Interpreting Scripture with Context (In re: Objective Justice post)

Sean Sirrine has posted and commented on an interesting story of a fourteen year-old who was recenty expelled from her Christian school for having two lesbian parents. 

I believe Sean captures the situation incorrectly when he calls the school, and associated religious organizations, “too dumb to read their own scriptures.” He re-tracts his caricature a bit when he offers this explanation for the school’s behavior: “maybe they want to persecute these people because they know it will get the persecuted into Heaven.”

How he can at once caricature the school’s administrators for being too dumb to read their own Christian scriptures but then lavish the compliment that the administrators are doing what they’re doing to earn the lesbian couple and their children places in heaven, is beyond reasonable. For one, to know how one gets to heaven—at least for these Christians—the Bible serves as their roadmap. A book, however, they’re too dumb to read. So the act of persecuting this family, which Sean caricatures as an act of virtue for these administrators, must then be merely coincidentally consistent with Christian scripture since the Christians are in this case “too dumb to read [it].”

Of course Sean isn’t being completely serious with the situation. The tension that results from his two statements then cannot be taken too seriously. I am definitely extending what Sean said if I assume that he takes the actions of the school’s administrators as inconsistent with Jesus’ teaching of tolerance, as Sean sees it, in the Gospels. An assumption, however, consistent with Sean’s entire post. More simply, I believe Sean was trying to point out a situation of hypocritical Christians. So the argument typically builds: 1) Christ preached tolerance; 2) to follow the teachings of someone means to assume them; 3) therefore, to follow Christ means to be tolerant. If someone can then point to an instance where a follower of Christ—err, a Christian—isn’t practicing tolerance, then he can be charged with hypocrisy, “the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess.”

Sean quotes Matthew’s account: “Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:10). From that Sean takes that Jesus taught tolerance over intolerance: “I'm not sure, but this Jesus guy seemed to think that intolerance was a bad thing.”

What Sean leaves out of his analysis is the full context of the portion he quoted. Matthew’s account of Jesus’ excortication has Jesus qualify those instances where those who are persecuted will inherit the kingdom of heaven—because it isn’t merely being persecuted that earns one a place in the kingdom. Jesus says, to repeat: “Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (emphasis added). Jesus more accurately qualifies those who are persecuted for their righteousness. Mere persecution isn’t enough. It’s persecution because the person is righteous.

At this point we can debate whether Jesus considered lesbian parenting a righteous act, but that’d be missing the point. Suffice it to say, however, that the scholarly understanding of righteousness in this context—that is Matthew’s gospel—means conduct in conformity to God’s will. While some may not agree that two lesbian parents is not in conformity with God’s will, we can safely assume that the Christians who run this school hold homosexuality as inconsistent with Scripture, including the portion Sean quotes. From this, is intolerance not the valid conclusion?

More simply, what these school administrators have done in this case shouldn’t strike anyone as betraying the creed they profess. They’re not unaware of Jesus’ exhortation of the Beatitudes, they’re merely capturing what Jesus said in the context of the rest of Scripture. They’re not neglecting a portion, which Sean has tried pointed out.