Following on from our last study, we can appreciate that at this stage in the public reading of Paul's letter, the tensions between the Jewish Christian and the gentile Christian would lead to the question being asked which is, what value is there in the Jewish way? Having highlighted the hypocrisy of the Jewish Christians who judged gentiles for their sinful ways (remember that the Jews had long lists of prohibitions and regulations that God seemed to be allowing gentiles to ignore once they found faith), Paul now affirms the Jewish Christian, but crucially, not at the expense of any non-Jew.
Romans 3: 1-31
"3 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.
3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:
‘So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.’
5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, ‘If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?’ 8 Why not say – as some slanderously claim that we say – ‘Let us do evil that good may result’? Their condemnation is just!
[A rather unusual argument, but one which Paul clearly felt the need to refute, was that our sin and imperfection gave greater glory to God's holiness. Part of this might have emerged from Jewish criticism of Paul's ministry to the gentiles in a way that stepped down from some of the legalistic requirements believed to increase man's holiness before God. Paul was affirming the place of gentiles in God's kingdom through the love of Christ rather than by works.]
9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
‘There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.’
13 ‘Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practise deceit.’
‘The poison of vipers is on their lips.’
14 ‘Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.’
15 ‘Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.’
18 ‘There is no fear of God before their eyes.’
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
[And here is Paul's core message: Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. The law does not increase sin nor does it protect us from it. Instead, it serves to make us aware of sin, not so that we can strive to be sin free in our own strength, but that we might realise the need for the mercy and grace of Christ]
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement through the shedding of his blood – to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished 26 – he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
[Paul is here affirming both Jew and gentile - affirming that they both are sinners and that they all can be made righteous in God's sight through faith in Jesus. There is no greater unifying message and we must learn from this example in our current debates in the Church to resist the temptation of judging one group of believers as less righteous because of their beliefs in certain areas. Discussion, debate and even disagreement are of course acceptable if conducted in a loving way. However, Paul clearly condems the judgmental attitudes we can so easily have against one another.]
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the ‘law’ that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law."
[Paul is a very skilled debater and is very knowledgeable about the Law. We can sense the tightrope he constantly walks in his teachings. When stating that righteousness does not come from observing the Law, his opponents from the more conservative wing would jump and state he is trying to do away with the Law (as many conservatives still do in our Churches today when a more progressive view is expressed). However, rather than take this position, Paul instead affirms the importance of the Law and goes on to explore this further. However, he is clear that we must free ourselves from the false teaching that we can be made righteous by our actions or that our attempts at holy living can in any way make us superior to any brother and sister in Christ - and we certainly should never judge another Christian's salvation by their works or different views on contentious issues.]
Showing posts with label Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul. Show all posts
Sunday, 9 March 2014
Tuesday, 10 December 2013
A study on the book of Romans (part 2)
Following on from our last study (http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/a-study-on-book-of-romans-part-1.html), we now will look at one of the most controversial passages in Romans.
Before we do, however, I would suggest revisiting our first study (see link above) to understand the context in which Paul was writing.
There is conflict, division, a real tension between more conservative Jewish Christians and gentile Christians (who would have been considered much more liberal by the Jews). Paul's purpose in writing is to promote unity in this divided community. This is a crucially important background to our next section.
Paul starts this next section by affirming the Jewish position (remember, they were the minority group and were looked down upon by many gentile Christians). A Jew would be acutely aware of how they must differentiate themselves from non-Jew. Their strict laws and observances were drummed into them from a young age. Paul writes in a way to get them on board by highlighting the pagan world round about as we shall see in verses 17-32.
[Here, Paul addresses the issue of non-Jews being aware of God, despite their lack of education and training in Jewish ways. Essentially, he is saying we can know the Creator by his Creation. We cannot make the excuse of not having been educated as a Jew.]
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
[Here, there is a clear reference to pagan activities. Paul is not talking about Christians, but about pagans who have rejected God and instead chosen to worship false gods.]
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is for ever praised. Amen.
[Many of the pagan temples were known for their hedonism and sexual activities, including temple prostitutes and orgies.]
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
[The only reference in the Bible to female sexuality of this kind - it is not known if Paul here means lesbian activities, or women adopting a sexually aggressive and traditionally male role in sexual activities with men. Rather than the natural sexual intimacy of a loving relationship with a woman, we hear of a licentious and lustful behaviour. We do not know the exact nature of the men's shameful acts with other men, but can safely assume they were sexual and "un-natural"] - see however, my other postings on how this relates to homosexuality today.
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worth while to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practise them."
Before we do, however, I would suggest revisiting our first study (see link above) to understand the context in which Paul was writing.
There is conflict, division, a real tension between more conservative Jewish Christians and gentile Christians (who would have been considered much more liberal by the Jews). Paul's purpose in writing is to promote unity in this divided community. This is a crucially important background to our next section.
Paul starts this next section by affirming the Jewish position (remember, they were the minority group and were looked down upon by many gentile Christians). A Jew would be acutely aware of how they must differentiate themselves from non-Jew. Their strict laws and observances were drummed into them from a young age. Paul writes in a way to get them on board by highlighting the pagan world round about as we shall see in verses 17-32.
Romans 1:17-32
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.[Here, Paul addresses the issue of non-Jews being aware of God, despite their lack of education and training in Jewish ways. Essentially, he is saying we can know the Creator by his Creation. We cannot make the excuse of not having been educated as a Jew.]
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
[Here, there is a clear reference to pagan activities. Paul is not talking about Christians, but about pagans who have rejected God and instead chosen to worship false gods.]
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is for ever praised. Amen.
[Many of the pagan temples were known for their hedonism and sexual activities, including temple prostitutes and orgies.]
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
[The only reference in the Bible to female sexuality of this kind - it is not known if Paul here means lesbian activities, or women adopting a sexually aggressive and traditionally male role in sexual activities with men. Rather than the natural sexual intimacy of a loving relationship with a woman, we hear of a licentious and lustful behaviour. We do not know the exact nature of the men's shameful acts with other men, but can safely assume they were sexual and "un-natural"] - see however, my other postings on how this relates to homosexuality today.
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worth while to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practise them."
[Again, Paul clarifies that he is not talking about non-Jewish Christians, but those who choose not to acknowledge God. The fruit of this life is wickedness, evil, greed, depravity, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, hating God, insolence, arrogance, boasting, doing evil, disobeying parents, having no understanding or fidelity or love or mercy.]
At this point, bearing in mind that this letter is likely to be read aloud in public to a diverse audience, you can imagine how the Jewish Christians will be buoyed and will anticipate that Paul is on their side (after all, he was himself a strict Jew). By highlighting the sins of pagan worshipers of false gods (remember how Paul introduces this - with images of mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles), Paul is raising the Jewish awareness of how they have been set apart as God's people. This was an important affirmation that the Jews needed to hear, particularly proclaimed aloud in front of their gentile brothers and sisters.
Before they can get overly arrogant about their position however, Paul quickly turns the tables on them. We will explore this in the next chapter.
------------------------------------------
A quick point needs to be made about homosexuality here. Many Christians use the above passage as "clear evidence" that God condemns all homosexual activities. However, there are 2 points to be made here. Firstly, if this is a true reading of this passage, then equal strength of opposition needs to be made for all the other groups of sin mentioned in this passage - including gossiping, boasting, arrogance and dishonouring of parents. To have integrity in applying God's word fairly, we cannot take one sin and put it on a pedestal of unrighteousness, while turning a blind eye to others.
Secondly, and of paramount importance, is that the people Paul is describing here are clearly pagans engaging in promiscuous and licentious living. The fact that everyone knows about these behaviours means that it is not the private intimacy of a loving couple, but instead public sexual promiscuity and in all likelihood associated with temple worship. The people being described "neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him".
Our debates today on homosexuality in the Church are about a much different people - brothers and sisters in Christ who do seek with all their hearts to glorify God and give thanks to him. The fruit of the Spirit is at odds with the acts of the sinful nature and we must be careful not to compare a homosexual Christian with this group of sexually promiscuous and licentious pagan worshipers Paul is referring to in this passage. This is particularly important in light of the next part of his letter and the whole purpose of what he is writing in this letter, right through to the end of Romans.
Tuesday, 3 December 2013
A study on the book of Romans (part 1)
Like every parent who says they don't have a favourite child, I am going to confess that Romans is one of my favourite books in the Bible. Luther himself is alleged to have described it as the most important letter in the New Testament. There is so much theology in it, that it is a rich resource for anyone wanting to understand the Christian faith better. However, it is also one of the most powerful templates for conflict resolution and dealing with difference in the Church. And yet, ironically, it is frequently used as a tool for division.
This has prompted me to write a series on this book. Today, we look at some of the context and Paul's introduction.
[Note here the affirmation of the historic Jewish faith of the Holy Scriptures and the prophets and of the line of David. Paul here is giving a place of importance to the Jewish minority, affirming that they are the ones who initially called Gentiles to belong to Jesus Christ]
To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. God, whom I serve in my spirit in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you.
[Note Paul's use of the inclusive "all of you" and the love he bears for this Church]
I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong – that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.
I am a debtor both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome.
[In this context, the Greeks and non-Greeks show Paul's love for both Jew and non-Jew]
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed – a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’"
This has prompted me to write a series on this book. Today, we look at some of the context and Paul's introduction.
Romans - the context
Paul is writing to a church with a unique set of problems. A predominantly gentile Christian group, worshiping alongside a strong minority of Jewish converts. These Jewish Christians believed (understandably from their perspective) that faith in Christ required an additional adherence to the Law (the Torah, or first 5 books of the Old Testament). In this way, Christ fulfilled this law, but did not do away with any of its requirements.
The gentile Christians, however, did not have this background and would struggle to see how in order to become a Christian, they must first become a Jew.
The infighting and division was not just light-hearted debate. Some believe that Jewish Christians were actually expelled from Rome by Claudius around AD49 as a result of this in-fighting, and that the gentile Christians looked down on Jewish Christians. Only around AD54 did the Jewish Christians return, shortly before Paul is believed to have written this letter.
This melting pot is actually a powder keg. And Paul's desire is to sort it out.
In the context of this strife, the opening words of Paul are deeply significant. I will copy them below from the NIV translation:
Romans 1:1-17
"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God – the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake. And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.[Note here the affirmation of the historic Jewish faith of the Holy Scriptures and the prophets and of the line of David. Paul here is giving a place of importance to the Jewish minority, affirming that they are the ones who initially called Gentiles to belong to Jesus Christ]
To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. God, whom I serve in my spirit in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you.
[Note Paul's use of the inclusive "all of you" and the love he bears for this Church]
I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong – that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.
I am a debtor both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome.
[In this context, the Greeks and non-Greeks show Paul's love for both Jew and non-Jew]
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed – a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’"
-------------
In these last words, Paul emphasises a key component of the Christian message - our "righteousness" comes by faith, and not by following rules and laws, which the Pharisees were keen to promote.
Paul, in his introduction, is very cleverly crafting a letter that aims to unite a divided audience. He affirms both Jew and Gentile, bringing them together under the banner of Christ.
The next section in our study will explore how Paul continues to bring people together. Ironically, the next section is often quoted completely out of context by some Christians to divide other believers and to call others sinful. We will explore what Paul is really saying and doing in our next study.
In the meantime, I close with Paul's own greeting. Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Wednesday, 27 November 2013
What can we learn from Paul?
Do you remember the days when we hand wrote letters? Scarily, some readers might soon say "no"...
When we hand wrote, we took a lot more care. By today's standards, it was painfully slow. Knowing it would take time, we often would spend considerable time thinking about what we would want to say. With no delete key and no copy and paste, every word and phrase had meaning.
Today we have Bibles that we can search at will, using keywords. A sad effect of this very useful function is that we now easily lose the context of Bible passages. We also will usually skip the intro and the endings of Paul's pastoral letters and focus on the meat of the sandwich. But Paul spent time baking that bread and put it there for a purpose. Let's have a look at the way Paul greets other Christians in some of his letters...
"1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake. 6 And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. 7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ."
"1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, 2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours: 3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
"1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
To the church of God in Corinth, together with all his holy people throughout Achaia: 2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
"1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers and sisters with me, To the churches in Galatia:
3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen"
"1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
To God’s holy people in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus:
2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
"1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,
To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons:
2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
"1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
2 To God’s holy people in Colossae, the faithful brothers and sisters in Christ:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father."
"1 Paul, Silas and Timothy,
To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
Grace and peace to you.2 We always thank God for all of you and continually mention you in our prayers. 3 We remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ."
I am sure you are spotting the pattern by now. These letters were hotly anticipated. Travel was limited and some of these people might have only seen Paul once in their lifetime, if they were lucky. Letters were read publicly to an attentive audience. There was only one copy, so no forwarding to friends or saving it in your inbox to read later. Every word was important and Paul weighed it up carefully. He knew his audience well and the cultural context they were in. He adapted his teaching as any good teacher does, to connect with the audience. But consistently, he starts with these powerful words of affirmation.
What, by contrast, do we read in the opening words of so many blogs today (and I too am guilty)? How often do we read harsh, condemning words directed at other believers? How often are comments and replies equally vociferous?
In a day when many use the teachings of Paul against one another, perhaps we could all learn much, much more from this master baker of relationship building and affirmation.
When we hand wrote, we took a lot more care. By today's standards, it was painfully slow. Knowing it would take time, we often would spend considerable time thinking about what we would want to say. With no delete key and no copy and paste, every word and phrase had meaning.
Today we have Bibles that we can search at will, using keywords. A sad effect of this very useful function is that we now easily lose the context of Bible passages. We also will usually skip the intro and the endings of Paul's pastoral letters and focus on the meat of the sandwich. But Paul spent time baking that bread and put it there for a purpose. Let's have a look at the way Paul greets other Christians in some of his letters...
"1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake. 6 And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. 7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ."
"1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, 2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours: 3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
"1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
To the church of God in Corinth, together with all his holy people throughout Achaia: 2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
"1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers and sisters with me, To the churches in Galatia:
3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen"
"1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
To God’s holy people in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus:
2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
"1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,
To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons:
2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
"1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
2 To God’s holy people in Colossae, the faithful brothers and sisters in Christ:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father."
"1 Paul, Silas and Timothy,
To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
Grace and peace to you.2 We always thank God for all of you and continually mention you in our prayers. 3 We remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ."
I am sure you are spotting the pattern by now. These letters were hotly anticipated. Travel was limited and some of these people might have only seen Paul once in their lifetime, if they were lucky. Letters were read publicly to an attentive audience. There was only one copy, so no forwarding to friends or saving it in your inbox to read later. Every word was important and Paul weighed it up carefully. He knew his audience well and the cultural context they were in. He adapted his teaching as any good teacher does, to connect with the audience. But consistently, he starts with these powerful words of affirmation.
What, by contrast, do we read in the opening words of so many blogs today (and I too am guilty)? How often do we read harsh, condemning words directed at other believers? How often are comments and replies equally vociferous?
In a day when many use the teachings of Paul against one another, perhaps we could all learn much, much more from this master baker of relationship building and affirmation.
Tuesday, 26 November 2013
engagement with conservative evangelicals
I am finding engaging conservative evangelicals in conversation to be exhausting.
I have friends who are traditionalists, with whom I disagree on the topic of homosexuality. However, we have a mutual respect and a shared love of God that does not diminish in the light of us disagreeing on this issue. We respect each other's viewpoints, understanding where these views come from and why they are held. And we continue to love one another and fellowship and serve God together. This, I believe, is an approach very true to the teachings of the Bible, particularly of the Apostle Paul, and is consistent with the prayer of Jesus as recorded in John 17:
"I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one – I in them and you in me – so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me"
I have friends who are traditionalists, with whom I disagree on the topic of homosexuality. However, we have a mutual respect and a shared love of God that does not diminish in the light of us disagreeing on this issue. We respect each other's viewpoints, understanding where these views come from and why they are held. And we continue to love one another and fellowship and serve God together. This, I believe, is an approach very true to the teachings of the Bible, particularly of the Apostle Paul, and is consistent with the prayer of Jesus as recorded in John 17:
"I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one – I in them and you in me – so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me"
Paul also highlights the fruit of the Spirit as being love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. However, the acts of the sinful nature are shown to include hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions.
My problem is with the more conservative wing of the Church. Discussions with them (never truly discussions, they always seem to turn into heated debates and arguments) always seem to follow a particular pattern. The order might change and there might be subtle shades, but broadly, the pattern is as follows:
1. They put forward a view that the Bible is unambiguously clear that God opposes homosexuality. So, if you take one of the handful of passages and show an alternative view that leads to some ambiguity, rather than acknowledge this, they jump onto another passage. If you then take this next passage and do likewise, the anger mounts against you and they start to talk of the overwhelming message of Scripture and the internal consistency of God's message. Now, at this point, if they were to pause and acknowledge that yes, there is a different reading but that they don't agree on your interpretation, that would be fine. It doesn't breach our relationship and we can agree to disagree and acknowledge that our actions have to have integrity with our reading of Scripture.
However, usually they believe your new interpretations are not consistent with their understanding of God and therefore are not likely. But interestingly, here the argument has changed. It is now no longer saying that things are unambiguously clear, but that there is a broad, overarching theme. However, if this theme is built on the pillars of interpretation of a few verses, then it makes sense that a challenge to these verses can result in a challenge to the overarching (perceived) theme. Conversations rarely get beyond shouting matches and the throwing of Bible verses at you, however. I have also noticed that when you present an important Biblical principle, rather than addressing this, they will throw an apparently contradictory principle at you. For example, if you quote a verse about loving your enemies or refer to passages where the Church was encouraged by Paul to work together despite differences, they will quote another passage about dealing with heretics, as if this in some way negated Paul's other teaching.
2. When a shift does occur from claiming individual verses back up the anti-homosexual position, a broader view is put forward that the Genesis template clearly shows marriage is to be between one man and one woman. This is actually a good point. However, where things unravel is when you say that this is the ONLY acceptable model for covenant marriage. 2 Sam 12:8 has a very uncomfortable passage for traditionalists. God here is actively participating in polygamy. Every time I have mentioned this passage to a traditionalist, I have only been met by silence and a jump to another argument. Also, Jesus was single and Paul promotes celibacy (where those have that gift). These are different ways of living that are a deviation from the argument that all men must marry one woman. It shows that while it is A template, it is not necessarily the only acceptable model for human relationships. When discussing God's participation in polygamy, I would much rather hear someone honestly say "I don't know why God did this". This would be honest and shows us that we don't always know or understand the Bible at face value and we need to wrestle with these issues in prayer.
3. Then some will angrily talk about the inability of 2 men to reproduce. This is not a theological or Biblical argument, but is often used. It is true. But some married heterosexual couples are likewise unable to reproduce and some choose not to. Are they in some way sinning by living together as a married couple? Adoption is also an option to all these couples, and there are many moving testimonies from adopted children of the love they felt for having been "chosen" to be loved, in a way that is reminiscent of the Christian story.
4. Some talk of different gender roles and a hierarchy of male over female. This does not sit comfortably with me at all, particularly in light of Galatians 3 ("There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"). It is also not an argument about sexuality, but of power and dominance in a 2 person relationship. There is also such diversity within gender groupings, that any argument that each gender contributes something unique to a relationship has little evidence to back this up.
5. Some worry about the harm caused to children if raised by gay parents. Studies do not appear to back up these concerns. In fact, there is more harm caused by divorce or being raised by a single parent according to studies.
6. Homosexuality is seen by some conservatives as a choice. They believe that the issue we are discussing is purely one of sex. Therefore, the act of sex is a choice and you can choose whether to have it with a man or a woman. Presumably they would argue that if you want to have sex with someone (of the opposite gender), you would need to marry them first and then be allowed sex. However, our studies of sexuality clearly show that sexual orientation is not a choice. Ask people if they believe homosexual orientation is a choice and surprisingly, many will say "yes". However, ask those same people when they chose their sexual orientation and you will likely be met with confusion, as they would think they always were and didn't ever make a conscious choice to be attracted to someone of the opposite gender. As a heterosexual man, I never once made a choice to be sexually attracted to women. It just happened naturally.
The metaphor people use is also very interesting. Conservatives like to talk of homosexuality as being like an addiction (e.g. an alcoholic). The logic follows that you help an alcoholic to recover and not drink alcohol. However, sexual orientation is more like being left handed, right handed, or in a few cases ambidextrous. You do not force an orientation change. Also, using one or the other is not inherently right or wrong, but it is what you do with your hands that is good or evil.
7. Finally, a bemusing argument, often from a place of desperation to attempt to silence you, is that the Church has believed the traditionalist view for centuries and therefore why should we change it now? The first clear answer is that we understand the issue of sexuality better now. It is clearly not just a lustful orgy-like behaviour that society needs to condemn. It is genuine same sex attraction that has the same perils, hopes, dreams, opportunities as heterosexual attraction. A second answer is to point out that the Church has been spectacularly wrong in the past. Take for example the flat earth or scientific discovery. Just because people have a view for a long time doesn't make that view more valid than a new, enlightened view. That is really no argument whatsoever. We might as well say we have sinned for centuries, why should we stop now?
Where I would be in total agreement with a traditionalist, would be if they said that their conscience would not allow them to express their own homosexuality. The Bible actually tells me what to do in that situation (see Romans 14). I must not put a stumbling block in the way of my brother or sister. Nor should any minister be forced to conduct a wedding against their conscience. I would stand up and strongly defend the right of a traditionalist to act with integrity according to their conscience. The question is, would a traditionalist stand up for me in similar situations?
What exhausts me is the constant arguments that go in circles, never listening to other views, not willing to even contemplate that there might be truth in another's position, and calling you a heretic or unsaved believer if you dare to disagree with their conservative view. I have been accused of sneaky tricks, of heresy, of probably not being truly saved, of being confused. Thankfully, praise God, I have also met some wonderful, peace-loving and gracious traditionalists, that I am proud to call my brothers and sisters in Christ, even if we disagree on homosexuality and if we might vote differently on issues (e.g. marriage).
I genuinely am at a loss to know what to do with the other people though...
The words of Paul to Titus (Titus 3) ring in my ears and I keep asking God if there is another way: "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned." I fear I have gone beyond the second warning in many conversations from people who wish to eject any believers from the Church on account of a different interpretation of what the Bible says about homosexuality, or who call for division and disunity, all in the name of God.
I would appreciate any wisdom from readers to know how we progress in this situation, where one party refuses to even listen and have fellowship with one who disagrees on a single issue of doctrine, in this case, the place of homosexuality in God's kingdom.
God bless
Sunday, 24 November 2013
Same Sex Marriage, an overview
The Scottish government had a vote on the issue of legislation for same sex marriage. There was a vote in favour by 98 to 15 and 5 abstentions.
As expected, there was jubilation from some quarters and dismay in others. I would, as an Evangelical Christian, class myself in the former category. I will explain more at the end, why this is so. However, it is interesting to explore some of the reasons why there are groups who object. In no particular order, a quick summary follows:
1. Some religious groups feel marriage is commanded by God to be between only one man and one woman. Some Christians believe that there are clear Bible passages that plainly oppose homosexuality, and therefore it would be clearly wrong, as God clearly is in opposition to homosexual practice (most in this camp believe God accepts homosexuals but only if they repent of their homosexuality and do not engage in any same sex activity). While I understand and respect this position, I do not think the small handful of verses stand up to scrutiny. I have outlined this in several places, e.g. http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/homosexuality-and-bible.html
2. Again, from religious groups, there is a belief that a creation ordinance has a clear gender complementary role divide, which means marriage should be between one male and one female, as they are designed to complement each other. Some go as far as to state there is a clear male "headship" and that to go against this would be to go against our design. My problem with this argument is twofold. Firstly, science has shown us that gender is a poor differentiator when we take into account personality difference. Take for example the Myers Briggs personality test. It categorises personality into one of 16 groups and has a serious body of scientific and statistical validation. There are 4 scales in this measure. In only one of these is there a significant gender difference. Approximately 35-40% of men are "feelers" whereas 60-70% of women are "feelers" (this is a scale looking at how we make decisions). While this sounds significant, it means that in a room of 10 men and 10 women, 4 men and 6 women would be in the feelers group, whereas 6 men and 4 women would be "thinkers". Gender differences are likely to be much more a result of our social conditioning than any innate difference, certainly in terms of personality and temperament. There is also an argument that the New Covenant in the New Testament has done away with the previous idea of men having a superior role to women as is backed up by Paul's words in Galatians 3: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus". Also, the previous covenant between God and man was marked by male only circumcision. The new way of Christianity was baptism, and open to all. This is a complex debate and there are passages in Paul's pastoral letters that require in depth understanding, where he appears to go against his views of equality in certain Church contexts. Nonetheless, there are arguments that these were situation specific recommendations in the context of matriarchal pagan church influences and to do with order and peace in the churches of that day.
However, this is a slight digression, as my second point is that while there arguably might be a creation based template, it is naive to assume that any deviation from that template must inherently be sinful. God nowhere says "this is the only acceptable form of marriage". I write more about this here: http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/bible-is-not-anti-homosexual.html
3. There is a rather strange argument occasionally put forward that if we allow gay people to marry, then it won't be long before we allow polygamy or incest to be legally recognised. However, the incest argument falls down because for centuries, we have celebrated unions between one man and one woman. At no point have we had a public outcry from brothers wishing to marry sisters, despite the fact they fit the one man one woman rule. The reason is that society understands the health and genetic implications of inbreeding and we do not allow this union for health reasons and to protect unborn children. There are complex rules about relatedness and these are not being renegotiated in any way. Again, the case is not one about redefining marriage between two parties (to include multiple partners) but is instead looking at cases of sexual identity being homo rather than heterosexual.
4. Some argue that men and women have sex to procreate and therefore marriage of same sex makes no sense, for biological reasons. This argument makes far more sense than the incest argument, yet relies on the assumption that marriage is only for procreation. However, procreation happens throughout the world without marriage being a prerequisite. In fact, marriage in that sense is very UNbiological. Marriage is about far more than just sex to have children. That argument also devalues marriages where there are no children, either for fertility reasons or through choice. Nowhere in the Bible do we read that not having children is sinful. Also, many couples choose to adopt and there is evidence that there is no harm caused by same sex couples rearing children. In fact, there is more harm caused by single parents or divorce (but again, this is not to say all children will suffer if raised without 2 parents).
In truth, I believe that those who oppose same sex marriage do so because deep down, they have a revulsion towards a man having sex with another man and this concept makes them feel deeply uncomfortable. For the older generation, I think we have to give them some grace as the speed of change is society is phenomenal. Not long ago women did not go out to parties without chaperons. Now we see women outdrinking men on street corners. The idea of decorum and previously understood gender roles is difficult for some to adapt to in a way that many younger audiences would find strange. Attitudes towards gender will be very different in another 2 generations.
Those who object because of religious reasons might well also be using the Bible to back up their private revulsion. However, many genuinely do believe God opposes homosexuality. I believe this is because of a misunderstood set of Bible passages, a naive understanding of the work of Bible translators and teaching from conservative groups that discourage critical thought and revisiting previously held assumptions.
There are some who are genuinely not homophobic and who have considered different viewpoints and still come to the conclusion that homosexual unions are not morally acceptable. These people are few and far between in my experience, but those that are there are usually more willing to enter dialogue and discussion about ways to agree to disagree while focusing on more pressing spiritual matters. I find myself having a deep respect for these people, and in fact, you the reader might be one of them :-)
To conclude, however, I believe that promoting same sex marriage is a golden opportunity for supporters of marriage (I am one) to emphasise the importance of love, faithfulness, commitment, lifelong support and caring. It promotes a covenant relationship, which echoes the covenant relationship between Christ and his Church. To extend this to those of same sex relationships is, I believe, an opportunity to promote and nurture an institution that helps bind the fabric of society. There is nothing to fear and much to celebrate and anticipate with joy.
I write more about same sex marriage and the Bible here: http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/a-biblical-rationale-for-same-sex.html
As expected, there was jubilation from some quarters and dismay in others. I would, as an Evangelical Christian, class myself in the former category. I will explain more at the end, why this is so. However, it is interesting to explore some of the reasons why there are groups who object. In no particular order, a quick summary follows:
1. Some religious groups feel marriage is commanded by God to be between only one man and one woman. Some Christians believe that there are clear Bible passages that plainly oppose homosexuality, and therefore it would be clearly wrong, as God clearly is in opposition to homosexual practice (most in this camp believe God accepts homosexuals but only if they repent of their homosexuality and do not engage in any same sex activity). While I understand and respect this position, I do not think the small handful of verses stand up to scrutiny. I have outlined this in several places, e.g. http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/homosexuality-and-bible.html
2. Again, from religious groups, there is a belief that a creation ordinance has a clear gender complementary role divide, which means marriage should be between one male and one female, as they are designed to complement each other. Some go as far as to state there is a clear male "headship" and that to go against this would be to go against our design. My problem with this argument is twofold. Firstly, science has shown us that gender is a poor differentiator when we take into account personality difference. Take for example the Myers Briggs personality test. It categorises personality into one of 16 groups and has a serious body of scientific and statistical validation. There are 4 scales in this measure. In only one of these is there a significant gender difference. Approximately 35-40% of men are "feelers" whereas 60-70% of women are "feelers" (this is a scale looking at how we make decisions). While this sounds significant, it means that in a room of 10 men and 10 women, 4 men and 6 women would be in the feelers group, whereas 6 men and 4 women would be "thinkers". Gender differences are likely to be much more a result of our social conditioning than any innate difference, certainly in terms of personality and temperament. There is also an argument that the New Covenant in the New Testament has done away with the previous idea of men having a superior role to women as is backed up by Paul's words in Galatians 3: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus". Also, the previous covenant between God and man was marked by male only circumcision. The new way of Christianity was baptism, and open to all. This is a complex debate and there are passages in Paul's pastoral letters that require in depth understanding, where he appears to go against his views of equality in certain Church contexts. Nonetheless, there are arguments that these were situation specific recommendations in the context of matriarchal pagan church influences and to do with order and peace in the churches of that day.
However, this is a slight digression, as my second point is that while there arguably might be a creation based template, it is naive to assume that any deviation from that template must inherently be sinful. God nowhere says "this is the only acceptable form of marriage". I write more about this here: http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/bible-is-not-anti-homosexual.html
3. There is a rather strange argument occasionally put forward that if we allow gay people to marry, then it won't be long before we allow polygamy or incest to be legally recognised. However, the incest argument falls down because for centuries, we have celebrated unions between one man and one woman. At no point have we had a public outcry from brothers wishing to marry sisters, despite the fact they fit the one man one woman rule. The reason is that society understands the health and genetic implications of inbreeding and we do not allow this union for health reasons and to protect unborn children. There are complex rules about relatedness and these are not being renegotiated in any way. Again, the case is not one about redefining marriage between two parties (to include multiple partners) but is instead looking at cases of sexual identity being homo rather than heterosexual.
4. Some argue that men and women have sex to procreate and therefore marriage of same sex makes no sense, for biological reasons. This argument makes far more sense than the incest argument, yet relies on the assumption that marriage is only for procreation. However, procreation happens throughout the world without marriage being a prerequisite. In fact, marriage in that sense is very UNbiological. Marriage is about far more than just sex to have children. That argument also devalues marriages where there are no children, either for fertility reasons or through choice. Nowhere in the Bible do we read that not having children is sinful. Also, many couples choose to adopt and there is evidence that there is no harm caused by same sex couples rearing children. In fact, there is more harm caused by single parents or divorce (but again, this is not to say all children will suffer if raised without 2 parents).
In truth, I believe that those who oppose same sex marriage do so because deep down, they have a revulsion towards a man having sex with another man and this concept makes them feel deeply uncomfortable. For the older generation, I think we have to give them some grace as the speed of change is society is phenomenal. Not long ago women did not go out to parties without chaperons. Now we see women outdrinking men on street corners. The idea of decorum and previously understood gender roles is difficult for some to adapt to in a way that many younger audiences would find strange. Attitudes towards gender will be very different in another 2 generations.
Those who object because of religious reasons might well also be using the Bible to back up their private revulsion. However, many genuinely do believe God opposes homosexuality. I believe this is because of a misunderstood set of Bible passages, a naive understanding of the work of Bible translators and teaching from conservative groups that discourage critical thought and revisiting previously held assumptions.
There are some who are genuinely not homophobic and who have considered different viewpoints and still come to the conclusion that homosexual unions are not morally acceptable. These people are few and far between in my experience, but those that are there are usually more willing to enter dialogue and discussion about ways to agree to disagree while focusing on more pressing spiritual matters. I find myself having a deep respect for these people, and in fact, you the reader might be one of them :-)
To conclude, however, I believe that promoting same sex marriage is a golden opportunity for supporters of marriage (I am one) to emphasise the importance of love, faithfulness, commitment, lifelong support and caring. It promotes a covenant relationship, which echoes the covenant relationship between Christ and his Church. To extend this to those of same sex relationships is, I believe, an opportunity to promote and nurture an institution that helps bind the fabric of society. There is nothing to fear and much to celebrate and anticipate with joy.
I write more about same sex marriage and the Bible here: http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/a-biblical-rationale-for-same-sex.html
Wednesday, 26 June 2013
Romans 1
There is an excellent article exploring Romans 1 and who exactly Paul was talking about in this passage often quoted to condemn all homosexual activity.
http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org/2011/10/bible-focus-part-4-romans-1/
God bless,
MM
http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org/2011/10/bible-focus-part-4-romans-1/
God bless,
MM
Friday, 21 June 2013
Jesus and the Law
The Old Testament has some challenging passages, there's no denying it. My own minister has admitted he won't even preach on passages such as the warfare of Joshua, because they're too difficult to understand (and he is a traditionalist minister who believes in the "plain reading of scripture").
One challenge is knowing which Bible passages from the OT should we, as Christians, still follow? How does a traditionalist wrestle with the Leviticus passages outlawing homosexual practice while equally outlawing tattoos, eating certain foods and wearing clothing of mixed fibres.
An article published by the Christian Institute explains one perspective: "It teaches that the moral element in the law, focused in the ten commandments, is of permanent application, while the ceremonial and civil elements were for the duration of the Old Testament economy only. The ceremonial was a shadow of Christ which became obsolete with his coming, and the civil a model of legal arrangements for any society, though not of such a status as to demand exact replication."
So, in a nutshell - passages relating to tattoos and foods etc. could be ceremonial, in that they distinguished God's people from the surrounding pagan worship practices. Sexual relation restrictions, they would argue, are permanent moral law.
My problem with this, is that when we read about homosexual practices, they are almost entirely in the context of pagan temple worship and such activities, which could arguably put them into the category of ceremonial laws designed to distinguish God's people from the pagans around.
However, I have a greater problem with the division of laws into 3 categories. It comes from these words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-20:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, 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. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
It concerns me when I read these words but hear Christians happily ignore certain OT requirements, such as these: “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God." (Lev 19:9-10). And yet, many who ignore these will jump on other passages such as the famous Leviticus 18:22, "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable".
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matt 22:37-40).
Paul explains this concept in Romans 2:14-15
"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."
One challenge is knowing which Bible passages from the OT should we, as Christians, still follow? How does a traditionalist wrestle with the Leviticus passages outlawing homosexual practice while equally outlawing tattoos, eating certain foods and wearing clothing of mixed fibres.
An article published by the Christian Institute explains one perspective: "It teaches that the moral element in the law, focused in the ten commandments, is of permanent application, while the ceremonial and civil elements were for the duration of the Old Testament economy only. The ceremonial was a shadow of Christ which became obsolete with his coming, and the civil a model of legal arrangements for any society, though not of such a status as to demand exact replication."
So, in a nutshell - passages relating to tattoos and foods etc. could be ceremonial, in that they distinguished God's people from the surrounding pagan worship practices. Sexual relation restrictions, they would argue, are permanent moral law.
My problem with this, is that when we read about homosexual practices, they are almost entirely in the context of pagan temple worship and such activities, which could arguably put them into the category of ceremonial laws designed to distinguish God's people from the pagans around.
However, I have a greater problem with the division of laws into 3 categories. It comes from these words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-20:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, 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. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
It concerns me when I read these words but hear Christians happily ignore certain OT requirements, such as these: “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God." (Lev 19:9-10). And yet, many who ignore these will jump on other passages such as the famous Leviticus 18:22, "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable".
The division of Law into 3 types is, I believe, a valiant attempt to wrestle with Scripture. However, when asked what the Greatest Commandment is, Jesus gave an answer that helps us better wrestle with the Old Testament.
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matt 22:37-40).
I have always considered this passage to be a foundation of my faith. I believe I am saved by faith in Jesus. In my striving to live a holy life that is pleasing to God, I do not believe I have to follow every law of the Old Testament, but rather the principles outlined here by Jesus. In so doing, I believe Christians keep right by the Law. Of course, we slip, fall down and stumble, but not because of a failure to obey every letter of the Law, but rather our failure to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and to love our neighbours as ourselves.
Paul explains this concept in Romans 2:14-15
"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."
I don't believe Paul is saying that Gentiles accidentally follow all Old Testament laws by following their moral compass, but rather that when they follow the principles of Jesus of loving God with everything and loving our neighbour as our-self then in so doing, we demonstrate that obedience to the law is in our hearts.
Part of my belief on this issue is shaped by my understanding of the story of the Old Testament. I see it predominantly as a detailed account (in different form - history, poetry etc.) of the relationship between God and his people. The laws of the OT were to help the people of the time keep their part of the covenant with God. We now have a new covenant in Christ, and in keeping the Greatest Commandments through our faith in Christ, we keep the law of the old covenant.
So what do I do with the difficult passages on the OT? I prayerfully try to discern how these laws were about investing in the covenant with God and look to the new covenant I have in Christ and seek to obey the Greatest Commandments in each and every situation. I fail regularly, but the grace of God is sufficient for me and I have the Holy Spirit as guide and counsellor in my heart, bearing witness, sometimes accusing and sometimes defending me.
So, did Jesus do away with the Law? By no means. He fulfilled the Law - but not just the ceremonial aspects. He fulfilled it in its entirety, and in following the Greatest Commandments, we can meet all the requirements of the Law, in Christ.
Friday, 14 June 2013
False teachers
I've noticed that a few opponents of same sex marriage or gay ministers often refer to passages of scripture referring to false teachers or heretics. Take for example the following passage from 2 Peter 2:
"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping".
If you sincerely believe that God is against all forms of homosexuality, then these kinds of passage are very appealing. However, if we don't understand the context, we can essentially hear "any teaching we don't like must be a heresy, and we must be prepared for one to materialise". Some passages refer to sexual immorality, which is we think refers to homosexuality, again backs up our view.
Unfortunately, this approach to the Bible is really one that is about finding what we want to hear and it's incredibly easy to do.
Take for example my finding of this verse which I read to oppose opponents of same sex marriage (1 Timothy 4):
"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer."
I actually don't believe that most opponents of same sex marriage are false teachers. I think most are sincere, genuine believers who have a different understanding of the Scriptures from me. I love them as brothers and sisters, and I am convinced that Paul teaches me, inspired by the Holy Spirit, how to deal with these situations in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.
What it teaches me is that I need to resist the temptation of throwing Bible verses at people I disagree with, but instead find a way of loving them and worshipping alongside them...
"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping".
If you sincerely believe that God is against all forms of homosexuality, then these kinds of passage are very appealing. However, if we don't understand the context, we can essentially hear "any teaching we don't like must be a heresy, and we must be prepared for one to materialise". Some passages refer to sexual immorality, which is we think refers to homosexuality, again backs up our view.
Unfortunately, this approach to the Bible is really one that is about finding what we want to hear and it's incredibly easy to do.
Take for example my finding of this verse which I read to oppose opponents of same sex marriage (1 Timothy 4):
"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer."
I actually don't believe that most opponents of same sex marriage are false teachers. I think most are sincere, genuine believers who have a different understanding of the Scriptures from me. I love them as brothers and sisters, and I am convinced that Paul teaches me, inspired by the Holy Spirit, how to deal with these situations in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.
What it teaches me is that I need to resist the temptation of throwing Bible verses at people I disagree with, but instead find a way of loving them and worshipping alongside them...
Saturday, 8 June 2013
A biblical rationale for same sex marriage?
I wonder how you responded to reading that title?
Were you enraged? Curious? Excited? Nonplussed?
Before going near addressing this issue, it is important to address the genuine concern that the Bible appears at first glance to have a negative message towards homosexuality.
If you read some of my previous posts, you'll see that I don't believe these verses hold up to much scrutiny if you view homosexuality as a natural orientation, in the same way that left handedness is a natural deviation from the norm of right handedness. The Bible passages then can be seen clearly not as a condemnation of all expressions of homosexuality, but rather all abusive expressions of homosexuality (prostitution, temple worship, orgies, child molestation, rape and the like). In Romans 1 we read that the temple context of same sex abuses is from people who do not acknowledge God (see Romans 1:21 and 28).
When a committed Christian prayerfully discerns how they are to live their life by guidance of the Holy Spirit, then we can start to discern fruit in their lives (my belief is that at the point of committing in faith to Jesus, the Holy Spirit comes into our lives and God makes his home within us, as we read in John 14). It is through faith they are justified and they have to remain true to their own conscience as we read in Romans 14. It is worth mentioning that a believer's conscience is not entirely their own thinking, but they have an intimate relationship with the Holy Spirit, the great advocate and counsellor.
From this point (if you disagree with the view that homosexuality is like left handedness, but prefer instead to believe that it is like an addiction or is about a lustful lifestyle choice, then the conclusion I come to will make no sense to you, and in fact, you would be wrong to accept it if it takes you against your own conscience) the homosexual believer has some decisions to make. Sexual attraction of any kind is not right or wrong. In that way, it is like anger. It is a response to a stimulus. Paul says that in our anger we should not sin. Anger increases our likelihood of sinning because we think less rationally and more emotionally. However, if channelled correctly, anger can lead to great works (e.g. anger at injustice, poverty, abuse etc.). Likewise, sexual attraction or arousal is not in itself a sin, but it is what we do with that attraction that is important. We need some safeguards to ensure we do not follow every human instinct to its natural conclusion, which is usually the shortest route to gratification. This takes us to advice from Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7:
"Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that."
To me, this is a passage about safeguarding. A quick aside here - some will be perplexed that Paul is referring only to heterosexuality in this context. That is of course true. However, we must remember that sexual orientation was not a concept understood for centuries to come. Sexual activity, yes, but orientation no. Studies of human sexuality have only recently helped us understand that orientation is not a choice (when did I choose to become heterosexual?) but something we are in all likelihood born with or at the very least develop through puberty (but we cannot and should not ever try to change someone's sexual orientation). So of course Paul is only talking within a frame of reference they will understand and no-one was asking about same sex marriage, so why would he address it?
So Paul teaches that like Jesus and his own life, singleness is a blessed gift. He explains later why he has this pastoral concern in verses 26-28.
"Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this."
Now, this is where our conclusion will depend significantly upon our starting point. Of course, a view that all sexuality that is not heterosexual must be sinful will have reached a dead end in terms of conversation a long time ago. However, if we are talking left handedness and something natural that is not a lifestyle choice, and if a believer is guided by the Holy Spirit and is justified through faith in Jesus and they feel a true and genuine love for someone (regardless of orientation) then if they feel led towards a lifelong commitment of faithfulness and love and they do not have Paul's gift (of an ability to live a full life of celibacy), then we need to ask ourselves what response can our Christian community offer to this couple?
My conclusion, that I understand not all will agree with, is that the Church should seriously consider offering Christian marriage. Currently, what most offer at the moment is quiet tolerance of cohabitation or passive acceptance of civil partnership or zero tolerance and demands that they repress their sexuality and discontinue any same sex relationship. What is missing is the support of a Christian community to help sustain a relationship and possible family, nurturing a couple in Christian love.
Certainly no minister who opposes homosexuality should ever be forced to conduct such a ceremony (there is already space for conscience in cases of divorce for example). However, I have moved from a view of thinking same sex relationship might not be all bad, but I wouldn't go as far as marriage, to embracing the concept of marriage where appropriate. The consequences of driving a natural sexual orientation underground is psychologically unhealthy and serves not to advance Christ's message of transformation and love but rather runs the risk of driving honest seekers away from the Bible, from Church and ultimately from Christ himself. I thank God that no lost sheep is ever disregarded, but do worry at times that it is Christians around the world who actively scatter the flock, usually with good intention.
Were you enraged? Curious? Excited? Nonplussed?
Before going near addressing this issue, it is important to address the genuine concern that the Bible appears at first glance to have a negative message towards homosexuality.
If you read some of my previous posts, you'll see that I don't believe these verses hold up to much scrutiny if you view homosexuality as a natural orientation, in the same way that left handedness is a natural deviation from the norm of right handedness. The Bible passages then can be seen clearly not as a condemnation of all expressions of homosexuality, but rather all abusive expressions of homosexuality (prostitution, temple worship, orgies, child molestation, rape and the like). In Romans 1 we read that the temple context of same sex abuses is from people who do not acknowledge God (see Romans 1:21 and 28).
When a committed Christian prayerfully discerns how they are to live their life by guidance of the Holy Spirit, then we can start to discern fruit in their lives (my belief is that at the point of committing in faith to Jesus, the Holy Spirit comes into our lives and God makes his home within us, as we read in John 14). It is through faith they are justified and they have to remain true to their own conscience as we read in Romans 14. It is worth mentioning that a believer's conscience is not entirely their own thinking, but they have an intimate relationship with the Holy Spirit, the great advocate and counsellor.
From this point (if you disagree with the view that homosexuality is like left handedness, but prefer instead to believe that it is like an addiction or is about a lustful lifestyle choice, then the conclusion I come to will make no sense to you, and in fact, you would be wrong to accept it if it takes you against your own conscience) the homosexual believer has some decisions to make. Sexual attraction of any kind is not right or wrong. In that way, it is like anger. It is a response to a stimulus. Paul says that in our anger we should not sin. Anger increases our likelihood of sinning because we think less rationally and more emotionally. However, if channelled correctly, anger can lead to great works (e.g. anger at injustice, poverty, abuse etc.). Likewise, sexual attraction or arousal is not in itself a sin, but it is what we do with that attraction that is important. We need some safeguards to ensure we do not follow every human instinct to its natural conclusion, which is usually the shortest route to gratification. This takes us to advice from Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7:
"Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that."
To me, this is a passage about safeguarding. A quick aside here - some will be perplexed that Paul is referring only to heterosexuality in this context. That is of course true. However, we must remember that sexual orientation was not a concept understood for centuries to come. Sexual activity, yes, but orientation no. Studies of human sexuality have only recently helped us understand that orientation is not a choice (when did I choose to become heterosexual?) but something we are in all likelihood born with or at the very least develop through puberty (but we cannot and should not ever try to change someone's sexual orientation). So of course Paul is only talking within a frame of reference they will understand and no-one was asking about same sex marriage, so why would he address it?
So Paul teaches that like Jesus and his own life, singleness is a blessed gift. He explains later why he has this pastoral concern in verses 26-28.
"Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this."
Now, this is where our conclusion will depend significantly upon our starting point. Of course, a view that all sexuality that is not heterosexual must be sinful will have reached a dead end in terms of conversation a long time ago. However, if we are talking left handedness and something natural that is not a lifestyle choice, and if a believer is guided by the Holy Spirit and is justified through faith in Jesus and they feel a true and genuine love for someone (regardless of orientation) then if they feel led towards a lifelong commitment of faithfulness and love and they do not have Paul's gift (of an ability to live a full life of celibacy), then we need to ask ourselves what response can our Christian community offer to this couple?
My conclusion, that I understand not all will agree with, is that the Church should seriously consider offering Christian marriage. Currently, what most offer at the moment is quiet tolerance of cohabitation or passive acceptance of civil partnership or zero tolerance and demands that they repress their sexuality and discontinue any same sex relationship. What is missing is the support of a Christian community to help sustain a relationship and possible family, nurturing a couple in Christian love.
Certainly no minister who opposes homosexuality should ever be forced to conduct such a ceremony (there is already space for conscience in cases of divorce for example). However, I have moved from a view of thinking same sex relationship might not be all bad, but I wouldn't go as far as marriage, to embracing the concept of marriage where appropriate. The consequences of driving a natural sexual orientation underground is psychologically unhealthy and serves not to advance Christ's message of transformation and love but rather runs the risk of driving honest seekers away from the Bible, from Church and ultimately from Christ himself. I thank God that no lost sheep is ever disregarded, but do worry at times that it is Christians around the world who actively scatter the flock, usually with good intention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)