Jackhammers for Jesus

One of this week's readings includes a conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees:

Luke 16:16 “The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped."

This reminds me of the way that modern day Pharisees try to convince me that I can't be Christian. They use Jesus as a battling ram, as if they can "rescue" me by force, pushing me into the kingdom through the repetition of their claims. They apply the pneumatic hammer of scripture.

In this passage Jesus tells us that something new happened when John came. He points out that as Messiah, his mission was to fulfill the law; to make it complete. As he said on the cross "It is finished/culminated/consumated."  And so I pat myself on the back, and think about making up a bunch of tee shirts reading "Jackhammers for Jesus" to pass out to the gaggle of Pharisees who swarm near, waving their favorite, most damning passages of scripture.

But then verse 17 urges me to patience and mercy for these same people who drive me nearly mad with their death-grip on cudgels of law despite all the instruction to the contrary offered in the gospels and  epistles. In 17 Jesus reminds me that it is no easy thing for those raised under the law, those who define themselves by it, to let it pass away.

And that is sad. And worthy of compassion.

When odor becomes fragrance

At the end of Paul's letter to the Philippians, he praises the church, and says that their financial gifts to him are a fragrant offering:

I have been paid in full and have more than enough; I am fully satisfied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God. (Phil 4:8)

Old Testament cross references to the phrase point to the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. The typical phrase used in these references is "a pleasing odor". This concept causes cognitive dissonance given that the scent of burning feathers, fur, and bone is generally recognized as disgusting.

Odor indeed.

So what a lovely way it is for Paul to turn this all on its head, while confirming the words of Jesus who said:

“But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice." (Matt 9:13)  

Paul praised the church for being actors in the new covenant, where generosity and consideration for suffering is what God desires, rather than the death-driven sacrificial system of the old.

The Vanity of Name Taking

I am in a Facebook conversation with a young woman who has chosen "Cisse Masiix" as her nom de guerre, which means Jesus Christ in Somali. She is a Christian fundamentalist extremist who picks and chooses the scriptures she wants to follow and which others to use as whips on those with whom she disagrees.

I picture her wearing a button reading "WWJD?" But given the style with which she engages in discussion about homosexuality, it's pretty clear she ignores that essential question. 

Because here's what Jesus did.

• He spent time with sinners.
• He stopped injustice to the marginalized.
• He healed.
• He taught gently, through stories and parables.
• He broke down barriers between those of opposing social positions, cultures, and ideals.
• He excoriated two groups only: the money changers who extorted the faithful, and the scribes and pharisees who twisted God's instructions and kept people from the love of God. And this latter group gets more gospel attention than anything else.
• He died rather than fight.
• He beseeched God for oneness among his followers.

What he didn't do was use scripture as a cudgel, rather, he proclaimed woe to those who did.

A number of Old Testament passages teach us that his holy name is profaned by hypocritical behavior and false representation of God's words or character.

I worry a bit about what he thinks, this true Jesus Christ, when he watches people take on his name and then preach a message so in conflict with his own.

So if you are reading this, please pray for her, this fervent spitfire. May God open her eyes to the light of Christ.

Question of the day: Paul's view of the physical

Here's a question from Facebook:

I'm a bit confused... I thought the early Church took it's lead from St Paul, and i can't see him agreeing with gay anything - let alone marriage. He didn't even seem to think much about straight marriage come to that. I admit I have an issue with Paul - he always seemed so utterly down on any kind of physical love, and i find it hard to reconcile his teachings with those of Jesus.

The church was built on Peter, the Rock, the fisherman. Rural, uneducated Peter. Paul was erudite and voluble. Because we have so many of his (and his followers) letters it -might- give a false impression of his actual role.

Paul wrote to cities that were in horrendous idolatrous sinfulness. The homosexuality he mentions is in the context of those idolatrous behaviors. Because of that, we really don't know what he thought about the concept of committed, monogamous same-sex relationships. He didn't discuss them.

But Paul's instructions on marriage are a wonderful example of how we have to take the scriptures in their entirety, rather than pulling out snippets to prove our point. I could quote Paul and "prove" that Christians aren't supposed to marry at all. I wouldn't be adding anything to his words, simply restating them. But the common Christian understanding is that marriage is a good thing, despite Paul's telling us that marriage pulls us away from Christ, and that we should only marry if we are weak.

So take Paul in context. He was a bit of a fire brand and self appointed micro-pharisee (it's hard to break old habits), trying to keep the young church as clean as possible. Trying to make followers who strove for holiness. Trying to make up for his past hate crimes against Christians.

The Holy Spirit inspired Paul's words. But they were -Paul's- words, spoken to a time and place, for that time and place. The Spirit still speaks, and it sounds to me like He is whispering to you.

God of Scandal

I met my fiance Diane at a Charismatic Episcopal Church about seven years ago. In case you aren't familiar with the CEC, (most people aren't), imagine smooshing together an Assembly of God congregation with a Catholic church that rejects the Pope and wants it's male priests to be able to marry. If you can do that, you'll have a pretty good idea of what it's like. The CEC features liturgical services; a patriarchal, socially conservative structure with no ordination of women and governance by an all-male Rector's Council; contemporary worship music; and prayer in tongues. Incense burns, bells ring, prophecies are spoken, and occasionally a worshiper falls to the ground, slain.

It's a cafeteria tray full of carefully selected Christian tidbits.

I helped found the church from the rubble of a fractured Presbyterian congregation. I spent hundreds of hours searching for space and preparing it for holy use, developing printed material for the services and for marketing, building a website, writing newsletters, teaching classes, leading Bible studies, participating in strategic visioning and planning, and assisting the Rector's Council. I was so deeply involved in so many things that we eventually made up a title for my role.

I loved and served that church and it's people with my whole heart.

Throughout those years the priest grew to be my best friend. In my eyes he could do no wrong and I worked hard to further his goals and those of the Rector's Council. We met often as friends and as co-laborers.

I attended church alone, having come to my faith solo at age 38. My husband didn't understand the seismic shift which picked up pace as the years passed, morphing me from a broken and unhappy near-alcoholic to a bustling, smoldering brand, consumed with a love that didn't include him (by his choice.) Our marriage had always been rocky, and while the shift improved many things as I strove to be the Proverbs 31 wife, it introduced new problems and left old ones unresolved. We'd built a foundation on infidelity, substance abuse, and mutual distrust, and it couldn't hold up under the pressure of change.

But God was working, even as our life together turned increasingly brittle.

During this time frame I met Diane. Her family was new to the area, and she came to our church ready to plunge in. She attended all the extra curricular events, participated in all the women's Bible study groups, and volunteered for any work that needed doing. Over time, she also began stepping into leadership.

Our friendship grew as her own marriage floundered and failed after many years of sorrow and struggle. By the time the final detonation of my marriage sounded, Diane's husband had already moved out, and I moved in. The timing was orchestrated so perfectly that we could hear the strings tuning even through the tortured screaming of marital collapse.

Our poor church didn't know what to do with us. Divorce was verboten under the most straight-forward of circumstances, so they had no clue how to manage the scandalous questions about our relationship that were carried on the humid breeze of murmuring. My sycophantic, disordered relationship with my beloved priest disintegrated, creating an additional untethering that felt naked and painful.

The result was scandal. So much so that we were asked to stop coming even to the poorly attended Wednesday night Eucharistic service.

In addition to being heartbroken, Diane and I were ourselves scandalized by the shift from friendship to one-ness. I was extremely Catholic in theology and had been writing about the sacredness of sexuality for years. Diane was a solidly trained Baptist girl who believed that homosexuals were doomed to hell. We didn't understand, but we knew that we knew that we knew our coming together was divinely ordained and divinely orchestrated.

In the four years that have passed since those tumultuous days I have prayed often for forgiveness about the scandal that resulted, asking God what I should do about it. A new priest leads the church now. He was in training when it all happened, and recently began to engage in dialog with us. His reaching out resulted in my praying the same prayer anew.

And when I did, I received a revelation:  

God works through scandal. 

Think about that for a minute.

The biblical history of God and His people is rife with the stuff. Consider Joshua's men being saved by the prostitute Rahab: scandalous. Consider Mary's pregnancy out of wedlock: scandalous. Consider Jesus' repeated violation of law, a reality so scandalous most Christians won't admit it even happened. Consider Jesus' shocking demand that we eat His body and drink His blood, a scandal which caused many of His followers to desert Him.

And these are just a few examples.

Our God works through scandal. He is the very God of scandal, uprooting social norms and throwing over tablefulls of accepted behaviors. He brings about miraculous change and growth through it.

In the week that has passed since this realization, I've been able to relax in a way I'd not been able to do since my marriage took its final, shuddering breaths. My conscience can rest, knowing that the great God of all gods has worked through the very scandal He and Diane and I co-created. He is doing amazing work now. I don't have to try to repair it. In fact, I'm not supposed to.

Perhaps Diane and I will be called to visit that church some day, to attend a funeral, or to speak about the magnificent, confounding, scandalous workings of He who is Love. If that day comes, I'll find the courage to do what I am called to do.

But for now I know that all I have to do is wait for that call.

He is doing the rest.

Mercy and legality are like grass and fire

The thoughts of a drugged church

Love alone is credible

Violation of the day: Jesus breaks one of the 10 commandments

Matthew 8:18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” 20 And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” 21 Another of his disciples said to him, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” 22 But Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” 

Here Jesus goes again, breaking the law. Or at least, telling his followers to do so.

It's hard to find actual instructions for burial in the Old Testament, which I find surprising. Certainly there are prohibitions about uncleanliness related to touching the dead, and there are passages about the death and burial of many prominent figures. Deuteronomy 21:23 instructs us to bury a man on the same day that he was hanged, but that's about the most specific bit I can find.

But we do know that it was an obligation for family members to bury their dead, and an act of piety for Jews to bury those outside their families when necessary.

More importantly for this passage however is the commandment to honor our parents. This is one of the biggies. The top ten. The ones that overarch the Levitical laws and instructions that came afterward.

The man, this disciple, asked to bury his father. He asked to fulfill his familial obligation and to perform a final, ultimate act of honoring. An act that is a significant milestone in each of our lives.

And yet Jesus told him not to.

Of course he had his purposes. Presumably this is Jewish hyperbole in action. But the truth is the truth: Jesus advised his disciple to go against Jewish custom, and to break one of the Ten Commandments.

Your ways, Oh Lord, are unfathomable.

On zeal.

Let the heirs beware

Matthew 8 includes a story of the profound faith showed by one outside The Faith, a pagan centurion, who sought the Christ for healing of his dying servant. Here is part of the passage:

Matthew 8:10 When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you according to your faith.” And the servant was healed in that hour.

Jesus warns that the chosen practitioners and supposed heirs were not the only ones to sit at the table. More so, many of them would not be invited at all. In contrast, reviled outsiders will take their place.

The message remains for us as Christians. We have been called, and chosen. But that doesn't mean that we won't be surprised by who will sup at the end of the age.

Not so simple.

False prophets bearing good fruit?

The readings of the day include this passage from Matthew, the first verse of which is often used to describe people like me who offer apologetics for Christ's acceptance of same-sex relationships:

^{Matt 7:15} “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 

I've had it flung from an assortment of places online, sites in which fundamentalist Christians gather to pick up scripture like a burning brand with which to purge the land of the scourge of gaydom. 

The passage continues with this:

¹⁶ By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? ¹⁷ Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. ¹⁸ A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. ¹⁹ Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ²⁰ Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

This morning we turned to Galatians, to read more about good fruit:

^{Gal. 5:22} But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, ²³ gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.  

In conversations with these folks, verses of scripture spray out like bullets from a Gatling gun, with little skill and no concern for accuracy. Just a scattershot of ammunition designed to destroy or at least frighten into submission.

My prayer for those of us who love God from within same-sex relationships is that we be mighty bearers of good fruit. In all our discussions, no matter how infuriating or repetitious or contentious, may we bear gentleness and self-control. May our behavior stand in sharp contrast with the hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, dissensions, and factions that are listed as un-Godly fruit described in verse 20.

May we return the harsh brutality of scripture as weaponry with a gentle rain of living water. 

And may they indeed know us by our fruits. 

May we unite

Question of the day: Where does the Bible say "one man and one woman"?

The Sola Scriptura peeps puzzle me. I've spoken before about the fictional concept of "Bible alone", and yet am regularly re-surprised by the way in which it is touted as unarguably real. People claim that the only thing we should cling to is the word of scripture, and then turn around and state "truths" that are not found there.

For example, nowhere in the Bible does it actually say that marriage is to be between one man and one woman. We've all heard citations of scripture which support the stance, but that's a very different thing.

Because the Bible doesn't actually say it.

Anywhere.

Not settled at all.

Dolce was asked a follow up question by the priest (Fr. O) who prompted this discussion. He asked for her reflections on these verses, and how she might define the vices listed in them:

Ephesians 5:3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them."

(The selection of NIV was his. It's not my favorite translation.)

What I've realized in contemplating the verses for several days is that there are really multiple responses:

1. Explore the definition of the Greek word πορνεύω (porneia) which in this passage is translated to "sexual immorality".
2. Look at how usage of  πορνεύω changed from before Christ to the first several hundred years of the Church as Christian sexual morality was refined, and how it has continued to change right on down to our present age.
3. Examine how a current use of porneia applies to life today.
4. Explain how Dolce and I personally apply the passage according to individual reflection and revelation.
5. Lather, rinse, and repeat for the other vices listed. (For example, I'm sure an examination of the Greek term translated to "greedy" would be interesting, given how various Bible versions treat it in combination with idolatry.

Any discussion about Christian morality deserves this type of evaluation. Despite the stereotypical fundamentalist claim, there in reality is no "Clear Teaching of Scripture".

As for answering Fr. O's question? Looks like it might take a few posts.

Revile no one.

How great the darkness

 Matthew 6:22-23

²² “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. ²³ But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

How can light be darkness?

Light can only be darkness if it is wielded without love. If the light of Christ is used as a weapon, how dark the darkness, how great is that darkness.

Consistency in interpretation: Is slavery God's mandate?

 

Here's a follow on to a previous post about Ephesians 5:21-33.

The section in which this passage is contained has been referred to as "Instructions for Christian Households". It opens with counsel for married couples, continues with discussion of children, and concludes with treatment of slaves.

Here is the section on slavery:

Eph. 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. 9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

The marriage section (5:21-33) is often used to support the "One man, one woman" argument, under the premise that God is clearly showing us that this institution, as described in these verses, are not merely His design but also His mandate.

But if that is the case, how do the same set of Christians deal with Eph. 6:5-9? If we apply the same logic, then God clearly approves of slavery, and it is his part of His design and His mandate.

Right?

The Epistles were written for situations within the cultural context of the day. Slavery existed, but we can't believe that God's wish for us today is that it be perpetuated. Similarly, the marriage customs of the time had particular gender ramifications (monetary and societal) which no longer exist today.

Of course there is much richness in the text for us to apply here and now. Christians make use of the slavery passages in the context of jobs and other situations requiring subordination, for example. And we can learn much about marriage in verses 5:21-33, no matter what gender God brings together.

But I'd love it if we could all strive for intellectual and spiritual honesty, which in part involves consistency. It boils down to this: either God's intent through these passages is to mandate and approve of both institutions (marriage and slavery) or of neither.

It isn't honest to claim it for one institution but not for the other.

More of Jesus changing law

In Evangelical circles there is a lot of insistence about Jesus not contravening or breaking laws. But the scriptural evidence is quite the opposite. Here's an example:

Numbers 30:1 Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: “This is what the Lord commands: ² When a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.
  
But then comes Jesus, who says:

Matthew 5:33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ ³⁴ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; ³⁵ or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. ³⁶ And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. ³⁷ All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

 

Nuff said.

How do same sex couples interpret Eph. 5:21-33?

This morning, Dolce and I received a lovely text from a young priest at the church we attended for some years before moving to Massachusetts. It's part of a socially conservative new denomination which strives to reunite the liturgical, evangelical, and charismatic Christan streams. Dolce and I were active in leadership and in the life of the church when our marriages went through the final death throes of their long-drawn out demise. As God knit the two of us closer and closer together, the church didn't know how to handle us.

Understandably.

It was a pleasure to read the request this young Father sent us today. He asked how Ephesians 5:21-33 can be understood and applied in same sex relationships. And he asked very respectfully.


Here's the passage:

21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. 24 Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. 33 Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband.

As with all scripture, there are multiple levels of application, intent, and meaning. First I'll address the contemporary cultural context. And for ease of discussion, I'll assume that Paul is the author.

At the time of the missive's writing, there were two forms of Roman marriage in places like Ephesus. Marriage was a contractual business that could come about by a variety of processes and ritualistic approaches. But the two contractual forms (in simplified essence) were that a woman and her property either remained subject to her father, or became subject to her husband. The forms ebbed and flowed in popularity over the years, but it would appear that in verses 22-24 Paul was clarifying that in leaving her father, the proper form of marriage was to become the property of her husband. He appeared to be stating that this form was the Christian form.

This echoes the "leaving and cleaving" reference in verse 31.

The second cultural issue is Paul's instructions for men. At the time, marriage was rarely romantic. Men who demonstrated romantic love for their women were viewed as emasculated sissies. Paul acted like Jesus again, instructing that this should change, and that men -should- love their wives.

So it appears that he strove to move marriage from a contractual thing to a Christian thing. From a legal construct to a sacramental reality. From a set of rules to a rule of love.

From this cultural perspective, the passage doesn't apply to same sex couples (or to modern heterosexual couples for that matter). In 2014 we don't view women as property to be transferred, we're thankfully lacking the era's gender discrimination and bias, and we don't have the same contractual models of marriage to contend with.

It's very clear that same-sex marriages were not something that existed, but then, the entire concept of marriage didn't mean what it does now. Fidelity was not assumed for men. Polygamy was common. All sorts of broken sexuality took place that nowhere near modeled the gorgeous scriptural images of marital love about which Solomon and Paul wrote. 

As far as a message to today's culture, I think that Paul is calling us all back to the sacredness of sexual union, and reminding us of how God wants us to view each other within marriage. He calls us to be subject to each other. To be faithful defenders of each other. To be one as He and the Father are one, in mystical union.

How do I see this as applying to same sex couples? I guess the question is more how do I NOT see it applying?

In good marriages of our era there is a sharing of responsibility and leadership. In Christian marriages which God brings together, the man may be deferred to as the head and final arbiter for times when consensus cannot be reached. This model can flourish and bear bountiful fruit.

Smart same sex couples create a similar structure. Someone needs to be the head in the case of non-agreement. For Dolce and I, we are both heads of different parts of life. We are subject to each other, and God is the head of us both. Given that He put us together, and given that we defer all decisions to His will, the times when we are not of the same opinion are shockingly few.

In marriages that humans bring together rather than God, it won't matter how much deference is given to the man as head. The fruit will be stunted and bitter.

I'm grateful to this man of God for appearing to us today, and leading us into exploration of this epistle. We do so love to contemplate His word.

In what way does this look like a God of love?

This week I've engaged in intense conversation with followers of Albert Mohler's Facebook page. Mohler is the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The Southern Baptist Convention has recently been faced with another church's self-excommunication through the decision to permit gay people to attend.

It's alarming to read the comments to Mohler's posts, and I've done my best to try to shine a tiny ray of God's love into a dismal place of condemnation.

This morning's daily readings rang out in commentary over what was happening in this segment of Christ's church. The first reading from Acts 22 and 23 describes Paul's interactions with the Saducees and Pharisees, who argued about the resurrection.

Obviously dissension among the faithful is nothing new.

The gospel account was John 17:20-26, when Jesus prays for us, his new church:

Lifting up his eyes to heaven, Jesus prayed saying:
“I pray not only for these,
but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
so that they may all be one,
as you, Father, are in me and I in you,
that they also may be in us,
that the world may believe that you sent me.
And I have given them the glory you gave me,
so that they may be one, as we are one,
I in them and you in me,
that they may be brought to perfection as one,
that the world may know that you sent me,
and that you loved them even as you loved me.
Father, they are your gift to me.
I wish that where I am they also may be with me,
that they may see my glory that you gave me,
because you loved me before the foundation of the world.
Righteous Father, the world also does not know you,
but I know you, and they know that you sent me.
I made known to them your name and I will make it known,
that the love with which you loved me
may be in them and I in them.”

He prayed for our unity. Our supernatural oneness.

To what end? So that the world may know God.

The discussions on Mohler's page read like a lesson from The Screwtape Letters. It's the babbling of hundreds of self-congratulatory Christians, proclaiming hellfire and brimstone, and gleefully rubbing their Bible-ink-smeared hands together. As if that is what Christ desires.

I imagine that this is what hell looks and sounds like.

Is it any wonder that the world does not recognize divinity within the church?

This week's example of Jesus as law breaker

Wednesday's readings included this passage.

John 5:16 For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” 18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. 

He broke the Sabbath.

How can Christian's argue that Jesus did not break the law, when it is so clearly stated over, and over, and over again? His violations of law are like the peals of a bell, calling believers to love and to worship.

The justified sinner

I'm astonished by who different the scriptures read to me in this season of life than they did a few years ago. In this now, every time I look at the Bible, the message of loving acceptance sings out.

Two passages from Saturday's readings are examples. The final line in the old testament reading was Hosea 6:6

For it is love that I desire, not sacrifice,
and knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

The gospel reading was Luke 18:9-14

 Jesus addressed this parable
to those who were convinced of their own righteousness
and despised everyone else.
“Two people went up to the temple area to pray;
one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.
The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself,
‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity —
greedy, dishonest, adulterous — or even like this tax collector.
I fast twice a week,
and I pay tithes on my whole income.’
But the tax collector stood off at a distance
and would not even raise his eyes to heaven
but beat his breast and prayed,
‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’
I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former;
for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled,
and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Today's pharisee might say:

"O God, I thank you that I am not like the gays. I go to church, quote your words, and donate clothes to the needy."

Or my own new version:

"O God, thank you that I am not like the pharisees, and am wise enough to recognize your message of love."

Guard me Lord, from every form of pride. Help me to merely love.

Who is it that does the condemning?

Sunday was a day spent contemplating the story of the Samaritan woman at the well, and all that the story means for those who examine the mission of Christ.

I've read the passage numerous times and never before realized that this woman was the first person to whom Jesus chose to disclose his divinity in John's gospel.

This would have been shocking to the chosen people for many reasons. She was an outsider, and a presumed sinner, who belonged to a disobedient and despised people. She was quite probably a product and participant in mixed marriages, which were clearly prohibited in scripture.

And yet Jesus chose her to be the first evangelist in this region of worshipers who did it "wrong".

Every time I pick up the Bible another passage like this is presented. The truth is glaringly and consistently bright.

So how is that the chosen people of today, studiers of the scriptures, faithful Christians, are still falling into the same trap?

Listen up all ye people. Listen to who it is that does the condemning. Is it the Christ?

On dismissing the contradictory Christ

Today's readings included a segment of Matthew chapter 23, which takes place immediately before the seven woes that Jesus delivers in judgement against the hypocritical pharisees:

1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. 

This puzzles me.

I've grown accustomed to his contradictory behaviors, breaking laws and advising that his followers break commandments.


What confuses me is how Christians, particularly of the Bible Alone style, handle this demand of Christ.

If you've been following this blog, you'll know that the question of how Christians are called to follow the law which Christ fulfilled is something I wrestle with. For many Evangelical Christians, they reject the difficulty, dismissing the many examples of conflicting instruction. Often this is handled with a statement like "Oh, he obviously meant such and such."

I'm often quite OK with the justification offered for what he meant, and even agree with it. But that doesn't change the reality of the contradiction.

It's usually a bit more veiled, but today's passage puts it right out there. Jesus himself says not only for his followers to continue obeying the law, but in fact to do EVERYTHING the law wielders tell us.

So how does the sola scriptura crowd handle this? Why are they not acting as observant Jews?

Christians wave a hand around muttering something about old testament versus new, and show that Jesus told Peter we could eat pork. But they ignore what this reality illustrates: it is not straight forward.

Jesus broke laws and told us to break others. We as Christians have cast off countless laws throughout the centuries, but remain steadfast in proclaiming that people will burn in hell if breaking whatever subset a particular denomination or church believes are still in play.

I don't have an answer to the conundrum. I just wish more Christians admitted that it exists.

What is fulfillment of the law?

Gal 5:¹⁴ For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

5:1 ^[a]It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

² Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. ³ And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. ⁴ You have been severed from Christ, you who ^[b]are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. ⁵ For we ^[c]through the Spirit, ^[d]by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. ⁶ For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

Matt 5:17-20 

Throughout the history of Israel, a pattern is set in play. A promise is given, with qualifications. (Were there qualifications for Abraham?) It was in play when Moses handed the reins over to Joshua, when Joshua took over the promised land, at the end of Joshua's days, and when David died and God promised him that heirs would sit over the kingdom forever IF his descendants followed all the law. 

The model kicks off in Deut 31, when Moses says that Joshua will succeed him. "Be strong and bold is said 3 times.  31:24 When Moses had finished writing down in a book he words of this law to the very end, 25 Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying 26 Take this book of the law and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God; let it remain there as a witness against you."

In Deut 32, Moses is told that he will die in the sight of the promised land "because both of you broke faith with me among the Israelites at the waters of Meribath-kadesh in the wilderness of Zin, by failing to maintain my holiness among the Israelites. 44: Moses came and recited all the words of this song in the hearing of the people, he and Joshua son of Nun. 45 When Moses had finished reciting all these words to all Israel, 46 he said to them: "Take to heart all the words that I am giving in witness against you today; give them as a command to your children, so that they may diligently observe all the words of the law. 47 This is no trifling matter for you, but rather your very life; through it you may live long in the land that you are crossing over the Jordan to possess."

Deut 34:4 "This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, I will give it to your descendants'; I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not cross over there." 

Earlier stuff Deut 6: Now this is the commandment--the statues and the ordinances--that the Lord your God charge me to teach you to observe in the land that you are about to cross into and occupy, 2 so that you and your children and your children's children may fear the Lord your God all the days of your life, and keep all his decrees and his commandments that I am commanding you, so that your days may be long. 3 Hear therefore, O Isreael, and observe the diligently, so that it may go well with you, and so that you may multiply greatly in a land flowing with mild and honey, as the Lord the God of your ancestors, has promised you." Deut 29:9Therefore diligently observe the words of this covenant in order that you may succeed in everything that you do.

Similar references Deut: 4:29, 6:2, 8:6, 9:5, 11:1. Deut 17:18 When he has taken the throne of his kingdom, he shall have a copy of this law written for him int he presence of the Levitical priests. 19 It shall remain with him and he shall read in it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, diligently observing all the words of this law and these statues... so that he and his descendants may reign long over his kingdom in Israel.

Ps 132:11

¹¹ The Lord swore to David a sure oath
    from which he will not turn back:
“One of the sons of your body^[a]
    I will set on your throne.
¹² If your sons keep my covenant
    and my testimonies that I shall teach them,
their sons also forever
    shall sit on your throne.”

This is repeated throughout the chapter and subsequent chapters. The promise is connected to the complete fulfillment of the law.

Joshua 1:6 Be strong and courageous, for you shall put this people in possession of the land that I swore to their ancestors to give the. Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to act in accordance with all the law that my servant Moses commanded you do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, so that you may be successful wherever yo go. This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth; you shall meditate on it day an night so that you may be careful to act in accordance with all that is written in it. For then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall be successful. I hereby command you: be strong and courageous; do no be frighted or dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.  

In Joshua 23, Joshua is old. V6 Therefore be very steadfast to observe and do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, turning aside from it neither to the right nor to the left, 7 so that you may not be mixed... Check out chapter 23 as well. 23:25 So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and made statutes and ordinances for them at Shechem. 26 Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God; and he took a large stone, and set it up there under the oak in the sanctuary of the Lord. 27 Joshua said to all the people, "See this stone shall be a witness against us; for it has heard all the words of the Lord that he spoke to us; therefore it shall be a witness against you, if you deal falsely with your God." 

In 1 Kings 2, David grows old and instructs Solomon. 2 Be strong, be courageous, 3 and keep the charge of the Lord your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statues, his commandments, his ordinances, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn. 4 Then the Lord will establish his word that he spoke concerning me: "if your heirs take heed to their way, to walk before me in faithfulness with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail you a successor on the throne of Israel."

2 Sam 7 is God talking to David about building him a house, however does not list a condition of obedience. This seems to be in isolation compared with the rest.

(Are there more examples?)

Jesus turned that model on its ear. He said that HE had come to fulfill it. Prior to that, WE were asked to fulfill it. Now He was there. And the price exacted for inheriting the kingdom, the land, eternal reward was faith and love. 

"Intrinsically disordered": Isn't everyone?

Fall of Man and the Lamentation, (c1480), Hugo van der Goes

I've been thinking about the Roman Catholic use of the phrase "intrinsically disordered" to describe homosexuality.

And I've been wondering how much it differs in meaning from the bottom-line of "original sin".

In essence, it seems, very little.

Which would God choose?

Recent discussions following the Grammy award weddings prompted some thought about who God is, and about his view on what relationship is supposed to be about. And so I ask the question:

Of the two scenarios below, which would the Christian God of love prefer? Which represents this God better?

A heterosexual couple who are married in the church, treat each other with disdain, lie and cheat and dishonor one another, hide what little light they embrace under a bushel, and show the world that marriage is a bitter pill to swallow.

or

A same sex couple who treat each other with respect, live life together joyfully, mutually commit to truth and fidelity, study God's word together, worship together, serve their church together, and act as bearers of light and life, and carriers of the good news.

Obviously not all opposite sex couples fit the first profile, nor same sex couples the second. But there are examples of both types, in both types. So of these two, which better matches the Biblical example of Godly love?

Liturgy of the Grammy Awards

I watched part of the Grammy awards the other night, including the group wedding conducted at the end. The next day I read the following thought provoking commentary by David Fitch about the event:

It offers some interesting insights into the culture's look at love, and therefore, marriage.

Definitely worth a read.