I spend a fair bit of time hanging out with mild-mannered progressive Christians. One thing that I like about the members of that group is that they don’t often try to spring Bible quotes on you as a means of settling political disagreements. The last couple of weeks, though. there has been a tremendous amount of backsliding among progressive Christians in this regard. As a result, I’ve been avoiding social media lately.* So many of my friends have been quoting passages from Leviticus and the Gospel According to Luke as if those passages made it obvious what policies the United States of America and the European Union should adopt towards refugees and migrants from southwest Asia, and have been calling down fire and brimstone on those who are unconvinced, that my news feed on Facebook and my stream on Twitter have started to feel like a tent revival with an especially dyspeptic preaching staff. Quite a few people whom I know to be committed universalists, believers in a doctrine holding that all souls are destined for salvation, have posted statements that those who do not share their position on this issue will be going to Hell.
There are many hazards to attempts to use the Bible to settle political disagreements. Some are more obvious than others. For example:
- Not everyone agrees that the Bible is authoritative. This is a sufficiently familiar point that I can hardly imagine it needs elaboration.
- Not everyone who does agree that the Bible is authoritative agrees on how it should be interpreted.In connection with border policy, relaxationists like to quote two excerpts from the Gospel of Luke. These excerpts are the parable of the “Good Samaritan,” and the parable of the sheep and the goats. The Samaritan is good because he shows hospitality to a non-Samaritan, the shepherd chooses those who perform such acts of mercy as welcoming strangers and rejects those who do not. Advocates of a relaxationist stand on border policy trot these verses out in confidence that they will clobber restrictionists into silence.
And so they may. But beware. One Samaritan is good to the beaten man; three Jews are bad to him. That story could as easily be called “The Parable of the Bad Jews” as the “The Parable of the Good Samaritan.” And so on with the rest of the Gospel of Luke, including the sheep and the goats. The consistent, overarching theme of the whole thing is that early first century Jews are hypocrites, unworthy of their divine heritage, and that they will be punished unless they join the movement forming around Jesus. Progressive Christians reflexively identify themselves and the church as the heirs of this rebuke, and say that the strictures that Jesus lays upon the superficially pious Jews of his day apply to the superficially Christians of our day. But that is not the only interpretation Luke has received over the centuries. Plenty of readers, among them people wielding whatever form of sacred or secular authority you may find impressive, have read Luke as a mandate for every form of anti-Jewish activity, up to and including genocidal violence. If that’s the road you’re bent to follow, nothing in the Bible will stop you traveling down it.
- The Bible is a complex book, political disputes are complex situations, and overlaying the one complexity on top of the other leads to more confusion than enlightenment. It’s hard for me to imagine that anyone really does not accept that a book like the Bible, 36,000 verses in a variety of languages and literary genres, produced by the work of untold numbers of people over more than a dozen centuries, can provide a reader with support for any position that reader would like to see supported. Still, people do seem to lose sight of this.Here’s a tweet that exemplifies the problem:https://twitter.com/owillis/status/666345924013252609
To which a smart-aleck might reply that the command to uproot the seed of Amalek is limited neither by the liturgical calendar nor by the passage of centuries, and inquire if that is the model Mr Willis would have us follow.
If we do want to stick with something specifically called for by the liturgical calendar, in the impeccably progressive Episcopal Church this morning’s Daily Office reading from the Old Testament was from the prophet Joel (chapter 3, verses 1-2 and 9-17.) It includes a call for the Jews of the Diaspora to reverse what Isaiah had seen, to beat ploughshares into swords and pruning hooks into spears, to stand in the valley and do battle for the heritage of Israel. It concludes with the lines “And Jerusalem shall be holy, and strangers shall never again pass through it.”
I’d certainly rather we lean towards a relaxationist line than a restrictionist one, and if we have no choice but to cite Bible verses in defense of border policy, I’d always prefer a sanitized view of Luke to a full-throated version of Joel, or Exodus, or Deuteronomy, or Samuel, or Joshua. But I think a wiser use of the Bible starts with verses 26.4 and 26.5 of the Book of Proverbs:
26.4. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
26.5. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Do these verses contradict each other? Obviously they contradict each other; that’s the point. The Bible is a reliable companion, and can be a wise counselor, if we listen to it in the right mind. But it doesn’t make our decisions for us. We’re still responsible for living our lives. We need our own judgment to tell us whether any particular group of people are fools or not. Having decided that they are fools, we need our judgment to decide whether, in a given situation, it is more important to keep ourselves distinct from their foolishness or to try to persuade them to leave it behind. Once we’ve made that decision, the appropriate proverb will tell us the consequence of our decision. Holding aloof from folly, we must abide it in silence. Trying to correct folly, we must ourselves become somewhat foolish.
In regard to border policy, I think the Bible is useful to us only after we have decided whether we, like Moses and Joshua and Samuel and Joel, are members of a community that is called upon to establish itself as a distinct people with a distinct destiny in the divine drama of history, or whether we, like the contemporaries of Jesus as described in Luke, are members of a community that has gone as far in that drama as distinctiveness will take it and so must set our distinctions aside and embrace a new kind of identity. I tend to lean toward the shedding distinctiveness side, and rarely read the violent passages of scripture without horror and revulsion. But my progressive friends, in their spasms of self-righteousness, have managed to take their immigration relaxationism so far that I am coming to see value even in the injunctions to smite Amalek.
- One theme the Bible makes abundantly clear is that God will surprise us. The Bible time and again tells us explicitly that God will surprise us; it articulates a world-view every portion of which implies that God will surprise us; it tells the stories of hundreds of people, all of whom are at some point God surprises; and readers of the Bible, every time they turn to it with their ears and minds open, will be freshly surprised by its contents. Sometimes the surprises the Bible tells us to watch for will be pleasant. God will answer prayers, make miracles, and provide evidence that we are right and the other fellow is wrong. These are very agreeable surprises. Other times the surprises are extremely disagreeable. Among the consequences of disagreeable surprises is the realization that all of our beliefs have been ill-founded. Therefore, citing the Bible in order to justify one’s certitude that one’s beliefs are well-founded is likely to exasperate those daily readers of the Bible who have internalized its injunctions to accept that God alone is wise, that God alone knows in full what God’s plans are for us and for the world, and that God’s ways are not our ways and cannot be searched by our lights.
*WordPress is an unsocial medium, an online hermitage, as witness the fact that it’s almost indecent to blog under your real name here.