sophiaserpentia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2005-05-04 12:20 pm
sophiaserpentia) wrote2005-05-04 12:20 pm
judging religious teachings or interpretations by their fruit
In my last post yesterday, I don't think I articulated my thought well enough.
If there exists a divine presence, I believe that divinity wants humans to foster understanding and compassion. (If not, what good is it?) I believe that the most enduring religious movements have this at the core of their message.
To the point, I believe that this is the core of Jesus' message. There are many examples to illustrate this, but this point was made explicit when Jesus said the two greatest commandments in the law are to love God with all of one's heart, mind, and spirit, and to love one's neighbor as oneself (Matthew 22:34-40). He said these were the greatest commandments upon which all of the other commandments hang. Therefore it seems to me that all other commandments were meant to be seen as secondary to this concern.
If we take this to be the core of Jesus' teachings, then it creates a litmus test whereby we can test the validity of any doctrinal element or interpretation in the tradition.
I am not concerned with exploring how any one point of doctrine can be twisted to serve a purpose; rather, I am concerned with the effect of a doctrine when taken to heart as it is stated. Sure, there have been those who argued that killing a blasphemer was an act of love; but I do not see this as taking "love thine enemy" to heart. No one is fooled by that kind of cynical, self-serving mutilation of a religious teaching.
When Jesus said this, I believe that he was giving us a way of seeing through the cloud of claims to righteousness:
[Matthew 7:15] Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
[16] By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
[17] Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
[18] A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
[19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
[20] Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
[21] Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
[22] Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
[23] Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
This was directed as a warning against those who claim to bear religious righteousness, but who bring forth "bad fruit."
How does this cash out? That was demonstrated in John 8:1-11. As the Pharisees told Jesus, the Law of Moses demanded that a woman caught in the act of adultery was to be stoned to death. Technically speaking, they were right; that is what the Law of Moses demanded. If Jesus was, like many of his followers today are, a staunch upholder of religious law no matter who gets hurt, he would have told them yes, she must be stoned. Instead he challenged them, quite possibly putting himself in danger, because he understood that the crowd of Pharisees was bearing bad fruit.
When I say the end result of a doctrine (or its interpretation) can put the validity of the doctrine itself into question, I may be going beyond what Jesus meant to say. However, I think Paul meant to amplify this point:
[Romans 7:4] So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.
[5] For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.
[6] But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
On the face of it, Paul's argument in Romans, chapter 7 doesn't make sense until we ask, "What kind of sinful passions could Paul mean, that are roused by the law of Moses?" The entire thrust of this book's argument, though, is that we cannot rely on religious codes to ensure that we are acting from righteousness. Paul clearly believed that doing so was a trap that causes us to act inhumanely.
Instead of looking into books, then, the key is to judge a teaching or an idea or an action by the guidance of Spirit, in light of its effects on people -- whether it is good fruit or bad.
Sometimes Paul moralized, but where he did, he moralized not by arguing from what was written in the law of Moses, but from the conviction that he thought nature and real life would show certain things to be "inexpedient." In any case, Paul's argument about the newness of Spirit versus the oldness of the written code is not compatible with the use to which many modern Christians put his words, as justification for the perpetuation of oppression.
Edit. I have revised this post to reflect that what may be questionable is not necessarily a point of doctrine itself, but any particular interpretation thereof. Problems to which I point may stem more from interpretation than from doctrine itself, and it is helpful to keep that distinction in mind here.
If there exists a divine presence, I believe that divinity wants humans to foster understanding and compassion. (If not, what good is it?) I believe that the most enduring religious movements have this at the core of their message.
To the point, I believe that this is the core of Jesus' message. There are many examples to illustrate this, but this point was made explicit when Jesus said the two greatest commandments in the law are to love God with all of one's heart, mind, and spirit, and to love one's neighbor as oneself (Matthew 22:34-40). He said these were the greatest commandments upon which all of the other commandments hang. Therefore it seems to me that all other commandments were meant to be seen as secondary to this concern.
If we take this to be the core of Jesus' teachings, then it creates a litmus test whereby we can test the validity of any doctrinal element or interpretation in the tradition.
I am not concerned with exploring how any one point of doctrine can be twisted to serve a purpose; rather, I am concerned with the effect of a doctrine when taken to heart as it is stated. Sure, there have been those who argued that killing a blasphemer was an act of love; but I do not see this as taking "love thine enemy" to heart. No one is fooled by that kind of cynical, self-serving mutilation of a religious teaching.
When Jesus said this, I believe that he was giving us a way of seeing through the cloud of claims to righteousness:
[Matthew 7:15] Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
[16] By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
[17] Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
[18] A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
[19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
[20] Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
[21] Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
[22] Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
[23] Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
This was directed as a warning against those who claim to bear religious righteousness, but who bring forth "bad fruit."
How does this cash out? That was demonstrated in John 8:1-11. As the Pharisees told Jesus, the Law of Moses demanded that a woman caught in the act of adultery was to be stoned to death. Technically speaking, they were right; that is what the Law of Moses demanded. If Jesus was, like many of his followers today are, a staunch upholder of religious law no matter who gets hurt, he would have told them yes, she must be stoned. Instead he challenged them, quite possibly putting himself in danger, because he understood that the crowd of Pharisees was bearing bad fruit.
When I say the end result of a doctrine (or its interpretation) can put the validity of the doctrine itself into question, I may be going beyond what Jesus meant to say. However, I think Paul meant to amplify this point:
[Romans 7:4] So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.
[5] For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.
[6] But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
On the face of it, Paul's argument in Romans, chapter 7 doesn't make sense until we ask, "What kind of sinful passions could Paul mean, that are roused by the law of Moses?" The entire thrust of this book's argument, though, is that we cannot rely on religious codes to ensure that we are acting from righteousness. Paul clearly believed that doing so was a trap that causes us to act inhumanely.
Instead of looking into books, then, the key is to judge a teaching or an idea or an action by the guidance of Spirit, in light of its effects on people -- whether it is good fruit or bad.
Sometimes Paul moralized, but where he did, he moralized not by arguing from what was written in the law of Moses, but from the conviction that he thought nature and real life would show certain things to be "inexpedient." In any case, Paul's argument about the newness of Spirit versus the oldness of the written code is not compatible with the use to which many modern Christians put his words, as justification for the perpetuation of oppression.
Edit. I have revised this post to reflect that what may be questionable is not necessarily a point of doctrine itself, but any particular interpretation thereof. Problems to which I point may stem more from interpretation than from doctrine itself, and it is helpful to keep that distinction in mind here.
no subject
The difficulty is that someone who crosses tradition in the spirit of Tradition looks to people of the time like a rebel. This is where the litmus test of "good vs. bad fruit" can be applied. Women who fought for suffrage bore good fruit, vs. the bad fruit of disenfranchisement. Pain, suffering, oppression are bad fruit. Those who opposed women's suffrage could have quoted scripture and tradition in their favor, but this doesn't change the fact that they were wrong, and we know it because their teachings bore the bad fruit of continued oppression of women.
no subject
There's a line from Green Day's new album that I think applies: She's a rebel / she's a saint / she's the salt of the earth and she's dangerous The nature of Christ's message is radical. We should worry when it becomes mundane in "the current times."