church and culture

[Non Sequitur]

After reading the thread on the discussion of the burqa in France, I was inspired for my topic. For a while i have been wanting to do a series of threads about Christian basics, but couldn't find a way to make it a discussion. After reading that thread I have decided to bring up the topic of how Christianity, and by extension religion in general, should react to culture. Within Protestant Christianity, H. Richard Neibuhr came up with a five typical ways Christians look at culture. They are the following:

1. Christ against culture: this view is can be best seen by the Amish communities, non-Christian culture is at best a distraction from the work of God's kingdom and at worst a tool of the devil. Human culture exists in rebellion to God and should be resisted at all turns.

2. Christ of Culture: this view is the opposite of 1. culture is a God given gift that will work for good in the end. Culture should be embraced and accepted at most times. This position is often held by ultra-liberal Protestant denominations.

3. Christ Above culture: Best seen by the Roman Catholics and Anglicans, this view believes that the material world that makes up culture is important, but ultimately Christ is supreme. Christians are good citizens in the material world, but seek to go beyond the material world.

4. Christs and culture in paradox: this view holds that the call of Christ is in opposition to much of the world, but the world is still held to be important and worth while. Embodied by Lutherans, this can be best seen in Christ's call to be holy in an unholy world where one is not capable of being holy on their own. The Christian thus lives in a constant struggle between paradoxes like faith and reason, law and grace, earthly citizenship and heavenly citizenship.

5. Christ transforming culture: this view is typified by the reformed branches of Christianity (Presbyterians, Reformed Church, Methodists, etc...). Typically this view states that human culture is sinful, but the sovereignty of God is more powerful and works to turn culture toward the kingdom of God. Think Christian pop music, it sounds like pop culture music, but is being transformed into something for the kingdom.

So, for the Christians out there which typology do you think you fall under and why? What problems do you see with the other typologies? For the non-Christians, which typology is your experience with the church?

Personally as a Lutheran I fall solidly into four. It makes the most sense to me.

EDIT: in retrospect, church and state was a bad title, it should be church and culture.

[Lily]

Hard to say. The only real experience I've personally had with a church since leaving the Southern Baptist church of my early childhood was with a UU church during high school. The congregation took an activist role in a controversy over first amendment rights of students. Since I was hip deep in fighting the school board, I welcomed their involvement. I'm not sure where the Unitarian Universalist church fits in your spectrum these days.

Now, where I live today, most church-going folks I rub up against fall solidly into the fifth group.

[Michael]

EDIT: in retrospect, church and state was a bad title, it should be church and culture.

I took the liberty of changing it for you. I even preserved your idiosycrisy for lower case! ;)

[The Drunk Girl]

Personally, I have been exposed to number 4 the most. Generally, people come to the "age of accountability" and realize that they are not holy enough, and in the end become saved. They try to lead as holy of a life as possible in hopes that this will lead them to heaven. It doesn't matter if you're solely a good person unless you're saved.

But, depending on which southern baptist church you attend you have those that believe the "once saved, always saved" method; no matter what one does in life, have no worry, because your sins have been washed away. And, then there are those that believe that even if you have been saved, people can "backslide" hence having to re-dedicate their life to Christ.

[Michael]

Well, my religous upbring was rather 'high-church' Anglican, which is relatively close to Lutheranism and/or moderate Catholicism in general approach to most temporal/doctrinal issues.

This also fits the general religious demographics of Toronto - with the Anglican and Roman Catholic church being the two largest local denominations with the highest profile in local news media. It also defines the general religioius character of Canada as these two Chuches have unique legal standing enshrined in Canada's Constitution as a result of the 18th century British conquest of Quebec and the linguistic, religious and legal guarentees for Quebec that came of that.

Though, I must say that the very 'liberal' approach of the 'communitarians' is also quite well noted as a sub-branch of the Anglicans (that would be 'low-church' Anglicans - or United Church Anglicans). They are often associated with a 'rainbow' approach to Christ and are on the forefront of recognizing female priests/ministers/bishops etc, as well as same-sex unions. They seem to be quite strong in the big cities (Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver) and their surrounding suburbs. Big huge evangelical churches are usually found also on the outskirts of the larger cities (and of very recent construction).

So that would describe the 'general' religious view of my environment and experience. There is always a very strong belief in the idea and practice of separation of church and state (oddly enough for the Anglican Church!). Religion is to be respected and a part of life and society, but it cannot oppose the civil authority. This seems to define the civic-religious morality of Toronto.

This might have something to do with Toronto's almost unique religious demographics. Outside of the Anglicans and Catholics which split the 'caucasian' older residents of the city (about 50% of the population), no other religious group can hope to be anything more than a tiny fraction of the other half since there are so many ethnic groups from so many different places (Chinese, Koreans, Indians, Pakistanis, Italians, Greeks, Russians, Poles, Ukrainians, Germans, Filipinos, Indonesians, Caribbeans, Sudanese, Ethiopians and Central/South Americans make up the largest 'ethnic' groupings of Toronto - I can place each by a neighborhood). Indeed, we have some fairly impressive Hindu temples that are mind-boggling architectural monstrosities of intricate designs. :)

As such, I'd say numbers 3 and 4 describe the 'religious environment' that I've been most closely exposed to and I'm most comfortable with from an intellectual perspective.

[Non Sequitur]

in the end, i have problems with all of them, but 4 has the least amount of problems. View 1, while it has historic backing from some of the biggest names in the Church, results in isolation which i think is against the call of a Christian. Two has the opposite problem in that it surrenders too much to the world. three and four are OK, but in my opinion do not take into account human sinfulness enough leaving four.

[dilettante]

in the end, i have problems with all of them...

By the same token, there's something to be said for all of them; I wouldn't condemn any of them as unequivocally wrong. I can have great respect for the purity of the Amish, the free grace of liberal Protestantism, the order of Catholicism, and the optimism of the Reform Church. I think the appeal of number 4, as phrased in the OP, is that it implies a 'balanced' approach incorporating some elements of the others.

Personally my experience has been a mixture of 4 and 5.

[Non Sequitur]

By the same token, there's something to be said for all of them; I wouldn't condemn any of them as unequivocally wrong. I can have great respect for the purity of the Amish, the free grace of liberal Protestantism, the order of Catholicism, and the optimism of the Reform Church. I think the appeal of number 4, as phrased in the OP, is that it implies a 'balanced' approach incorporating some elements of the others.

Personally my experience has been a mixture of 4 and 5.

you are right, all are admirable in their own way and my own influence is mostly 4 with a little bit of 5 (I did go to college at a Calvinist institution).

[Michael]

you are right, all are admirable in their own way and my own influence is mostly 4 with a little bit of 5 (I did go to college at a Calvinist institution).

Calvinism? :eek: (:lol:)

But the question of the OP is, how should church and culture interact?

That's a more interesting question. Where is the line between them?

[Non Sequitur]

Calvinism? :eek: (:lol:)

But the question of the OP is, how should church and culture interact?

That's a more interesting question. Where is the line between them?

well, many people i know think that the church should a adopt and attitude of hostility when it comes to the non-Christian culture, but I think that is biblically unfounded. The typical phrase i hear, which i agree with for the most part, is "be in the world, but not of it." The church should interact with the non-Christian world, but should also criticize it when it gets out of hand.

[Michael]

well, many people i know think that the church should a adopt and attitude of hostility when it comes to the non-Christian culture, but I think that is biblically unfounded. The typical phrase i hear, which i agree with for the most part, is "be in the world, but not of it." The church should interact with the non-Christian world, but should also criticize it when it gets out of hand.

"Be in the world, but not of it" sounds like a good model. I think religion harms itself when it gets too "otherworldly" (Buddhism) - just as certainly that it harms itself it gets too "worldly" (medieval Roman Church).

Its a fine line to walk, but I agree - religion has to avoid direct confrontation with science in the public sphere. The public sphere is ruled by science. Religions ought to concern themselves with fostering 'morality' not fighting 'scientific facts'. Religions have no authority nor ability to dispute 'scientific facts'. Religions have ability and authority only to dispute morality.

[partofme]

"Be in the world, but not of it" sounds like a good model. I think religion harms itself when it gets too "otherworldly" (Buddhism) - just as certainly that it harms itself it gets too "worldly" (medieval Roman Church).

Its a fine line to walk, but I agree - religion has to avoid direct confrontation with science in the public sphere. The public sphere is ruled by science. Religions ought to concern themselves with fostering 'morality' not fighting 'scientific facts'. Religions have no authority nor ability to dispute 'scientific facts'. Religions have ability and authority only to dispute morality.

I think that religion makes short term gains by acting like secular institutions and ideas are attacking them but losing in the long run when those become fully excepted.

[dilettante]

"Be in the world, but not of it" sounds like a good model. I think religion harms itself when it gets too "otherworldly" (Buddhism) - just as certainly that it harms itself it gets too "worldly" (medieval Roman Church).

I agree. I think the phrase 'in the world, but not of it' is derived from John 17:15-16, when Jesus is praying for His disciples just before His arrest.

"My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it."

[andrewl]

My experience/understanding of christianity is that human culture is vile and evil and should be avoided at all costs. Christianity represents a life of resistance to our animal instincts (sin), in fact i view Christianity as a denial of the human animal altogether, not just of human culture.

Andrew

[Non Sequitur]

My experience/understanding of christianity is that human culture is vile and evil and should be avoided at all costs. Christianity represents a life of resistance to our animal instincts (sin), in fact i view Christianity as a denial of the human animal altogether, not just of human culture.

Andrew

Certainly pisition number one takes that perspective somewhat, but the other four do exist and are maintained by large portions of the Christian world. Position one is one of the oldest positions, but not the only one.

side note: While certain heresies (and by extension modern denominations that fall into the same heretical tendencies) do try and deny the human altogether, mainline Christian theology has always taught that the resurrection of the body is the final hope of the Christian and thus does not deny the "human aminal" completely.

[Non Sequitur]

"Be in the world, but not of it" sounds like a good model. I think religion harms itself when it gets too "otherworldly" (Buddhism) - just as certainly that it harms itself it gets too "worldly" (medieval Roman Church).

Its a fine line to walk, but I agree - religion has to avoid direct confrontation with science in the public sphere. The public sphere is ruled by science. Religions ought to concern themselves with fostering 'morality' not fighting 'scientific facts'. Religions have no authority nor ability to dispute 'scientific facts'. Religions have ability and authority only to dispute morality.

Dilettante is right about the quote, don't give the Reformed Church all the credit.

[andrewl]

Certainly pisition number one takes that perspective somewhat, but the other four do exist and are maintained by large portions of the Christian world. Position one is one of the oldest positions, but not the only one.

side note: While certain heresies (and by extension modern denominations that fall into the same heretical tendencies) do try and deny the human altogether, mainline Christian theology has always taught that the resurrection of the body is the final hope of the Christian and thus does not deny the "human aminal" completely.

I agree that there are other formulations in existence, but as you note #1 is the oldest (as it comes from the ancient hebrews), and therefore the most fundamental to the world that Christianity helped to create. I dare say it has caused the most damage. Its that view that allows us to wake up every morning and destroy the ecological systems that support our existence on this planet.

Andrew

[Michael]

I agree. I think the phrase 'in the world, but not of it' is derived from John 17:15-16, when Jesus is praying for His disciples just before His arrest.

"My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it."

So if we take this Jesus fellow at his word, then he is not of this world and is thus not a concern of public policy discussions (which are defined as concerned entirely with this world).

Individual people may choose to follow Jesus, but that path is otherworldly and of no concern of Caesar. Jesus doesn't address the issues of Caesar, only the conscience of his own followers.

I'm okay with that. Unfortunately it is a recipe for lots martyrs. Jesus and the old Christians were never afraid of martyrdom. Seems odd that they seem to avoid treading that path now. Hindus and Moslems still have the fire of martyrdom in their religion. That strikes me as a sign of a strong and growing religion. A lack of martyrs for the cause is always a sign of decay.

Just speculating here. ;)

[dilettante]

So if we take this Jesus fellow at his word, then he is not of this world and is thus not a concern of public policy discussions (which are defined as concerned entirely with this world).

Individual people may choose to follow Jesus, but that path is otherworldly and of no concern of Caesar. Jesus doesn't address the issues of Caesar, only the conscience of his own followers.


Well, the definition of "public policy" as "concerned entirely with this world" is a decidedly recent development and still quite contested, but personally I think there's a lot to be said for it.

And Jesus did seem to go out of His way to avoid getting involved with Imperial political disputes, despite the constant expectations of many of His followers and the intentional baiting of His detractors (Matthew 22:15-21 being perhaps the most direct example, containing the oft' quoted “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” remark).

I'm often distressed by some Christian views of government, especially the desire to obtain secular power in order to "institute" a "Godly" society (the Constantinian Error). Government is, at heart, necessarily about coercion; the message of Christianity is emphatically not, or at least should not be if its to follow in the footsteps of its Founder.

[Leprechaun]

To put a slightly different slant on it. How does culture influence the perception of Christ (or god in general)? In the past (eg. the crusades or the old testament) God was seen as an angry vengeful God demanding the destruction of the infidel and this was mainly due to the culture of warfare and religion being wrapped up in wars in the East.

Nowadays Christ/God is merciful and retains none of his destructive qualities as a result of a culture of belief in liberty etc. especially from religion.

[Michael]

Well, the definition of "public policy" as "concerned entirely with this world" is a decidedly recent development and still quite contested, but personally I think there's a lot to be said for it.
I'd say that the concepts of "public policy" and "concerned entirely of this world" are contemporary in origin and related in fact.

Prior to our modern nation-states, there was only the King's policy or the Church's policy or the Duke's policy or in some rare cases, the merchant's policy. All such policy was understood to be self-serving.

The slow adoption of the principle of 'public policy' in government is the same as the slow recognition of the principle that 'public policy' actually exists - and thus, the recognition that matters of 'this world' are the whole of 'public policy' are contemporary and intimately related. The public is the people and public policy is thus policy that serves the people (not the rulers).

Btw, I credit Queen Elizabeth (the Great) as the first western (and self-aware) example of the "new" concept of government policy serving the interests of "the people". She was thus the first 'modern' ruler in history. She and Shakespeare were both strikingly modern figures for their time in history. (my apologies for the topic digression!)

And Jesus did seem to go out of His way to avoid getting involved with Imperial political disputes, despite the constant expectations of many of His followers and the intentional baiting of His detractors (Matthew 22:15-21 being perhaps the most direct example, containing the oft' quoted “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” remark).

I'm often distressed by some Christian views of government, especially the desire to obtain secular power in order to "institute" a "Godly" society (the Constantinian Error). Government is, at heart, necessarily about coercion; the message of Christianity is emphatically not, or at least should not be if its to follow in the footsteps of its Founder.
I've always found it difficult to reconcile the three faces of the God of the Book. Yaweh, Jesus and Allah seem to each speak in a very different language.

That being said, I've personally always considered the "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto God that which belongs to God" quotation to be the very best statement of the principle of the proper sphere of each. This same concept is also represented by the principle of separation of Church and State. Only when they are separate can the two be safe from the corruption of the other.

To put a slightly different slant on it. How does culture influence the perception of Christ (or god in general)? In the past (eg. the crusades or the old testament) God was seen as an angry vengeful God demanding the destruction of the infidel and this was mainly due to the culture of warfare and religion being wrapped up in wars in the East.

Nowadays Christ/God is merciful and retains none of his destructive qualities as a result of a culture of belief in liberty etc. especially from religion.
I think you just provided a good example of the cultural influence in YOUR perception of Christ/God. ;)

I also have to formally object to the assertion about the Crusades - I'd just love to discuss with you how the Crusades had absolutely nothing to do with religion at all. :D

Unfortunately, that'd be off-topic in this thread...

But as for your point, that is a good one. Perceptions of Christ/God do seem to change not only over time, but from geographic place to place. As partofme has often mentioned, he's surrounded by a particularly strong relgious environment that is very different than the one I see every day - or the one you see every day.

Personally, I'm often astounded when I actually get some Egyptian or Lebanese or Somali taxi-driver to talk about religion with me! These guys freak me out entirely the way they are often completely and totally into reading/memorizing scripture from the Koran and come across as totally devout believers in the most bizarre things. Ask them about the sun and the moon and you get some wild story about how they came about (no big bang theory for these guys!).

My point is that these muslims have a very, very different view of God than westerners generally do (or used to have 800 years ago). As for Jews, every single Jew I know is an atheist so, obviously I can't draw a Jewish example. Even Christians here in my own geographic area and time period seem to have a huge range in opinions about who/what Christ/God is all about. I've heard some pretty laughable mystical nonsense coming from people calling themselves "Christians" - stuff that isn't even remotely compatible with Christian doctrine.

Then again, I also like to assert that "Christianity" is an ethnicity as much as "Judaism" is. That is to say, one is "born" a Jew or a Christian, regardless of one's subsequent religious viewpoints. I think there is a lot to be said for this.

[Non Sequitur]

Your last point there is so true Michael, and that is the way the faith is supposed to be. There is only one issue which i would like to respond to and that is you comment about Yahweh, Jesus, and Allah. While they speak differently, that is to be expected because they all speak to different people and times. What is remarkable is how similarly they are described. Mercy is a primary trait of each.

[Michael]

Your last point there is so true Michael, and that is the way the faith is supposed to be. There is only one issue which i would like to respond to and that is you comment about Yahweh, Jesus, and Allah. While they speak differently, that is to be expected because they all speak to different people and times. What is remarkable is how similarly they are described. Mercy is a primary trait of each.

A god without mercy is hardly worthy of the title I should think...

Either way, I do find that Yahweh & Allah do have notable passions for smiting heretics/unbelievers/others etc., while Jesus seems to counsel turning one's cheek.

That seems to be a rather notable difference (if it is a real one).

[Leprechaun]

Jesus was not exactly all-holy either. DId he not say:

Matthew 5:17-20 (New International Version)

The Fulfillment of the Law

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus came to fulfill the Laws, laws such as cutting off a woman's hand should she touch the private parts of her husband's assailant:

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 (New International Version)


11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.


We also have revelations (not exactly the nicest thing) and we also have the acts of the apsotles where people are killed for not giving all their money to the church.


Acts 5

Ananias and Sapphira

1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet. 3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."
5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?"
"Yes," she said, "that is the price."
9Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."
10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.


The bible is just a rehash of local myths infused with nationalism with a slight revival in a new testament that was voted upon.


The Bible is a disgusting decadent book fit only for the mad, the ignorant, the stubborn or the evil. It has no place in a moral world.

[Michael]

The Bible is a disgusting decadent book fit only for the mad, the ignorant, the stubborn or the evil. It has no place in a moral world.
Far be it for me to defend any given words of the Bible or any other religious book. However, I still disagree.

It is my understanding of history and politics that the principle of religion has been an integral building block of all known human societies - most notably our own western society.

I don't know if religion is necessary or sufficient for civilized society to exist, but all known evidence does point to the fact that no non-religious society has ever existed (to our historical knowledge). Thus, although I'm an atheist and am entirely comfortable with that, I see no reason to seek out the banishment of religion, if only to avoid 'unintended consequences' that might follow.

I always appeal to the foundational principles of liberalism here. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, tolerance and respect for the differences of others are all just darn good policies to have if your goal is to foster a peaceful and civilized society.

If your state respects the principle of separation of church and state, in word and deed, then I see no rational reason for any atheist to engage in religion-bashing (generally speaking). If people bring their personal religion into the public domain of politics, then religion becomes fair game for critique and political attack - otherwise, not.

[Non Sequitur]

Jesus was not exactly all-holy either. DId he not say:

Matthew 5:17-20 (New International Version)

The Fulfillment of the Law

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus came to fulfill the Laws, laws such as cutting off a woman's hand should she touch the private parts of her husband's assailant:

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 (New International Version)


11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.


We also have revelations (not exactly the nicest thing) and we also have the acts of the apsotles where people are killed for not giving all their money to the church.


Acts 5

Ananias and Sapphira

1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet. 3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."
5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?"
"Yes," she said, "that is the price."
9Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."
10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.


The bible is just a rehash of local myths infused with nationalism with a slight revival in a new testament that was voted upon.


The Bible is a disgusting decadent book fit only for the mad, the ignorant, the stubborn or the evil. It has no place in a moral world.

:lol:

come now, at least understand the context and theological explanation of such passages. Jesus fulfills the law so that he takes the punishment we rightly deserve. Thus the law must stand in its entirety for Jesus to transform the law from that stated in Deuteronomy to that stated in Galatians (e.i. the grace part). So the Matthew 5 statement is a statement of grace

every theologian for the last 2000 years of Christian history has said that the part of Deuteronomy you quoted doesn't apply anymore.

Ananias and Sophia are struck dead for lying about how much money they gave. The amount they gave is quite irrelevant as Peter himself states in the story. Also, who said the story was literal truth? Large parts of the Bible are poetry or stories meant to tell a point. I would argue that most of Acts is that way.

[Non Sequitur]

A god without mercy is hardly worthy of the title I should think...

Either way, I do find that Yahweh & Allah do have notable passions for smiting heretics/unbelievers/others etc., while Jesus seems to counsel turning one's cheek.

That seems to be a rather notable difference (if it is a real one).

I find that the "Old Testament God is angry and New Testament God is nice" is a huge misconception, not to mention rank and file heresy. Some of the biggest statements of grace come the Old Testament and some of the statements judgment are in the New Testament. For an example, lets play a game. Guess which passage is from the Old Testament and which one from the new:

1. "I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand upon the earth."

2. "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself"

3. but those who hope in the LORD
will renew their strength.
They will soar on wings like eagles;
they will run and not grow weary,
they will walk and not be faint.

Answers: 1 and 3 are from the Old Testament (Job 19:25 and Isaiah 40:31). 2 is the New Testament.

[dilettante]

Jesus was not exactly all-holy either. DId he not say:

Matthew 5:17-20 (New International Version)

The Fulfillment of the Law

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus came to fulfill the Laws, laws such as cutting off a woman's hand should she touch the private parts of her husband's assailant:


Speaking as one of "the mad, the ignorant, the stubborn or the evil" (;)), I'll admit that certain sayings from Jesus are difficult, including the one you mention here and especially if they're taken out of their context and set up by themselves.

Taking Matthew 5:17-20 by itself, the most immediate interpretation is quite possibly what you're suggesting, that Jesus is claiming to have come to fulfill all the laws of the Old Testament, presumably including the seemingly nasty, vengeful, bizarre ones.
However, that interpretation manifestly conflicts not only with numerous other sayings of His, but more importantly, with His actions. The most direct example is probably the woman caught in the act of adultery who is brought before Jesus for Him to judge her (the Mosaic law calls for death by stoning). This is the passge with the oft' quote verse "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw...". The story ends with Jesus telling the women that He doesn't condemn her, "Go now and leave your life of sin." (John 8:1-11).
More generally, Jesus was noted for spending considerable time among "notorious sinners" such as prostitutes and embezzling tax collectors, and never condemns them to judgment but focuses on offering grace and forgiveness. In fact, the only people I can think of Jesus coming close to condemning are the elite members of the religious establishment, who were the ones most devoted to following the details of the O.T. law:
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."
Matt 23:23-24Noteworthy here is that Jesus declares the "more important matters of the law" to be "justice, mercy and faithfulness", and in general that understanding of the law seems to be reflected in the way He approaches things.

Anyway, all that to say that a broader context of Jesus' sayings and actions implies that the interpretation that seems most apparent when Matthew 5:17-20 is looked at in isolation isn't necessarily the one Jesus had in mind. In fact, just looking at the rest of chapter 5 shows there's more going on here than Jesus just reaffirming ancient Hebraic law; the chapter is rife with Him saying "You've heard it said [some section of the law], but I say [something slightly different]..." and it ends with:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
Matt 5:43-45

[Michael]

I find that the "Old Testament God is angry and New Testament God is nice" is a huge misconception, not to mention rank and file heresy.

I am not a Bible scholar and have never claimed to be one. I was only echoing some popular notions there. ;)

I do know enough about Biblical scholarship and the nature of linguistic translations (and the history of the process) to believe that there can never really be definitive answers to questions of Biblical scholarship. There is just too much room for interpretation (and too many vested interests).

[Lily]

I own a Bible, but I've not read it through, nor do I claim to have anything resembling a scholarly knowledge of the book, but some stories just shock the hell out of me. I remember as a child reading about God "testing" Abraham by commanding him to kill his son. At the last moment, just before the man is about to light the fire under his child, God says, "Okay. You don't have to kill him. You've proven your loyalty."

What the fuck?! Are you kidding me? Yeah, sign me up for that religion. Just one of many reasons I ran far, far away from Christianity.

[Americano]

To discuss religion is, imo, inevitably a circular argument beginning and ending with faith. No thanks.

[Lasher]

Hard to say. The only real experience I've personally had with a church since leaving the Southern Baptist church of my early childhood was with a UU church during high school. The congregation took an activist role in a controversy over first amendment rights of students. Since I was hip deep in fighting the school board, I welcomed their involvement. I'm not sure where the Unitarian Universalist church fits in your spectrum these days.

Now, where I live today, most church-going folks I rub up against fall solidly into the fifth group.
It is Lasher's understanding that the UU church is a secret enclave of communists and Marxists who are dedicated to the overthrow of Western civilization and forming it into a mish-mash, hodge-podge system of Satanic devil-worship, with the intent to rule the world.

[Lasher]

Personally, I have been exposed to number 4 the most. Generally, people come to the "age of accountability" and realize that they are not holy enough, and in the end become saved. They try to lead as holy of a life as possible in hopes that this will lead them to heaven. It doesn't matter if you're solely a good person unless you're saved.

But, depending on which southern baptist church you attend you have those that believe the "once saved, always saved" method; no matter what one does in life, have no worry, because your sins have been washed away. .
Retroactively, and even future sins?

[Lily]

It is Lasher's understanding that the UU church is a secret enclave of communists and Marxists who are dedicated to the overthrow of Western civilization and forming it into a mish-mash, hodge-podge system of Satanic devil-worship, with the intent to rule the world.


You've had your fun trolling. Time to crawl back underground, now.