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.

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?

Who is doing the judging, and what it is based on

For the past few months our morning meditations have centered around the books of Hebrews, James, and now, John. There is much in these books on old law versus new, and what it meant for Jesus to come in regard to judgement.

Today we looked at John 5. I was particularly drawn by the passages about Jesus as judge. For some reason, I never picked up on this before. I've always envisioned the Father as the judge, with Jesus as intermediary. But John 5 shed new light:

²⁷ And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

What a comforting thought. The one who tells us that the greatest commandment is to love God and to love each other is the one who is going to evaluate our behavior.

Jesus goes on to remonstrate the pharisees who judged his healing of an invalid on the sabbath:

⁴⁵ “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.

So Jesus will not accuse those who focus their attention on the dots and tittles of the law. The law itself will accuse them. As for Him, He will judge our love. 

There is much condemnation of same sex relationships based on scripture, especially Old Testament scripture. But if scripture alone is used as the basis of the argument, there is also much to show that the law is no longer what it once was. It is no longer what we must live by in some vain attempt to be righteous. The law will not be our accuser unless we set our hope in it. 
 
As Christians, we have the choice to set our hope in the law, or in Him who's mercy triumphs over judgement.

I set my hope in Him, and pray that He will judge me according to my love. And I pray that those Christians who structure so much of their faith around law, judging others based on the particular set of laws that they have chosen not to disregard, will have their hearts attuned to the words of Christ.

God Himself Violated the Law

While reading through some of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy recently I came across the passage below:

Deut 22:23 If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, 24 you shall bring them both out to the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.

I wasn't hunting for marriage related laws, this one just happened to jump out at me. Why did it grab my attention? Because according to this passage, God Himself violated the law.

Luke chapter 1 describes the occurrence.

Mary the mother of Jesus was in a city; the town of Nazareth. She was betrothed to Joseph. The Holy Spirit came upon her, overshadowed her, and planted a child in her womb. She did not cry out for help because she didn't want or need it. Joseph initially believed himself to have been wronged and planned to divorce her.

All of these facts line up to show a clear violation of the law laid out in Deuteronomy 22.

At the very moment the New Covenant was initiated, God Himself broke an Old Covenant law related to marriage. Perhaps it was a sign of it's passing, a shattering of a clay tablet inscribed by a Pharisee.

The Spirit must have whispered to Mary "Don't think about what you've been taught. Simply love Me with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." Mary responded by opening to His request, despite knowing that she could be stoned.

I'm still pondering what this could mean. I don't have an answer. But since God Himself begins the very life of Christ through a violation of marital law, it certainly points out that the Biblical "view" of marriage is far from straight forward.

What God has joined together...

The gospel reading for yesterday was Mark 10:2-16. The priest focused part of her sermon on verses 2 through 12, which read:

And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." 5 But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." 

Two things struck me about the passage, in relation to Marriage Revolution.

The first comes in verse 9, and in particular, the phrase about what God has joined together. 

In the past, I'd thought this referred to anyone who was married; if you ended up marrying, surely it was God's will, because marriage is a God-thing and a church thing.

But I realized that this thinking isn't quite right. Sure, He permits us to marry whoever we want. We have free will, and free choice. When you marry, it definitely falls within his permissive will. But then again, so does sin. He permits many things. Not all marriages fall under his ordained will however. Not all matches are made (literally) in heaven. Many, many marriages come as a result of us not listening to the voice of reason, whether it be spoken directly by the Spirit, or indirectly through friends, families, and our own logic.

So that's the first part of my realization; that just because you are married doesn't mean God directed it to happen.

The second part is a bit more nuanced. I'm a lover of the sacramental, and hold the sacraments in high esteem, so the idea of undoing a sacrament is difficult for me. I thought that all Christian traditions considered marriage a sacrament. Turns out that in Protestant denominations (including Anglicanism) it is not. 

Strike two against my fundamental thinking.

Even within the Catholic and Eastern traditions, which hold marriage as sacrament, there is an issue which shakes my thinking. Unlike the other sacraments, which have an ordained clergy member officiating, the spouses themselves are the ministers of the sacrament of marriage. They officiate. And this seems to pull it even further out of the realm of what I'd viewed it to be.

Is it any surprise that half of our marriages end in divorce? We are not uniting as couples that God chose from His heavenly throne, we are most often not married sacramentally, and even in a sacramental union we are being our own ministers rather than joining with a priest in persona Christi to knit a chord of three.

My notions about the sacramental quality of marriage have fallen by the wayside. 

That doesn't mean that I don't believe what He says in verse 9: "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." 

Woe be it to any who would do so. 

What has shifted is in my understanding of what God's joining together means. I think there are very, very few couples for which this description fits.

And that's the crux of the problem.

One minute of pain, a lifetime of companionship...