9.20.21 - Happy to be Presbyterian

1 Corinthians 5 ... I wonder what's up?

Started reading through 1 Corinthians a few days back, and stopped for awhile this morning on the 5th chapter, wondering, and googling ... what were the circumstances?

And how easily the women in question is dismissed - and the man so easily condemned.

Sounds like a bunch of busybodies holding their noses without any regard for the two people in question, running off to Paul like 4th grade tattletales.

It occurred to me: was she much younger than the man's stepfather?

Was she abused?

Was the son rescuing her?

Were the woman and her "husband" divorced, or was she abandoned? Or had she run away?

With the uneasy feeling that, then or now, women are treated as property ... women belong to the men, and in this case, the son is "violating" property law - stealing from his father, if you will.

This morning, I wanted to ask Paul:

"Don't you have bigger fish to fry?

Have you looked into the matter?

Or are you just going by what the busybodies offer?"

I read Paul with the greatest respect - he gets a lot of things right, as I see it.

But his easy condemnation of the man, with no interest in the details, or the possible suffering of the woman, and maybe the man's kindness to redeem her, leaves me uncomfortable.

With years of ministry behind me: I know something of "sin," in my own life, and in the lives of others - there is sin committed with hubris, arrogance, and ego, power, and domination.

Then, there is "sin" committed because there's no easy answer to so many hard moments in life. And what the community busybodies might label as "sin" is nothing less then folks caught up in a messy situation, not directly or immediately of their own making, working to make the best of it, to mitigate further harm, and to practice kindness, and to find a way through.

Here, as anywhere, the ease with which the "righteous" condemn "sexual" immorality ... it's so easy to do, and it's so rewarding.

Comments????

Jesus Was Clear

Jesus was clear, painfully clear, I’m sure, that only a few of the religious leaders sitting on top of the social, religious, financial, heap called The Holy City would give him the time of the day.

The rest would be happy to see him go away, and if not going away voluntarily, they’d be more than happy to help him on his way.

Jesus didn’t spend a lot of time trying to convince the inconvincible. 

He understood the human tragedy, that power and wealth are more than enough to undo the soul and create monstrous ideas and behavior. 

Some can resist the allure of wealth and the power it bestows, but most succumb, in one degree or another. Some maintain a balance, but a lot of folks dive into the money bin like old Scrooge McDuck.

Jesus addresses the question of wealth multiple times, not so much to convince the Oligarchy, but to trouble them, disturb, distress, and discomfort them, compelling them to do their worst, to reveal to them, maybe, and to reveal most certainly to the world, their naked villainy (thaniks to Shakespeare for the phrase) and rapacious ways. 

Jesus knew the likely course of events, and remained true to God’s calling, to be faithful, to be truthful, and, as needed, to put his life on the line, which, in the end, he had to do. 

It was die, or lie. 

Satan was hoping that Jesus would choose the lie, but much to Satan’s disappointment, Jesus chose instead to die. Believing, hoping, wondering, if his death would finally mean something. But whatever it might or might not mean, Jesus turned from the lie offered so eloquently and so richly adorned, to die between two thieves, two more men deemed “useless” and “dangerous” by the ruling elite, who washed their hands of the whole thing, because they had better things to do.

So, Jesus spent most of his time with the disciples, in whom he had great hopes … maybe. 

And time, too, with those deemed by the Oligarchy as worthless, dangerous, sinful; the down-and-out who deserved their sad lot in life, for whatever reasons the rich and the powerful so decided. 

The rich and the powerful always need folks on the bottom so that the rich and the powerful might congratulate themselves on their own faith, their moral character, their god, their energy and their abilities, while dropping a few coins into the charity box, making them feel even more superior, and even more wonderful.

Jesus spent his time with those who had a chance to be real.

Jesus sought the lost.

Healed the broken.

Lifted up the downtrodden.

Gave hope to the desolate.

Walked with the lonely.

Visited the stranger.

Crossed boundaries.

Went fishing.

Made breakfast on the beach.

Gave life to the dead.

And light to all the darkened corners.

He spent his time where there was hope for a better day. 

With people who were eager to hear his message, even though they most likely didn’t understand much of it, but they knew that he was tweaking the noses of the proud and the pompous, and the crowds loved him for that … and also the food and the fellowship … and even their own ill-formed hopes of some kind of a Messiah, who might just help them throw off the chains of Rome, chains forged by violent leaders and a brutal military police, aided and abetted by the Jerusalem elite who were more than happy to see their own people suffer even as they enjoyed their resorts and golf courses.

All right, they didn’t play golf.

But they would’ve if they could’ve.

Love in Theory

I love to love in theory.

All the little children of the world.

Red and yellow, black and white.

Are they precious in his sight?

For me, a troubling question.

For someone who loves to love

In theory only.

© Tom Eggebeen, March, 2013

Did Jesus Teach Us What to Believe?

Jesus said very little about belief, and almost everything about behavior.

Fundamentalism, on a whole, is all about belief and getting to heaven upon death, with a heavy prescription on individualistic behavior; Evangelicalism would like to style itself a bit more progressive, but it's a tough road for Evangelicals because they tend to share the same belief- and behavior-systems of fundamentalism, though they may hold them a little more loosely.

Jesus comes to us with a message of social compassion - the Kingdom of God, "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." It didn't take long, in the history of the church, for the Empire (Thank you Constantine) to gut this message and turn it into an eschatological device, leaving this world to the Empire, and the next world to the church (nothing could have been further from the mind of Jesus).

Evangelicalism, whatever it really is, and fundamentalism, and Lutherans (with Luther's two-kingdom theology) perpetuate this arrangement. Paul's message on giving and care (e.g. 2 Corinthians 8.10-15) and the early church's practice of communal ownership hardly dovetails with the fiscal message of the current GOP (less of everything except business, and let nature take its course, which is a form of radical social Darwinism, if you will; I find it fascinating that those who reject biological evolution welcome it with open arms when it comes to "survival of the fittest" in society).

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are pretty much peas in the same pod; I have yet to hear any one of them offer a clear and working description of who they are, though the Fundamentalists have an easier time with their Fundamentals.

Frankly, Evangelicals remind me of the guy who passes gas at a party, and then when folks smell it, quickly looks at the guy next to him. Sorry about that, but, in reality, if you want to spark a fight among Evangelicals, ask them to define it.

How much better for "Christians" to set aside belief-arguments and begin to look at the Sermon on the Mount, the Book of James, the Prophets and the deeply ethical passages of Paul. Jesus of the Gospels (not the Reformation - see N.T. Wright) can revolutionize the church, and the church can then be "the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world," as it practices the kindness of God (Matthew 5.43-48).

I realize that quoting Scripture rarely helps; we all have our favorite passages that we haul out of the closet when needed.

The above note was posted in a FB thread, June 27, 2012.

Reading History

The gift of reading history - plenty of scoundrels, for sure, but plenty of people who rise to the occasion - they envision a just society where privation and suffering are limited;
they challenge the powers that be, especially those powers heavily funded by the super-wealthy;
they bristle when they see human beings degraded in the workplace;
they strive for good schools;
they are generally skeptical about military adventurism;
they are not swayed by slogans and throw-away phrases;
they read and they think;
they are generally of good humor, and enjoy a good laugh at themselves;
sometimes they're religious and sometimes not, but they all look at human beings with awe and hope.