Avoiding a Repeat of the Worst Mistake in Christian History
Here is a link to a story that illustrates for me that some Christians have still not learned one of the biggest lessons of Church history. For those who don't want to read the article, a theologian is suggesting that Tilly the killer whale should die based on the laws of the goring ox found in Exodus 21. This story about someone trying to apply scripture may seem innocuous at worst, and to some even laudable. To me it betrays both a deep ignorance of scripture and a failure to understand our past blunders.
The Scriptural Problem
This person's 'literal' reading of scripture fails to understand one of the most important features of the law. The law was given to a theocratic state where religion and government were essentially the same. Today we would call this the union of church and state. Unless Sea World, or the US is under theocratic rule, this argument holds no water.
The Failure to Understand Church History
Someone might argue that the union of church and state would be a good thing. I would respond that we already tried that in medieval Europe. The union of church and state was one of the the biggest mistakes in the history of the church. It was the root that gave birth to the two worst happenings in the history of the church: 1) the crusades, and 2) the exportation of culture and imperialism under the guise of missions. Both of these happenings were the fully grown fruit of the union of church and state. In both cases, Christians packaged the gospel with their own culture and government.The separation of church and state is a good thing for both the church and the state.
What do you think? Do you think this theologian has a point? Or do you think he is totally off base?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
AMEN! I am tweeting this!
ReplyDeleteWas the theologian stating that it was a requirement that the whale be put down or that it was a good idea? If he was stating that it was a requirement then I agree that it is an example of trying to get a square peg into a round hole. If the theologian was suggesting that it would be a good idea based on a good idea he found in the Bible, then he stands on less shaky ground. We can still debate if it is a good idea.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we are not commanded to establish a theocracy. But does that mean that we cannot use the law as written advice? It even seems to provide guidance in dealing with rogue whales kept as pets – a well written book that can do that across centuries.
We shoot dogs that bite – it is a good idea to keep us safe. We prosecute people who train murderous dogs that hurt others. If the theologian had cited these examples of a good idea, would there have been a furor? Or is it because he cites a good idea from God that has gotten people in an uproar? I read the article and I don’t think the guys were calling for a theocracy. I think they were amazed that modern man can’t come to a decision that was spelled out in the Old Testament thousands of years ago and seems to make perfect sense to them. Just my take on it though.
Whether you think it is right to put the whale down and to prosecute the person who knew the whale had other violent interactions, why is it wrong for someone to point out that there appears to be a portion of the Bible that would endorse the action or not? Further, if our actions ever match the Old Testament in any way, are we calling for the founding of a theocracy?
I don’t see how whale maintenance helps us win souls to Christ but the fact that a Christian can’t offer his two cents on the subject without getting hit with derision and jokes about “how do you stone a whale” by other Christians makes me shake my head a little. Are all ideas from the Bible off limits? Do we have to find another precedent separate from God in order to offer our opinion? Does the statement here about the ox offend because we don’t like the advice that it extols or because we don’t like the source of the advice?
Oh, and how do you stone a whale? With a great big, freaking rock, that’s how. :)Could not resist that joke no matter how juvenile.
Ray,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the author of the post was not asserting that we institute a theocracy. I did not mean to appear to accuse him of doing so. And you are right that he is simply saying that the Biblical law that would apply in this case is good idea in his mind.
My point is that we need to be careful about how we apply biblical law. It was given in a theocratic context. This fact makes it very difficult to apply to the modern state because of the separation of church and state. OT Israel has its NT counterpart in the church, not in the modern state.
I do understand the argument that human life is more valuable than animal life, and that we put pit bulls to death and punish their owners when they harm human beings. I am really not arguing one way or the other about Tilly. I really don't care if he is put to death or not.
I was writing simply to point out that using OT law and attempting to apply it to the state is difficult at best, and potentially unwise both for the church and the state. I am not in favor of efforts to bring US law in line with OT law. I believe it is misguided precisely because we are not a Yahweh-istic theocracy. It is not that I am either in favor of or against the advice, or the source of the advice. I am against the thinking that says 'Israel is a state, the US is a state, ergo the Christian thing to do is to figure out how the US laws should reflect Israel's law.' I am much more comfortable talking about Israel's law as it applies to kingdom ethics and living in the church. I like the separation of church and state.
Seems like a dispensational problem to me :)
ReplyDeleteAdam,
ReplyDeletesounds like we need our trusty super-hero, The Dallas Man! :)
Ryan
In the interest of maintaining the separation of church and state, do we as Christians have to give up our involement in the state? How do you interact with the state with a sense of right and wrong, informed by the Bible, and still maintain that separation? Is it even possible?
ReplyDeleteRay,
ReplyDeleteGreat question!
I do not think we have to give up involvement in the state. I think thoughtful Christian involvement in government by Christ-like people is a great idea.
I don't really have a great mental model for the engagement other than several things that it should not be.
It should not be an attempt to institute a state sanctioned religion, even implicitly.
It should not confuse the ideals of one political party with those of Christ. This is very dangerous and very common.
It should not be the re-institution of OT law (see the christian reconstructionist movement).
It should not be an attempt to replace the founding documents of our nation with the Bible. Our government runs on our constitution and its amendments, not the Bible.
It should not be an attempt to convert the nation. That is not the purpose of government.
On the positive side, I think of this in terms of an analogy. When I go to an auto shop, I want a mechanic. If he is a Christian, great. But really what I want is a mechanic. Someone who does his job with pride, excellence, honesty, and integrity. Is a Christian mechanic more likely to do this? In theory, yes, in practice, iffy. If I go to a Christian mechanic and he tells me how much God loves me, and prays for me, and has a little fish on his card, that's all fine and good, but none of that is what I came for.
The same goes for government. Its great that believers are in office, and participate in the process. I want mature believers with the humble compassionate mind of Christ in those places. But really what I want is a government. I want justice, fair taxes, good laws, leadership, international diplomacy, defense, and a whole of of other governmental functions done with excellence. When it boils down to it, it really does not matter to me if Christians are running it or not, so long as it is a good government. That ought to be the goal of Christian engagement in government to my mind, excellent government. In the words of Martin Luther, 'I would rather be ruled by a just [Muslim] than an unjust Christian.'
Now I understand the need to take a stand for right and wrong. It is absolutely our place to say something when we believe our government is doing something corrupt, unjust, or unfair, i.e. being a bad government. I just want to be careful about identifying good government with Christian morality.
Solid answer and great anology. I like it. And it helps me. There are a couple of things that I am still praying about that dove tail with this exact topic and I appreciate the guidance.
ReplyDelete