A response to Thabiti Anyabwile

This is a response to Thabiti Anyabwile’s article, "The Myth of Impeccable Individualism." Although he makes good points and uses Scripture, his interpretation raises questions. 

To whom is God speaking in Isaiah 1?  

Thabiti Anyabwile quotes Isaiah 1:11-17 to back up his contention that God deals with us not just as individuals, but as societies. This verse, like many often quoted in questions of social justice, is from the Old Testament. What has changed since then, and how do New Testament believers apply these verses? While such questions may seem unnecessary, they are important in light of the fact that these verses were not addressed to any old nation, but to Israel as the people of God. In our day and age, Israel is not the people of God in the way it was in the Old Testament. So, to whom is God speaking in this verse? Can this verse be applied to whole societies consisting of professing Christians along with those who do not call themselves believers? I would say no, for several reasons. First, no nation today is really the people of God the way Israel was. Israel was to be a theocracy. For them, theocracy was no violation of human rights but God’s will. The kings had the right and duty to do the following: persecute people for their religious beliefs and practices, punish sexual encounters between consenting adults, and finance religious behavior. In ancient Israel, such things were right and good because Israel was the people of God. Unless we, as a nation, wish to hold the whole nation to the standard of God’s word through legal force, we cannot equate our nation with Israel. Such a view does not cause us to fall back on the notion of individualism. We, as Christians, are part of a community, the community of faith, the visible church, consisting of both the truly regenerate and those who profess Christianity but are deceived. I believe this community corresponds to Israel because those who rule over it may hold those in it to the standards of God’s Word. Religious diversity could not be tolerated in Israel, as it cannot be tolerated among church members. You cannot be a member of a proper, Bible-believing church and be a Hindu, for instance. 

For this reason, I see corporate responsibility as definitely existing within the church, particularly within each denomination, and especially within congregations, where people are more likely to know one another’s business. If church members fail to confront one another about sin, they are failing their duties. If church leaders fail to exercise church discipline, they are culpable for their failure to take a stand against evil. And there come times when the church must come to an official position on questions of evil. In this way, the Church has failed to confront evil, and corporate repentance may be fitting, assuming those who take up that responsibility really do speak for the church, and act out of true contrition, not merely a fit of teenage rebellion. (See C. S. Lewis, "On the Dangers of National Repentance")

Unlike Israel, the Church lacks the wide variety of institutions and responsibilities which a sovereign nation has. Instead, believers participate in the broader economy, national government, and cultural life. As long as this world continues in its fallen state, these institutions will be marred by sin. Our duty to confront sin in these areas of society is the dicy question. 

 

Why Christians eat pork, or A discussion of the misuse of Leviticus in discussions of homosexuality.

In the current debate over sexual mores, I have all too often seen people accusing Christians of hypocrisy for not keeping the Old Testament Laws. This accusation directly results from the use of a verse in Leviticus directly forbidding sexual relations between males. Now, I believe it is foolish for Christians to use this verse in public and political debates over human sexuality. Christians’ relationship to the Old Testament laws is a complicated topic, not one suited for the shallow, if-it-doesn’t-fit-on-a-sign-it’s-too-long atmosphere of the political debate environment. 

Despite the complexity of the topic, I will venture to explain the role of the Old Testament law for Christians. Please remember that the topic is not simple, so bear with me and have patience. Also, I understand that the view I will put forth here is strictly Reformed, not the same view as that held by certain other groups. However, my explanation should help clear the charge of hypocrisy. First, a general overview of Christian history.

The general narrative on which Christians base their faith divides history into the time before Christ and the time after Him. This first period is further divided by several vital events. Perhaps the most formative of these is the Fall, Adam and Eve’s eating the Forbidden Fruit. The Fall is credited with casing all (or most of) the problems people encounter. Because of the Fall, people could no longer live in harmony with God or with each other. God did not want to leave us to this predicament, and determined to rescue us, even though we had caused the difficulty. 

The Flood is another event of importance, although it merely serves to show how bad humanity can get. Some time after the Flood, God chose Abraham and his family to be a chosen nation, the nation of Israel. It was to this nation, after they were freed from slavery in Egypt, that God gave the law, of which Leviticus is a part. The law was pretty extensive, including laws and rules for most activities. Even the fabrics people could wear was regulated, as well as the food they could eat, and the way they would deal with such problems as mildew or sickness. 

Some time after the nation of Israel arrived in their land, they set up a king, but only after they had attempted to live without one and experienced anarchy and difficulty.  Already, though, they had begun compromising their religion by syncretism. Even under their kings, they would worship God along with the deities of the surrounding peoples, a practice which had been forbidden. Finally, as punishment, they were conquered and deported. 

Although some Israelites did manage to return to their land and rebuild their temple, the glory days of Israel were pretty much over. Except for some brief periods, Israel was the subject of one empire after another, finally coming under Rome. In such circumstances, the civil laws God laws God had given them could not be enforced as they had been when Israel had been free. The Romans were the law, and they did not always care about violations of Jewish mores. 

It was at this time that Jesus was born, lived, died, and came back to life. He did not establish a government or rid Israel of Roman authority. Instead, the story ends with both Jews and non-Jews, man of them Romans, following Jesus. The New Testament ends with a rather cryptic account of visions and dreams, many of them revealing the future. 

The crux (no pun intended) of the matter is the issue of fulfillment. Reformed Christians believe that the Old Testament laws were a representation of something which did not yet exist when the laws were given. The whole Old Testament speaks of what would one day come to pass with the coming of Jesus. Thus, new symbols have been given to the church, most of them looking backwards, not forwards, symbols replacing the old ones laid down. Israel pretty much always struggled to keep the law, never fully succeeding. Thus, they were shown the inability of humanity to keep God’s law and the need for atonement. 

The New Testament repeatedly teaches that the Christian no longer is bound by certain Old Testament laws. In Mark 7:14-19 Jesus sets aside the rigorous purity laws. In Acts 10:10-16, the apostle Peter has a vision in which God practically tells him to eat unclean food. After this vision, Peter goes to the house of a Gentile, something devout Jews at that time believed to be wrong. Further, the elders of the early church soon determine that Gentile believers need not keep the civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament (Act 15:1-35). Thus, many Christians eat pork, wear clothes of blended fabrics, and do not consider themselves unclean during menstruation. 

Why then, one may well ask, do Christians consider homosexual behavior to be wrong? Certain New Testament passages, such as Romans 1: 26-27 seem to indicate that homosexual behavior is not natural. For Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, I expect the Church’s long tradition of disapproval of homosexual behavior probably stands as a strong reason to still consider it wrong. Also, the sexual acts which the Old Testament laws forbid are mostly taboo among modern Christians. One notable exception is the prohibition against having sexual relations with a woman while she is on her period. However the New Testament passages should be understood or applied, it would be best not to use Old Testament passages to condemn homosexual behavior, as doing so has caused confusion for those unfamiliar with the more complicated points of Christian doctrine and has brought undeserved ridicule to the Church.

A Christmas Meditation

Some people cite the date of Christmas as evidence of a pagan origin or a pagan nature.  It is not only true that the date of our present Christmas celebration is probably not the day Jesus was born, it is also true that December 25 was a feast for various pagan religions. The day's association with the solstice seems, to some people's minds, to be a sign either that Christmas is not about Jesus or that Christmas is merely a carryover from pagan times. Such understandings fall short of the truth.

To properly understand the concept of having Christmas on the 25th, we must understand the mindset of the culture at the time when the date was fixed. People in the late Roman Empire were more dependent on the natural cycle than we are today.  Although urbanites were less dependent than rural people, the dependence was still a reality for those who lived in cities. Nowadays, one can purchase fresh fruits and vegetables out of season. For many modern people, such delights as tomatoes, cucumbers, and lettuce form a part of the diet year round. In the late Roman Empire, people could only eat either what was in season, what could be stored long-term, or what could be brought from other climates quickly enough that it would not spoil along the way.

The religions from which these people converted associated the natural cycle with their myths. The story of Hades and Persephone explained the existence of winter and spring among the Greeks. Among the Norse, the tale of Balder performed a similar function. One linked the events of myth to natural cycles, not necessarily to historical dates.

A similar phenomenon was actually present in the Old Testament. The feast of Pentecost occurred around the first harvest. The Israelites celebrated the New Moons. I believe that it is no coincidence that a mass conversion occurred on Pentecost.

By choosing to institute Christmas on the solstice, the church authorities were connecting Jesus' birth not to pagan mythology but to the solstice itself, to the darkest day and the day when the daylight hours begin to lengthen. In choosing to celebrate Christmas around the solstice, Christians were treating the date mythically, not historically. They were not saying that Jesus' birth was not a historical event. They were simply saying that it was more than just a historical event. It is an event which defines present life in a way which other events do not. Thus, it has special significance.

 There is a real symbolism in the choice. Jesus came when Israel was only a wraith of its former self. It had come back from exile, but it had come under Roman rule, it no longer had the Ark of the Covenant, and it lacked prestige. It was at such a low point that Jesus came, a paradox of light only coming at the darkest place.