Principles and Compromise
Friday, May 11, 2007 -- Week of 5 Easter
"Morning Reflections" is a brief thought about the scripture readings from the Daily Office of Morning and Evening Prayer according to the practice found in the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church.
Morning Prayer begins on p. 80 of the Book of Common Prayer.
Evening Prayer begins on p. 117
An online resource for praying the Daily Office is found at www.missionstclare.com
Another form of the office from Phyllis Tickle's "Divine Hours" is available on our partner web site www.ExploreFaith.org at this location -- http://explorefaith.org/prayer/fixed/index.html
Today's Readings for the Daily Office (p. 962)
Psalms 106:1-18 (morning) 106:19-28 (evening)
Wisdom 16:15 - 17:1
Romans 14:13-23
Luke 8:40-56
When do you stand up for the sake of principle and when do you stand down for the sake of community?
Romans 14 echoes 1 Corinthians 8 where Paul urges those whose principles allow them certain freedoms to limit their personal liberty for the sake of the scruples or conscience of others. The presenting conflicts concern foods that are regarded as unclean by some and the observation of special days, maybe the sabbath. Among the members of the early Christian community were some Jews who continued their observation of the Biblical kosher laws. There were also some Gentiles who had left the religious practice of eating meat that had been dedicated to the Roman gods and were troubled by any participation in such foods.
Paul's position is that in Christ we have been given freedom from such dietary limitations. All food has been made clean in Christ, and other gods do not exist. Therefore, we are free to eat anything we wish. But if it would injure the conscience of another when he is at table with them, Paul says he will restrain from eating foods that would offend. He still claims the right of his own convictions: "Let all be fully convinced in their own minds... The faith that you have, have as your own conviction before God." But he will limit his freedoms for the sake of being in community with others.
That's Paul's stand on these disagreements about food, and they are significant disagreements. But he takes a very different tact when it comes to circumcision. Paul stands on principle and will not compromise when some Jewish Christians are offended that Gentile converts are not circumcised. For Paul, Christ is liberation from the law and one's living under the constraints of rules, statutes, and Biblical admonitions. That is of the essence of his experience of the Risen Lord. Jesus freed him from the constraints of the law and the anxiety that goes with trying to live under the law. For Paul, circumcision is the symbol of the yoke of life under the law. He will broke no compromise with that essential freedom. Paul uses the strongest language, especially in his letter to the Galatians, to declare "no compromise" about circumcision. Gentile converts will not be forced to be circumcised in Paul's churches.
"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity." Paul didn't say it, but it fits his theology. But the devil is in the details. What is essential and what is non-essential? For Paul, dietary laws were non-essentials; freedom from the law and circumcision was essential.
A couple of conflicts that tend to divide the church today -- literal or non-literal interpretation of the scripture; acceptance or non-acceptance of non-celibate gay Christians. The first is pretty easy for me. When I am visiting in a church that practices a literal interpretation, I go with the flow and don't raise objections. When in worship together I'll watch my tongue and curb my interpretations. We are nourished by the food of the Word; we we dine together we can do so within the dietary limitations of the literalist.
The latter is harder for me, because it cuts to some essentials about who we are. To force people of a same-sex orientation to betray their God-given nature and be unnaturally like me, or to force them involuntarily to embrace the gift and discipline of celibacy seems a lot like the first century Jewish-Christian expectation that Gentiles must be circumcised and observe the Torah.
Paul remained in communion with observant Jewish Christians, but he drew the line over letting them circumcise Gentile converts. It seems to me that we can remain in communion with those who recognize only heterosexual love, but it is wrong to let them imprison gay Christians behind those permanent circumscribed bars. Just like the early church, we can disagree; we can be charitable toward one another. But just as Paul defended Gentiles who embraced Jesus and protected them from the expectation that they become like Jews, so we can defend gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who embrace Jesus and protect them from the expectation that they become like heterosexuals. It's more important than choosing diets.
Lowell
______________________
To Subscribe or Unsubscribe to the "
go to our Subscriptions page -- http://www.stpaulsfay.org/id137.html
The
St.
The Mission of St. Paul's Episcopal Church is to explore and celebrate
God's infinite grace, acceptance, and love.
See our Web site at www.stpaulsfay.org
Our Rule of Life:
We aspire to...
worship weekly
pray daily
learn constantly
serve joyfully
live generously.
posted by Lowell @ 7:57 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Lowell makes a compelling argument. It is well thought out and very articulate. There is one problem that destroys the whole thing.
Lowell claims that gay people have to betray their God given nature.
The Biblical fact is that God gave us a nature in the garden and man betrayed that nature. Not just "gay" man. We are all sinners and to follow Christ we all have something to give up, repent from. Gayness is not different than any other behavior.
The fact is we have given up or God given nature long ago and for EVERYONE, the natural man, is unnatural Biblically.
We could start a debate about any behavior and the argument is the same. Our nature no longer strives for Godly Holiness. Only with Christ in me can I accomplish any Holines.
I agree with Reg that we are all fallen and we are all in need of repentence. That is a lifetime process of conversion and committment to holiness. I'm helped by the "true self / false self" metaphor that is based on Paul's theology.
Where I disagree with Reg is about the givenness of sexual orientation. I didn't choose to be attracted to women. It was given to me. My friend Louie did not choose to be attraced to men. It was given to him.
What we do with that is what matters. I have been blessed by the gift of a loving, committed relationship with my wife Kathy for nearly 33 years now. Louie has been blessed by the gift of a loving, committed relationship with Ernest for almost 34 years now. We both thank God for the love we share with our partners. Through them we have come to know God more deeply.
Lowell
I agree with Lowell that it is what we do with our attractions (temptations) that matters. Attraction or temptation is not a sin, it is what you do with it that matters.
The comparing those who only prefer heterosexual love with those who wouldn't be circumcised is actually backward. A similar situation would be that circumcision was the norm as heterosexual sex is the norm. Paul was not accepting the uncircumcised and we cannot accept any sex outside of marriage.
But I hope you will consider both arguments and make a wise decision.
Actually, all of the earliest Christians were Jewish, and all males were circumcised. So the norm for the early Church movement was that all males were circumcised.
Paul was the primary agent (along with Peter) for the inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles into the Church. It was a pivotal struggle for him and a pivotal moment in the church's history when in Acts 15 the Apostolic Council ruled that Gentiles could join the Church without the expectation that they be circumcised. It was a decision that Paul had to defend over and over in his ministry.
In other words -- the conventional majority (universal) tradition of the early church was that all men must be circumcised. Through Paul's advocacy, the church changed it's teaching to allow the previously unclean Gentiles to join without being circumcised.
I hope that clarifies.
Lowell
Post a Comment
<< Home