Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Bible Challenge Day 170: The More Excellent Way (1 Corinthians 13)


Like a lot of couples, my wife and I used part of today’s reading from First Corinthians in our wedding ceremony. I remain glad we chose it. Paul gives us a beautiful description of what love can and should be: patient and kind, and so on.

But there is some irony in using this passage at weddings, given Paul’s stated preference for celibacy over marriage. And given Paul’s preference for celibacy, it is not surprising that this passage is not about love in marriage, but rather about love between Christian brothers and sisters.

Two things strike me as particularly important about this chapter in the context of First Corinthians as a whole. First, this chapter is the solution to the basic problem of the entire letter. From the beginning of the letter, Paul has worried about divisions in the Church. The divisions in Corinth take many forms, but a big one is a kind of rivalry between people with different spiritual gifts, particularly the gifts of prophecy and speaking in tongues (chapter 14—tomorrow’s reading). What Paul says in chapter 13 is that the gifts of tongues, prophecy, and all the rest are worth nothing if they are not used in love (13:1-3). Love is what makes the gifts valuable because love is what pushes us to use our gifts “for the common good” (12:7).

That is a good lesson for Christians today, just as it was for Christians in the first century. Being right is not as important as loving each other. Better to defer than to insist our own way. Better to seek the good of our neighbors than to promote our own agenda, good though our agenda may be. That is easier said than done, but the principle is clear enough.

The other thing that strikes me is Paul’s treatment of love as itself a spiritual gift, indeed “the greater gift,” “the more excellent way” (12:31). Our capacity to love comes from God. As we grow in our relationship with God, we should grow in our capacity to love as well, no matter what other spiritual gifts we may receive. It is probably not true that “all you need is love.” But it is certainly true that you need love!
Fr. Harvey

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Bible Challenge Day 163 Again: More Sex (1 Corinthians 7)


Paul’s discussion of sexuality and marriage can, it seems to me, be extended to same sex marriage. He generally prefers celibacy, so he has to make an argument for sexuality and marriage of any sort. As I wrote in my blog yesterday, his basic argument is that (1) not all are called to celibacy; (2) those who are not called to celibacy will be troubled by sexual desire unless they can find some legitimate sexual outlet; (3) marriage is the legitimate outlet for sexual desire. Therefore men and women should marry and should meet each other’s sexual needs in marriage.

Paul only mentions heterosexual couples. And in Romans 1, Paul is pretty negative about homosexuality (though that passage can be read in more than one way). But in principle, Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 7 could be extended to same sex couples.

Perhaps some gay or lesbian people are called to lives of celibacy, but most appear not to be, as is true for most straight people.  To suggest that those who are not called to celibacy must remain celibate anyway is to condemn them to being “aflame with passion,” precisely the reason why Paul thinks people should marry. Celebrating gay marriage seems like a better and more faithful option.

This argument does not mean that anything goes. On the contrary, it presumes that the same standards of sexual ethics apply to heterosexual and homosexual marriages. The couple should intend a loving, mutual, lifelong, monogamous commitment. That couples often find themselves unable to fulfill their intentions calls for compassion rather than judgment. But it doesn’t change the ideal, regardless of the gender of the spouses.
Fr. Harvey

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Bible Challenge Day 163: Sex (1 Corinthians 7)

Today’s chapter from First Corinthians is all about that most fascinating topic: sex. And what Paul has to say about sex in this chapter is pretty surprising, given his reputation as a misogynist and a prude.

Paul does state a clear reference for celibacy, which partially justifies his prudish reputation. He says that he wishes all could be like him, i.e. celibate (7:7). And he ends the chapter by saying that “he who marries is fiancĂ©e does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38). In between, he makes the same point in other ways.

But Paul is clear that not all have the gift of celibacy. And those who are not called to a life of celibacy should marry. After all, “it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion,” i.e. to be driven by unsatisfied sexual desire (7:9). So marriage is an acceptable alternative for Christians, even if it is not the highest calling in Paul’s view.

The thing that interests me most is Paul’s clear linkage of sexuality and marriage. On the one hand, he assumes that sexual activity should be confined to marriage. In today’s culture, that is a conservative stance. But Paul is clear that one reason for marriage—indeed the only reason he mentions—is sexual satisfaction. It is striking that Paul does not mention children. Paul talks about sex as the satisfaction of human desire, not as a means of procreation. This flies in the face of the argument that procreation is the primary—sometimes people say only—legitimate reason for sex.

Paul is also startlingly egalitarian in this chapter. Everything he says about men’s sexual rights in connection with their wives, he says in virtually identical language about women’s sexual rights with regard to their husbands. “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time . . . .” (7:3-5).

Today the language about a wife not having authority over her own body sounds jarring, but in Paul’s day that was obvious. What was revolutionary was the next clause—the husband does not have authority over his own body. And the husband cannot unilaterally decide against sex any more than the wife can. Temporary separations are by mutual consent. Then the spouses must again fulfill their obligation to provide mutual sexual satisfaction. That is a more modern, more pro-sex and pro-woman position than is normally associated with Paul!
Fr. Harvey

Friday, June 12, 2015

Bible Challenge Day 152: Conscience (Romans 14)

The reading for today from Romans contains a set of extraordinary statements.

5 Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. 6 Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God.

14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

22 The faith that you have, have as your own conviction before God. Blessed are those who have no reason to condemn themselves because of what they approve. 23 But those who have doubts are condemned if they eat, because they do not act from faith; l for whatever does not proceed from faith m is sin. n

Paul talks about two issues: observing the day (e.g. calling some days particularly holy); and clean and unclean food. In the first, he does not say what he considers right. In the second, he does. But in both cases, he mainly says that people should do whatever they think is right.

Honor the day. Do not honor the day. Abstain from certain foods. Eat all foods. If you have doubts, do not do it. If you don’t, feel free to go ahead (as long as you do not harm your brother or sister).

It is a remarkable ethic, putting a remarkable responsibility on each of us to determine what we believe is right and to do it. I presume that Paul would say some things are intrinsically right or wrong. But in this passage, Paul is all about the Christian conscience.

Fr. Harvey

 

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Bible Challenge Day 149: Christians, Jews, and Others (Romans 11)

I often get into conversations about salvation. Perhaps oddly, it is not a question I worry about. I assume that God will handle whatever happens after death. And, because God is good, I am confident that what happens after death will be good. The details are fuzzy in my mind, but that seems OK.

But salvation is a big part of the issue in the chapter for Roman for today. Paul is distressed that so many Jews are rejecting the gospel. He seems to want to say two things: Faith in Christ is how salvation works; and the Jews who are rejecting Jesus are not necessarily out of luck. He puts it clearly in verse 28-29: “As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for your [Gentiles] sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

Paul simply cannot believe that God will reject the Jews. He begins this chapter, “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means!” (11:1) He speaks of their “full inclusion”, which will be life from the dead (11:12, 15). He says “all Israel will be saved” (11:26).

Having now made it through nearly half the Old Testament as part of the Bible Challenge, this all makes sense to me. Routinely the Israelites disobey God. And even if God punishes them, God forgives, and the covenant endures. Surely Jesus does not make things worse for his people! As Paul says, this time speaking about Jews and Gentiles alike, “God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that [God] may be merciful to all” (11:32).

What is actually most striking to me in all this, however, is a different point. For salvation, different ethnic and religious groups somehow depend on each other. Paul is interested in Jews and Gentiles. He says, in effect, that the rejection of the Jews opens the door to the salvation of Gentiles. The salvation of Gentiles will in turn inspire the Jews to greater covenant loyalty (11:11-24). Jews and Gentiles are saved together, even if the particular dynamics of salvation differ. That is a striking claim with important implications for Christian-Jewish dialogue!

I take it from all this that the covenant between God and the Jews remains intact, that Jesus has expanded the covenant to include Gentiles, and that we are all in this together. And I wonder if the same kind of expansion could not include other religious groups as well. Might it be the case that our salvation is somehow wrapped up with the salvation of, for example, Muslims, without requiring Muslims to convert to Christianity?
Fr. Harvey

Monday, June 8, 2015

Bible Challenge Day 148: Vocation (1 Chronicles 25-27)

Yesterday my son graduated from high school. As part of our family celebration, we did a ritual blessing of him. We celebrated what he has already accomplished and expressed our hopes for his future. Part of those hopes is that he will find his calling, the thing gives his life passion and purpose. So I am thinking about vocation—calling.

That helped a little bit with the reading for today from Chronicles, which was pretty dull. King David is planning all the roles for the temple that his son will build. Most of the reading was lists of names. So, for example, David appointed families of musicians and assigned them particular duties by lot (chpt 25). In theory, those families would remain in charge of music at the temple down through the generations. The same went for the gatekeepers and other roles (chpt 26), and military divisions (chpt 27).

That makes for a very different way to think about vocation than we were doing in my family last night. Children are born to a vocation. If my father was a musician, I would be a musician. (A frightening thought for anyone who knows my musical limits!)

Being born to a vocation would be hard in the sense that a young person might not find that particular work satisfying. On the other hand, it would eliminate the uncertainty that I still remember feeling when I was in my early twenties, that sense that I could do whatever I wanted but I had no idea what I wanted.

On balance, I much prefer the opportunity to discern my own vocation. After five generations of lawyers, I became a priest, so I have to like that freedom!
But I do like one thing about the idea of being born into a vocation. People born to a particular vocation know that they do not choose their vocation. They simply live into it. Sometimes in our culture we celebrate individual choice so much that we lose sight of the idea of calling as something that comes to us from outside, something to which we respond well or poorly, something that is given to us rather than something we make for ourselves. I want my son (both of them!) to discover his vocation, which requires patient listening and not just self-exploration. I am not sure how well he understands that. I cannot blame him because I am still working on it myself!
Fr. Harvey

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Bible Challenge Day 142: Everybody? (Romans 5)


Sometimes I get into conversations about who gets to go to heaven. Or, to reverse the question, who doesn’t? I am particularly thinking about this question now because the gospel reading for this Sunday mentions “the unforgiveable sin” (Mark 3).

Romans says plenty about sin and judgment. It begins with “the wrath of God . . . against all ungodliness” (1:18). As Paul warms up, he insists that “all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin” (3:9). But Romans 5 is positively universalistic. The structure of Paul’s argument pushes in this direction when he compares Adam and Jesus. Adam brought sin and death into the world, and all people share Adam’s guilt and Adam’s punishment. Jesus is the new Adam, bringing grace and life. The parallel implies that all will receive life, just as all received death.

Paul is then explicit about this point: “For if the many died through the one man's trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. . . . If, because of the one man's trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Therefore, just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all” (5:15-18).

That is striking! Other passages in Paul and in other places certainly seem to suggest that people will go to hell. But in this passage Paul makes a strong and clear argument that Christ’s grace brings life to all. May it be so!
Fr. Harvey

Monday, June 1, 2015

Bible Challenge Day 141: Paul on Abe (Romans 4)

Romans is an incredibly important book. It is Paul’s longest letter, and his most systematic one. Martin Luther had some of his basic Reformation insights while working on a commentary on Romans. Karl Barth inaugurated one of the most important theological movements of the twentieth century while writing a commentary on Romans. But I have always found the book to be dense and a little forbidding. I have to take Romans in small doses and very slowly. A chapter a day is about my speed.

Today’s chapter is Paul using the example of Abraham to make his basic point that people are justified by faith, not by works of the law. He quotes Genesis 15:6. “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Paul’s point is that Abraham received a promise from God. Abraham trusted that promise. God reckoned Abraham’s trust as righteousness, even though Abraham had not really done anything yet to demonstrate that trust in his life.

Paul then notes that this reckoning Abraham righteous occurred before Abraham received circumcision as a sign of the covenant (4:10). Circumcision was subsequently given as a seal of the righteousness Abraham had by faith but not—this is the key point—as a condition of Abraham’s being reckoned righteous. What is true of circumcision, is true by extension of the entire law. It does not help us to be reckoned righteous. The righteousness comes as a promise from God. All we do is trust God’s promise.

Paul concludes that faith (trusting God’s promise, specifically God’s promise in Jesus Christ), rather than obedience to the law, is what really matters. And this faith is available to those who are not circumcised (non-Jews) as much as to those who are (Jews), since Abraham received the promise in faith and was reckoned righteous apart from circumcision or the law.

I can follow all that pretty well. The Abraham story in Genesis is not about justification, so Paul is using the story to make an argument that is not originally there. But I admire his creative use of the Old Testament, and it does help to illustrate his point.
Fr. Harvey