Jesus was talking to us when He spoke back then. Except for this one part.

A week or so ago I was called "a special kind of stupid" for sharing this in response to a conservative evangelical Christian's post about the Caitlyn Jenner hype:

In the same thread, another person said I was preaching "the Gospel according to Suzanne" because I suggested that when the Bible doesn't speak of an issue (in this case, transgender individuals), we must always approach it with love.

Over the same timeframe, my children's picture book, Rumplepimple was launched. This tore open the wound my relationship with my wife Diane has created with her beloved sister. Rumplepimple is a dog who's family structure mirrors ours; he has a sister cat and two moms. Diane's heart has been sick over her sister's unwillingness to engage in conversation about God's view of same sex relationships. Having come from the same background, she understands the conservative evangelical view because she held it. Given my Catholic background, I also get it. But our attempts to explore the scriptures about the issue with her sister have been met with slammed conversational doors at best, and claims of religious persecution at worst.

So I've been pondering. And as part of these ponderings, I thought about Jesus who was harsh to only two groups: those who turned His father's house into a marketplace, and the pharisees, who blocked the way to the kingdom and bore their religiosity like a golden hammer.

Evangelical Christians tend toward a Bible-alone theology, and tend to believe that the scriptures are evergreen in their entirety. The approach generally seems to be that all the rules presented then still apply. (Except in the case of things like hair cuts, fabric composition, stonings, and dozens of others dismissively lumped into "Old Covenant". I've dealt with this inconsistency in previous posts, so I'm brushing over all of that now.) What struck me today was a new kind of hypocrisy.

It seems as if this particular brand of modern Christians dismisses the entirety of Matthew 23, apparently deeming it as merely historical. Perhaps snickering at those persnickety Pharisees, who counted cumin seeds and nagged about unclean creatures in the meager wine cups of the poor. These moderns seem to feel good about what they believe is a simpler relationship, based on faith alone, and if Jesus' woes apply to anyone, it's to the Roman Catholics.

But this is exactly the kind of viperish hypocrisy which Jesus condemned. Out of one side of the pulpit we hear that all of the scriptures continue to apply to Christians today: all the parables, all Paul's warnings about sin, and most especially those meager mentions of same sex relations.

But that same pulpit doesn't seem to think Jesus' woes should be viewed as a warning to God's people today. And that seems exceedingly odd, given the unprecedented harshness of Jesus' stance, and the sheer force of His derisive disapproval.

Jesus never speaks to anyone in the scriptures that way again. It's to this group of rule-wielding God defenders alone that He unleashes the full force of His verbal condemnation. And remember, conservative evangelicals, this warning is evergreen. He's still unleashing His disapproval on those of you who continue to do it today:

Matt 23:13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces." 35 "And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth"

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.

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.

Book Recommendation: Committed

I'm in the middle of reading a great book, picked up with no idea how well it fit into Marriage Revolution ponderings. It is Committed: A Skeptic Makes Peace with Marriage, by Elizabeth Gilbert.

The book is a follow on to Eat, Pray, Love, and was prompted by the threat that her Brazilian lover (who was introduced in that book) might not be able to enter the United States unless he becomes her husband. Both of them were marriage averse, having survived ugly divorces. Gilbert therefore jumps into a study of marriage both through history and current research.

I have to get my own copy (this one is from the library) so that I can reread it, mark it up, and pull extracts for this blog.

The current same-sex marriage legal debate gains interesting context from the book, which I'll be unfolding in future posts.

Meanwhile, check out the book yourself. It's an entertaining read as well as being useful.

Same Sex Marriage Debate Chart

Click here for source.