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?