Wednesday,September 10, 2003

Letter mocking Bible full of errors, misunderstandings

Mr. Timothy J. Parker's letter satirizing the Old Testament and disseminating false notions about the Bible, the Constitution, and our nation was interesting, but completely wrong.

To start off with, Mr. Parker makes the argument that since the Old Testament condemned so much seemingly inconsequential behavior, that one could easily dismiss its prohibitions against homosexuality. This is a fallacy of degree and context.

An intelligent reader of the Bible knows the difference between a minor point of the law and a major moral affirmation. The two are not equal in weight or significance. One must separate the moral code of the Old Testament from the minor rules pertaining to hygiene or the specific punitive prescriptions.

The Law of the Old Testament was provisional in nature, designed to guide Israel in its journey towards the Heavenly Jerusalem until the coming of the Messiah. However, when Christ came, whom Mr. Parker thinks to be so "tolerant" (again with that word!), he said thusly: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill" (Matt 5:17). What did He mean by this statement? Does it mean that Mr. Parker is correct and that Jesus wiped away the Old Testament as some kind of giant mistake God made? Not likely.

Rather, Christ showed us what the moral code of the Old Testament was meant to engender in us as children of God, which is holiness and eventual union with God the Father (neither a "maniacal killer" nor "benevolent despot") in Heaven. So, as Christians, we are obliged to obey the spirit of the Law, if not the exact letter.

In addition to misconstruing the theological and moral relationship between the Old and New Testaments, Mr. Parker gets some basic history wrong as well. The council he referred to was in Nicaea, not "Nicosia," and the Bible didn't "take its form" at the whim of Constantine.

The Council of Nicaea was actually called by Constantine to settle the issue of Christ's divinity, which it did definitively at the hands of the bishops present. We have it to thank for the firm Dogma of the Trinity. The Canon of the Bible itself would not formally be determined until later in the 4th century, although before then there was near universal agreement on which books should be included.

As for Mr. Parker's comment about the 1462 years after the Council of Nicaea being witness to "all manner of despotism and very little human respect," I have to wonder if he isn't being a little reductionist and selective.

After all, during that period we saw the holiness of people like St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Siena, and countless others who gave themselves completely to the purpose of loving their fellow man. There was great art produced and the flourishing of genius of all kinds.

Sure, there was bloodshed and mayhem, but compared to the unprecedented bloodbath caused by the atheistic ideologies of communism and fascism in the 20th century, it was relatively minor in scope and degree.

But then Mr. Parker shines his historical spotlight on the Constitution and does us all the great favor of actually quoting the 1st amendment (instead of erroneously referring to it as the "separation of church and state"). The aforesaid amendment clearly, emphatically requires government to stay out of the business of establishing churches or forcing people to be a particular kind of Christian. That's all! It's a bit of a legal one-way street, isn't it? As for Christian morals and standards informing the nature of law, I believe there is not one single letter in the negative.

In other words, our government and our society, at their foundation, intentionally left open the door to religious influence. Indeed, it was thought indispensable for democracy to succeed.

Law based on morality derived from God is the only kind of law which truly protects the individual from tyranny. Sure, sometimes this law impinges on our more unhealthy desires for the benefit of society as a whole, but such determinations are an organic feature of a truly democratic society. If you don't believe me, again, look at the regimes where God had no place in the law (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia) and see how well they did!

Mr. Parker's final jab is at the supposed contradiction of "the passions of religion" and "reasoned governance." Hogwash! Was Martin Luther King Jr. "unreasonable" for his appeal to Christian charity in the establishment of civil rights and justice? Was Abraham Lincoln a fool for invoking clearly the Christian God as the ultimate authority for the abolishment of slavery?

Mr. Parker, if you want a Godless land, there are fortunately few places left where you can go. But please, for the sake of our liberty, dignity, and justice, don't be a party to the removal of God in this country. Without Him, we are little more than brutes brandishing our clubs and engaging in whatever despicable behavior that warms our loins.

Trey Hoffman

Peachtree City, Ga.