Sin -- strictly speaking

Sin popped up in last week's discussion and threatened to take over. Are we sinners or not? Can we live without sin? Can we claim to be sinless?

I wasn't ready to discuss it last week. This week it is part of the lesson exposition from 1 John 3. It's a delicate topic. There are landmines here.

The first challenge is to define sin. Some define it as any thought or deed that falls short of the best practices we know. By that definition, we are all guilty and can approach God only by way of grace. It's not a terrible viewpoint, but it leaves sin as inescapable. Acts of sin, followed by confession, repentance, and forgiveness become a never-ending exercise for Christians in this view.

In contrast, the Wesleyan definition of sin brings in an element of purposeful rebellion. In the oft-quoted words of John Wesley, sin is a "voluntary transgression of a known law of God." In this view, I know it's wrong and I choose to do it anyway. I see the line in the sand and deliberately stick my big toe over it. Wesleyans promote the belief that there is a place of freedom where we no longer have rebellion stirring in our hearts, where we are content to accept God's boundaries and no longer struggle against them. There is value in this view of sin. It tells us about freedom and the possibility of walking in daily unbroken communion with God.

The difficulties come when Wesleyans start to flesh out the face of sin. Is it a sin to dance? to watch certain movies or television shows? to smoke? to drink alcoholic beverages? to lie? to shop on Sunday? to eat enough to become and remain obese in a world where others starve? to gamble? to dress immodestly? to break the speed limit? What is the "known law of God" in these areas? Can we truly get it all right and avoid all the things on the list that we decide are sins? If we avoid all those things will we be sinless?

Part of what we're missing is the rest of the Wesley quotation:

Nothing is sin, strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of a known law of God. Therefore every voluntary breach of the law of love is sin; and nothing else, if we speak properly... Let love fill your heart, and it is enough.

If we take this fuller definition back to our list of possible sins, it makes the answers both easier and more difficult. To take one example, is gambling a voluntary breach of the law of love? It takes some serious scrutiny to answer that question as we contemplate all of the possible ways in which gambling could hurt those around us. Are we voluntarily breaching the law of love toward God and/or others when we walk into a casino with a roll of quarters? There's definite room for discussion here.

But why are we discussing gambling when we made a cutting remark to a family member before we left the house this morning? when we took steps to protect our own interests at the expense of our coworkers' interests? when we ignore the hurting people around us? when we build social groups that shut people out instead of inviting them in? If all it takes to sin is being rude when we have the capacity to be kind, we have a lot bigger problem to deal with than the gambling industry. Even believing that God can enable me to be kind when I have the capacity to make that choice isn't helpful. How much of my impatience with people is a voluntary decision to rebel against the law of love as opposed to being a sign that my resources are exhausted and I am unable to choose patience? If my irritation isn't a voluntary act of rebellion against the law of love, where does all this leave me?

That is the real question. Can the work of God in our lives enable us to escape our self-concern and live within the law of love? Can God give us the resources to be consistently kind in situations that have always exhausted our patience?

To me, the Wesleyan answer is that we will never exhaust the possibilities for what God can do in our lives. There will always be one more step to take to become more loving. And it is always possible to take that step in the grace and power of God. The possibilities are beyond imagination. I can look back and marvel at the progress I have made by the grace of God and then look ahead in anticipation for where tomorrow will take me.

Can we live without rebelling against God? Yes! When we place ourselves totally in His hands, we can lie still and let Him shape us as He will. And even though there's always more molding to do and we are never finished in this life, our submission to the process will delight Him. We can rest in His goodness and allow Him to teach us how to live in loving ways. Where we are is good; His grace covers our imperfections. And yet, we continually strive to go further in and up. There is more than we have yet discovered!

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. - 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV)

1 John 2:18, 22 - The Antichrist

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come.

Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist -- he denies the Father and the Son.

"I like Jesus, but I don't like God." These are the words of a child who knows "Jesus loves me" and has seen the pictures of Jesus with children or carrying a little lamb back to safety. Jesus is kind and loving. In contrast, in this childish view, God is a wrathful judge, ready to wipe out entire nations and send sinners into everlasting fire. This is the God who rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), who sent plagues and death on those who challenged His authority, who sent prophets to warn of judgment to come and then executed that judgment. This is an unapproachable, angry deity. There's not much about this God to love.

That is, there's not much to love unless you're a Pharisee and have managed to get on the good side of this angry God. If you can manage that, there is power to be had. You can support this angry, vengeful God from the sidelines while He punishes sinners. You can celebrate every misfortune that strikes those less pious than you as a sign that God is still in the smiting business. You can even be his henchman (within legal limits, of course), helping God with the smiting. If you're a Pharisee and someone comes along who says he is God's representative in the world, God's Son even, but hangs out with sinners and doesn't follow your carefully crafted rules for staying on God's good side, you can recognize him as a fraud. When you say, "This man cannot be the Christ because he is nothing like the righteous God we know and love," what you are really saying is, "I don't believe that God is compassionate and kind. I don't believe that He loves sinners. This man cannot be the Christ because, if he does indeed represent God as he claims, it's not the God I know."

To deny that Jesus is the Christ, the anointed Son of God, is to elevate an image of God that doesn't fit with the life and teachings of Jesus. In rejecting Jesus as the Son, one rejects God as a loving, compassionate Father, full of grace and healing.

This week's scripture speaks of the antichrist, the person who is against the idea that Jesus is the Christ, the divine Son of God. Such a denial shows that the speaker doesn't know God well enough to recognize Jesus as the manifestation of the nature of God. The lesson to be learned is that any time there is a gap between our perception of Jesus and our perception of the Father, we know that there is a misperception somewhere. To deny that Jesus is a perfect representation of God made flesh is to fill the role of the antichrist, whether we are saying that Jesus isn't as righteous and holy as God is or that God isn't as compassionate and loving as Jesus was.

Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father living in me, who is doing his work" (John 14:8-10)

1 John 2:6 - How did Jesus walk?

Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did (1 John 2:6).

I love this verse. It boils the whole idea of being a Christian (i.e., a follower of Jesus Christ) down to one thing: following the example of Jesus, walking as he walked. All we have to do is find out how Jesus walked and emulate his example.

The days of the WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) bracelet are mostly past for now. They traced back to Charles Sheldon's book In His Stepsfrom 1896, a novel following a group of people who were challenged to ask themselves the "What would Jesus do?" question as they went about their days. The 1990s saw a resurgence of interest in the book and a plethora of products designed to once again remind people to ask the question.

I'm not sure, however, the WWJD fad translated well into people devoting themselves the actual record of how Jesus walked. Saying that one wants to do what Jesus would do and applying some notion of what that means doesn't necessarily equate to thorough exposure to the message of the Gospels.

There seems to be two approaches to the question of how Jesus walked. One approach produces a list of what Jesus would and would not do. For example, He would be courteous to others and a diligent worker. He wouldn't do drugs or have sex before marriage. It tells us how to be good, but it falls far short of exposing us to the radical ideas of the Gospels.

The other approach isn't nearly so neat and clean. It requires reading and studying the accounts of Jesus' life and letting His teaching both by words and example saturate our lives and change us. I read the Gospels through every year, taking the entire year to do so. And I am still regularly surprised by what I find in them. The how-to-be-good lists don't come close. I have no fear of exhausting in a lifetime the breadth and depth of the lessons to be learned.

What a worthy goal John presents here -- to walk as Jesus walked. Getting there takes a lifetime and is well worth the investment.

1 John 1:7

I tend to be a mathematical thinker -- linear, logical, analyzing the known to discover the unknown. The logical process behind computer programming fits me.

One of the most useful programming commands is the if/then statement. If A is true then do B (or go to C, or delete D). Everything depends on A being true. IF A is true, the THEN is automatically executed.

There are several if/then statements in the Bible. I like them. They speak to me.

John 15:7 -- "IF a man remains in me and I in him, [THEN] he will bear much fruit."

So if we want fruit, the key is to "remain" in Christ. The remaining is the action required to trigger the fruit-bearing, which is a natural byproduct. If we want fruit, we must focus, not on straining to push out some fruit blossoms, but on remaining in the vine.

Acts 1:8 -- "You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses ...

It's not a command to be witnesses; it's not even presented as a choice to be witnesses. Rather, it's an if/then statement. If (when) the Holy Spirit comes on us, then we WILL receive power and be witnesses.

Of course, there remains the work of figuring out what it means to "remain" and what the process is to have the Holy Spirit come on us, but recognizing the if/then nature of these verses helps us to focus our efforts on the IF, knowing that the THEN will take care of itself.

This week's scripture passage from the first chapter of 1 John has several if/then statements. My favorite is the beginning of verse 7:

"If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another..."

We could paraphrase John here as saying: Are you looking for friends? Would you like to enjoy true fellowship with other believers? Here's the secret: Walk in the light as God is in the light.

But what does it mean to walk in the light? That becomes our question. There's much room for exploration here. One aspect of light is that it reveals things that would be hidden by darkness. Perhaps one requirement for fellowship is the courage to let people see us as we are.

What do you think?

1 Corinthians

We're finishing up a series of lessons from 1 Corinthians this Sunday. Where I am, we're actually a week behind and will skip the last lesson in order to stay with the curriculum calendar. The passage that slipped into a second week concerned disagreements within the Christian community as addressed in 1 Corinthians 6. I wasn't there for the first week's discussion which the clock cut short. The second week involved some "rubber meets the road" questions. Does the church really want to deal with business deals gone sour between members? How do we balance charity toward even our enemy with our responsibility to spare others the harm our enemy has done us? If we continue to distrust someone who has wronged us, does that mean we haven't forgiven them? It made for some interesting discussion.

That puts us in chapter 8 this week, dealing with meat that has been sacrificed to idols. I haven't seen any of that in the marketplace lately. It will be interesting to figure out what analogies we can draw with today's marketplace.

Sheep and goats and postmodernity

After a break, we're back on the "regular curriculum" for a while. Tomorrow's topic is the parable of the sheep and the goats from Matthew 25. These are good lessons. For the most part I find them quite profitable. This week, however, amidst the good stuff, the preparer of the "methodology" took a couple of potshots at postmodernity.

The first comment is overt:

There is finality here in the idea of "judgment." That Jesus means to emphasize this as "final judgment" is evident by the immediate action of the King dividing the sheep from the goats.
* How would today's "politically correct" society handle such a distinction? (The politically correct, postmodern person would deem it unfair to judge another person's thoughts or actions.)

This makes me smile.

The King divides the sheep from the goats. How would sheep (or goats) who decline to label others as either sheep or goats feel about the King applying such labels in all His wisdom and perfect knowledge? Is this the question?

Why is it that those who attempt to discredit postmodernity consistently misrepresent it? As far as I know, postmodernity says nothing about the ultimate right of God to judge humanity. It is concerned with human relationships. I don't see any of the sheep or goats assisting with the sorting process here. But maybe I'm missing something.

The second reference is more subtle but still makes me smile.

Eternal fire is prepared for the devil and his angels. How would you respond to someone who says that the devil does not exist?

Aha! Here we have the perfect response for the pesky doubters among us. Simply pull out Matthew 25:41 and give them absolute prove that, since eternal fire has been prepared for the devil and his angels, their existence cannot be questioned. After all, that's where the goats are going. But only goats, right? Not people. Let's see ... no people are mentioned in this passage, right? Right. Only sheep and goats.

What's that? You say the sheep and goats represent people? So is this passage not to be taken literally? Ah, but the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels is totally literal. Beyond doubt. And can be used to prove their existence to those who have doubts.

I'll keep this in mind, but I fear that the pesky doubters I know will not be so easily convinced.

Just a couple of points that amused me, but certainly not a criticism of the lesson as a whole. Now the question is: Can I resist sharing that amusement tomorrow morning?

In all things ...

I have a "spiritual adventure" book by David Mains that talks about "God sightings" -- coincidences that seem to obviously reveal God at work in our lives. I don't use that phrase much but it certainly came to mind today.

Yesterday morning in Sunday School, we barely touched Romans 8:28. It was after the final buzzer when I brought it up and briefly mentioned a personal example of how God works for good in all things. My example was of how having an older member of my family go to prison for the last few years of his life was obviously a tragic thing, but how God has used that tragedy for good in multiple ways in my life.

That was Sunday. This morning, I was gathering up house clutter and sat down with a newspaper over a week old that had joined the clutter without being read. The headline announced that a classmate of my older daughter had been sentenced to 10 years in prison. This was a result of an accident over two years ago involving a truck, an Amish buggy, and a .24 blood-alcohol content which resulted in one death and multiple injuries. It's a sad, sad situation within the Mennonite-Amish community that packed out the courtroom for the sentencing hearing. The article indicated that there were few dry eyes in the courtroom. Tears ran down my own face as I read it.

A couple of hours later, I headed to the post office to mail out a textbook my younger daughter sold over the internet. As I chatted with the postal worker, someone came through the door behind me. I turned around to leave and there was the mother of the young man from the article. I live in a small town, but that's pretty coincidental. Our paths have crossed only two or three times since the accident. I know her because we did volunteer work together 18 years ago when our children were in grade school, but we haven't gone beyond exchanging greetings more than a dozen times since then. Yet, here she was in the post office just a couple of hours after I came across the latest news about her son.

Now, you may think me tactless, but there is absolutely no gentle way to bring up something like this and I didn't want to pretend I was unaware of this latest development, so I simply said, "Well, hi! I was just reading about you in the newspaper this morning!" She acknowledged that the family had become local "celebrities" against their druthers. I then asked some questions and mentioned my own family's experience with being on the wrong side of the law. We moved out onto the sidewalk in front of the post office and talked several minutes more. It was good to share someone else's burden. I know one of the things that helped me most during my own experience was finding people who weren't afraid to talk about it with me. There's nothing to kill a conversation like mentioning what happened at last week's prison visit. I hope and pray that offering a listening ear was a blessing to this mother like it was to me.

As we both went on our way, it occurred to me that tomorrow marks nine years since prisoner #963602 moved out of the prison walls and on to sentencing at the hands of a merciful God. I had been totally oblivious to that impending anniversary.

And yet ... "in all things God works for ... good" I can truly say that there was good along that path. How odd that I mentioned that personal history in Sunday School yesterday, that I picked up that particular piece of "old news" this morning, and that my brief visit to the post office placed me square in the path of this grieving mother almost exactly nine years after death brought my own "prison experience" to an end. It seems that I may have had a "God sighting."

Romans

It has been a while since I have posted here. We have traveled with Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph. We have interviewed some of the most influential people in church history. I have studied and prepared lessons and hung out with some absolutely wonderful people. What I haven't done is write blog entries about the experience.

Now we're ready to study Romans. Long letter. Weighty material. Romans was a Bible quizzing book for me, the enduring result of which is to give me a mental outline of the book. We have six lessons from the core of the book: chapters 5 to 8. Chapter 5 starts off with wonderful news - peace with God! We're skipping that part and diving into the sin and death problem which is offset by the righteousness and life solution in Christ Jesus.

I could spend hours and hours reading commentaries on Romans. Even the lesson material has more commentary beyond the exposition than usual. I have a brand-new unopened commentary on Romans. I have an old, musty unopened commentary on Romans. How much time do I want to spend following others through Romans? How much stuff must fill my own mind before I try to lead a discussion on Romans? Is it a hindrance or help to have tons of information stuffed into my head before going into such a discussion?

Why do I always have more questions than answers?

Mopping floors/washing feet

This week's WordAction lesson includes the passage from John 13 where Jesus washes his disciples' feet. I'm thinking about playing a snippet from the movie "Bruce Almighty" where "God" is mopping floors.

I might never have watched "Bruce Almighty" if not for Joan Ryan. I don't watch a lot of movies and this one wouldn't be likely to be among those few for several reasons.

However, I saw this article on the editorial page of my local newspaper back when the movie was still in the theaters and my interest was piqued.

Here is an excerpt, but I encourage you to read the entire column to get the full message:

When I left the movie theater, Morgan Freeman's God followed me home. I have an on-again, off-again relationship with God, mostly because the invisible thing doesn't work for me. Faith isn't my strength. I get stuck on needing proof, fully realizing that proof negates the need for faith (a twisty argument that eventually gives me a headache).

Morgan Freeman's God, however, is God as I want to imagine him. He is the parent we wanted and want to be. He speaks softly and not too much. He smiles with both amusement and affection. He is patient enough to let you make the mistakes you need to make. He never scolds. He knows everything about you -- even all your dark crabby thoughts about friends who are way thinner and less wrinkly than you are -- and still makes you feel as if He did his best work in putting all your weird little pieces together....

I almost forgot my favorite part about Morgan Freeman as God. He appears to Bruce in the guise of a janitor. He is wearing one of those jumpsuits. He has a mop and a bucket. He asks Bruce to mop with him. It is a vast empty floor, a big job for one mopper. Bruce declines in the beginning. But later, after his epiphany, Bruce picks up a mop, and he and God mop together, one narrow strip of floor at a time.

I am still captured by the image presented in that movie and how closely it fits with the God I know. I think it really does reflect the God of the Bible. I suspect that I would enjoy getting acquainted with the writer of the screenplay for that movie.

Why evangelize?

From the WordAction lesson for March 2:

But what of those who have never heard the gospel message? Though God in His wisdom, justice, and love will judge humanity according to the light they have received, that fact does not absolve us of our obligation to take the gospel message to the whole world. Not only is eternity involved, but the quality of life on earth as well. The pagans are the "whoevers" who must be given the opportunity to know the truth and accept salvation.

Absolve. Obligation. Must. These are words of duty generally directed toward those with a resistance to doing what they need to do. While I don't disagree with what the author is saying, I wouldn't bring duty into the discussion.

"But what of those who have never heard the gospel message?" Can they find their way to God? Yes, according to Romans 1:19-20. Nature gives enough witness to the existence of God and His will for mankind for people to choose the path of righteousness. Those who fail to choose that path are without excuse.

Still, why would we leave someone groping about in the dark when we have a limitless supply of light? It's not that we have a duty to spend our days wearily passing out flashlights and batteries to the endless line of people living in the dark. We have light! We have the secret of abundant life!

Do I have a duty to share my faith with people who are interested in spiritual things but haven't heard the good news of how Jesus Christ has opened up a wonderful path into a relationship with God? I suppose I do, but I don't see it in those terms.

It is difficult to share physical resources as a rich Christian in a hungry world. How do I share what I have while encouraging people to develop independence and responsibility. Where do I start in the face of such overwhelming need and limited resources to meet that need? How do I make sure my gift reaches needy people? It's easier to simply turn my face away from people who need monetary or physical help. Perhaps there is a requirement for language of duty in this area.

However, in terms of faith, why would I not want to share what I have? It's not as though there's a limited amount of light. There's no reason to hoard it. There are people all over the world -- in my immediate world, in places far and near -- who are hungry to hear words of hope. I have those words. They burst out of me when I detect that I'm talking to a receptive soul. I want to enable others to go where I cannot in order to share that message of hope.

Are we obligated to offer light and hope to those who are trying to find their way to God in the dark? Yes. Just as we are obligated to tell people planning a vacation about the marvelous time we had on our last trip to their destination. Or in the same way that we are obligated to share our most delicious dining experiences with someone looking for a good restaurant.

It seems a bit pointless to talk about duty and obligation to share something so wonderful and amazing that we want the entire world to hear about it.

Second-Mile living - 12/30/07

I'm back. For now, at least.

This week's lesson includes the following comment from Illustrated Bible Life by Jirair Tashjian:

"This is not the same as being a doormat. Nor is it that enemies are made into friends by 'killing them with kindness.' It is, rather, peaceful resistance. It puts enemies into the awkward situation of having to face kindness when retaliation was expected."

I like the last line. And I've heard the first line all of my life. However, I have yet to accept it as an obvious truth. And I'm not moving that direction.

In her book Out of the Saltshaker, Rebecca Manley Pippert tells the story of how she challenged an agnostic student to read the Gospels and try obedience to see what would happen. The student read Matthew 5:38-42 and promised the God whose existence she doubted that, given the opportunity, she would try it. It didn't take long for the opportunity to present itself. Paying the cost to obey brought a complete change to her life.

As I contemplated that story, I realized that I and most everyone I know had accepted the "we can't be doormats" philosophy without even trying it to see what would happen. If an agnostic college student could try out obedience, why couldn't I? So I signed on to do my very best to obey the instructions from the Sermon on the Mount. But only for fifty years. Then I would evaluate the results and see if I wanted to continue the experiment.

I'm still not sure how second-mile living really works out in real life. I seem incapable of sustaining my position as a doormat. It's rare when I can cheerfully offer the second mile on top of the first one that has been demanded of me. Or offer up the other cheek when the first one is still stinging. However, what little data I have managed to collect indicates that non-resistance is actually far more rewarding than defending one's rights.

People don't walk over me any more when I'm lying still than when I'm squealing in protest. Nor do they notice me any less. Rather, passive living seems attractive to those who are observing how I respond to an abuser. And there's the bonus of feeling completely triumphant when I manage to lie still and allow someone to walk over me without protest. It's not weakness. It's strength under control. It's a choice to keep silent in the face of insult and abuse. When I can manage to pull it off, there's no lack of personal affirmation in it.

Fortunately, I have a few years left to continue my experiment and see if I can get any better at it. I'm not bleeding yet.

Sunday School issues

OK, there are still one or two people stopping by here, so I guess it's time for an update. Discussing "issues" in Sunday School has been an interesting exercise. I never thought I would address "current event" topics by choice. For the most part, I don't bother to choose a side on controversial issues. After all, does it really matter what I think? There are enough decisions to be made in areas where I need to choose a course of action that I don't have the mental energy to decide whether we should have troups in Iraq and who should have tried Suddam Hussein and whether Terri Schiavo should have been allowed to die.

In a way, my lack of mental and emotional investment in the subjects we've been discussing has made it easier. If people have strong opinions, on capital punishment for example, either pro or con, that's fine with me. They can go ahead and express their opinion. I'll probably be in at least partial agreement with any position. But for the most part, we simply look at both sides of the issue in light of scripture. After all, if there were a simple Bible-based answer to the issues facing our world, they wouldn't be issues. We've yet to find an issue where all Bible-believing Christians line up on the same side.

Our next topic is bioethics -- cloning, gene therapy, genetic engineering. It's another area where I've never seen any need to choose a position. Hopefully, someone else will have something to contribute to the discussion. Anyone who reads this is welcome to comment.

God and Country

OK, so no one responded to my short and pithy questions last week. Getting a dialog going here is even harder than on Sunday mornings at Sunday School. I guess you are all just peeping in to see what's going on.

So here's what is going on this week: God and country. What does it mean to be an American Christian? What does it mean to be a Christian American? What is our allegiance as Christians to the United States of America? How does Christianity affect our view of those outside our borders? Does the Bible give us any answers to these questions?

I'd tell you the answers, but I need to wait until after tomorrow (Sunday) morning to see if we figure out what they are.

Legislating morality

So can the government force morality on the citizens it governs by passing laws that make immorality illegal and subject to fines and punishments? That's what we'll be discussing this week. Anyone care to comment? Anyone anywhere? Hellooooooo? Is anyone out there? Anyone at all?

Where do we go from here?

Our last week in 1 Thessalonians. It has been a challenging unit.

Last Sunday morning we started with the question: "If someone asks you ... What does the Bible say about ___________? ... how do they fill in the blank?" The rhetorical answer was "the end of the world" in order to transition into the 2nd coming aspect of the lesson from 1 Thessolonians 4-5. The actual responses, however, resulted in a decision to take a look at some of the questions people ask us about the Bible and what the Bible really says about those issues. So we won't be using the WordAction curriculum for the winter quarter.

I'm starting to dig out books on issues from the Dialog series. It's interesting that the book from the church library with the closest match to the issues brought up last week is the oldest. It's not actually from the Dialog Series or even the Nazarene Publishing House. I suspect it predates the Dialog Series. It's from the "Contemporary Discussion Series" from Baker Book House and the copyright date is 1969. The subjects addressed include: gambling, social responsibility, abortion, the threat of technology, modesty in dress, and church music.

For today, we're still in 1 Thessalonians, finishing out the end of chapter 5. Verse 23 is a golden text for Nazarenes that has been used as a launching pad for untold promises about "sanctification". The rest of my group hasn't been subjected to nearly so much in that area as I have and I try to be careful to not spend my time reacting to offenses that they haven't encountered. Fortunately, it's not the only verse in this morning's scripture focus.

Holiness and sex

In 1 Thessalonians 4:3 Paul explains that sanctification is the will of God. The first aspect of sanctification he mentions is avoiding sexual immorality.

There is a universal innate ethic in humanity that tells us that some things are right and others are wrong. I assume that studies have been done to determine what activities jar the sensitive conscience in every culture. Taking what belongs to and is treasured by another might be an example of a universal ‘wrong’. I don’t know. I haven’t reviewed such studies.

This week’s lesson indicates that in the culture of the Thessalonians, sexual indulgence was considered ‘normal’, acceptable, even sacred. Paul has explained to the believers there that this is not the case, that doing what is right in the sight of God includes being sexually pure. Now he’s reminding them of this teaching.

I wonder: Is sexual morality part of our built-in moral system or is it defined by culture? Were the pagans in Thessalonica aware at some level that their sexual indulgence was wrong? Or did they consider it simply satisfying a natural physical hunger with no more moral significance than eating an apple?

Unlike swans, humans do not have a natural fidelity to a single, lifetime mate. Rather, there is an inclination to be promiscuous, to consider every attractive member of the opposite sex (or even the same sex) to have potential as a sexual partner, even after having committed oneself to marriage. How universal is the moral call to do right by denying that natural inclination? Was Paul bringing the Thessalonian Christians back to a known but suppressed moral standard or was he introducing a completely foreign moral code with no natural support even by the sensitized conscience?

Perhaps we could find the answer in sociology. Or maybe sexual morality is actually an extension of love and needs no separate code to define it. Love directs us to value others and seek their highest welfare. Sexual indulgence uses others without valuing them. Someone with two partners sets them in competition with each other, both vying for the undivided attention of the beloved. Even if those partners don’t know about each other, the person whose bed they share is depriving his or her lovers of pure (unadulterated) love. It seems that true love for others would naturally and necessarily lead to sexual purity, to imposing self-control on natural urges out of concern for the happiness and well-being of others, both one's marriage partner (present or future) and the attractive and available person. It seems that Paul was connecting dots for the new believers that would have naturally come together for them over time.

God is holy; God is love. Being holy, set apart, sanctified, means loving God and loving others. This leads inevitably to sexual purity, controlling and channeling our urges to procreate into committed and exclusive relationships.

What do you think?

Running behind

My goal for this blog is to comment on upcoming lessons from the adult WordAction curriculum rather than past lessons. However, this past week (1) life didn't provide much time for composing blog entries (2) I had difficulty getting a handle on the lesson. I hope to do better this week.

I did want to make a couple of a posthumous comments on today's (Nov 5) lesson. I use the term posthumous because I feel like I pretty much sucked the life out of the lesson in my weak attempt to present it. It spoke of the pastoral relationship and I gave in to the ploy of pulling in an illustration of a poor example of pastoring from this week's news. After all, it doesn’t hurt to talk about what people are already talking about in the Sunday School setting where we can approach the discussion from a biblical point of view. However, no one in this morning’s group had heard anything about it, leaving me playing the role of a gossip, revealing the shocking truth of someone else’s sins. I revealed nothing that hasn’t been verified as truth by reliable sources and actually less than is now verified, but I wish I had simply left it alone. Examples of exemplary living would have left a much better taste in my mouth.

Paul amazes me in his confidence that the best life the people in his churches can live is in imitation of the way he and his fellow evangelists live. I’m much more inclined to hope that anyone who might look to me for guidance would listen to the best of the words I say rather than imitating my practices. I know that I have weaknesses that sometimes make me a poor model of Christian living. How would I ever point to myself as an example for others? Rather, my goal is to point people to Jesus as the model for holy living.

I am reminded today of words from one of my favorite DC Talk songs:

Is this one for the people?
Is this one for the Lord?
Or do I simply serenade for things I must afford?
You can jumble them together, my conflict still remains
Holiness is calling, in the midst of courting fame

Cause I see the trust in their eyes
Though the sky is falling
They need your love in their lives
Compromise is calling

(chorus)
What if I stumble, what if I fall?
What if I lose my step and I make fools of us all?
Will the love continue when my walk becomes a crawl?
What if I stumble, and what if I fall?

The Fellowship of Suffering

I enjoyed Proverbs. Now it’s time to move on to 1 Thessalonians.

Dr. Jesse Middendorf writes in this week’s exposition: "It has always been true: Shared suffering produces deep relationship."

Shared suffering. Suffering together.

Have you ever been part of a discussion that questioned the significance of our lack of persecution in North America as Christians? I get the feeling that getting along well with those outside the faith community is a sign of anemic faith. Yet, I’ve seen "persecuted" American Christians. Their offensiveness seems to have little to do with being devoted disciples of Jesus Christ, living a cruciform lifestyle. Rather, they’re pushing up against the rules, testing the boundaries and then yelling foul when the boundaries push back. Maybe my faith is too anemic to recognize true discipleship, but I have yet to see obnoxiousness on any list of biblical virtues.

So ... if we’re not suffering persecution because of our faith, how do we develop the deep relationships that are byproducts of shared suffering? Perhaps the answer lies in the groaning of the creation around us.

There is no shortage of suffering in this world, even in North America. Perhaps it’s the child next door who seldom hears a kind word. Or the widow whose children are consuming what few resources she has and leaving her destitute. Maybe it’s the teenage girl who is already losing the glow of youth as she seeks for love in all the wrong places. Or the neighbors whose marriage is slowly dying with no visible remedy. Or the man whose beloved wife is wasting away with cancer. Or the family with no steady income about to lose their home. People all around us are in agony as they face crushing circumstances with no means of escape.

I confess that it’s easy for me to back away from people in great pain. Hearing their stories makes me feel like I ought to do something to help them. How can I listen to their pain and then do nothing more than wish them well as I walk away? Yet, what can I do? I can’t cure cancer or reverse death or fix broken relationships or provide financial support for all the poor people I know. Having such limited resources makes me want to cross to the other side when I see hurting people, as did the priest in the story of the good Samaritan.

Perhaps this is where shared suffering comes in. All around us people are in pain. Rather than being related to their faith, it’s often obvious that sin is involved. Yet, here is genuine suffering – broken hearts, frustration, tears, hopelessness. Is this a suffering in which we can share as disciples of Jesus Christ? Isn’t that what he did? He saw a widow walking in the funeral procession of her only son and stopped and got involved. He wouldn’t have had to do that. He was a busy man. He had his own challenges. But he had compassion on the woman and stopped to restore her hope.

We don’t have the same resources Jesus had. Yet, even his were limited by time and space. He couldn’t personally interact with even a fraction of the multitudes of suffering people in Palestine. Sure, he fed 5,000 people – one meal; or maybe two. But they were hungry again a day or two later and where was Jesus? In another place, walking into the suffering of a different set of people.

Perhaps it’s not only suffering for being a Christian that deepens our relationships, but also drawing alongside those who are suffering the consequences of sin or of simply being human and stepping into their agony with them. When Paul wrote in Philippians (3:10) that he wanted to know "the fellowship of sharing in [Christ's] sufferings," could sharing in the sufferings of those around him have been the avenue to fulfilling that desire?

What do you think?

The wisdom of this world

The apostle Paul wrote:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." (1CO 1:18-19)

Jesus said:

"I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." (MT 11:25)

And:

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (MT 19:23-24)

Jesus does NOT indicate that it is difficult for those who are wise in the eyes of this world to enter the kingdom, only for those who are rich. Yet, I wonder ... is intelligence and learning as much a barrier to entering the kingdom as riches? It seems that it may be. After all, where does the light of faith burn the brightest? Is it in academic settings? Among scientists? Among philosophers? Or is it among those who study less and have a simple faith? Is it as tempting to rely on superior intellect for understanding of life as it is to rely on riches for security?

Who are the little children to whom the Father reveals the secrets of the kingdom? Is it those with much learning? Or is it those who don't understand many things but who choose to believe God and trust him?

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (PR 9:10)

How many people with strong intellects are willing to set aside their logic and their grasp on reality and embrace the foolishness of the cross where, as Derek Webb puts it, things are upside down?

What looks like weakness can do anything
And what looks like foolishness is understanding
When what is powerful has not come to fight
It looks like you’re going to war
But you lay down your life. (From What Looks Like Love)

How many are willing to ‘buy into’ the precepts of God and start with the fear of the Lord in order to pursue and find true wisdom? How many will set aside what they have learned with their heads in order to start thinking with their hearts? How can we open doors for the intelligent into the wisdom of God which sometimes looks so very foolish? Should we expect the church to include few who are “wise by human standards”? (see 1 CO 1:26) Is there a way to minister effectively to the educated among us, to those who have confidence in their intellect to reveal the ways of this world to them?

What do you think?

Good versus Evil

I mentioned a couple of weeks ago when considering the nature of the poor among us that good and evil seem so much easier to sort out in stories about oppressed poor people than in real life. Actually, it doesn’t take poverty to complicate the division between good and evil in our day-to-day lives.

The Proverbs (and Psalms) speak often of the reward of righteous living and the ultimate destruction of evildoers. The world seems to be divided easily into good and evil in these passages. In Matthew 25, Jesus speaks of the “sheep” and “goats” being divided at the end of the age. Again, the split seems so clean from the viewpoint of the King. However, the righteous and unrighteous are both surprised by the acts assigned to them. It seems that the division between good and evil that is so easily made by our Lord is not nearly so obvious to the casual human observer.

Drama reflects the division of good and evil. I don’t watch much television. Sometimes if I happen by when my husband has the TV on, I’ll stop and watch for a while. Of course, I’m coming into the middle of the story, which prompts me to occasionally ask annoying questions such as, “Is he a good guy or a bad guy? Are we supposed to like him?” It’s not often that the reply is ambiguous. Once in a while there’s a complex character that isn’t easily identified as either good or bad, but those are exceptions.

I find it interesting that we so easily accept the presence of villains in drama, whether they’re oppressing the poor or plotting murder. Do we observe such people in our daily lives? How many of your acquaintances would you classify as bloodthirsty? Do you know anyone who fits the label of murderous?

The evildoer in this week’s passage has characteristics such as concealing his sins, hardening his heart, lacking judgment, and being unconcerned about justice for the poor. I can certainly think of people who fit that description at times. I might slip in there somewhere myself from time to time. However, many of the people I know who sometimes speak harshly and hurt others and harden their hearts toward people don’t fit the “bad guy” image of drama well at all. Many times they are just ordinary people who are “out of sorts” for some reason.

An elderly man of my acquaintance is rude and demanding. He’s much more concerned about justice for himself than for the poor or anyone else. Any cordial words that come out of his mouth seem designed to bend the will of those around him to meet his needs. As far as I can tell he doesn’t have many friends and my natural inclination certainly wouldn’t lead me to number myself among the few. I’m polite to him if I can’t avoid him, but I prefer to avoid him and save myself the bother of trying to be patient with his manipulative demands. Is this an evildoer? He certainly wouldn’t take kindly to being characterized as such. In fact, he told me just recently that he is a Christian.

I often observe parents speaking harshly to their young children. The child is crying and the impatient parent responds with unkind words and threats as to what will happen if the tears do not stop. I observe no compassion toward the little one, only a hard face. Are these evildoers? Hardness of heart and harsh words directed toward innocent little children is surely one of the worst examples of unkindness, yet how many parents can claim to be innocent in this area?

I meet few people who readily confess their failures. Most seem to prefer to put on the best face possible and conceal their darker side. Are these evildoers?

I can’t tell that compassion and vulnerability and good judgment are more prevalent among those who claim to be righteous or that hardness of heart and disregard for the poor and innocent victims is any less evident in the church than elsewhere.

Until we find a surefire way to distinguish the good from the evil, maybe we can fall back on Romans 3:10, where Paul reminds us that “There is no one righteous, not even one.” Rather than attempt to classify ourselves among the exceptionally righteous, maybe we need to admit that we sometimes fall into the characteristics of the wicked and experience the consequences of wrongdoing. When we harden our hearts toward the poor and oppressed, we can expect the natural consequences for such an attitude as revealed in scripture.

What do you think?