Biblical vs. Cultural
One of the biggest flaws in today’s American church, in my opinion, is its inability to distinguish between biblical and cultural issues, to know the origins of the topics and ideas that it discusses and defends.
It routinely uses scripture alone to argue hot-topic cultural ideas, including most “family values”. It routinely blames our media and politicians for problems that Jesus clearly warned are part of human nature. And in the confusion that follows, it routinely hurts and alienates the very people that the church is supposed to be there to help.
Care to illustrate my point?
July 14th, 2008 at 8:46 am EST
Lance, I think I agree with you, but I’m not totally clear on what you are saying here.
There are “Biblical” imperatives that apply to ALL cultures.
There are “Cultural” imperatives that apply to a single culture or group of related cultures, but NOT all cultures.
Are you saying the American church classifies things that are “Cultural” as being “Biblical” and then try to apply them to other cultures where they don’t apply?
July 14th, 2008 at 9:32 am EST
In a sense, yes. But I’m talking more about situations where it takes an idea that has originated primarily in our culture and pretends that it started in the bible. This then forces both an incomplete dialogue with the culture and a twisting of scripture by the church.
Here’s a pretty benign example … monogamy. Sure, I would agree that the bible clearly shows that God designed us to be intimately connected in relationship with one person … but I would also argue that the expectations we hold for monogamy are primarily rooted in our culture. Scripture contains tons of examples of Godly people with dozens or hundreds of wives and some pretty clear instances where God overlooks polygamy to focus on more important issues … but our culture, on the other hand, has some clear directives about what is expected, both socially and legally. Thus, I would argue that our defense of monogamy is flawed and our understanding of marriage is skewed.
That’s just one issue, and one that’s not very pressing or relevant. But I believe that it highlights a pretty big flaw in our thinking, one that is quite destructive in both the church and our culture at large.
July 14th, 2008 at 5:51 pm EST
Quite frankly, the concept of enforcing monogamy is Christian in its expression. The statement by Paul about the leaders being the husband of one wife drove that concept through the early church. Without doubt, many of the early converts were polygamous; the emphasis was on each man being prepared to take a leadership position. That, after the statements by Jesus regarding a man and woman becoming one flesh, followed by Paul’s statement that the person who has intercourse with a harlot joins his body to her and sins against his own body, pretty much made polygamy an early Christian taboo.
What is interesting is the fact that the Christian doctrine has become a standard of secular “morality” (such as it may be), or acceptable practice, with the force of law behind it. I think you have things backward there. Anybody for separation of church and state?
I don’t think it is the church’s defense of monogamy that is flawed, or that its understanding of marriage is skewed. I do think that it is important to understand cultural relativism, and especially the idea that in those primitive societies where polygamy is sanctioned, it is often the women who benefit from having a husband and children to take care of them in their old age. The single elderly female with no children in those societies is often condemned to a horrible existence. Even some European cultures, in the pre-Christian era, practiced polygamy. What is particularly interesting is the defense of polygamy put forward by women in polygamous societies; the women in the Texas ranch case were, by and large, supportive of the status quo.
Should there be a dissolution of the Christian church in some way, along with the social structures it maintains, polygamy would probably become a standard again. Much of our civilization is rooted in Christian doctrine and practice; all you have to do is contrast the United States with a barbarian country like Saudi Arabia.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:50 pm EST
God only took one rib from Adam to make Eve, so my vote is that one woman for one man was the original design of the Creator. (A picture of Christ being pierced for his bride the Church, not brides.)
Good thing too. If God had taken more ribs so Adam could have more than one wife, he would have turned into a rubber chicken.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:12 pm EST
Lance, I still think I agree with you, however, I’m with Willy, I think your example is backward and doesn’t support your point.
(BTW - it is a VERY relevant issue for colleagues who are bringing the Good News to cultures that are not monogamous. What do you tell a guy who has three wives who has just become a Christ follower - which command ‘trumps’ the other - “One Wife” or “No Divorce”? There is no ‘easy’ answer!)
July 15th, 2008 at 8:25 pm EST
Steve, I’m going to go out on a limb and say in a case like that, “No Divorce” trumps “One Wife”, cf. Malachi, who rubbed Ezra’s nose in his own reform. God hates “putting away”; the church had to grow into monogamy, and it did so by making aspiration to leadership a thing to be sought after.
Just as a Christian who commits a shameful act removes himself from consideration from a leadership position, marriage to more than one woman is a signal to the church not to use that man in a highly visible role. Not an easy answer at all. It does not keep him from salvation. You can never correct one evil by committing another. And, if God had intended for there to be easy solutions, the cross would have been unnecessary.