Thursday, October 11, 2007

Pornographic Bible

In this previous post, I decried the use of what I considered a crude/crass euphemism attributed to Mark Driscoll to describe (in part) the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth. In recent days, I have interacted via the internet with several individuals that basically take the stance:

  • "There's a lot worse in the Bible!"
  • "I think Mark is closer to things the way he is stating it."
  • "I love it when people apply a particular contemporary sub-culture’s stringent understanding of language to their readings of pre-modern (read: ancient) texts of Holy Scripture."
  • "What I do have a problem with is denying the circumstances of the Biblical narrative out some misplaced sense of propriety. I don’t care if you think the bare facts laid out by Driscoll are somehow shameful and unworthy of Jesus to the point where we have to clean up or deny what was actually going on."
  • "The quote, “At least we know who our father is…” comes to mind. Now, what could they have meant by that?"
When I think about it, to some degree these people are right. Seriously, why should we shy away from things in the Bible that we find offensive--only because we are applying some modern-day criteria of what is and what isn't appropriate?

We're not living in the days of the Puritans! For whatever reason, God deemed it necessary to include EVERYTHING we have in our Bible, including passages such as Ezekiel 23:18-23 which was noted by several people in our conversation. (WARNING: This could be considered very graphic language by some.)

When she carried on her prostitution openly and exposed her nakedness, I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister. Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled. (NIV)
A little rough? Yes. Biblical? Yes. Should we be offended? Not according to the emergents! God is simply describing how wretched and defiled the people had become. I have to admit, it certainly drives the point home.

I'm working on a flannel-graph of these verses for our 8-year-old Sunday School class. I hope I can get it finished before Sunday...

This post has been rated "S" for heavy sarcasm.

3 comments:

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

Graphic language used by God in the Scriptures can be attributed to God allowing some individual personality in His inspired Word. But the New Testament is REPLETE with admonitions for believers to avoid swearing or coarse language, our speech should be seasoned with salt, full of grace, and flowing as sweet water.

I not only see no need for questionable language, I read a consistent teaching against it. When Song of Solomon refers to "breasts" would it be appropraite to refer to them in more "street" language way?

Of course not, and to use the Bible as a license is wrong.

Keith said...

Rick: I wholeheartedly agree.

This topic, as well as others, is why I have such a hard time with emergents and their sympathizers. They seem to always ere on the extreme side and to disagree with them is to be narrow-minded or not have a complete understanding of OT/NT culture, blah, blah, blah.

You realize, I'm sure, that your position on this topic puts you at odds with the majority of CRN.Info's contributors?

Henry (Rick) Frueh said...

I am comfortable with being the lone dissenting voice, I am learning a lot and God is teaching me about the inconsistencies in my own walk also.

Patience, love, discernment, and other things have me in the classroom of God's Spirit. It would be much more convenient to operate within the amen confines of other genres but here I am, and I feel I have been led of Him.