...Or Why I don't Support the Ordain Women Movement.
I. Why Did the Pharisees Care More About Boiling an Egg on Sunday than Starving the Poor?
Many people misunderstand the Pharisaical laws of Jesus' time. I often hear the Outer Law, or Hedge about the Law, described as a set of rules intended to protect believers from sin by creating a safety zone that, if avoided, would keep the believer from even approaching sin. Of course, this was the stated goal, and many like Saul believed it. They honestly wanted to serve God and saw the life of a Pharisee as a productive direction for their zeal. I think, however, that the perpetrators of such a system, its inventors and most ardent advocates, understood that such a system serves not so much to exclude sin, but contain the law.
If the Pharisees were so strict about the Law, why did Jesus call them hypocrites? Why did He say that their fate would be worse than many of the unbelievers?
The Pharisees made up extra rules to the Mosaic Law. So if the Mosaic Law commanded to pay 10% tithing, a Pharisee might pay 11% just to be safe. Then what happens? The Pharisee meets a handicapped beggar on the road and refuses help because, "Hey, I already payed my 11%, right?" By strictly defining every initially broad commandment, the Pharisee actually gives himself great latitude concerning everything not strictly defined. Eventually, the excessive latitude concerning anything outside the hedge encroaches on the laws inside the hedge, especially laws which cannot be strictly defined.
"...for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgement, mercy, and faith..."
II. Why Would Anyone Create a System Which Undermines That which It Claims to Protect?
First, because it's easy. It's easier to live a strict, easily definable code, knowing that you've checked all the blocks than live life always re-evaluating yourself along an infinite spectrum. It's so easy that we all do this to some extent, but sincere Christians realize that it's bad, so instead of codifying the system, we're supposed to recognize the moments that we do it and eliminate the habit from our daily lives.
Second, for power. Alexander Hamilton will help us understand this forthwith, but suffice it to say that by creating an Outer Law the Pharisees constructed a system in which they, not God, had the final say in salvation.
III. Why Would a Freedom-loving, Revolutionary War-fighting Patriot Oppose the Bill of Rights?
Like the Outer Law supposedly reinforced the Mosaic Law, the Bill of Rights claimed to reinforce the Constitution. Many Americans and veterans of the war opposed the legislation, including Alexander Hamilton. From Federalist No. 84:
"I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power." (emphasis added)
Now, I'm a much bigger fan of the Bill of Rights than Pharisaical Law, because the Constitution balances two things that were never considered all-encompassing: individual liberty and the power of the State (for a great endorsement of the Bill of Rights, click here). That's a far cry from trying to box in the Almighty Authority of God as Declared by Moses. Still, the mere fact that the Founding Fathers debated this shows that the problem persists in any system. "We need to build a wall to protect us!" and then that fortress becomes a prison. In fact, Hamilton's argument concerned enough Americans that the Anti-Federalists had to add the Tenth Amendment to abate their concerns, as if that would stop Congress.
By show of hands, how many of you think that the U.S. Congress has ever interpreted percieved loopholes in the Bill of Rights to the detriment of the liberties its authors claimed to preserve?
With one hand in the air and the other hand scrolling through this post, ask yourself this:
IV. Why Does the Sign-seeker Want to See a Miracle?
Will the prophet convert the seeker to all the prophet's teachings upon the satisfaction of the request? The seeker may tell himself that this is true, and he may very well believe it, but what really happens? Upon receiving the miracle, that is the only thing the seeker will believe. Now that the threshold has been set, any teaching unaccompanied by a miracle remains unsubstantiated in the mind of the seeker. "Last time you proved your teaching with a miracle, so where's the miracle to prove what you're saying now?" Once again, the act intended to expand inevitably contracts.
Or worse yet, the even more disingenuous seeker disclaims the miracle, explains it away or questions the methodology, or even more perniciously, the seeker hypocritically holds the prophet to a standard that the seeker despises but has intentionally pushed the prophet to violate in order to shame him. "You can't be a prophet since you agreed to show me a miracle, and I know you don't believe in showing miracles to sign-seekers." Now nothing the prophet teaches can be substantiated, even that which he proved miraculously. Once the prophet accepts the Miracle Challenge, he has agreed to satisfy the seeker on the seeker's terms. Now the seeker, and not the prophet, becomes the ultimate authority on what constitutes acceptable miraculous proof. It's like an economic rent on faith-building miracles. The prophet may produce the miracle, but only the seeker can approve it and move it to market. In this analogy Jesus is a 10 year-old Malaysian sweat shop worker, and the sign-seeker is an evil, exploitative corporation.
V. Why Does Kate Kelly Want a Public Declaration from Church Leaders That They Have Prayerfully Considered Her Request?
Does she believe that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have never meditated on scriptures regarding the Priesthood or made inquiries to the Lord about its nature and government? Quite to the contrary, Elder Dallin H. Oaks has clearly pondered a lot about this, evidenced in his sublime talks on the Priesthood here and here. If they have made such inquiries, what more good would explicitly stating so do, more than all the previous public announcements and General Conference talks?
"It would assuage the doubts of those who seek guidance."
Wrong. As we've demonstrated, it would at best create a perilous precedent where every commandment and Church policy would require a public display of revelatory process like a Papal Bull, because if they must explain how they learned to govern the priesthood, why shouldn't they have to explain how they decided spend tithing, or write Sunday School lessons, or contract the landscaping on Temple Square? Such a capitulation would undermine, rather than bolster, the members' faith in the Church's authority to act in God's name.
At worst, once the Brethren agreed to share revelation on OW's terms, their decision would undermine the very precepts they sought to protect, as OW would now be the ultimate judge of whether the process met their standards.
"Yes, you prayerfully considered this five years ago, but how about this year? How about this month? This week? When you prayerfully considered this, did you do so as Prophet or as CEO of the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Did you ask as a Grandfather or as a Son-in-law? Actually, in your last official statement you said that the priesthood was for all men. This clearly applies to trans-gender individuals who were born as women but to whom the Spirit has revealed that they are actually men. We insist that you ordain these men immediately, or else you are hypocrites by your own standard."
VI. Last Question: Do You Honestly Think That OW Would Ever Accept Such a Revelatory Process as Legitimate, as Long as the Answer Were "No"?
If you answered with a solemn and emphatic, "Yes, of course, that's all we're asking!" Then chances are you fall more into the inventor/ardent advocate category discussed at the beginning, so my failure to convince you otherwise bothers me very little, because you are not my audience. My intended audience is rather those who have a desire to obey and support the Church's policy, but who don't understand the Church's response (or lack thereof, as the case may be). "Why deny Conference tickets to a group when the Conference is available online?" "Why won't the Church just give OW the explanation that they have requested?" To these I share the immortal words of John Candy from the film Cool Runnings: "If you're not enough without it, you'll never be enough with it." Faith precedes the Miracle, obedience precedes knowledge, and we do more good on Heaven's terms than we accomplish on our own.
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.