Did I Say That?

Squirrel - You Talkin' to me?, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

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.