Nowadays
we have professing Christians on the evangelical left (for want of a better
term) who brazenly reject the inspiration of certain OT commands they deem to
be too harsh. So-called “texts of terror.” This usually begins with their
repudiation of commands involving “genocide” or “ethnic cleansing.” From there
this may extend to commands involving war brides, POWs, shotgun weddings,
indentured servants, and whatever else the evangelical leftist deems to be too
harsh or horrific for God to command.
However,
there’s another set of passages presenting the polar opposite. For not only
does the Bible contain commands that are allegedly too brutal and barbaric, but
the Bible also contains commands which look like they are too ivory-tower. I’m
alluding to the Sermon on the Mount.
On the
face of it, the Sermon on the Mount is hopelessly idealistic. If the Mosaic law
is too dystopian, the Sermon on the Mount is too utopian.
Historically,
the Sermon on the Mount has posed a problem for Christians, because it appears
to be too unrealistic to put into practice. The Amish pride themselves on
taking the Sermon at face value, but even they are quite selective. They seize
on the passages about nonviolence, but the Sermon on the Mount goes beyond
that. What about private property?
If
Christians obeyed the prima facie meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, that
would reduce us to naked, homeless beggars. Defenseless street people,
dependant on handouts to survive.
If
someone demanded our shoes, we’d have to give them our shoes. If someone
demanded our house, we’d have to vacate our house. If someone demanded our
wages, we’d have to hand over our greenbacks, credit cards, debit cards,
&c. If they demanded our glasses or contacts, we’d have to give them our
glasses or contacts. If they demanded our car, we’d have to give them our car.
If they demanded our bicycle, we’d have to give them our bicycle. If they
demanded our bus pass, we’d have to give them our bus pass. If they demanded
our wheelchair, we’d have to give them our wheelchair. If they demanded our
wristwatch, we’d have to give them our wristwatch. If they demanded our cell
phone, we’d have to give them our cell phone.
It would
be impossible to hold down a job. Impossible to maintain a family. Impossible
to feed and clothe your family. Impossible to put a roof over their heads.
We could
never plan for the future. Never make preparations. Carpe Diem. Live for the
moment, with no forethought for the morrow.
On the
face of it, the Sermon on the Mount appears to be utterly Pollyannaish. Francis
of Assisi was one of the few Christians who made a good-faith effort to
consistently put that into practice. He took it far more seriously than Jim
Wallis, Ron Sider, Stanley Hauerwas, or John Howard Yoder.
Indeed, critics of the Mosaic law often like to quote the Sermon on the Mount. But I don’t see them doing everything it ostensibly commands. Not by a long shot. They don’t even try.
So why
are evangelical leftists so vocal in attacking the Bible when it’s (allegedly)
too harsh, but fall silent when the Bible is (apparently) too otherworldly? Why
be so outspoken when the Bible is (allegedly) too mean, but suffer from instant
laryngitis when the Bible is (apparently) too starry-eyed? Too heavenly-minded
to be of any earthly use. Shouldn’t evangelical leftists be more consistent?
Shouldn’t they attack the Sermon on the Mount with the same superior attitude
as they attack the Mosaic law?
No comments:
Post a Comment