The Issue Is Interpretation

In 2004, I wrote an op-ed piece for the Wichita Eagle in defense of one of the editorial board, Randy Scholfield, who was being criticized by some of the Christian religious conservatives. While the names will not mean anything to anyone who is not from Wichita Kansas, perhaps the piece will help generate some thought.

The Issue Is Interpretation

Most conservative ministers frame the debate on contemporary social issues, such as marriage for homosexuals, in these terms: A person is either faithful to the Word of God or that person is not. Abe Levy, in his story about the Reverend Joe Wright, of Central Christian Church wrote (July 4 front page), “Whether making public stands against abortion, homosexuality or other moral issues, Wright says he can’t afford to compromise his beliefs. ‘At the end of the day, I have to know God’s pleased with me,’ he said.” In one of his recent televised sermons, the Reverend Terry Fox, of Immanuel Baptist Church, deplored the liberal trends in society, called for removing liberal politicians from office and liberal ministers from their churches, and called for faithfulness to God’s way. The Reverend Patrick Bullock, Director of Missions for the Heart of Kansas Southern Baptist Association wrote (May21 My View), “As Bible-believing Christians, we have a standard of beliefs that cannot change, because the Bible is the revelation of who God is in all His holiness.”

In making such statements, these men suggest that anyone who disagrees with their views, that is “those liberals,” actually do not believe or follow God and God’s Word. That is a false assumption.

In using the Biblical text to inform the debate, the real issue is not in faithfulness to scripture or in who is a true Christian. The real issue lies in different perspectives on interpreting God’s Word.

Here, Randy Scholfield was correct in his article (May 12 opinion pages). All people, including ministers, have had a troubling history of misinterpreting scripture. As Mr. Scholfield noted, very sincere and faithful Christians in the 19th century used scripture to justify the use and continuation of slavery in the South and fervently believed that God had ordained the practice. Other Christians believed otherwise. For decades after the Civil War, on the basis of scripture, some faithful Christians believed they should prohibit inter-racial marriage. Other Christians, on the basis of their faith, disagreed.

Each of these issues, slavery and forbidding inter-racial marriage, was considered foundational to the preservation of society at that time. Christian clergy and laity on both sides believed they were correct in their view of what God required. The difference was in their interpretation. So it is today.

I would defend the right for each Christian to express her or his own view on such issues, whether that person agreed with me or not. Certainly, agreement with my interpretation would not be crucial to determining that person’s faith stance. I would want them to give me, as a Christian, the same right, whether I agreed with them or not.

Can we talk?

As a member of a minority group in Utah, I have thought even more about issues relating to the conversations between religious groups with different theological understandings than I did when I was part of the majority. Thus, it was with interest that I noticed two posts on BeliefNet.

One is from a member of the LDS church who quotes, with approval, Krister Stendahl on his blog, Mormon Inquiry. Take note of his comments:

Krister Stendahl died earlier this year (hat tip: Lehi's Library). He was a Swedish scholar and theologian, and also served for a period as the Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm. In LDS circles, he is fondly remembered as the author of three rules of religious understanding, which he propounded during public debate critical of a planned LDS temple in Sweden. They are good rules to follow in any religious or interfaith conversation. Here are Stendahl's three rules.

** When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
** Don't compare your best to their worst.
** Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

The other is a column by a Jewish rabbi, entitled Windows and Doors, who critiques the Pope for the pronouncement that interfaith religious dialogue cannot really take place. Read a portion of his comments:

Perhaps Benedict has created a "strict definition" which precludes such conversation because his understanding of dialogue requires a level of spiritual connection/agreement between the conversants, which may not be possible for people who follow different faiths. That might be what he means when telling us that one must "put one's faith in parenthesis" in order to speak with those of other faiths. But that is an odd kind of faith which can only be present among those who share the faith.

The alternative understanding of the Pope's most recent comments is that he actually finds all other belief systems defective and their members best served by only a single outcome i.e. conversion to the Catholic faith.

Can it be that he finds real inter-religious dialogue impossible because at all costs any conversation which accords full and equal dignity to other's faith is impossible for him? That's a pretty scary thought from the leader of a billion human beings backed by real financial and political power.

It seems to me that real inter-religious and intra-religious dialogue, as shaped by Stendahl's points, should and must take place. Much of the divisiveness that is found in society occurs between people with different views of the world. In order to overcome that division, I must be in conversation with the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Jews, the LDS, and the fundamentalist Christians, to name just a few, so I can understand them better and they can better understand me. I will not agree with them on every point, nor will they agree with me. I do not have to become just like them, nor do they have to become just like me. Yet, by being in conversation, we acknowledge and honor the humanness of each and can learn something from each other.

Do you interact with people from other religious persepctives? About what do you talk? Do you share with them why you believe as you do and listen as they share with you why they believe as they do? If not, why not?

More Interesting News

First, from Bob Jones University in South Carolina. Bob Jones University is the classic example of a school of higher education that takes conservative (one could even say fundamentalist) Christian principles as its guiding principles. The school's statement of faith and moral code are indicative of how closely it remains true to its roots. For years, BJU refused to admit minority students and, even after relenting on this issue in 1971, prohibited inter-racial dating. Both positions, the school said, were based on clear scriptural principles.

Now, the school has issued a statement saying that it was wrong. You can access the full statement at the school's website, but let me quote just a part:
Bob Jones University has existed since 1927 as a private Christian institution of higher learning for the purpose of helping young men and women cultivate a biblical worldview, represent Christ and His Gospel to others, and glorify God in every dimension of life.

BJU’s history has been chiefly characterized by striving to achieve those goals; but like any human institution, we have failures as well. For almost two centuries American Christianity, including BJU in its early stages, was characterized by the segregationist ethos of American culture. Consequently, for far too long, we allowed institutional policies regarding race to be shaped more directly by that ethos than by the principles and precepts of the Scriptures. We conformed to the culture rather than provide a clear Christian counterpoint to it.

In so doing, we failed to accurately represent the Lord and to fulfill the commandment to love others as ourselves. For these failures we are profoundly sorry. Though no known antagonism toward minorities or expressions of racism on a personal level have ever been tolerated on our campus, we allowed institutional policies to remain in place that were racially hurtful.

The most telling part of the statement, in my estimation, is the admission that the school conformed to the surrounding culture of racism and prejudice rather than looking seriously at the teachings of scripture. I wonder what other positions taken by churches as scriptural might one day be rejected as cultural instead of scriptural. I know that BJU does not need or care about my support, but I applaud the school for having the moral courage to issue this statement.

The second item comes from Grapevine Texas. Ed Young, the minister of this mega-church, caused quite a stir nationally on November 16 when he told - commanded? - the married couples in the church, including all 5 satellite campuses, to have sexual intercourse every day for a week as a curative for the problems besetting their relationships. Last Sunday, November 23, he told them to continue the plan.

According to a New York Times story about the follow-up to the initial challenge, Pastor Young extolled the benefits of his plan, "But if you make the time to have sex, it will bring you closer to your spouse and to God, he has said. You will perform better at work, leave a loving legacy for your children to follow and may even prevent an extramarital affair."

I am not one to argue for marital abstinence, but I wondered about those couples where there has been spousal abuse or other acts of violence. Is increased sexual intercourse the answer to everything?

What opinions do you have about either of these news items?