kaufmannphillips wrote:
It would be imprudent for a twenty-first century person to indiscriminately follow directions that were not addressed to them, and perhaps would not have been addressed to them.
Homer wrote:
Well, that takes care of all of the Old Testament and New Testament. No need to bother with studying that stuff. Wasn't addressed to us and might never have been.
Evocative of a perspective that many Christians hold toward the ritual components of the Torah.
And reminiscent of a perspective many persons have toward historical matters in general.
Why bother studying about a bunch of dead people?
It is one thing to study and learn from the past. It is another thing to reproduce it, unnecessarily, in the present.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
Various behaviors will carry different significance in different contexts; what is abominable in one culture can be estimable in another. And though there may be divine standards that override cultural values in certain cases, there also may be matters where the eminent divine standard is to respect a cultural value, simply because it is the culturally prevalent value.
Homer worte:
So we may never know whether the temple prostitute business at Corinth was actually bad or not since it was culturally prevalent. Hmm. That could apply to a lot of things.
One might complain that contextual variation would complicate attempts to derive G-d’s present will from a biblical text. But if G-d were eminently concerned about making interpretation of the biblical text uncomplicated for a twenty-first century American interpreter, then the text might not be entrenched in ancient languages and foreign contexts.
Perhaps it might have been feasible for G-d to articulate a laundry list of universal standards, and to have prophets transcribe this list in every language throughout human history. But the bible is not so convenient and uncomplicated a work.
What then?
kaufmannphillips wrote: As for “going the extra mile” – your “broad principle” is inadequate to Jesus’ point. The issue at hand was not a mild matter of “request[ing] or need[ing] help.” Roman soldiers were not asking for assistance; they were forcing subjugated peoples to perform drudge work – in effect, forcing them to contribute to their own subjugation.
If twenty-first century persons are to carry over a lesson from this, it should be more challenging than mere willingness to be generous when helping somebody out. A worthy analogue in our time might be for a Tea Partier to not only pay higher taxes for “Obamacare,” but to donate beyond that to the health-care program.
Homer wrote:
Do you have a thing with giving to the government as opposed to helping the poor yourself? And what about doing latrine duty for someone disabled? Is that less honorable than giving something extra to politicians? Did you give some extra to the Bush administration, and if not, why not? Beware of the leaven of hypocrisy!
You may catenate these sorts of rejoinder to your heart’s content. Then I may thank you for strengthening the impression that your own perspective is inadequate to Jesus’ point.
Don’t you think that there were freedom-lovin’ Jews in Jesus’ time, who would have had a slew of retorts to the notion that they should put extra time and sweat into supporting a government that they loathed? Remember that the seminal point in the discussion was not that Jews should be generous helpers – it was “
do not oppose an evil person.”
As for “
the leaven of hypocrisy” – I am relatively irreproachable in this case. I am not Christian, so I am not subscribing to this standard. I’m just explaining it.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
But somehow I don’t expect to see many Christians in the Tea Party movement doing that. After all, it’s one thing to stand firm against homosexual activities and uppity women; it’s another thing to surrender mammon.
Homer wrote:
Are there Christians in the Tea Party? I don't know you or any Tea Party folks. Perhaps you can enlighten us with some facts about the charitable donation practices, or lack thereof, by these Tea Party Christian folks and how your own giving compares.
Certainly there are Christians in the Tea Party.
The core issue in Jesus’ teaching about “the extra mile” is not charity – it is how to respond to the imposition of an evil person. The charitable practices of yourself or of myself or of Tea Party Christians – these practices are not germane to the issue.
Danny wrote:
Here's an example of what I'm getting at: The NT doesn't specifically address the evil of slavery beyond admonishments for owners to treat their slaves well and slaves to be loyal and hard-working. Prior to the American Civil War, slave owning Christians used the same methodology you are using regarding women to defend their practice. They quoted Eph. 6:5-8, Titus 2:9-10 and Col. 3:22-24. They claimed "I know of no statement in the NT advocating the abolition of slavery." They were right; there was no specific statement in the NT advocating the abolition of slavery. But of course the entire spirit of the NT pointed towards equality and treating others as you would be treated. ...
In Paul's day it was hard to imagine a world without slavery. The best advice he could give was how to cope within that system. Likewise, in Paul's day it would have been hard to imagine women with equal roles, opportunities and education to men. But over the last two millenia, as the Kingdom of God has slowly permeated throughout civilization (and continues to do so, for there is a long way to go) things have slowly changed. I think this is what Martin Luther King meant when he said "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
Homer wrote:
Your example of the practice of slavery prior to the Civil War is a strawman and irrelevant to the question of the role of women in the church.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
Perhaps you would explain how the example of slavery is “a strawman” and “irrevelant to the question of the role of women in the church.”
Homer wrote:
Perhaps you can tell how you see an analogy between the practice of slavery and the role of women in the church.
After some experience in dialogue with Christians, I should not be surprised to find an attempt to foist the heavy lifting in argumentation onto me. But you are the one who has made the claim here, and it is your responsibility to support it adequately. So my challenge to you, sir, is to step up your game or step off your claim!
kaufmannphillips wrote:
Naaman was given a direction that was manifestly intended for him personally. If Naaman had been trying to determine how to apply the “Mosaic law” to his own life – directions given to some other persons, in some other context(s) – then we might have a closer basis for comparison.
Homer wrote:
Namaan's problem was simple: unbelief. He thought he knew better.
You may like to think in simple terms. But simple terms are frequently inadequate and inappropriate in a complex world.
Naaman had difficulty believing in a directive given to him specifically and personally by a prophet. This sort of scenario is distinct from the question of how to engage directives that are given to other people in other contexts.
One can believe in the divine inspiration of such directives without reservation - but question how those directives might and/or might not relate appropriately to one’s own situation. This is not a flat question of unbelief; it is a question of discernment.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
It is not “going to great lengths” to take the interpretive stance that directions given to a specific audience in a specific context are not necessarily applicable on a universal scale.
Homer wrote:
As far as it goes, you are right here. But if we find a consistent idea from Adam and Eve to this day regarding the complementary roles of men and women, then the complementarian position is sensible. Even nature would teach that, if one is at all observant, but perhaps you have never noticed.
Some friends of ours have five kids, two boys and three girls. The girls and their mother were very much into their horses. One day mom was thrown from her horse and banged up pretty badly. Her teenaged son immediately informed his mom she must "get back up on that horse or you will never ride again!" Tell me of one girl who would react like that.
Have you had much acquaintance with girls since the Nixon administration?
You must be putting me on.
In recent times, one could cite Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir as women who could handle rough seas. But one could go back further. Catherine the Great. Elizabeth I. Gráinne Ní Mháille. Zabibi and Samsi.
Millions of women throughout human history have “
gotten back up on the horse,” in myriad ways. And I don’t know what Stepford enclave you have been cloistered in, if you have never in your life encountered a strong, perseverant woman.