Evolving in Monkey Town - Week Three

This week's post is short.  I am driving from Virginia to Washington state, so that has taken up most of my time. I’ll try harder next week when I’m not driving 600 miles a day.

This is week three in our look at Rachel Held Evan's book, Evolving in Monkey Town.  

Read Maria's post here.

Here are Maria's questions for the week. 

1. In her book Rachel ended one chapter with this quote: “I grew increasingly uncomfortable with how verses were lifted from the Bible to support political positions like gun rights, strong national defense, capital punishment, and limited intervention in the free market. These seemed more like Republican values than biblical values to me.” (67)  What do you think of that last quote? Unfair? Ring true?

2. How would you define “a biblical worldview?”

3. In the grand scheme of things, how much priority do you think Jesus would give “defending America” compared to loving the poor?

4. Do we read/interpret/apply Scripture selectively? If your answer is no, are you sure? If yes, is this okay?

She also expressed a less than enthusiastic response to the chapter on the history and Rachel's interpretation of the Scopes Monkey Trials, which made Dayton, TN infamous.  On the Monkey Trials chapter, I thought that it just showed how we will often go to the extremes in our behavior in order to “prove” that our point of view is not only “right” but “ordained” by God and scripture. I think that we’re in a time like that right now, so in many ways, we are just repeating behavior that others have engaged in over and over and over. So I guess the question I am left with is, do we ever learn from the lessons of the past?  Not sure that we do.

Each of these questions make me think of how easy is it to use the bible to justify our own agendas, rather than letting scripture shape and mold us. I think that the way we view scripture in its history and context will define the ways we use it. I see many contradictions within the whole biblical story, and when teaching or preaching, I continue to encourage people to look at a whole story, chapter or book before lifting a verse or two to prove any particular point. But it takes a lot of work, and we often have to challenge what we were taught before.

I am wary of those who claim a biblical worldview without having them explain exactly what that means. I certainly want the bible and the biblical story to have a major influence over my life and my choices, but the bible doesn’t address many of the inconsistencies of life in the world or in the US today. But then again I have discovered that many people do not life to acknowledge or address the contradictions that life presents every day. While I’m not sure that I’m brave enough to have made the statement Rachel did, I understand the frustration that fuels it, and it does ring somewhat true for me.

As for what Jesus thinks about how we as Americans have prioritized our choices of national security, I am thankful that he is full of grace and forgiveness. I know he said that the poor would always be among us, but I think he wanted us to try harder to help and less to keep or better our own status at their expense.

People have been selectively interpreting scripture since before it was written down… that’s why it got written down. And commentaries are selective interpretation that has been proclaimed since the canon was set. Even a sermon or a bible study will take a particular bead on a passage.

Is this bad? No, I think that God continually enlightens us and makes scripture come alive. That’s why it’s lasted so long.

Peace, Deb