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.