Scripture Text (NRSV)
4:1 So now, Israel, give heed to the statutes and ordinances that I am
teaching you to observe, so that you may live to enter and occupy the
land that the LORD, the God of your ancestors, is giving you.
4:2 You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take away
anything from it, but keep the commandments of the LORD your God with
which I am charging you.
4:6 You must observe them diligently, for this will show your wisdom
and discernment to the peoples, who, when they hear all these
statutes, will say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and discerning
people!"
4:7 For what other great nation has a god so near to it as the LORD
our God is whenever we call to him?
4:8 And what other great nation has statutes and ordinances as just as
this entire law that I am setting before you today?
4:9 But take care and watch yourselves closely, so as neither to
forget the things that your eyes have seen nor to let them slip from
your mind all the days of your life; make them known to your children
and your children's children--
Comments:
The Israelites believed the law was a divine gift that provided
guidelines for living out the covenant. According to Moses, the people
are to obey the law and neither add to nor subtract from it.
I was listening to Public Radio Sunday on my way home and I heard part
of an interview about comedians and the way they have been censored in
the past for using taboo subject material such as sex, politics,
offensive language, etc. One of the persons said they thought it was
good that the "Victorian" ideals were being challenged and that these
taboos were being brought into question. I, personally, was very
offended at the clips from censored comedians they included. I didn't
feel the same way - that our "Victorian" ideals needed to be
challenged.
And yet, the church has a history of de-bunking tradition - especially
with Martin Luther and others. Our society today also seems to take
pride in de-bunking tradition. But there is a point when boundaries
are helpful, not harmful. Some appeals to the First amendment - free
speech - are really quite frightening sometimes. Some taboos, some
censorship is good.
And then we have this passage from Deutoronomy. In my Interpretation
commentary by Patrick Miller, he says explains that the passage seems
to say that keeping of the law "is the way God is somehow known and
found in the midst of community." He derives this from the parallel
structure of verses 7 and 8, and notes that other Deutoronomic
passages support this, such as Deut. 30:11-14.
In a post-modern culture that values reletivism over absolute truths,
it is difficult to preach this, especially to a society that values
those who question the old ways. Yet, Patrick's interpretation of the
passage makes a lot of sense.
Relating this to the gospel text, however, seems to help. It's not
just a set of laws for the sake of laws. They are laws for the common
good - reletivism? We can see God's laws as protecting that which
comes into our minds (adultery, hate, murder, lies, selfishness, etc.)
in order to bring about good from within us.
And in this society where we are being bombarded by offensive speech,
advertisement and art of other's claiming first amendment rights,
don't we look for filters for our computers, TVs to protect us and our
children? Aren't those a welcome relief? And then the laws set forth
in Deutoronomy seem more like relief than the heavy hand of law?
Tigger in MN
This would make a good passage for Sept 11, 2003 in rememberance...
earmakring this for that I think.... especially the verse 9 Don't
forget what your eyes saw...Don't forget how every Church practically
was open the evening of 9-11. A nation in mourning and prayerful.
Don't slip away from the remembering! Keep true to Gods Laws, ways...
Take it to heart. Lest us not forget... thy agony...or Gesemene...
Clerically Blonde in West Ohio
Tigger in MN
I, too, struggle with this issue. For example, There was a vulgar,
suggestive phrase that someone had stenciled on the back of a car. My
then-12-year-old daughter asked me, "What does that mean?"
See, the way I see it, is if you want to be that kind of person, I
can't stop you, but by putting it on the back of your car for all to
read, you've now made it part of MY life and the life of my child. I
found it invasive, free-speech aside. Free speech is good, but where
is my freedom to NOT LISTEN?
Yet, who is to decide (ref. the gospel text) where the boundaries lie?
It's not like we could elect a committee to draw up a list of
acceptable words and phrases to put on cars, or t-shirts, or whatever,
and really believe that this will curtail it. Folks will just find
another way. It's like kids who wear uniforms to school find little
ways to get around the uniform without being "out of uniform."
As a former uniform-wearer,
Sally in GA
sorry for the double-post on the same subject (usually I only
double-post if I have 2 subjects).
I should clarify something: I said, "folks will find another way."
Yes, they will. However, I do believe in civil liberties (now don't
get started on the ACLU). No one should legislate or police morality.
My problem is, "you have free speech. When do I get free silence?"
Sally in GA
Sally in Ga.
Good question: "When do I get free silence?" and the whole issue of
someone else's freedom to express themselves interferes with another's
wish to not hear. I think the big issue here is one we learn from
Galatians that there is always responsibility in our freedom. That is
something that Hollywood and our world of entertainment fail to
acknowledge. Freedom without responsibility is anarchy. The trouble is
how to legislate that, and as you said, "you cannot legislate
morality." So what Song of Songs, the Gospel lesson and I think
Deuteronomy are all stating when you put them together is that God's
laws, based on love and mercy are what is called for. It isn't law for
the sake of law, tradition for the sake of tradition, but that our
lives have boundaries and and ways of living that are based on our
love of God and love of one another. What we are seeing in our country
and world are only revealing how far our hearts are from the God who
loves us and has redeemed us.
Susan in Wa.
Such a debate on the placement of the 10 Commandments monument in
Alabama! If only the people would observe the commandments in their
lives... how many who decry the movement of the monument would support
the "right" of a person to place a quotation from the Koran in such a
place? We hang the cross on a wall or around our necks, but live as if
that decoration is no different than a flower. What responsibility we
avoid in our mad cry for freedom!
Enough ranting. I just had to blow off some steam. Thanks for allowing
it here.
Michelle
I've often wondered if there were quotes from other religions
concerning lawful living, if the 10 commandments could stay there.
There are some beautiful words in the Koran, from the Buddhist
tradition and many others that many would find not offensive. Then it
wouldn't be that the government was promoting a religion, but
acknowledging that religions have an important place in shaping
society's lawfulness and responsibility.
Tigger in MN
Then it wouldn't be that the government was promoting a religion, but
acknowledging that religions have an important place in shaping
society's lawfulness and responsibility. =================
American law is not that the gov't can't promote "A" religion... it's
that it can't promote religion. Any religion ... all religion ... in
any way. So having a variety of religious expressions displayed
wouldn't solve the problem, only compound it.
Lawyer
Tolawyer,
"The government cannot promote religion, any religion, all religion."
That may be how it is interpreted now, but that isn't the
understanding of our forefathers. There is freedom of religion in this
country, and the government was not to force any religion on anyone,
or have a "State church." But the origional intention was never to
mean that prayers could not be said at a public function, that God
couldn't be mentioned, or that a religious group could not meet in a
government building, such as a classroom of a school or an
auditorium.There has been a whole rewriting and misinterpreting the
history and foundation of our country to please a small minority of
people that I find very frustrating.
Susan in Wa.
That may be how it is interpreted now, but that isn't the
understanding of our forefathers.
==============
It's almost impossible to know the intentions of the Founding Fathers
as a group. They all had varying intentions. The best we can do is
look at their contemporaneous writings. Jefferson, e.g., wrote of
building a "wall of separation" between government and religion;
Adams, of protecting the state from "ecclesiastical depradation".
These men had a justifiable fear and loathing of established religion,
and most of them were "deists" rather than the sort of orthodox
Christians most of us imagine ourselves to be. We are probably better
off with strict separation than we would be with "civil religion". But
that's just my opinion.
This brief discussion started with a comment about that several-ton
piece of rock in the Supreme Court building in Alabama. So many people
have turned that monument into an idol ... wouldn't it be far better
for them to inscribe the Lord's word in their hearts and live out
those laws, rather than worry about how and where they are put on
public display? By making stone monuments of them, people can put on a
show of admiring them, while they ignore them in the way they live!
The lawyer, again
To Tigger, Another take on what Martin Luther did was that he
"Re-discovered the Tradition", rather than "debunking" it was you
said. Luther kept some sacraments which were supported by Scripture,
and discarded others where Scriptural support was weak or lacking. He
kept the Mass. He acknowledged the Church Fathers. I'm just asking if
you'd like to take another look at this.
To All, I find this lectionary piece HUMOROUS!. Verse 2 says: You must
niether add anything to what I command you nor take away anything from
it". Then the lectionary proceeds to "take away" the next 3 verses.
Actually those omitted verses could be pretty important. Who put these
letions together, anyway. Someone must have had a sense of humor, to
put the most constructive slant on what has happened. --MattMN
I am Christian, I am Christian clergy. So, I'm all in favor of the 10
Commandments. However, I can't really figure out how we've decided
that posting them in public places, schools, etc. is going to help us
learn anything from them. Moses and the 600,000 people who wandered
around the wilderness hauled those Tablets around with them for the
last half of their journey and they still couldn't figure out right
from wrong. God was close enough to almost touch in the cloud and the
pillar of fire, and still the people were very disconnected from their
God. Written law means nothing until it is internalized. We don't have
to look up in the driver's manual every time we come to a crossroads
to see what that red light means. We just know, and we apply the
brake. We don't have to cart around our state lawbooks to control
ourselves. So too with religious law. You could post it on every lamp
post, but until it becomes learned behavior, it is only writing on a
metal post.
I wish some of this great energy and lamenting over the 10
Commandments could be re-channeled into some national project that
demonstrates the intent of the at least the last 6 of the 10
Commandments (showing our love of God by loving/respecting our
neighbors) without all this fanfare and hysteria. I wish I could ask
all the people upset about this: Want everyone to see the Law in the
public arena? Join Habitat for Humanity, give blood, go visit in the
prison, serve in a food line once a week, forgive a grudge, tutor a
kid, visit the lonely, pray for your enemy (or better yet, make your
enemy your friend), whatever. These won't get you to heaven, but they
sure will show the world that the Judeo-Christian heart is where the
Commandments are - and even where they aren't allowed anymore.
Thanks for this place to blow off some of that steam! Whew. That felt
good.
KyHoosierCat
A question for you all:
Doesn't carving a representation of the "Ten Commandments" and placing
it in a public location for veneration directly violate Exodus 20:4?
One of many Toms
Could it be that the our forefathers did not want the gov to pass alaw
that said everyone had to be a certain religon?That way everyone still
had freedom of choice?When was the jewish religon first introduced to
the us?
to Lawyer,
You make a good point in saying that the monument has been made into a
kind of idol and that it would be better for the commandments to be
written on our hearts, and to live out the Gospel making those
commandments as well as all the scriptures alive through us, ( My
wording), and while I don't support a lot of the religious right
agenda of prayer in the schools because I am not particularly
interested in whatever brand of religiosity that teacher may have
being given to my child, I still hold to the belief that the
separation of Church and state has gone too far to the extreme of
removing anything having to do with religion from about all areas of
our society, which I think is dangerous. Believe me I am not a
fundamentalist, and much of what gets proclaimed as Christianity from
many of our prominant folks,including our President, does not
represent my beliefs. I just think it has been taken too far.
Susan in Wa.
