Lobsters in the Hands of an Angry God

Not long ago, I came across an article about gay marriage that someone had posted on Facebook.  I wasn’t interested and I would’ve skimmed right over the entire post if the person hadn’t introduced it by saying “God says it’s an abomination.”

I couldn’t help but jump into the thread and drop a comment about shrimp, not to incite a war, but to simply make a point.  Several other people jumped into what promptly became a lively and opinionated thread, but, unfortunately, just when it started getting really good, the person deleted the post.

It’s not uncommon for Christians to couple the term “abomination” with homosexuality, usually insisting “God says” or “God thinks,” as if they’re merely doing everyone a favor by upholding God’s clear, unchanging moral standard – one that’s been around since time immemorial.  Comments like this even come authoritatively from the pulpit.  I’m convinced this is partly why some people want nothing to do with Christianity and partly why God has such a bad reputation.

For starters, before we go around insisting that God thinks homosexuality is an abomination (or that it’s detestable, depending on which translation of the Bible is being referred to), it would be wise to consider some of the other things in the Old Testament laws that are also considered an “abomination.”  Things like eating shellfish or certain types of birds or animals.  Women wearing men’s clothing.  A man having sex with his wife (or wives, as the case may very well have been) during her menstrual period.

Let’s be honest.  No one is picketing Red Lobster, passionately insisting that the patrons are detestable in the eyes of God.  I personally lean toward thinking shellfish is detestable and I’d take a bacon cheeseburger over lobster anytime.  But just because I can’t stand the stuff doesn’t mean I should insist that God says it’s detestable and attempt to bind it on other people.

The Old Testament laws can be some of the most confusing and misunderstood parts of the Bible.  And it’s potentially very dangerous.

Here’s one thing that’s important to realize.  The laws served a very specific purpose at the time.  And although some of them were very progressive for the time and separated the people of Israel from surrounding nations in a very positive way, many of them were not unique at all to the nation of Israel.  Anyone familiar with Old Testament laws will notice similarities to those found in surrounding nations.  These other legal codes predate the biblical ones and include things like making amends for accidentally flooding a neighbor’s crops or maiming a hired ox, as well as governing sexual relations.  Correct; the death penalty as punishment for a man having sex with certain family members or animals didn’t originate with the Law of Moses.

Regardless of how common or unique or progressive any given law may have been, a casual glance at these laws makes it clear that they were not meant to have the word “timeless” attached in any way.

Many of the laws related to real-world medical and scientific conditions, often involving natural consequences.  If we can approach them with these things in mind, at least some of them can begin to make more sense, and they can be removed from the framework that leaves us believing that they somehow represent God’s personal feelings about a given matter.   Let me illustrate.

When I was in my early twenties, I went to Puerto Vallarta with my parents and two brothers.  On our second night, we left the remote resort where we were staying and meandered along a dirt road that wound up the nearby hillside of the jungle.  There were chickens running across the road and little kids playing in puddles.

After a bit of a walk, we rounded a bend and moseyed up a final stretch of dirt road, which brought us to our destination: an open-air, rooftop restaurant with stunning views.  Nestled against the thick trees and with sand floors, the restaurant made it seem like we were dining in a ginormous tree, a feeling that was reinforced by a massive thatched roof that felt like a canopy of tree branches, where strings of lights hung and began twinkling as the sun sank beyond the distant horizon.

Let me just say that if you ever have a chance to eat in a restaurant that makes you feel like you’re dining in a massive tree, by all means, do it.  It was an amazing experience.  Mostly.

My dad and one of my brothers ordered the fresh lobster.  When it arrived, it wasn’t just the tail; the entire crustacean was served in a stunning visual presentation.  As one who finds lobster detestable, I didn’t order it, and it’s a good thing.  Even though they both raved about how good it was, something bad transpired.  Either the lobster wasn’t cooked properly or my dad and brother somehow nibbled beyond the tail and into the abdomen (the dim, atmospheric lighting and the pina coladas the size of your head may have both played into the latter).  They both got extremely sick and the illness lasted several days, putting quite a damper on the rest of the trip.

Whatever the details and regardless of whose “fault” it was, this unique dining experience gone horribly wrong could’ve been avoided altogether if all parties were simply holding to a law that says shellfish is detestable and needs to be avoided.  Avoiding the creatures completely makes sense when their improper ingestion could be fatal.

Such a practical cause-and-effect example can begin to shed a tiny bit of light on at least some of these Old Testament laws.  In this instance, avoiding shellfish was merely the safest option for the people at the time.  Eating it wasn’t an “abomination” because it was somehow in conflict with a certain level of ordained holiness or morality (PETA might disagree, but you get my point).  The whole thing has nothing to do with offending God, as though God has an ego.

I think it would help us to realize that we’re approaching these texts on the heels of thousands of years of developing theology and tradition.  We’re seeing them through lenses we don’t even realize we’re wearing.  And many of these things draw us further and further away from anything that resembles the original purpose or context of the text.

Some of what I’ve studied shows that these laws were originally understood as having medical or scientific meanings and only became theological in nature over time.  The same goes for some of the associated language.  “Unclean” didn’t always mean somehow being stained or corrupted in the eyes of God.  And “atonement” didn’t always mean some form of making up for one’s sins in order to appease God.  It’s a bit mind boggling, but it’s absolutely fascinating and it opens up a completely new world of understanding.

But here we are, thousands of years later, and none of that information makes its way down from the pulpit or into Christian devotional books.  Sure, we’ve got apologists who are quick to point out the medical accuracy of some of the Old Testament laws in an effort to prove the Bible is “true,” but I’ve never heard one of them indicate that terms like unclean, holy, and atonement originally had medical or scientific meanings and that the theological interpretations came much later.

Meanwhile, we’re left with a deeply flawed view of God that’s been etched into much of Western Christianity.  And because we’re clueless to that fact, we have zealous ministers preaching sermons like “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” and we go around authoritatively wielding terms like “abomination” on God’s behalf because we’re certain we know what we’re talking about.

There is much to be said and studied about the Law of Moses, but it’s clear that it wasn’t a timeless code of morality, nor did it reflect God’s personal and unchanging feelings about matters.  We have got to move beyond seeing these laws as such.  And perhaps more importantly, we need to let go of the idea that God was somehow personally disappointed or offended by the lack of adherence to these laws as though they somehow exemplified a standard of behavior required to keep God happy and content.

My passion about this is only partly because no one should be branded with a term like “abomination.”  That’s hugely valid, for sure.  But of greater importance, in my opinion, is that such an understanding of these laws says an enormous amount about who we believe God is.  We give God an ego and extrapolate all kinds of beliefs accordingly.  Beliefs that can sneak into the core of who we are and shape us in unhealthy ways.  Beliefs that tell us God has always had extremely high expectations for our behavior, requiring sacrifices or even death to be appeased.

I’m not attempting to imply that how we behave doesn’t matter.  That’s not what this is about.  It’s about attempting to shed a tiny bit of light on what these laws were and weren’t, as well as standing firmly by the notion that the Law of Moses does not somehow reflect a snapshot of timeless, unchanging truth or morality.

Many things may lead someone to think it’s responsible to treat the law about two men lying together as a clear, timeless moral expectation by God, all the while happily discarding laws that might impinge on our all-you-can-eat shrimp dinners, but it’s not responsible.  At all.  In fact, it’s a hugely irresponsible use of the scriptures.

We’re all entitled to our own opinions about things like shellfish, homosexuality, and whether kids should be stoned for disobedience, but we need to own them as our personal opinions and do away with the insistence that God has clearly always felt a certain way about them.

It’s no wonder the terms “God” and “Christian” often breed hostility.