Out With The Old, In With The New...
9/23/2023
I have had a lot of feedback on my stance of not using the Old Testament from the pulpit, or as a general support to the practice of Christianity. I have been both supported and trolled in this, and by some surprising groups on both sides. I wanted to get into my reasons for doing so in some greater detail.
First - I have nothing against the Old Testament scriptures as they are. All of the scriptures were the basis for another religion onto which Christianity was grafted. As texts, they too have been handed down and recopied for generations over the nearly 6000 years of Jewish history (according to their calendar - hey maybe this is where the fundies get the world being 6K years old...). These scriptures carry the beliefs, doctrines and history of the Jewish people over those years, and it is termed the covenant of "God's Chosen People". Personally, considering the history of the Jewish people, many times it seems the Hebrews were "God's Chosen Punching Bag", but that's for another article.
The general complaint that most Christians have with the Old Testament is that God is pictured as a really nasty thug in a large portion of it. To the unfamiliar reader, God promotes vile behavior, is a self-absorbed narcissist, and, in a lot of ways, not suitable for worship any more than (insert totally evil person).
That is not how God is perceived by the Jewish people. This is not because their texts read differently than ours, but because, unlike in Christian churches, the Jewish people take care to explain context, history and the culture of the time into their reading. God is seen as the ultimate protector of the Jewish people. For people familiar with general literature, a side of every protector character is the ability to do whatever is necessary to protect, and sometimes that involves doing what others might call questionable, or even evil.
God is the protector that sometimes needs to do what men will not. During those Bronze Age wars, he went with Bronze Age tactics and morals. The orders he gave his humans were seen to be horrible but necessary, much in the same way our parents, as humans, sometimes did things that we, as children, considered questionable. He is the stern fatherly warlord figure. He treats those who would harm his people with violent rage, and he protects those who are his with a fierce love that will stop at nothing for them to succeed.
The Jewish people are aware, in these scriptures, of why they read as they do, as to what was going on at the time, and as to why God did what he did - in protection of his own. They see themselves as his Children, and accept both his blessings and punishment which are doled out according to their actions.
They don't just willy-nilly run around smashing in babies skulls or think all of the horrible sins of excess in those scriptures is a proper way to address lives as humans. Christians, who have had a poor education by miseducated clergy, tend to wallow around in the Old Testament for sport in literalism.
Every Christian denomination teaches that Jesus both fulfilled and completed the law. There is a lot of apologetic gymnastics that go into it, but even Paul argues that no one is bound by "the law" anymore. Jesus covers it.
So - Jesus taught us that we are to love God by loving our neighbor. We are to do so without judging our neighbor, because only "The Father" judges. Jesus has said that his way is the way into "heaven". That works for me.
Yet, we have an overabundance of Christians trolling others with "sins" yanked from their Old Testament with no understanding of the context, culture, or history as to why those actions were singled out. They just cherry-pick. Immodesty, gluttony, depravity are all things a Christian should not be doing. But how do we define those things?
In a world where in some places women walk around in moving tents, and others wander around in the minimum to qualify as "not nude" in a "gentleman's club", who draws the line? In gluttony, it seems like it's perfectly acceptable to pick on fat people who consume to much food, but not rich people, who just consume too much everything. And where is the line drawn on depravity? There was an entirely different view of what was depraved in the Bronze Age Middle East. It was normal for young teen girls to marry, slavery was normal, but being left-handed marked you as a disciple of Satan.
This is why, in application, the Jewish people, are a modern, civilized society (with all of the trouble that brings as well) - they understand the context and substance of their scriptures. And unlike the Rev. Bubba Holyroller, they don't just pick a verse at random and go - "Cool, lets stone some sinners.", as a few too many are doing in evangelical and fundamentalist circles.
The other reason that I don't use it is the portrayal of God as a whiny, vengeful narcissist giving questionable orders to people and allowing all sorts of vile stuff to happen on earth. Again, if you receive the education that most Jewish people receive growing up in the religion, you understand context and meaning. This, however, is not God as Jesus presents him.
The problem is not the dichotomy so much - it is the connection. The most powerful argument that an atheist makes to an poorly educated christian is "Why would you serve a God who acts like a 3 year-old on a good day?" (No offense intended for 3 year-olds). It certainly is a question on a lot of people's minds - especially Christians of late.
For me, I'm gonna trust Jesus interpretation that God is loving, and wants us to care for each other, because - total honesty, I would not serve the God of the Old Testament. I would only comply out of fear. And I just don't do that. There are men and women that I would follow into hell because I trust that they would have my back. I expect no less of my God.
Granted, my approach to Christianity is not the normal road that most walk. But that is because I do not fear disengaging Christianity from Judaism. Jesus did not teach that vengeful God of the OT. He presented only the loyal and loving, fatherly God of the New Testament, who only asks us to treat others with kindness and respect. He reduced the arcane legalistic system of the Jews serving the vengeful and unpredictable God into a simple way that you can be assured of doing what pleases God. Essentially, by being a decent person to others, you are doing life right.
It is not new thinking - this unlinking of the Old Testament. The person who essentially created our New Testament, Marcion of Sinope, completely unlinked Christianity from Judaism, calling it an entirely new faith. He dismissed Yahweh as some tribal demi-god serving the "real" God that Jesus was talking about. He was eventually excommunicated from the church, which by now had, under Paul's methodology, a power structure. Paul was less interested in what Jesus taught, and more interested in building a church.
Marcion was also Paul's biggest simp. The New Testament he proposed was all Paul - 10 letters and the Gospel of Luke (who was Paul's BFF). As I don't use Paul either - except for Church Admin issues, obviously I am not in full agreement with him.
So, what does not using the Old Testament mean? I do not use it from the Pulpit. During services, there is no Old Testament reading. The Old Testament is not an identifying part of my Christianity, aside from the fact that Jesus was raised Jewish. I do not preach on it. On occasion, I reference a prophecy.
I do however teach from the Old Testament. I have an long-term friend who became a rabbi as I was preparing for ministry. We have stayed close. I have joined him at synagogue, he has come to my services. He, and other rabbis that I have met over the years, inform that teaching.
We do the examination of Old Testament scripture from the Hebrew. We go into context, history, anthropology and archaeology, history of the time and the culture. Scholarship on authorship and purpose, on who the author was addressing - and any side tidbits that may inform us as to any meaning that we may draw from it. In short - I teach it in the same way that I teach New Testament. We cannot possibly share scripture with others that we do not understand ourselves.
We do this so that as Christians, people understand why cherry picking sins out of Leviticus to stain others with is not only unchristian, but actual hateful behavior that Jesus would NOT approve of. We do this so that people understand, that though the Old Testament is the basis from which Jesus springs, the Old Testament is no longer the relationship that we have with our creator, if it ever was. According to Jesus, it was not.
I can apologize for the other ministers/pastors/priests/etc out there who do not do this, but I cannot excuse them. The definition of any lead clergy is one who prepares others fully in their spiritual beliefs so that they understand both what they believe, and why they believe it. Anyone in a position of responsibility in any religion has this responsibility, otherwise you send out an army of morons to represent your cause. Which is neither a good look nor an effective tool for positive change in society.
Hopefully, this will give you all a little bit of brain food for the week, and maybe answer a question or two in your spiritual walk. As always, I'm open for questions or discussion.
In Peace, Faith and Love,
Ecc. RL Brandner, New Ecclesiastes Ministries