Miss USA and Theological Cherry-picking

I apologize for being so rudely interrupted in my series on social justice solutions, but I couldn’t resist this post, and will pick my other more important topic back up soon. I won’t go much into the controversy over Carrie Prejean’s unfortunate question and response at the recent Miss USA pageant, as that is well reported. But I do want to call out a particular interview on the CNN Campbell Brown show between guest commentator Roland Martin and Miss Prejean. In the interview, Martin quoted former Miss California 2003, Nicole Lamarche, who is now an ordained minister, as having said the following:

"In the past few days, much has been made of the words of Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean. She stated that marriage is between a man and a woman... While this sentiment is shared by many who seek to condemn gay people and gay marriage, citing pieces of the Bible to further one’s own prejudice fails to meet the Bible on its own terms.”

First, what are the "terms" of the Bible she speaks of? If it is flawed, or all the more, false, then what's the point of being an ordained minister? Second, why should we take Lamarche’s admonition that the Bible says we should love our neighbor as ourselves if it can’t be trusted? Is she asserting that you can take what you like and encourage that, but discard what you don't like and say it's up to interpretation? That appears to me very flawed logic. Third, how is Lamarche so certain that Carrie is attempting to “further her own prejudice”? Couldn’t we also assert that Lamarche is prejudiced since she believes her own position is right? Who is to judge if there is no objective moral standard? Apparently there isn’t one since Lamarche doesn’t see the Bible as having any particular authority unless she accedes it. Thus, she sets her own standard and projects her standards on Prejean. What a shame.

I can certainly respect those who feel the Bible is a flawed, errant document that is just a collection of fables. But if they feel that way, I think it’s only honest to be consistent on that view. The Bible is propositional in that it makes truth claims that one can accept as true or reject. Its entire veracity rests on the truth claim of the resurrection of Christ, and nothing else. Concomitant with this truth is Christ’s proclamation that the Old Testament is true, and that he witnessed its history as a part of the Holy Trinity, co-eternal with God. So the Bible is not a book where you can accept some of its tenets as authoritative, while rejecting others. If it is not true, or is only partially true, then what one accepts or does not accept as true is simply a matter of personal opinion.

Unfortunately Lamarche wants to have her cake and eat it too. She sees the Bible as authoritative in areas where she happens to be in agreement, but she doesn’t see the same in areas where she doesn’t. For someone learned in religious studies, it frightens me that she doesn’t understand the concept of progressive revelation and that not everything the Bible reports is what it condones. Sinful behavior is a regular occurrence in the Bible, thus the story of redemption within its pages. She further violates basic methods of interpretation in her exegesis of New Testament passages. Let’s now look at a few quotes from a recent interview with her alma mater, Pacific School of Religion:

“Most people seeking to condemn gay people point to the Book of Leviticus, where we read that men lying with men is an abomination. However, we rarely hear of other verses found in the book of Leviticus that are equally challenging. For example, Leviticus also tells us that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination. And that a person should not wear material woven of two kinds of material—an impossible mandate for a pageant contestant!”

First, she presumes that anyone against gay marriage is “seeking to condemn gay people.” While this may be the case for some, isn’t it reasonable to say that people can be against gay marriage because they believe the Bible is true and that it condemns homosexuality? And isn’t it possible to love gay people as the Bible commands while not agreeing with their lifestyle choice, and further, not abridging such? If those people respect biblical authority as Lamarche presumably does, then why should they believe otherwise? As to comparing homosexuality to eating shellfish, this is where Lamarche completely misses progressive revelation. The prohibition of homosexuality in Leviticus 18 was enjoined with other practices such as incest, adultery, and marriage of close relatives, under Mosaic law. While these prohibitions were included in Mosaic law, it must be known that the Mosaic law was temporal and conditional, but these prohibitions were in effect before the Mosaic law, during, and now continue to this day as being fundamental to society. Would anyone say that we should allow incest, adultery, and marriage of close relatives today because their prohibition is limited to Mosaic law? As with many other prohibitions in the Mosaic law, in the New Covenant all dietary restrictions were deemed unnecessary under the dispensation of grace, and are not in effect today. Lamarche then continues with her next rhetorical volley:

“In Paul’s letter to the community in Corinth we read, ‘For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church….’ And yet these words have not prevented Christian denominations from ordaining women, such as myself. Sadly, the Bible has been used to further prejudice throughout history. We have used it to permit ourselves to enslave people; to conquer and kill; and to denigrate the earth.”

Here, Lamarche focuses on a narrow passage, violating the three basic hermeneutical rules consisting of context, context, context for biblical interpretation. This passage is within the larger context of keeping order in church meetings. Paul’s call was not for absolute silence, but was specific in that he wanted wives to wait to ask their husbands questions at home. At that time they actually respected men as the head of their households. In God’s eyes, the woman is personally equal to the male, but she is distinct in her womanhood from his manhood. Thus God designed the woman to function in willing subjection to her husband’s headship in the church. So this in no way enslavement, but a willing partnership between equals with different roles.

Finally, Lamarche demonstrates extraordinarily poor biblical exegesis, particularly for someone who carries the title of ordained minister:

“The truth is that it is difficult to know for sure the intentions of the biblical authors, but we do know something about God. Those of us who know God through Jesus of Nazareth know that he went to great lengths to express God’s love to people who were labeled as outcasts. He spent time with children, prostitutes, and lepers, all of whom were labeled as outside of the grasp of the Holy. As we continue to seek God’s vision for us as a nation grounded in a love for justice, I pray that we might move closer to the cause of grace.”

The truth is that it is no more difficult to know the sure intentions of biblical authors than it is for you, my dear reader, to know the intentions of the post you are currently reading, or to know the intentions of Lamarche’s writings. Otherwise, biblical interpretation would be an academic exercise and become purposeless since the Bible could be interpreted to suit whatever one desires at any point in time. The purpose of biblical interpretation is authorial intent (as it is with this post). No more, no less. Now for Jesus to go to great lengths to express God’s love to people who were outcasts inferred no special status on this group of people, but was to demonstrate that he came to save all of the lost who would put their faith in him. There simply are no people that are outside “the grasp of the Holy,” as Lamarche puts it in her brand of plain old bad theology. We are all sinners saved by grace when we accept Christ, and none of us has any special status in the eyes of God. So it is the height of ridiculousness to assert that we should accept gay marriage in order to “move closer to the cause of grace.” The very reason we need grace is because we are sinners who have transgressed God’s law. So I would suggest Lamarche return to a reputable school for remedial training in both biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, and keep her own personal prejudices aside by rightly dividing the word of truth moving forward.

To wrap, I would like to add that Lamarche and folks of her ilk are a most destructive lot. Who would propose that the Bible supports the gay political agenda, under the false veil of justice and equality, when a homosexual lifestyle is clearly inimical to the teachings of the Bible? This is a most deliberate and wanton misinterpretation for anyone who believes the Bible has one shred of truth. My assertion is if Lamarche wants to make her argument, that she make it on other grounds without attempting to falsely marshal support from the Bible. I then may at least respect her argument. But her current attempt is to argue her position from the Bible while undermining its very foundations. This tactic is nothing less than unconscionable, and fair minded people should never give in to this type of grown-up biblical bullying.

share on: facebook

“Solutions” for Social Justice?

It has been a few weeks since my last post, and I would like to thank the few, the proud, the readers of my intermittent ramblings. During this time I’ve been doing some research on the founding principles of the US Constitution, Economics, and learning about a Catholic economic model called Distributism, which claims to be a “third way” between socialism and capitalism (specifically, avoiding the centralization of political power in the former, while avoiding the centralization of economic power in the latter). Including the benefits of Distributism (or some elements thereof) in my economic thinking was suggested by one of my Facebook friends, Brennan, and since my next blog idea was to discuss government “solutions” within the context of social justice, I thought it might be worth the time to do some research in this area. The idea of a post on government solutions for social justice was seeded by an exchange with another Facebook friend, Travis, who is a classmate at Talbot, working on his Masters in Theology. So my heartfelt thanks go out to both Brennan and Travis, to whom I will be looking for feedback. I will only touch on Distributism in this post, but will follow up in more detail in the next.

Travis and I both attend a conservative school of theology and are both evangelical Christians, but from a political perspective, Travis tends to lean Democratic and is an Obama supporter, while I lean conservative and was a McCain supporter in last November’s election (well actually, I wasn’t a true supporter but believed McCain was the “lesser of two evils,” as it were). On matters such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, Travis and I are in general agreement. Where we tend to disagree, however, is with the specific role of government in terms of social justice, which includes providing more resources for inner city communities and schools as they continue their epic struggles to this day. Travis feels Democrats are offering solutions whereas Republicans are not, but admits that after over forty-plus years of Great Society social programs, there has been little progress in terms of lifting those in the inner city out of the generational poverty, crime, and lack of education that continues to haunt these communities.

My assertion is that the proper role of government at the federal level is to provide a level playing field and to vigorously enforce such, which is consistent with conservative principles of personal responsibility, a small federal government with limited powers as outlined by the Constitution, and low taxes to spur economic growth such that opportunities abound for all who would take advantage of them. What I don’t believe is that government can “fix” these communities such that they will be able to effectively take part in the opportunities available. Why? Because I believe the problem has more to do with the decay of the family and moral values in those communities than any other factor. Though church attendance is high in inner-city black communities, the timeless values taught in church somehow do not effectively translate into action in terms of excellence in the classroom, strong family units, or abstinence until marriage as the ideal. So if the values which would preserve and uplift these communities are not practiced to any appreciable degree voluntarily, there is little government can do. But what the government does is to continue to sink federal and state dollars into these communities at the behest of liberal Democrats with little real results, only perpetuating a generational cycle of dependency, ensuring cheap and enduring votes for the Democratic party because of the perception that they are doing something. Apparently pushing for equal opportunity and the enforcement thereof, as championed by the Republican party during the civil rights era and beyond, is considered not doing anything.

What I am arguing as a conservative is that there is no government funded solution to the inner city problem that is purely a factor of government spending, particularly any solution as currently outlined by liberal Democrats. With a relativistic and mostly materialistic view of the universe, liberals simply don’t see that the problem is a lack of accountability as well as a lack of objective moral values and virtue in these communities. Over the past forty-plus years, liberals have rejected timeless and transcendent values that are vital to turning these communities around, instead promoting a “do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody” social policy concordant with a sex and passion-driven mainstream media, as if the only type of harm one can do to someone else is physical. From their perspective, one can engage in all other manner of risky and deviant behavior, but if one finds him or herself in a compromised situation, it is the government’s job to bail them out since they simply exercised their “right” to live their life in a capricious and irresponsible manner as they so decide with little thought to the consequences. In other words, one has rights but no concomitant responsibilities along with those rights.

The key issue Travis and I discussed was related to supply-side (or “trickle down”) economics as not benefitting the lower classes, and thus being a major factor in their strife. While I don’t believe supply-side economics necessarily are at fault, since everyone benefits through lower taxes for all that promote economic growth, I do see the downside to a purely individualistic approach and see some flavor of Distributism as a better model particularly within inner-city communities to harmonize the relationship between morals and economics, thus bringing healing to these communities. Distributism, as an economic system, promotes local control (through decentralization of political power into the lowest level possible), ownership of private property, self-reliance, industry and thrift, and community spirit. A Distributist system would, however, place spiritual and ethical demands on these communities to lessen playing out of their passions and appetites in favor of family unity, generosity, and cooperation. I envision this would consist of local government working with churches, charities, and private investors to setup guilds, cooperatives, credit unions, home-based businesses, and micro-credit banking to empower productive communities to become interdependent as opposed to being dependent. Though Distributist ideals have grown out of Catholic social doctrine, they do not demand adherence to the Catholic faith, but would rely on core Christian teachings as a mooring for economic and social policy within these communities.

I will expand further on how I envision Distributism working practically to promote social justice in my next post.

References:
Triolo, John F., 2008, Can Distributism Work? Part II. On-line. Available from Internet, http://www.thecontrariansreview.com/Can_Distributism_Work__2.html, accessed on 19 April 2009.

Society for Distributism, 2009, Brochure. On-line. Available from Internet, http://www.scribd.com/doc/13266644/The-Society-for-Distributism-Brochure, accessed on 19 April 2009.

share on: facebook

Lovelle Mixon: Looking Forward and Backward

Tonight I watched a Bill O’Reilly episode on Fox News, and was intrigued by the dialogue that took place between two guests over the recent rallies in Oakland honoring Lovelle Mixon, the man who fatally shot four officers before being killed by Oakland police last week. The purpose of the rally was reported to also have been a condemnation of the police. As the story is well reported I won’t belabor the details, but what was intriguing about this exchange was the clear contrast between these two black guests: one a talk-show radio host looking forward, and the other a Ph.D. still looking backward though he has risen from a similar situation as Mixon.

James T. Harris, a conservative talk-show radio host in Milwaukee, WI, condemned those in the rallies honoring Mixon, saying they had a “collective mindset” that was legitimate 30-40 years ago, but is simply illegitimate today. He cited the breakdown of the family and the declining role of religion as the true reasons that many black communities continue to be mired in poverty and crime-ridden neighborhoods. Harris goes on to say that while solidarity was a necessary and helpful thing 40-50 years ago, it is now destructive because it continues to aim at past inequities that no longer exist to any wide extent.

On the other hand, we have Marc Lamont Hill, who holds a Ph.D. (with distinction) from the University of Pennsylvania. Hill is considered one of the leading “hip-hop generation intellectuals” in the country. Hill argued that those taking part in the rallies were not celebrating Mixon, but simply responding to “police terrorism” that has been endemic to their community for decades. O’Reilly responded, rightfully, that this was an inappropriate forum in which to voice their concern, particularly since Mixon was a rape suspect and a cop-killer who left three widows and ten children without a father. But Hill was undeterred. He said that Mixon had a right to “fundamental humanity,” so his life deserved to be celebrated though his actions clearly didn’t. O’Reilly wasn’t buying that either.

Harris then attacked Hill’s very premise that there was such thing as “police terrorism” in the black community. He argued that the “cups of sorrow” from previous generations continue to be propagated needlessly in the black community into the current generation, looking for terrorism where it doesn’t exist. He continued that blacks are now free, but too many continue to look to the past though times have clearly changed. O’Reilly graciously gave Hill the last word, which Hill used to blather on about how the rallies were challenging a “repressive and oppressive police state.” Thank goodness O’Reilly pulled the plug, as I had had enough of Hill and his whining. Hill is legitimate proof (as is Obama) that a black man, through hard work and determination, can achieve whatever his mind can conceive if he applies himself and accepts responsibility for his own life and his own family (ironic that I borrow a bit of phrasing from Jesse Jackson). This same opportunity is available to our brothers and sisters in Oakland if they would simply accept responsibility for their own communities.

So there you have it, one black man who acknowledges our horrid past of slavery and Jim Crow, but demonstrates thankfulness for what we have overcome, and is looking forward to the future (amen to that). Yet we have another black man who has achieved a high degree of success himself as an intellectual who writes, speaks, and appears on national television, but continues to look backward and rail on about inequities of the past. I think the only thing Hill really demonstrates in this exchange is the double standard too many blacks hold towards whites. We want them to treat us with decency and respect, but we don’t have to return the same when it suits us because of past wrongs. Those rallying around Mixon have no defense, as their cause célèbre is indefensible, but Hill sure gave it a hell of a try. Certainly, he could apply his Ph.D. training to defend causes that are actually of some benefit.

share on: facebook