When is a literalist not a literalist?

Let's put aside the dispensationalist read of Jesus' words. Only a few Pentecostal groups and odd Baptists take that reading seriously anymore. The other read posits two zones of ethical behavior: the personal and the communal. According to this reading, Jesus' words about loving enemies are to be construed as relating to personal behavior—they seem unaware the degree to which this reading is infulenced by Western indiviualism, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt. In this scenario, I should love my enemies as long as they do not try to harm someone I love or someone innocent. At that point, the ethical emphasis shifts to the communal and I can stop loving them, or, to put it in phraseology they would understand, I can exercise love for the innocent and retributive/salvific love for the transgressor. Somehow, within the zone of communal ethics I am occasionally allowed to take on the role of God. This applies also to military and police responsibilities, and I always chuckle when I remember a fundy friend who told me he could love and kill Iraqis at the same time. The best you can say for that thinking is that hte word love means whatever we choose to make it mean—an odd perspective for Biblical literalists.

So, once we move into the communal ethical zone we no longer have to read Jesus' words literally. Then we can engage in a process of convoluted eisegesis that takes into account our cultural setting as well as the often hard to identify cultural influences that makes us think like we do. So, here's another scenario for the literalists. I am in the military. Covert operations. As part of my responsibilities, I will need to sleep with a woman to extract information from her. I'm married though. So, personally, I can't cheat on my wife, as that would transgress a pretty clear command. However, in my role as soldier in the zone of communal ethics, sleeping with the woman will give me information that will save hundreds or thousands of lives. Obviously then, it is a morally defensible activity despite Jesus' words and the Mosaic Law.

There may well be two zones of ethical behavior; in fact, I'm sure there are, but I'm equally sure there are core ethical principles that should not be transgressed irrespective of which zone I'm operating in. Maybe I don't need to sleep with the woman. Maybe I can just torture the information out of her. That way I stay pure. But wait, there's this annoying love my enemies command. This is the very reason Anabaptists have historically avoided the military and the police force. The command to love your enemy would seem to take priority over all other commands. In fact, I want to say that it is the center of the Christian ethical system. Without it, Christianity has absolutely no uniqueness among ethical systems. Christians become, in Jesus' words, people who love those who love them back. What reward have you? Even the heathen do that.

The death of Jesus on the cross would seem to be the definitive statement about God's unwillingness to resort to violence to protect the innocent, but once you add the language of substitutionary atonement, you can make the more powerful, more difficult story go away. The story is compelling, but not the way fundangelicals tell it. For them it becomes a synthesis of spiritual catharsis and cultural preferences, be they materialism, violence, individualism, militarism, or elitism.

Comments

[Larry]

"... I can stop loving them..."

This whole argument revolves around your misconstrued understanding of "Love." You claim the western influence on the communal/individual debate but can't see it in your own watered down idea of Love. The Bible tells us what love is. Here's the passage:

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud." (Nothing here about protecting your family. The "kind" thing to do would be to protect them.)

"It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs." (I guess you could say it's rude to kill someone, maybe even if they are trying to kill your child, but that's a huge stretch considering how rude it would be to sit there and watch your child be murdered.) Next verse...

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. (Nothing here)

It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (What? Always protects?
Love 3 - Greg 0)

Love never fails. (Hmmm... never fails to... protect maybe?)

As you can see, Greg's idea of love vs. what the scope of the NT says is vastly different.

The adultery question is silly as well, since you can't even say for sure what info you'd get and since you wouldn't know if you could trust it anyway because you're acting as if killing in war is the same as murder, which (Biblically) it isn't.

Saying Jesus died just to show that God wouldn't use force in light of Revelation (and in light of Jesus' words concerning God in the OT) is equally absurd.

This whole issue is solved by Jesus' words and they are clearly explained out in context in the Gospels and then by his followers throughout the rest of the NT.

You can't keep making an issue of one sentence while ignoring the rest of the text.

[joe]

"You can't keep making an issue of one sentence while ignoring the rest of the text."

neither can you.

[greg]

larry,

I'll go out on a limb and say Jesus' words have precedence in the text. However, you might notice that I'm trying to be a literalist with the text. Can't much clearer than "don't resist an evil person." Somehow, that isn't literal to you, so why don't you just admit you're not a literalist. I'm not trying to make Jesus look like an idiot...

[dr dobson]

My last post to Larry or in response to anything from Larry:

"This whole issue is solved by Jesus' words and they are clearly explained out in context in the Gospels and then by his followers throughout the rest of the NT."

Gee, Larry, thanks for clearing it all up for us.

To steal the immortal words of "Drill Sargeant" in the timeless classic "Forrest Gump", you must be a goddamned genius.

Your new name is "Genius Larry".

I thought Jerry Falwell died; he was the only dude as brilliant as you are.

Thanks be to Genius Larry's Kick-Ass God that we have Genius Larry to lead we liberals toward the path to enlightenment, but only the puritanical, non-nature-loving, meat and potatoes path that loves God AND country, lest all others be damned to hell.

To me, hell is like heaven populated only with people like Larry. Count me out.

Larry, I'll play this card and you can beat off with it (that is if masturbation is not against Kick Ass God's law), chew on it, do whatever you like with it (fully realizing "cards" are something your grandma told you would send you to hell): I'm very glad Jesus neither behaved in ways that you say he did, nor did he believe as you say he did.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, pal--your purple mustache isn't yet bright enough for people to see it from the back row . . .

[Larry]

Greg,

I DO NOT take every word literally. Again Jesus comment that he wanted to gather Jerusalem under his wings doesn't mean he has wings. Literal means the literal meaning and in Jesus words, the literal meaning has nothing to do with protecting one's family. To say he literally meant you can't protect you family ignores the OT, which Jesus upheld, and the rest of the NT. You're not being literal there unless you also think Jesus was a giant bird (of course with how you see things, that wouldn't suprise me either).

[Larry]

Dobson,

You went to Oxford, and that's the best you can do?

I'd see if I could get my money back.

[greg]

larry,

wings is a metaphor. not even literalists take metaphors literally. they'd have to be retarded. Literalist has to do with an insistence that plain meaning of the text is what the meaning must be. Once you allow that Jesus' has to be interpreted according to cultural influences, etc., you've given up the notion of literalism. Welcome to the club.

BTW, please show me where I Cor. 13 says Love kills its enemies...

[Zossima]

I think since larry obviously doesn't know what he's talking about but just regurgitates shit he's heard from the pulpit, that it might be worth quoting from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

"WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support."

I'm pretty sure the literal sense of Luke 6 does not support killing your enemies.

Larry (and I presume D-Tim), at best you consider the Bible one of many authorities in determining your belief systems. Please drop the pretense of inerrancy and literalism. It's really just a knee-jerk, conditioned, and quite childish (not unlike "infinity plus one") response to having your statements logically challenged.

[Larry]

Greg,

So you're saying Jesus would forbid someone from killing another who is about to hurt their child. So what would you do in that situation? Would you obey Jesus or use force (if that was your only option) to stop the assailant?

Zossima,

And I'm pretty sure you're wrong. You are good at name-calling though. You can take your toys and go home anytime you want.

[greg]

Larry,

Good god, I'm simply saying that you do not read the text literally. The literal meaning of Jesus' words are crystal clear, yet you've chosen an eisegetical approach rather than the clear meaning of the text. That means that you are not a literalist. The question now is, if you don't take the plain meaning of the text, what criteria do you use to determine when and when not to? Answer that question and you'll be very close to understanding your own hermeneutical lens. I assure you it's not Jesus.

[bobstevens]

I'm less interested in literalism than in the ethical discussion. I don't think people who call themselves literalists really mean that they're literalists. It's a misnomer, but a handy label for a group of people. I think something like "inerrancy-ists" is probably more appropriate. An honest inerrancy-ist would say things along the lines of "I don't have a clue what that means, but I believe that Jesus actually said it."

With respect to pacifism, I'm not as well-read on the subject as I'd like to be. However, Jesus clearly used violence (or at least the threat of violence) when the sanctity of the temple was threatened. Thus if our goal is (as it should be for Christians) to emulate Christ, then we have to concede that there are situations where violence is appropriate.

So I'm really wondering if "turn the other cheek" (which would imply that retaliation and self-defense are not permitted) is the ethical framework we're supposed to live in, or just an example of how to love your enemy. It is pretty clear that Jesus's teachings and militaristic professions don't mesh very well, though.

And the contrived "oh craps my family is being threatened" ethical unit test is kind of interesting, because it sidesteps "turn the other cheek"'s implications about self-defense and constructs a conflict between "love your neighbor" and "love your enemy". Which takes priority? I'm guessing the answers are somewhere around "it depends on the specifics of your made up assault" and "killing someone intentionally is never OK for any reason."

I think if anyone in the military is reading, though, they might be wondering how to get the "sleep with women" job. Sounds better than killing people to me.

[bobstevens]

Sorry but I'm bored and wanted to yap more about this... so a couple things related to the post directly above:

First, a dishonest inerrancy-ist would sound like this: "I believe Jesus said this and my interpretation is correct because of the Holy Spirit whom I believe is also guiding my fellow Christian over there who interprets this completely differently." Heh!

Second, the ethical system of Christ clearly cannot apply to nation states, which have an implied need to defend themselves and their residents. Thus, there is no such thing as a Christian nation, and between this and the fact that political power is shunned/ignored as a theme in Christ's teaching should make it obvious that nationalist variants of Christianity are extremely misguided... possibly dangerous. Just mentioning this because the "military blah blah use of force blah blah" bits are always entangled in discussions of Christian ethics.

Third... I think my "never kill anyone for any reason" bit above is challenged by things like physician assisted suicide and the Schiavo ordeal and such. I'm amused by Tony Perkins though... I saw him on TV saying "We believe in protecting life in all of its forms", by which he meant "we are against abortion and like braindead women who gain national attention" but did not mean "we are against capital punishment". I'm confused about a lot of things, but I hope I'm not *that* confused.

I think that's all there is in my brain dump tonight. Sorry if any of this is less-than-constructive with respect to the current conversation on this post.

[Leighton]

However, Jesus clearly used violence (or at least the threat of violence) when the sanctity of the temple was threatened.

Well, when he saw that its moral sanctity was threatened by those who purported to run it, anyway. The synoptics describe him forseeing the temple being torn down entirely by the Romans, and that didn't seem to bother him enough to try to avert it.

Would this support Christians being violent only toward Christian leaders? >.>

[bobstevens]

I actually believe (75% sincerely) that it sanctions the widespread vandalism of so-called Christian bookstores by Christians. Especially if they're run by or attached to churches.