© 2015 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
"Death to America" has been a rallying cry in Iran since the 1979
seizure of the American embassy in Tehran and the holding of 52 Americans as
hostages for 444 days in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution. Each year
since, on the November 4 anniversary of that takeover, a crowd, reportedly
smaller each year, gathers to commemorate that event, burn American flags and
chant again "Death to America."Understandably, most Americans don't hear those words as friendly.
This year's November 4 anniversary, however, came after Iran and six world powers, including the United States, concluded a pact in which Iran agreed to stop work toward acquiring a nuclear weapon and, in exchange, the world powers agreed to lift specified sanctions against Iran.
While that accord is far from a statement of friendship between Iran and the other nations in the agreement, the Iranian regime's continued support for the "Death to America" shout after the pact seems particularly undiplomatic.
The internal politics of Iran, however, as well as a certain belligerence and perhaps matters of face-saving apparently make the nation's leadership unwilling to stop the chants.
However, in a pre-anniversary-day speech to university students two weeks ago, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, "clarified" the slogan. After saying that the catch phrase was justified and would stay, he added, "The slogan 'death to America' is backed by reason and wisdom; and it goes without saying that the slogan does not mean death to the American nation; this slogan means death to the U.S. policies, death to arrogance."
Earlier this year, Iran's president, Hassan Rouhani, similarly walked back the three-word shout. In an interview with CBS's Steve Kroft, Rouhani said that the chant "is not a slogan against the American people." He then mentioned the U.S. role in supporting the shah before the revolution and Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war. "People will not forget these things. We cannot forget the past, but at the same time, our gaze must be toward the future."
It remains to be seen whether these statements that play down the slogan really represent a softening of attitudes. There are still hard-liners in Iran, who, while not in power at present, remain influential and powerful.
And, in the view of some observers of Iran, the softening of the intent of the chant isn't really much of a change. Some say that Iran still advocates fundamentally transforming the United States from a democratic republic with civil rights for all to a Muslim nation based upon religious law.
Still, polls show that the vast majority of Iranians, even if they don't back U.S. policies, don't wish to kill Americans.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Iranian Leader: 'Death to America' Refers to Policies, Not the Nation. CNN
'Death to America' Endures in Iran. Lowell Sun
'Death to America!' and the Iran Deal. The New Yorker
Applying the News Story
In applying this matter of reinterpreting long-standing words and phrases in the church or when addressing the world from the church, there is more than one direction we can go with the discussion. We've chosen one, but note that we've included three others in the "For Further Discussion" section below, all suggested by TWW team members.
The line of development we've chosen to focus on is this: Sometimes, after listening faithfully for God's word, we conclude that certain long-standing terms or phrases used in the church or certain long-used understandings of scripture passages no longer apply because we now realize that those understandings were based on faulty assumptions or bias rather than on the demands of true discipleship. In such cases, we might want to honor the understanding of previous generations by retaining some of their language, but still steer the discussion in another direction.
Two terms, frequently used in seminaries and Bible schools, are applicable here. They are "exegesis" (ek-si-JEE-sis) and "eisegesis" (ahy-si-JEE-sis). Exegesis simply means explanation. When applied to scripture, it means an explanation or critical interpretation of a text, seeking its original intent. Eisegesis means the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas. The best sermons often incorporate both exegesis and eisegesis of the chosen scripture passage.
If, in his speech, the Iranian leader was reinterpreting the "Death to America" text, he was doing eisegesis. However, if his interpretation of the slogan actually reflects its original intention, then he was doing exegesis.
All Christians are doing eisegesis when they are figuring out how to apply a passage of scripture to the particular circumstances of their lives.
The Big Questions
1. When, if ever, have you felt that a particular phrase or teaching in your church hindered rather than advanced the gospel? If possible, give an example, and explain what you considered problematic about it.
2. When has a fresh interpretation helped you to see how a doctrine or a faith practice that previously didn't connect for you, really does apply to your life of faith? If possible, give an example, and explain how the fresh interpretation helped you.
3. Is it necessary for us to embrace every teaching of our church for our Christian faith to be real? Why or why not?
4. When have you had to rely on your own judgment to give advice on a matter of Christian living because you had no word from the Lord about it? How did that turn out? What tools for making such judgments does God provide?
5. When faithful Christians do eisegesis from scripture, are they giving only their own ideas or might divine inspiration also be involved? Explain your answer.
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
2 Timothy 2:15
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth. (For context, read 2:14-19.)
Paul wrote these words to his coworker, Timothy, while the latter was guiding a group of Christians, possibly in Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3). He urges Timothy to "rightly" explain "the word of truth," which can refer to either scripture or the gospel message, or both.
Since Paul uses the word "explaining," we could say that he is calling for Timothy to do careful exegesis of scripture and the gospel, but as soon as someone in the congregation approached Timothy with a question such as "Yes, but what do those words mean I should do about my troublesome non-believing neighbor?" Timothy would have to do some eisegesis, drawing from his fuller knowledge of scripture and saying what action he thinks the scripture would support.
Questions: What do you do to present yourself as "one approved by God"? Have others told you so when you were successful in so presenting yourself?
Ezra 9:1-3
... the officials approached me [Ezra] and said, "The people of Israel ... have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons. Thus the holy seed has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands …." When I heard this, I tore my garment and my mantle, and pulled hair from my head and beard, and sat appalled. (For context, read 9:1-4; 10:1-3, 44.)
1 Corinthians 7:12-13
To the rest I say -- I and not the Lord -- that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. (For context, read 7:8-16.)
The book of Ezra tells of a time after the Jewish exiles returned to their homeland where Ezra the priest, who was at the time their religious leader, learned that some of his people had taken foreign spouses. In some cases, these mixed marriages had been in place long enough that they had children. When Ezra learned of this, he understood it as a violation of Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 7:1-3). He led the people to expel these foreign wives and their children.
Centuries later, in the era of the early church, the apostle Paul when faced with a similar situation -- Christian believers married to unbelievers -- clearly did not use Ezra as a model for a solution. He admits that he has no instruction from God about this (that the meaning of his statement "I and not the Lord" in the verses above), but goes on to give the instructions for the situation he thinks best. And clearly, the church has followed Paul's model and not Ezra's.
Questions: What does the Ezra model say about the sacredness of the marriage vow? What does the Paul model say about it? When have you navigated between separate and seemingly conflicting scriptural viewpoints?
Hebrews 9:12-14
[Jesus] entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God! (For context, read 9:1-22.)
Here the writer of Hebrews, writing to fellow Jews, uses their practice of offering animal sacrifices in the temple to help them understand the atoning work of Jesus.
We hesitate to call the Hebrews author's work eisegesis exactly, because, believing in the divine inspiration of scripture, we doubt he was simply giving his own ideas, but he was, in fact, giving a different understanding of sacrifice.
Questions: What argument can you make to support the idea, presented in Hebrews, that Christ's death was effective for our salvation? Is it necessary to buy into the idea of sacrifice for Christ to be your Lord? What other approaches to understanding the ministry of Jesus can help when the idea of blood sacrifice makes no sense or even repels potential new Christians?
Jonah 4:9-11
But God said to Jonah, "Is it right for you to be angry about the bush?" And he said, "Yes, angry enough to die." Then the LORD said, "You are concerned about the bush, for which you did not labor and which you did not grow; it came into being in a night and perished in a night. And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?" (For context, read 3:10--4:11.)
The Lord had sent the prophet Jonah to Nineveh, the capital city of the Assyrian Empire, which was an archenemy of Israel, to call its citizens to repentance.
After trying to duck the job, Jonah went, and when he delivered his message, the whole city of people did repent. And the Lord spared them from the prophesied calamity.
Jonah's mission was successful, but he wasn't happy about it, for he didn't want Israel's enemies to be saved. He went and sulked under a bush that provided him some shade from the hot Mideastern sun. When the bush died, Jonah was angry and the conversation in the verse above ensued.
What God did here was to reinterpret for Jonah the idea that being chosen people meant God loved only Israel. Here Jonah learned that God loved others as well.
Questions: During World War II, Germans and Japanese were depicted in propaganda (including cartoons) as bloodthirsty subhuman caricatures in the 20th century -- but the words "German" and "Japanese" do not have the same emotional juice now. The same was true about us for them. What, besides the end of the war itself, caused those depictions to change?
How do you apply this scripture to those who shout "Death to America"? Where do you need to walk back an assumption about who is an enemy?
How might people have to revise an earlier assessment of your life when you were markedly different?
For Further Discussion
1. Invite a class member who wishes to volunteer to pick one of the following historic teachings of the church and say why that particular teaching does not (or does) connect personally for him or her, and then, as a group, discuss the person's explanation.
Pick from these: "Jesus died in my place on the cross" (also called the substitutionary atonement); "we are all tainted with sin from birth" (also called original sin); "God in three persons" (also called the doctrine of the Trinity).
Then ask class members if any have heard fresh interpretations of these matters that helped them connect these to their own life.
2. Respond to this, from TWW team member Joanna Loucky-Ramsey: "It is interesting to note the modifying voices that have spoken up about other groups who have been depicted negatively in our nation of late; specifically, some have responded to the painting of all law enforcement officers with the brush of violence and abuse or the characterization of all Muslims as extremists by sharing stories of police doing good deeds for members of the public they serve, or Muslims who have been good neighbors, etc. The story of our nation is constantly being shaped by all our voices."
3. Comment on this, from TWW team member Michael Harnish: "It seems to me that every generation of believers thinks that the next generation of believers are all going to hell due to their misrepresentations of the gospel. And each generation feels like they have Jesus more figured out than the last." Harnish goes on to say that each generation can be arrogant about its view when looking at the view of the previous or next generation. So, says, Harnish, the lesson could take the angle of how arrogance hinders authenticity in the church. "I've simply been pondering how we trust new movements in the church without either side becoming arrogant," Harnish says.
4. Respond to this, from TWW team member Liz Antonson, who suggests that takeaways from the lesson "could come from exploring 1) the church's 'devolution' to standard-less inclusiveness with the rationale of appealing to the unchurched, 2) the church's abandonment/over-simplification of the core teachings of the salvation message, 3) the church's dumbing-down in the area of music composition and presentation, and 4) the reality that the 'West' needs to be evangelized by the 'rest' in some cases (that is, the West needs a true revival of the message and power of Christ Jesus)."
5. Discuss TWW team member Mary Sells' reaction to today's news story: "I think we have become so accustomed to being hated by certain groups that we have developed a defensive reflex that maybe makes us a little more vulnerable to the erosion of our own understanding of how God's love can work within us. Perhaps our focus is on how to heal the other of their sinfulness, rather than how to use the love of God within us for the betterment, not only of ourselves, but also for the other. (That worked for Jesus who showed love and kindness and mercy and wisdom while living in a world gone mad.) Maybe that is part of what we learn by being the point of others' hatred: how to live God's way."
Responding to the News
Certainly we don't condone the "Death to America" slogan, but this news does give us an opportunity to understand a bit better what might drive the retention of that cry in Iran. To gain more perspective on the view of the United States as seen by some Iranians, we recommend reading The New Yorker article in the list of links above.
This is also a good time to:
• critically consider how to apply our Christian faith to the modern age.
• re-examine long-standing catch phrases.
• reflect on the usefulness or legitimacy of the process called "eisegesis" in our efforts to be a good follower of Christ's teaching in a modern world.
Closing Prayer
Guide us, O Lord, as we apply the ancient words of scripture and the historic teachings of the church to our day and age. In Jesus' name. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment