Other "Thinking Drafts" and writing by Keith Drury -- http://www.indwes.edu/tuesday .

 

 

So, What's Your definition of "is"?

When you are in a committee meeting, and things are getting tangled up over the definition of one word you can always relieve the pressure and get a laugh by saying, "Well it depends on what your definition of is is" poking fun at Bill Clinton's squirming attempt to fog up the mirror over a simple word like "is." We all know what "is" is, right?

 

But we should remember a single word can determine our future.  Take the fourth century Arian controversy, for example.  I suspect most of today's Christians would say "Why quibble over homoousious or homoiousious, we're really saying the same thing."  They weren't saying the same thing. Yet had the church picked homoiousious today's church would be over with the Jehovah's Witnesses as orthodoxy.  There is a vast difference in our theology essentially because of the difference between the words "same" and "like." Athanasius won and Arianism became heresy.

 

But same and like are two different words.  How about when the same word can mean two different things?  There's an example of this from my own denomination.  For years my denomination's church law banned all movie attendance for its members.  In 1980 our general conference passed a revised statement which called members to commit to:

 

…the refusal to patronize the motion picture theater…as they feature the cheap, violent, or the sensual and pornographic…"

 

So what does as mean?  Does this statement merely repeat the old ban -- (as means since) -- that is, don't go to movies since they feature the cheap, violent, sensual..?  Or does as mean when -- that is, don't go to movies when they feature the cheap, violent sensual…"    It was the perfect word choice politically.  Conservatives who wanted to reaffirm the anti-movies position figured as meant since.  Progressives who wanted to  see Bambi and other wholesome movies figured as meant when.

 

The change sailed through with both sides reading "as" their own way.  Everything was calm until a press release reported the conference had loosened the denomination's anti-movie stance.  That brought conservatives to their feet to attempt to close the barn door belatedly.  The question was settled when a respected member of the study committee declared  to the members of the committee as meant when.  The resistance died away and the younger folk were free to decide for themselves which films featured the cheap, violent, sensual or pornographic…"

 

Of course today's members of my denomination chuckle at this story, condemning the "vestiges of legalism."   Most of today's members accept movies as a practicing fact of life.  Pastors use movies as sermon illustrations, or we'll publish denominational devotionals using R-rated movies to make a point.   True, my denomination's educational institutions hold the line against R-rated movies, but most members today consider the movies debate a thing of the past. 

 

However the really important decision in 1980 was not loosening up the stance to allow for "wholesome movies."  It was changing who makes the decision.  Before 1980 the denomination made the decision -- all members would attend no movies.  After 1980 the decision was delegated to the individual member.  Since the denomination does not publish a list of banned movies which "feature the violent, cheap, violent, sensual or pornographic" each member decides for him or her self which movies fail this test.  As you can imagine there is a pretty wide breadth of interpretation on what is too violent or sensual. 

 

And that's what this column is really about.  Since most of today's denominations and institutions run on the leftover laws from earlier generations, to what extent should things be delegated to individuals to decide?  Can individuals decide for themselves to what extent alcohol is wrong?  Can individuals decide for themselves if they want to use tobacco or drive their motorcycle without a helmet?  Can individuals decide which Internet sites are pornographic or not?  Should a woman in your church be able to decide for herself when an abortion is regretful but necessary or should there be one church-wide unified law?  Which issues demand a one-size-fits-all universal denominational law, and which issues do you think should be decided by the individual?  If you were to make these two lists, what would be on each of them? 

 

So what do you think?

To contribute to the thinking on this issue e-mail your response to [email protected]

By Keith Drury, September, 2000. You are free to transmit, duplicate or distribute this article for non-profit use without permission.