On Sunday, I looked a bit at a Newsweek article by religion editor Lisa Miller. Her piece took a position I largely agree with — that there’s no need to say that accused Ft. Hood gunman Hasan is either mentally unstable or an Islamic terrorist. (Although, as I pointed out yesterday, there hasn’t been much evidence of diagnosable mental illness compared to the evidence mounting regarding terrorism.) But I had some issues with how well she made her case.
There were other oddities about Miller’s article. Here, for instance:
Why do we insist on framing religious issues dualistically, when anyone with a shred of experience of religion knows religion doesn’t work that way? In our personal lives, we know how malleable creeds are. We know Jews who follow the laws of kashrut—except on the occasions when they order a cheeseburger for dinner. We know evangelical Christians who believe strongly in the rightness of evolution and Roman Catholics who believe in a woman’s right to choose. But we can also point to passages in Scripture that command us to do things we would never dream of doing. In America, we don’t stone adulterers.
Well, I don’t know. All the Jews I know either do or don’t keep kosher rather than skip back and forth so I guess I’m not on board with what she’s getting at from the get go. But let’s just look at that part about why we don’t stone adulterers.
Now, Miller’s tried to do exegesis before and it hasn’t gone so well. But how can you be a religion reporter or religion editor in the United States and not know the story of Jesus and the woman charged with adultery? As a service to Miller and her editors at Newsweek, here’s the first part of the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John:
Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
Normally I think this very well known passage is interesting because people forget that Jesus told the woman to stop sinning. But apparently Miller forgot that this famous passage even existed, much less had a tremendous impact on those portions of the world where Christianity exerts significant influence. (Jews have different reasons for no longer stoning for adultery.) The point is, there’s a difference between self-identifying as a Catholic while rejecting some of the church’s teachings and, say, Jesus’ life and ministry changing the way people viewed human rights. And I’m not entirely sure what either of those things have to do with Hasan being a terrorist and/or mentally unstable.
Miller’s larger point is that religion is not definitive and she goes on to say that there are narrow-minded and broad-minded interpreters of every religion. Islam’s biggest problems are its narrow-minded interpreters, she writes. That may be true and many more stories looking at the different interpretations of Islam would be fascinating and a tremendous service to readers. And God bless Miller for not resorting to the trope of Islam being, unilaterally, a religion of peace or a religion of violence. But let’s not reduce those “narrow-minded interpreters” to a caricature of selective Scripture-quoters either. Their interpretive view is much more complex and historical than that.
 | Posted at 6:39 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (20) |
November 23, 2009, at 7:02 pm
Mollie says:
I have known a large number of Jews who had idiosyncratic views of kosher. The most common view was that kosher did not apply in non-kosher restaurants. The traditional ‘shrimp is kosher in a Chinese restaurant’ position. Or if the food is offered by a non Jew as part of hospitality. Or if shrimp and lobster are OK but not pork or rabbit. My experience is that kosher has an almost infinite variety of possibilities. So, I am with the article.
November 23, 2009, at 7:20 pm
I agree with your identifying this as an issue but there is another possible explanation.
I think the issue is that the paragraph is badly worded. It speaks in general of religion specifically noting Judaism and Christianity. Since killing adulterers is in the Old Testament and as some Muslims interpret their religion, it’s correct to write that sentence. But I would have written it to more explicitly refer to not only that punishment but the failure of most Christians to live up to their religion.
November 23, 2009, at 7:30 pm
“But apparently Miller forgot that this famous parable even existed …”
Great post Mollie but this isn’t a parable.
Michel
November 23, 2009, at 9:26 pm
Lisa Miller is mainstream? Newsweek is mainstream?
November 23, 2009, at 10:11 pm
Michel,
Thanks for noticing the mistake. I fixed it.
November 24, 2009, at 9:05 am
I’ve noticed lots of recent writing - journalism, advocacy, and much else - which doesn’t seem to understand that Christians interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. There are different hermeneutics used by different groups of Christians, of course, but I think it’s fair to say that all Christians regard some portions of the OT as no longer applicable (e.g. I’m not aware of any Christian group advocating temple sacrifice). Considering how big a deal the marriage debate has become, I hope there are journalists out there who are taking the time to learn how different Christian traditions understand OT laws, particularly those related to sex and marriage.
November 24, 2009, at 10:00 am
Yes, the passage from the Gospel of John is a parable. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a parable is “a simple story illustrating a moral or religious lesson.”
November 24, 2009, at 10:05 am
Hate to add this into the mix, but many biblical scholars question whether the “woman caught in adultery” passage of John 8 should properly be included in Scripture. Some note that it is not in the early and best manuscripts, and others say it “floats” and is perhaps better located in Luke.
Do not take this post to suggest that I personally favor excluding the passage. Just reporting the facts.
November 24, 2009, at 10:06 am
Parables are fictitious illustrations of lessons, though. This situation actually happened.
November 24, 2009, at 10:13 am
Pat Lynch wrote: “many biblical scholars question……Just reporting the facts.”
Please do report the facts. Who are these scholars? What did they say? Do they have authority in some religious group (such as a church) to change the canon of Scripture?
November 24, 2009, at 10:24 am
Fortunately, though, though perhaps contrary to their own self-assessment, ‘many biblical scholars’ do not have the authority to establish or change the canon.
November 24, 2009, at 11:06 am
Here is the address to an article re: the issue Pat mentioned -
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-31.0.html
Almost any Bible mentions this in footnotes or other ways.
November 24, 2009, at 11:44 am
And apart from the issue, it doesn’t change the fact that this passage from Scripture has had tremendous influence on the culture.
November 24, 2009, at 11:53 am
Beware of “scholars” bearing gifts. (Or jurnos, for that matter!)
All the CT article proves is that we’ve gone from a “tradition of timidity” to a tradition of “if it feels good…”
November 24, 2009, at 11:57 am
You are quite correct, Mollie. Very commonly known and frequently used passage, especially the “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first” part. We’ve all read or heard it dozens of times in articles, arguments, etc. Sounds like it was a tad inconvenient to the writer and thus ignored.
November 24, 2009, at 12:01 pm
Ed, please understand that I don’t say the CT article “proved” anything, other than simply that this has been discussed before. That’s all I’m saying.
November 24, 2009, at 12:44 pm
Mollie, obviously your definition is different from that of the American Heritage Dictionary.
November 24, 2009, at 12:57 pm
I do think, in light of the issue other commenters have pointed out, that we should be cautious about using that particular passage in Mark to make a point. There’s nothing theologically erroneous in the passage, but it’s best to have other passages to back up our argument.
I think a stronger passage to support the same point is Matt 5:27-28 as well as Matt 7:1-5. Jesus sets the bar points out that we’re all wracked with sin and deserving of death, and are in no position to be sentencing others for their sin while our own remains outstanding.
Which, yes, is essentially what the Mark passage in question illustrates.
November 24, 2009, at 2:09 pm
Miller’s viewpoint on religion is thoroughly PostModern. Truth is variable, depending on the circumstances. That’s how she comes up with her addled exegesis.
November 25, 2009, at 6:58 pm
Stone people for adultery? Yes its terrible that backwards countries do still engage in barbaric sexist retaliation and try to brand it as religiously based.
On the opposite side of the coin, we have so-called religious leaders here condoning and trying to shield very high profile politicians who have admitted adultery, specifically the C-Street gang protecting John Ensign. Haven’t the Hamptons been stoned in the media for Ensign’s misdeeds and grasping to hold on to power. What about conservative media not press for having sacked SC’s governor for adultery.
Its convenient for media to highlight primitive cultures for ancient cultural traits, but its hypocritical for the same media to sidestep the same values in modern cultures.