The Law and the Spirit
Submitted by Heather on July 05 1999 at 16:55:19
In reply to Re: The Human Standard Submitted by Ben on July 04 1999 at 22:56:31
|
"But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old writeen code but in the new life of the Spirit." --Romans 7:6 One of the sweetest, kindliest, most generous, most saintly people I know is my best friend from early childhood; she's a fundamentalist. So I don't think we need to disagree on that matter. I agree with you about the importance of not picking and choosing; the very reason I object to fundamentalism is the fact that I believe that fundamentalists do so. As I remarked to Dream Dragon further down on this board: "For example, one could say that, while Paul evidently did not have any plans to see that slavery was ended (he sent a slave back to his master), there are numerous passages in the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament, which would ultimately lead Christians to recognize the evils of slavery. In a way, as you quite accurately note, that's 'picking and choosing,' but the alternative is also picking and choosing – saying that Paul's view on whether the slave should return to his master is superior to his statement that there is neither slave nor free in baptism. So really, one can't escape from this difficulty." This is an acute problem, because at the time of the American Civil War, many Christians found passages in the Bible to justify slavery – and such passages do exist. Similarly, at the time of the English Civil War (and the conservatives in that war were from my own denomination, so I'm not showing bias here), many passages from the Bible were quoted to show that anyone who denounces monarchy is a Godless heretic. Of course, you can easily find passages that point to opposite views in both cases – that's precisely the problem. If one is to say that the Bible must be literally followed, then one must cope with the fact that the Bible contains many contradictory passages. Myself, I can't help but notice that Jesus railed against literalism on many occasions. I don't take this to mean that he thought literalism was always a bad thing – if he'd lived in modern-day America, he'd probably be taking equal jabs at the nicey-nice liberals who twist the Bible to mean whatever they want. I think his concern was that, if one puts the letter of the Bible above the spirit of it, then one misses the main intent of the Bible. So I think the non-fundamentalists are not mistaken in insisting that the question be asked, "What was the intent behind this rule? And under the particular circumstances we find ourselves in today, will the spirit of this law be violated if we follow the letter of it?" Heather |