Dennis Byler writes that Christian history is filled with the same murderous intolerance that is ascribed to Islam, because religion in general has a dark tendency to promote bigotry and violence. Without careful interpretation, the Bible can seem to condone religious war, misogyny and homophobia. In this blog, Byler suggests three tools for a correct interpretation of the biblical text: allegory, picking up often neglected details, and recognizing that all of the Bible points toward Jesus.
In these days and weeks after the terrorist attack
on the jokes, banter, and irreverent tasteless cartoons of the French
magazine, Charlie Hebdo, it is easy to attack Islam. However,
murderous intolerance is not more common of Islam than other religions.
And it is certainly not more so than the historical murderous
intolerance of Christians.
I’ve always found the streak of fanatic intolerance and murder in
Christianity to be surprising, because our founder, Jesus of Nazareth,
never killed anyone. I can’t say the same of Moses, whose religious
fanaticism led to wars he believed were ordained by God; nor Muhammad,
whose military career progressed with the religion he founded. But
Christians have also been prone to the same murderous fanaticism, so the
issue is not in itself a sectarian issue – where some religions are
more inclined to it than others – but a fundamental problem of religion
in general.
This is something that is hard for me to confess because I have
dedicated a lifetime to promote devotion to God and Jesus. You could say
that since I encourage others to follow Christ, I am a religious
leader. But religion in general, which includes the Christianity I
believe in, contains a dark tendency to promote bigotry, intolerance,
cruel persecution, war and terrorism. This scares me and offends me and
makes me wary to identify myself with religion.
There are many ways to promote intolerant attitudes that can lead to
violence. For decades, I’ve been a professor of the Old Testament, and I
want to point out the dangerous messages that some biblical texts
include that not only seem to justify war and intolerance, but to
promote both. Many years ago, I wrote a book titled Genocide in the Bible
— that earned me lots of criticism from some evangelical sectors — and
later I wrote other essays on these issues. I guess it would make
everyone a lot more comfortable if our Bible didn’t seem to promote
violence and religious war, as well as misogyny and homophobia.
The fact is that the Lord did not care to consult with 21st-century
Western liberals when God inspired this collection of writings we call
the Bible. And yet there they are, and there is no choice but to accept
them as inspired. So – and this is of utmost importance – we have to
learn how to interpret and use them for the edification of Christians,
and avoid getting stuck with the intolerance and violence from some
passages.
The golden rule that Jesus uttered – treat your neighbor as we want
to be treated – must never stop guiding our philosophy of life, our
personal and social conduct, and the interpretation we give to the
biblical texts.
And here I must say very clearly and loudly that it is unacceptable
to twist the golden rule to mean that “if I were sinning, I would wish
someone would correct me with the utmost vehemence so that I could
change course.” This is unacceptable because if that were the approach,
nobody would wish to be despised, rejected by family and friends,
tortured and killed personally (or subjected to war as a society), in
order to force themselves to be saved from their sins. The reasoning is
as stupid as it sounds and better deserves to be targeted by Charlie Hebdo’s ridicule than to be taken seriously.
I understand that there are different ways of interpreting these
texts of intolerance, texts that promote the death penalty and war (like
the murders at Charlie Hebdo) for religious offense. One of my
favorite ways of interpreting biblical texts is the allegorical
interpretation. The allegorical interpretation is often frowned upon by
both fundamentalists and those who reject the message of the Bible. Both
share the belief that everything in the Bible can only be interpreted
as strictly literal. However, in both Testaments of the Bible, we find
allegorical interpretations of earlier biblical writings. From the very
earliest times, allegorical interpretation seems to have been practiced.
Then passages such as the conquest of the territory of Canaan by the
Israelites, or the war against the Amalekites prompted by the prophet
Samuel, can be interpreted simply as models for personal actions in the
fight against temptation and sin, and toward personal holiness. God
forbid it would be an argument to attack anyone, but only an argument to
be radical in our personal lives, so that our behaviors and attitudes
are consistent with what Jesus taught.
The allegorical use of those passages that some believe promote an
intolerant or murderous religion, would instead teach us, paradoxically,
to be intolerant of our own intolerant tendencies. This would help us
see each person, no matter how downright sinful they are, as a human
being whom God created with love and still loves with an everlasting
love. Zero tolerance for the intolerant attitudes in our own mind and
heart. This would bring "fanaticism" to our role to love our neighbor,
and put us on the path of forgiveness and good works.
A second way to interpret the passages focuses on the meaning of
certain details that the usual interpretations – those that promote
intolerance and fanaticism – often neglect.
Abraham’s willingness to kill his son, Isaac, as a religious rite is
not in any way worthy of admiration, but quite the opposite. Thankfully,
God sent his angel to dissuade him and make him realize that you’re not
always sane when you hear voices, and you’re not always hearing God’s
voice. The angel showed him that if you hear God send you to murder
someone, your first thought should be to enter a psychiatric ward. This
reminds me of an old lady who I spoke to while I did pastoral visitation
practicums as a seminary student. She told me she did not like when
Jesus spoke to her, because he was always making indecent proposals.
Even now, I still do not know if she was crazy or just making fun of me.
Just like the angel in Abraham’s story, there are often missed
details in the biblical narratives that could lead us to much more
casual interpretations of the passages – less likely to lean toward
intolerant fanaticism – than our typical interpretations. We won’t
always find an angel like the one who saved Abraham from his ravings,
but there may be another equally useful detail.
A third way to argue against the cruel and harsh biblical history of
Israel, which waged all types of wars, without ignoring the religious
fanaticism, is to see the history in its totality, that leads to Jesus.
We would then see that throughout the Bible, Israel and their
religious leaders made bad decisions in their walk to follow God. One
path led disastrously to war and destruction for God’s chosen people,
just as the Israelites started war and destruction on the Canaanites.
This path of war didn’t lead anywhere, and instead led the Israelites to
imitate the behaviors of all kingdoms and religions around them. This
was not "divine revelation" except in the sense that the Lord brings us –
through the Bible – a mirror to see where bigotry and intolerant
fanaticism will always lead.
In the Old Testament, we discover that despite defeating Pharaoh and
his army, Egypt was still present in the hearts of the Israelites. We
see that even though the Canaanites were eliminated through genocide,
Canaan and Baal entered freely into the lives of the victors. All that
the "zero tolerance" against another’s sin does is mask a lack of
humility, and mask the absence of repentance that should be
characteristic of every true worshiper of the God of the Bible.
This might not be as clear if the story had not led to Jesus. He
taught us another way for his nation of Israel, a very different vision
of "the kingdom of God."
The problem with our European societies is not – or is not
exclusively, at least – the challenge of assimilating a large number of
Muslim immigrants. In the end, Islamic terrorists probably act like this
because they see that our European society and values are shattering
the traditional lifestyle they brought from their countries of origin.
They react this way because they see themselves left behind by history,
for other more humane values. Values such as the ability to laugh at Charlie Hebdo, and the stupid things that religious people do and say.
Those of us who worship the Lord and follow the Lamb have the problem
of taking our religion so seriously that we aren’t able to see what the
world around us sees: that it’s comical that we hope to be saved by a
guy that the Romans killed 2,000 years ago. For us to remember that this
may provoke laughter in others, but at the same time fill our lives
with joy, satisfaction, love for our neighbor, and a desire to do good
things. And if this is the effect, how can it be that bad?
It is quite possible that religious intolerance goes hand-in-hand with an inability to laugh at oneself.
Click here to read the post in its original language, Spanish.
