In regards to the United States' military and Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, Obama stated, "A passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application." Later, he said, "Folks haven't been reading their Bibles."
What I find interesting is that Obama's understanding of the Sermon on the Mount is accurate; however, he then moves on to ignore the radical teaching of Jesus and not apply it to his belief system.
On the other hand, Dobson does not seem to do any better even though he is throwing the first stone. Dobson doesn't even go as far as Obama in that Obama actually realizes the radical teaching of Jesus; he just refuses to follow it through some method of justification. Dobson has a method of interpretation that allows him to apparently say the radical teaching is not there. He, like Obama, has some sort of method of justifying the radical teaching of non-violence away. The Sermon on the Mount clearly teaches a lifestyle that makes serving in the United States military impossible. Obama's sees this, but does not apply it. Dobson does not see it.
In an email response from an agent of Dr. Dobson to a listener who was writing with concern about Focus on the Family's support of the Iraq war, Focus on the Family described their position: "Dr. Dobson doesn’t like war and killing any better than you do, but he believes that this may be one of those moments in history when we are forced to settle for a trade-off: the lives of the few in exchange for the lives of the many."
At the core of the debate, which will never really be discussed, is how do we interpret and apply Scripture. Is the Old Testament law still applicable? How do we handle the counter-cultural statements contained in the Sermon on the Mount? Each one of use has decided for ourselves how we handle the Scriptures; some people have more clearly defined and consistent methods while others just pick and choose. This debate, at its core, is truly about methods of interpretation, and I do not think either Dobson or Obama want to apply the clear and difficult teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. But then neither do we. We still all have our eyes and hands despite sinning.
Matthew 5:29-30 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
I am not as consistent as I would like to believe I am.
Posts
2 comments:
I'm with you. Both are avoiding the practical impact of what Jesus is teaching just from different sides of the aisle. It's actually pretty funny is a very sad way.
Consistency is a factor, but interpreting and applying rightly might smooth some of that out. Just because Jesus uses figurative language (metaphor, hyperbole, etc.) does not mean that the principle should be thrown out along with the literal interpretation. Using the turn the other cheek as an example, few of us will ever be put in the position of being punched or slapped in the face and then having the opportunity to allow the oppressor to hit us squarely on the other side. However, I believe the principle is that when we are wronged, we shouldn't seek revenge and would go as far as to allow it to happen again to avoid retaliation. The application of the principle takes many forms, but not retaliating seems to the point Jesus wants to make. Radical? Yes. Clear? Seems pretty clear to me. It would take some major gymnastics to say that is not what Jesus was teaching.
Post a Comment