why I "pick and choose" what I like in the Bible

I recently read Evolving in Monkey Town: How a Girl Who Knew All The Answers Learned to Ask the Questions by Rachel Held Evans. I think if I were to teach a Sunday School class at church this would be required reading to be part of the class. It is a great primer for talking about the fluidity and flexibility of biblical interpretation. Rachel grew up in Dayton, Tennessee (home of the famous Scopes trial of 1925, hence the name "Monkey Town"). Dayton is a heavily fundamentalist city. Rachel discusses her upbringing in a fundamentalist denomination and how she clung tightly to those beliefs, but later in life she began to be plagued with doubts about the goodness of God, hell, and eternity. she began to feel that all of us are in a "cosmic lottery" of sorts and that those of us who grow up in Christian environments simply get the luck of the draw. she wondered how God could send the majority of people to hell for eternity when they had never had an opportunity to hear the Gospel. Rachel tells the story of how she wrestled with these questions and eventually began to let go of her tightly held beliefs and embrace a more open mindset that gave room for doubt of her own interpretation. essentially, her message is to not let go of your beliefs, but to hold them out with an open hand. it's a call to admit that we could be wrong, and that our interpretation could be flawed. ultimately, it's a book about Jesus too. as Rachel discovers, Jesus had more to say about temporal issues such as loving your neighbor, loving your enemy, preaching the gospel to the poor, than he did about hell and eternal damnation. in other words, Jesus is full of compassion for the present day problems people have and he isn't overly concerned that they are headed to hell. he focused on the outcasts, the poor, the sinners, those who were deemed unworthy of salvation by the religious people. his attitude was simply different than a lot of evangelical Christians. sure, there are passages about hell. but their meaning is unclear, whereas the meaning of loving your enemy is very clear. so this brings me to the issue of this blog. why do I pick and choose certain texts that I like (such as "love your neighbor") and I choose to ignore those that I don't like (such as passages about eternal damnation or instructions to pluck out my eye if it causes me to sin). well, in regards to hell, the reason why I do that is that the overwhelming evidence about Jesus is that he is merciful and not condemning. so when a passage seems to indicate that he is condemning (such as talk of everlasting fire or torment), I simply put that verse on the shelf and I say to myself, "I don't know what that means or what that refers to, but I know that God is good and that his mercy triumphs over judgment"). and the truth is that we all do this. someone gave me a prophetic word yesterday that God would use me to dismantle heresies. I love it. I think the first heresy I want to dismantle is the idea that there is ONE authoritative interpretation of the Bible. the Bible should not be used as trump card but rather a conversation-starter. Rachel says in a chapel speech that she gave that we all "pick and choose". she says, "I pick and choose, you pick and choose, your pastor picks and chooses, your parents pick and choose. the important thing is to have a conversation about why I pick and choose and why you pick and choose" (paraphrased). when was the last time you examined yourself to see if you were committing the sin of gluttony? have you called anyone an idiot recently? have you said a "careless word"? if you are a woman, do you wear a head covering? are you silent in church? do we think it's appropriate to have slaves and to instruct our slaves to obey their masters? all of these are instructions or commands found in the New Testament most of which we probably ignore. but why? don't we want to be biblical? well, maybe the issue isn't that we have to be biblical. maybe the issue is that we want to be more like Jesus. would Jesus own a slave? would Jesus tell you to wear a head covering? would Jesus forbid you from speaking in church, even despite the fact that he instructed the women at the resurrection to go and tell the men that he was alive? maybe when thinking of "picking and choosing" we should re-consider the old phrase "what would Jesus do?" this is why I pick and choose, because I see in Jesus a God who is merciful and who wants all to come to salvation. I don't know if that will happen. I don't know if hell is eternal. I don't know if Jesus intends to scare us into salvation. however, I do know that he instructs us to love our enemies, that he wants us to preach the gospel to the poor, that he wants us to accept sinners and outcasts without condemning them. I know that he is good and that "his mercies never come to an end". that is why I pick and choose.

Why I Was Disappointed by World Vision's Reversal of their Decision

I just came across an excellent blog by Rachel Held Evans in which she discusses the recent decision World Vision made to allow gays and lesbians to work in their company, the backlash they received from the evangelical community, and the subsequent reversal of that decision. here is her blog if you want to read it:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/31/how-evangelicals-won-a-culture-war-and-lost-a-generation/

if you don't know the details, last week World Vision, a Christian relief organization, announced that it would allow gays and lesbians to work in their company. they said that they did not consider themselves a theological arm of the church and that this decision reflected their desire to be diverse and to preserve Christian unity across a number of denominational practices. Robert Stearns, the director, said in an interview with Christianity Today, "“I want to be clear that we have not endorsed same-sex marriage, but we have chosen to defer to the authority of local churches on this issue.”

then there was a strong conservative Christian backlash. many denominations told their congregants to withdraw support. in the first 48 hours 2000 people withdrew their support. so World Vision reversed their decision. “We’ve listened to supporters who were concerned about the conduct change in policy,” Stearns told a reporter. “We believe we made a mistake. We’re asking them to forgive and understand our poor judgment in the original decision.”

this reversal of decision disappointed me for a couple of reason. first, I want to say that I do believe homosexuality is a sin. I also believe divorce and remarriage is a sin in certain instances, and that looking at pornography is a sin. but I don't believe the latter two should be grounds for not hiring someone at a relief organization. neither should the first. I also feel that the original decision should not have warranted the withdrawal of support that it did. as Rachel says in her blog: "When Christians declare that they would rather withhold aid from people who need it than serve alongside gays and lesbians helping to provide that aid, something is wrong."

yes. something is wrong. why are we offended that gays and lesbians are involved in the paperwork or clerical work that makes it possible for hungry kids to receive aid? and why aren't we offended at the divorcees or the potential pornography users? I agree there should be some boundaries. World Vision's original decision stated that they required their employees to practice abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in marriage. so it's not like it was one big free-for-all at World Vision. why is it evangelicals were willing to be selective about this issue and no other sin issue? and why were they willing to sacrifice the health of children for it? something in our priorities has gotten out of whack.

I do believe in purity. I believe in living a godly lifestyle. but when it comes to relief organizations or corporations I believe they should have the right to allow gays and lesbians to work in their company without being labeled as heretics or compromisers. and I'm also fine with Christian organizations that choose not to support gays and lesbians. I believe they should have the right to choose either way. I myself believe that the issue of homosexuality being a sin is a debatable issue. I am not convinced that all the passages in Scripture that typically call it a sin are properly understood. I believe there are mistranslations and misinterpretations. so I still believe it's a sin? yes. but for personal reasons. the point I am making is that this is an issue that doesn't have easy answers. it's not as clear-cut and set in stone as we would like it to be. and for issues that are not as clear-cut, such as gay marriage or divorce and remarriage, I believe we should extend grace where there is uncertainty. I agree with World Vision's original statements about how they are not a theological arm of the church nor should they have to operate as though they were. in closing  I'll mention another quote from Rachel which I found convicting: "Christians can disagree about what the Bible says (or doesn’t say) about same-sex marriage. This is not an issue of orthodoxy. But when we begin using child sponsorships as bargaining tools in our debates, we’ve lost the way of Jesus."

this is not about orthodoxy. this is about being like Jesus. are we being like Jesus if we withdraw support from an organization that feeds kids because they allow gays and lesbians to work there? I think not. I could be wrong. but I suspect that Jesus, the same Jesus that sat with the Samaritan woman at the well (a no-no in his culture, both because she was a woman and a Samaritan), wouldn't have a problem with a Christian organization hiring gays and lesbians. I just don't see it.