There’s Humor in Theology 13
October 12, 2006 by Fraiser
Gone is the hey-day of rhetorical debate. Luther was a master of rhetoric and by using it, often won popular support against his more scholastic opponents. The “comic books” of Luther’s day often ridiculed the pope, some even containing drawings of the peasants exposing their hind ends to him and using him as a commode. Luther, joining in the fodder, was known to call Pope Paul III “Holy Madam Pope Paula III”, but this insult pales in comparison to the following extended quote.
Gently, clear Pauli, dear donkey, don’t dance around! Oh, dearest little ass-pope, don’t dance around – dearest, dearest little donkey, don’t do it. For the ice is very solidly frozen this year because there was no wind – you might fall and break a leg. If a fart should escape you while you were falling, the whole world would laugh at you and say, ‘Ugh, the devil! How the ass-pope has befouled himself!’ And that would be a great crime of lese majesty against the Holy See in Rome, which no letters of indulgence or ‘plentitude of power’ could forgive. Oh, that would be dangerous! So consider your own great danger beforehand, Hellish Father….If I should die meanwhile, may God grant that someone else make it a thousand times worse, for this devilish popery is the last misfortune on earth, nearest to that which all the devils can do with all their might (Martin Luther quoted in Eric W. Gritsch The Wit of Martin Luther [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006], 37).
Posted in Church History, There's Humor in Theology | 21 Comments
Leave a Reply
John,
I tend to despise rhetoric, but perhaps Luther was wiser than I am. Perhaps people are more effectively warned against heresy by rhetoric than by reason.
With that in mind, does anyone else see the resemblance to Joel Osteen in the picture above?
KWR
I can see how an ass resembles Joel Osteen, but perhaps if the ass had a bouffant and was wearing a cheap toothy grin for no reason I might see more of a resemblance.
Ok, so I’m not as good at this as Luther.
I was going to photoshop it, but I couldn’t decide whether to add the ass’s ears to Osteen or Osteen’s hair and teeth to the ass. Then I got lazy and decided to just suggest the connection and hope someone else would be more artistically motivated.
OFelixCulpa,
You just photoshoped a mental image for me, thanks.
This is an interesting post because today if someone such as James Dobson were to say something like that I imagine he would be severely chastised for un-Christian conduct. Why was it acceptable for Luther but not for us today? Cultural norms? Was Luther being inappropriate or was it appropriate in the proper context to call Pope Paul III the “ass-pope”? Either way, I think I’ll start using that phrase… it has a nice ring to it.
Jonathan,
Very few of the many good things Luther did and said were considered acceptable in his day. Calling the pope an ass was probably considered one of his most egregious offenses.
I think we should recognize that cultural norms of what is acceptable are very often designed to maintained the status quo rather than promote righteousness. And, like Luther, we should be prepared to trample all over them when necessary to bring truth to light.
KWR
OFelixCulpa,
I’m aware that Luther and other Reformers weren’t the most well liked bunch but the post says, “often won popular support against his more scholastic opponents” and this is what I was referring to, though I may have misunderstood it. Today this sort of rhetoric is looked down upon.
I think we should only “offend people” (trampling the cultural norm) by the Bible’s message itself and not just because we think their standard is contrived. In fact, I may say it is only appropriate to offend when the offense comes from the truth of the Word. It seems to me rhetorical deliverance of a message is not one of these necessary offenses per se. For example, imagine that I were an Arminian and in a debate with you over the grace of God. Now imagine if in that debate I called you an ass-clown. Was calling you that necessary to bring truth to light? Of course, context is everything in such cases.
It seems to me that such rhetoric is never “necessary” in order to bring truth to light. However, during certain times and in certain contexts it is permitted by the culture.
Jonathan,
I agree and somewhat disagree. You are correct in saying that rhetoric never helps to advance the rational discussion between opposing points of view. I have often felt the exasperation of trying to argue carefully and rationally against a point of view only to be dismissed by irrelevant rhetoric. It is from such experiences that I wrote above “I tend to despise rhetoric.”
However, it seems that sometimes the person who is committed to fair and rational discussion plays right into the hand of those who claim want rational discussion but really do not. In Luther’s time, the Catholic Church wasn’t really concerned with the enlightenment of the masses, but rather with keeping them in darkness and superstitious fear. It seems that Luther was, but such statements, emphasizing and demonstrating to the people that the pope was not to be feared. Perhaps Luther did “cross the line” in this statement (I don’t know enough of the context to be sure), but it is at least conceivable to me that the circumstances justified such extreme ridicule.
Don’t misunderstand me. I too very much prefer rational discussion of the issues, but many people are not concerned about that. I doubt whether it is wise always to make ourselves prisoners to those who only feign sincere interest in discerning the truth. And that is what I think the position you have expressed would demand of us if we followed it consistently.
Let me put it this way: Is it always compulsory for the Christian to obey the whims of his or her culture? If the culture one is a part of decides that beards are offensive, is the Christian man (and some Christian women) then required to shave once or twice a day just because the scripture never explicitly commands us not to shave? If a culture decides that prepuces are evil and offensive (as our culture largely has for males–though they phrase it in terms of “cleanliness;” other cultures expect it for females as well) are Christian parents then required to dutifully remove them from their children at birth? After all, the Bible never specifically requires that we don that appendage. Would not the position you describe require that we give it up to avoid unnecessary offense? Or, what if a culture decides that it is offensive for us to pray in public, attend church weekly, say the word “Christmas” etc.? There are many many many things that the Bible doesn’t specifically and unavoidably demand that I think we would be unwise to “give up” simply to avoid offending a God-hating culture.
Also, we must remember that it is our job to confront and condemn worldly culture, not merely avoid offending it, and very few people find condemnation agreeable. One example we should consider (which would be judged very racist by our culture) is the dictum, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” I suspect that the Cretans took a bit of offense at that, but that did not prevent a wiser Christian than either of us from affirming it.
I have to admit, though, that I don’t have this all worked out. I would generally want to condemn someone who dismissed their theological oppenent as an ass-clown. Tell me some more of your thoughts.
KWR
Oh i have to say that this is the best, humor is the best way to break the ice and create an open door in order to say things that you might not be able to say to someone that hasn’t laughed. Good to see some humor on a site that is so well known for the in-depth study and intense intelectuall conversations. Can’t wait to see you at Christmas.
Thanks for stopping in brother-in-law. Annie and I look forward to seeing you two as well. Talk to you later.
John M
KWR,
I think good “rhetoric” will not be without content. If someone is witting enough they can give a rhetorical sting, such as compare the Pope to a donkey, and use this to bring about a valid, rational point. “Rhetoric” today is often given the connotation of empty talk but I think of satire as a form of rhetoric that can often be useful in communicating a point. You seem to be making this point about the Pope and Luther and I would agree. Still, it can only go so far, a debate cannot take place in which both parties simply give satirical plays of their opponent.
Concerning offenses and our compliance to cultural standards,
My pastor knows a missionary who serves in a country where the oppressive regime is clean shaven as a trademark. Those unassociated with the regime grow beards. The missionary, in order to gain the trust of the villagers, grew a beard. Was there anything wrong with this? Maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as a “right” or “wrong” issue but to what is expedient. There would have been nothing morally wrong with the man staying clean-shaven. He could have simply explained to every villager he met that he wasn’t in fact a part of the oppressive regime and that it is an irrelevant cultural standard but it seems more expedient for him to simply grow a beard to save himself some prejudgment/rejection/offense of the villagers.
It seems to me that 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 is relevant here. Later you ask, “what if a culture decides that it is offensive for us to pray in public, attend church weekly, say the word “Christmas” etc.?” In verse 21 Paul says he became as one without the law “though not being without the law of God…” I would say then that subjecting ourselves to the norms of culture, as is expedient, must never violate our duty to God. The same sort of objection you raise I imagine could be raised concerning wives being subject to their husbands: should the wives then commit murder if the husband commands them? No, for their subjection to the husband is only through the Lord in the first place. How can I obey the Lord in one area by breaking His law in another? We then live at peace with men (and their cultural norms) as far as it depends on us and as far as it does not compromise our worship of God. Concerning the specific things you raise such as prayer, church, or celebrating Christ’s birth: These would only be specific cultural standards that seek to suppress worship and service to God. Obviously, I am only arguing that we subject ourselves to those contrivances which do not violate our duty to God.
You state, “Also, we must remember that it is our job to confront and condemn worldly culture, not merely avoid offending it, and very few people find condemnation agreeable. One example we should consider (which would be judged very racist by our culture) is the dictum, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” I suspect that the Cretans took a bit of offense at that, but that did not prevent a wiser Christian than either of us from affirming it”
This is a good example and though I am familiar with the verse, I never gave it much thought. Still, I don’t see what having a beard, prepuces, or using satire have to do with the sins mentioned in the mentioned verse. We confront culture with the gospel, calling them to repentance for their sin… not on whether or not they find it normal to use disposable chopsticks verses re-usable chopsticks (as is the case in Japan).
Naturally, we cannot keep from offending everyone. We have to look at the context, what is at stake in the offense, if the Scriptures have anything to say about the matter, and if the persons are being reasonable in their standard. By “reasonable” I don’t necessarily mean having a logical argument—the Japanese couldn’t come up with a foolproof argument for wanting disposable chopsticks over re-usable ones—but simply whether it would be something you could “reasonably” comply. I believe it may also be necessary to look at whether this is really a cultural norm or simply the pet-peeve of a group of friends etc.
Sorry for the long reply.
Ouch…. I should have proofread that before I posted it.
Jonathan,
All the examples I gave are things about which it could be argued that we may reasonably comply without disobeying scripture. Scripture never commands us to say “Christmas” rather than “holidays”–could that not be given up? It never specifically commands us to attend church weekly–wouldn’t monthly be sufficient if avoided offending our culture. The same holds true for the other things I mentioned. My point is that if we make it a law to never do anything which upsets an unbeliever unless scripture specifically commands us to do it, we will be living as slaves of the unbelievers. I think your principle that we must obey the whims of unbelievers whenever we reasonably can amounts to a sentence of slavery.
Furthermore (you hint at this) it would be a slavery of the most insufferable kind. For it is not slavery to a single unreasonable master, but rather to an innumerable host of unreasonable masters who will obviously not agree on anything except that they are offended by us. You allow that some offenses might be a “pet peeve” of a particular group and so would not be binding upon us, but what is the standard and how are we to measure it? Should we take a poll to find out what percentage of our culture is offended by the use of AD instead of the politically correct CE? Even if we did take the poll, what quotient of offense should we consider low enough for us to be allowed to say AD?
I’m not sure my point about the Cretans communicated well. I wasn’t trying to compare their sins to those of anyone else; I was merely pointing out that Paul was not opposed–at least on that occasion–to a scathing (even racist) stereotype of those who opposed the truth.
Your point from 1Cor is a good one. But Paul’s focus there was not on those who were hardened against Christ. Rather, it was on those who might find it easier to listen to him if he made himself more like them.
Thanks for the discussion. I’m off to bed.
KWR
KWR,
You seem to be critiquing my position by arguing for a pure Divine Command Theory of the deontological kind (i.e. if the Bible doesn’t specifically state it then there is nothing to be said of it). I am theonomic and I know many theonomic people but none of us would say that DCT rules out, or is incompatible with, virtue ethics. The example is always given of having a “fence” around the top of an Israelites roof. The theonomist does not say that we should have fences around our roofs but rather that this principle translates into perhaps having a fence around your pool, or a well etc.
The reverse case seems applicable in our discussion. Just because the Bible never says “don’t take cocaine,” this does not mean that we are free in regards to cocaine. Does the Bible say go to church once a week? No. Does this mean it is right for the unbeliever to dictate how often we worship God in Church? No. We have liberties *to God* that the culture cannot impose upon. It seems to me that you have to make the case that having a beard, eating with disposable chopsticks, or some other case is a spiritual service to God.
I thought you might bring up Sorites paradox in order to answer my culture vs. small group analogy and I was going to mention it before but I thought I’d wait
…. I don’t see this as a defeater since it could be leveled in the same way against any number of reasonable things. For example, is it right to be a glutton? If so, when is one a glutton? After they eat two cookies? Three cookies? When is the difference between a glutton and non-glutton a single cookie? Or how about a bite of a cookie?
Simply because we can seemingly reduce the glutton position to absurdity does not mean that the state of gluttony does not exist. Likewise, simply because we cannot immediately measure a cultural norm verses a passing whim of a certain group does not mean that cultural norms and those principles which apply to them do not exist and/or should not be adhered to. In fact, however, I would argue that if I am hanging out with a group of people who find it offensive to wear yellow shirts it may be expedient for me to not wear a yellow shirt. This of course depends on context and other factors as I have already mentioned (and some of which I have outlined).
I don’t know that this address all your points, I may have to come back when I have more time. Hope to hear from you soon.
KWR –
What Scriptural support do you offer in defense of your position? Is slavery to culture wrong? I am not familiar with the texts of Scripture or the principles to which you might be alluding.
The two texts I would bring to this discussion are 1 Cor 9 (which has already been raised) and Rom 12:17-18, “Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” Of course, Paul demonstrates this principle by becoming all things to all men. When with the Jews, he abides by their culture, but when with the Gentiles, he abides by their customs. He truly attempts to be at peace with all men. Paul would not care about whether the terminology “holidays” or “Christmas” is used. He would use the former among the liberals, and the latter in the church. Of course he would become a liberal (to a point) to bring the liberal to Christ.
Paul does not have a system of case law by which to judge. It seems that he uses the Law of Christ to determine what is adiaphora and what is nomos. When Paul recognizes an issue under adiaphora, I would suggest that the “all things to all people” and “living at peace with all men” (et al) principles become his guide. Biblical wisdom will have to guide him and us through the “gray.”
These issues are more complex because of culture. In America, we can actually have this conversation. We can talk about freeing ourselves in the area of the adiaphora. In other cultures, things are not so individualistic, and conformity to cultural norms on the part of Christians for the sake of the Gospel is necessary.
Kevin – You do raise a good question, “How far will we let godless culture dictate our Christian behavior to us?” I think if we use the Law of Christ to discern the adiaphora, then we must use more general Scriptural principles to find biblical wisdom to know how to act in a given situation.
What do you think?
John
Jonathan and John,
Great discussion! Thanks for the challenges.
I think you are both misunderstanding my position a little. I never argued that are free to do anything which the scripture doesn’t expressly condemn (Isn’t such an obvious straw man a little embarrasing?). My point is more that we are free to do at least some things the scripture doesn’t expressly command, even if people exist who disapprove.
I am not saying that we should never adjust our behavior for expedience and peace–In reality, very much of our behavior depends on such considerations. For example, I mow my lawn fairly regularly. I don’t mow it because I am a lawn freak or because I enjoy running a lawn mower. I do it mainly for the sake of expediency/peace. I would even say that mowing my lawn is the wise thing for me to do. Life is easier for the man whose neighbors aren’t ticked off at him, and an easier life is a good thing. However, that is not the same as saying that it is a sin to neglect one’s lawn for a week or two. Making a law out of that would be silly. Like it or not, expedience must be a personal (individual–ack!) judgment call. Your conscience before God will have to be the standard of how often you mow your lawns. I could reason with you about why I think my judgment on the matter is better than yours, but if were to consider you morally bound by my judgment on the matter, I would become the very kind of person that Paul so harshly condemns in passages like Titus 1:10-16 and Galatians 5:12.
Really, our actual disagreement is minimal. The problem is that the thinking is sloppy–and I find sloppy thinking downright offensive!
John, I’m not quite sure how to interpret your remarks. You start by arguing that we should be slaves of our culture and then go on to state my position very well. Don’t you see the conflict?
I will try to answer your opening question anyway. We cannot take passages like 1Cor9 and Rom12:17-18 to the exclusion of passages like Gal5:1 and Tit1:14-15. In Gal5, Paul expressly commands us NOT to submit to slavery of that sort. I agree completely with what you say in your second, third, and last paragraphs.
Off the subject for a second: no offense, but the mumbo jumbo about American culture being unique is just silly. Our culture demands conformity just as much as any–we are just not used to being honest with ourselves about it. Our nationalist propaganda teaches us to pretend that we are “tolerant” of everyone, and–as products of our culture–we have bought the line. But that is a different issue; I hope to address it in a separate post sometime.
If we take Paul’s words seriously, we can never come to a consensus (or even try to) on issues on which the scripture does not speak (either directly or in principle). The expediency and peace principles can and never will get us beyond the “gray.” I agree that we must try to live peaceably and to get along with the people in this world while we are passing through it. It is sin for us to wantonly disregard the preferences of others. However, it is also sin (a sin which I think many evangelicals are much more likely to fall into) for us to submit to slavery of the kind which Paul condemns in Gal5:1.
Jonathan, I can tell you still have more to say. I look forward to reading it.
KWR
KWR,
Actually I ran out of stuff to say… As I was doing something today (can’t remember what) it ocurred to me that we are probably just talking past each other a little and that we actually agree. I think you’re right that our disagreement would be minimal.
I look forward to your future post on American culture. I do have something to say about that but I’ll save it.
KWR –
Thanks for the exchange. I do not think that I misunderstood you because you said so yourself later in the comment.
I also tried to avoid the straw man because it is so obvious. I think you misunderstood my point because I do not think that you argue we can live against express commands of the Law of Christ. My point is that the whole issue is concerned with how we identify adiaphora, and once we have identified it, how do we live in it?
You are right in that I seemed a little confusing in my last comment. Let me try and be a bit clearer this time.
First, Galatians 5:1 does not apply to this conversation because in this context Paul is talking about matters that will ultimately result in a person falling from grace (5:1-5). No one is talking about receiving circumcision for justification or coming under the whole Mosaic Law in a way that would sever one from Christ. We are discussing adiaphora issues like in Romans 14-15 and their relationship to the Law of Christ and biblical wisdom in general.
On the other hand, the whole issue of cicumcision gets right to the point. Theologically, circumcision or no circumcision does not mean anything (Gal 5:6). However, Paul circumcises Timothy in Acts 16:1-5, “because of the Jews who were in those parts for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” Paul did not want to bring Timothy around with him into the local synagogues for the sake of the Jews he was teaching. Paul and Timothy understand circumcision to be nothing in Christ, but for the sake of the audience and culture to which they are ministering, Paul circumcises Timothy. Clearly, Paul is not putting Timothy under a yoke of slavery, but the reverse seems to happen: because Timothy is already free in Christ, he is free to be circumcised for the sake of his audience in order to be free to minister to Jews without giving offense. One could argue that Paul circumcises Timothy because he is afraid for his life. Even if this is true, I think the argument holds.
I gather from these texts that Paul has a theological understanding and a bit of a pragmatic one for the sake of the gospel. Paul was not a pragmatist in the sense that he wanted to lower the offense of the gospel, which is the way the term is used today. He could become a bit pragmatic to better position himself and those around him in order to let the gospel alone be offensive to his audience. Does this make sense? Paul can place these “ceremonial” elements into the adiaphora and effectively become all things to all people.
Second, Kevin, I am looking forward to your post on American culture, but to call the distinction mumbo-jumbo is simply not polite. Have you ever considered missionary work in a Muslim country? Their culture is going to be a bit more constraining than American culture by anyone’s standards. If an American lived as an American in the Sudan or in Saudia Arabia without altering his/her (especially her) lifestyle, then they would never receive a hearing of the gospel. It is true that American culture has some expectations for those who live in America, but let’s face it, the reason why so many ethnic groups can live in America is because America has far fewer of these expectations than most countries in the world.
There are very few cultural constraints in America that will impede the sharing of the gospel. The example of lawn care is a good one, but no one will deny you a conversation based on your landscape. However, in other cultures, if you are not wearing the right attire or doing the right thing at the right time, some people will not give you the time of day. Other cultures are closer to the first century in this respect. Does this make sense?
Thanks for the conversation.
-John
John,
I should have been more clear about who I was addressing in each part of my last comment. Since your remarks and Jonathan’s had some similar ideas in them, I was trying to address them together to save space–bad idea;didn’t work out. The charge of a straw man was directed at the proposal that I was arguing that we are free to do anything that scripture doesn’t expressly condemn, and you did not make that proposal.
I don’t think it is unfair of me to say, however, that you misunderstand my position, for your statement was inconsistent (or at least unclear)–saying “we must be slaves of the culture” on the one hand and “embrace the gray” on the other. I think the best understanding will have that inconsistency explained better or weeded out.
Let me address your last point first. I’m sorry about the offense caused by the term “mumbo jumbo.” Since a good explanation of why I think it is confused and problematic would be a diversion from the topic at hand, I really should have left it for another time. For now, just let me say that that idea seems always to be brought up in defense of an otherwise biblically and theologically indefensible position. It seems that what is often meant is something like “I know my position can’t really be defended from scripture, but that is only because God hadn’t considered the possibility of a culture like that of 21st century America way back when he inspired the writing of scripture.” Your use of the “superiority of American culture” argument isn’t nearly so egregious as that, but it does have the same problems. I don’t want to hijack this discussion for that topic, though, so–If it is acceptable to you–let’s take that up again when I get around to writing about that. I’m certain you will either sharpen my thinking or change my mind (probably the former
) on the issue.
Back to the issue. Your dismissal of Galatians 5 is unwarranted, unless you want to argue that Paul was there dealing with a unique kind of legalism which precludes genuine faith in Christ and that every other kind of legalism (i.e. system by which men put faith in their works in place of or in addition to Christ) is compatible with genuine faith in Christ.
You seem to be using “adiaphora” to give an ora of authority to your point. Can I say “humbug” without ticking anyone off? If a person doesn’t buy it in English, why should he buy it in Greek?
Again, I agree with what you say in the next paragraph (starting with “On the other hand…”). The point is (as you say) that circumcision or not really is meaningless. But that IS related to what Paul says in Galatians 5. Circumcision is ok for the sake of convenience, etc., but it is not ok as a part of a “package” of righteousness. Mowing my lawn, or avoiding the phrase “mumbo jumbo” are just the same. They are fine for convenience, but if I make them a standard by which I judge my own righteousness or that of anyone else, then I am guilty of the exact thing Paul warns against in Galatians 5.
I think there is a tendency to muddle what Paul is saying to fit our own preferences here. Evangelicals often reason like this: “Since “X” or “not X” is meaningless, and since some person or group out there prefers “not X,” you sin if you do “X”. But that is not Paul’s logic. Paul’s self-restriction of his freedom was for two purposes 1) Not emboldening less mature believers to disregard their–flawed but still important–consciences; 2) Not allowing those to whom he was proclaiming the gospel to distract him from that over meaningless things. Though Paul doesn’t phrase it this way, I think you could legitimately add a third for 3) Not letting your life become unnecessarily complicated by people who get ticked off over meaningless things(living at peace with all men). The order of those 3 items is significant. Of the three, Paul seems to have been most concerned with not causing brothers to sin. He was also eager to avoid hindering his proclaimation of the gospel, but he doesn’t speak so strongly against it. The third item is really just an implication of Paul’s principle to live at peace; he never states it that way.
Since we have wandered a bit from the original idea, let me try to relate it back to Luther’s remarks. My point was something like, “People were offended by Luther’s statement, but that does not necessarily mean that Luther sinned in making it.” I think the same is true for things we might do or say.
KWR
KWR –
I realize that we have wandered off topic a bit, but I think it is ok to discuss this issue together. There is not alot of “topic” to hold on to in this post.
First, I guess I think in Greek sometimes so the word choice of adiaphora is not really to give added authority, but it is what Paul would be thinking and I believe was thinking in texts like Romans 14-15 and the circumcision of Timothy in Acts 16, but not Gal 5. I think Galatians 5:1ff is as restricted as Paul makes it in the context. The context has everything to do with going back under the Mosaic Law of the purpose of being justified by law and Christ. Paul considers this teaching another gospel, and a heresy which ultimately severs one from Christ. So the slavery to law is “unique” to the Law of Moses for the purpose of justification (Gal 5:4). So, yes, I would argue that Paul has a specific legalism in mind, which would preclude all other forms of legalism such as the cultural issues we are discussing in this thread. Paul’s point is to go back under the Law, means that one has been severed from Christ. For Paul, it is NOT adiaphora to go seeking justification under the law.
However, with that said, Paul can circumcise Timothy for the sake of the Jews in Acts 16. Acts 16 and Gal 5:6 demonstrate that circumcision under the right motive is adiaphora, it does not mean anything to the one receiving it. However, Paul considers it important to circumcise Timothy because of the Jews. The Galatians were being circumcised because they thought that by it, they were adding to their righteousness. In reality, they were severing themselves from Christ, falling from grace.
If we were to grant your interpretation of Galatians 5:1ff, then we would have to consider every form of slavery some form of legalism because we are free. However, we are bound not only to Christ, but also to one another, and, for the sake of the Gospel, we must be willing to forgo other pleasures of this life or do things that we would not normally.
Second, your second to last paragraph is interesting, but I would like to see some texts in support because my memory is failing me at the moment (especially for #1). Your representation of the Evangelical situation may be a bit generous. Most do not get this far in the “thinking it through process” because they quit reading at Gal 5:1 and conclude they are free to do X without sin.
I will definitely need to see scriptural support for your third point because I do not see that anywhere in Paul. I take the “seek to live at peace with all men” to mean, do not tick people off over meaningless things. It is an axiom for Paul. He does not explain it in great detail, but the point is clear: before you do or don’t do anything, think, will this bring peace to all men or am I going to cause trouble over something less than the Gospel (“as much as it rests on you”).
Let me boil it down. If Paul in Gal 5 is talking about a “unique” legalism where salvation is concerned, I do not think you have a text to support your main point: Christians do not have to be bound to the norms of the culture as long as it is not an issue of sin. Instead, Christians should seek to bind themselves to the culture in ways that will further the Gospel, but obviously in ways that will not compromise allegiance to Christ.
Another issue that my be relevant to this whole issue is slavery in the NT. Clearly, Paul would not support slavery if the culture did not. However, in the first century, slavery was an essential part and Paul did not riot against this institution at that time. Is this a legitimate example?
Thanks for the exchange.
John
Let me say that I am encouraged and impressed with the way people seem able to discuss things in a mature manner on this blog. This really allows the discussion to make progress where other blogs it seems to quickly degrade. Kudos.
John,
I think it is a little silly of you to assume that you know what word Paul was thinking–especially when he never used that word in the the NT. But I won’t get all worked up over it so long as you don’t get all worked up over me calling it humbug. I won’t take offense (and thereby force you to stop using Greek terms to avoid the need to state your ideas clearly) if you won’t take offense at (and thus force me to stop using) the word humbug. Actually, that is too generous of me; if you want to keep using Greek words instead of stating your ideas in English you have to let me use “mumbo jumbo” as well as “humbug.” Do we have a deal?
Yes, its absurd. But it is your position, not mine, which leads to such nonsense.
I am rather surprised at your response on Galatians 5. Are you seriously proposing that it is right for us to trust in our works in addition to Christ for salvation, so long as those works are not oriented toward obedience of the Mosaic law? There must be a miscommunication somewhere–I have great difficulty accepting that you really believe that. Of course Paul was dealing with a notion of works righteousness that involved the Mosaic Law, but he in no way allows for some other system of righteousness by works. If someone eats fish for lunch today with the intent of making himself righteous before God by it, he has severed himself from Christ just as much as if he had circumcised himself for the same purpose. Consider Col2:18-19; Worship of angels certainly is not part of the Mosaic law, but the consequences are the same. All legalism severs from Christ.
I am also surprised by your query for textual support, since you yourself have given the references. Point one comes from 1Cor8 and Rom14, two from 1Cor9, and three is implied (I said it was an implication) in Rom14:19 and Rom12. Point one is stated the most strongly (“All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble” and “When you sin against your brothers in this way…you sin against Christ.”) Notice that Paul says that all food is clean. The problem is the consciences of immature believers may not realize that, and they may engage in sin–not by eating meat (all food is clean), but by disregarding their consciences. Point two is not a command, but rather Paul’s explanation of his behavior and why he thinks it was wise. Notice he doesn’t say it was compulsory–saying that would have been to condemn all the other apostles! Point three is one which you have discussed already, and once used the word “gray” to explain it. You seem to be going back on that in your last post when you sum it up as “do not tick people off over meaningless things.” The problem with your summation is that if Paul believed that, he could never have written Col2:16-20 or Rom14:13-14.
It is important that we don’t muddle these issues. They are different issues. You seem to be scrambling them all and coming up with something that Paul–along with the word “adiaphora”–doesn’t say.
You have also muddled my point greatly (in your next to last paragraph). I wrote, “We are free to do at least some things that scripture doesn’t expressly command, even if people exist who disapprove,” and “‘People were offended by Luther’s statement, but that does not necessarily mean that Luther sinned in making it.’ I think the same is true for things we might do or say.” I think my point are much more clear and careful than your restatement reflects.”
I’m not sure where you are going with the slavery idea, but you need to go there more carefully. Paul never “supported” slavery. The most you can say is that he did not openly condemn the institution. He did however discourage people from becoming slaves and encourage them to gain freedom if possible. But I still don’t know how it would contribute to the point in question.
This is a fun discussion. I truly don’t know what you will say next, but I am eager to find out.
Kevin