WOMEN, MEN AND JESUS

It seems that lately we are being regularly subjected to reports of sexual misbehavior of prominent men.  Women are becoming more and more open to relating tales of sexual abuse by men, especially those in authority or power over them (These are only the latest.):

            A network executive.

      
            A network commentator - one who has often spoken with "indignation" of the misbehavior of others.

            A beloved comedian - one who has in the past been held up as an example of "family values."

            A movie mogul.

            The President of the United States - who has boasted of sexually assaulting women and calls it simply "locker room talk."

            And, of course, various lesser personalities - politicians, preachers, coaches.

Sadly, while women are seemingly becoming bolder and more open to tell - even to bring lawsuits - this masculine behavior itself is nothing new.  I can remember hearing boasts from my high school acquaintances and fellow office workers. We tend to accept this behavior as "just the way things are."

But while this may be "the way things are," it's not the way things should be!  And when it gets close to home, when we hear or read reports even from those women dear to us, then perhaps it's time for us men to examine our own attitudes as well as our behavior toward the "opposite sex." Are we behaving as though we lived in a patriarchal society. Do we condescend? Do we regard women as somehow simply there for our own pleasure and convenience? How should we behave toward women? What is the proper Christian view on a man's treatment of women?

I've been leading two Bible studies at our church.  One is a study of the family in the Book of Genesis, which I've entitled, "Dysfunctional Family Values."  We've been looking at man/woman and family relationships in this book and find the characters just as broken as those of today.  I've studied and taught this book before, but this time I was hit with the frequency of the appearance of tragic (abused?) female figures:

            Hagar, the Egyptian slave girl, forced to have sex with the aged Abraham and to become the "surrogate mother" of his child, only to be rejected and driven away into the desert.

            Leah, the unattractive older sister forced unloved into a polygamous relationship.

            Dinah, the 11th of 13 siblings and only girl. Raped and then given in marriage (apparently without her consent) by her brothers who then slaughter her husband and all his family.

            Tamar, who lost two husbands and then resorted to prostitution, and after being impregnated by her own father-in-law, threatened with death for becoming pregnant.

And again we tend to accept these stories as "just the way things are."  After all, the society of those days was patriarchal.

But my other Bible study is in the Gospel of John.  It is here we find the One who treats women with respect and dignity, at times revealing truths about Himself to them that He had not even revealed to the 12 men in His inner circle:

            The Samaritan woman he meets at the well - a woman considered by Jews as of an inferior race and a false religion - a woman who had apparently been bounced from one man to the next and was currently on her sixth.  Besides breaking tradition by talking to her, Jesus asks to drink from her water jar, breaking taboo after taboo.  It is to this woman he reveals that the worship of God is a spiritual matter not to be confined to a particular location. And He told her that God was seeking such worshippers. God was seeking her!

            The woman caught in adultery, brought to Jesus as a test case. After silencing and sending off her accusers ("Let the one without sin cast the first stone.") He turns to her and asks "Where are your accusers?" and sends her off with assurance that He does not accuse her.

            Mary and Martha whose brother Lazarus, Jesus raises from the dead. It is to Martha he makes the amazing claim, "I am the Resurrection and the life; the one who believes in me will live even if she dies..." Then he personalizes it with, "Do you believe this?"

            Later it is Martha's sister Mary who anoints His feet with expensive perfume. And Jesus defends her action to Judas and the others.

            His own mother Mary, for whom He takes concern even while dying on the cross.

            And, of course, Mary Magdalene, the first person to whom he appeared after his resurrection in a tender moving scene.

I don't believe we men need a book or a list of rules telling us how to relate to women. I believe we simply need to follow Jesus' example, to ask, "What would Jesus do?" - and then do it!

JESUS' ROUGH EDGES

I believe we usually read our Bibles too piously.  We treat the stories as though they were stiff morality tales with little if any human drama.  We seem to especially do this with the stories of Jesus.  We read the stories of His actions, we read His great teachings, but I feel we often fail to see His very real humanity, particularly as seen in His emotions.  When we read of His anger or sorrow, even His joy, we tend to think of these as the qualities of a deity and not as the emotions of a very real human being.

 

Uni and I were struck with his humanity the other morning during our reading of Matthew's Gospel.  An old story we'd read many times, but somehow we felt His emotions more in this reading.  The story is found in chapters 21-24 of Matthew's Gospel.

Jesus had entered the Jerusalem temple courtyard not long after His triumphal entry into the city and He was confronted by various groups with challenges as to His authority:  the chief priests, the scribes and elders - perhaps the whole Sanhedrin; then the Pharisees with the Herodians (a sycophantic political party); then the Sadducees.  All of these attempting to stump Him or find something with which to accuse Him.  Then the questions about the greatest commandment.  We can almost feel His impatience growing as He carefully answers, sometimes with a rebuke.  Then He turns the tables on them and hits them with a question they can't answer:  how can the Messiah be both David's son and David's Lord?  Of course they can't answer without conceding that the Messiah is both because He is God incarnate.  They are stumped!  Matthew tells us "no one was able to answer Him a word, neither did anyone question Him anymore from that day forward."  (Matthew 22:46)

And then it's Jesus' turn to really let loose.  He begins His tirade slowly and carefully at first, with a warning to both the crowds and His disciples, about the scribes and Pharisees - those expert teachers of the Law of Moses and its accumulated traditions.  He essentially tells his hearers, "Do as they say, but not as they do - they're a bunch of hypocrites!"  Then He turns to the scribes and Pharisees themselves and really blasts them!  He calls them every name in the book:  "hypocrites, blind guides, sons of Hell, sons of murderers, snakes, brood of vipers!"  We can feel the buildup of rage.  We can see the anger flashing in His eyes as He tells them that "all the guilt of all the blood of righteous persons murdered on earth" will be avenged on them.  (Matthew 23:35)

Pause for a moment.  Why was Jesus taking out His rage on these people?  He knew He was going to be crucified; He had already spoken of it a number of times.  But the leaders of the plot to murder Him were the chief priests, most of whom belonged to another party, the party of the Sadducees.  It would be those priests who would conspire with the Romans in His death.  Why didn't Jesus let His rage fall on them?  Was Jesus mistaken in His foresight of His crucifixion? No.

I suspect it was because Jesus was "theologically" more in tune with the Pharisaic party.  Perhaps He felt the priestly party was too far gone.  But the Pharisees were those who were perceived as the spiritual leaders and teachers of Israel.  They were closer to the truth and thus Jesus held them more accountable.

But immediately after this blistering tirade, we see what appears to be a total shift in Jesus' emotions.  After pronouncing His judgment, "Amen!  I'm telling you all, all these things will come upon this generation!" (Matthew 23:36), His rage turns into deep sorrow.  Perhaps the thought of the coming destruction of Jerusalem and of His people - the destruction that He had just foretold - had hit Him with unquenchable grief.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who murders the prophets and stones those sent to her!  How often I've wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you didn't want me to.  Look, your house is left to you desolate.  For I'm telling you, you won't see me again until you say, 'blessed is the One who comes in the Name of the Lord!'"  (Matthew 27:37-39)

The tears of rage have become tears of sorrow.  Thought Matthew doesn't mention Jesus' weeping here, Luke tells us that He had wept over the city and uttered a similar lament as He approached it, on His triumphal entry.

Matthew omits the story of the widow's offering that Mark and Luke tell us occurs next (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4) but we can imagine the deep emotion still quivering in Him.

At this point Jesus leaves the temple precincts and we're told that His disciples point out to Him the beauty of the temple.  Were they attempting to  calm their Lord who was still trembling with a mixture of anger and grief?  Were they afraid?  The story continues with Jesus detailed predictions of the future destruction of Jerusalem.

I suspect that many of us are uncomfortable, even afraid, when we consider Jesus as filled with rage or sorrow.  He appears to have let His emotions take control.  That doesn't fit with our picture of "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" or of a halo-wearing, medieval- English- speaking saint.  He's too much like us!

But wasn't Jesus like us?  Didn't the Second Person of the Trinity become human like we are?  Yes, we're told that He was "without sin."  But we're not told that he was without emotion or without human weakness.  We want a nice Jesus, not one who flies off the handle or bursts into tears, not one with rough edges.  We want a two dimensional Jesus, not one as human as we are.

But there are some problems with our bland picture of Jesus.  First, it's not one that's in agreement with the facts.  Read the Gospels "again for the first time" (old corn-flakes' commercial).  You'll see a Jesus that defies our stereotypes.

Secondly, if we picture Jesus incorrectly, what does that do to our Christian life?  If we are to be imitators of Christ, if we are to do what Jesus would do, we need to get to know Him better as a human being and live as He did or would.  We may need to stop seeing the Christian life as just being nice and be unafraid to embarrass ourselves.

When was the last time you got angry and spoke out about hypocrisy or injustice?  When was the last time you wept over those you loved - your family - your neighbors - your country - your church - who were suffering the consequences of their own rejection of the truth?

WOULD JESUS GO TO A GAY BAR?

Most Americans were appalled at the slaughter in a gay night club in Orlando this past week.  The outpouring of sympathy and compassion for the survivors as well as the victims' families was quick and seemingly universal.  The words and acts of comfort, while never adequate, helped to soften the blow, at least for those of us not involved.  As a follower of Jesus, I was blessed, even proud to hear of many of the churches, of the ordinary Christians, as well as some of our spokesmen reaching out.
 

The pundits and politicians, however, were confused.  Should we call this a hate crime or a terrorist act?  After all, the perpetrator, a Muslim, boasted that he was doing this as a follower of ISIS. And I believe many in the Evangelical community are also confused.  We have been repeatedly told by many who claim to be our spokesmen that Islam is a great danger to America, threatening all we hold dear.  And on the other hand, we've been told that there is a conspiracy afoot by the LGBT community and their "liberal" fellow travelers to destroy America.  Throw in the fact that there are those of us who believe that every American has the right to own a semi-automatic weapon of mass destruction, and one can see why we are confused.  Guns, Islam and the gay rights' agenda - three issues that are perceived as hot button issues - have converged in this horrible act.

But where would Jesus be in all of this?  Where would we find the One who was accused of being "a glutton and a wine guzzler, a friend of tax collectors and sinners" (Luke 7:34)?  Some readers were probably put off by the title of this post, but really, where would He be?

I believe His heart would be with the ones who reached out to those who were devastated by this tragedy.  He would be with the survivors - people already discriminated  against and now traumatized .  He would be with the families of the dead and wounded, some of whom may have found out for the first time that their loved one was gay or lesbian or transgender and some whom may not have been reconciled with their loved one's condition.  And He would be with the family of the dead killer as they attempt to deal with his actions.  And He would be with those of the Muslim community who now find themselves even more the objects of suspicion and loathing.

I believe we who are followers of Jesus, have a responsibility as well as an opportunity to help these who are all victims, to know the love of Jesus.  They need to know the loving compassionate Jesus, the One who left heaven's glory to become one of us.  They don't need more condemnation and political pronouncements. 

"When He saw the crowds, He had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd."  Matthew 9:36

DRINKIN' FROM THE DIPPER

When I was a little boy my family's home was on a lot on a corner of my maternal grandparents' farm in Michigan.  Apparently Gramma and Grampa Lorenz had given a small lot to my family as well as to an aunt and uncle who lived next door.  So while technically I did not grow up on a farm, it was only 100 or so feet behind us and their farm house was not more than a half mile down the road.

But walking down that half mile was like stepping back in time.  My grandparents' house was old and not furnished with all the modern amenities that our house was.  They had no indoor plumbing and no running water.  Gramma did her cooking on a wood-burning stove.  Water was furnished from a well which was located just off the front porch and on top of which sat a wooden platform with a huge (to me) forest green cast iron pump.  Sometimes I would be assigned to fetch the water.  I would affix a porcelainized steel pail by its wire handle to the top of the spout projecting from the front of the pump and pump the handle up and down while a beautiful stream of clear cool water filled the pail.

Then with both hands I'd struggle to carry the pail in and place it on a shelf near the door.  On a smaller shelf just above the pail sat a porcelainized dipper.  Whenever anyone desired a drink, they'd dip the dipper in the water and place it to their lips.  When finished they'd shake it off and replace it on its shelf for the use of the next person.

We all drank out of the same dipper.

Later in life when I moved to Texas, I heard the expression, "He drinks from the dipper," used I suppose to describe a person who was just a regular guy, no better nor worse than the rest of us, one who did not feel he was above sharing in the normal matters of life with others.

Whenever I read the story of Jesus' meeting with the Samaritan woman at a well as John relates it in the 4th chapter of his gospel, my mind returns to the above thoughts.  A portion of the story is as follows:

"He had to pass through Samaria.  He comes then into a town of Samaria called Sychar ... There was in that place the well of Jacob.  Jesus, since He was worn out from the journey was sitting thus on the well.  It was about 6 in the evening.

A woman of Samaria came to draw water.

Jesus says to her, 'Give me a drink.'  (His disciples had gone into town to buy food.)

The Samaritan woman says to Him, 'How do you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman for a drink?  Jews do not use things in common with Samaritans!'"  (John 4:4-9)

[NOTE:  I translated "the 6th hour" as 6 P.M.  John appears to use Roman time rather than Palestinian reckoning - see 19:14.  I also translated the Greek word sunchraomai as "use things in common" rather than the usual "have dealings with."  Obviously the disciples were "dealing with" the Samaritans to purchase food.]

The woman was astounded by Jesus' request for a number of reasons:

Jesus was a Jew - probably obvious to her by his tasseled garment - while she was a member of a group shunned by Jews for what was regarded by them as a corrupt religion and a corrupted mixed race.

Jesus was a man.  Jewish (and probably Samaritan) men did not speak to women 

publicly. This even was surprising to His disciples on their return later, as John says in verse 27:  "... they were amazed that He was talking with a woman."

She was also probably carrying some shame concerning her past and present marital/sexual activity.  Of course she didn't know till later in the conversation that Jesus knew all about her "checkered" past.  Verse 18:  "... you've had five husbands and the one whom you now have isn't your husband!"

She was apparently carrying a single water jug (verse 28). The only way for Him to get a drink from her would be to put her water jug to His lips.  He was asking to drink from her "dipper"!

While people of the first century were not germ-phobic as the people of our day are - they knew nothing about germs - the orthodox Jews were even more fearful of ritual defilement.  And this would have been that - big time.

There's much more to this story, but this simple request of Jesus is, I believe a metaphor for what He had done in His incarnation.  He, as preexistent God, took on Himself humanity.  He wasn't afraid of "contamination."  He became one of us.  He drank from the dipper!

So if Jesus could drink from the dipper, shouldn't we who claim to be His followers do the same?  Jesus broke down all sorts of barriers in this simple story:  racial barriers, religious barriers, gender barriers, barriers based on sexual behavior.

Do we?

COME TO THE PARTY

In my previous post I discussed how Jesus chose to eat with those who were looked down on by the religious of His day.  He "eats with tax collectors and sinners" was the criticism often leveled against Him.  He ate with people who did not keep the rabbinical rules and who probably weren't too careful about keeping God's rules.

As I stated there, Jesus was on a mission to bring people back to God, and apparently started with those who would have been more aware of their alienation from God.  He seems to have given up on the "righteous" -- those who were satisfied that they were in a right relationship with God.

But He hadn't completely given up even on these -- the Pharisees and the scribes; in at least one incident we find Him extending an invitation to them.

Even though the story is familiar to many of us, it may be possible to miss the invitation.  The story takes up the entire 15th chapter of Luke, even though it includes three familiar parables which are often looked at separately out of their context.

"And all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to Him to hear Him.  And the Pharisees and scribes were grumbling saying, 'This man receives sinners and eats with them'" (15:1, 2).

Notice the next words, "And He told ­­­them this parable ..." (verse 3).  As all good grammarians know, a pronoun usually refers to its nearest antecedent.  In other words, even though the tax collectors and sinners may have heard and enjoyed them, the following three parables were directed primarily at the religious complainers.

The first parable Jesus tells (15:3-7), is of a man who owned 100 sheep, but searched out the one that was lost.  After finding it he called his friends and neighbors to celebrate with him.  Jesus concludes this story with, "I'm telling you that even so, there will be joy in heaven over one sinner who repents more than over ninety-nine righteous who do not have need for repentance!  (15:7)

The next parable (15:8-10) is of a woman who had ten drachmas, but "lit a lamp and swept her house" until she found one that was lost, after which she too called her friends and neighbors to celebrate.  Jesus concludes this one with, "Even so, I'm telling you, there will be joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents!  (15:10)

The third story (15:11-32), is of a father who had two sons.  Most of us know the first half of this story, of the so-called "prodigal son," the younger son who leaves home and squanders his inheritance on "loose living," then repents and returns to his father who "moved with compassion" welcomes him back into the family with a party.  But there's more to the story than this.  There's an older brother -- one who has been loyal to the father, who has "never disobeyed a commandment" of the father.  (See:  THE BARTER SPIRIT.)  Like those Pharisees and scribes we meet at the beginning of the chapter, he objects to the father's compassion for the lost brother.

The story closes with an open ending.  The father pleads with his older son, "Child, you are always with me and all that's mine is yours.  But it was necessary to celebrate and rejoice, because this your brother was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found!?  (15:31, 32)

We're not told how the story ends, whether the older brother responds to the father's invitation or turns around and walks away.  But this is just a story.  The real invitation is for those religious grumblers to recognize that these "tax collectors and sinners" with whom Jesus was eating were lost brothers who were returning to the fold, that God was celebrating over this and that they too should celebrate.

I used to teach a class called Bible Study Methods at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston, TX.  Most of my students were older than the typical college kids, and most were "churched."  I taught that there are three steps to Bible study:  observation, interpretation and application (See:  ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS).  I used this story as one of the assignments.  They were to find and write out the biblical principle or principles found in the passage and to write out a personal application for themselves.  I would remind them that when we apply biblical principles we must apply them to ourselves -- to where we are right now and what changes are necessary for our lives.  So even if they had a great testimony of how "Jesus found me in the pigpen of sin and pulled me out," that was not what we were looking for.  The question was where does this passage and its principles hit me now in my present state of spiritual growth and what changes does it demand of me?

A few (very few) wrote about how they were still like that rebellious younger brother and how they needed to repent as he did.  Quite a few told stories of sibling rivalries they still were clinging to (not surprisingly most of these were the older of a pair).

But the stories that were the most moving went something like this:  (I'm paraphrasing and conflating).

"I was like that younger brother before I came to Christ, and God changed my life!  But that was years ago and now I realize that I have become that older brother.  I'm a good church member; I serve as a deacon; I teach a Sunday school class; I sing in the choir; I tithe; I say all the right words.  I look down my nose at some of those young people I see.  I don't go out of my way to meet and greet them.  I even wish that they wouldn't come to our church.  But now I realize that I was just like them a few years ago.  And God is inviting me, as He did that older brother and those Pharisees and scribes, to celebrate with Him when these people come to Christ.  I've been growing in the wrong direction.  God wants me to become more and more like the father, like Jesus, and less and less like that older brother or the Pharisees."

JESUS' EATING HABITS

"Being first is a problem.  I have to eat so much."

- Ronald Reagan (quoted in Time, 9/23/1985)

The Gospels, especially Luke's, devote a great amount of material to accounts of, and disputes about, Jesus' eating. His and His disciples' eating habits were often the source of criticism and condemnation by His contemporaries, especially the religious ones.

"And the Pharisees and their scribes were grumbling to His disciples saying, 'Why do you eat and drink with tax gatherers and sinners?'"  (Luke 5:30)

"And they said to Him, 'The disciples of John fast often and say prayers, and likewise those of the Pharisees, but Yours eat and drink" (5:33).

"And it was on the Sabbath and He was going through the grain fields and His disciples were rolling the heads of grain in their hands and eating.  But some of the Pharisees said, 'Why are you doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?'"  (6:1, 2)

"For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine and you say, 'He has a demon!'  The Son of Man came eating and drinking and you say, 'Look, a man who's a glutton and a wino, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'"  (7:33, 34)

Then there's the story of the "town sinner" who washed His feet with her tears while He was dining at a Pharisee's house (7:36-50).  "And when the Pharisee who invited Him saw this, he said to himself, 'If this one were a prophet, He would have known who this is and what sort of woman she is who's touching Him, that she's a sinner'"  (7:39).

"... a Pharisee asked Him to have lunch with him and He entered in and reclined.  And the Pharisee was amazed when he saw that He didn't first wash before lunch" (11:37, 38).

Then the first 25 verses of chapter 14 give a series of incidents that occurred while He was dining at the house of a Pharisee on the Sabbath.  First He healed a man, which was considered to be unlawful on the Sabbath.  Then He followed this with a series of parables and sayings punching holes in their ostentation and pomposity.

Again in chapter 15:  "And all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to hear Him, and the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling, saying 'This one receives sinners and eats with them'" (15:1, 2).

Or the account of the conversion of Zacchaeus (19:1-10), a notorious tax collector, who promised after coming to Jesus that he would make amends to everyone he had swindled and give half his possessions to the poor.  All we read of the crowd's reaction was, "All who saw this were grumbling, saying, 'He's going in to lodge with a man who is a sinner!'"  (19:7)

So what were these people so uptight about and why did Jesus seem to enjoy pushing their buttons?

There are many explanations and not all fit.  An answer usually given to the first question is that the Jewish people of Jesus' day attempted to rigidly follow 'Kosher' laws.  There were rules in the Law of Moses, the Torah, prescribing what kinds of animals could be eaten, as well as how these meats were to be prepared.  There were rules regarding cleansing and laws specifying who could eat what.  There were also rules regarding the Sabbath day, the day of rest and what could or could not be done on that day.  Then the rabbis had added more rules on top of these to ensure that the God-given laws could be kept.  This was referred to as "building a fence around the Law."

While there were of course, many who strove to observe all the rules, there were also those who felt themselves specially chosen to make sure those rules were kept.  And of course, there were others, who didn't or couldn't keep all the rules.  These folks were regarded as "sinners."  They were defiled and all who ate with them were defiled as well.

Jesus kept the Mosaic Law.  We read of no incident where He broke it.  But He did push the line and in pushing the line, He often crossed the artificial lines that fenced in the Law.  And He Himself explained why He behaved the way He did and as to why He ate with the outcasts -- the tax collectors and sinners:  "The healthy have no need of a doctor, but those who are ill do.  I didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (5:31, 32).

I don't know if His hearers -- "the righteous" -- caught the sarcasm in those words.  Jesus was a man on a mission; he had come to bring people back to God.  And He had to start with those who were sinners, who recognized that they were in some way alienated from God.  He seems to have given up on those who felt that they were already right -- "righteous" -- before God (and that God was lucky to have them).

But in befriending "sinners," He had to break with tradition, with those man-made rules.  And in doing this He became regarded as unclean in the eyes of the "righteous."

I have often attempted to get a mental picture of Jesus reclining at the table with disreputable people.  I can see Him surrounded by loud, shaggy, dirty, smelly men (and women), laughing as He tilts his glass and chugs down one more round.  He must have been pleasant company, as we're told that they sought him out.  He was their friend.

And though He was on a mission, I can't help believing that He was enjoying himself immensely.

ON MY BUS?

My friend Ken Mullins posed this question on Facebook:  "Did God ever put a Rosa Parks on your bus?"

After questioning Ken as to what was meant and discussing it with Uni, the wheels in my head got turning.  (Please forgive me for over-thinking.)

My first thoughts were of the time in the summer of 1955, when I and some of my fellow (white) Marine Reservists from Michigan boarded a bus in South Carolina to go to town and sat in the far back.  We noticed the bus driver was upset with us, especially when a black lady got on, but we were not, to our thinking, doing anything unusual.  We were simply doing what we'd always done in Michigan.  In fact, we thought the whole incident rather humorous.  (It wasn't.)

When I read Ken's question aloud, Uni almost immediately responded "Keith."  Keith was a young man with AIDS, I'd met back in 1989, and brought to the church I was pastoring (See:  MY FRIEND.), without considering the possible negative consequences.  And there were some.

A bit of background for those who may be unfamiliar with the story behind Ken's question:

Montgomery, Alabama on December 1, 1955 was deeply segregated.  Most African-Americans "knew their place" and went along with the Jim Crow laws which regarded them as second-class citizens.  However, on this day, Mrs. Rosa Parks, a quiet, middle-aged black lady did a radical thing:  she refused to give up her seat on the bus when a white man boarded - as the law required her to do.  Three others had given up theirs, as African-Americans were not even allowed to sit parallel with whites.

When J. F. Blake, the bus driver said, "Look woman, I told you I wanted the seat.  Are you going to stand up?"  Mrs. Parks simply and calmly replied, "No."  After further threats and refusal, Blake got off the bus and phoned the police, who came and arrested Mrs. Parks.  During the interval before their arrival, passengers began leaving the bus.  Blake pressed charges. 

Thus began the Montgomery bus boycott, which triggered the Civil Rights' Movement and brought to the forefront a young African American preacher named Martin Luther King, Jr.  (See:  David J. Garrow, Bearing the Cross.) 

Many possible implications in Ken's question crossed my mind.

·       Have I ever been, as the bus driver, an unwitting agent in a history changing  incident?

·       Have I ever been, as the bus driver, more concerned about the enforcement of an unjust law, than with the fact that I was dealing with real people?  (I recognize that there would have been negative consequences for him, had he not taken the actions he did.)

·       Have I ever been, as that unnamed white man, willing to see another person humiliated, simply for my own comfort?

·       Have I ever done as those other three black persons, complying with an unjust law, simply to avoid conflict or even possible real trouble?

·       Or have I, unlike that bus driver and the other passengers, been willing to take a stand against injustice and side with those like Rosa Parks?

I guess I'd have to say yes to Ken's question: God has done this to me many times.  There probably have been times I've been totally oblivious to what was going on around me.  There've been times when I simply "got off the bus" to avoid personal inconvenience, or when I've "taken my place" to avoid negative consequences.  And there've been a few times when I actually did the right thing.

I wonder what Jesus would have done if He'd been on that bus?  Maybe He was!  I pray that I would do what Jesus would have done.

Anyway, thanx Ken, for stirring up my thinking!

Another view on LGBT rights & the church

The following is a guest post by Sherry:

Maybe I shouldn't have titled this "another view" so much as an expansion on Bill's last two posts and an answer to some of the comments on the first.  I should also add that this is for Christians who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.  Non-Christians don't base their views about LGBT rights on the Bible and Christians with a more liberal theology don't interpret the Biblical passages on homosexuality the same way.

After reading Bill's last three posts and the comments, I have been thinking about God's ideal for marriage (sexual purity with no divorce) vs. the laws He gave regulating divorce.  These laws did not mean God had decided "oh they're going to do it anyway so I guess it's okay" but that God knew we were fallen and He wanted the rights of the societal lesser (ie, women in this case) to be protected. (See Deut. 24:1-4; Mt. 5:31, 32; 19:1-12; Mk. 10:2-12).  I think this is an example of how those who believe in the inspiration of all the Bible should view LGBT rights.

Laws protecting the rights of others do not mean all of their sins are okay, just that others shouldn't be able to take advantage of them. There have been two recent instances in the news that show just how much is denied to them solely becuz they cannot get married; it's CRUEL and it certainly isn't Christian or Godly or Christ-like or following the Golden Rule (given in at least 22 religions that I know of) to treat people like that strictly becuz of their sexual orientation.

My main thought though is that if we're going to deny America's civil rights AND basic human rights to sinners, then we need to deny them to ALL sinners. 
Which is everyone according to the Bible. 
Including me. 
Including all the religious folks out there screaming about homosexuality. 

But no one is proposing that; they just want to deny these rights to a particular group.  This time because of their sin.  Last time because of the color of their skin.  You see, the church has a long tradition of turning a blind eye to the sins committed by those within and focusing on the sins of those without.  Then once that sin is as prevelant within the church as outside (for instance divorce as mentioned in my previous comment) they shut up.

Jesus and Paul never did that.  They never lambasted non-believers about their sin.  Yes, on occasion they mentioned the sins of their unbelieving audience but with kindness and only to point out their need for salvation (see the story of the woman at the well - John 4:4-42).  Jesus and Paul talked the most and the harshest about sin to religious people - either saying that their hypocricy kept others from God or reminding them what God had saved them from.  Jesus made it clear in word and deed that He came to save those who are lost.  And He paid a mighty high price for it.

I thank God that He is willing to forgive my sin.
And I pray that His people will start looking at sinners as God does:
    as people in need of love and grace,
    as people He was willing to DIE for,
    as people who He LOVES. 
If we're all sinners as the Bible says, if He loved us all so much He would die for us as the Bible says, then maybe I should treat someone who practices a different sin than I do with that same love and compassion as the Bible says instead of sinning myself by showing hate toward another.   If instead we choose hate, then perhaps we need to reread the new testament.  First John chapter 4 is a pretty good place to start: "Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen." (I John 4:20).  And of course there's the story of the good samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)

And make no mistake about it, denying other human beings their rights as humans and as citizens, let alone as bearers of the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28) is not love. 
It's not treating your neighbor as yourself. 
It's not following the Golden Rule. 
It's hate.  If you're going to practice, acknowledge it.
And leave the name of my loving God out of it.

This isn't my first post here and some of what I've talked about relates to some of what I talked about in the previous post.  You see, I believe if we loved people as much as God does, we wouldn't marginalize whole groups (in that post it was single moms & the poor, in this post (and the two posts this refers to), it's the LGBT community) but would bring them into our churches, our homes and our hearts.  And until we love them that way, we are worrying about the speck in our neighbor's eye while ignoring the 2x4 in our own eye (Matthew 7:3).

Think that about covers that!  Unlike Bill, I don't normally open up the scriptures to others -- apparently about once a year and only on his blog LOL.  Thanks for the forum.


Now, to the person who accused Bill of teetering of the edge of apostasy, I have to say this:

Ever since I can remember, Bill has spent hours in the word on a daily basis, whether he was teaching or not. Since he moved up here, I’ve observed a real humble spirit towards learning what God wants him to learn, both from God's word and other sources (he probably had this spirit before, but now he's here for me to see it). While I know there is always the possiblity he could misunderstand something in the scriptures, I feel that it would be difficult due to the amount of time he spends studying and praying. The fact that he is willing to (1) apologize for his earlier legalism and/or judgmentalism and (2) fine-tune or even change his thoughts about subjects makes me believe God is answering him, not that he's falling into apostasy. 

God is so incredibly liberal with His grace and what I see in Bill's theological progression is a move toward a more liberal grace as well. This is totally in keeping with Scripture.

DIAL-A-JESUS

When Uni and I visited Washington, DC this spring, we visited Ford’s Theatre, where Abraham Lincoln was shot.  Across the street from the theatre is the house where Lincoln was carried to and where he died.  It has been converted into a Lincoln museum, with the room where he died restored to the way it was on that day.  There are also many artifacts on display.  What impressed me the most was the winding staircase leading to the third floor, visible from the street through large windows.  At the center of the staircase was a huge stack of books all the way from the first to the third floor, every one of which was a book about Lincoln.  As I walked slowly down the stairs, my eyes searched among the thousands for those I had read and found a few.  [They weren’t really books, but a metal sculpture made to look like actual books.]

The curator informed us that Abraham Lincoln was the second most written about person in history.  The first of course, was Jesus.  Lincoln was a controversial man, beloved by many, hated by some, credited or blamed for much social progress and many social evils.  And there were books in the stack “proving” every possible viewpoint.

But Lincoln comes in second.  He was, we could say, a piker when compared to Jesus, whose beloved disciple John even said, “Many other things Jesus did, which if they were written out one by one, I suppose the world itself wouldn’t have room for the books written” (John 21:25).  And that’s just the things He did.  John of course, had no idea how many books of interpretations and opinions concerning what he did and taught would be written over the next two millennia.  And much more than Lincoln, Jesus has been loved, hated, credited and blamed.  He is still at the center of theological and ethical controversy.

I agree with Ross Douthat (BAD RELIGION) that Jesus “is a paradoxical character” and that heresy, in a sense, begins with an inability to live with these paradoxes.  So our modern heresies, like the ancient ones, pick and choose which aspects of Jesus’ person are desirable and construct a “Jesus” more to their liking – sort of a “Dial-A-Jesus.”

Nowhere is this Dial-A-Jesus tendency more evident than in the current debate over sexual ethics, especially in the area of gay marriage.  We are presented by some, with a Jesus who, it would seem would not only publicly endorse laws to permit gay marriage, He would no doubt, endorse and bless the act itself.

We are told, correctly, that nowhere in the Gospels, does Jesus condemn homosexual behavior.  We are also probably correctly told that Jesus was totally accepting of those whose sexual mores were in contradiction to the Old Testament Law.  And of course, this is understood to imply a number of things:  that He opposed the Law itself; that He was accepting of homosexual behavior as well as of other sexual behavior that violated the Law.

There are two favorite sayings of Jesus quoted by those who desire this nice, accepting, amoral Jesus.

The first is Matthew 7:1, “Do not judge, that you may not be judged.”  Ripped out of its context this allegedly proves that Jesus is non-judgmental and is making a blanket condemnation of those who are.  It also is used to show that somehow He is invalidating the Old Testament Law as well as any moral pronouncements.  But this saying is taken from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7, in which Jesus not only endorses the Law’s moral pronouncements, He actually takes them a step further.  See especially Matthew 5:27, 28, “You’ve heard it said, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ but I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust for her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

The other favorite saying is John 8:7, “Let the one who is without sin first cast a stone at her.”  Again, the context tells us a bit more.  The religious leaders were pressing Jesus to make a decision in a capital case in which only the woman was on trial, and no matter what, His decision would have been the wrong one.  And Jesus does tell the woman afterward, “Neither do I condemn you.  Go and from now on sin no more” (John 8:11).

In the Gospels we are not presented with a nice guy Jesus, who did not hold Himself or others to a moral code.  Rather we have a morally uncompromising Jesus.  Jesus didn’t accept immoral behavior, He accepted immoral people!  He forgave people their sins because of His love for them and because, as God, He had the ability to do so.  And as the God-man, He would ultimately die for the penalty of their sin – including mine.

I agree that there is too much Pharisaism and hypocrisy in our modern culture wars.  I believe that Jesus Himself would have condemned this moralism and hypocrisy.  But we need to recognize that Jesus was so much more than a religious nice guy.  He was God Himself.  And He was the perfect Man.  And He loved “sinners,” myself included.

And please, let’s not enlist Him on our side; let’s accept Him as He is and for who He is.

See also:  JESUS DECIDES A CAPITAL CASE

                 THE IMITATION OF CHRIST

JESUS DECIDES A CAPITAL CASE

The subject of Capital Punishment has been much in the news lately.  Trials and executions have been prominent, as well as questions raised in Presidential debates.  I have even mentioned it a number of times in this blog and have even said on another blog that I planned on attempting a thorough biblical study on the subject.  I have yet to do so, though I am collecting and researching and discussing with my wife Uni.  I believe that she was the one who brought up this story.

Anyway, before going into a lot of other biblical passages, it might be good to ask “What would Jesus do?” or in this case, “What did Jesus do?”  Thought I could (and plan to) analyze Jesus’ sayings that are relevant, it just might be a good idea to look at a story where Jesus actually is called on to adjudicate a case involving Capital Punishment.

John 8:2-11:

2)  And early in the morning, He arrived again in the temple, and all the people were coming to Him, and He sat down and was teaching them.

3)  And the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, made her stand in the midst, 4) and said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, right in the act!  5)  Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women.  So then what do you say?”  6)  They were saying this testing Him so that they’d have something to accuse Him of.

But Jesus stooped down and started writing on the ground with His finger.  7)  Now when they kept on asking Him, He stood up and said to them, “The one among you who is without sin should be the first to throw a stone at her,” 8) and He stooped back down and continued writing on the ground.

9)  And when they heard this, they began to leave, one by one, beginning with the oldest ones and He was left alone, with the woman standing there.

10)  And Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they?  Did no one condemn you?”

11)  And she said, “No one Lord.”

And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you!  Go your way and from now on, sin nor more!”

Before I make any comments on the story itself, I feel that I must give a few notes about some technical difficulties.  If you, the reader, are uninterested in these, you may skip them without a loss of understanding.

·        First, this passage (John 7:53-8:11) is not found in most of the earliest Greek manuscripts of John’s Gospel, as well as other early versions.  Some manuscripts have it in other places in chapter 7 or at the end of John’s Gospel; others have it in Luke’s Gospel after 21:38.  Its style and vocabulary differ quite a bit from the rest of John (I discovered this as a first-year Greek student, reading through John.), and it seems to interrupt the general flow of the narrative.  So there is near unanimous agreement among scholars that it is not part of John’s original Gospel.
·        Yet, as one scholar put it, “…the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity.”  That, plus the fact that it is included in some ancient manuscripts causes many to believe it is authentic.  A few have even supposed that it was deliberately “expunged … because it was liable to be understood in a sense too indulgent to adultery.”
·        I will accept and treat it as a true story, a genuine part of God’s Word, even if it wasn’t written by John.  Besides all the above, it gives us a picture of Jesus similar to those we find elsewhere in the Gospels – His tenderness toward women, His disdain for the religious leaders of His day, His ability to get out of the traps set for Him, and especially, His demonstration of grace and forgiveness within a context of Legalism.

Now back to our story:

The Gospel writers tell many stories of confrontations such as this, between Jesus and the religious leaders.  It would seem that He took their constant questioning as a matter of course, and even seemed to enjoy it.  He always won in these verbal battles, sometimes turning their questions back on them, other times tearing into their false teachings and motives, but nearly always using the disputes as “teaching moments.”

But this incident was different.  Here, Jesus is not simply being tested with a goal of trapping Him in His words.  Here He is being challenged to make a life or death decision.  Nowhere else are we told of an incident where He is urged to decide the fate of another human being.

I believe we can see His opponents’ aims pretty clearly:  if Jesus decides to exercise compassion toward the woman, He will clearly (to them) have defied the demands of their God-given Law.  This could be used as evidence against Him in their plot to have Him legally put to death.  If He decided against the woman, He would be going against all He had taught.  He would no longer be “a friend of sinners.”

Their actions were, of course, based on the Law as found in Deuteronomy 22:22-24 (also see Leviticus 20:10):

22)  If a man is found lying with another man’s wife, both of them must die – the man who lay with the woman, and the woman.  Thus you will sweep away the evil from Israel.

23)  If there is a young woman who is a virgin, engaged to a man and a man finds here in town and lies with her, 24) you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death.  (The word “engaged” here is inadequate.  Under the Law a couple was as good as married when the bride price was paid, even though they were not to cohabit for up to a year.)

However, there are some serious questions about their prosecution of the case.  Where is the man?  The Law appears to put the major portion of the blame on the man.  “If a man …”  It takes two to commit this act.  In fact, there were some cases where the man alone was to be prosecuted – see Deuteronomy 22:24-27.  I have my suspicions as to where the man was.

And there’s another question:  Where are the witnesses?  A capital case required two or more witnesses.

There are many theories regarding Jesus’ writing on the ground and what He was writing.  Some think He was listing the sins of the accusers, but there is no indication of this in the text.  Some think He was writing His decision down as a judge would do.  The King James has “… as though He heard them not,” at the end of verse 6, which is apparently only found in a few late manuscripts.  I believe that expresses it well.  Jesus was simply doodling!  He was showing His disinterest and disdain, while they kept on pestering.

Finally He gave His decision, which appears to be a guilty verdict.  His words in verse 7 are among the most quoted words of Jesus, usually, however, in a situation where the one who quotes is defending or justifying his or her own behavior.  But what did Jesus mean by this?  Perhaps another passage regarding Capital Punishment can shed some light on His words.

Deuteronomy 17:6, 7:

6)  On the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses the condemned shall die; he must not die on the testimony of one witness.  7)  The hand of the witnesses must be the first to put him to death, then afterward the hand of all the people.  Thus you will sweep away the evil from your midst.

Thought I can’t say for sure, I believe that the male partner was standing right there among the woman’s prosecutors.  And Jesus knew it.  This was a setup.  One or more of them had apparently engaged in sex with this poor woman (who was not allowed to testify in her own defense) in order to trap Jesus in a dilemma.  Her life was of no importance to them.

This would mean that the witnesses themselves were her guilty sex partners.  Yet, according to the Law, they were to cast the first stones.  Jesus was not demanding complete sinlessness of her executioners, He was saying that they must not be guilty of the same crime.  He put them in a Catch 22 situation.  He had turned the tables and they could not carry out the sentence.

Jesus gave this woman words of grace and forgiveness.  His words “sin no more” would imply that He knew she was guilty.

So what does all of this have to do with our 21^st century views on Capital Punishment?

We could argue that this case is in no way relevant to current thinking.  Adultery is not a capital offense today and no one is trying to make it into one (at least not to my knowledge).  Capital Punishment today is reserved for murderers and a few others who commit horrible crimes.  Certainly Jesus would behave differently toward a murderer, wouldn’t He?

But Jesus lived under the Law of Moses which required death for adultery.  And He knew this woman was guilty.  Didn’t respect for the Law require Him to support his Law?  Was Jesus not a “law-and-order” supporter?

I don’t believe we can argue that because this was a lesser crime than murder Jesus could slack off on enforcement.  “The soul who sins will die” (Ezekiel 18:4).  Jesus wasn’t simply cutting the woman some slack – He was pronouncing her free of condemnation.  He was setting her free from the condemnation of the Law.

Jesus died for that woman’s sins.  He died for the sins of the condemned man hanging on the cross next to Him.  He died for my sin.  He died to cancel the debt we owed God and the condemnation God’s Law pronounced.

And it should be noticed that in this case, He went beyond teaching that we must personally forgive, He was pronouncing forgiveness from criminal law.

I don’t know exactly how this should affect our attitudes toward the laws of our land.  But it should affect them in some way.  It should certainly lead us away from cheering the death of a criminal, no matter how heinous the crime.  It should lead us to seek to be imitators of Christ, even in this area.