Wednesday, June 3, 2015

COTTON / POLYESTER BLENDS

There is an argument floating around the Internet. Well -- truer words were never written.

But there's one I mean in particular. You may have seen it on Facebook, perhaps posted by an acquaintance who happens to be on the pro- side of the gay marriage kerfuffle.

Here's how it usually goes:


---

EXT. COFFEE HOUSE - ABOUT 10:00 PM

TOLERANT PROGRESSIVE and CHRISTIAN STRAWMAN are seated at a table, sipping coffee-based beverages.


TOLERANT PROGRESSIVE
So, the Bible forbids gay marriage, eh?

CHRISTIAN STRAWMAN
Yes, according to Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.

TOLERANT PROGRESSIVE
(preparing rhetorical deathblow)
And you believe the Bible is the inspired Word Of God?

CHRISTIAN STRAWMAN
(unaware of impending doom)
I sure do!

TOLERANT PROGRESSIVE
Well!
(beat)
Did you know the Bible also forbids wearing clothes made from two different kinds of fiber?

CHRISTIAN STRAWMAN rips off his polo shirt and checks the tag. ABJECT HORROR dawns in his eyes as he slowly looks up.

OTHER CHRISTIANS emerge from the shadowed street, clutching fist-size rocks.


TOLERANT PROGRESSIVE
Get 'im, boys!

CUT TO: 

INT. CHUCK-E-CHEESE - TWO WEEKS LATER


---


The point of this argument being, broadly, that Christians are picking and choosing which parts of Biblical law they want to follow, and which parts they don't.

But, as is sometimes the case, some smart folks had already asked that question about, ohhhh... 2000 years ago. Let's take a look at Acts 15!


BEFORE WE CONTINUE

A very important premise here is that the Bible is the Word of God. There is (and has been) ongoing discussion regarding the exact meaning of this bit of doctrine; some denominations add disclaimers such as "inerrant in the original language" or "written by people who were inspired by God's spirit". Variations and nuances notwithstanding, the Cliff Notes version is this: The Bible is no ordinary book, and we should do what it says.

Although the folks making this argument do not typically agree with this proposition, they are ASSUMING it to be true in order to later demonstrate a contradiction, thus proving the negation (i.e., the Bible is not divinely inspired or otherwise worthy of consideration above other works of literature). Formally, this type of argument is called "proof by contradiction" or "indirect proof", and you can read more about it here.

So all of this continues based upon the assumed premise, as well as its corollaries -- for instance, God exists, listens to and answers prayer, and inspires humans by His spirit. If you want to dispute that set of propositions, that's totally fine, but it's a separate discussion entirely. Logically, you can't make the above argument without them.


ACTS 15 (New Living Translation)

1 While Paul and Barnabas were at Antioch of Syria, some men from Judea arrived and began to teach the believers: “Unless you are circumcised as required by the law of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them, arguing vehemently. Finally, the church decided to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, accompanied by some local believers, to talk to the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent the delegates to Jerusalem, and they stopped along the way in Phoenicia and Samaria to visit the believers. They told them—much to everyone’s joy—that the Gentiles, too, were being converted.
4 When they arrived in Jerusalem, Barnabas and Paul were welcomed by the whole church, including the apostles and elders. They reported everything God had done through them. 5 But then some of the believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and insisted, “The Gentile converts must be circumcised and required to follow the law of Moses.”
Remember that Jesus was Jewish, as were pretty much all of the first Christians. But as the gospel spread, we began to see Gentiles (non-Jews) converting to Christianity. And the big question was: do you have to be Jewish before you can be Christian? Those guys from Judea, and the Pharisees (oh, those Pharisees) said "yes"; Paul and Barnabas said "no".


BACK TO THE ACTION

6 So the apostles and elders met together to resolve this issue. 7 At the meeting, after a long discussion, Peter stood and addressed them as follows: “Brothers, you all know that God chose me from among you some time ago to preach to the Gentiles so that they could hear the Good News and believe. 8 God knows people’s hearts, and he confirmed that he accepts Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he cleansed their hearts through faith. 10 So why are you now challenging God by burdening the Gentile believers[b] with a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear? 11 We believe that we are all saved the same way, by the undeserved grace of the Lord Jesus.”
Peter (yes, that Peter) makes the following point: the entire reason that the Jews needed Jesus was because they were unable to follow God's law. And if the Jews were unable to keep the Law, it's hardly fair to make the Gentiles try to do it. (As Paul later explains, the very purpose of the Law is to show us -- all of humanity -- our inability to meet God's perfect standard, and consequently our need for His forgiveness, or as Peter describes it here, "the undeserved grace of the Lord Jesus".)


JAMES QUOTES SOME SCRIPTURE

13 When they had finished, James stood and said, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Peter has told you about the time God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people for himself. 15 And this conversion of Gentiles is exactly what the prophets predicted. As it is written: 
16 ‘Afterward I will return and restore the fallen house of David. I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, 
17 so that the rest of humanity might seek the Lord, including the Gentiles—all those I have called to be mine. The Lord has spoken—
18 he who made these things known so long ago.’
James (the brother of Jesus) is just agreeing with Peter here, and quoting the prophet Amos to emphasize the fact that the salvation provided through Jesus is for both Jews and Gentiles.


A CONCLUSION

19 “And so my judgment is that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood. 21 For these laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city on every Sabbath for many generations.”
And there you have it! The council was on board. Shellfish? Okay! Cotton blends? Okay! Sexual immorality? Not okay! And these were guys who were in touch with God, had literally walked around with Jesus, and were just a stand-up bunch. So we take it on faith (ha) that their decision here was a wise one, based on a good deal of prayer, and generally guided by God (again, if you think that this hokey God stuff is a crock of bull, you gotta give up the indirect proof argument).


WAIT WHAT ABOUT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

The what now?

Oh yeah. Huh, that's part of God's law too (Exodus 20). Seems like a big part to leave out.

Except, nobody was really wondering about that. Here's why:


MATTHEW 22

34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees with his reply, they met together to question him again. 35 One of them, an expert in religious law, tried to trap him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?”
37 Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”
I'm guessing James didn't feel the need to rehash the Ten Commandments because Jesus had kind of already covered them.


CONCLUSION AGAIN

So there's the explanation as to why modern Christians oppose certain things that had been proscribed by Jewish law (e.g. homosexual behavior), yet condone or even participate in others (e.g. bacon).

If you're on a certain side of this argument, you may feel like this is some kind of a cop out. But the unfortunate truth is, this isn't a new question. And when it was first asked, it had nothing to do with homosexuality, and probably much more to do with circumcision.

I mean...

If I'd been a Gentile back in those days, I'd definitely have wanted to know if getting snipped was part of the conversion process.

No comments:

Post a Comment