Bible Literalism (Part 1)

Recently picked up a book entitled "The Year of Living Biblically" by A.J. Jacobs from the local library about a person's one-year journey to take the Bible literally and do exactly as it is presented, at face value. Rather than feeling peeved and upset over the author's at times cheap shots at Christianity, I found it an eye-opening experience and realised how much I know (or not know) about my Bible. It was also interesting to see how opponents of Christianity can find any platform available to them to denounce the faith. Hence we have John Shelby Spong being quoted by the book publisher:

"[The author] has perceived the distinction between the wisdom of the Bible and is absurdities. It is a shame that so many of both our clergy and our politicians seem incapable of making that distinction."

To begin, Jacobs humble quest to follow the Bible as literal as possible is a misnomer. While claiming literalness, Jacobs obviously caveat it by stating that his plan was to "try to find the original intention of the biblical rule or teaching and follow that to the letter. If the passage is unquestionably figurative, then I won't obey it literally." Then he went on to impose his own mental model on the various laws. Not surprisingly, the first one that he waffled through is the 10% tithes.

Where better to start than to pick on the two extremities.

Do not Mix Wool and Linen

The first was his hilarious journey in tackling his Top Five Most Perplexing Rules in the Bible - The ban on wearing clothes made of mixed fibres", specifically the rule not to mix wool and linen (Deut 22:11). In the midst of engaging an expert to rummage through his wardrobe to ensure that he abides by the rule, he put forth the point that obeying rules with no rational explanation is a jarring one.

Obviously, without starting from the right footing, plunging into the Mosaic Laws would not make much of a sense. What Jacobs failed to realise (at least he did not reflect it in the book) is that the Laws were given to the nation of Israel to set them apart from the wide-spread paganistic culture during their time. While we can postulate the rationale for the bulk of the rules, some are just rules to differentiate them from the pagans. If you dress differently from the crowd, you are obviously more likely not to succumb to the culture of the masses. It is a simple and straightforward principle.

Sabbath - Made for Men, Not The Other Way Round

Of course being a Jew, his treatment of the Sabbath ordnance was heavily leaned toward the Orthodox Judaism interpretation. Given my familiarity with Jewish interpretation of work, the part about tearing up toilet paper in advance so as not to be "working" while toileting during Sabbath was absolutely hilarious. It is sad to see how a compassionate rule to encourage humans and the land to rest has become one that enslaves us. Being literally in the Sabbath observance means just to rest when it is mandated. Going beyond what it is written is embellishment, not literalism. Jesus, during His time on earth, addressed this issue and said that Sabbath was made for men and not men for Sabbath. When the rabbis went to the extreme to label healing and helping others as work during Sabbath, we have obviously crossed the line.

(To be continued...)

Abortion and euthanasia deserve equal debate

25 Oct 08 - The Straits Times Online Forum

IT IS curious to note the contrasting approaches taken by the Ministry of Health on the issues of euthanasia and abortion. The euthanasia issue elicited extensive on-going discussions initiated by Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan who viewed it as a moral dilemma. On the other hand, the abortion issue was definitively concluded, with Mr Khaw saying we should base the decision purely on science and take emotion out.

I suggest the two issues are merely two sides of the same coin, depending on which side one chooses. Euthanasia and abortion are discussions of the relative importance of sanctity (or viability in the case of abortion) of life versus the rights of the individual.

I find it mistaken for the authorities to frame the two issues in such contrasting manner. If viability of life is the dominating principle, we should restrict access to euthanasia and have the same level of safeguards we have for those seeking abortion, that is, simply mandatory counselling. If, however, the individual's rights are paramount, then we should embrace euthanasia and simply allow individuals to decide.

The only difference is that abortion, unlike euthanasia, had been debated at length and decided. To be consistent, we should approach the euthanasia issue as we did with abortion in the 1970s. Convene a Select Committee and determine the viability of people who are suffering from terminal illness.

Recalling then health minister Chua Sian Chin's response regarding the slippery slope of allowing abortion that 'no community anywhere in the present world has ever thought of permitting the killing of human beings, as it is generally understood, be they sick, old, infirm, paralysed or totally decrepit', the previously unimaginable could become a reality in the foreseeable future.

Recalling also Ms Lynn Lee's column against those calling for a review of the abortion law ('Banning abortion won't mean more babies', July 31), I would like to quote portions with allusion to the present euthanasia debate:

'How many babies suffering from birth defects (elderly suffering from terminal illnesses) should society be prepared to look after?

'Every child (person) deserves a chance at the best possible quality of life... Allowing women (them) the option of abortion (euthanasia) helps ensure that as many babies (people) as possible are wanted and healthy (living quality life).

'In Singapore's case, no adequate secular reason has been advanced in the recent calls to ban abortion (disallow euthanasia).'