Imitating Evil.
I’m not a huge fan of quoting scripture to others because all too often scripture is quoted out of context and often used to help put an exclamation mark on someone’s point. Afterall, scripture teaches that men shouldn’t shave their sideburns and women should cover their heads when they pray. My experience has been that those who frequently quote scripture do so out of context and often have the worst theology. So when I hear someone say, "You know, the bible says…" I prepare myself to hear someone’s point of view. For example, my mother whom I love, cherish and thank God for everyday, often says "Well, its like the Bible says, God helps those who help themselves." I don’t know how many times I’ve had to inform my dear mom that is not scripture.
Yet sometimes I will come across a verse and my eyes will come to a screeching halt, slam it in reverse and force me to read again. That happened this morning during my meditation.
"Beloved, do not imitate what is evil but imitate what is good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God." 3 John 11
Read that again slowly.
This leaves me asking a few questions:
I wonder how often I imitate evil rather than good?
When the guy driving his 1998 powered blue BMW 325 came racing through my neighborhood at 60MPH toward my wife, dog, and me as we were in the crosswalk-- was he acting evil? Would I be imitating evil if were to drag him from his car, slap him in face and make him apologize for driving so recklessly and endangering our lives and then throw his car keys in the water drain in the street? My wife seems to think so. Imitate stems from the root for mime, which can mean buffoon. My wife seems to think I would be acting like a clown.
Which leads me to ponder how often I look like a clown?
Am I imitating evil when I don’t finish my potato salad at Church picnic or eat $150 worth of sushi knowing there are folks dying of starvation in the world? My father used to tell me to "scrape my plate for there were starving kids in China." I always wondered if my eating more than I needed was the greater evil. I guess he thought he was "doing good."
I had an uncle who apparently thinking he was going good once sent an email to 300 people about the evils of ABC-TV and their support of homosexuality. He had scripture to support "God’s hatred" of certain forms of evil. He didn’t mention killing. After I hit "REPLY TO ALL" on my email and discussed the evils hating others and gluttony, he took me off his list.
What is evil? Who defines evil? Interesting, what looks like good to some is really evil to others.
What is good? Who defines what is good?
What does it mean to imitate evil?
I am not looking for answers; I’m just asking the question.
20 Comments:
Great questions and I would not dare to attempt to answer them...must admit I did laugh about hitting reply all, I can just imagine your uncle's response :)
Thanks, Rick for giving me plenty to think about every time I read you (which is everyday)
Wow, that's a lot to ponder. I always heard that scripture used to explain why we shouldn't celebrate halloween, or dress up as monsters/demons/witches.
But I think you've made an excellent point. It goes far, far, deeper than just appearances.
My father quickly learned to not pull the starving-children-in-India card (instead of China). My pat response was, "well box it up and ship it to them!"
On a somewhat related note, A Progressive Christian had a great post about moral relativism yesterday.
Thank you for posting your questions today.
I do think that some questions we may never find the answers too, but that should never dissuade us from asking them in the first place. I applaud your courage in asking yours.
I sometimes wonder how much closer we all would be to each other as people, as human beings, if we took that risk to ask the questions we don't know the answers to. Perhaps we'd find that many other people thought the same....
Have I taken this out of context?
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." 2Tim 3
What is the motivator when people (versed in both Scripture & its context) avoid quoting the Bible rather than sharing contextual facts that would make it useful in discussion?
Truly I'm not looking for answers either; I'm just asking questions.
I'm in agreement with your other commenters that you definitely make points that warrant careful consideration.
Thanks to each of you for your commnets.
Hi Leslie, welcome back! You raised an important question about folks quoting scripture and understanding context.
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." 2Tim 3
AS you know the verse you quote from the author of Timothy, Paul was referring to the Jewish scripture which was the Hebrew Bible which in his day would have been the Greek translation, the Septuagint. Having placed this in the context in which it was written it would have included those books from what we call the Apocrypha. Paul also said, "that the MAN of God may be equipped..." He didn't say "women." Some extremists may think that he was only referring to MEN... and in his context he very well could have becasue women were viewed as property and without voice. Whichis probably why in his CONTEXT he claimed that women to to be "slient" in the church.
Yes, context is key. For without context we often misunderstand the author's intention which could hinder our hearing the Word of God.
Thank you for your comments! Welcome back.
Do you have a blog?
Rick, I am indeed the one who shows up as a guest on brutallyhonest.org once in a while, and have chatted with you over there. Over the years I have been involved with many different arms of the church: different denominations, liberal and conservative variations of each, as well as para-church groups. I step back and look out over it all and see trends ‘emerging’, some of which are encouraging, and some of which are subtle and disturbing.
You are a man of influence, who is gifted at engaging people in discussion, who is warm, open, friendly, and highly educated. These are exceptional qualities for someone who lives out their spirituality in the world, and are to be commended. People put their trust in you.
It is in this context that I grow concerned when I see your reluctance to state your views on fundamental matters of the Christian faith of which you are a sojourner. The 2 Tim 3 passage is not an ambiguous passage, and indeed a minister’s perception of it as truth or falsehood lays the foundation for everything that ever follows from his or her mouth. Your writing is insightful, filled with accessible, clever analogies, and whether it is acknowledged or not, underneath it lies decisive theology. It quietly changes people; which as one who is influential, places on you a huge responsibility.
My goal is not to change your views, and please know that my wish is not to be abrasive. In fact, I suspect that if given the opportunity, we would have many enjoyable and thought-provoking conversations.
God does not want us kept in the dark. He wants to fill us with the light of truth.
Leslie,
(Smiling ear to ear) I wasn't aware that it was you. (now blushing) I am sorry.
First, I am nearly speechless for your kind words. Wow. Thank you.
I apologize for avoiding your question. I thought "someone" was messing with me.
I agree we need to carefully consider not only the text but the context in which the text was written. I also agree it is very important that those who have some basic (in my case, very basic) understanding of context to share it. It truly opens the Word of God and I find makes it much more beautiful and meaningful. I also think it is important that we do so in community so that we all can discern the Holy Spirit's leading.
Leslie, I was thinking earlier how important basic Christian History is fundmental to Christians (perhaps history in general) so that we can understand where our faith and religion develops. It may also prevent us from repeating the same mistakes.
Well, now that I know it was you. thank you for rebuking me with the grace and humility that only a great teacher could or would. Not only am I flattered, I am humbled.
BTW, my grandfather was named Leslie (common in those days. I suspect that you are female and you probably did not know that Leslie is one of my most favorite names.
Thanks again.
I shall thank my parents for their excellent choice in names. I, too, knew a blogger named Rick once...he's a dandy guy. :)
Someday my friend, I hope you will tell me where you stand on things like inerrancy of the Bible and whether or not people need a personal, redemptive relationship with Jesus. Instead, and for now, I'll wish you a good night!
Rick,
Leslie does not yet have her own blog but soon will I'm sure and although it will hurt me over at Brutally Honest where she now guest blogs (and does one helluva job) the blogosphere will be all the better.
If only I could interact with the skill, grace, intelligence and aplomb that Leslie brings to the table.
I know you'll treat her well here. I also know that she will make you and your readers think and think hard.
I'll be lurking.
Thoughtful comments all.
A couple of questions and observations of my own.
On Inerrancy I am not seeing where scripture itself claims for such. "profitable" and "inspired" are stated pretty clearly and I think we have all experienced the O.T. scriptures as such. How such inspiration works is somewhat of a mystery.
From that passage we do a bit of a dance by then applying it to books that have yet to even be written (N.T.). I do not think this is bad, we should just be aware of it (in other words, I still believe those documents to be inspired and [rofitable for the uses listed and beyond.
On another point, the issue that Rick brings up about women. I am not so sure as I see ample evidence of women in leadership in the N.T. (which we can discuss some other time). What if the issue of women "remaining silent" was a specific problem in a specific situation? Paul was often being pastoral and dealing with specific situations and problems that were localized (I could cite numerous examples, but this is a smart crowd and you know what I mean...they are often even named). There were specific problems in Corinth, as in most of the other letters. Is it possible that in the one locale a group of women (just there) had gone a bit overboard given their new freedom in Christ?
I may be way off, but I sometimes think we forget these words were grounded in real situations.
Dear Mac,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I also appreciate the spirit in which you posted.
The passage from Timothy was obviously referring to the Septuigant. Which was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. His letters, and what we call the "Gospels", had not been written or made Canon. IMO, this doesn't dismiss the NT as not "inspired" or "profitable".
I do think it is important to attempt to understand and reflect on Paul's perspective in which he was writing. It sheds light on the text and allows for perhaps an even greater understanding of the "WORD".
My belief is that we have these texts and we truly do a disservice to oursleves, the community of faith, and our God for that matter, if we do not make effort to understand the intention and context in which the words were written and allow the Holy Spirit to lead us in the interpretation of the Word.
As far as inerrancy is concerned. I think it is important to know what is meant by inerrancy and why or why not, is inerrancy an issue?
Leslie, could you define "inerrancy" for me? And if you don't mind I would interested in hearing your perspective on this isssue as well. I may write a post on this topic soon. Thanks!
Hi, i just fell over this entry.
My Question (going back to the original post) would be, if a (wo)man doing good is a ..man from god, and a man doing evil hasnt seen god, what does this tell us about a real person (in this so colorfoul world) is to say, even if, in the situation we know the good/evil thing to do, i guess we all have fell to one side or the other once, so would our deeds all be wieghed up against each other? If i save an animal out of compassion, but later kill it out of agression, am i from god, or have i not seen him?
Perhaps ‘legitimacy’ is a better word than inerrancy in the context of this conversation.
Sometimes I find that passages of scripture are called into question either by suggesting parts of it contain errors, or by contextualizing things to the point where parts of it become useless to the everyday person in 2005.
You see, I believe that God is tangibly at work in the world today. He influenced the formation of the Canon, and his Holy Spirit is present and influential when we read it. Jesus primary concern was “the least of these”. Yes, context is enlightening & an important part of accurate interpretation. Still, once we approach whether or not “man” is an exclusive term, or, whether or not history shows that Jesus meant ALL when he said “all Scripture is...” (can anyone else hear the smack of Clinton’s definition of “is”?), then we are excluding those who are too poor to have been able to indulge in spending years studying the lawyer-like fineries of the faith from reaping the full benefit of the Bible.
So, when I said that someday I’d like to hear what you thought about the inerrancy of the Bible, I guess using the term to ask in a yes or no kind of way, “Do you believe that...all Scripture [meant by me as the books collected and traditionally bound and labelled as “The Holy Bible”, ] is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”?
Or let me frame it another way. Is the whole Bible (OT & NT) legitimate for everybody at every level of society? Or only parts of it, with qualifications?
I think I might enjoy your up & coming post!
Thanks Leslie,
Legitimate? Oh gosh yes.
I have not yet experienced a person contextualizing scripture to a point where it is "meaningless". It is like the two creation stories found in Genesis, they differ. The question is how can we hear God through the tqo differnt stories found in the first two chapters of Genesis? Is one right and the other wrong? My expereince of understanding the scripture from the context which it was produced only enhaces how the Holy Spirit interacts with me today. I think it adds perspective to GOd's Word. To discount it would in ways discount the manner in which God elected to reveal God's holy word.
I have come to a place in my faith that I can longer discount RC or my Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ as "not getting it." So I have to give the nod that their Word of God is "different" than others. That is both arrogant and ignorant on my part. I am still embarrassed by some of the asinine assertions I made in the past.
Both have a different Canon than the protestant segment of the Church. Is the Holy Spirit not active in the RC or Orthodox Church? These are questions I must ask.
I think many questions we ask about scripture we're never questions asked by the early church.
So yes, I believe the Holy Scriptures are inspired by God through human authors and that God still speaks to us through the Bible and with the Holy Spirit's guidance with the Church to help interpret scripture.
So, for example, when I read the various accounts of the resurrection in each Gospel, I realize that that do not agree. They are different. If I look at scripture as a legal/moral guide written in English I may run into some difficulties with some of the differences. Yet, if I attempt to understand the context and the author's world as these Gospels were developed I may discoves that it doesn't matter that the resurrection accounts differ, but that Holy Spirit speaks through the life and lives of the story.
Respectfully, I hope to keep these conversations enjoyable for all folks. If we can, I'd like to refrain from referencing various politicans unless the the topic is directly related. I say that for all the obvious reasons.
Rick, you said: “I have not yet experienced a person contextualizing scripture to a point where it is "meaningless".”
Really? I guess I misunderstood then, because when you said this: “The passage from Timothy was obviously referring to the Septuigant. Which was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. His letters, and what we call the "Gospels", had not been written or made Canon.”
I took that to mean you felt that because the NT hadn’t been sorted out yet, this passage was meaningless to this discussion, and that we are not able to wholesale-ishly use Scripture in the way the 2 Tim 3 verses suggest. I’ve always assumed Jesus could see into the future.
I didn’t think I was slagging the past president of your country, of whom I referred to earlier, I was merely appreciating the similarity of interpretive styles. With respect to your wishes, I shall not appreciate him any more.
And now, it's VBS week! I need to prepare to teach preschool, so I’ll be offline for a couple days while I prepare.
Thanks for your time.
Thanks Leslie,
Yes, you did misunderstand me. Thanks for asking for clarification.
Thanks for respecting my space and concern around taking issues with former President Clinton. I respect that you appreciate him so much, while I did not vote for him I too learned to appreciate him for the many things he did for our great nation. But, ss soon as I allow that, then others would want to take pot shots at Bush & Cheney and some of the things he has done as the leader of my government. There are many folks out there who "look like sheep but inwardly are ravenous wolves seeking to devour one another." In other words, there are folks looking to fight all in the name of Jesus and God. I don't want that crap here. Then it turns into a pissing match over folks getting in their pot shots rather than opening their hearts to God and attempting to live in love and unity in the spirit of Christ our Savior.
Have fun in VBS!
Many blessings.
I found myself with a moment to say that actually, I was not asking for clarification, I was trying to tactfully highlight inconsistencies in your comments. (Whether you intended to be inconsistent is another matter.)
Certainly it is an insult to your intelligence for me to think that you did not notice that.
Conversations can follow two paths: diplomacy or pull no punches. From what I see, people with a more direct style of discourse these days are often criticized or labelled as irrational. However, the limitations of pleasant conversation become easy to see when one member chooses to sidestep the true meaning of a tactful comment.
If all Scripture is God-breathed, then it follows that God himself spoke it by forming the words in the mouths of the authors and it also follows that he's powerful enough to assert his influence over the assembly of the Canon. It then follows that the Bible should be used as a basis for finding THE TRUTH. This is vital, because if we are to love authentically, then our love needs to be based on truth. Anything else is both deceptive & destructive.
Games of intellectual tag are a pointless effort and clearly that’s what’s going on here.
Dear Leslie,
I do not think I was being inconsistent, but if you misunderstood me, I apologize.
Not everyone who is a Christian understands scripture as "inerrant" and that "God formed the words in the MOUTHS of the authors" in the manner in which you described it. I suspect that MOST Christians in the world and throughout history have not believed that way.
As you may know, inerrancy, as you describe it, is a relatively modern concept that stems from the Fundamentalist movement in the past 100 years or so.
I believe that God inspired humans to write scripture. It was wriiten by humans and "inspired" by the Holy Spirit. If God was mainly the direct influence of Canon, does that mean that the RC, Anglicans, and Orthodox are wrong as to what scripture is or are the protestants? That was my only point.
At the same time, many folks over the years have used scripture in a very literal sense to support slavery, not using medication, abusing children... the list goes on as you well know.
One can speak directly and be diplomatic. On the other hand, "pulling no punches" seems like a very violent, aggressive manner to communicate. So, if you are looking to sling punches, this isn't the place. IF you would like to dialogue on my blog in the spirit of Christian love and unity with respect for others who may differ than you, then please feel free to visit.
As far as Canon development and scripture is concerned, I suspect that you probably have a fairly solid foundation about it due to your working in Vacation Bible School. However, if you want to more resources about the development of scripture and Canon, I will be happy to suggest a few. The public library may have some good sources.
As far as TRUTH is concerned, I believe it is the Holy Spirit who guides the Church in the true interpretation of the Sciptures.
Thanks!
I probably should clairify something. I am a former kickboxer. So when I think of "pulling no punches" I think of violently pouncing on another human being with aggression for the sake of sport. (Yes, it seems stupid and barbaric)As I have matured in my Christian faith and attempt to yeild my heart to Chruiist I can no longer justify "pulling no punches" on another human being, even for the sake of sport.
Additionally, I have worked with folks who have been severely physically and emotionally abused by folks who violently and aggressively "pull no punches." It hurts people.
"Hurt people, hurt people" Pulling no punches only lead to others justifying "pulling no punches".
If God "pulled no punches" we'd all be up shit creek, but instead God deals with us love and grace and calls us to do the same.
In Christ's love,
Rick
Post a Comment
<< Home