I wondered how relevant this conflict is to the contemporary conflict about same-sex relationships in the church... so I reworked the passage replacing "jew" and "gentile" with "straight" and "gay/lesbian"...
see what you think: Galatians 2 (reworked)
I asked for comments from my ministerial colleagues and recieved the following reply: (an extract)
...The reworking is not bad from a literary point of view. But biblically and theologically it is disastrous. It fuses the temporary ceremonial laws, which were done away with by the cross of Christ, and the ever enduring moral law, and then proceeds to throw the melded product out of the window. Note that what Peter withdrew from was eating with Gentiles (vs.12), which was a purely ceremonial and ritual prohibition for Jews. Clearly, then, it was intimidated Peters' succumbing to the ceremonial Law which drew forth Paul's angry protest. His later declaration in the same letter that "It does'nt matter if you are circumcised or not" (6:15), is in concert with that protest, and makes it doubly plain to us - should that be necessary - which 'Law' it is that is at an end as a means of making and keeping people right with God.
Paul, then, if he was not given to crazy contradictions, must have had a Law other than the ritual and ceremonial in mind when he rhetorically asked his Roman readers, "Do we destroy the Law by our faith?", and then answered with an emphatic negative, "Not at all! We make it even more powerful" (Rom 3:31, and cf. Rom. 7:12 etc., etc.). Of course he had another Law in mind - the moral law. That same Law that our Lord had in mind when he equally emphatically said, "Don't suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them but to give them their full meaning. Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a full stop or comma will ever disappear from the Law" (Matt. 5:17-18).
So, as a matter of fact, "Galatians 2 reworked" does not compare apples with apples. It is a confused piece of work. It jumbles up the moral and the ceremonial . It leads astray.
i found this response fascinating, but it raised many questions for me:
is the Law to which Paul refers well described by the term "moral"?in fact, what is the difference between a "moral" and a "ceremonial" law?
in some cultures (i associate culture largely with ceremonial law) it is moral to marry more than one person. the difficulty with outright condemnation of this behaviour arises when investigation reveals (surprisingly for me...) a very responsible, loving and caring environment for marriage and family life. polygamy is not my preference, but it is difficult just to write it off as "immoral" in all cases.
is God's Law a law that expresses preferences on these kinds of cultural practices? (and if so, how can we be sure that it is not our own cultural bias that is determining our understanding of "God's Law"?)
to what extent then is homophobia a culturally defined evil, as opposed to a God-condemned orientation?
I prefer to describe the Law that Paul is describing as the "Perfect Law of Love."
(to read Paul as referring to some "moral" law offers no helpful distinction for me between ceremony and morality that actually helps me to distunguish in my daily ethical dilemmas.)
i am not inclined to outright condemn people who live in polygamous marriages, where the practice is culturally acceptable and is practiced in a loving and caring manner (i.e. if I am satisfied that people are not abused through the practice). I'm sure there are more dangerous evils in the world!!! In the same way, I am inclined to argue that homosexual orientation is one of those culturally defined moral issues, that will undergo a cultural shift in our life-time (just like racism and sexism, and slavery in a previous century) When it is no longer culturally/morally perceived to be bad, the "moral" and "ceremonial" laws will be changed (and they are already are being changed...)
I rejoice that the Law (the one that Paul refers to) will remain! (in fact, what could we do to ever threaten that perfect Law?) This Law does not condemn people but will gently continue to invite all people to live within the Values of the Kin'dom... love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
does anyone dispute that a gay or lesbian person (living in a faithful loving partnership with another) can evidence any, or all, of the above "Law" of the Spirit (what I have called the Law of Love)
I suggest that a preferable translation for "Law" in Paul's writing (when he's referring to God's Law) might be Way...
3 comments:
A Colleague wrote:
"When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or who are greedy or are swindlers or idol worshipers. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. What I meant was that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Don’t even eat with such people. It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your job to judge those inside the church who are sinning in these ways. God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, "You must remove the evil person from among you." 1 Cor.5:9-13.
Is the above a judging of others, using Scripture out of context to support or back up one's conviction; or do I use Scripture as my god, to get others to conform; or is this written word 'Christ' Himself? No, rather I use it as my guide, for the Holy Spirit has come to be our Counselor to guide us into all the truth and reveal to us the very nature and purpose of God. As the law was given by God to Moses who in turn spoke it to the children of Israel for them to understand the nature of who God is and how to live pure and just lives before a holy God, likewise, Scripture as we have it, is revealing the very nature of God and how He desires us as His children to live pure and just lives. This is His instruction to us how to do Church and be Church. The fruit of the Spirit must be evident in our lives. However, this growth is a process as we allow our lives to be sanctified by the Spirit who produces the fruit.
In saying this, I realise as I have said before, our points of view or our convictions will never find common ground. We can never kid ourselves into believing that we can be at home with each other on such a critical issue. The same-sex debate has revealed an unfortunate flaw, in fact it has caused us to let our true colours fly. The flaw? - the authority, the authenticity and absoluteness of God's word as recorded in Scripture is now questionable. The Spirit no longer provides for the interpretation of the very Word He inspired. Rather certain critical techniques, political correctness and expediency now seem to have a greater authority.
The Scriptures as it stands is not worshiped as some might suggest. Yes, the Word made flesh, He is honoured and glorified. The Scriptures are not a god. However, the word portrays the revealed will of God to humanity and is an essential part of His Special Revelation. The Scriptures are not bowed down to, but rather gives us clear instruction on how to bow our knees before Him who is the King of kings, and how we ought to conduct our lives as we relate to Him and our fellows.
Who are the gay-friendly folk? Would Jesus have been gay-friendly? He was prostitue, tax collector, drunkard, leper friendly. We could assume therefore that He was gay-friendly! Are we not called to follow His example? The point is, strange as it may seem to some, I and others on the so-called 'conservative' side are gay-friendly too. It is a pity that we are accused of being otherwise.
I hasten to repeat again, same-sex is not the issue, it has merely been the catalyst in revealing the flaw we have in our Church. It has allowed this flaw to surface. Whether we like it or not, or agree with it or not, a rift has been caused and will remain, a rift that has been there for quite some time. Our convictions are poles apart. The debate in this forum clearly reveals that neither party is going to give in.
Where does that leaves us as a Church? Conference has no other alternative but to make a decision in regard to the same-sex issue and Biblical authority. That decision to a large extent will determine the way forward for most of us. Conference can no longer ignore the issue and bury its head in the sand. Conference must hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church and not makes its decision influenced by political correctness or for the sake of expediency or to tickle the ears of some.
my response:
...there are far too many questions raised by [the] email to warrant a rebuttal. I would rather just ask the questions I have, if you don’t mind.
Paul refers to a person “who claims to be a Christian yet… is a.. drunkard”. Paul’s “advice” (it’s more like a clear command) is that we “are not to associate” with such a person and that we should “remove the evil person from among” us. I’m curious to know how [he] treats a colleague or member who suffers with an alcohol addiction? Is it his preferred practice to “remove” the person from fellowship? What does this “disassociation” involve? (I mean, is any contact allowed? Is the alcoholic welcome to continue to worship etc.)
Later on [he] refers to himself as “gay-friendly”. He says that this position is motivated by a desire to follow the example of Jesus. I presume he is referring to gay people that do not claim to be Christians. Paul is clear that we can’t stop associating with sinners. But he is clear about no association with such people who claim to be Christians. First, I’d like to know: Does [he] associate with any gay or lesbian people who claim to be followers of Christ? If so, how does he reconcile this gay-friendliness with the scripture he has quoted? Also, most of the Gay and Lesbian people I know claim to be Christian. I’m curious to know what [his] advice to me is regarding this obvious tension. Paul is saying I shouldn’t associate with them! I need some clear guidelines on the basis of this disassociation. Am I allowed to speak with them? Can I pray for them? Can I welcome them to worship? Can they participate in Home Groups? What would it mean exactly to be faithful to Paul’s teaching as the authoritative, authentic and absolute word of God to me?
And some reflections on the conversation:
I think that the difficulties created by [his] reference to this passage are not because the passage is faulty, but because he is using it in a way it was never intended to be used (neither by Paul, nor by God I believe). It is quoted without any reference to context or the intention of the author. If we can agree that Paul’s words need to be qualified… then we’re in for a long night… (which I will always look forward to) because there’s going to have to be some thoughtful exegesis of this passage requiring careful study and good scholarship, and creative thinking and compassionate consideration. I’m sad that when I try to consider scripture carefully, thoughtfully, compassionately and sincerely, I am accused of “critical techniques, political correctness and expediency”. I would have preferred to have been asked by [him] what my understanding of the Authority of scripture is, if it doesn’t seem clear to him!
To answer: My highest authority is not scripture, but the Spirit of Scripture – the Spirit of God – The Spirit of Compassion. Reading (living) with the heart of compassion will always lead us to different interpretations of texts, history, other people’s actions etc…
The inconsistencies that emerge when one tries to make the inerrancy of scripture an absolute, rather than acknowledging that (within our theological tradition) it is the purpose and effectiveness of scripture that is understood to be “inerrant” – not it’s every “jot and tittle”. Scripture has proved itself entirely reliable in making God’s intentions of Loving Relationship through Jesus Christ known to anyone who is willing to open his or her eyes or ears. But trying to squeeze the Bible into an absolutist framework leads to difficulties like the ones that [he] will encounter (outlined above).
I think that [he] and I have much in common. I don’t expect that he would treat a Gay or Lesbian person with unkindness… but there are those that do – and they use the Bible to support their actions. I think that [he] and I agree that the Gospel of Jesus calls us to compassionate association with all that is broken for the sake of the Kingdom! I don’t expect that he incites members of his congregation to disassociate themselves from sincere Christ-followers who are Gay and Lesbian… but there are those that do – and once again it’s the Bible that is used to support their bigotry. e.g. See here and here. I think that scripture helps us in the same way that God does… gently, without condemnation, always inviting, calling us into a maturity that is able to embody the Spirit of Christ that is far beyond the significance of any scripture, for all these words will pass away, but compassion - love is eternal - will not pass away (1 cor 13).
With best intentions.
Dear Barry
I haven't been able to follow the whole discussion you have been on (I have been away), but really found your answer to the question of the Authority of Scripture a very helpful one. I guess the Spirit of Scripture / Spirit of God / Spirit of Compassion might just as easily be called the Spirit of Christ, but the word Compassion is the one that reveals the content and nature of that Spirit.
Indeed, it is not enough to simply hold scripture up as the highest authority without some clarification of the lense (or value) through which we read that scripture (which is what you have helped to do). Too much damage has been done throughout history by basing one's stand-point on Scripture but failing to clarify the underlying guiding value that guides our interpretation and use thereof.
It is the Eternal Logos made flesh in Christ that John's Gospel refers to as the Word of God, not the Scriptures... interesting that when John's Gospel describes the Word made flesh, it speaks of the One who comes from the Father as being "full of grace and truth" (John 1:14;17).
I find it significant that it is the word Grace (which might be used as a synomym for compassion) that precedes the word "truth". Compassion (or Grace) thus in John's Gospel seems to be the the defining quality of "truth" and the defining quality of the Spirit of Christ and the Logos (Word of God made known in Jesus). To be in the truth is thus to live compassionately.
Anyway... before i start to ramble on... just wanted to thank you for the way you had expressed yourself on the issue of Scripture and authority.
God bless
Post a Comment