About starting points

My friend told me not long ago that I didn't belong any longer to the church denomination that I grew up in. We, of course, belong to the same denomination. I got further confirmation of this full force this morning.

I had gone to a Bible study class that I had studied for, but a guest speaker was in the usual teacher's place. The guest teacher was a leader in this particular church. His topic was Deuteronomy 13. The chapter is one of the harshest chapters in the Bible since it tells the Israelites to basically kill anyone, including wife and children, who takes them away from worshiping God. It's not that I don't know that chapter is there, it's that the ensuing explanation for that chapter by the teacher followed a whole different hermeneutic than I am willing to accept.

First, the teacher said Moses wrote this. Second, he started applying what he read there to strict adherence to following God in today's society. Third, he juxtaposed a passage from Matthew 10 (no person should love father or mother more than Jesus) with the Deuternomic passage. And finally, he asked the question of whether God's grace had become a god to lead us away from obedience to the true God.

I usually know that if I am listening to someone else teach and the starting point or premise of the lesson is different from mine, then there is never going to be a point in the lesson that will line up with my way of thinking about a passage. So, I knew right away that I probably should leave when he said that Moses wrote the passage. Scholars of Deuteronomy usually date the book to somewhere after the time of the kingdom split when priests became important. After all, the meaning of the title of the book is "Second Law" not "Moses' Law" or "Law in Moses' time." Second, there are few places in the Old Testament that have direct application to modern times. Today is a different time and place, so distant from Biblical times that not even the terrain of the world is the same, not to mention that an intervening covenant happened between Deuteronomy and today. Third, what Jesus taught in no way resembles what the Israelites were asked to do, so juxtaposing verses from Matthew 10 against Deuteronomy 13 is a non-sequitur - they're not even close to having the same meaning. And finally, to attribute a quality of God the same status as the deity himself is not even a possibility. Who would worship God's love without acknowledging the God behind the love? So, who would worship grace without acknowledging the God who grants the grace? I don't even think that is possible!

Once again, someone thought that the Bible was seamless, that the Bible's words to different people at different times in history were applicable to any group of people at any point upline in history. The leader was a federal judge. It escapes me how anyone that educated can buy into the same religion he learned as a child. Shouldn't the investigation taught to anyone who gets a post-secondary education mitigate childish notions about the Bible? Shouldn't those uninvestigated ideas that come historically from Medieval times and that slip down the time continuum be relegated by 21st century college graduates (especially those with advanced degrees) to the bone pile for not passing muster? I can't even believe I heard that grace could be worshiped as a god! That is doubly disgusting coming from someone with a jurisdoctorate degree no matter what his religious heritage is. It's as if he has mastered the many laws of the land but is still a high school dropout when it comes to hanging on to Medieval notions about the Bible.

It goes without saying that I will not be back for the next lesson that this person teaches next week. Fortunately, a saner person will be back the following week to teach. And he's not a leader of the church, but he at least knows that the Bible has different interpretations. He and I disagree often, but our starting point is usually close.

Deuteronomy having a modern application... Whoever heard of such a thing!