Ever since the passage of the Ten Commandments bill, I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the idea that some laws which used to matter a great deal to the ancient Hebrews ought not carry much weight in the here and now. The basic idea here is that a morally-perfect and changeless transcendental mimd created human beings and revealed His perfect law to some of them, but now some of these laws are no longer worthwhile. Consider for a moment only those Mosaic and Levitical laws for which the penalty was death. Is it philosophically consistent for believers to say that we should decriminalize any of them? If these crimes were once so serious as to warrant death in a society set up by an all-wise and morally exemplary being, it seems terribly counterintuitive to reduce such transgressions to mere foibles, the suppression of which is best left to culture and personal conscience.
Bible-believing Christians usually deal with this problem by pointing out that they are no longer bound by the ancient Hebrew laws. There is ample New Testament support for this proposition, no doubt, but this does not really solve the problem. Christians who vote must decide which divinely ordained laws are timeless and ought to always be recognized by every society (e.g. those proscribing murder, theft, perjury) and those which are only relevant within an ancient cultural context (e.g. head-coverings for women, circumcision for men, kosher food for everyone).
I would think it quite obvious that any law which once carried the penalty of death and was not specifically addressed and overturned in the NT would qualify as one which Christians should support whenever given the chance, whether by electing representatives to the legislature, by direct plebiscite, or by other means.
How, then, do Bible-believing Christians justify their failure to support theocratic politicians like Brogdon and Ritze in a crusade to recriminalize apostasy, buggery, cursing, divination, and other such victimless crimes? What is the reasoning which allows you to treat these seemingly absolute moral commands once set in stone by a perfectly moral being as mere matters of personal conscience? Seriously, guys, I’m stumped here - please help me out. How can you tell which divine laws are timeless and which were intended only for one tribe living far away and long ago?
4 comments:
Fundamentalism and cultural context have always been slightly at odds, yet it is very challenging to be a Fundamentalist without having to apply some of it.
Yeah, where's the line and what can you base it on?
It's hard to be consistent this space.
I'm not sure what exactly defines the parameters of fundamentalism, but I recall one of the profs from Midwestern Baptist making the distinction between OT laws which are timeless moral laws and those which are not. I also seem to recall a young pastor-in-training (whom you've known and who shall remain nameless) asking how we are to distinguish between the two.
To this day, I've not heard a good answer to that question, which causes me more than a few misgivings about posting Mosaic commandments at the State Capitol.
Howdy,
-ought not carry much weight in the here and now-
That's not the Christian idea, really. They should carry a lot of weight, but at the same time, we are commanded as Christians to obey the law of the land - Romans 13, 1 Peter, etc. Doesn't mean we can't act to influence or change said laws, but we have to obey them in most every case. OT Israel was its own self-contained (covenant) community, but the covenant community of God now is not a nation, but a church dispersed among every nation. So it's not that they don't carry much weight, it's that another cmdmt carries more, and the OT civil laws were never meant to last forever.
That said, I can't think of an example right offhand of an OT civil law which is no longer regarded as immoral, a sin against God. But the penalties are generally different, if they exist at all. An example is adultery, a capital offense in OT Israel but one that may not cost you much more than $100 in court fees in modern America.
-those which are only relevant within an ancient cultural context (e.g. head-coverings for women, circumcision for men, kosher food for everyone). -
Well, you mixed up the head-covering thing, which is in 1 Corinthians (unless I err) with the other things. Circumcision was the sign of membership in the covenant, which in the covenant community of OT Israel meant membership in the society. But it's replaced by baptism in NT times as the sign of membership in the covenant community of God - the church.
And the food had ceremonial symbolism that is wholly fulfilled in Christ - read Hebrews and Mark 7.
-would qualify as one which Christians should support whenever given the chance-
You might be right about that. If you intend to show that Christians can be hypocritical at times, you'll have no argument from me.
-recriminalize apostasy-
I would not support this, b/c I don't think it lends itself to a culture in which the Gospel has the best environment to be spread and for-real accepted in people's hearts. Some separation of state from church is a good idea, though certainly not to the extent it is today.
I honestly confess I don't know what "buggery" is.
Cursing - how the $%+*#&%^% would you enforce that? ;-)
Divination - ditto.
Though these are hardly victimless crimes. The point is not that, but what amount of freedom is allowable, what consequences acceptable, and what cost entails what level of enforcement.
-What is the reasoning which allows you to treat these seemingly absolute moral commands once set in stone by a perfectly moral being as mere matters of personal conscience? -
Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 are not all that specific. That is the reasoning.
As a matter of greater disclosure, this is far from a done deal among Reformed Christians. I say Reformed b/c most American evangelicals/evanjellyfish seem to fall thoughtlessly into the Pat Robertson/Dobson mold. But in the Reformed side of things, you have theonomic postmillennialists who would indeed like to see the OT Israelites laws in place in modern society. You have libertarians. You have people like me, somewhere in the middle, sorta, but who prefer more of a 2 Kingdoms model b/c they think it better fits the biblical data. So there's diversity of opinion here, and that is no doubt one of the reasons for your confusion. It confuses me too!
Hope that helps. As always, clarifying questions are welcome.
Peace,
Rhology
Post a Comment