Ross Douthat’s column “Can
Liberal Christianity be saved?” has provoked something of a firestorm, with
generally positive responses from “conservatives,” if my social media are to be
trusted, and some thoughtful responses from “liberals,” such as Diana
Butler Bass and Craig
Uffman. I want to make a different sort of argument: first, that it is time
to stop using “conservative” and “liberal” to distinguish Christians (even if
it fits a Western political paradigm quite nicely); and second, that the Bible
gives us ways of distinguishing when change is authentic to the Christian
message and life and when it is not, but the notion that Christianity as
manifested in its human dimension has not, does not and will not change cannot
be maintained.
Change, development, and growth all happen. What differs amongst
Christians going back to the earliest Church is what constitutes authentic and
organic change, development and growth and what is false and scandalous. When
I look at the earliest growth of Christianity, if the language of “conservative”
and “liberal” were in use back then, I would argue that the “conservatives” had
all of the best arguments, plus tradition, authority and Scripture on their
side. Who would these “conservatives” be? The ones who said the early
Christians, including Gentiles, must be circumcised and made to follow the Law
of Moses if they wanted to be disciples of Jesus. We see these Christians in
the background in Paul’s letter to the Galatians and in the foreground in Acts
15 making precisely the argument I mentioned above: “Unless you are circumcised
according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved"(15:1); "It is
necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses"(15:5).
The fact that the Church hears and debates their arguments indicates clearly
that no definitive statement had been made by Jesus suggesting that the Law of
Moses ought not be kept by his disciples, whether Jews or Gentiles. The weight
of tradition, practice and Scripture rests with these conservative factions in
the earliest Church.
Indeed, if I were one of these early Christian “conservatives,”
here is how I would make the argument:
Brothers and Sisters, why are we even
discussing this issue? The Scripture is clear how we should behave and what we
must do. God spoke to Abraham directly and said, in Genesis 17:10-14,
“This is my covenant, which you shall
keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you
shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it
shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. Throughout your generations
every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including
the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any
foreigner who is not of your offspring. Both the slave born in your house and
the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in
your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not
circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he
has broken my covenant."
How much clearer can God speak to his
people? It is a sign of the covenant for all who want to belong to the
covenant! Yes, the Messiah has come and yes, the Messiah has called all people
to follow him, but where does it say that those who follow in the latter days
shall not follow the Law of Moses? Show me the verse! The Law will be written
in our hearts, as Jeremiah 31:33 says, “I will put my law within them, and I
will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my
people,” but the Law will not come to an end! This applies to all – listen to
God speak to Abraham: even the slave and foreigner of our houses should be
circumcised, why not then the Gentile who wants to become part of the covenant?
Will you disobey God’s clear commandment in order to attract more people to
follow Jesus? Will you take the Law, with which God blessed us, and treat it
like nothing? We have no right, we have no authority! What does “everlasting
covenant” mean to you? How do you understand “any uncircumcised male who is not
circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he
has broken my covenant”? We agree: let the Gentiles follow Jesus, but they must
also follow the Law of Moses and that includes circumcision amongst everything
else!
But the Church, as seen in Galatians (and elsewhere in Paul’s
letters) and in Acts 15, decided that there were a number of factors which
necessitated a change of interpretation and understanding in the clear
application and practice of the Scripture as seen in Genesis 17:10-14.
One was the experience of the Holy Spirit: Peter said that “God,
who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit,
just as he did to us {i.e., Jewish believers}” (Acts 15:8). Two was Peter’s
argument that the Law was “a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been
able to bear” (15:10) and “on the contrary, we believe that we will be saved
through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (15:11). Three is James’
claim that the experience of the Gentiles coming into the covenant as disciples
of Jesus the Messiah is in keeping with other
Scripture from the prophets, Amos 9:11-12 and Isaiah 45:21, which indicates to
James that “we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God” (15:19),
but only ask them to follow certain laws regarding idolatry, sexual practice
and food (which some scholars, such as the late Alan
Segal, believed were what were later called the Noachide laws, though this
is not universally held). Four is the decision of the whole Church Council to
support James’ decision for “then the apostles and the elders, with the consent
of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members and to send
them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas” (15:22) to pass on the Church’s
decision.
Now, if you were to ask me as a neutral observer, which I am
not, who had the best of the scriptural
argument, the best of the argument from tradition and, finally, the best
argument from common practice, I would have to say the “conservative” faction
of the early Church. Where is there any direct statement from Scripture
or from Jesus that this is the proper “change” or “development” in the life and
practice of the Church? Does that mean that the early Church’s decision to
change radically its way of life was “liberal”? And make no mistake, this is a radical
and earth shattering change, and if that is lost on Christians today it is
because we no longer recognize how drastic it was to accept Gentiles into the
covenant as Gentiles or to suggest that members of the covenant need not follow
the Law of Moses in its entirety (Galatians 5:14: “The entire law is fulfilled
in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself").
What is also fascinating is that change is embedded in this
passage yet again in the very directives that James and the whole Church give
to the Gentile Christians instead of the whole Law of Moses:
For it has seemed good to the Holy
Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that
you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what
is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from
these, you will do well. Farewell. (Acts 15:28-29)
The Church continues to insist to this day on the illicit
nature of fornication (porneia in
Greek) and abstention from what is sacrificed to idols (though see 1Corinthians 8-10 for an early modification or “change” of sorts in this respect),
though you do not hear a lot on “strangled” animals – whether it relates to
idolatrous sacrifices or improper methods of killing animals – or on eating or drinking blood nowadays. In
fact, when I taught my Survey of the New Testament course a few years back to a
class with a number of seminarians, now priests, from Ghana, this passage lead
to uproarious laughing. Why? For some Ghanaian tribes, including their own,
blood was a part of their diet. Why is this no longer an issue? Was there
some sort of “liberal” agenda driving the Church’s shift from this requirement established
by the earliest Church Council?
Things do change in Christianity and it seems difficult to
me to cast change in religion in terms of “conservative” and “liberal”
factions. It also seems incorrect to focus on “numbers” – falling or rising
memberships – as the key to whether change is authentic and organic or whether
it is false and unnatural. You can argue that change leads to falling numbers
because a group does not follow the traditions of old – maybe the early
Christians who were at odds with the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 made this
argument – or you can use the same falling numbers to claim that it is now a
religious movement becoming more pristine and faithful, so why should numbers
even matter.
The real issues are who has the authority to certify authentic change and
what is the rationale for that change, because change, development and growth
do come. Acts 15 tells us a few things about this:
1) There was a gathering of the apostles, elders and other
members of the Church who disputed and discussed the questions regarding
Gentiles and the Law of Moses;
2) There was a claim made on the Church by the actual
experience of the Gentiles, who had also shown evidence of the Holy Spirit;
3) There were scriptural warrants which were gathered to
provide support for the experience of the people who desired change;
4) There was an authoritative decision rendered by the
Church and accepted by the whole Church.
For Catholics, the issue of authority, that of the
Magisterium, is primary, and Catholics are beholden to it, but to think that
change does not come is not to know one’s own Church’s history, at its earliest
stages. It is also important to keep in mind that the “the whole assembly kept
silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and
wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles” (Acts 15:12). The
Church needs to listen to what is taking place in the lives of ordinary
believers and recognize that the Holy Spirit speaks through the whole Church.
It is also important to search the Scripture and recognize that Scripture
speaks in different ways and at different times to people: it was only in light
of the experience of the Gentiles that James and then the whole Church heard the prophets Amos and Isaiah
in a new way.
Change in Christianity is not about “liberal” and “conservative”
factions, it is about becoming the followers of Jesus that we are supposed to
be. We need to listen to each other, to hear of the lives of others, to examine
Scripture, and, yes, to accept authoritative decisions, but we also need to be
ready to hear change, not as a threat, or as schismatic, or as rebellion, but
as the nature of the body of Christ:
But now in Christ Jesus you who once
were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our
peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the
dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. He has abolished the law with
its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity
in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God
in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that
hostility through it. So he came and proclaimed peace to you who
were far off and peace to those who were near; for through him both of us have
access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and
aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household
of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ
Jesus himself as the cornerstone. In him the whole structure is
joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are
built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God.
(Ephesians 13-22)
Let’s say this letter was written to us today shall we and
that it did not concern “Gentiles” and “Jews” but so-called “Conservatives” and
“Liberals”? Christ came to proclaim not “conservatism” or “liberalism,” but “one
new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both
groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that
hostility through it.” What a change.
John W. Martens
Follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies
Very nice post John !
ReplyDeleteHope the surgery went well.
“This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you
The "and your offspring" seems to refer to Abraham's biological descendants, (although I guess one could read it spiritually), so it seems to me that the argument is really one about whether gentile converts ought to be required to practice the full range of traditions required of ethnic Jews.
This would probably need to be read in the light of the talmudic tradition of the "oral Torah" where the Jewish rabbis insisted on their right to modify tradition as necessary for changing social conditions.
Reflecting on the early Church's experience of the working of the Holy Spirit, one wonders whether a possible experience of the Holy Spirit working thru ordained women might lead to a development of Catholic understanding on that ? Certainly with more and more women being ordained, the opportunities for people to experience that are becoming ever more numerous.
God Bless
Thanks so much Chris! The surgery went well, but the recovery is proceeding slowly, at least in terms of what I am capable of doing. On the other hand, that is to be expected, and I am on schedule. My next big appointment is August 2 when I get an x-ray to see how the fusion has gone and then start with physical therapy.
ReplyDeleteYou make some excellent points and, as you well know, Paul made precisely that point with respect to "offspring" in Galatians, that "sperma" refers to Christ not the physical descendants of Abraham. I think the issue is, as Paul argues, is Jesus sufficient for salvation or is the law of Moses essential? I am not certain that this question initially arose in Jesus' ministry, but once gentiles became a part of the Church it had to be answered: are they full members of the covenant and if so what does that require?
As you say, who knows where the Spirit blows?
I'd be more inclined to argue that the Law of Moses is essential; the question is how to apply it correctly to the gentiles.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Christ superseded the Torah, but showed how to interpret and apply it authentically. Certainly Christ is sufficient, but I think we have to take seriously the claim that he came not to change a single jot or title in the Law.
The same principle applies in all religions: how to authentically apply the Tradition in today's circumstances, how to distinguish between what is essential and what is historically conditioned, and to what extent to apply particular cultural traditions to everyone (eg the Catholic Church has a multiplicity of liturgical rites for her various cultural traditions, and two codes of Canon Law, one for the Latin rite and another for the Eastern rites; similarly in Judaism one could distinguish between what is required of ethnic Jews and what is required of converts who are not ethnic Jews eg circumsion, kosher).
Even leaving aside the early Church, I think there's a valid Jewish argument that circumcision ought not be imposed on Jewish converts.
God Bless
Two kinds of proselyte in Judaism
ReplyDeleteThere are two kinds of proselyte:
Ger tzedek (righteous proselytes, proselytes of righteousness, religious proselyte, devout proselyte)
Ger toshav (resident proselyte, proselytes of the gate, limited proselyte, half-proselyte)
A righteous proselyte[5] was a Gentile who had converted to Judaism, was bound to all the doctrines and precepts of the Jewish economy, and was considered a full member of the Jewish people. They were to be circumcised and immersed in a mikvah should they wish to eat of the Passover sacrifice. A gate proselyte[6] was a "resident alien" who lived in the Land of Israel and followed some of the customs. They were not required to be circumcised nor to comply with the whole of the Torah. They were bound only to conform to the seven precepts of Noah, the Noahide Laws: do not worship idols, do not blaspheme God's name, do not murder, do not commit immoral sexual acts, do not steal, do not tear the limb from a living animal, and do not fail to establish courts of justice to be assured of a place in the world to come.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselyte
God Bless
"I'd be more inclined to argue that the Law of Moses is essential; the question is how to apply it correctly to the gentiles.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Christ superseded the Torah, but showed how to interpret and apply it authentically. Certainly Christ is sufficient, but I think we have to take seriously the claim that he came not to change a single jot or title in the Law."
This is well said, the law is essential - but is it for Paul with respect to salvation? - and it is not superseded, which is why it was such a contentious issue as to how to apply it to gentiles; but if we "take seriously the claim that he (Jesus) came not to change a single jot or tittle in the Law," the reality is, the Church definitively changed the way in which Christians followed the law: they did not follow all of it, but Paul claims they "fulfilled" it through Christ.
I am not certain if this distinction between sorts of proselytes existed at the time of Jesus' ministry; do you know. or does it reflect later rabbinic thought? Certainly there were "Godfearers" attached to Synagogues, but were these considered proselytes?
The big issue seems to me to be that in light of Christ, the disciples of Jesus understood that something fundamental had changed regarding the nature and purpose of the law, though it was up to them, within the trajectory left to them by Jesus, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to determine what the law meant for the Church, both Jew and Gentile I would say.
For the variety of early Jewish views, see:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ger_tzedek#Early_debate_on_requirement_for_circumcision
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4391-circumcision
Scroll down to
Arguments for and Against.
thru
Circumcision Necessary or Not?
Different Jewish views remain today on the necessity of circumcising converts (Reform Judaism not requiring circumcision).
God Bless