Saturday, May 25, 2024

HOMOSEXUALITY: REFLECTIONS BIBLICALLY, GENETICALLY, PSYCHOLOGICALLY, AND PASTORALLY

Note: I am not writing as an “authority” on this complex and controversial issue, which is particularly divisive within the Church.  My understanding is limited and quite possibly wrong.  Rather, I am writing about how my current understanding challenges ME spiritually.  I understand that “sound bites” mislead because they leave out important qualifications and discussions, but here are mine.

·        Biblical theology: If one understands creation theology, the biblical theology of the “hardening of the heart” (individually and corporately), and an OT prophetic motif that sins of the people (particularly “idolatry” which is putting anything above God) reverse the creational order and promote the return of chaos, then Paul’s line of thought in Romans 1:18 – 32 (which is not his main point) is clear and decisive to me.  A peoples’ failure to give glory to God results in a hardening of heart/mind, a turning away from (reversal of) the creational order, the results of which are manifest in the chaos of improper sexual behaviors – as well as other behaviors found in most all people.

·        Genetics: The best scientific studies I know about, studies of genetically identical twins separated at birth, shows that sexual identity and preference are not genetically pre-determined.

·        Psychology: To the best of my knowledge, sexual identify formation begins in one’s early years in terms of modeling and molding within one’s environment.  Moreover, early formed identity is not easy to change.  It is neurologically “ingrained.”  Anecdotally, I know stories where home abuse was a factor toward one’s sexual identity development.  I know a person who tells how he accepted an identity that he was rather bullied into by peers.  There are some who out of loneliness found acceptance through a change of orientation.  Whereas these factors are admittedly inadequate as explanations,* I mention them because they lead me to the next point, my area of struggle.

·        Pastorally: Of course, I desire that all people, me included, would move away from any self-induced chaos and toward divine order.  Still, I also need to consider that some people, who are practicing behaviors that I find to be “of chaos,” may well be doing the best they can when given the combined individual, family, and social-level factors of their unique histories.  It is not my role to pass judgment on them, but rather on my own failures and those of the Church.  However, what I recognize most is that I desperately need divine guidance and sensitivity toward each person in order to know how to love and encourage that person, whatever their “orientation” or practice, to grow in Christ.  And, I feel pretty inadequate.

Lord, help me to grow in understanding, compassion, wisdom, and love in my interactions with all people.  Amen.

*I’ll share another challenging anecdote.  A priest friend, whose occupation is to counsel priests, found he was encountering priests who wondered if they were homosexually oriented.  He immersed himself in the related literature.  After doing so, he began to have homosexual dreams and decided that he must have a homosexual orientation.  As one hearing his story, what struck me was that his reading/thought focus had had a neurological impact that influenced his dreams, which had not been homosexual beforehand, but which he accepted as evidence of his orientation.  That raises the complex issue of mental conditioning.  In my “Devotional Testimony” (4/18/24), I mentioned that, as an embodied being, all my experiential perceptions are neurological, but that I think God can interact with those perceptions.  I will suggest here, perhaps to be developed in a later post, that what Paul portrays as “spiritual warfare,” has much to do with monitoring one’s thought life that creates neurological “paths” which in turn shape us (see 2 Cor 10:3–6; Eph 6:10–18).

Thursday, May 16, 2024

WAS JESUS POLITICAL?

 (More a reflection than a study.)
Premise:
Politics is about how a person (king, dictator, voter) envisions the governing of human society.  One’s political vision comes from the “heart,” the inner person.  When the heart is wholesome, the person’s vision is for the good of others.  When the heart is putrid, then the person’s vision is for oneself.  In a democracy, the rancid heart is transactional, promising (or threatening) something to others to benefit oneself.
Observation:
Jesus addresses the heart.  Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) calls for a reversal of normal human self-focus.  No one with a cold heart desires to be poor in spirit, meek, merciful, striving for righteousness (Beatitudes, Matt 5:1 – 12).  Jesus’ call to seek the Kingdom of God first (Matt 6:33) mandates a new heart, for a person to be born again/from above.  Jesus’ call to his disciples to become slaves rests on a life given to God (Mark 10:43 – 45).  Paul recognized that to be in Christ obliterated our tribal distinctions of Jew/non-Jew, male/female, slave/free (Gal 3:28).
As a result, the person whose heart has been given to God wakes up each day and envisions the welfare of diverse people, justice and equity, unity and inclusion, health, education, etc. from a compassionate, serving perspective.
Conclusion: So, yes, Jesus was political.  To love and serve Jesus will change one’s political vision.
Lord, may that change be in my heart today.  Amen.

Wednesday, May 8, 2024

BLOOD OF CHRIST: CLEANSING FROM “SIN”

 The author of 1 John, whichever John that is, thinks Christians should sin no more: “My children, these things I write to you in order that you not sin” (2:1a).  That is a well-known thesis of the letter, but I see it now from a different perspective.

As an OT scholar, I am aware of what were and were not the symbolic functions of blood in the Israelite sacrificial system – even whether it was applied or sprinkled had different functions.  I am also fairly convinced that Paul used the sacrificial language carefully, the precision of which is sometimes overlooked in NT interpretation and theology, particularly at a popular level.  (Some favorite hymns about blood are offtrack.  That bothers me, but I still sing with the congregation.)  1John 1:7 caught my attention: “… and the blood of Jesus his son cleanses us from all sin [singular].”

Technical details:
Problem: In the Israelite sacrificial system, the blood of the purification/sin offering was not applied to people to cleanse them from sins.  Rather, it was applied to the altar to symbolically cleanse God’s dwelling from the contamination of sins.  That God allowed the blood to cleanse away this impediment in relationship with repentant Israelites was symbolic of God’s willingness to forgive.  So, I wondered if John did not know this technical feature of the sacrificial system.  (And, as a good NT scholar and friend pointed out, I might be expecting too much consistency within first-century Judaism.)

Observations: John uses the word for “sin” (harmartia) in the singular and the plural.  All of the plural forms use the term as a “product” of human behavior (1:9; 2:12; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10).  Moreover, all of the atonement concepts associated with the plural are appropriate to the sacrificial system (e.g. confessing, forgiving, “atoning offering,”*  taking up).  The singular forms may refer to a product (3:4 2x’s, 8, 9; 5:16 (1st) or to a sinful state of being (1:8; 3:5).  (Some singular uses that are not clear by context also seem to refer to a state: 5:16 2nd, 17.)  In our text, 1:7 in conjunction with verse 8, then appears to refer to a state of being.

Solution: John is thinking of the blood of Jesus as sanctifying people.  In the OT, after blood was applied to the altar to symbolically cleanse it of contamination sins, it was sprinkled with blood to re-sanctify it, to make it holy again.  In the dedication of the Israelite priesthood (Ex 29:16, 20 - 21, Lev 8:24, 30), after blood was applied to their extremities – the only time it is applied to people for the purpose of first purifying them# – it was then sprinkled on them to sanctify them, to set them apart as holy for the service of the priesthood.  Moreover, 1:9, which uses a different word for sin, “unrighteousness” (adikia) that also can communicate a state or a product, follows the same OT sequence of purifying and then consecrating: “If we confess our sins (plural), he is faithful and righteous in order to forgive us our sins (plural), AND cleanses us from all unrighteousness (singular).”  Therefore, it seems that John has extended the OT concept of blood for sanctification of the altar and the priests to those who profess Christ.  John in this letter appears to be saying two things: that sins are forgiven by Christ AND, given John's participatory theology (e.g. walking in the Light), that the believer’s character/heart has also been cleansed/sanctified by Christ's blood.

Application:  To me the extension John has made is beautiful and profound!  Having been forgiven through the process of Jesus' blood as a purification sacrifice, believers have also been sanctified by it to be holy.  That which has been made holy is not to become contaminated by sins again.

Lord, what I am offered in Christ is beyond wonder.  Having been forgiven and sanctified by Christ’s blood, I want to walk in the Light and sin no more.  Amen

*Sometimes translated as “propitiation.”
#In the covenant ratification ceremony of Ex 24:3 – 8, blood was sprinkled on people (or perhaps on the 12 pillars representing them), but this ritual was not for sins.  (The author of Hebrews does refer to this rite in 9:19 – 20 and probably 12:24, though, as one of three symbolic uses of the blood of Jesus that he mentions.

CHRISTIAN RIGHTS?

In my current culture, many people calling themselves “Evangelical Christians” are grasping for power and exaltation in the form of politica...