Thursday, December 1, 2011

Did I Say That?


I have been criticized by some of those who generally agree with me for the engaging I do with those who don't agree with me/us. I don't know if folk are understanding that I'm not engaging so much for their benefit as I am mine.

Thinking Big Ideas through with those with whom I agree doesn't challenge me as much as when someone is disagreeing with me and I have to consider the Other Side. And so, by engaging with those with whom I disagree, it helps me more fully understand my position and think through if it's the position I truly think right.

Beyond that, almost without fail, when discussing these issues through with those who are opposed to my position, I almost always get a better sense of why I think I'm right. And sometimes, these disagree-ers actually provide for me with better arguments/clarifications.

Case in point: This Sabbath and "rule" discussion I've been having in various places of late.

As you can see in my previous post, I note Jesus' comment/clarification that the Sabbath is made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath. I think this is a key to helping us understand a right relationship with rules and community.

In noting this elsewhere, I suggested that the problem we all have at times is the sin of the Pharisees - to hold to and try to enforce rules but doing so without grace.

Along those lines, one commenter said...

One problem with Dan's use of Jesus "breaking" the Sabath. If you look at the commandment, it's pretty general. What Jesus was doing was trespassing on the Pharisee's interpretation of the commandment. In other words there is no Biblical prohibition against picking and eating grain on the Sabbath, that was a later "clarification".

What Jesus was really challenging it seems, was not even the "laws" of the Pharisee's, but the Pharisee's right to be able to make laws in the first place.


And of course, this is an extremely astute observation and one I agree with and think makes great sense.

The Pharisees were guilty of taking an Old Testament rule and enforcing not only the rule, but telling everyone else exactly what that rule meant for everyone.

Now, in the Pharisees defense, the OT rule about the Sabbath does seem fairly clear, if vague.

DO NOT WORK ON SATURDAY, the rule says. And follows up with the kicker, THOSE WHO DO SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH.

This was a seriously serious rule, right?

And "don't work," well, that's pretty clear. Working in the field to gather food, THAT WAS working for them.

And so, the Pharisees thought they were starting from a right point, by enforcing THEIR UNDERSTANDING of a rule THEY THOUGHT was abundantly clear. THEY THOUGHT "don't glean food" was an obviously reasonable extrapolation of "don't work."

The thing is, they were wrong, according to Jesus. THEIR INTERPRETATION of the rule lacked grace and it lacked in the understanding that the Sabbath was for humanity. (And I will repeat that what was being violated was not the rule, but THEIR EXTRAPOLATED INTERPRETATION, as my commenter rightly pointed out).

The Sabbath rule WAS FOR THEIR SAKE, not some rule to beat folk over the head, but to encourage the rest - the break from work - that we need so desparately.

And so, this commenter was right, I'd say, and they agreed with my point, although I don't think they ever saw it that way.

The OT DOES say (to take a favorite issue for them), "Men shall not lie with men, kill 'em if they do..." That IS what it says. But what was the purpose of the rule? IT WAS FOR THEIR SAKE. The rule was to encourage healthy sexual practices and to discourage unhealthy (in the OT case, temple prostitution and orgies to honor a pagan god) sexual practices.

And so, the conservatives of today are RIGHT to note that the OT does have a verse that says, "men shall not lie with men," but these same conservatives err in THEIR EXTRAPOLATION of the rule given to a specific people thousands of years ago. "THIS VERSE OBVIOUSLY MEANS..." they opine (and, I'll note, it's "obvious" TO THEM, just as the "no gleaning" rule was "obvious TO THE PHARISEES) "...is that gay folk can't live in a marriage relationship that includes sex with other gay folk...").

JUST LIKE THE PHARISEES (as my commenter noted), they have taken a rule and EXTRAPOLATED OUT an EXTRA rule, and one that is lacking in grace and that lacks the understanding of the rule being FOR OUR SAKE.

If we're concerned about following God's rules for "our sake" (as Jesus noted in the Sabbath rule), then the concern is for HEALTHY SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS, not a woodenly literal adherence to a millenia-old rule. And it is self-evident to most folk that a committed faithful marriage relationship IS the way to have healthy sexual relationships.

And so, in the paraphrased words of my detractor...

In other words there is no Biblical prohibition against healthy marriage relationships - gay or straight, that has been a later "clarification".

What Jesus was really challenging it seems, was not even the "laws" of the Pharisee's, but the Pharisee's right to be able to make laws in the first place.


So, I thank my conservative commenter for helping to clarify even better for me why my understanding is a biblically and logically and ethically solid understanding.

10 comments:

Alan said...

I would question the supposed benefit you think you receive. I think you receive attention, but that is not the same thing.

In order to sharpen a knife you need a hard stone. Arguing with them is the equivalent of trying to sharpen a stone using jello.

All they've done is goad you into an argument about rule-following, which is about as far from grace and faith as possible.

Your discussions with them remind me of my cats. If I throw a cat toy and the cats don't see where it went, I can point at the toy all I want, and all they'll do is stare intently at the tip of my finger. (And, by the way while it is easy to criticize the cats for not being terribly clever, but just how clever am I, if I just simply keep pointing?)

That is, my critique of your arguing with them has nothing whatsoever to do with whether someone agrees with you or not. Note your use of "the Other Side", for example. Seriously, you and your interlocutors are so bizarrely obsessed with agreement and with lining up on sides, it reminds me of a twisted game of Red Rover, except that Red Rover would be both more fun and useful.

Instead, I simply think your arguments with them is, like my cats, an exercise in missing the point.

So you think you're come to a better understanding of rule following. Bra-vo. *insert slow sarcastic clapping here.*

And that has what, exactly, to do with ... well ... anything that's actually important?

Alan said...

By the way, Dan, while I know you're in the habit of defending yourself and your decisions to them, you really don't have to write a whole post defending your decisions to engage with them for my sake for at least 2 reasons:

1) It really doesn't matter. 2) And I'm not them.

:)

Doug said...

Just one note: It is extrapolating to say that "don't work on the Sabbath" means "don't glean wheat". It is not extrapolating to say that "men should not lie with men" means "men should not lie with men".

You are comparing apples to oranges, but I'm sure someone where this conversation is taking place has already pointed this out.

John Farrier said...

Thinking Big Ideas through with those with whom I agree doesn't challenge me as much as when someone is disagreeing with me and I have to consider the Other Side. And so, by engaging with those with whom I disagree, it helps me more fully understand my position and think through if it's the position I truly think right.

This is a praiseworthy attitude and I fully agree with it.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

"In order to sharpen a knife you need a hard stone. Arguing with them is the equivalent of trying to sharpen a stone using jello.

All they've done is goad you into an argument about rule-following, which is about as far from grace and faith as possible."

Yup. Pretty much.

Which is not to say that you may not benefit from your interactions with them. Clearly, you believe you have. At some point, however, the ritualized dance performed in the over-long comment threads has to reach the point of agony for your poor head, beating against whatever hard surface is available.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Unlike two who have commented here, you at least have some sense of why continued discussion with those who oppose your opinions has value. You don't run, you don't pretend your opponents aren't capable of providing insights. Unlike them, who have no spine to go along with having no real arguments to defend their positions, you persevere regardless of your equally lacking situation. This at least shows some level of conviction on your part, or at least a hope that your conviction is well placed. It's sad that you're wrong, but there's something positive to be said for the effort.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

OR ART . . .

It could just be, as I've said so many times before I am not in the least interested in arguing, coming to some sort of agreement - with you or anyone else - and most definitely have no desire to be proven "wrong" or prove anyone else "wrong".

I do what I do for the simple reason of putting my thoughts out there. I do not make the mistake of believing for one moment that I have any access to the truth, or the way things really are or should be or anything else. My views are just that. If you agree with them, that's OK. If not, well, that's OK, too.

What I am most definitely not interested in is hearing from someone who doesn't even hide his bigotry against sexual minorities, or his unwillingness to actually take the time to use Google to check out stuff for himself, how "wrong" I am. I may well be. In fact, I probably am. Doesn't mean you are right. Doesn't mean you telling me over and over again how wrong I am means anything at all to me.

It isn't cowardice, or an inability to marshal any argument against your obvious superiority. It is what I have said it is: I. Do. Not. Freaking. Care.

How's that? You are more than welcome to think and propagate your ideas and opinions on any number of subjects. I just don't have either the time or emotional energy to worry what some guy I do not know thinks about what I've written.

Marshall Art said...

Apparently you do care because you can't seem to stop yourself from telling me how much you don't care. And, as it happens, you are wrong about so much and you do care that I dare point that out here and elsewhere, as evidenced by how often you insist you don't care. And BTW, it really isn't necessary to research every jot and tittle since so much about which you are wrong is self-evidently so and even a cursory knowledge of Scripture (and life, for that matter) bears that out easily.

What's truly amazing to me, however, is this attitude that yes, you might be wrong, but don't seem to care to be shown how even for your own edification. "I'm may be wrong, dammit, but that's the way I like it!" What brilliance! What sophistication! What a waste of life!

Pride is no good for you, Geoffrey. It's OK to be corrected. I would not be ashamed to say that Geoffrey Kruse-Safford enlightened me on a topic, if ever that could happen. For example, if you could ever demonstrate bigotry on my part against what you laughingly refer to as "sexual minorities" (do you mean pedophiles or lovers of barnyard animals? Think of their small numbers! Or do you just mean certain people YOU think are not really deviant in their proclivities?), that would be special, especially considering how impossible it would be.

Alan said...

See Dan? Sooooooo useful! :)

QED.

Carry on. Best wishes and Happy Holidays!!

Dan Trabue said...

Thank you. Happy Holidays to you, too.