You'd think that after 700 blog posts (this being 701) I'd have figured out some of the basics of theology and Christianity. Not even close. In fact, I still struggle with what is, on one level, an argument about gays and lesbians in the church, but at another level is a fundamental question about scripture, faith, and love - and which takes precedence.
I have been moved to revive this argument because of a response to the previous blog in this article by Underground Pewster. If you haven't read the original blog post (Reformed and always reforming) I suggest you do so at this time, because I'm not going to review it again. U.P. wrote that in that case a NO vote would have also been a loving vote. Randall joined in with U.P. to note that often times telling someone no is the best thing for them and does not mean that you love them even less. Not to be too argumentative, but I had figured that angle out on my own. And to counter that, I could simply state the obvious cliche that one can say No for good reasons and out of love and still be wrong (like in all those movies where a parent wants what's best for a child and refuses to see that they are stifling his/her creativity).
What none of these previous posts have done is address the fundamental question - and perhaps that's why I'm still struggling with the subject - what should the role of scripture be in our daily lives as opposed to love and faith (and as part of love and faith as well). I don't wish to throw these various things in contrast to each other. I strongly suspect that in leading perfect God Oriented lives that all of these things fit together seamlessly so that to follow scripture is to love and is to be faithful. But there are stark contrasts to what the Bible shows and contradictions in the Biblical story as well.
Nevermind the fact that most Christians ignore a good 90% or more of Leviticus. We all know that Jesus broke the veil and freed us from the law. And yet, He also said that He didn't come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. If that's the case, and the law still applies to us, why don't we follow Leviticus anymore? Or, perhaps more poignantly, why do we only follow certain aspects of it?
I am also cognizant of the story of Peter's vision in Acts where he interpreted that the eating of any kind of food was now allowed. This also led to the removal of circumcision as a requirement of being a Christian. None of these things was ever addressed by word from Jesus, and yet they are accepted practice in Christianity today.
While He was alive, Jesus did make note that the law had its limits. He reminded the Pharisees that if a man fell down a well on the sabbath, it would not be against the law to rescue him even if that particular task seemed to break the holy sabbath (nor would it be against the law to feed hungry men as in the case of David). In all cases where Jesus disturbed the law keepers of the day, the litmus test seemed to be that He was showing His love to others - feeding the hungry, saving the dying, protecting people from stoning, etc... So, by His own acts, it would appear that Love triumphed over Law any day of the week.
That idea has been poking around in my head for a while now. I've also been thinking about something Jesus told his disciples - From now on whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you condemn on earth will be condemned in Heaven.
The problem with laws is that they don't have the flexibility to deal with people. They are always black and white. This is right. This is wrong. There can be no grey area. But real life isn't black and white. Therefore law needs to be tempered with something else to avoid it being too out of touch with reality. That something else is love in all its component forms - wisdom, compassion, and mercy. That laws sometimes outgrow reality is obvious. The world changes and laws need to change with it.
But also people change and the laws need to change with people. Perhaps that's what Jesus was trying to tell his disciples. The law is important and always will be, but my kingdom isn't static. It will grow with time and you will need to be its advocates. As the world changes, you will change with it. But one thing will never change - my love for my church. Therefore, if you ask me to change my law, it will be changed.
I think the church is being tested. Are we going to exclude certain people because of scripture in the same way that the Pharisees did in Jesus's time? Or are we going to embrace everyone because Jesus's love is great enough to overcome all sin - whether it be pork, or divorce, or working on the sabbath, or homosexuality? What kind of church are we? And where do we draw the line?
Randall made an excellent point in his very first response to the previous blog post - going away from scripture is the path to madness. But can you disagree with scripture and still be cognizant of what it says? I've read Leviticus a bunch of times, but it doesn't make me harken to those rules and regulations (though I think owning willing slaves for six years, so long as I release them on the 7th year might be kind of cool ;) Yet, I am still aware of what the law says.
As a last point, I think this issue is more relevant in other parts of the world than in the United States. I know that the Vatican has recently said that any homosexuality is a terrible sin - thus throwing all of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters under the proverbial bus. And in Uganda, they are about to enforce criminalization of homosexuality to the point of death in some cases. In contrast to these more serious issues, the calling of a pastor seems almost unimportant. And yet, the arguments are the same in all cases - Holy Scripture vs. Real People. We are no doubt getting it wrong no matter which side we fall upon. But I think I'd rather err on the side of love and inclusion than hate and exclusion - and then sort it out later when I'm much wiser.
8 comments:
I think you answer a lot of your own questions, but don't like the answers.
I'll come back to this later, but initially I would note that your suggestion that we are "excluding" people from seeking God or whatnot is no where contained in anything I wrote. Indeed, I would at no time suggest any such thing.
Your initial post concerned ordaining a pastor for a congregation. I asked, is it reasonable to ordain a shepherd who practices sinful behavior, yet refuses to acknowledge the sin and indeed, celebrates it?
No snark, big guy, but I've yet to hear an answer to that question.
As for the "exclusion" question, there is no doubt that Christ invited all to him. Indeed, it is the sick who need the Great Physician the most. What the sick/sinful do not need, however, is a representative of the Physician who refuses to cure them or insists upon telling them that they aren't really ill after all.
Cheers.
Randall -
I stand corrected. I lumped you in with a position I know that you do not hold - and that indeed is not even very popular anywhere in the United States. Churches here are reaching out to their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and trying to bring them in the fold. But I'm wondering how successful is that outreach when it contains the basic message, "We would like you to join our church even though we find your life to be a sin."
As to the question that I have yet to answer - you are right. I think the answer to that question is dependent on the answer to the question I posted. If the answer is as simple as Scripture is inviolate and never wrong, then the answer to your question is obviously that you can't call that person to be a pastor. If the answer is that Scripture is a guide, but the church can reinterpret its teachings with newly gained God given wisdom (i.e. like with the food restrictions and circumcision or, in more modern times, the reformation) then the answer MIGHT be yes, you can ordain this person provided that you feel they are indeed called by God to lead His people.
Since I can't find an answer to the deeper question, I am left with a choice of what I believe via my understanding of God and my prayers and my deep study of the issue. I'd prefer a clear cut answer that doesn't begin with the notion that we obey because the Bible says we obey. If all I have to do is read a book to get my answer, I don't need God to write anything on my heart.
The very simple answer to your question concerns those laws in the Pentateuch which we, as Christians, follow. The ones which no longer obtain to us, are those which deal with Jewish ritual as being necessary to approach God. Those are the laws which Christ overcame/fulfilled, as demonstrated by the torn curtain between the Holy Place and the Sanctum Sanctorum. That's why we no longer sacrifice animals, for example, because, through Christ, the law is fulfilled in his death and resurrection. Thus, it is no longer applicable.
Further, if you look at those laws and contemplate them with a view to and knowledge of God's ultimate plan for the salvation of the world, you see that these laws of ritual point to Christ's fulfillment.
Another example of this is the woman with the "issue of blood for twelve years" (Matthew 9:20-21) who sought Christ's healing power by merely touching his robe.
Her affliction was basically a constant menstrual cycle which made her perpetually unclean, according to Jewish law as expressed in Leviticus. Understand, she was prevented from either marrying or having intimate relations with her husband because of this. She could neither be a part of Jewish society or religious observance.
Yet, Christ healed her, because of her simple faith. Indeed, she approached him for healing, her status as outcast notwithstanding, and was accepted by him, again because of her faith.
This is the perfect reflection of the point I'm trying to make.
(See also, Mike Darretta's God Is Closer Than You Think, which discusses the same issues, albeit more simplistically, in my view.)
Contrast with the laws on idolatry, adultery, murder, theft, covetousness, etc. Whereas, the ritual laws enabled one who sought God to approach Him, the latter are laws concerning conduct which function to separate Man from God. With the rituals, one wishes, through compliance, to face God. Violation of the latter drives Man farther and farther from God's presence.
Christ only fulfilled the rituals necessary to come to God. He is our advocate and we need no longer fear being in God's Holy Presence because Christ stands with us. We need no longer avail ourselves of the rituals for they are finished in Christ.
Christ did not, however, abrogate those laws concerning sins which Man deliberately commits and which take them farther from God's presence. To return, we must repent, i.e. "turn around," leave our sin behind and approach God through the forgiveness bought and paid for on the Cross by Jesus.
That's the answer to you question.
Cheers.
BTW, why is it that anytime someone argues without insult or rancor against the proposition you espouse, one that is clearly contrary to centuries of Christian teaching, tradition and practice, they are labeled with ad hominem gusto as being on the "side of . . . hate and exclusion?"
It certainly does absolutely nothing to advance the inquiry and functions merely to artificially close the debate, a debate which clearly has significance for the course of Christendom and one which, one would think, would interest God just the teeniest bit.
As for a more substantive reply, you posit another false choice of "people or scripture." Upon what do you base the idea that those things are mutually exclusive? If you believe that Scripture is Logos, i.e. God's Word, what is it's purpose other than to reveal himself to human beings, which revelation provides the means of ameliorating our fallen, sinful state?
Further, assuming you are correct in your assumption regarding the mutual exclusivity of humanity and God's word, it seems that the appropriate choice would be the latter. After all, Christ tells us that if we love even our parents more than Him, we will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Query, whether such applies to those of our species who persist in engaging in sin without remorse or repentance?
Cheers, my friend.
Randall -
Thank you! Your second post was Money! That was an answer that dashed my questions to pieces. I was hoping for more food for thought and you delivered.
I'm sorry if my posting felt like an attack. Even as I was writing it, I knew that it felt weighted too much to one side, but I couldn't get outside of my own brain to change the image of what I was writing. Sometimes you have to be free to say things that you know are wrong to get at the truth that lies underneath. Its all part of this imperfect human form of communication.
I'm not sure that my opinion has changed, but I'm much less sure that my opinion might be right. I now have something new to contemplate.
Thank you again.
Not a whole lot for me to add, since Randall pretty much nailed it.
The Church should be welcoming the LBGT community - without a doubt. But just as the Church should not have a pastor who has cheated on his wife while leading his church(a couple of prominent examples come to mind), the Church should not have a pastor who is knowingly sinning sexually as noted in Randall's post. The fact is that those placed in the position of pastor should be following the principles set forth in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1; that is the behavioral ethical/moral bar is set higher for those in leadership positions in the Church. The sad fact remains that far too many folks succumb to all matters of egregious sins while in ministry leadership roles, paid or voluntary.
Will, I appreciate the struggle and your honesty in both posts. There are many shades of gray, but I do believe in 2 Tim 3:16 as well, All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
And one more thing to add: I believe that the Jesus who was able to heal the woman who had been bleeding for 12 years, the same Jesus who did many other amazing miracles, can still perform those same miracles today. I think my faith, and the faith of many of my brothers and sisters in Western Christianity, is sorely lacking when it comes to matters of belief in God's healing power.
But the healing, the miracles, all begin with the 1st step - and that's to recognize that you/I have a problem to begin with (like the bleeding woman, like the centurion). God responds after we take that 1st step towards healing, towards repentance, towards whatever issue holds you/me back. The rich young ruler, on the other hand, was unwilling to take that step of faith, focused mainly on performing the law.
A book that was really helpful for me on this matter (as discussed in these 2 "Reformed" posts) is Dan Kimball's "They Like Jesus But Not The Church". He touches on this issue and others that are often stumbling blocks for folks with questions about the Christian faith.
I've rambled on a few too many tangents...time for bed!
Andy, well said. I agree in total.
Cheers.
Nice discussion guys. It all seems to hint at the idea that scripture should be read and discussed together and not just in isolation. When "I" take on the sole responsibility of interpreting scripture, "My" will is the one that "will be done," and there will be no room for God to "write" anything upon our hearts.
Post a Comment