This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Allegorical interpretation was never done in a vacuum, it was something that existed alongside other methods of interpretation, traditionally one of four meanings acknowledged by early Christians. If are going to respond to the author of the Vulgate with 'That's just like your opinion man' I'm not sure you are taking this seriously. The reasoning about what this parable means has been done for millennia and caring for strangers is an interpretation by no means a recent innovation. When your non-progressive take involves reversing 2000 years of Christian teaching and practice I shudder to think of what you consider progressive.
It is a story about who reads the law better, and I agree with you and the video that all three should be regarded as law followers. The love God, love your neighbor formulation as a summary of the Law was not a new innovation, it was a oft repeated gloss of Leviticus 19:18 and Deut 6:5. The issue then and now is that our glosses become our totalities. Our law expert has given the pithy Sunday School answer that everyone knows. What our Lawyer doesn't want to acknowledge that the discourse he pulls his answer from also contains "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." (Lev 19:33-34). This is why the identity of the victim is obscured in the parable. Jesus isn't teaching anything new here, he is calling out the failure of the Jews to live up to their own Law, using the example of a law follower furthest from the centers of power. There is nothing to abrogate because the command is already there, Jesus is just mindful of the jots and tittles others forget.
Now, to be fair, in modern times the parable it's self has been pulled from its context to support things that would be unimaginable, especially in regards to the behavior of the guests. Loyalty and honoring the host on the part of the stranger are a given. Betraying one who has shown you hospitality was the gravest of sins, What Jesus accuses Judas of in John 13:18. Dante rightly places them in the deepest pits of hell.
The parables specifically are interpreted allegorically by every early theologian. Jesus effectively demands an allegorical interpretation in Matthew 13. Also, the anagogical and moral analyses are usually intwined with allegory.
Again, the dominant reading of the parable was not that everyone counts as your neighbor. That is a minority viewpoint. Do you believe that every opinion of Jerome is correct? For instance, in his homily 35 on psalm 108, do you agree that every Jew is accursed because they bear collective blood guilt for killing Jesus? I’m excited for you reply — you give him full authority on being the author of the Vulgate, and you’re all about taking him seriously. (Feel free to copy my reply of “Jerome’s interpretation is Jerome’s interpretation”. I won’t judge you. But you can’t say he is wrong — after all, you note he wrote the Vulgate).
Most of the early conclusions are not that everyone is your neighbor. Even more importantly, the conclusion doesn’t make sense upon careful inspection of the parable.
In Leviticus the strangers are supposed to be circumcised and follow every single law of an Israelite. “But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you”.
Note that Jerome's conclusion to his statement about Jews bearing the collective guilt for Christ's death is that Christians must abhor violence and pray for the salvation and forgiveness of all Jews: "That is the Lord's weapon; that is our weapon, too, prayer. If ever anyone should persecute us and hate us, let us say likewise: In return for my love, they gave me calumny. But I, what did I do? I prayed. In order to get the better of them? God forbid; does the Lord pray for one in order to vanquish him? Why did He say: 'but I prayed'? What was His prayer? 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing's"
But really, Jerome's correctness is entirely besides the point. The point is that he was prominent, and bringing up another opinion that he held a prominent position on only reinforces my point. Its not that any church father was right about everything, its that the idea that loving your neighbor involved anyone you encounter was framiliar, not foreign to early Christians, and its in no way refuted by allegorical interpretations existing alongside it either. Rather as you rightly say, it was intertwined with the allegory. For example, in Homiles on The Gospel of Luke 34.2 Origen tells us that:
"He [the Lord] teaches that the man going down was the neighbor of no one except of him who wanted to keep the commandments and prepare himself to be a neighbor to every one that needs help. This is what is found after the end of the parable, “Which of these three does it seem to you is the neighbor of the man who fell among robbers?” Neither the priest nor the Levite was his neighbor, but—as the teacher of the law himself answered—“he who showed pity” was his neighbor. The Savior says, “Go, and do likewise."
Right after this he launches into allegorical interpretation, which also has a universal bent:
"The man who was going down is Adam. Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The robbers are hostile powers. The priest is the law, the Levite is the prophets, and the Samaritan is Christ. The wounds are disobedience. The beast is the Lord’s body. The pandochium (that is, the stable), which accepts all who wish to enter, is the church. The two denarii mean the Father and the Son. The manager of the stable is the head of the church, to whom its care has been entrusted." (34.3)
All this talk about a dominate reading is backwards projection of modernist legal theory onto people who just didn't frame the Bible using those concepts. The assumption that their use of allegory means that they rejected other interpretations just doesn't hold when you actually read what they wrote.
Yes, strangers needed to be circumcised to celebrate passover and circumcision for Christian converts was a topic of hot debate when Paul was writing. Note that he dropped that requirement. Hospitality was never supposed to be limitless. Guests had to follow the laws of the land, and give honor to their hosts. Liberationist readings of the parable fail because they ignore any expectation that would be placed on guests.
But this universal welcome and hospitality is a well established part of the faith, starting from Exodus and going through the church fathers. The fact that this reading of the parable doesn't make sense to you but did to the overwhelming tide of Christianity might give one pause. You say that Jesus demands an allegorical interpretation of his parables, but point to a novel historical critical youtube take as the only evidence of your position. If you want it both ways, that's fine. You can even have new revelation if you want. Maybe Moroni has issued you some new tablets for your new pro-social religion. You can do it, but what you have is another progressive religion, something you've invented to get what you want. Which is a strange place to end up with what was supposed to be a non-progressive take
Christian perfection is praying for enemies, yes. There’s nothing novel about that. But enemies are still enemies. And enemies are not strangers, and strangers aren’t neighbors, and neighbors aren’t brothers. Jerome telling us to pray for enemies is irrelevant to the questions at hand. The reason I bring up Jerome’s view on Jews is because obviously you don’t share that view. No one shares that view today. So your criticism that I had the audacity to disagree with Jerome is instantly rendered void and actually pretty humorous. You also disagree with Jerome. You disagree with multiple pages he wrote about Jews being cursed with bloodguilt, and I disagree with a few sentences in which he declares that the whole world is his neighbor. So let’s move past ol’ J-Dawg and focus on other evidence?
As evidence for this you quote Jerome again. As an example, Origen does not conclude from the parable that everyone is now your neighbor.
The early church had a welfare system reserved for themselves. If they were not Christian, they were not welcome at the Eucharist (originally: “love feast”). If they sinned without repentance, Christians were commanded never to eat with them. If a widow wanted the financial charity of the church, they had to prove good Christian behavior to earn it. And in the Epistles, we have maybe eight passages commanding Christians to love brothers-in-faith, and little about neighbors. This is remarkable: if the apostles believed that they should love everyone as themselves, why do we only see an emphasis on brotherly love? Brothers would be but a part in the love for neighbor. The logical argument is that the neighborhood has become the Christian Brotherhood, just as Israel has become Christendom.
The idea that Christians should love strangers as themselves is the Achilles heel of Christianity. It has caused irreparable harm to Christianity worldwide and ushered in a world of absurd progressive theology and ultimately harm. It naturally leads to absence of brotherly love, because there can be no exceptional love for brothers if you are obliged to love strangers as yourself. The heart of Christianity is brotherly love. God Himself, as a Man, gave special love to his friends and made them brothers. He did not give special love to strangers, though he healed them upon request and when passing through. He stopped what he was doing to raise up Lazarus because he loved Lazarus particularly. And see here —
You completely missed the point. You are arguing ought, but you are ignoring what is. You have to contend with the evidence, but you just laugh and say 'I disagree'. I don't care that you disagree with the history of Christianity, I care they you think you can rewrite it. Universal care for the stranger has been part of the faith since the Torah, continues through the church fathers, was never rejected or repudiated in the pre-modern era, it recognized reasonable boundaries, had the goal of making the stranger a brother, and was in fact a hallmark of the faith.
Origen says one must "prepare himself to be a neighbor to every one that needs help". If that isn't a conclusion that says help everyone that needs help I'm not sure what you are reading. We can't get anywhere if you keep ignoring the evidence.
Christianity would have gotten no where without the care for the poor and outcast, they fed and clothed them before they became Christians. This is the historical record. the disconnect isn't in the welcome, its that lack of formation in modern times that has become a problem, coupled with the embrace of secular materialism. You love the stranger by making them like yourself. If they reject that, you send them on their way, if they abuse or exploit your generosity, they sin like Judas and we pray that they can find forgiveness in this life. But that doesn't mean you don't help them from get go. You absolutely need to make sure your welfare system is secure against abuse, that's in the Bible too, but that doesn't abrogate Leviticus. But tossing out the scripture and abandoning the historical practice of the church because you disagree with it just makes you a different kind of progressive theologian.
You confuse “universal care for strangers” with the prescription to love one’s neighbor. First, the acceptance of a stranger into the community was contingent upon their complete conformity to the Jewish law in Ancient Israel. Second, early Jewish Rabbis defined “neighbor” as other Jews. These are two different things.
For some reason, you feel it is fine to ignore all the scriptural evidence. I showed you how the elements of the parable only make sense in the context of an ancient Israelite “neighborhood”. But then I showed you how all of the apostles interpreted “neighborhood” to mean brotherhood. You are ignoring this because you want to ignore this, I guess? I have no idea.
Origen goes on to explain what he means by that. “But we should not think that it applies to every man. For, not every man "goes down from Jerusalem into Jericho," nor do all dwell in this present world for that reason, even if he who "was sent on account of the lost sheep of the house of Israel" went down. Hence, the man who "went down from Jerusalem into Jenicho" "fell among robbers" because he himself wished to go down. But the robbers are none other than they of whom the Savior says, "All who came before me were thieves and robbers." […] This is how he understands the parable. That the Samaritan is Christ. You misquoted. He doesn’t say everyone “ought” to do that. Yes, we behave like the Samaritan, in a particular capacity and context which is symbolized in the parable…
This is demonic. You are trying to destroy the very idea of a church brotherhood. That will, and has already, destroyed Christianity. It destroys brotherly love and casts pearls to swine. It is also nonsensical. You do not love enemies like strangers, strangers like neighbors, or neighbors like brothers. Have you really never asked yourself why we have all these commands for brotherly love, when according to your reading, we should be loving everyone on the earth as brothers? Why on earth would the apostles talk so much about the “brotherhood” and “brotherly love” if they were expected to love everyone the same?
I did not misquote Origen, you're reading him backwards. Origen is pointing out that Jesus is both the Samaritan and the man beset in his allegory. he clearly thinks that the church accepts all those that wish to enter, he says so outright, the fact that not everyone goes on a journey and gets mugged does not mean that you don't help those that get mugged. That is why he concludes the homily with: "According to the passage that says, “Be imitators of me, as I too am of Christ,” it is possible for us to imitate Christ and to pity those who “have fallen among thieves.” We can go to them, bind their wounds, pour in oil and wine, put them on our own animals, and bear their burdens. The Son of God encourages us to do things like this. He is speaking not so much to the teacher of the law as to us and to everyone when he says, “Go and do likewise.” If we do, we will receive eternal life in Christ Jesus, to whom is glory and power for ages of ages. Amen." Remember that Origen states that the man going down in his allegory is Adam, aka the stand in for all of humanity. I don't know what more you could want. You keep acting like this parable only makes sense read your way but the entirety of church history has been able to make sense of it just fine. You can still say you are the one that got it right, but at some point your are just doing the meme http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/files/2015/02/11007614_628927553920047_152492327_n.jpg
The apostles wrote to churches about how to be churches. It isn't surprising that the content of these is focused that way. But the work of the apostles was out there with strangers, both jew and gentle, relying on the hospitality of strangers themselves. Are you trying to claim the rabbis taught that you had to cut off someones foreskin before offering them a cup of water? Really? The same rabbis that set up a court for the gentles in their temple? They taught everyone that they could ignore Lev 19:34? You seem to think it doesn't exist or that the fact that they had the same expectations in law keeping placed on them as the Jews placed on themselves somehow means that they weren't being loved, when its evidence of the opposite attitude. The whole rationale that God gives for his commandment in Leviticus was the Jewish experience as strangers in Egypt and I have already demonstrated it clear connection that Jesus draws in his answer. The loving thing to do for a stranger is to initiate him into the community. This is an evangelistic and universalistic faith that demands that you make the stranger your brother, it always has been. It is love that makes the enemy a stranger, a stranger a neighbor and a neighbor a brother. My reading has embraced every scripture you have cited, integrated it with the whole of scripture and the history of the church. There is no contradiction between having a rule of order and loving your neighbor. I have said over and over that strangers who take advantage should be cut off, regarded like Judas, but you have to start with love and a welcome in. Ultimately, you are calling the great commission to go and make disciples demonic, and I don't know what to say to that. My concern is that your reading of the parable simply can't explain the historical record and runs roughshod over scripture that doesn't fit, which is the same problem I have with progressive theology.
We are going in circles so maybe I’ll try a clear counterfactual.
If we love everyone as ourselves, then it would be against the commandment to do good ”most of all to spiritual brothers”. What would be the justification for doing most of our good to the brothers, if the whole world must be loved as oneself?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link