A Modest Plea for Biblical Literalism


A friend’s wife joined a good Christian church where they believe in beating the children in order to save their souls. Seems like a reasonable enough trade. But then, we’re talking beating with sticks and belts. We’re talking bruises, welts and blood. I suppose it will make the little tykes righteous.

The friend was unable to get custody of the children and take them out of that house because the courts said it was a freedom of religion issue. Like stoning adulterers? Why won’t the corrupt secular courts let good Christians practice their biblically guaranteed right to stone adulterers to death? I am suggesting that they assert this as a freedom of religion issue. It’s too late to get to Jim Bakker and Strom Thurmond, but they could still get Bill Clinton and they seem to have a thousand reasons to want to do that.

Apart from adultery, there is an enormous problem with pornography in the Christian community. According to one survey , “37% of pastors said porn was a struggle for them.” Over half said it was a temptation. Other surveys indicate that over 50% of men attending a Promise Keepers stadium event had viewed porn in the previous week. One Christian, sure that it couldn’t be that 50% of the men in his parish were into porn, suggested a survey. He was right: in his parish it was 61% and he suspects underreporting. It’s a serious issue.

It’s so serious, in fact, that as part of my modest plea for biblical literalism, I would suggest that the biblical literalists among that 61%, please go pluck your eyes out (Mathew18:9). And if you don’t feel like plucking your eye out just right now, please consider being more tolerant of those who don’t fit in with those few areas of Old Testament morality that you choose to enforce (fear of gays seems to be tops on the list these days) and, dare I say it, just a little less tolerant of some of those areas where we all come up short of a New Testament morality (like helping the poor and turning the other cheek)?

By the way, yes this is a sarcastic article, but the Crosswalk article I link to is really interesting (that’s the one about the 61%). I’m certainly not meaning to attack people like that author.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>