Religion
How do women and animals fit into the bible? Why do evil and viruses exist?
How big was the flood and why doesn't God intervene?
What is the trinity to other religions? Where does Jesus fit in? Does purgatory exist?
No further word from God? What about the errors? Only 'containing' God's words?
Can it have different meanings? May a bible story be legend? Help from outside the bible...?
How dangerous is wealth? What about forgiving the unrepentant? Can euthanasia be Christian? What makes church a sect?
The next five questions of Richard Bewes' The Top 100 Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions, engages with some contentious issues such as abortion and homosexuality.
71. Should Christians use force? How can people of peace, like Christians, contemplate the use of force?
We've already discussed the atrocities in the bible. The endless violence and genocide that has always seemed so abhorrent to me. But can this force ever be justified?
According to Richard Bewes, he believes that force in the form of punishment should exist. That is to say that for any society to function, there needs to be rules and there needs to be punishments for when the rules are broken. Without such restraints, then society would descend into anarchy, such as the books of Kings or Judges, where the Israelites constantly turn away from God.
What Bewes thinks we should be wary of is ensuring that we are not excessive in our use of force. The police have a duty to use force to protect us, but if they begin becoming repressive, then this is wrong. This is when their 'force' becomes violence. Bewes argues that:
"the Believer should shun all forms of violence, but should be committed to the disciplined use of force. A great deal of muddled thinking takes place - especially during times of international conflict - when the debate fails to take account of the different between violence and force. Force is concerned with the upholding of law. Violence is concerned with the overthrow of law.
I agree with this. As we've already discussed, a society needs rules and consequences to function. But where the trouble arises, as Bewes rightly points out, is where do we draw the line between force and violence. What exactly qualifies as an overuse of force? If a paedophile who rapes a ten year old is then killed by vigilante justice, is this an excessive use of force? Or just desserts? What about those who the justice system fails? What about the victims of Brock Turner? Is it fair that all he received was three months probation? Or would it be fairer if he received an appropriate punishment for his crime? Bewes would argue that this vigilante justice is over-excessive, but from a moral viewpoint, the situation isn't as black and white.
My Christian friend Naomi argues that whilst we shouldn't be looking for a fight, we are also quite right to use force in self-defence. When it comes to muddier topics like war, sometimes it is right. Sometimes it isn't.
73. Marriage - a Submission? I find words like 'submission' and 'obey' very unattractive in the context of Christian marriage. Surely we've moved on from that?
Bewes quite rightly answers this question by arguing that "it depends if we are culturally conditioned, rather than biblically taught."
Based on wedding vows, it is easy to argue that Christian marriage and, to a further extent, Christianity is patriarchal. But this isn't the case.
Ephesians 5:22-24 teaches:
"wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the superior. Now as the Church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
However, Ephesians then goes onto say:
"husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her [...] Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." (5: 25, 28)
Whilst women should submit themselves to their husbands, this submission should not be one-sided. Husbands should return this love and devotion.
75. The rights of an unborn child? At what point does an unborn child gain the right to live? How does this affect the issue of abortion?
Abortion. To say that this is a controversial debate would be an understatement. The pro-life/pro-choice debate continues to rage on, and I cannot hope to conclude it here. However, what I can do is offer both Richard Bewes' and my views.
Richard Bewes is against abortion. He argues that in Ancient Greece or Rome, abortion was commonplace. Infants were killed as it was deemed that
"a child only acquired true identity at a period after birth, that its value lay only in its potential usefulness to society, and that only the likelihood of physical wholeness gave it a right to live. Personhood had to be earned."
Bewes later contends this point by arguing that "at no point of an embryo's existence can the purely biological be separated from the spiritual." What Bewes is arguing is that as soon as the embryo is formed, it's alive. It has a biological existence and a spiritual existence. He concludes by asserting that "nearly always, there is a better alternative to the unwanted or abnormal pregnancy than abortion."
Naomi agrees with Bewes. She believes that, with the exception of medical emergency, abortion is wrong. The Bible teaches that physical life and a soul begins at the point of conception.
Do I agree with this? I'm not so sure. When does an embryo become a person? I don't know. But I do think that the decision should always lie the mother. Yes. I'm pro-choice. It's easy to say that an unwanted baby can be put up for adoption. but it's not as simple as that. As a male, I will obviously never know the experience of pregnancy, but I do know that it can be an intensely trying experience. To make a woman carry a child for 9 months and then make her give up seems unfair. Things become even muddier if a child is conceived of rape. Is it right to make a woman carry a child that she didn't even want in the first place? I don't think it is, but the decision is not mine. It is the woman's.
76. Is sex restricted to marriage? Hasn't the Church been terribly repressed about sex? Is sexual expression really restricted to marriage?
Bewes begins by arguing that sex before marriage was common in paganism, as well as Ancient Greece and Rome. However, this was then replaced by Christian ideas of chastity. He quotes 1 Thessalonians 4:3 : "avoid sexuality, that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honourable."
Bewes believes that we should be "holy in regard to our responsibility towards God, and honourable in our responsibility towards or neighbours."
Bewes then points to Genesis 2:24 : "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
He argues that this gives "us God's orm for the direction that is to be given to the sexual impulse. It amounts to fidelity in marriage, and celibacy outside marriage. This is what our creator has given, as the right, the safest way to channel the human sexual instinct."
Do I think that sex should be restricted to marriage? No. Of course not. Whilst for some, sex is nothing more than a way of getting a quick dopamine rush, for others it is a deeply emotional experience. It is an expression of their love and they shouldn't have to wait until marriage to demonstrate it.
77. Same sex inclinations? I am a Christian, and am beginning to wonder whether I am of homosexual orientation. Is there perhaps a church group of people similar to myself that I ought to join?
If we were to listen solely to the West Boro Baptist Church, then we would think all of Christianity is against homosexuality. But this is as ridiculous as arguing that every right-wing person is a Fascist Nazi or every left-winger is a Communist.
Richard Bewes offers a more convoluted answer. Firstly, he argues that the labels of "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are completely socially constructed. Returning to Genesis, the only labels that have ever existed are "man" and "woman." Homosexuality isn't a gene that can be inherited.
Secondly, he argues that there is the divine ideal of a one man/ one woman monogamous lifetime marriage. Christians should hold to this, rejecting all extra-marital sexual relationships (including homosexual activity)
Lastly, he argues that despite how the Anglican World 'Lambeth Conference' of 1998 rejected homosexuality "as incompatible with Scripture, it also called for a sensitive and pastoral ministry to people of every sexual disposition."
Bewes' answer doesn't make sense to me, as he contradicts himself. He argues that we should reject homosexuality, but the Christian ministry should be sensitive to people of all sexuality. He concludes that all a person needs is "a group simply of Bible-loving Christian people." This I do agree with. Some denominations of Christianity are more progressive than others and I am sure there are some are who are fully supportive of Christianity.
I do not claim to be an expert in these issues. If you have your own opinion, criticism or thought then please comment then. Just keep it mature. Keep it respectful. Keep it intelligent.
No comments:
Post a Comment