TGE considered: the ‘last’ question

It is interesting that I have written so much about this book. There are many other books which definitely have impacted me more, though I never wrote much, if about at all about them. With that said, there is one last idea which Phyllis Tickle brings up in her book The Great Emergence, which I want to talk about. In her discussion about authority and the questioning of the idea of sola scriptura, she brings up three important issues which have been battled over in the past 150 years: slavery, women rights, and (now) homosexuality.

The former two issues have been fiercely fought over, to the point of all out war, but today we live at a point in history where those issues are just about over. There are still people on the outskirts who still hold onto limiting women’s rights, just there are also people still trying to keep African Americans from gaining liberties. What is interesting is that during the debate/war over slavery within America, people on both sides of the issue were using the Bible as fodder for their fight. It is easy today to understand which side was “right”. Though it seems the Bible has at best a neutral stance towards slavery, at worst pro-slavery.

The question of women’s rights is very plainly stated in the Bible—not even vague O.T. references from Leviticus but direct commands about their actions—by none other than Paul. Though, except once again for certain minority groups, no one really acknowledges those commands of head coverings or separate & silent at church assemblies as being legitimate practices for the twenty-first century, if truly ever.

So once again the authority of the Bible has been put into question and denied its place as sole authority within most church denominations. Phyllis Tickle spells all this out—a lot better than me—and then ties the question of homosexuality as the last of the questions. I don’t have to book in front of me to get the exact quote, but she says that question of homosexuality is the last of the these great questions which will be confronted in the church, after this one is answered sola scriptura will be done for.

So, though she never says this, this makes me believe that she thinks that the final result of the homosexual question will be that ‘they’ win. Which if we are to look at history it seems like a very likely out come. But this brings me to a much larger question, just because history is moving in a certain way does that mean that it is the ‘right’ way to go? She seems to never pass judgment upon anyone, past or present but simply to state what is going on. Which is understandable within the context of the book she wrote, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t. Who is to say that we have the whole women’s rights understanding completely wrong—could the break down of the family and the rise of divorce or teenage pregnancy be problems associated with the wrecked ‘division of power’ between man & woman, husband & wife?

So how am I supposed to read the Bible? How am I supposed to understand and interpret scriptures? Why don’t we start marking out the parts the don’t matter anymore, so that new Christians wouldn’t get confused.

I am struck at the God of the Old Testament, how he deals so ruthlessly with the nations. There is no room for some inclusive liberalism for YHWH; when Israel begins to follow idols, he releases his wrath on them. I mean if the Levities didn’t do the sacrifices correctly or care for the temple in such a manner they would die instantly. God didn’t mess around with grey area. He told the Israelites how to live their life, in a very definitive manner. The problem, I guess for me, comes with the fulfillment of the Law, in Christ Jesus. He then flips everything upside down. Then Paul continues this action, as he preaches to the gentiles, telling them they don’t have to be circumsized or follow the dietary laws. But then he seems to add his own laws (which the women’s rights movement dismissed).

So then the question becomes what does the law mean to me (and community)? What is my/our relation to it, now being under the new convenant. It isn’t that everything is permissible, even though Paul does say that at one point, because he also talks about not continuing to sin for the glory of God. So then what can sin be then? It seems that those who continue to read the Bible through a literalist interpretation still focus their attention on specific parts of the Bible, while excluding other parts. I feel that I would be doing the same error by simply excluding more of some things while possibly including more of other parts.

I want to take the simple, yet difficult, answer and say I will do what Jesus said was the heart of the Law, love God & love others. But does that mean I should ignore such problems because of some sort progressive forward thinking change of paradigm?