual exploits* that they have turned in an unnatural way (for them as straight men) to other men in the hopes of finding something which can arouse them again to unload their passions one more time.** ***
[* familiarity breeds contempt--a common malaise in rampant and promiscuous pleasure-seeking society.]
[** This is the scene in heaven, I would guess, for those whose lives are dedicated toward the maximization of sexual pleasure at the expense of real relationships--they will be finally played out and have only that which sex can promise, which is so limited, somewhat à la Midas and his golden touch.]
[*** And if we take the bisexual interpretation, we see a situation where men have become so jade with both hetero- and homo-sexual activity that they are now only aroused by violent subjugation of others, and which in this case are only men incidentally; the point being that they (the angels, who look like men) are (apparently) vulnerable and forbidden (by universal rules of hospitability), and it is this vulnerability which is so enticing, which is an enticement of a particularly despicable character indeed, i.e., we are then dealing with the bully. 10/26/97]
The analogy would be where homosexual men have become so jaded that they turn to women in the hopes of another arousing episode.
[This also gives us a hint as to the proper reading of the Romans 1 passages which touch on "homosexuality" according to materialistic reading.]
In the Golden Rule we have the basis for spiritual reading, for we find there (per the rule) that it is not the act at all, that is good and/or evil, but merely the heart which is in conformity with the rule, or not. Jesus' insight here is startling and must surely be taken as the key for the moral insights of Immanuel Kant (which I utilize a great deal in the essay on Essential of Baptist Thinking on my home page.)
Therefore, on our own, but utilizing the suggestions of Paul, the apostles, Jesus and each other (as Christians) we try to discern the law from the the manners, and are able to conclude that heterosexuality is a form of manners.*
[* The moral dictates of the Golden Rule are not suggestions at all. It is only when we seek to derive these dictates from the mouth of another, e.g., from Paul, that we must understand that they are his interpretation of the golden rule, and thus are derived by him. This is very clear with regard to matters like murder, for it is hard indeed for someone in conscience to consider killing someone (although Bonhoeffer evidently did this in faith with regard to the attempted assassination of Adolf Hitler). But it is so important from a moral and spiritual point of view that the derivation be personal and immediate. It is wrong to kill, not because God said to or Paul said to (a very curious expression indeed!) but because it is a violation of the Golden Rule, and therefore because I say so (in conformity with that rule which I accept as the expression {but not the source} of morality and decency.**]
[** It is by virtue of the sin of eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil that we are able to make the moral judgments that we do, for in this wise we have become like gods, knowing the difference between right and wrong, and need no instruction here at all. The Golden Rule is the best expression of this rule (other than the more precise scholarly formulation by Kant).]
Now I wish to confess that I was for a long time actively engaged in sexual (homosexual) exploitation of the grossest kind and that it is a miracle that I was not arrested by the police nor infected by AIDS (for I certainly reaped other diseases in my desperate search for kicks). I decided to put the promiscuous life style behind me (after trying a bout with women for a while [and in a reversal of the Sodom and Gomorrah story, i.e., going against one's nature in an effort tot find a pleasure high]). The result was a willingness to open my eyes and distinguish between telephone pole and women (which had been difficult for me to do earlier, so caught up was I in my search for boys and men). The result was the long term relationship with, and then commitment to, Yasuko, my wife and co-worker for Christ. The result has been the most satisfactory of my sexual relationships, although I cannot truthfully said that I have ever reached the "highs" of the early abandon with which I entered the promiscuous world of the homosexual, and which cannot be sustained anyway short of chemical supports, and even that must finally peter out, as it were; for that is the pleasure of first encounter which is more of a thrill anyway, and a thrill cannot continue when the path is worn. But I do not regret it, for now I have happiness in Christ and in Yasuko and in my brothers and sisters in the faith, and I spurn the transitory pleasures of this world (for I have tasted of them and found them wanting).
[The point is not that homosexuality can be abandoned, for the desires of old still inhabit me, though much subdued now and more a passing bother than anything else. The point is that I was able to put things into a perspective of Christ and found my happiness in an area that I simply would have spurned earlier. This may not be the case with all men and all homosexuals, and indeed need not be. The glory is not that I gave up homosexuality as a motivant, but rather that I gave up sex as a motivant (at least in terms of my commitment) for it was the treasure which kept me fearful and thereby separated from Christ. Once I gave up sex (by intention)*, I got it, but in a different way than previously, and far more satisfying (though, as I say, without lamentation, with less thrill, but which, thankfully, is headed for the garbage dump anyway).]
[* There was a point when I gave up all sexual activity for four months as a test to see if that were possible. It was, and it was also necessary for me (but not necessarily for others) to prove that to myself, i.e., to prove to myself that I could make a meaningful commitment. Since then I have given up giving up, for that "strength" became another idol which separated me from my brothers and sisters in the faith. I am satisfied to say that I am a sinner, even now, and that "in my hand no price I bring, but simply to Thy cross I cling". 2 Cor. 12:10]
Therefore when we say that the Methodist has learned how to read, we really mean that heshe has begun his reading with the Golden Rule and interpreted the Old Testament (and the New, for that matter) in light of that, i.e., spiritually and morally. The other way is to take the bible materialistically and to begin with Genesis as the Jehovah Witnesses and Baptists are wont to do, but in which case the golden rule appears merely as another one of a host of commandments of God and we must differ among them only at our peril. This fearsome approach is spelled out in some detail in my essay on Baptist thinking .
My complaint then about bible believers, so called, is this: they admit that some things are to be taken literally and others not, but they cannot give us a rule for making this differentiation, and they are afraid to use the Golden Rule for that would make it OK to be a homosexual and that they will (a priori) not permit. Therefore they judge first what is good and evil materially and then they seek the justification for that in their prooftexting. The Christian must understand the heart as the sole source of good and evil, and then follow Jesus only as an adult, i.e., making our own decisions in conscience, i.e., as we literally speak to and with God.
Baptists, I think, are fearful that some people will think that murder is OK if it is not prohibited by some God. Plato felt this too. He started his system with an outright lie, namely that God had told him (or the people) to do such and such. He justified it as in their own good.
We begin as children, but when we come to Matthew 7:12 we have to grow up, or else we will be like the Jews, ever shackled to a host of manners and rules designed to keep unruly and recently liberated slaves in check. That is not our calling as Christians, we are not slaves.
[Romans 14 is probably the most important chapter in the entire bible for the purposes of refuting the fears of the Baptists (and of all people infected with the Calvin virus, i.e., the belief that nothing is right or wrong but what is clearly given or inferred through the scriptures).]
Let's keep things straight. The Jew (symbolically speaking)* avoids murder because God promises retaliation for that, and for which reason the Jew calls murder wrong (= imprudent, for the most part). The Christian avoids murder because it is wrong, as can be ascertained easily through the golden rule, and realizes that this (wrongness) is the reason that God prohibits it; but also knows that such prohibitions are unneeded for the transformed heart (see essay on Baptist Thinking), for with the transformed heart we need merely to know causes and effects, i.e., how things affect people, and then can decide for ourselves, and without (moral) error, what we want to do (as transformed people), i.e., how we can best love.
[* Jews are among those in the forefront of movements for decency and justice, and have elevated their scriptures to a high moral ground through their creative interpretation. Excepting the Orthodox, of course, who think it is wrong to eat blood sausage, a delicacy of the Germans.]
It is really remarkable how incisive a tool the golden rule is, almost to the point that we would not need lawyers and scribes and pharisees to help us comply with the letter of the law while being able to violate its spirit, something these professions are expert in accomplishing. (a bit tongue in cheek!)
Again I regret my hasty words, and praise God that in Christ you, Mr. TE, will not let them stand between us as Christians, even though a period of time may be necessary for the riled up flesh to be calmed.
In summary then: a Methodist is a Baptist who learned how to read spiritually. How about that?! Will that work?
Now you also said:
>You did not explain why those who claim Wesleyan heritage tend to deny
> God's communication with earthlings through Scripture more than
> those of other heritages, including Baptists.
The Wesleyan does not deny God's communication with earthlings through Scripture. on the contrary we affirm it. We simply discover through additional sources (e.g., reason, by means of which alone we are able to achieve to language and objective communication) that this message is garbled some by the context, e.g., that Joshua honestly thought that God was speaking to him concerning the destruction of Jericho, and faltered in this because he did not have the revelation that comes through Christ and whereby alone we are able to distinguish the law and the prophets from human desire and human perspective. To take the bible literally in this way is to raise situational ethics to the level of a divine law. What is right and wrong is absolute, of course!, but only in the context of the experience and understanding of the actor. right? A child cuts off the lights to conserve energy for the family and the grandmother falls now the stairs in the dark. Has the child sinned? or not merely thought through all the ramifications of any given, proposed course of action (where we all fail, of course.) It is absolutely correct to look out for your neighbors; it is a matter of understanding and emotion as to who is a neighbor, and this understanding can be developed through Christ. Thus the Wesleyan is able to assert absolute right and wrong because heshe alone is able to see the truth about right and wrong, namely that it is in the intention and in the commitment to love, and no where else.