I understand that the world (and by world I mean the Western world in general and America in particular) is becoming more fractious, contentious and polarizing. One need not look much further than television news or social networks to get a view of the divide that separates many people today.
Gone, seemingly at least, are the days of civil discussion, earnest but respectful debate and the ability to critique and argument rather than the person presenting it. And it happens everywhere, politics, economics, religion, sports, television shows. People it seem just love to hate, to argue, to belittle, to put down others.
Too often though it has devolved into snarky one-liners or just as bad internet "meme" posters. Those quips that with the single click of a button can express to all and sundry just how much or how little you know about something but at least you will look (apparently) edgy or cool or ironic or witty or something while doing it.
Of course you are doing this the best if you can subvert the authorities upon which your opponent relies. This is of course a very strong tactic for debating. If you can take the authority that your opponent appeals to and demonstrate that it is either not an authority (for a further look at appeals to authorities look here) or that it means the opposite of what is being contended, then you've really done some damage.
For instance, if an atheist was discussing a matter with a theist (a Christian perhaps) and was able to use the Bible to refute the theists argument, well that would be very powerful.
How much more so if you combine this method of criticism with an internet meme?
Wow.
Gay Rights?
"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?" 1 Corinthians 5:12
I have to assume that it is meant to be an earth shattering critique of the Christian stance on homosexuality and the current gay marriage issue, presented in a way that is both powerful and edgy.
To be honest, on the surface it does seem to be a powerful argument. Using a verse from the Bible to oppose those who are said to represent the Bible. That, however, is on the surface.
Where things start to fall apart is when one begins to look at the verse in question and then to place it in its context.
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
So if you look at verse 12 you can see that it does indeed say what the poster says it does, but when looked at in context it does nothing to silence the Christian voice concerning the notion of gay rights, as the poster would contend.
The Apostle Paul begins by saying that the people of this world, those who are apart from Christ, are immoral. They are all immoral. That the only way to truly escape immorality is to leave earth. He tells those in the Corinthian church to not associate with such people. That he is not concerned with those outside the body of Christ, those he will leave to God to judge. Paul is focused on the body of believers, on building them up in truth. He is writing to them for the express purpose of addressing their concerns and issues, not those of the wider world and as such what is going on in the wider world is of no consequence in this matter.
So he does not say that what happens outside of the Church is irrelevant or amoral or inconsequential, but rather that it is completely immoral. That it is so bad that to protect one's self from its taint, one should isolate themselves from it as much as possible. This is of course what some people have chosen to do, to isolate themselves from the world, by living in monasteries and the like.
Others though try to engage with the world, just as Paul did and as did Jesus Christ himself. The message of the Bible, of Christianity, and expressed here is that apart from Christ the world is lost, that we are in need of saving and that that salvation comes through Christ alone.
So this is one reason that Christians have traditionally engaged with their society and communities, to share the Gospel of Christ.
In today's age though, the reasons have shifted a bit.
I have to assume that the person who wrote that poster and those that help to spread it on the internet (at last count 23,126 people had shared it on Facebook alone) believe in and hold to the notion of the separation of Church and State as expressed in the American constitution and generally applied in modern liberal secular democracies across the west.
Okay. So the Church should be separate from the State, it should not be able to dictate policy to the State nor should it be force legislative changes upon the State. This being the case, the converse must be true as well. That the State should be separate from the Church, that it should not be able to dictate policy to the Church, nor should it be able to force doctrinal changes upon the Church.
But what about when the two "realms" intersect? Who has final say?
Many churches and religious organizations operate hospitals, schools, charity organizations and other institutions apart from the primary church function. Are these extensions of the church afforded the same protections as the Church itself? Should they?
For instance, the state should not be able to dictate to the church who should or shouldn't be a minister or elder or deacon in the church. Should the state be able to dictate who can and should work at church run hospitals, schools and the like? Should or shouldn't is moot, as the state does in fact dictate to such church run organizations through labor law and the like.
So an organization started by the church, organized and run by the church is not autonomous from the state as the Church is because it lies outside of what would be seen as the primary function of the Church. Even though it will try to hold to the same convictions, ideals and principles as the Church, church run organizations can have those curtailed by they state. As such people engage with the state in order to voice their opinions on how the state is affecting such church institutions.
An example is the debate on employer provided insurance plans covering prescription birth control. The Catholic Church, in particular, and other religious groups are opposed to this. They don't want to be paying for a person's birth control as they see it as a means of and a validation of sinful actions. In a liberal secular society such as the west, people are free to engage in sexual activity with consenting adults as they choose. So if a woman wants to have sex with a different guy every week, that is up to her. If a woman chooses to abstain, that is up to her. If she chooses to live in a monogamous relationship, that is up to her. Using birth control is also up to her, regardless of the frequency of her sexual activity. The Church though sees sex outside of marriage as sinful and does not want to condone or endorse it by providing birth control to any or everyone. The Catholic Church goes further and sees contraception methods themselves as sinful and outside the bounds of a Biblical sexual marriage relationship and opposes birth control coverage on those further grounds.
So, as employers the Church is being dictated to by the State and can have their religious principles violated by the state. As such the the Church has no alternative but to try and defend their principles by voicing their opinion in the public square of ideas because the State says they have to.
If there is no separation then there must be engagement, which brings us back to "Apostle Paul Says."
The author thinks that that singular verse, taken out of context, means that the Church should be silent concerning the gay rights issue. The State though has said that if the Church wants to try and maintain their principles and ideals they have to engage with society concerning the issue, because in the end the State will make a decision and the State will force Church organizations to follow the States rulings regardless of whether or not the Church sees it as a violation of its principles or not.
Gay rights advocates have the right to have their voices, their position heard. So too does the Church. Wanting to simply silence one or the other voice, to censor them, does not help society, but hurts it. Hasn't that been the message of the past century? That to silence and censor women is wrong? That to silence and censor the homosexual community is wrong? How then can silencing the religious community be right?
No comments:
Post a Comment