rightly handling the word of truth, part 1

(Remember a couple of posts back when I told you I was going to post some stuff that was pretty nit-picky about how Christians think?  This one and the next one are those posts, so move right along if it's a topic that doesn't interest you.)

So I've been thinking about another post by John Shore, and it will work much better for what I was trying to say, which just kept getting more and more convoluted when I was using the homosexuality example.  You know by now how strongly I feel about that issue, but it isn't the point I want to make in this post, and I kept getting distracted by how strongly I feel about it.  Much to my fascination, Mr. Shore's blog has surprised me into realizing how capable I am of still thinking like an Evangelical. I don't respond as an Evangelical, but apparently I still remember how to think the way I did thirty years ago, because it happens automatically without me even trying to recall it.

Anyway.  Mr. Shore's post is about whether or not Christians should marry non-Christians.  Once you've left the Evangelical mindset behind, the question is only mildly thought-provoking.  Of course Christians can marry non-Christians, and maybe that will be a problem in their marriage, or maybe not.  Maybe it will be the least of their problems.  There are inter-faith marriages all over the place.  I know from talking to people in inter-faith marriages that it can be painful and stressful--one friend I know found it very hurtful that her husband wouldn't accompany her to church under any circumstances, even when it was very important to her that he do so (and they did end up divorcing, although for far more complicated reasons than just that).  But other people I know seem to manage it OK.

Mr. Shore agrees, but he bases his argument on verses in the Bible that don't apply--and this is where I find myself still capable of thinking like an Evangelical.  I completely agree with his point-- there are other factors more important than whether or not both partners are Christian in deciding whether or not to get married.  But the verses he uses to illustrate his point are taken out of context.  He quotes Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul is urging spouses who converted to Christianity after their marriage not to leave their partner, because through them their partner might be saved.  Pulling the verses out of context, Mr. Shore points out that if Paul was OK with Christians and non-Christians being married, we should be, too.

Evangelicals use a different verse (2 Corinthians 6.14) to show what a bad idea it is to marry a non-Christian:  "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"  But interestingly, in using that verse, Evangelicals are doing the same thing as Mr. Shore-- pulling it out of context.  The verse doesn't refer to marriage--Paul is talking about idolators, and there is nothing about marriage, home, or family life in the surrounding verses.  He is talking about ministry.  But to the Evangelical mind, the restriction is clear enough and would certainly include marriage.  In fact, the restriction is so universally taken for granted among Evangelicals that it is enough to just use the phrase "unequally yoked" to invoke the whole idea that Christians shouldn't marry non-Christians.

See how complicated this gets?  It's one of the main reasons I left Evangelicalism and inerrancy* behind.  Because once you start arguing from specific verses, it's difficult NOT to start splitting hairs, taking things out of context, and misconstruing the author's intent.  If I were an Evangelical, Mr. Shore's argument would have no effect on me at all, because he's using verses out of context that are therefore irrelevant.  But the verses that I used to form my opinion are also taken out of context.  It's just that the Evangelical idea that Christians should not marry non-Christians is so firmly entrenched in tradition, nationalism, ethnography, and even racism that it comes across with the power of ordained truth.  "Rightly handling the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2.15) turns out to be much more complicated than it sounds.

I'm not linking to Mr. Shore's post because I'm hoping he's disappeared by now. I don't want to argue with him, I just want to write out what I've been thinking about.  If you want to read it, it's easy enough to find by googling John Shore.

*inerrancy: the belief that the Bible is the literal Word of God, and that every word of it is intended for today's reader just as if it had been written specifically for that reader.