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.

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.

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.