Wisdom's Liberations
Monday, May 7, 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 56, 57, [58] (morning) 64, 65 (evening)
Wisdom 9:1, 7-18
Colossians (3:18 - 4:1)2-18
Luke 7:36-50
The figure of Sophia-Wisdom functions like God's Holy Spirit in the book of Wisdom. The book of Hebrews picks up similar imagery for Christ. Wisdom is spoken of as "a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness." (8:26) "For she knows and understands all things, and she will guide me wisely in my actions and guard me with her glory." Sophia is the divine feminine presence that guides and leads humanity.
We have some mixed feminine presence toward the end of Colossians. The author sends greetings "to Nympha and the church in her house." The early church found patronage among wealthy women, some of whom owned their own property. In Phillipi, Paul made Lydia his first European convert to the faith and founded the church there in her home. There is a reference in 1 Corinthians and again in Romans to the church that met in the house of Prisca and Aquila. Some later scribes changed the name Nympha in our passage today to Nymphas (masculine), possibly marking the transition when women were denied leadership in the early church.
During the days of the American abolitionist movement, some Christian teachers referenced today's verse in Colossians "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything..." as one of many Biblical references which depict slavery as a normative feature of social life. There are quite a few similar New Testament references to slavery. Christian abolitionists had to argue from general principles -- God's love for all and God's desire for abundant, liberated life for all -- in their opposition to the institution of slavery. Supporters of slavery were able to parade many quotes to buffer their argument that slavery is a normal, God-appointed institution. For them the issue was the Biblical call for Masters to "treat your slaves justly and fairly." Today such pro-slavery Biblical arguments are an embarrassment of our past.
The twentieth century saw movements to ban slavery universally as well as movements to grant women full standing and equality. The institution of slavery is illegal worldwide. Full women's equality is still far away.
Those of us who support the full and equal inclusion of gay people in the life of church and society see our movement in a similar spirit. Thankfully, gay people do not have as many oppressive Bible verses directed toward them as do slaves and women. The spirit of Wisdom tends to bend toward the recognition of the full value of all human beings and seems to work for their freedom.
Lowell
______________________
To Subscribe or Unsubscribe to the "
go to our Subscriptions page -- http://www.stpaulsfay.org/id137.html
The
St.
posted by Lowell @ 7:15 AM
18 comments
18 Comments:
Honesty would dictate that there is an immeasurable difference between your sex and your sexual proclivities (although the idea that it is a natural tendency is yet to be proved). Even if gayness is proven scientifically to be genetic, that will never excuse acting on the desire. If that were the case then pedophilia, if proven to be genetic, would also have to be acceptable.
Here http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891
is a great article about homosexuality, abortion and some of the consequenses.
It is also very nice of Lowell to point out that gay people "do not have as many oppressive Bible verses" to overdome. How convenient. Old St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. That should be an easy one to overcome, just burn your Bibles and change the name of your church to St. Anyone.
Reg,
It's clear from your frequent posts that you believe that all parts of scripture are equally inspired and to be accepted as such. I accept that you are convinced about that and it feeds your soul to engage the scripture in that way.
For ma and for millions of other faithful Christians who love and study the scripture, we find such an approach unconvincing and uninspiring.
I'm honored that you take the time to read my Morning Reflections. Thank you. Instead of reminding me of our different ways of interpreting scripture, would you be willing to read a book that sets out some of the rationale for traditional Biblical interpretation? I would be happy to send you a copy of something like "The Good Book" by Peter Gomes, or some other accessible mainline work about scriptural interpretation.
And yes, I absolutely agree with you that there is a difference between one's sexual orientation and one's sexual behavior. I believe that sexual intimacy (a behavior) should be reserved for a relationship that is monogamous, lifelong, faithful, mutual, adult, consentual, and loving. Like many other Christians, I have observed relationships with those qualities between committed Christians of a same-gender orientation. I take it that you have not seen such relationships and do not believe them to be wholesome. We are not of one mind about that.
Yet God draws us together in the church where Christ calls us to be one. I embrace our union and respect our differences. One body; various gifts.
Lowell
I don't see the logic in reading a book by a man telling me how to interpret or when to dismiss the Bible. As you contend, the Bible was written by men, sometimes inspired by God or whatever language you want to use.
I submit that line of reasoning is illogical. My previous posts make many argument and raise many questions that noone has taken the time to answer. I guess if there are any readers of this blog, they are left to answer those themself.
I know I am not going to change your mind, I am just hoping someone who hasn't made up their mind yet will at least consider another viewpoint.
They can choose to rely on The Bible alone or they can put the ideas of men equal with it. It is their choice. They can choose the very interesting concept of studying scriptures that are, by your contention, not God's truth, written by men and then rely on other men's writings. Again it is their choice.
I would submit that we don't necessarily interpret scripture different, I would submit that one of us is wrong. We both can't be right about homosexuality, abortion, or whatever else.
I also take exception to the idea that your view of the scripture is so much more enlightened than mine. It is like the intellectual elite vs the backwood redneck.
So I imagine that as my time permits, I will continue to express another view and maybe someone, who also has time, will read another point of view.
Reg,
Please Reg. I do not mean to be condescending, but any of us raised in the Bible Belt are familiar with the claims that the Bible is infallible, written by God, etc. I certainly have considered "another viewpoint." I do not dismiss the Bible. I am formed by the Bible. I do not dismiss the Bible; I live under it.
Like everyone, I interpret the Bible. We all do.
A simple interpretation. How did Judas die? Which version do you accept? We've got two descriptions. Is one right and the other wrong? Which one? How do you decide? How does it happen that we inherit two different versions of Judas' death?
Lowell
I read both versions as hanging, did the tree break or the rope? I don't know and don't believe either is wrong. If two people see the same thing, the story is often slightly different in the details. This is also a HISTORICAL EVENT that is somewhat open to eye witness testimony.
A law of nature, like the nature of sexual relationships, are God given and mandated. The only acceptable sexual relationship is between a married man and woman. there is not another interpretation, only deletion.
Your example is not the same as you and me interpreting the scripture. You choosing NOT to believe that homosexuality is wrong is NOT interpretation, it is ommision.
Reg,
"The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things."
I see these qualities in the committed, faithful, loving relationships of some Christian gay couples that I know. The quality of their love is exactly like the quality of my own relationship with my wife of 32 years. To deny that seems to me to be as blind as those who denied Jesus because he didn't fit some of the Biblical expectations of the Messiah.
Lowell
So where is the line drawn?
If an adulterer displays those "fruits" is that ok?
How about an abuser, how about a thief, or any other activity the Bible condemns. Tell me that you aren't saying that all you have to do in display fruits of the spirit and then all things are permissible.
Where is the line drawn?
Also Lowell, After you answer the previous question, consider this.
The prophets told exactly when, how, and where Jesus would come. The people of the time should have known it was Jesus but they let their own hopes, concerns, and interpretations of the Old Testament cloud their judgement. Is that the same thing you are doing by using your own reasoning to accept a clear Biblical sin?
Adultery is a violation of faithfulness. Thievery is a violation of kindness and generosity. As I said above, I believe that sexual intimacy should be reserved for a relationship that is monogamous, lifelong, faithful, mutual, adult, consentual, and loving. For someone who is of a same-gender orientation, that love may be nourished with someone of the same gender, just like I have experienced with a person of the opposite gender.
The "people of the time" knew their Bible as well or better than we do. The prophets also told them to expect a conquring warrior who would restore the monarchy to Jerusalem and inititate a reign of peace. John the Baptist announced one whose winnowing fork is in his hand, who will clear his threshing floor and gather wheat and burn chaff. Now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; bear good fruit or be cut down and thrown into the fire.
But Jesus wasn't like that. In prison John sent to ask, "Are you the One." (Jesus wasn't fulfilling the prophetic expectations.) Jesus' reply -- tell John what you see, the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them.
Jesus fulfilled the expectations of the prophets which were consistent with love and compassion; he did not fulfill those that expected a warrior or fiery judge.
One last question about Biblical sin. There is not much about homosexuality in the Bible, and what is there doesn't speak of faithful, mature commitments between adults of a same-gender orientation. Jesus says nothing about it, period.
But there are several words in the New Testament, including words from Jesus, forbidding marriage after divorce if a former spouse is still alive.
Have you ever approved of such a sin? If so, why? Does your church ever allow someone to remarry if a former spouse is still alive? On what grounds? Have you ever seen the fruits of the spirit manifest in a second marriage? I know I have.
Lowell
Where does the Old Testament say Jesus would be a conquering warrior and restore the monarchy?
God is a god of order Lowell. He created man to be with woman. Anything else is out of order. By your logic, I could have a healthy relationship with my dog, as long as it is monogamous, lifelong, faithful, mutual, adult, consentual, and loving. Because you have mixed up the act of sex with intimacy. Two adult males are very capable of having a Christian relationship where they are intimate, but not sexual. Why?
It is out of order, Marriage is the image of Christ and the church, not Christ and Christ, or the church and the church.
But Since you have heard these argument before and clearly made up your mind, lets forget the debate.
As far as the divorce goes, you must look at every situation individually. There are more verses that deal with divorce than just the one you mention. But I would say that yes it is a sin to remarry if your former spouse is still alive if you are a Christian.
I think is was Paul that said that if you are married to a non-believer then you should pray for their salvation.
But again you are bringing in a complicated issue and comparing it to a simple issue, the act of gay sex, which is clearly forbidden Biblically.
I would still like to hear your answer as to where the line is drawn? Do spiritual gifts mean pretty much anything is allowed?
To remarry after divorce if a former spouse is still alive is a much more simple issue and is dealt with far more clearly than loving committments between persons of same-gender orientation. The former is clearly forbidden in the Bible -- by words of Jesus and in the New Testament. The latter is not clearly addressed in the Bible.
Lowell
Again you are define sex as a loving commitment. That is a strange definition. We are not talking about commitments, we are talking about a behavior that is clearly
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, NOR ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES WITH MANKIND.
Remarrying with a living spouse is a sin no question, but the whole scenario is much more complicated.
I however am a stickler for the scripture and to remarry would be a sin.
I wish you would answer my questions.
No -- I have consistently said that sexual intimacy should be expressed within marriage -- which is available to heterosexual persons -- and within a similar permanent loving commitment between homosexual persons since we do not make marriage available to them. Such relationships should be characterized by the qualities I have described over and over to you which you do not recognize -- they are not abusive.
Are you willing to be as energetic in your objection to remarriage as you are to loving, faithful, life-long, monogamous, etc. commitments between gay people?
If not, why? The Biblical prohibitions are more numerous and less ambiguous.
Lowell
I already said I would object to remarriage. I would only attend a church that would do the same. The situation is much more complicated and I will attempt to explain.
I would object to remarrying and so should the church. However, marriage and forming that covenant is a one time event that people need to be discipled to understand and repent from. They are however still married, with a new covenant with each other and God. If they repent from the sin of remarriage they can be part of the church. They don't repent from marriage itself which is now a binding contract with God. It does not please God but he can forgive the breaking of the original covenant.
This is where there is an immeasureable difference between remarriage and homosexuality. The act of homosexual sex is the sin, it can be repented of but not continued to be returned to.
The repentance of the marriage situation does not excuse it. There will clearly be consequenses to divorce and those come in many forms, the lease of which is kid problems. The church in its ministry of renewal will lovingly teach and mentor the couple to understand the truth and hold them accountable to their repentance. Any church that supports divorce and easy remarriage is not following the scripture. Of course there are obvious exceptions of abuse and other things that allow divorce, that is another debate.
So I hope I have answered your question about marriage.
I believe Paul has saying very clearly that the act of homosexual sex is abusive in its very nature. The reasoning, he does not condemn abuse for everyone, only in this situation. If that were the case then you could make that case. But he specifically said with Mankind. The act is abusive to the body(biology lessons aside) the spirit(it is not the order of God) and society(not the model of Christ and his bride).
I would still like to know where the line is drawn?
Reg,
If someone has remarried and their former spouse is still alive, it seems by your logic that repentence would mean that they would need to turn away from their sin of remarriage -- that's what repent means, to turn away. For them to continue to live in that relationship would be to continue to sin. They are violating the "one-body" doctrine that Paul teaches. Wouldn't that fit with what I would call the hard-line that you wish to apply to gay people. Why is one sin less than another? Why would they still be married if the act of marriage is a sin? Why do they get a pass and gay folks don't?
It's not about forgiving the breaking of the original covenant, it's about continuing to live in a state that is objective defined as a state of sin by both Jesus and Paul.
Lowell
Thanks for answering my question.
You could make an argument for that. I would choose not to. I stick to my first answer that the breaking of the covenant is a sin but once you covenant with a new person you can't go back. There may very well be a harder line than mine. But as I said earlier, you are comparing two infinitely different subjects. Making and breaking of covenants is nowhere the same as a behavior.
I think you have it in your head that I have a personal problem with gay people. I do not. My aunt is gay and a very close friend of mine as well. I am not convinced that their is any relationship between a marriage and gay sex.
I'm okay with that. I know gay couples who have been together as a family for longer than Kathy and I have. They look like old married couples to me.
I think we can agree to disagree.
Lowell
Post a Comment
<< Home