Out with the Old

Have you ever heard something like this? I get it from self-professed Christians, no less. "The proper view of the Old Testament is that it is old. That is, it has been replaced by a New Testament, a new covenant with God. The Old Testament, then, is a group of books identifying how people thought of God back then and full of truths we can learn, but certainly not rules. We must, then, dismiss the notion of accepting that these Old Testament rules as rules that might be applicable today."

Proof? "Well, Leviticus 20:13 says, 'If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.' You may say that you think homosexual behavior is a sin, but you don't favor putting them to death. Thus, it is not a rule and you know it."

I love this line of thinking. The Old Testament contains "truths", but not "rules". Now, these same folks are often willing to stick to the "Ten Commandments", for instance. Okay, well, maybe not all of them. I mean, "honor your father and mother" and "honor the Sabbath" are out, right? At least. So most. And many are willing to retain that whole "adultery" thing as a bad idea. The fact that it is listed in the same text as the prohibition of a man lying with a man as with a woman is irrelevant. Adultery -- bad. Homosexual behavior -- not bad. "And we know it because you're not willing to put the homosexual to death." But ... we're not willing to put the adulterer to death, either.

The incoherent line of thinking hurts my head. It relegates the Old Testament to a matter of opinion, the writings of some people who weren't clear on reality and only wrote down what they thought of God back then. They thought He ordered them to kill the Amalekites, so they did, but, really, it wasn't God's idea. It was just there own. They thought God was opposed to some behaviors. But He wasn't really. Certainly not the ones of which they now approve.

"The Bible -- well, Christianity, at least -- is not about rules, you see. It's about grace. You may think that homosexual behavior is wrong, but that's not for you to decide. Live and let live! Show some grace!" Interestingly, it never seems to go in reverse. If you read the Bible and see instructions on how to live to please God, they don't tell themselves "Live and let live! Show some grace! Let them believe that if they will." No, they tell you, "You're conflating your view into God's view." They classify you as intolerant, hateful, judgmental. The fact that "tolerance" requires a difference of opinion to exist (you don't "tolerate" that with which you agree) is irrelevant. "We are right. You are wrong. Until you stop disagreeing with us, 'We shall fight on the blogs, we shall fight at the churches, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.' Just you wait and see. We will beat you into submission to demonstrate how tolerant we can be."

The irrationality is painful. The fact, for instance, that we don't continue to call for the penalty given to a unique theocracy at the time for the sin of homosexual behavior or adultery doesn't mean we don't concur with the morality of the law. On the other hand, the fact that they deny the morality of the law (for instance, they certainly deny that it is moral to put an adulterer to death even if God commanded it) puts them directly in opposition to God, not in concert with Him. (They avoid this, by the way, by telling you that God never commanded it, remember? It was just their idea of what God would want.) And yet, my view is irrational, hateful, and unbiblical. When I concur with Christ (Matt 5:18), I'm being unchristian. Odd. Really odd. Don't buy it, Christians. It doesn't make sense.