BAN THE BIBLE?

 

In April 2023, Rabbi Barry Silver filed an objection to the availability of the Bible to students at Olympic Heights High School in Boca Raton, Florida. The outspoken Civil Rights cleric contended that if other books are banned for alleged sexually explicit or age-inappropriate content, then the Bible should be treated equally.

Rabbi Silver believes that the Bible includes “graphic accounts” of violence and rape, executing gay people and women. In addition, there is discussion of gender and sexual issues and antisemitic passages. If not a ban, Silver suggested putting the book in the fiction or mythology section with a warning label. About fifty persons agreed with the Jewish Rabbi and signed a petition for the removal of the Bible.

Prior to his most recent objection, Silver’s objection was denied three times. All three denials cite the same Florida statute, which permits the study of the Bible and religion and allows districts to install “a secular program of education, including, but not limited to, an objective study of the Bible and of religion.” Last week, The Palm Beach County Public Schools Board voted unanimously to keep the Bible in school libraries. 

It is not enough to congratulate the Public Schools Board for their favorable vote and move on with our lives. We need to consider the substance of the Rabbi’s argument. For instance, in a letter to the School Board, the Rabbi gave an example from Psalm 137:8-9 (“… happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks”).

This Psalm was describing the period of the Jewish captivity in Babylon. This and similar expressions are referred to as imprecatory Psalms. They refer to invoking judgment or curses upon one’s enemies or those perceived to be enemies of God. Here the Psalmist is affirming God’s sovereignty to judge righteously. The expression is not a reflection of the mind of God. The expression is similar to what we refer to as righteous indignation.

To attribute this and similar passages to God is a display of ignorance. Ignorance about seeing the Bible as literature. Literature uses special resources of language, such as metaphor, simile, pun, allusion, paradox and irony. Like any other literary work, the Bible is filled with stories, poems, visions and other literary genre (types of literature).

In addition, although applicable, the Bible is more descriptive than prescriptive. In retelling the stories of history, the writers were accurately describing what was happening. Through some of these stories we learn about human vulnerabilities and need for redemption. Hence, an accurate description of sinful behavior should not be viewed as an endorsement of misogyny. Unlike other sacred writings, I applaud biblical writers for their commitment to unfiltered descriptions of history. When wrong, royalty and peasants are exposed.

The Rabbi’s appeal to “ban the Bible” should challenge us to reread the Bible differently – to read it through literary lenses. That way we would pay greater attention to literary genres and the contexts of the original readers. That way we would also be more sensitive to texts were intended to describe what happened as opposed to texts that prescribe what should happen. Agreed, “… all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching…” (2 Timothy 3:16), but at the same time, all Scripture must be interpreted responsibly.

Recently, while meditating on Psalm One, I applied principles of Hebrew Poetry, to acquire a better understanding of the text. Hebrew Poetry is different from prose and narrative – it is a more concentrated form of writing. Hebrew Poetry is intentionally artistic – it is a thing of beauty. Psalm One imagines the “blessed person” as a tree, and the “wicked person” as chaff. The “blessed person” does not walk, stand or sit in destructive situations. Rather, he finds delight and meditates in the Scriptures. The Psalm invites us to utilize our imagination and walk away as productive persons, just like palm trees that are planted by nourishing water.

For persons who may not have access to some of the literary tools referred to in this blog, I would strongly recommend that you compare texts from different versions of the English Bible. Attempt to understand the meaning of the text as was intended for the original readers. Then, graciously ask the Lord to apply your understanding to your personal life. Like rain upon parched land, the Bible continues to accomplish God’s purposes in our lives – Isaiah 55:10-11.

 

APPLAUD THE JAMAICAN GOVERNMENT

 

The Jamaican government was elected by the people and accountable to the people of Jamaica. Hence, the government represents the wishes and desires of the people they govern. The system of government and the Constitution of the People concur with this understanding of governance.

To ensure that the will of the people remains primary, various institutions and systems are put in place. When a government fails to comply with the wishes of the people, they are replaced. At times people revolt, if appropriate institutions are not in place to hear their grievances. At times, when unsure of the people’s opinion, governments resort to referenda before proceeding with particular courses of action. In essence, the voice of the people is sacrosanct.

It is with that understanding the Jamaican government was asked to consider a request to accredit the spouse of an American diplomat. Earlier this year, the United States government wrote to the Jamaican government, seeking its approval for the same sex married partner of a diplomat, about to the posted to Jamaica. The request was for diplomatic immunity and all the privileges of a diplomat.

An approval of the request would also require Jamaica to recognize a same sex marriage, which is illegal in the country. Following some procedural wrangling, Jamaica refused to grant the request. The government believes that its primary responsibility is to the people who appointed them to govern. Both local and international professional studies confirm that more than 70% of Jamaicans disapprove of same sex marriages.

Rather than respect the decision of a democratic and independent country, the United States responded by rejecting a request from the Jamaican government to extend the stay of diplomats in Jamaica’s embassy and consulates in the United States. The US has served notice that Jamaican representatives must leave immediately, after their five-year diplomatic visa expires.

At present, it remains uncertain what further diplomatic measures, if any, the United States government might take against Jamaica as a consequence of the denial of diplomatic immunity to the spouse of one of its diplomats. The ongoing disagreement has the potential to strain relations between the two nations, raising concerns about the future of their diplomatic partnership.

One media source recently reported that the US Vice President skillfully avoided to meet with Jamaican Prime Minister, Andrew Holness, when they both visited the Bahamas for a CARICOM Heads conference. Furthermore, it was reported that when Prime Minister Holness was travelling officially to Brussels, via Miami, he was not met by any officer from the US Secret Service, and as an in-transit passenger, suffered the indignity of having to remove his belt, shoes and other items of his ensemble, to clear metal detectors and security.

In an attempt to reduce the tension, many have suggested that the Jamaican government should comply with the request for diplomatic immunity from the American government. It is believed that failure to comply may result in economic hardships for the Jamaican people. In addition, succumbing to this colonial pressure would be to risk anarchy from the electorate. In this case, compliance would be tantamount to compromise.

I believe the government ought to be applauded for taking a principled position. As democratically elected leaders in an independent nation, the government is obligated to respect the opinion of the people they lead. The opinion is rooted in millennia of human history, natural law and religion – more specifically biblical theology. At times civil disobedience is necessary, this certainly is not one of those times.

SHOULD GOVERNMENTS LEGISTATE MORALITY?

 

Every law springs from a system of values and beliefs. In other words, every law is an instance of legislating morality. As a matter of fact, because a nation’s laws have teaching influence, law inescapably exerts a shaping effect over the beliefs, character, and actions of the nation’s citizens.

In his article, “Law and Morality” (Christian Research Journal - Volume 21, Number 3) Michael Baunam contends that “those who seek to separate morality from law are in pursuit both of the impossible and the destructive.”

That pursuit appears to be evident with the conversation on the Buggery Law in Jamaica. Some years ago, one newspaper headlined an article, “Buggery Splits Church...”. Both the Jamaica Evangelical Alliance and the Jamaica Council of Churches have been drawn into the conversation. That became necessary because two key leaders from both church bodies have made statements that seem to challenge government’s right to legislate an area of morality.

Does a government really have the right to legislate morality? All laws, regardless of their content or their intent, arise from a system of values, from a belief that some things are right and others wrong, that some things are good and others bad, that some things are better and others worse. For better or worse, every piece of legislation touches directly or indirectly on moral issues, or is based on moral judgments and evaluations concerning what it is we want or believe ought to be, what it is we want or believe we ought to produce and preserve.

Morality speaks of a system of behavior regarding standards of right or wrong behavior. The late Christian scholar C.S. Lewis defines morality as it relates to our behavior on three levels: (1) to ensure fair play and harmony between individuals; (2) to help make us good people to have a good society; and (3) to keep us in a good relationship with the power that created us. Based on this definition, it's clear that our beliefs are critical to our moral behavior.

However, moral behavior presupposes a standard by which that behavior is determined. C.S. Lewis believes that standard was set by our Creator. An historical overview of Jamaica’s buggery law would seem to suggest the same.

The British Buggery Act of 1533, from which Jamaica’s law immerged, was an Act of Parliament that was passed during the reign of Henry VIII. It was England’s first civil sodomy law. Prior to enacting this law, such offenses were dealt with by the ecclesiastical or church courts. The 1533 Act defined buggery as “an unnatural sexual act against the will of God and man.”

Jamaica’s “Offenses Against the Person Act” refers to buggery as “anal sex between a man and another man, a woman or an animal”. Contrary to popular belief, the Act is against ‘homosexual acts’ and not against homosexuality, which is sexual attraction to people of one’s own sex or gender. In other words, the Jamaican Act legislates against behavior, not attraction.

Consider the nature of civil law. Through the threat of force, these laws constrain or require actions. Such laws are not akin to scientific laws which describe the patterns found in nature. Civil laws prescribe behaviors. Some moral standard or moral vision lies behind all civil laws. They do not appear out of nothing, and they are not morally neutral.

Civil law will not make anyone good. Moral character cannot be legislated. But laws that are just make people less likely to do what is bad for society. And governments have an obligation to do what is right or good for society.

One of the central purposes of the government is to enforce the law. The government remains the prime custodian of people's values. Ethics and moral values have a great influence on the operation of the society. It is therefore true that the government exercises control over the society. This is true considering the task of enforcing laws.

Governments enforce civil laws against paedophilia, paraphilia and other deviant forms of sexual activity. When governments fail to enforce such just laws, citizens resort to their own system of justice. Such failure on the part of governments produce vigilante groups.

The Bible encourages us to pray for governments. Governments must protect citizens from evil and promote good, and we are even instructed to pay taxes for those purposes (Romans 13:4). Paul further contends in one of his letters to Timothy, that we pray for governments, “… so that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Saviour…” (1 Timothy 2:1-3).