Replies

“Do you even understand what the new covenant is all about?”

I have some understanding. Of course, it is not perfect. Since the New Covenant is described only in broad terms, the details are left open to analysis, moral judgement and interpretation. I am not so conceited as to believe, or so full of hubris to claim, that I know it all, with certainty (and thereby pass certain judgement on other humans, such as those who practice with a brown scapula).

My argument is against fundamentalist literal reading of scripture, as it can lead to tragically detrimental results. I highlight some flaws of that approach, by specifying significant moral conflicts, which a literal reading can not resolve (slavery, etc.).

Do you mean to imply that the Old Testament has been removed from scripture by the New Covenant? Totally overwritten? Or only some things in the Old Testament? If only some, how can you determine which? Literal reading does not cover each point.

If you leave it to the Holy Spirit (as subjectively experienced by individuals) to make all judgements, you are no longer using a literal fundamentalist approach at all. A major problem with either approach, is that it leaves no check on extremism. If the text says to kill, a fundamentalist must OBEY. If the Spirit reveals that everyone should drink the Kool Aid, then the individual would have no moral authority to do otherwise. Reverend Jim Jones claimed guidance from the Holy Spirit when he had hundreds killed, and instructed parents to poison their children.

There are many things prescribed in the Old Testament, which are not specifically addressed in the New. Therefore, a literal, fundamentalist reading cannot but OBEY whatever heinous and barbaric practices were codified a few thousand years ago in the Old Testament, unless they are literally and explicitly revoked.

I gave some examples of explicit rules for conducting slavery, and for punishing rape by forcing the rapist to marry the victim. You apparently cannot or will not address these specific concrete points. Slavery is God’s will - yes or no? Rape permissible after military conquest? Torture? Genocide?

The Catholic approach is to have a body of scholars study the scriptures, and to form a consistent moral basis for judging - to produce reasoned and well-vetted guidance and interpretation, to resolve conflicts, and to promote the spirit and intent of the New Covenant. Common sense, and loving compassion for others can override literal compliance with a text, where there is good reason, and avoid the unlimited possible deviations of relying on subjective individual revelation.

What I have been hearing from this fundamentalist argument on this thread, mirrors the same points that I have argued with fundamentalist Wahhabi Muslims. Sunni Islam made a decisive shift in the 11th century toward blind obediance to the written scripture. The book, “The Incoherence of Philosophers” by al Ghazali, has been credited with convincing many muslims that it was wrong to try to to figure out matters of religion on your own - a fundamental error. They argued against attempting to to apply any intellectual or moral check on what the individual accepts from scripture as God is greater than anyone’s limited intellect - the only defensible option in their view is to simply OBEY (submission, as they say).

As a result, there is no consistent morality left in their interpretation of Islam - except what is in the interest of Islam. For example, it is considered wrong to kill - unless it is in the interest of Islam. It is generally wrong to lie, unless it is in the interest of Islam (where it becomes a duty), and so on, with with theft, rape, more killing, etc.

If you exclude intellectual analysis and moral judgement as checks on what you accept (as in either literal fundamentalism or subjective revelation), you open the door to violent extremism at the worst, but pretty much guarantee closed-mindedness as a constant.

I can see how the certainty and simplicity of a fundamentalist approach can comfort and support people people in their efforts to do better, avoid doing evil, and to draw closer to God. As such, I can see that it can be a helpful practice for a lot of people (as is the brown scapula).

There can be negative aspects to almost everything, even love can result in jealousy and possessiveness and other negative manifestations. With fundamentalism, you must guard against extreme conclusions that exceed normal bounds of reason or morality, and a rigid certainty that causes bigoted condemnation of others as heretics or fools.

“I am not so conceited as to believe, or so full of hubris to claim, that I know it all, with certainty (and thereby pass certain judgement on other humans, such as those who practice with a brown scapula).”

But do you truly and fully understand the concerns of those of us troubled by the brown scapula? How can you be so sure that our concerns aren’t fully merited? And it is not the case that we’re passing judgment on those who wear a brown scapula, but by suggesting people concerned about the brown scapula practice are motivated by hubris, aren’t you judging us, and since Scripture isn’t your ultimate authority, on what objective basis? It sounds like your own wisdom is what you trust in. Is that the case?

“I highlight some flaws of that approach, by specifying significant moral conflicts, which a literal reading can not resolve (slavery, etc.).”

What has often gotten left out, as it goes without saying, is that the literal reading of the Bible must be done by faith. In that case, the reader trusts that he himself is a sinner who doesn’t know but the smallest bit of what God does, and that as a sinner, he is not the least bit qualified to judge or doubt God’s goodness. If something God says or does seems evil to us, it is something we for one reason or other don’t understand. If we honestly look at the Bible through the eyes of faith, we see that God is perfect in every way, including in love, goodness, wisdom, justice and mercy. I already know from experience that some things that did seem evil or possibly evil to me in my natural understanding, but that I accepted on faith as not being evidence of God being evil, I later found I just had not understood or known some aspect about them that made all the difference.

“Do you mean to imply that the Old Testament has been removed from scripture by the New Covenant? Totally overwritten? Or only some things in the Old Testament? If only some, how can you determine which? Literal reading does not cover each point.”

The New Testament, like the Old, is God’s Word. Throughout the New, He instructs us on how to consider the Old, and He does so sufficiently. Ever hear that the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed? And not everything in the Old Testament has to be specifically addressed, either.

” If you leave it to the Holy Spirit (as subjectively experienced by individuals) to make all judgements, you are no longer using a literal fundamentalist approach at all.”

A great many Christians, going by experience, would not agree.

“A major problem with either approach, is that it leaves no check on extremism. If the text says to kill, a fundamentalist must OBEY. If the Spirit reveals that everyone should drink the Kool Aid, then the individual would have no moral authority to do otherwise. Reverend Jim Jones claimed guidance from the Holy Spirit when he had hundreds killed, and instructed parents to poison their children.”

Do you distinguish fundamentalist Christians from other fundamentalists? And again, it comes back to those fundamental beliefs about Jesus and who He is, and about ourselves as sinners. If we’re praying the Lord’s prayer, including truly asking that His will be done, and asking Him for wisdom when we need it (as James tells us to), and taking the counsel the Lord offers us in our lives (messages of correction that will guide or convict our born-again spirits), then we just aren’t going to go off in some radical way that is evil opposition to God’s true will. I haven’t studied Jim Jones in great depth, but I know he was pretending to be Christian, and according to a PBS show about him I saw years ago, at a certain point during a church service he threw down his Bible and told the congregation that they were to listen to him, not the Bible. If I recall correctly, some if not many people left at that point. The people who stayed did so knowing that he had put himself over God’s Word. And I’m sure that an in-depth study of his “church” would show all sorts of tell-tale signs that there was nothing in the least Biblical about it.

“There are many things prescribed in the Old Testament, which are not specifically addressed in the New. Therefore, a literal, fundamentalist reading cannot but OBEY whatever heinous and barbaric practices were codified a few thousand years ago in the Old Testament, unless they are literally and explicitly revoked.”

Again, the “therefore” conclusion doesn’t follow. Taking the Bible literally and fundamentally doesn’t mean reading only the commands, ignoring everything else, and just following the commands (or just the commands that might be useful to justify some sin, as you suggest). Only when the Bible is read with faith, as a response to the Gospel,

Your descriptions here and elsewhere mischaracterize and misunderstand Scripture, and how it’s to be read and understood.

” I gave some examples of explicit rules for conducting slavery, and for punishing rape by forcing the rapist to marry the victim. You apparently cannot or will not address these specific concrete points. Slavery is God’s will - yes or no? Rape permissible after military conquest? Torture? Genocide?”

As I said in another post to you, there are a great many resources online that address these very points. Since you know that it is far, far easier for you to name the so-called problems than it is for anyone to get together answers to them, and very time-consuming if done with a lot of care, then you should have acknowledged your awareness that evangelicals do have answers to those questions. I’m not going to exhaustively answer them. Given that it’s you bringing these things up, you could take the time yourself to find evangelical answers on them, and to voice your objections to them, showing why you believe they’re inadequate. Or if that’s too time-consuming for you, then post someone’s writing that you agree with.

A short reply, then, is that the New Covenant is called a better covenant, and Jesus said Moses granted divorce for the hardness of men’s hearts. In other words, God, in His mercy, will temporarily tolerate, in certain circumstances, what is far from morally perfect and His will. He does that not because He loves sin, but sinners. And out of love, He tolerates all of us and this world, for no matter how “good” we become, while here we are still not sinless.

With certain things, then, we have to look at the time and circumstances, and look at things through all of Scripture, by faith. What you say about Biblical fundamentalism versus Catholicism and in comparison to Islam are straw men arguments, to be brief. We don’t interpret things as you describe, and the Bible is the True God’s Word, not the words of sinful man that are credited to an idol.

In regards to Jim Jones, as I said, he openly opposed the Bible:

The young preacher once threw his Bible to the floor and yelled at his associates, “Too many people are looking at this instead of looking at me!”
Time Magazine, December 4, 1978, Messiah from the Midwest

en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

The Letter Killeth, by Jim Jones

Of the thousands of documents which members of Peoples Temple left behind following their mass deaths on 18 November 1978, there are very few which Jim Jones apparently wrote himself. One of these few is “The Letter Killeth,” an undated, 24-page booklet which Jones prepared to denigrate the Bible’s legitimacy through its errors and inconsistencies, its defense of slavery, and its depictions of rapes and murders which were condoned or ordered by God. In seeming contradiction, the booklet also provides the Biblical basis for the Peoples Temple ministry as well as defends Jones’ position as an anointed prophet of the Word. However, this takes up only a small portion of the text and was not as important to Jones’ message about the Bible.

Certainly, when Jones referred to the booklet, as he did innumerable times, it was in the context of his attacks on what he called “your black book.” Moreover, even when he did not refer to “The Letter Killeth” by name, he used the examples of Biblical error and illegitimacy which he collected for the booklet throughout his speeches and sermons...

jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=14111

Occasionally in his sermons, Jones would spit on the “yellow pages of King James,” throw the Bible on the floor, jump up and down on it, and declare that the letter kills.

Salvation and Suicide: Jim Jones, the Peoples Temple, and Jonestown
By David Chidester
p. 64 (accessed through Google Books)

That book also reports that Jones taught that King James actually wrote the King James Bible himself (it wasn’t a translation of ancient texts, but James’ own creation), and he wrote it to subjugate people.

Where there is fault and sin, it’s not the Bible’s fault or sin, but man’s, and to do sin, people need to discard what the Bible says.