Gordon Robinson | Law and theology
Loading article...
Two Fridays ago Peter Espeut wrote an entertaining column ( The new builds on the old) challenging my advice to throw away the Old Testament.
I’ve always maintained that, among The Gleaner’s mostly excellent columnists (with one glaring exception who, if you aren’t very discriminating, you’re reading now), Peter is one of the best. But I dispute his column’s implication that lawyers know more about law than Theologians who know more about the Bible than lawyers.
I know many litigants who believe they know more law than lawyers and one who doesn’t profess to know law but whose mind operates as a lawyer’s should. You see, Peter, I’ve always insisted that once you’ve mastered the English language and logic, you’re a lawyer.
My disdain for how law is taught is notorious and, in my biblically untutored opinion, same applies to theology. Lawyers have legal texts. Theologians’ core text is the Bible. How your text is interpreted or analysed comes down to language and logic. One advantage lawyers have over theologians is we’re encouraged to question any text. Theologians aren’t.
Peter unkindly omitted musicology from his otherwise accurate list of my qualifications. In retaliation, I’ll quote from a favourite Johnny Cash recording. It happened during his second coming (no offence, Peter) when young producer Rick Rubin stripped Cash down to an acoustic guitar and reminded the world of his greatness. The man who couldn’t cry is a funny story of Old Testament retribution written by Loudon Wainwright:
There once was a man; he couldn’t cry.
He hadn’t cried for years and years.
Napalmed babies, movie love stories
for instance could not produce tears.
His dog got ran over; his wife up and left him.
After that he got sacked from his job.
Lost his arm in the war; was laughed at by a whore;
but sill not a sniffle or sob.
His novel was refused; his movie was panned.
His big Broadway show was a flop.
He got sent off to jail, you guessed it, no bail
but still not a dribble or drop.
Doctors were called in, scientists too.
They all agreed, sure enough, this is no cream puff
He was taken from jail and placed in a place
for the insensitive and the insane.
He made lots of friends and played lots of chess
and cried every time it would rain.
Once it rained forty days and forty nights.
He cried, and he cried, and he cried….
On the forty-first day he passed away.
He just dehydrated and died
He went up to heaven, located his dog.
After that, he rejoined his arm.
Below, the critics, they took it all back.
Cancer robbed the whore of her charm.
His ex-wife died of stretch marks.
His ex-employer went broke.
The theologians were finally found out.
Right down to the ground
the jail house burned down
Theologians’ problem, which often leads to them being found out, stems from using texts as dogma. So Peter’s over-riding philosophy “We will never understand the New Testament without knowing what the Old Testament leads us to expect” suggests we won’t understand today’s events unless Miss Cleo made predictions yesterday. But, like when children are told the stork causes babies to come, we know that’s poppycock!
Peter quotes from New Testament certifying Joseph as King David’s descendant then from Old Testament where God “promises” David that his throne would last forever through David’s flesh and blood. But, contrarily, “I will be his father, and he will be my son.…”
Which is it? Is God David’s flesh and blood?
We KNOW David’s flesh and blood, Joseph, wasn’t Jesus’ biological father. Furthermore Old Testament’s “promise” was hearsay. Nathan said God told him to tell David. Really? Seriously? Didn’t God have David’s number? Finally, New Testament details Jesus’ biological versus adoptive parent narrative. Why must we know Nathan’s *oops, sorry, God’s) Old Testament promise to “understand”?
Btw, Peter, a Testament isn’t a Covenant. A covenant is a contract ( “Contractus” in Latin) whether by agreement or binding unilateral promise (e.g. “Ten Commandments”). A Testament is evidence ( “Testimonio” in Latin). Testamentum (which I suspect you wrote before the printer’s devil intervened) simply translates to testament not contract or promise.
Father Ruddy would be disappointed.
Peter didn’t explain any of Moses’ fairytales. But I did enjoy his November 21 column ( God is not like humanity). He wrote:
“The obsolete Theology of Retribution is absent from the later Old Testament, and is replaced with Christian theology in the New Testament.
“But why do so many people who call themselves ‘Christians’ follow obsolete Old Testament theology? Because their biblical fundamentalism leads them to believe that…every part of the Bible…has the same doctrinal value.”
Amen. But, lawyers know, if a witness is caught in a lie, none of his/her testimony can be accepted. Theologians should consider applying this principle to biblical testimony. But, wait, wouldn’t that lower congregants’ fear factor and slash revenues?
Peace and Love
Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com