Adopt and Adapt? Just Love

The Cause of This Article and Preface to the Argument

During my time at Messiah College, one saying was heard constantly in chapel or in the classroom; "adopt and adapt."

The best way to describe the 'adopt-adapt' view is this; 'We live in a different culture than the people of the times in the Bible. There are certain cultural norms that we no longer advocate, so we must adapt the Bible to our time. We must adopt the rules that still work in our culture, the true Word of God that is universal to all cultures.' I have to call bullsh*t. It is impossible to pick and choose which rules to continue to follow without compromising the integrity of the Bible itself. It is dependent upon the individual, then, which parts of the Bible are to be followed and which rules are to be dismissed as 'culturally irrelevant.'

I propose that the method of 'adopt and adapt' is unsustainable for the Church and bastardizes Christianity in the process. The only way a modern Christian can continue to claim that title is to accept ONLY the teachings of Christ in the four gospels, which supersedes all other rules/ laws. The alternative is to live strictly by every literal Biblical law/ commandment which is, in itself, impossible to do in most countries without becoming a martyr.

While this originally was meant to only address the 'adopt-adapt' view, I will be arguing against both fundamentalism and the 'adopt-adapt' viewpoints in favor of the 'literal Christian' stance. Make no mistake, though; the final portion of this essay is the focal point. The first two sections are purely to provide reasonable doubt for holding those views, and while faith will always be a factor in accepting any belief I believe that the logical difficulties in holding either of the prior views too be too great.

As two final points, I would like to be clear that this is merely a persuasive essay. There will be people who disagree with me, who say my argument in part or in whole is invalid, or new information in the future could make this whole essay meaningless. Also, this same argument can be made of any other religion wherein specific rules/ commandments/ laws are stated for people to follow yet, because of the changing times, certain ones have been dropped with those cultural changes (i.e., Islam, Judaism, Scientology, etc.).

Finally, before moving onto the actual essay, it is important to note that I am not an apologetic or expert on the Bible. While I did grow up in a Christian household and went to a Christian college, I do not claim to be a scholar on the topic. I am a philosopher by nature with an emphasis on morals and temporality. That being said, you will notice plenty of references from the research I have done for this piece. Unlike most of my other entries I have taken this seriously and am putting forth an actual argument.


Problems With Living Fundamentally

This is going to be the shortest portion of this essay. Just look at Exodus 21-23. Upholding merely verse 22:20, "Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed," would require a massive crusade and create near-endless war between Christians and everyone else. (Islam has a similar command for Muslims.) There are plenty of scenarios where people are forgiven or overlooked in our time who should be put to death. Denying this one instance of the Bible's literal word is enough to discredit anyone who considers themselves a literalist/ fundamentalist.

Suppose you still think you can live as a fundamentalist. You must be able to read Greek and Hebrew then so you can verify the original manuscripts. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of versions in just English. Do fundamentalists in Greenland, Chile, and Nepal live by the same 'Bible'? It only takes a few words interpreted differently to utterly change a passage from, 'they must leave,' to, 'they must be banished.' Within the Creation account we see two different versions of how Adam and Eve were created; the first account in which they are created simultaneously and the second account in which Eve is created from Adam. There is a problem when you have a definitive text on a topic that gives two different accounts of the same event.

Suppose we overlook any errors in the translation and say that the 'spirit of the text' is all that matters, given that reading 20 different versions will still have the same base message in any given passage. There is still a problem of deciding which of those passages to adopt and which can be ruled out as 'culturally irrelevant.' Is the matter of stoning adulterers culturally sensitive? Which parts of Paul's letters were Paul and which were God speaking through Paul? (Here is a well-done article on the subject by an apologetic collaboration that, as irony would have it, supports my argument.) Anywhere you look in the Bible you will find these issues of what I call 'pick-and-choose' religion. The Bible is not a bad thing, but the 'adopt and adapt' method ruins its message and effectiveness for the Christian. 

These issues combined, I believe, provide reasonable doubt against living as a biblical literalist/ fundamentalist. The method of 'adopt and adapt' is the fallback for those who discard their fundamentalism, and people who advocate that method would likely make similar points. I will now give an argument against that as well.


Subjectivity and 'Pick-and-Choose'

For those who do not know what the terms mean, an objective thing is something that does not depend on the entity interacting with it, i.e., '2+2=4 in base 10' will always be the same, (thank you Professor Schenk) while a subjective thing is dependent upon the interacting entity, i.e. 'Gyros are delicious' is not true for all people. The Bible as a whole is an objective thing with clearly written guidelines for life, death, and everything in-between. There are the Ten Commandments, the Fruits of the Spirit, the Sermon on the Mount, etc. Even the parables and the classic stories are designed to show readers how to act or react when faced with certain situations. For Jews the Old Testament is a definitive history of their predecessors in the same way students view history textbooks. In this sense there is no 'adopt and adapt.' It is a history book.

It is here that we see the foreshadow to the method of 'adopt and adapt;' the Bible is not a scientific authority. Whether Moses led the Israelites through the desert for 40 years is considerably less controversial than whether life begins at conception.While there are certain experimental science theories that were precursors to our modern understandings, there are other examples where new information has disproved certain statements, such as that in Mark 4:31 (there are smaller seeds and bigger plants.) Regardless, almost all of this science-talk is still within the objective-sphere of things than be proved or disproved.

Do you think killing someone in self-defense is a crime? Should homosexual couples be allowed? Is abortion a form of murder? Every person will come up with different answers to these questions.Two people could believe the same set of principles with wildly different justifications. Even things as simple as when to have communion can divide entire populations. Certainly discussion of these things creates a healthier Church, but had Martin Luther known how his ninety-five theses, or critiques of the medieval Church, would fracture Christianity he may have taken a different approach.

The modern Catholic Church at least has some degree of coherency between the cardinals and bishops when deciding what is doctrine, dogma, law, etc. The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a one-stop location for anyone who wants to know where Catholicism stands on an issue, sort of like Wikipedia. Protestants do not have such a centralized governing body so it is up to each individual as to what they believe and practice, and this is where the big problems arise. You can have two Christians in a room where one is pro-life, anti-war, universalist, and believes in evolution, while the other is pro-choice, pro-crusade, annihilationist, and is a Young-Earth Creationist. Saying you are a Christian is about as descriptive as saying you like dogs. The only thing that really ties Christians together is that they believe Jesus Christ is/ was God in human form.

'Adopt-adapt' is a subjective process where the individual decides what is right and wrong based on how they themselves interpret the text. The most glaring issue, as already stated, is that anything other than the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts are a translation of an interpretation. While the translation process is often arduously careful (it took forty-seven scholars 7 years to publish the King James Version from Latin), five years in customer service has shown me that even the most carefully worded and obvious texts can be indescribably misunderstood.


Literally Christian

One of the most important terms I learned at Church youth group was that the term "Christian" literally translated means "follower of Christ." My proposition for the modern Church, Protestant and Catholic is to discard the rules, commandments, obligations, and rigidness of the Old Testament and those put forth by the Apostles.

This is the part where I say all literal Christians should live by the exact words in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that correspond, but given my argument against the 'adopt-adapt' view that would be contradictory. Additionally, given my arguments against fundamentalism, following any direct rules set forth by Jesus in the Gospels would also be a contradiction. So where does that leave us?

I propose that the only way to live a Christian life is to follow the character of Christ as summed up in one sentence; do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Is it theologically accurate? Given that this view requires an outright rejection of living life by the Bibles laws I would say that theology is no longer part of the equation. I believe Jesus himself commanded this because he saw it as being above the Bible, going beyond culture and time. I sincerely doubt that a God of love, of whom it is believed Jesus himself is incarnate, would find any joy or pleasure in His followers persecuting or killing in His name. You as a follower are only responsible for your own actions and those actions display to others how your religion works.

The character of Christ is what Christians should be focused on to live their lives. In this regard we can use the Bible as a history text book to tell us more of that character, and since independent sources all reference Jesus in the same way, His reputation and life events are quite reliable. Jesus kept the company of prostitutes, tax collectors, thieves, the sick and poor, and one of his most prominent disciples was a former Jewish Rabbi who swore to destroy Christianity. Jesus was a living representation of the Fruits of the Spirit; love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Living life like this, with this mindset, is the truest goal of Christianity.

Suppose for a moment we found a new set of Dead Sea scrolls with more books, and in these books are other years of Jesus' life or new books from other authors. Those living as fundamentalists or by way of 'adopt and adapt' would have a major problem in deciding which books should be accepted as "inspired by God", which parts are to be followed by us, and ensuring that there is no contradiction between the new books and the current Bible. Even that in itself creates a major problem. Imagine that God speaks to you and tells you to commit an act that is clearly outlined in the Bible as forbidden. Without getting into the arbitrary problems of Divine Command theory, you will have a terrible dilemma; abandon the religion you have lived your entire life by, or ignore a command that God spoke to you personally and literally. By living in the character of Christ instead of by the rules of the Bible this would never be a problem. If you believe Christ is God (which you almost have to if you claim to be a Christian) then God will never give you a command that damages the well-being of another person.




I have made my case and I hope it has been clear. Again, this is not a definitive argument. There will be people who agree with me and who disagree with me. One of the greatest things I strive for is constructive debate. Whether you support or deny an argument, just remember that you are doing so to the argument, not the arguer. If two people can enter a debate with that in mind then both will walk away better off than when they started.

Steve