BROWN SAYS KEEP PROMISES TO POOR

This blog provides a meditation on the Episcopal daily readings along with along ith a headline from world news:

1 Corinthians 5:1-8

5It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. 2And you are arrogant! Should you not rather have mourned, so that he who has done this would have been removed from among you?

3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present I have already pronounced judgement 4in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

6 Your boasting is not a good thing. Do you not know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch, as you really are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. 8Therefore, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Pothos: Greek God of Lust

It’s possible that one Christian group in Corinth had been influenced by a fashionable “knowledge”- based theology which offered superior believers special information (probably about their salvation) which others did not possess; and which might have emphasised freedom from the law in a way that was different from Paul’s. This would explain Paul’s angry denunciation of arrogance and power and his emphasis on the weakness and foolishness of God.

Mind you, if a twice-married man had died and his son by his first wife had taken his father’s widow as a partner, that would not seem the height of immorality to many people today and perhaps not even to sophisticated Corinthians then. Paul’s shock derives from Jewish law in which such a relationship would be incestuous. Certainly Paul attributes the Corinthian attitude to “boasting”, that is, to spiritual arrogance which takes no account of other views. But of course the Corinthians could have made the same charge against Paul.

Doubtless the process of “handing over to Satan” was less savage than it sounds. The man’s literal “flesh” is not to be destroyed by expulsion from the church; it is his religious arrogance which must be brought down. It’s good to note that Paul along with others in the first churches believed that the community of faith had to exercise discipline over its members.

We lack the information to make a full interpretation of Paul’s leadership in this matter but we should not assume that he was always right in every judgment. I can however identify with his concern that arrogant sophisticates should not flaunt their moral freedom at the expense of humbler people.

Matthew 5:27-37

27 ‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” 28But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.

31 ‘It was also said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” 32But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

33 ‘Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.” 34But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37Let your word be “Yes, Yes” or “No, No”; anything more than this comes from the evil one.

Tough demands

I’ve written that in these contrasts in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus wants to turn people from the “Law of God” to the God of the law. Disciples should obey God’s full intention rather than the letter of the written Torah. Lust to possess sexually is already sinful and is to be rigorously rejected; divorce if for any reason other than sexual misconduct is already a misuse of male power which forces a woman to get remarried in order to survive economically. Making promises by invoking God’s name is already a fall from straightforward honesty.

These are tough demands. Many churches have decided that Jesus was wrong about divorce and remarriage, although perhaps not many church members could say why. Correcting Jesus seems to me a perilous thing for the church to do, much more perilous than for example, rejecting the teaching of Leviticus or even of Paul, as might be done in the case of homosexuality. A very large part of our economy is founded on lust (the part that isn’t founded on greed)-just look at the adverts-and the church might want to take issue with it in Jesus’ name, but if it’s known to pick and choose amongst Jesus’ commands, its witness may be vitiated. Mainstream churches had already told their adherents to obey the state rather than Jesus in the matter of oaths, leaving Quakers and Anabaptists to make a costly witness.

Clearly Christian faith does not consist of literal obedience to every one of Jesus’ reported commands. Those who belong to Jesus are promised that with the help of the Spirit they will do greater things than he did. But still, if we feel free to chuck out any particular command, what exactly do we mean by “belonging to Jesus.”? This is a question I want to ask those who call themselves fundamentalists but persistently reject Jesus’ teachings on wealth. I can’t simply dismiss it if others ask me.

The best writing I’ve read on this issue over the years has been by Mennonites, starting with the evangelical clarity of John Howard Yoder (d1997). If any of my readers have not come across him, he’s worth “googling” and reading.