I have a question.  Okay, lots of questions, as you’ll soon see…

Why is it that so many Christian writers and theologians refuse to answer the question, “Do we (as Christians) ‘pick and choose’ God’s laws we want to follow?” appropriately.  It doesn’t take a genius to see that we do.  So, we must answer why that is–not why we don’t.

I was disappointed in a recent article by Jason Newell (“Moses, Shellfish and the Church”, which you can read here) in Biola University’s Biola Magazine.  He starts out well enough, saying that Jack Black and friends have put up a humorous video (see above) on FunnyorDie.com, dealing with the Prop 8 question and asking why homosexuality is wrong but eating shellfish is not.

The most standard answer you hear (from the church and churchgoers) is that there is an “old law” and a “new law,” and we Christians are under the new one.  Thing is: there is no clear demarcation between the two laws (after all, the Ten Commandments are under the old law, people!).  So, what we’ve done is put the laws, or commandments, into categories that “seem” right to us.

Newell quotes a Talbot professor of systematic theology, Robert Saucy: “Many times, believers make the mistake of trying to divide the Mosaic Law into categories–salvaging the ‘moral’ laws (such as those that pertain to sexuality or divorce), while discarding ‘civil’ and ‘ceremonial’ laws (such as those that pertain to diet or animal sacrifice).”  Saucy goes on to say that it’s impossible to divide up “613 commandments” and that it doesn’t mean that we should disregard the “old law.”  Instead, we “ought to look for the principles behind the different Old Testament laws to discern what they say about God’s unchanging holiness.”

Yes, I want to say, but where do you draw the line?  I think you draw it differently, depending on the century.  For instance, why did we abandon stoning for adultery?  Might it be because promiscuity has always been a rampant societal problem, and we’d be missing over half our population if we enforced it?

Pride and lying are mentioned more than any other sin in the Bible.  Which of us is not guilty?  Please, stand up.  I’d like to meet you.  Do we dismiss the severity of those offenses because there’s no punishment associated with them?

Here’s the thing.  Jesus doesn’t mention homosexuality once.

It’s mentioned in Genesis (old law) and in Paul’s letters (new law).  That’s it.

Here are some other things that are in the “new law”: head coverings for women, absence of adornment for women, turning the other cheek, loving your enemy, selling all your possessions to give to the poor.

Ya’ll following me?  Can’t say I’m following all those.  And if you asked me why, I’d glibly say, “Well, hmmm, might those laws for women be a tad ancient?” and that would have to suffice.  How lame is that?

Another big question of mine: Why is it that we hire heterosexual pastors who are struggling with lust and temptation, but we’re not allowed to hire homosexual pastors who are struggling with lust and temptation?  I think that question can stand on its own.

Newell’s last sentence is a little sarcastic: “In other words, Jack Black may want to stick to comedy.”  Rather than what?  Bringing hypocrisy and truth to light?

This kind of comedy keeps the questions flowing.  Black is poking fun of something that seems ridiculous to him…and to myriads of others, including myself.

Humor is an excellent way of getting to truth.  And the faster Christians realize that–and come back with some excellent, hard-hitting answers–the better our dialogues will be.

Who are any of us to point fingers?  Then vote on it?  Really?  Seriously?

We might want to get our own acts together first.