As I’ve discussed here before, strict adherence to the letter of the law can produce odd results. By reducing the Bible to a rulebook, we run the risk of either binding ourselves to all sorts of regulations that have no context in real life other than “God said so,” or of resorting to cherry-picking to weed out those commands that we would rather ignore.
Fortunately we have precedents in church history for placing the spirit of the law ahead of the letter of the law, even when doing so appears (on the surface) to place us in violation of what had previously been accepted as a direct command from God. Remarriage following divorce is the most obvious example of this, but there is another that demonstrates this principle even more clearly. The sin of usury was once strongly and universally condemned by the Christian church (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant alike), yet today some Christians aren’t even familiar with the term.
The biblical authors clearly and unambiguously condemn usury (the practice of charging interest on loans) on multiple occasions: Exod. 22:25-27, Lev. 25:35-37, Deut. 23:19-20, Neh. 5:10-11, Psalm 15:5, Prov. 28:8, Isa. 24:1-3, Jer. 15:10, Eze. 18:7-9, Eze. 18:13, Eze. 18:17 and Eze. 22:12 all speak against the practice. Although the New Testament has far less to say on the subject, many theologians have interpreted Luke 6:35 (“lend, expecting nothing in return” – NASB) as a command against usury. With so many references to the practice outside of the Pentateuch, usury cannot be automatically dismissed as a matter of concern only for ancient Israel.
Furthermore, the Bible contains no positive references to usury or those that practice it. Although the idea of collecting interest on a bank deposit is brought up in the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-29, Luke 19:11-26), it is at best a neutral statement. Jesus does not condemn the words of his fictional property owner (who is described as a “harsh man”), but neither does he endorse them.
Church leaders and theologians from Augustine and St. John Chrysostom to Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther unanimously and harshly condemned the practice of usury, which remained punishable by excommunication into the early years of the Reformation. The Medieval church did permit Jews to charge interest on loans, since Jews were already regarded by the church as accursed, but no other exceptions were entertained.
So what changed? A few advocates of permitting certain forms of usury rose up from time to time, but they were either ignored or shouted down. Meanwhile, the world was changing. What had worked within the context of a tribal society with an agrarian economy didn’t translate well to the medieval world with its growing cities and rising merchant class. Without the ability to charge interest, there was no incentive to lend money since doing so would result in a net loss to the lender. And with such limited access to loans, only the wealthy could afford the startup costs of new business ventures.
John Calvin was the first theologian to formulate a comprehensive case for lifting the ban on some forms of usury. Among other things, he pointed out the context in which the biblical command was given, namely, helping the poor (Lev. 25:35). The spirit of the Law was not concerned with regulating all forms of commerce, but rather with encouraging compassionate treatment of the poor and prohibiting the wealthy from exploiting the less fortunate for personal gain. It was meant to protect the poor, not to hinder any efforts they might make to rise out of poverty.
In a similar fashion we can uncover the intent of the authors of Leviticus in regard to the command that appears to prohibit all male homosexual conduct. Lev. 18:3 and 20:23 instruct the Israelites not to emulate the behaviors of the surrounding nations, whose religious practices were known to include most of the acts listed in those two chapters.
Within this context we can see why lesbianism was overlooked entirely (it was not practiced in any known temple rituals at the time), and why the command against male-male sex is one of the few Levitical prohibitions not repeated in the book of Deuteronomy (or anywhere else in the Old Testament) unless one counts references to the qadesh, the male “holy ones” who had sex with male patrons as part of certain pagan fertility rituals.
In the New Testament Paul echoes that condemnation of pagan fertility rituals (which were still common in Roman times) when he speaks of the “unnatural” passions that arise out of idolatrous practices in Rom. 1:18-32. Although Paul’s discourse includes an apparent mention of lesbian activity in verse 26, theologians have not always interpreted this verse as a reference to lesbianism. Verse 26 is not at all out of place within the context of the fertility rituals, given that some of those rites involved female priests who dressed up as men to simulate sex with male priests who were dressed as women.
A few scholars have also proposed that the word arsenokoitai, which appears in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 and which Paul apparently coined, was derived from the words used in the Greek translation of Lev. 18:22. If that is the case, then all of the Bible’s references to homosexual behavior (not counting the attempted rape and murder in the Sodom narrative) point specifically to the idolatrous qadesh and those who patronized them.
Equipped with such an understanding, we are freed to examine the issue of committed same-sex relationships from broader biblical principles, as the church has done and continues to do for a variety of issues that were not directly addressed by the authors of the Old and New Testaments – modern commerce, representative government, abortion, biotechnology, and many others. Within such a framework there are numerous principles we can apply to this issue, including marital fidelity, mutual commitment, avoidance of immoral behavior and self-sacrificial love.
Some might object to the comparison of an economic issue (usury) with a matter of sexual morality. Given that the biblical authors spend far more time discussing economic justice than they do addressing sexual ethics, that’s not an unfounded reservation; the modern church has simply reversed the order of importance.
Where the letter of the law demands that our highest devotion be reserved for rules and regulations, the spirit of the law frees us to truly love others by placing people ahead of ideas. As Jesus himself said when confronted by the religious leaders for not adhering to the letter of the law, “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27)
It doesn’t matter what created man says or how he tries to spin it, God’s word is God’s word. When our Creator says do something or don’t do something, it’s not a suggestion or an “idea”. His commandments are precisely that.. commandments. His other laws are laws. It doesn’t get any more simple than that.
So, spin away and we’ll see how God handles disobedience when the time comes.
Les,
How, then, do you handle Paul’s epistle to the Galatians?
Eugene,
This was another piece of thoughtful analysis. Thank you for sharing it!
So I take it that Les keeps kosher?
James, Be specific, please, on your reference to Galatians. I can only say that the Bible does not contradict itself. God’s Word is truth, so no lies attributed to God can be found in it. That reminds me… Eugene stated that Jesus referred to “his fictional property owner” in the story of the talents. But where does Eugene determine that the story is fictional?
Skemono, More than just kosher.
Les, perhaps you could address Eugene’s arguments specifically, with your own rebuttals. Just calling it spin and making declarative statements about God doesn’t really help clarify anything.
I don’t see the point in obeying a law if you break the spirit of the law.
In my experience, it is akin to “I was just following orders.”
David, I am not a pastor but I will share this in my personal experience: I have concluded in my life that I must decide whether the Bible is the literal, infallible Word of God or if there is any fallacy contained in the Scriptures. If the Bible has lies in it then I have to determine, from my weak human perspective, what is truth and what is not. I have no capability of making those determinations and must then throw out the Bible as a guide in my life. How can I trust it? On the other hand, if I accept the Bible as truth as it claims, then I must trust that my Creator knows whats best for me and I would be wise to follow it (like the owner’s manual for a car). If He says sin leads to death, then it does! If He spells out those sins, then I better pay attention. If He says Jesus died for my sins so I may have eternal life, I buy it! My life has become much more blessed since making that commitment to trusting and obeying His Word. If I made the wrong decision, I will still have had a great life. If I have made the right decision…well, God says His rewards are great. I believe Him.
Les,
I also believe that it is a matter of interpretation when it comes to Scripture.
For example, some people believe Matthew 16:24 “If you want to come after me you must deny yourself and pick up your cross” is to be interpreted as to mean to “deny your basic being”. In other words some anti-gay folks interpret that verse to mean that when it comes to homosexuality gay people must “deny” their orientation or any expression of it and remain celibate because we are called to “deny ourselves”. Or deny what comes to gays naturally as Alan Chambers has pointed out a few times to others about his personal life struggles . I don’t agree with that interpretation. If you further read, verse 25, Jesus says, “Whoever, would save his live would lose it, but whoever loses his life will find it.” I personally believe this to mean that unlike Peter who denied Christ three times, we must not deny who Christ is and what he represents. Even onto death. Christ died for our salvation. So must we die for Christ. To be an example to others that the risen Lord is true and works in our lives. One of the greatest forms of love is to die for another. Christ did it to prove that he loved the Father and us. So must we as faithful followers die for Christ or another person if the situation should arise. Early Christians “denied themselves” in order to follow Christ to the cross, to die in the arena by beasts and for the pleasure of sick and twisted minds of the Roman Empire.
So it is all a matter of interpretation, Les. I’m glad you find peace in your belief. But don’t discount what others maybe saying because you came to a different conclusion which you hold true and that others must come to the same conclusion as you have.
You are speaking of extremes, Les. I don’t have to believe the Bible contains lies to know that I must study it in great detail to find out if my understanding is correct. We are, in fact, commanded to do so. Paul commended the Christians at Berea for exactly this kind of study in Acts 17:11. I sometimes think we could learn a thing or two from our Jewish brothers and sisters on that score.
I dare say there is no way you follow every command in the Bible because it would be absurd. You can, however, study the context of those commands, in light of other scripture and the period in which it was written. This is important otherwise you really do end up justifying slavery and all sorts of bad things. That’s not God’s fault, it is ours.
If you are gay, Les, and you truly feel that God forbids you to express your love for the same sex, then by all means you should not. But these are not issues which are core to the faith, and I do not believe we should impose them on others. It is up to their personal experience with God to determine this for themselves.
In the mean time, I suggest you read this article.
Les,
I reccomend you read the book “Misquoting Jesus.” It talks about the challenge of taking a “sola scriptura” stance and saying the Bible is God’s infallible word- when the manuscripts used to define its published text are themselves very flawed.
You’re right, the Bible doesn’t contradict itself. Well, to be more specific, the ENGLISH translation of the Bible doesn’t contradict itself.
See, the Greek manuscripts used to make up the text of the bible are not only hundreds of years younger than Jesus’ original followers; they are subject of so much corruption that it has taken an entire field of study to find the historically true words from the lines of corrupted text altered by “heretical” Christians who tried to push their views into the canon.
Sometimes human error and human corruption combine and things REALLY get complicated, like in the case of scholar Johann J. Wettstein (1693-1754). In 1715 Wettstein went to England as part of a literary tour, and was given full access to the Codex Alexandrinus, one of the most accurate and reliable codices we have of the Biblical manuscripts.
But one passage caught his eye: the passage of 1 Timothy 3:16. This is a passage used to “prove” that the idea that Jesus and God are one in the same – Homoousios – which is one of the foundational beliefs in Christianity as we know it today, especially “bible-believing” Christianity.
Wettstein, his contemporaries, and all bibles published up to that point had read the manuscript and believed it said “God manifested in the flesh” because of the word “Theos” (“God”) used in the text. In this case, “Theos” was written as Theta and Sigma (ΘΣ) with a line over it to indicate that the two letters were an abbreviation for the full word (a practice used to save time writing common words). But upon close examination, Wettstein noticed two crucial things: The line written over top the two letters was done in a different color ink than the rest of the text – and the line in the middle of the letter Theta was not originally placed there purposefully: it was a mark that had bled through from the other side of the vellum. When you take away the line written overtop and the mark in the Theta, you get a much different word: “Os” (ΟΣ) which simply means “who.” So the line originally read “who is manifested in the flesh” NOT “God who is manifested in the flesh.”
What do you do when your best, most reliable manuscript suddenly changes theology on you??
Well, in Wettstein’s case, upon report of the finding, he was abandoned by his colleagues and forced to continue his translation of the manuscript in the Netherlands where he could find peace. Even today his work is a valuable, monumental effort.
In the case of all of the Bibles people use to say “this is God’s word, period!!” – some changed to fit the truer text and some didn’t – and some SORT OF did – and these are the most tricky.
See, English is a funny language, and very different from Greek. For example – The King James Version still translates the verse as “God manifested in the flesh.” The NASB is slightly more- um, honest(?) THEY translate the line as “He who is manifested in the flesh.” Very clever! They’ve reached a compromise that allows the older text to be included, while still conforming to the theological underpinnings of homoousios that the older text does not actually support. they have the line “…who is manifested in the flesh” – but they put before it the pronoun “he.” Even more clever is their capitalization of the letter “H” in the word “he,” so that it becomes “He.” Now, the pronoun “he” is never capitalized unless it is referring to God. But the greek word “OS” does not specificy whether the being referred to is God or not. Even better is the New Living Translation. They translate the word as “Christ manifested in the flesh.” They are correct in not explicitly using the word “God.” Well, if everybody for a thousand years as already assumed the word “Christ” equals “God” anyway, you don’t really even NEED to use the word “God!”
And of course, the most scholarly of these translations posts little footnotes about the verse at the bottom of the page for our benefit, telling us that “some manuscripts” say “God” while “other manuscripts” say “who.”
And that little two-letter Greek word is just the tip of the iceberg.
First, there’s no doubt that the Bible, which has many versions, can be taken to mean things differently. That doesn’t mean a contradiction, especially when the Bible is used to interpret itself. There are verses in the New Testament, for example, which help explain verses in the Old Testament. A thorough study of the Scriptures, which is a lifetime effort, will yield continuing gems of truth that will not terminate a believer’s learning experience. It just keeps getting better.
Second, God honors those who study with the intent on getting to know Him better, not to prove one’s theology. A disciple is a student, humble enough to be taught.
Third, I haven’t condemned anyone about anything (reread my posts). I just related my experience and philosophy based on my relationship with the Almighty.
Fourth, Emily is correct… things Can get very complicated. The Gospel was never intended to be that way. It was communicated through the life and words of Christ to be understood by all. We are the ones that muddy-up the water.
Fifth, David, I am sad to say that I do not indeed follow every command, but I am growing and it’s still my life’s goal. Thankfully, God didn’t hit me with all of my faults and weaknesses at one time. I am growing as He reveals my defects and then grants me the grace to overcome them. He is more patient than I. Oh, and I haven’t imposed anything on anyone (reread my posts). I have only shared what I has discovered in my walk. God gives the gays the freedom to choose just like He gives me the freedom to choose my lifestyle. It’s up to the hearer of His Words to decide as they see fit. (they are not MY words!) God does not force obedience.. who am I to do it, either?
Finally, I’m not into picking apart every syllable and punctuation of the Bible. I don’t need to know the Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew roots of every word. I just need to stay to my commitment of obeying what I know to be His will and He’ll reveal to me the next step in my spiritual growth that I need to take. I wasn’t looking to argue with anyone, but I was looking to emphasize the simplicity of the Gospel.
Les,
You might not have condemned Eugene to hell, but it sure sounds as though you condemned him to judgement for disobedience. I reference the last sentence of your first comment:
James, I haven’t condemned anyone to anything (what are you so sensitive about?). I am not the judge. If there is a judgment, then we all will face it (even I) and we all will either face it on our own or we’ll face it under the grace of Christ.
God sorts this out. Not me.
Les, I am an agnostic not because of the Bible’s issues with homosexuality but specifically because of what I perceive as contradictions. That said, I generally do not go into all the scriptural issues with Christians because I have found two things happen: people break down and become confused or they just shut down and say it does not matter because the Bible is true regardless. I do not like to challenge people’s faith, so I stay away from discussing all the problems with the scriptures. Also, I know that many on this forum are very deep believers and I stay away largely from questioning something so personal to many.
That said, if you want to examine all the contradictions read any deconstructionist analysis, such as Foucault. Deconstructionists go line by line and demonstrate how fallable and unstable the language can be. I do think that modern life conflicts with the Bible in general (for example, the view of women is very antique). The fact that there are so many different denominations suggests that there are a lot of differing views about what the law is. It seems to me that if the scriptures and law were clear, then the church would be more unified. Also, we know that the Catholic Church removed many of the scriptures at one point because they were conflicting documents and there are many documents that are missing. The Bible is an incomplete anthology, so to suggest that it is somehow complete and perfect is faulty.
Les,
I guess the problem is your use of the word ‘spin’ (which may connote things like:
1)traps
2)lies
3)stretching the truth
4)to present ideas in a certain way)
If you aren’t SPECIFICALLY condemning, then you are implicitly condemning by using a word that seems to imply deception.
And, yes, this is a form of judgement on your part…I know you may say that it is a form of “discernment”. But you’ll have to do a better job of arguing for that, if you so choose.
Is this another backhanded judgment, Les? How on earth do you know Eugene’s intent? You say you aren’t judging but there’s not any other way to take that.
How will you know? Are you operating only on feeling? And what if His request of you is that you do study His word with all the resources at your disposal? Well guess what, it is.
Iron sharpens iron, but if you are unwilling to study deeply, then we are at an impasse. I can’t learn much from you because it doesn’t seem you think it’s worth the time to study the Word. You can’t learn much from me because apparently you aren’t humble enough to think I might have something you could learn.
The ones commended in the early church were those who did not take even the Apostle’s word, but studied intently to make sure they understood from scripture what they had been told. If you want a model, that’s about as good as it will get. Oh, and they weren’t pastors either.
He’s not sensitive, Les, he is calling you on a lie. Many here have experienced such backhanded judgment. I can even remember being taught how to do it by less principled Christians in my early life. You are doing it right here, with your comment “what are you so sensitive about.” I was taught a variation of this, i.e. that when saying things about faith which make someone else angry, interpret that as “their conscience being stirred” or “guilt” or perhaps just Satan getting mad. It works pretty well on those who don’t get it. I had to learn that people often get mad just because I was treating them like idiots, which was of course my fault.
Another one is to emphasize that when judgment day comes, a Christian will lose nothing if they had been wrong about God, but an unbeliever will have lost everything if the reverse is true. Quite effective, if you want someone to take out fire insurance rather than learn the love of God. These are the kinds of things which one can be deluded into believing will “share the Gospel” if one doesn’t study for oneself.
Tangents are fine as long as they relate, but could we also get back to discussing the specifics of Eugene’s post? Les, do you have specific comments instead of generalizations? There is plenty of material from which to bring a debate.
There is a story in the news today about a church that would not host a gay man’s funeral. I think that this is relevant to the discussion about spirit of the law versus letter of the law. The church said this: “We did decline to host the service – not based on hatred, not based on discrimination, but based on principle,” Simons told The Associated Press. “Had we known it on the day they first spoke about it – yes, we would have declined then. It’s not that we didn’t love the family.”
The principle issue is about the letter of the law, so the church hurts the family over its adherence to what it believes is a principle. The spirit of the law in this case could have brought more people together, people that the church believes it should be reaching. The story is here: https://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=613334&category=&BCCode=&newsdate=8/10/2007
Alright, look… I am sorry my simplistic approach to Scripture has offended so many. My approach works for me, ok? Everyone is free to determine their own course in life. I recognize that and I don’t have a problem with it.
My intent was not and is not to argue. It was to offer what works for me. I believe there will be a judgment and I believe that we’ll all face it. I believe that Christ offers His life to pay for my sins and that ‘deal’ includes obedience to His will.
Believe what you want. It’s ok… really. You don’t HAVE to believe the Bible, you don’t HAVE to believe in God. Again, it works for me (and a bunch of other folks). You won’t see me stick a gun to anyone’s head over this, so you may stand down.
I don’t live in a monastery, yet I play well with others. I wasn’t intending to convince anyone of my beliefs, just to share what works for me. At least it opened an interesting discussion. I don’t enjoy the concept of debate when it involves religion (and maybe politics). I don’t want us all to just drone on and on over things that have been debated since Christianity was established.
Christ didn’t waste His time on endless debates. He shared love and helped people. He told stories to help us better understand His kingdom and His character. He got murdered for it, so even Christ didn’t reach every heart.
On usury, Calvin was not inferring the “spirit of the Law”. In Exodus 22:24, Leviticus 25:35-37, Proverbs 22:7, etc., the poor was specifically mentioned.
Furthermore, Deuteronomy 23:20-21 gave exceptions to this rule.
In any case, sury is not merely charging interest on loans. It referred also to bureau de change: a far more important aspect in Biblical times. In addition to that, medieval text usually refers usury to astronomical interests – Lombard’s 250% for example, not the low interest rates we have become accustomed to (the medieval world used metallic currency, rather if ever interest rates of our times would be possible then)
Lastly, usury was usually considered the lack of charity, not a crime – until a shift led by Saint Anselm of Canterbury calling usury theft. The monetary economy of our current times is extremely different from back then. We don’t trade with coins of silver and gold, but with paper money. Inflation, once a rarity back then, is an ever present feature today, making interest necessary (otherwise no one would be lending money).
So how is usury similar to homosexuality? Did the Bible ever been vague about homosexuality, ever gave any exemptions to it? And same-sex marriages – the Bible specifically created the union between man and wife, with specific gender roles for both. Certainly, it is hard to infer that the “spirit of the Law” don’t mind homosexuality.
Les, that is exactly the problem. Until you get to know the text in the language it was spoken, you cannot for sure say that the “simple” gospel you live by was really spoken by God to the Evangelists in the text that you read it.
Something that Jews understand is that every single word in the Scriptures has meaning (in the Hebrew, of course). Entire sermons and studies have been written based on the use and importance of a singular word. There’s a huge difference between saying Jesus is “Theos” and saying he’s “Os”! That’s the difference between saying whether he’s God or not!
Christians are a people of the Book. The Book is so important to know and understand. How ELSE are you going to know how to stay committed to obeying what you know to be His will? How else do you “know” what “His will” is? Gnostics said that God’s will was not to believe Jesus died on the cross. Docetists said there were two Gods: the Jewish God and the Christian God. Arians said Jesus was Divine but was not the same as God. They all “knew” and “understood” their beliefs to be God’s Word and Will. And they “knew” because they had the scriptures to back them up.
Eugene, good job with trying to tackle this issue.
Rajan, with all due respect, why claim the Bible is clear about subjects that aren’t in the Bible? The Bible does not speak to the issue of same-sex marriage, so there’s nothing to be clear about, the issue is simply not there. As for homosexuality, it’s not there either, there is no treatise on homosexuality in the Bible, there are condemnations of specific acts. Acts which hardly serve to define homosexuality as we understand it today. And how exactly did the Bible ‘create’ marriage? Why put it that way? And since when are gender roles written in stone? I don’t recall reading passages that say women belong in the kitchen and men belong in the workplace. From what I can tell your post is not about what the Bible says, but what you think it says.
I’m forever perplexed at the notion of “biblical” marriage. In Judaism, it was the sages of later generations that declared marriage to be a monogamous endeavor, even though earlier sages had debated and declared how many concubines the king of Israel should (“reasonably”) be allowed to have. But this was a conclusion that my people reached through study and interpretation, taking into account modern context and circumstances of living, with the greatest minds of our scholars and rabbis. How is it that Christians have reached this conclusion? There is no such “oral law” tradition in Christianity.
If I am to believe the protestant “sola scriptura” stance (the stance that Fundies hold), then marriage is to be defined solely by how the Bible defines it. Well, why not emulate the wisest of the kings of Israel, Solomon? His concubines numbered in the hundreds. Or what about Jacob, one of the Patriarchs of my people? He had two wives, both equally revered as Matriarchs – Rachel and Leah.
Unless, we are to take into account social context and re-interpret the scripture to fit our life as it is today. That would make sense. But then, that would go against the Bible, right?
Personally, I’ll agree with you on the first two statements, but I am obedient because I love Him, not because it’s part of any deal. However I will give you that He does call us to be obedient.
What makes salvation so incredibly difficult for most of us to grasp is that you can’t do anything to deserve it. Learning to model our own love of others on that example will take care of just about all the commandments you can find. So in that way, I guess it is simple – but you can’t drink milk forever.
Stick around Les, you are welcome to participate. Just try to be respectful and understand that a lot of people here have been deeply hurt by the church or those who represent it.
Emily, in my experience, most fundamentalist types are not critical thinkers, they simply haven’t researched and understood Christianity as a whole much less the history of their own sect within the faith. Therefore they develop this system of beliefs that is a virtual house of cards because it is so weakly constructed. The fact that they do this and claim that they are on solid ground is what confounds the rest of us. It just boggles the mind when one confronts someone whose ultimate answer to everything is “God said it, I believe it”, particularly when the belief being discussed wasn’t said by God in the first place. Therefore your observation regarding marriage is correct, it was not the Bible that made marriage monogamous, that came with time and it was the Church that proclaimed it so in the Christian tradition. So much so that by the time the Mormons showed up, the social taboo was strong enough to push the Mormons westward across the continent to avoid persecution. Both Mormons and those that opposed them had that same Bible, yet reached diametrically opposing positions. This clearly shows that while marriage may be monogamous in the eyes of modern Christians (well most), it is not the clear teaching of Scripture that many claim it is.
2 Timothy 3:16 is a classic example of one of several logical fallacies fundamentalists are (willingly) trapped inside. It is circular reasoning. The source of validation is the source itself.
The christian bible is infallible and inerrant because it says it is. How convenient.
If it were so, then the bible would be able to stand up to all the tests of reason. It cannot. We accept it by faith which transcends reason and science but is not superior to either.
No God worthy of our worship or loyalty would ask us to sacrifice common sense and reason. Yet human beings do this all the time in pursuit of profit, control, domination, war, terror, free labor, exploitation and greed. And that is exactly the kind of institution you will find when you fully explore biblical literalism.
Thanks, David… I sense the ‘deeply hurt’ part. I’m not a real ‘touchy feely’ person, so when I went through my crisis or two in life, I had to stop, determine why I was hurt, and figure out what to do to learn from it (to avoid that again!).
Life is a learning experience and everybody approaches it in their own way(s). I am sharing mine.
I am accused of presenting backhanded condemnations (see earlier posts), yet it’s ok for others to assume I’m a weak minded non-researching, circular thinking ‘fundie’ building my beliefs on a house of cards. David, I’m thankful that was all said with respect! I feel much better.
The idea that the Bible “created” or otherwise defined marriage is dependent on how much one reads into the creation narrative. The only specific command that can be related to marriage in Genesis 1-2 is “be fruitful and multiply” – the same command God gives to all of the animals. Since most churches have long since abandoned the idea that procreation must occur to legitimize a marriage, that leaves us with only extrapolation based on the preconceived assumption that God’s plan for marriage is fully laid out in Gen. 1 and 2.
Given that Jesus uses the creation account in his condemnation of all remarriage following divorce, and that Paul cites it to regulate hair lengths and to forbid women from holding positions of authority over men, evangelicals are faced with some major inconsistencies if they interpret New Testament appeals to Gen. 1-2 as proof of God’s absolute intent for marriage while ignoring these other commands.
And the institution of marriage itself has changed dramatically over the centuries. How many heterosexual Christians today would submit to an ultimatum to either enter into a marriage where romantic love was absent (and likely to remain that way) or to commit to lifelong celibacy? Yet they have no problem claiming an entitlement for themselves to emotional fulfillment while holding non-heterosexuals to a far more rigorous standard of ascetic living.
In biblical times arranged marriages were the norm; marriage had everything to do with continuing the family line and any feelings of love that might develop between husband and wife were purely incidental. Today’s notions of romantic love seldom came into play, yet today we place them at the core of what we regard as marriage.
Marriage has indeed changed significantly over the centuries, just as our understanding of economics has. If romantic love is as central to marriage as modern Christians regard it, and if Paul himself (an enthusiastic advocate of celibacy) would not deny marriage to any who wanted it, then the church must address the double standard it has created by denying even the possibility of a romantic relationship to an entire segment of its membership.
Les, in your first posted comment, you basically told everyone to sit down and shut up, albeit in religious terminology, so it’s a bit difficult for me to see you as an open-minded person who is willing to discuss and debate.
I don’t care for the use of slurs like “fundie” but I don’t see how the rest was directed to you personally, though you may have sparked the tangent. No one is going to coddle you, Les, you have to speak up for yourself. You still haven’t made any specific statements about Eugene’s original analysis.
And here as in life, you have to give respect to get it.
How strange that we see all these assertins that the Bible doesn’t contradict itself. It does, in many places. See, for instance, Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Both claim to give the genealogy of Christ (traced through Joseph, even though it was supposed tobe a virgin birth). But not only are the names different, the number of genrations from David to Christ is different.
Not that this means the Bible should be discarded – it contains important lessons, which the humans who wrote it got down as best as they could. But they were human, and living in a specific place and time, and their understanding of God was imperfect as all of ours is.
In reference to this article, there is an interesting blog to blog discussion between me and a certain Scott Thong, if you are willing to participate:
https://yuki-thejourney.blogspot.com/2007/08/finally-something-that-gets-us-thinking.html
https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/08/13/comment-to-yukis-remarks-on-my-gay-pastor-post/
Geez, this discussion just brings up everything that led me to leave evangelicaism/fundamentalism years ago.
Believe what you want. It’s ok… really. You don’t HAVE to believe the Bible, you don’t HAVE to believe in God. Again, it works for me (and a bunch of other folks). You won’t see me stick a gun to anyone’s head over this, so you may stand down.
Les, I think you may be missing an important point. This is not a godly v. heathen debate. Most of the people who are disagreeing with you DO believe the Bible and DO believe in God. The believe enough to bother studying and learning and listening and not just assuming that what they were told in Sunday school is correct.
It is very very easy to have blind faith. It’s easy not to question what one has been told. And when something is challenging, the simplest answer is “I believe it because I believe it and that makes it true”.
But those methods are for the simple, the young, or the immature. Paul refers to this as the milk of the Word. It’s faith for those who are not grounded or mature.
But with growth in God comes the strength to challenge presumptions. With growth comes the ability to study, compare, and learn. No longer is one in danger of losing faith altogether if something challenges the security of certainty.
I would encourage you to recognize that those who are expousing a doctine different than your own are not people who are enemies of Christ. They are not heathen. They are not willful disobedient hedonists seeking their own pleasure above the will of God.
No. They are devout sincere thoughtful people who have researched Scripture within context of time, community, culture and audience.
And also consider that they may just possibly be right.
Perhaps interpretation of the Scripture should not be guided by the modern failure to follow clear principles that are emphasized throughout Scripture.
Eugene makes a very good point, proving usury as a Scriptural principle rather then a cultural issue. Oppression of the poor is obviously still an issue today, from payday loans to credit cards that “help” you out of debt. The Church truly ought to turn and learn from both the Old Testament and the New. It has clearly failed in helping the poor, and has oft become a manner to oppress them.
Irregardless of if Christ referenced usury in the quote “lend, and expect nothing in return” (which is a seemingly reasonable application in my mind), Christ made it very clear that we are not to oppress the poor. The Church found in Acts certainly exemplified this. The sin of usury, found in the spirit of the law rather than another legalism, certainly is something we should heed and repent of. I think the same applies with divorce.
I feel like (and am being challenged to work and research a bit harder to affirm) Scriptural interpretation makes a pretty solid case against homosexuality as a principle. Paul’s reference is fairly clear (though the arguments above are interesting/challenging), but biblical teaching on marriage and sexuality seems to only affirm one sexual ethic: that of monogamous heterosexuality. From God’s creation of Eve as a partner for Adam (note that Genesis is written far after and includes “for this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” in 2:24) to Christ’s quoting and reinforcement of the marriage issue (concerning Moses’ concession to divorce). Solomon is an interesting character to reference, certainly no model of healthy godly living, as I see his kingdom fall apart because of idol worship influenced chiefly by his many concubines.
I am interested in this discussion, and so as long as it remains respectable (let’s not discuss the spirit of the law and rip each other open, eh?) I think I will enjoy and grow from it. It sounds like many have a lot on the line in the debate, and respect is only needed moreso because of that.
But that’s the whole point of what has been said here: Biblical teaching on marriage and sexuality seems one way because that is what the Christian majority has spent forever convincing us that it seems like. But if you take a closer look, monogamy is nowhere taught as a biblical principle; practically every hero of the faith in the old testament had more than one wife and there is not a single injunction in either the New Testament or the Old discouraging polygamous marriage categorically; Solomon is rebuked because his wives were foreigners with different gods, but never simply because he had wives in the plural.
The reference to Adam and Eve also makes no mention of monogamy–only that a man and woman are joined (which is reinforced by Christ using it in reference to divorce). It is modern Christians who have read monogamy into the statement–read it carefully and tell me where it anywhere suggests, or is later enforced, that a man have only one wife.
This isn’t an argument that polygamy is better or more acceptable; but the evangelical Christian party line, in my experience is, “The way we do marriage, here in the United States in the 21st century, is the way it always has been and it is Biblically mandated”–but that’s utterly untrue. Its the same thing gays are accused of–reading the Bible to fit the world that we live in, rather than what was acceptable 2000-3000 years ago.
John:
There’s no such word as “irregardless.”
Use of such a word expresses a double negative.
And anybody who thinks marriage as we know it today is truly “traditional,” read Stephanie Coontz’s book. https://www.amazon.com/Marriage-History-How-Love-Conquered/dp/014303667X
Cyrano, is there any basis in the Bible you know of for same-sex marriages?
If sexual conduct of any sort is only permissible within a marriage, and two men can never marry righteously under God, then they cannot have righteous sexual conduct. Is this so?
Is God cruel? John that is the question I would ask you. It’s pretty east for a heterosexual person to tell a gay person that they should live a celibate lifestyle isn’t it, but imagine that life for yourself.
Imagine going thought life without the posibility of ever having any romance, which is something straight people take for granted. You can’t date because your not attracted to women. This will of course limit your friendships because as you grow into adulthood most of the people you know will be getting into romantic relationships of there own. This isn’t some 10 year committment mind you this is for life. No dating, no sex, no romance for life. All the while your watching seemingly everyone around you do those things or have those things all the time.
Now remember your going to be gay your entire life despite what most anti-gay religious leaders may tell you because that is the way that sexuality works. Behavior can change but there has been no evidence that sexuality can change. Any God who would allow someone to be gay and expect this kind of lifestyle from them is in my opinion a very cruel God.
I’ve always said that most straight people lack empathy for gay people. They can’t or won’t put themselves in the shoes of a gay person and think about things from their perspective.
Cyrano,
While I do see there is no solid verse-by-verse play for heterosexual monogamy, I see two pieces that seem to support it, certainly much stronger than any case made for homosexuality. First is the continual failures of polygamy in the Old Testament narratives. From Abraham to Solomon, polygamy never comes out looking good. Second, the teachings of the New Testament for leadership clearly endorse a “man of one wife”. There have been thousands of debates about the exact meaning of this, but polygamy is an obvious one I think scholars will say is not endorsed. I feel comfortable with the conclusion that the New Testament church was against polygamy, and I will respond with a comment later with some research on the early church fathers’ teaching on said matter.
I admit the inclination to interpreting Scripture with a 21st Century mindset (though I don’t really want to be linked with any “party”, and hesitate to call myself an evangelical Christian because of the huge baggage attached to it). But any man or woman living in this century is built with the same inclination, and perhaps the gay-agenda has misread principles as well.
Tubbs,
You have assumed a bit much, I suppose. First is concerning my sexuality and my struggles. Second is concerning the idea that all who struggle with homosexuality are destined for celibacy. I can argue with these things, but they are really all based on experience at this point, and ends up with a deeply personal assault on my life. As said before, there is much on the line, and it is for me as well as others (including my grammatical mistakes, ha!).
John I don’t think I said a thing about your sexuality. I said heterosexuals lack empathy for homosexuals. I believe that. I don’t know whether your gay or not, but please answer my question if you will. Would a God who asked you to do that be considered cruel by any reasonable standard in your opinion.
I think it’s time to bring back:
WHAT WE CAN LEARN ABOUT MARRIAGE FROM THE BIBLE
From Adam we learn that there is not need for a marriage.
From Seth we learn that procreation with your sisters is OK.
From Abraham we learn that a man can marry his sister – and lie about it. We also learn that if your wife is barren, she can give you her maid to impregnate.
From Lot’s daughters we learn that if you don’t have a man and you want a child, you can always just get your father drunk and have sex with him.
From Jacob we learn that a wife can be purchased by seven years of labor. We also learn that it is acceptable to deceive a groom into marrying the wrong woman and the marriage is valid. We also learn that having two sisters as wives is a blessing.
From Onan we learn that a man is obligated to impregnate his brother’s widow. We also learn that when having sex with your sister-in-law, you are not supposed to pull out before ejaculating (it’s wicked in God’s sight).
From Salmon we learn that your son born of a prostitute will bring recognition and honor to your name for millennia and your descendant will be the Messiah.
From Ruth we learn that a woman belongs to her husband’s family even after his death. We also learn that premarital seduction is honorable.
From David we learn that marriage (to one of your several wives) is for establishing connection into the royal family. We also find that if you kill a man to take his wife, she’ll provide you an heir who will be both wise and wealthy.
From Solomon we learn that a man can have as many wives as he can afford – along with twice as many concubines.
Paul tells us some very interesting things about marriage: It’s better never to marry (unless you can’t control your passions). And if do have a spouse and they are not a believer, then if s/he leaves you, let them go.
Even Jesus had some opinions about marriage: be sure to have enough wine at the ceremony and second marriages are adultery (even if the ex-spouse is a non-believer).
Yes, there is so much we can learn about marriage from Scripture. But one thing is clear: The idea of “one man, one woman” marriage may indeed be “traditional” but it certainly isn’t Biblical.
John,
I think that a case could be made that Jacob’s polygamy turned out pretty well.
If Jacob has just stuck with his first wife, Joseph never would have been born and the entire nation of Israel would have starved to death because Joseph wouldn’t have been there to give them Egyptian grain.
And a case could be made that David’s polygamy turned out not so horrible.
It was through his eighth wife that the lineage of Jesus is traced. Were he content with Michal there would be no Christianity.
1. I’ve done a bit of research on the early church position concerning monogamy, and it seems that many of the church fathers were animate about the importance of it in their time. Tertullian speaks in great detail concerning the issue, citing Genesis 2:24 as well (“for this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh”), noting that man left for one wife, not several. “There were more ribs in Adam, and hands that knew no weariness in God; but not more wives in the eye of God.” (ANF04. Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second). If the early church, arising out of the church of Acts, held such a position, this only inclines me more to believe that the New Testament church did as well.
2. While citing some horrid examples from the Old Testament makes for a nice Anti-Chick tract(which are funny), I haven’t found that it makes for good theology, same for the “fundie”. Extrapolating theology from narratives always has to be done carefully. I’m open to discussing this, but perhaps not with a rundown punchlist. God used many a broken person in awe-inspiring and undeserved ways; prostitutes Rahab and Tamar, I believe, certainly are undeserving to be in the lineage of Christ, yet we do not condone prostitution.
3. The issue of a cruel God is an issue I could not possibly cover here. The question is if it truly cruel for God to ask for a man to be celebite, to live a life free of romance and the wonderful blessings contained (if I understand the question properly). I don’t know that it’s any less cruel than to make a man born with muscular dystrophy, unable to ever walk or participate in normal life, or to bring painful loss to a woman through the far-early death of her child.
The question therefore, really doesn’t seem to be if such cruelty exists, but if it comes from God. That, I cannot answer here. C.S. Lewis’ struggle with this is found in A Grief Observed as well as many excellent conclusions in The Problem of Pain.
This is a challenging and excellent discussion.
Heck, it goes beyond Jacobs wives. The “twelve tribes” of Israel (Jacob) came from two wives and two maidservants.
John,
The problem with comparing muscular dystrophy and other physical ailments to homosexuality is that scientific causality for muscular dystrophy has been determined. Diseases like Juvenile Diabetes are cruel and we do not know how to cure them. But science is leading the way.
the same cannot be said of homosexuality. And if a man can find lasting love, joy and blessings so easily with another man, as easily as a straight man can with another woman, the only God that would deny this IS a cruel God. A person might be afflicted by disease but romantic love is not denied to them. They do not have to be alone in suffering. You could say “well, God would not abandon them in their suffering” and that’s true, but we both know that there is no replacement for having someone physically hold you in their arms or hold your hand as you fall prey to horrific symptoms. Indeed, I believe that GOD exists WITHIN that person holding you lovingly – they become a conduit for that spiritual love through that earthly love.
Unless you are an advocate of Cook’s theory that Jesus be made your lover to get you over your homosexuality – that would be why, in his and many others’ view, Christ’s love is all you need, and the love of another man is not needed. Sounds a bit kinky to me.
Emily,
While I certainly don’t want to compare homosexuality to such things as muscular dystrophy, the analogy I was using was to illustrate the possible sadochism of God. It seems to me that he asks many men and women to live through circumstance that is heartbreaking, terrible, and seemingly unbearable, and sometimes suffer very alone. I think this idea is even biblical.
I think the ethic of homosexuality ought not to be determined by the sadistic-capability of God. Let’s be straight (no pun intended)-He can be downright unbearable at times. Yet I do truly believe He is a good God in spite of this.
I think God has provided a body, the Church, which should be holding the hands through the suffering. I will easily admit that if homosexuality is indeed “sin”, and is something to struggle against, it is the Church that has the absolute responsibility to be Christ to those suffering. She has failed miserably in this, and it is a point that absolutely must change, as well as the points made originally about oppressing the poor and advocating easy divorce. Yet even this hypocrisy cannot determine our ethic.
I refuse to believe that God would deny humans love of any sort as a divine plan. That’s where you and I will have to differ. The only reason people attracted to the same sex would need to suffer is because they belong to a religion that forces them to suffer.
The eminent Dutch Protestant theologian Harry Kuitert has pointed out that “The Bible is indeed full of commandments, admonitions, instructions for living and dying, often given as coming from God or his prophets and apostles” but that “if we were to do everything that is handed down in the Bible as God’s commandments, we would be bad people with abhorrent deeds. And conversely, we do a whole heap of things that are directly condemned in the Bible.” However, as he observes, “Things can’t be otherwise, for the world which was presupposed by all these commandments is no longer ours.”
Let’s take a look at some of these “divine” commandments and see how they would affect us today.
(1) “You are not to wear a garment made from two kinds of fabric.” (Leviticus 19:19)
Looking at the labels on my clothes, I see that most of my shirts are made from a blend of cotton and polyester, and that all my trousers are made from a blend of polyester, viscose and cotton. I could, of course, give them away to a charity shop, but that might make me instrumental in causing others to disobey Scripture. Would it be better to burn them all?
(2) “The pig must be held unclean…. You must not eat the meat of such animals nor touch their dead bodies; you must hold them unclean.” (Leviticus 11:7-8)
“But anything in sea or river that has not fins or scales, of all the small water creatures and all the living things found there, must be held detestable. … You are not to eat their flesh and you must avoid their carcases.” (Leviticus 11:10-11)
As a teacher, once or twice a week I take a game of football with my pupils. The ball is made of pigskin. Should I refuse to take any more football games? I also notice that my wallet is marked “GENUINE PIGSKIN”. Should I throw it away? Although I’ve never been very keen on the traditional roast pork, I do love bacon, ham and salami, and I’m particularly fond of Newmarket sausages. When I’m in Italy, two of my favourite dishes are spaghetti pescatora and spaghetti alle vongole. Must I give up these foods?
(3) “Yahweh, who has the right to enter your tent, or to live on your holy mountain? The man whose way of life is blameless, who always does what is right, …[who] does not ask interest on loans….” (Psalm 15:1-2, 5 – traditionally referred to as “the Christian Gentleman’s Psalm”)
I have savings accounts with my bank and my building society, which earn interest. Should I close them? For some years now I have been paying into an Additional Voluntary Contributions scheme in order to bump up my pension when I reach retirement. The contributions are invested to earn interest. Should I stop my contributions and cancel the policy?
(4) “A man whose testicles have been crushed or whose male member has been cut off is not to be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh.” (Deuteronomy 23:2)
I know a guy who has only one testicle: the other one had to be removed as the result of an unfortunate accident. If he should turn up at our church next Sunday, what is the best way of explaining to him kindly that he is not welcome?
(5) “None of your descendants, in any generation, must come forward to offer the food of his God if he has any infirmity – no man must come near if he has any infirmity such as blindness or lameness….” (Leviticus 21:17-18)
I know a priest who has been blind for the past 25 years or more. I know he is a very good priest, but the Bible is quite clear on the matter. Should I start a campaign to have him drummed out of the priesthood?
(6) “The man who lies with a woman during her monthly periods and uncovers her nakedness: he has laid bare the source of her blood, and she has uncovered the source of her blood: both of them must be outlawed from their people.” (Leviticus 20:18)
Ought I to question married couples about this? If they admit that they have intercourse when the wives are menstruating, should I refuse to have anything more to do with them?
(7) “The man who lies with a man in the same way as with a woman: they have done a hateful thing together; they must die, their blood shall be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20:13
Should I campaign for a law that gays are to be hanged, shot, guillotined or burnt at the stake? Or would it be better for me to constitute myself God’s executioner, taking a line through the infamous Soho nail bomber?
Oh yes, I know, I know: you can bring up that old chestnut about the Old Testament laws being divided into ceremonial, civil and moral commandments, and say that we are bound only by the moral ones. But that simply won’t do. That distinction is not in the Bible. There are no sub-headings saying “The following are ceremonial laws….”, “The following are civil laws….” or “The following are moral laws…” They are ALL presented as commands of Yahweh, and there is no indication that any of them are to be regarded as optional. On the contrary, it explicitly states in the Mosaic Law:
“I am Yahweh your God. You must keep my laws and my customs …. You must not do ANY of these hateful things …. Yes, anyone who does ONE of these hateful things, WHATEVER it may be, any person doing so must be cut off from his people.” (Leviticus 18:5, 26, 29)
“Keep ALL my laws and customs, put them into practice. I am Yahweh.” (Leviticus 19:37)
“You must keep ALL my laws, ALL my customs, and put them into practice.” (Leviticus 20:22)
“But if you do not listen to me, and do not observe EACH ONE of these commandments, if you refuse my laws and disregard my customs, and break my Covenant by not observing EACH ONE of my commandments, then I will deal in like manner with you. I will inflict terror on you….” (Leviticus 26:14-16)
Yet such a textual criticism provides, at the end, two results. Either a moral standard developed purely out of NT teaching (which, ironically, seems to spend much time “picking and choosing” OT practices on some methodology), or a moral standard developed entirerly on a new frame of reference.
With the first option, we are stuck trying to extrapolate relevant teaching for our culture (which is thousands of years different) on some basis. Scholars, even in NT criticism, tend to use a some methodology, hence where many have drawn the “ceremonial/civil/moral” distinctions. With the second, what would our frame of reference be? The Spirit of God? Other men? Social acceptability? Is there any objective absolute amidst this frame of reference?
William, what would your end result be? If I have been short-sighted in not seeing a possible end-result, what would yours be? You obviously don’t think OT Law is the standard for today, but I’m sure even Kuitert (whom critics consider more an agnostic rather than a Christian theologian) had some standard of biblical criticism.
John,
You asked:
(1) People knew about good and evil long before a single word of the Bible was written. Hence they do not depend on the Bible – or even on belief in God. Even if you’re a complete atheist, you know about good and evil. As Kuitert says, “Morality doesn’t come from the Bible but from the light of nature.”
(2) I don’t agree that the New Testament ‘seems to spend much time “picking and choosing” OT practices on some methodology’, and the theology of St Paul seems directly antithetical to this. If you want a specifically NT basis for morality, Matthew 22:37-40 and Romans 13:8-10 are good places to start – hardly “a new frame of reference”, I might add.
(3) You ask ‘William, what would your end result be?’ as though abandoning the Old Testament Law as a standard for Christian morality were a modern and revolutionary proposal of mine, but it isn’t: the Mosaic Law was long ago jettisoned by mainstream Christianity. Obviously, many actions that are forbidden by it are still regarded as wrong and sinful, but modern Christians would seldom or never think of basing the sinfulness of such actions on the Mosaic Law. In fact, I can recall the Mosaic Law being invoked by Christians of late only with regard to homosexuality. (One used to hear it quoted to condemn Spiritualism, but I haven’t heard it so used recently, presumably because the Spiritualist movement has long been in decline anyway and therefore is no longer of so much concern.) Such appeals to the Mosaic Law are simply special pleading.
(4) The Bible is not a moral rule book, and even those Christians who claim – and themselves no doubt believe – that they simply lift their moral code out of the Bible, manifestly do no such thing, as I think I have shown.
(Incidentally, I quote Harry Kuitert, not because I agree with everything that he says, but because he deals with this issue very clearly and trenchantly.)
In response,
It seems fairly clear to me that though humanity does have a sense of right and wrong, their sense is easily distorted and perverted based on subjective circumstance. I think history vouches for this–man is clearly prone to destroy both himself and his brother. From biblical times to the Holocaust to the current destruction and hatred of modern society, any absolute morality (truly, either from a religious or non-religious viewpoint) is easily subjected to multiple feelings and passions.
And let us not look to nature for morality. Even looking at higher intelligence leaves far too much room for vile things such as incest, cannabalism, and the like.
Ironically, the footnotes to Matthew 22:37-40 seem to indicate that Christ was quoting some Old Testament Law. The same applies with Romans 13. So it appears that there were some principles from the Old Testament that carried through into the New. Indeed, these succinctly summarized the entire Law and Prophets.
Perhaps the Old Testament is so thorough and voluminous because we, as subjective, passionate beings tend to twist the “spirit of the law”, which takes some sense of an absolute standard to keep within. For an analogy, look at Paul’s discourse on the Spirit in 1 Corinithians. He spends much time specifically directing what the work of the Spirit will and will not look like. Why, if these men are “guided by the Spirit”, do they need so much instruction? Because the Spirit is often substituted for by our emotion, passion, and desire.
In the same, though much of the Old Testament (as well as New) is, I feel, culturally-relevant, the basic principles, even the “spirit of the Law” then, contained things which still carry through today. Such as not oppressing the poor or letting your sexuality guide you unchecked (both generalized by loving God and neighbor). The work and study that it takes to sift through cultural and principal issues of both the OT and NT requires wisdom, and to a degree, graciousness. Some professor told me “in those things that the Scriptures are gracious in, be gracious”. And I will easily and quickly confess this has not been the common practice, particularly of fundamental churches.
The Scriptures are certainly no “rule book”. They are the revelation of God’s character. Yet those standards which are contained within are such that we should continue to humbly wrestle with seeing “loving God and neighbor” applied both in past culture and then in current.
Unfortunately John, in most fundamentalist and conservative Evangelical circles its not love that sums up the law, but adhering to their brand of Christianity. That is why for them its important to point out our faults(sins) and by believing as they do (letter of the Law) we can be saved.
I’m thankful that I do not believe it to be so.