Wash and pray

Last night's Holy Thursday service was a gorgeous mix of joy and sorrow. We celebrated the institution of the Eucharist and the new priesthood. We washed feet and were washed. We watched the stripping of the altar. And then we mimicked the slow plod to Gethsemane.

We began in light, and ended in darkness. We closed by pretending we would want to stay with him in that garden, singing the Taize piece "Stay with me".

As usual, I wept during the foot washing, my unworthiness to be touched by Him profoundly evident, with pride the most heinous of many crimes.

After the service I thought about a Facebook discussion I'd had earlier in the day with evangelical Christians who preach fire and brimstone for those who support same sex marriage.

I thought about what Jesus did at that supper, and the model of love that He offered to us through it.

He knew that He was about to be betrayed, and by whom. He looked Judas in the eye and in the heart, and dipped His hand with Judas into the bowl. But He did more than just that.

He washed His betrayer's feet. He acted as servant and lover for one who He knew to be so horribly in the wrong.

It made me think.

What a beautiful thing it would be if those who preach judgement and condemnation of same sex relationships would instead get down on their knees publicly, as Jesus did, and say "Let me humble myself. Let me be a servant to you."

Would not this be a more fitting way to stay with Him in the garden, watching and praying?

Please Lord, help me to be a washer of feet rather than a wielder of damnation.

Inerrant Scripture, Delivered by Errant Messengers

This week I've been contemplating the inerrancy of scripture.

Here's how Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation describes it:

Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.

After doing a bit of reading on the subject, it appears that some Christians believe that this inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts, while others contend that it has been passed along through all the duplications and replications and translations.

An interesting argument, but I'm not going to take on either side of that debate. What I've been thinking about is what "without error" means.

Yesterday DiDi and I read scattered parts of 1 Corinthians, which prompted this thinking. Here we have Paul writing to the new Christians in Corinth, who have found themselves fractured between teachers with differing sets of rules and behaviors and interpretations they are to follow. You can almost hear Paul sighing as he writes, frustrated at the state they are in and their lack of teeth for chewing spiritual meat. Pouring out milk in the form of verbal slaps, periodically sweetened with a  sprinkle of encouragement.

He undoubtedly writes what is true. He tapped into the mind of Christ which he mentions in Chapter 2, and passed along what he thought the Corinthians needed to hear.

But just as I believe that some people confuse the Bible with God Himself, I think that some people confuse the inerrancy of scripture with the inerrancy of the individual writers.

Clearly they are not without error. In the case of this letter, Paul tells us that he himself is not innocent. In chapter 7 Paul admits several times that he is voicing his opinion rather than something that was given to him by the Lord. He is so convinced that the end is coming soon that he urges people not to marry (though he acknowledges that some of us are so weak that we can't help indulging and therefore better get hitched). And of course, we are still waiting for Christ to come again, thousands of years later. Paul believed that it was much better to live as he did, alone, celibate.
 
Are these things inerrantly true? For the purposes Paul tried to accomplish I would say yes, they were.

Are they the fullness of truth? No.

As the Vatican II document states, they were without error for that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided.

A subset of truth, those truths which God desired to be confided.

The letters were penned by people who did their best to channel the mind of Christ, to people who they assumed wanted to do the same. But those people were not perfect, at either end.

Imperfect people writing to imperfect people about perfect truth. Writing at that time, for that time, without error.

And now here we are, millenia later, reading Paul's words in chapter 11 about eating food which has been sacrificed to idols, and about how it is a disgrace for men to have long hair, and for women to pray with their head uncovered. Things which we disregard, believing them to be relics of the past, which no longer apply. Then we continue reading in the same chapter, words of the institution of the Eucharist, beautiful words which most Christians believe to be timelessly applicable.

Truth. Inerrant truth for specific purposes. Each word, each sentence completely without error, while not being globally true for every situation at every era.

Inerrant scripture yes, but delivered by errant messengers.

God's Imperfect Construct

I think I realized a major part of the problem for Christians in understanding how we are to view The Law.

For most Christians, the Bible is viewed as the inerrant word of God. If it's in the book, it is perfectly true and complete. It's veracity is ensured through the authorship of the Holy Spirit.

I'm not arguing that point, but I think this view of perfection has led to a misunderstanding. We have become confused, despite so many New Testament passages which attempt to explain it.

And what we are confused about is this; we think that because the Law of Moses is conveyed in a perfectly true book, the law itself must therefore be perfect.

Because of this, conservative Christians scramble their brains to figure out how the Law still remains completely intact, because it is perfect, while simultaneously believing that many of it's rules no longer apply. This requires rigorous mental gymnastics which inevitably result in an eventual internal dropping of the subject.

Here's a typical silent monolog:  

Jesus says He hasn't come to overturn the Law but to fulfill it, so that MUST mean it still stands, right? Expect for the bits that are discussed in Acts and the epistles, and those things that Jesus Himself did. Like circumcision, and not eating bacon. He did away with those. But if they weren't specifically mentioned in the New Testament, the laws still stand.

I DO wonder about the one related to cutting mens' hair... And the one about stoning disobedient children. And the one...
.
.
.
I should really go start a load of laundry.

We simply can't figure it out.

We think about it just long enough to realize that the concept doesn't actually make sense, and then we have to stop thinking about it, and sum it all up by saying that God knows best.

Which, of course, He does.

But I think this is all unnecessary, and it comes from a state of confusion about the Bible itself.

Somewhere along the line we have come to think that since scripture is perfect, the Law, which is in scripture, must also be perfect.

But that is not the case.

The Law was not perfect.

According to the scriptures, that is why Jesus came. Because of it's imperfection. When we read the law, we should not view it as a set of perfect instructions set down for us by God. We should view it as an imperfect construct put into place for a season.

And now that season has passed.

Here's how some passages from Hebrews explains it:

Heb. 8:1 Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being. ...  5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. 7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.

The law was imperfect. There were things wrong with it. But as Christ Himself said:

"It is finished."

It Has Been Accomplished

DiDi recently posted the following on Facebook:

John 1: 17 NIV "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." 

Seems simple, right? Thoughts?? 

 One of our friends responded, saying:

Fo' sure, but of course grace doesn't eliminate the law, not one bit.

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Not for me to define that, of course. Sin is between each man and his maker, and only resolved through renunciation and reconciliation. Where we get this daft idea that we're supposed to do a running commentary on everyone else's behavior is beyond me.

Here is my response.

Jesus spoke the words you quote as part of the sermon on the mount. But I read it differently than you do. While I won't argue about the phrase "not the smallest letter or least stroke will disappear", it's the "Until" part that I am focusing on. Because scripture tells us that Jesus DID the accomplishing.

John 4:34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to --finish-- his work.

John 17:1 When Jesus had said this, he raised his eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Give glory to your son, so that your son may glorify you, just as you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to all you gave him. Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. I glorified you on earth by --accomplishing-- the work that you gave me to do.

John 19:28 After this, aware that --everything was now finished--, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I thirst.” 29 There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, --“It is finished.”-- And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit. 

Gal 4:4-5 Brothers and sisters: When the --fullness of time-- had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

We know from Acts that letters and jots were being disregarded in the law, as directed by visions sent to the apostles, and as directed by the logic the same apostles applied to their work of evangelization.

And we know that God himself appeared to violate his own laws even prior to Jesus death through the institution of the Eucharist; His followers were commanded to drink blood, an instruction which clearly went against Jewish dietary rules. Jesus also broke the law many times by performing healings and taking other actions which violate Sabbath laws of behavior.

Jesus was the fulfillment of the law, not it's replacement. But everything --has been accomplished--, through Him.

The real question is, how does He want us to live, and what are the rules that should be maintained within the two greatest commandments?