RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Thou Shalt Not Abuse the Ten Commandments

by Diana Butler Bass 09-29-2009

ABC’s Nightline has been running a series on the Ten Commandments in which they explore the issues and dimensions of each commandment in contemporary society.

The series is interesting and, in many ways, inclusive. After all, the Ten Commandments form the ethical basis of the world’s three great monotheistic religions. Jews, Christians, and Muslims draw inspiration from them and, throughout history, developed the insights of the commandments in theological, moral, social, and legal arenas. They are very important spiritually, morally, intellectually, and culturally.

But for all their inclusiveness, their interpretation is often the source of division. It is one thing to say, “Thou shalt not….” and it is often a completely different thing to figure out how the “shalt nots” relate to human experience. For, despite the moral idealism of the commandments, everyone knows that human beings actually do the “shalt nots.”

“Thou shalt not commit adultery” is a good example of the problem with the commandments. Martial fidelity is a practical way of honoring and respecting one’s partner. To be faithful — even when one might not “feel” like it — is a fundamental way of respecting another human being by taking into their feelings, emotions, and commitments before simply acting on one’s personal inclinations. To stop and think about the effects of one’s actions on a larger community (in the case of adultery, thinking about a spouse and children) often inhibits bad choices. That’s a big part of morality — to reflect on one’s actions in advance and to consider the communal consequences of behavior. Moral frameworks — like the Ten Commandments — provide guidelines for such reflection. And, as such, they form a vision for what constitutes the good society — a society that honors God and neighbor.

The problem comes with the obvious fact that human beings, even reflective and caring ones, don’t always act in a way that honors God and neighbor. We both flaunt and break the commandments on a regular basis. So what does society do with the violators?

Throughout history, religious groups have tried to enforce the Ten Commandments through legal means. We might all agree that theft and murder are wrong and that thieves and murderers should go to prison. But what about the “lesser” commandments — like adultery? In Jesus’ day, women caught in adultery could be stoned — and that is still the case in many countries around the world. In early American history, adulterers could be whipped, jailed, divorced with their permission, or forced (as in The Scarlet Letter) to wear a public mark of shame.

To point up the problem with adultery is only the beginning. What of those who swear, lie, or worship other gods? Should society make swearing a crime? Idolatry? Being angry at your parents? Where does this end? In some sort of Taliban-style legalism where the religion police enforce a literal interpretation of each of these Ten Commandments? Do we rank the commandments in order of importance? The bad ones get the most punishment? The minor ones get overlooked? The Ten Commandments, for all their moral grandeur, quickly descend into an ethical quagmire of angels dancing on the head of pins.

The answer is obvious: Very few people take the Ten Commandments literally. We contextualize them, trying to discern the origin, intent, and purpose of these commandments in order to create a way of life that demonstrates the deeper wisdom of these teachings. And we recognize the human disposition toward breaking them — and to a greater or lesser degree, we offer forgiveness, understanding, and reconciliation toward one another in regard to the Ten Commandments. And religious communities argue about how much forgiveness, understanding, and reconciliation is appropriate in any given denomination or tradition.

Taking the Commandments out of context is spiritually and politically dangerous. To hold up these Ten Commandments (in Hebrew they aren’t even called “commandments;” rather, the Hebrew word is “terms”) to hold up these ten terms of the moral law without reference to the larger intent of the words leads to legalism, violence, and repression. God intended for the Law to be joyful, a pathway for a way of life of devotion and respect for one other, a blessing and not a curse. Indeed, Jesus, a rabbi himself, made this point. When asked what was the most important of the commandments, he replied: “Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.”

That is the summary — the intended wisdom — of the Ten Commandments. The ten terms of the law should bring us to the basis for a good life: love. Is it loving to murder, steal, curse, violate our vows, lie, envy or demean another? That should be the first question of morality — and it is what the Ten Commandments teach.

Diana Butler BassDiana Butler Bass is pretty much a postmodern progressive. In addition to blogging here, she also blogs at Progressive Revival and is the author of the new book, A People’s History of Christianity: The Other Side of the Story.

Categories: Theology
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • mackharrell
    LOL
  • letjusticerolldown
    OK. I believe you asked a question. I was just making a direct reply. I don't know if my answer was right. It was for your consideration.

    No win was sought. But I'll gladly receive any I can get. I remember winning a football game in Junior High.
  • mackharrell
    You write: "I haven't read Packer or Schaeffer, but I would guess that they would basically be echoing Warfield. Do they make new and different arguments?"

    First, you really ought to read a man's book before assuming you know what he has to say.

    Second, it has been aeons since I read Packer's little book. I don't recall his being a slavish follower of BBW. They did hold the same view of scripture, of course. But that, to repeat for the nauseatingly last time, WAS NOT MY POINT!!!

    Third, Schaeffer's lectures are a study of the Bible's view of itself. I think I've given the link where they may be ordered ... www.soundword.com CD85A-CD85F.
  • BuckeyeDon
    Well, in fact I wasn't trying to "win" any argument; rather, I was trying to point out what I view as flaws in your arguments.

    When someone comes to this forum demonstrating--in both words and tone--a chip on his shoulder and asserting intellectual superiority over the others her, which you have clearly done and not just in your replies to me, I do tend to react, if only to protect the intellectual integrity of the rest of us.

    Now for some of the specifics. Believing and teaching that the Scriptures teach they are divinely inspired is not the same thing as believing and teaching in the specific doctrines of plenary verbal inspiration and biblical inerrancy. Those latter doctrines were theological inventions that arose out of the modernist/fundamentalist controversy, in which Dr. Warfield was active on the fundamentalist side. To assert, as you do, that the church has always accepted those doctrines is simply not true; throughout most of Church history, nobody had ever heard of these doctrines. In my quotes from the Catholic catechism above, it's clear that they don't use that language. They never have, and neither have others. Yes, they clearly indicate that the scriptures are inspired by God, are without error, and that they lead us into the truth. But the "inerrancy" that they teach is not the belief that the ur-manuscripts were verbally and orthographically without error of any kind; rather, it's that the truth they teach us is without error. And what is that truth? Essentially, it's the truth that Jesus Christ is the true, eternal Word of God and that he has opened the door for eternal life in fellowship with the Father through his obedience, his death, his resurrection, and his ascension and intercession on our behalf. In other words, it's the truth that we do not worship a book; we worship a Person.

    Luther famously said essentially the same thing when he wrote that the Scriptures are the "cradle" that holds the Christ.

    Secondly, I do not cast aspersions on Warfield or on Reformed theology. I simply note that Warfield's reputation extends primarily within the broader Reformed tradition. I'm sure you realize that Reformed theology is a minority belief system among Christians worldwide. Aren't 2/3 of professing Christians worldwide Roman Catholic? And the Eastern Orthodox churches collectively have more communicants than any single Protestant communion, Reformed or otherwise. Anglicans and Lutherans come next, probably in that order, and then, I suppose, Reformed follows. So Warfield's influence is relatively limited. That's simply a fact; it's not an aspersion. In how many non-Reformed seminaries is Warfield read and discussed? I don't know, but my guess is not many.

    I already indicated why I included the aside about Warfield's views of Catholicism. Again, I wasn't casting aspersions (yes, I take issue with his anti-Catholic arguments and find them faulty) so much as I was anticipating that you might indicate your agreement with him on that point. I'm glad you have not done so.

    You are correct that Bultmann et al. explicitly deny the doctrines of biblical inerrancy and plenary verbal inspiration, but that does not mean they deny biblical authority. Denial of made-up doctrines that were never taught in Christianity before the early 20th century does not indicate that they don't hold to an earlier view (e.g., like Luther's) of biblical authority. Why don't you give me quotes from one of them that demonstrates their total denial of any notion of biblical authority and inspiration, if you believe they have done so? It really gets back to one of my earlier points: it's not that they deny these ideas, it's just that they deny your understanding of them.

    This is the last thing I will write to you on this topic, so I'll leave you with the final word, if you think you must have it.

    Peace,
    Don
  • mackharrell
    One last reply, and then I have done.

    Your assumption that since I cite BBW I must be anti-RC is prejudicial in
    the extreme. As a mattter of fact I attend an Anglo-Catholic parish of the
    EC-USA. This would prolly make many of my brethren in the cloth from
    earlier days blanch. But mnyeh!

    I did not cite BBW because I wanted you to hear his arguments in favor of a
    theological proposition about scripture. I cited him because, as I recall,
    he cites evidence in support of the historical proposition I put forward.
    As does Packer. Schaeffer's lectures on the Bible's View of Itself is a
    massive topical study of just that. It's intended to support the first
    premise in a longer argument against neo-orthodox theology or neo-liberal
    theology. The lectures date from the 1960s. But they are worth wading
    through, believe me.

    If you can tell me what the difference is between 'inerrant' and 'without
    error' you're a better man than I at this game.

    The extra verbage about "plenary verbal inspiration in the original
    autographs", to refresh our ailing memories, is due to liberal attacks which
    argued that we couldn't trust our Bibles because of centuries of MS
    transmission, translation, etc. had introduced errors. That phrase makes
    such charges (erroneous though they be) irrelevant.

    Your statement of the RC position is what I (and BBW?) would have called the
    "Church doctrine of the scriptures."

    Your mention of Augustine is interesting to me, as I was thinking about him
    last night. Of course, no Reformer criticized Augustine's view of Genesis,
    as his interpretation was well within the orthodox PoV. What is
    interessting abouit him is this. You may know that St. Augustine was a
    Manichaean before he converted to Christianity. Now it was an element of
    Manichaean faith that the pronouncements of its prophet, Mani, were all
    inerrant. Augustine, having studied some astronomy, discovered a
    mathematical error in his prophecies. That did it for Augustine. If Mani
    can't tell the truth about the moon and stars, why listen to him about
    anything else?!

    Exactly. Inspiration carries with it as an essential concomitant,
    inerrancy. Augustine knew this, or make God the creator of all things to be
    more ignorant than those who would, examining his creation, think his
    thoughts after him.

    One other point: I'm not sure what you mean by 'literal' but no orthodox
    theologian has ever imagined that believing the Bible literally meant trees
    have hands they can clap!
  • mackharrell
    Not worthy of a response. You win!
  • letjusticerolldown
    Maybe, something to do with your words.
  • BuckeyeDon
    I wasn't changing the subject; it was an aside. That's why I put it in parenthesis. I put it there because, since I had mentioned the RC Church, you might claim, a la Warfield, that they aren't really Christians, in order to dismiss their understanding of biblical authority and inspiration.

    I haven't read Packer or Schaeffer, but I would guess that they would basically be echoing Warfield. Do they make new and different arguments?

    The RC Church believes that God inspired the human authors to write and that they contain all that is necessary for us to come to salvation. They believe that the Scriptures faithfully and without error teach the truth. But they do not encumber their understanding of Biblical authority with words like "inerrancy" and "plenary verbal inspiration." And they add this caveat: (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1:1:2:3:135: "Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the 'Word' of God, a word which is 'not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living'. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, 'open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.'"

    You might want to take a look at Augustine's Literal Meaning of Genesis to see that he viewed the opening chapters of the Bible in a distinctly non-literal way.
  • mackharrell
    I should have thought that my capitulation established that I'm not trying to win any argument.

    You win. You win.

    What was it about "you win" that you didn't understand?
  • kansasmennonite
    My cousin who likes the Simpson's says that sometimes on the show Homer talks about the "shiftless" Mennonites.

    Do you know what an amish woman wants?

    Two Mennonite.

    (Sorry).
  • mackharrell
    In this paragraph you change the subject:

    "(Warfield, of course, denied that Roman Catholics are authentic Christians. His anti-Catholic treatise is as notorious for its influence--again, mostly among conservatives and fundamentalists within the broader Reformed tradition--as it is for its straw man inaccuracies and misrepresentations of Catholic belief and teaching. Yes, I do know a few things about logical fallacies.)"

    You claim Warfield's view is a minority view. I claim that it has been until the 19th century the only orthodox view. I've cited Warfield, Packer, Schaeffer, and others in support of my view, challenging you to read them (or reread them). What evidence do you bring forward that BBW's view has always (?) been a minority view?
  • BuckeyeDon
    And you don't think you are trying to "win" the argument; only I would stoop that low?
  • BuckeyeDon
    Where am I changing the subject? Earlier, you claimed that Warfield's views were those of the entire Church. Here are your words (emphasis mine):

    "The view of inspiration and authority of scripture which I defend is not 'mine' in any pejorative sense. It is what B. B. Warfield called the 'Church's view of inspiration.' It is the view held universally in the Church of Christ until philosophical naturalism infiltrated German theological seminaries and what I've called 'liberal critical theology' was born."

    I'm countering that claim. Warfield's views are actually those of only a rather small segment of the Church. And further, the terms "plenary verbal inspiration" and "inerrancy" were never used to define Biblical authority before Warfield's time (to counter what you call "higher critical theology"), so it's hard to see that they were the historical views of the Church either.

    I have read Inspiration and Authority, though it was rather a while ago and I don't recall all the arguments.

    Where have I been mistaken?
  • mackharrell
    You write "You basically are telling us that those who don't accept the "plenary verbal inspiration" of the Scriptures are wrong because they don't accept the "plenary verbal inspiration" of the Scriptures."

    No, Don. I am not arguing as you assert. But note. This paragraph does not commit any fallacy! People who don't think 2+2=4 are wrong because they don't believe 2+2=4. What's wrong with that?

    I think what you wanted to charge me with was some form of the old saw "The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is the word of God." But I haven't propounded any such view. I challenge you to trot out what I've written in support of your charge.

    What I've been concerned in these exchanges to put forward is the historical claim that the view of scripture's inspiration and authority set out by Warfield, Packer, Schaeffer, and others is just the view held by the church of Christ in all its branches at all times of history up until the 19th century.

    I further want to point out that those who I've called "Liberal Critical Theologians" are unanimous in their rejection of that older view of scripture. I take it you are not arguing with me about that, are you?

    I would further say that this departure from the church view of scripture has brought in its train the theological declensions in all major denominations we see today.

    I'd go further, but I doubt anything I'd say at this point will fall on hearing ears, Don - and I do mean your ears. For your responses to my patient replies to sound to me almost perverse in their determination to misconstrue anything and everything I say - and all because you felt insulted by my "Gotcha!" Really, Don. I would have expected more from a Professor of English! [;-)]

    I confess. I have a hard time responding civilly to you Don. Help me out here! Try a little harder to see what it is I have said, and quit attributing to me things I haven't said!
  • mackharrell
    Yes I have read both, and Bultmann and Tillich as well.

    My reasoning is not circular as far as I can see. Why don't you elicit from my discussion thus far the argument you think I'm presenting - in premises and conclusion form.

    So far, I feel like I'm writing to someone who is determined not to understand - indeed, not even to try to understand what I'm saying. From the start you've sought (thorugh affirming the consequent) to attribute to me the ridiculous view that Luther was LCT, that I think Warfield speaks for the whole church, and on, and on. This is all ridiculous. You've sought to change the subject and cast aspersion on Warfield's view of scripture based on (a) his reformed perspective and (b) his anti-Roman Catholic views. Both these moves, btw, are examples of the informal fallacy of ad hominem. You may know something about fallacies, Don - but not as you ought to know since you seem fairly regularly to stumble into them! [;-)]

    Search your heart, Don - what's your purpose in responding as you've done? Isn't it to win this stupid argument?

    I'll tell you what. I'll give that to you if that's what you must have. You win. No. Really. You win. In spite of the fallacies, the false attributions, the non sequiturs and all. You win.
  • mackharrell
    Please don't change the subject in mid discussion!

    I am not concerned to defend Warfield.

    I cited Warfield's book as providing some information in support of my historical claim. If you haven't read his Inspiration and Authority of the Bible volume, please do so before continuing this discussion with me. I tire of fending off your mistaken assumptions about what it is I am saying.
  • mackharrell
    My point was their views of scripture were conditioned by a philosophical naturalism with its evolutionary world view that ruled the "church doctrine of inspiration" impossible.
  • BuckeyeDon
    One more thing--two, actually. Firstly, have you actually read Barth, Schleiermacher, et al.?

    Second, I'm not sure you realize how circular your reasoning is. You basically are telling us that those who don't accept the "plenary verbal inspiration" of the Scriptures are wrong because they don't accept the "plenary verbal inspiration" of the Scriptures.

    Hmmmm, I think that's another logical fallacy. Isn't it called begging the question?

    Peace,
    Don
  • BuckeyeDon
    I well know who Warfield was. I have read some of his material. But that doesn't help me concur with you, because Warfield speaks primarily to a Reformed audience in general, and to a conservative Reformed audience in particular. I'm sure you realize that the Church is much bigger than the Reformed tradition alone. And views of inspiration and authority vary among those traditions. What about the Roman Catholic traditions? What about the Eastern Orthodox? How about the Lutheran, beyond Luther himself? What are their views of inspiration and authority? I'm sure they all wouldn't claim that Warfield speaks for them!

    (Warfield, of course, denied that Roman Catholics are authentic Christians. His anti-Catholic treatise is as notorious for its influence--again, mostly among conservatives and fundamentalists within the broader Reformed tradition--as it is for its straw man inaccuracies and misrepresentations of Catholic belief and teaching. Yes, I do know a few things about logical fallacies.)

    I'm not going to limit my understanding of the Church and of biblical authority only to include those views that fall within a rather narrow Christian tradition. You are free to do otherwise, of course. But please don't claim that theologians such as Warfield speak--our ought to speak--for all of us.
  • carlcopas
    BIG differences between Bultmann and Barth and Tillich. Just because they were all German and lived at a particular time doesn't make all three philosophical naturalists, at least as you seem to be using the term (though perhaps I'm misunderstanding).

    The Barth of post-1930 esp. difficult to reduce to simple philosophical naturalism.
  • carlcopas
    Warren,
    I agree. Really enjoyed DBB's People's History and wish she was on GP more often.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008