In the case of the West Wing context of these quotes, the argument was exactly the same as yours. Using old testament prophets to back up the argument that homosexual union is an abomination is as informed as using the old testament prophets to back up arguments about sowing two seeds in the same field.
The writers were trying to point out that faith in this day and age is no longer considered a valid reason to judge other people. Bartlett is very clearly a Christian in the show, but his is a private faith that informs HIS life, but is not to be imposed on others. Thus his use of HIS knowledge of the Bible to chastise someone misusing the same text to incite bigotry.
So I am not sure I really agree that it is an ignorant swipe at Christians. I see the arguments that this piece makes as the following:
1. When it comes to the Bible, why can some parts be believed and others not as milieu and canon decide?
2. Is selective interpretation therefore needed because it is a fallible text that was written millennia ago and is interpreted by an institution made up of humans with all their bias' and failings?
3. This clearly create the problems of hypocrisy that most Christian canon produces in today's society, so why are so many people living by its tenents?
Non-believers would argue that if the Christian religion wishes to follow two thousand year old tenents, they should be prepared for the amusement (or derision) such a decision will stir in their
non-believers. It is the right of Christians to free expression of faith, it is not their right to condemn others for not believing!
Subsequent Christian teaching will surely suffer from the same problem in trying to defend itself to its detractors. The New Testament is similarly dated - getting up to two thousand years old now - and is definitely all pre-Renaissance and pre-Evolution era. In writing an amusing swipe at the New Testament would a writer be making a comment on something more immediately relevant and thus appear less ignorant?
If we get VERY contemporary and only take the teachings from the post-Renaissance and post-Evolution era, Christian teachings are obviously the product of men claiming divine inspiration and that leaves us with a message quite a few times removed from God and Jesus'
words, in both time and milieu. Surely such a contemporary swipe would also be able to point out some embarrassing internal inconsistencies?
Once again I think claiming that this piece is ignorant because it attacks the oldest part of the bible is an incomplete argument, is there some part of the Christian faith he CAN criticise that would be more appropriate? I think there would be problems no matter where the critic chose to take his inspiration. After all, he is criticising the use of faith and belief as fact, which doesn't stand up against contemporary logical arguments because the intellectual milieu at the moment is that of scientific questioning and individual autonomy.
You are right, I am a scholar of history, but as I am sure you are beginning to realise as you hear more of my thoughts on things, I see history as something that is constantly changing. I do not fear changes to ideology, belief or the intellectual frameworks, I believe that questioning and changing is the natural order of human history, as is so plainly shown by even the most superficial understanding of the discipline.
History only happens because something changes. Questioning the adherence of Christian teaching to the Bible is entirely legitimate in my eyes. It's just a book and one day the book, and the religion it birthed will be lost to time. While it's here and influencing the world, a few criticisms will only make it work harder to stay alive in the raging waters of time and history.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the furnace ... like Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego did!
No comments:
Post a Comment