Tag: Jonathan Merritt

Jonathan Merritt (the author) has no biblical rationale for verbally spanking Jonathan Merritt (the parent)

According to the latest article from The Other Merritt (TOM), I’m “hell-bent on hitting” my kids— and without any moral rationale.

I assume most unenlightened (i.e. conservative) Christians found TOM’s article objectionable on a number of fronts. For my part I can deal with the condescending attitude; the categorical association of spanking with hitting, beating, slapping, and violence; and the arrogant presumption that I can’t be trusted if I claim to spank “compassionately & rarely.” The enlightened progressives castigate the unenlightened conservatives. {Yawn}

However, I was shocked to read that my rationale for spanking rests on a one word in one verse (Prov 13:24) whose interpretation is authenticated by one author in one theological journal—The New York Times. {Now I’m awake}

If TOM had spent as much time investigating Scripture as he did gleaning the immutable truths of sociology he might have discovered that the issue is more complex than a one-off proof text. Maybe he’d have learned:

1) that the Hebrew word shebet, translated as rod in Prov 13:24, occurs approximately 190x in the OT and w/ two meanings: (i) rod, staff, club, scepter and (ii) tribe

2) that the very first entry for shebet in the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon reads “rod, staff (evidently common article), for smiting [emphasis added]

3) that shebet occurs 8x in Proverbs and one is hard-pressed to find any shepherding metaphor let alone the sense that the rod is for verbal(?) guidance/discipline

Proverbs 10:13 On the lips of him who has understanding, wisdom is found, but a rod is for the back of him who lacks sense.

Proverbs 13:24 Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

Proverbs 22:8 Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity, and the rod of his fury will fail.

Proverbs 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die.

Proverbs 23:14 If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol.

Proverbs 26:3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools.

Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.

4) that multiple times the Lord himself uses a shebet to do more than coax & nudge little lambs

2 Samuel 7:14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men

Psalm 89:32 then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with stripes

Isaiah 10:5 Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury!

I don’t know TOM but I’d wager he’s a decent guy (they don’t hand out the Merritt surname to just anyone!). I’m sure that he’s written many pieces where deadlines & a lack of available sources don’t permit him to investigate as thoroughly as he’d like.

But speaking as a parent who believes he has a biblical (and moral) rationale for spanking, maybe he could spare me the condescension until he does a little more homework.

My Costanza compromise

I was thinking about our latest intramural debate. Namely, Is it discriminatory for a Christian baker to refuse a wedding cake to a homosexual couple? and/or Would Jesus bake a cake for a homosexual wedding? Initially, I had hoped to craft a hypothetical that would illustrate the Christian dilemma. It went something like this:

A new chapter of Planned Parenthood has reached a milestone–their 100th abortion. Having much to celebrate they come to a Christian-owned bakery to order a cake for the upcoming office party. The cake is to read “The babies say thank you.” Would Kirsten Powers, Jonathan Merritt (not me, the less famous one), Rachel Held Evans et al counsel the Christian to bake the cake? Is that what Jesus would do?

Yes, yes. I know–bad analogy, apples & oranges. Scripture explicitly forbids murder and abortion clearly falls under the murder prohibition (even though the procedure isn’t cited in Scripture nor does Jesus ever speak against it). Homosexual union, however, isn’t so cut and dry because Scripture uh…is largely ambiguous…ancient cultures were so different from ours…the biblical authors had nuanced definitions…I mean, the are obvious. That we would even argue about acts of love and grace illustrates how poorly we read & apply Scripture to modern society.

Acknowledging the gaping holes in the abortion cake analogy I began to look for a compromise. And then it hit me. I’m told that refusing a wedding cake (a service) is tantamount to discrimination (no service). But what if the baker declined one service while simultaneously offering another?  Henceforth I propose that if a homosexual couple orders a wedding cake for their nuptials from a Christian baker, the conscientious Christian may refuse the order but will offer to bake them another item–of their choosing, equal or lesser value–at 1/2 price. Accordingly, the Christian will maintain his conviction while also doing business with the couple thereby avoiding the appearance of discrimination.

Surely our egalitarian bothers & sisters would find this satisfactory.

 

The chicken, the blogger, & the pastor

If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle-field besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.      –Elizabeth Rundle Charles, The Chronicles of the Schoenberg Cotta Family

In my mind the American church (AC) battles the spirit of the age most visibly on both a cultural and a theological front. The cultural front comes in the challenge over so-called gay marriage while the theological front is found in the debate surrounding theistic evolution which will inevitably be brought to bear on the doctrines of biblical inspiration & inerrancy.  Concerning the former, recent events should dispel the AC of the notion that we can remain neutral.

Most recently, Chick-fil-A owner Dan Cathy granted an interview with the Biblical Recorder in which he stated, “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.” Proving that “innocuous” has no place in today’s dictionary for the tolerant, advocates for so-called gay marriage became apoplectic. For merely voicing support for biblical marriage Cathy was accused of hate speech & intolerance.

Following calls to boycott Chic-fil-A, Christian blogger Jonathan Merritt (no relation to yours truly) penned a piece for The Atlantic in which he opined that our culture is diminished when we join our commerce to our politics. His espoused philosophy: judge a business by its products/practices not by its politics. As payback for failing to condemn Cathy & Chic-fil-A Merritt was outed by a gay blogger who claimed he could provide evidence of Merritt’s homosexuality. In an interview with Ed Stetzer, Merritt provided an overview of his personal story which included his commitment to “the Bible’s unambiguous standards for sexuality.”

Now compare the respective positions & confessions of a fast food president and a blogger with the silence of an influential pastor. In a sermon entitled “When Gracie Met Truthy” Andy Stanley recounts his refusal to allow two men in a homosexual relationship from serving as a host team in a North Point affiliated church not because they were in a homosexual relationship but because one man’s divorce (from his wife) hadn’t yet been finalized. Stanley clearly articulated the sin of adultery but was noticeably silent on the sin of homosexuality. When asked to clarify his conviction concerning homosexuality Stanley declined and referred people to the sermon series instead because “I figure that’s better than a sound bite or an interview.”

No, in this case a pastor must speak to the issues confronting the church today. Dan Cathy & Jonathan Merritt have proved their mettle in the latest skirmish. I hope Pastor Stanley hasn’t decided to flinch.

%d bloggers like this: