The following exchange on the CBS "Early Show" yesterday (which was similar, by the way, to one I saw on CNN Thursday night) between correspondent Harry Smith, Dr. Robert Jeffress of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, and David Corn of the liberal Mother Jones magazine:
Smith turned to Jeffress and wondered why Warren would agree to speak at Obama’s inauguration.JEFFRESS: But I want to say, to me, it's just unbelievable to think that because Rick Warren believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, somehow that characterizes him as a hate-monger and makes him unfit to pray at the inauguration. I mean, this sounds like bizzaro world to me-"
SMITH: Well, excuse me, excuse me though, this is a serious civil rights issue in this country.
OK, let's stop here for a sec. Gay "marriage" is a "serious civil rights issue?" No, it's not -- what is the serious civil rights issue is guaranteeing that gay Americans are afforded the same rights and protections that straight people are. Marriage isn't one of them; what is are the protections and rights that go along with having a spouse. In other words, so what if Warren thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman. Where I have a hassle with him is if he thinks gay civil unions should not be allowed, and/or if such unions shouldn't give gay partners rights and protections equivalent to those of straight Americans.
JEFRESS: David, Rick Warren is strictly teaching what the Bible teaches...Rick Warren is simply delivering the message of the Bible. Jesus said marriage is...Between a man and a woman and that's what the Bible is. Rick...is not making up the message he is simply delivering the message...of the Bible.CORN: That's the biggest dodge there is...The Bible says a lot of things...Abraham was -- Abraham was a polygamist.
Not only that, Mr. Corn, but if Warren "is strictly teaching what the Bible teaches," then that would have to include a justification for slavery. I really doubt Warren would cede that point, don't you? (This site attempts to clarify the definitions of slavery during Biblical times and that of the 16th century onward; however, in my opinion the distinction is fairly weak.) For example, what does one make of the following passage from Exodus 21:20-21:
When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property.
Isn't that "strictly ... what the Bible teaches?"
Y'see, I actually have no hassle with Warren believing that marriage is for a man and a woman only. I've argued the point here and at numerous blogs ad nauseum. The problem is his justification for his belief. You can't argue that "it's because the Bible says so" on one point, but ignore what the Bible says on others. You can't pick and choose what the Bible "really" says when it's convenient.
Actually, Hube, your citation of Exodus and the slavery issue shows why we need organized religion.
Under "disorganized religion," each person's individual interpretation of the Bible would be supreme. With no "organization" to keep Biblical interpretation in check, who's to restrain invalid and improper readings of the Bible? No organization means no source of authoritative external correction.
In the example of slavery, people can and did cite the Bible as justification for it. A superficial reading of Paul's letter to Philemon can be seen to defend slavery since Paul urges, but not orders, Philemon to treat Onesimus as a friend, not a slave. And even then the argument seems to be based in their status as Christians and that Onesimus deserves better than he is getting since he, too, is a Christian. But a still deeper reading of it, in the context of the entire Bible, undermines that interpretation as well, in favor of a reading that slavery is unjustified in all circumstances due to the innate dignity of all men.
All three positions (slavery OK, slavery of non-Christians OK, and slavery bad) can be Biblically justified, but obviously only one can be correct. This is where organized religion can be helpful. Organized religion can explain (and the Bible supports this position through other references not specifically dealing with slavery) that God permitted slavery at the time of the Exodus due to the hardness of men's hearts, while seeking to bring them along slowly to the recognition of the moral horror of slavery. So, properly read, the Bible is against slavery. You just have to know how to read it properly.
Think of it this way: God didn't start with Jesus right away. He spent centuries starting with Abraham, through Moses, through David, through the Exile and so on preparing the Jews for Jesus. And even then a very high percentage still couldn't accept Him as the Messiah. It's the same with slavery: He could have started off with a firm moral prohibition against slavery, but that was so foreign to the culture and the times that He had to bring them along slowly. So God started by demanding proper treatment of slaves and slowly brought people along to the idea of slavery as universally morally wrong. Similarly, we don't start kids with calculus; we start with arithmetic. We need to understand the foundation of ideas before we grasp the whole concept, so we take pieces at a time and build to the conclusion.
So that's the role of organized religion. Without knowing how to read the Bible properly, people can get all sorts of crazy ideas from the Bible, because they don't know they're reading something that's the product of another culture that has to be viewed through the lens of that culture. Organized religion is there to teach people how to properly understand God's revelation and then to correct them if they go astray through mistakes or misapplications of the tools they're given.
The fact that some branches of organized Christianity have misinterpreted Biblical revelation to immoral ends is a sign that we're not organized enough, rather than too much.
Posted by: Paul Smith Jr at December 20, 2008 10:03 AM