Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Reality of Our Sins, the Absolutes of God and the Blood of Jesus Christ
Where does one even begin; perhaps with tears? How can scripture, theology and ethics become so badly twisted and miss-used by someone who stands so tall in the faith? Am I writing about the letter and overture connected to Mark Achtemeier? No, I have no words for that. But I am addressing Jack Haberer’s essay on the Outlook, Absolutes, standards, and exceptions.
He writes of “Biblical heroes who didn’t follow those absolutes,” and they were blessed by God anyway! Are there no absolutes except the “the existence, personhood, character, and mission of the triune God?” There are biblical absolutes—such as all are sinners—we are saved by grace through faith—the wages of sin is death—they are branches linked to and all wrapped in Jack Haberer’s summation of God’s ontological being which, of course, includes the triune God’s purpose and his goodness.
The Holy God of Scripture, and of our reality, demands holiness of us and has bought it for us with a bloody price on a cross. Only the righteousness of Jesus Christ counts for anything. But it was a costly gift, given to a people who are in need of forgiveness. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said it is not cheap grace, but costly grace. It is a grace that covers sins named in the Bible such as greed, adultery and homosexuality.
“As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy.” If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with the precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.” (1 Peter 1:14-19)
No! It isn’t about standards but about God’s word, his absolutes, and the reality of our Lord who demands that we allow his Lordship in our lives. Acknowledging our own sinful failings simply implies that we keep coming to Jesus Christ, repenting of our sins and refreshing ourselves in the knowledge that he has already forgiven us. He doesn't bless us despite our sin but because of Jesus Christ and his gift. So our blessings are no excuse for denying the absolutes of God. But if we take Him and who he is as an absolute we must take his words also.
“If we say that we have no sin we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.” (1 John 1:9-10)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
There absolutely is a universal call to holiness as there is also a radical and total complicity of humankind in sin, however neither of these are reflected well in G-6.0106b
Far from setting up "standards" this provision in our constitution is a poorly written, poorly conceived bit of legislature even before we get to discussing how inadequately and lopsidedly it is enforced. Standards of holiness? Yes. Fruits of the Spirit and evidence of Christ's work in our lives? Certainly. Clinging ridiculously to a rule which outlaws using depictions of Christ in Sunday school, images in stained glass windows, and women performing baptisms (among other things) is just a way to prove how sinful and backwards we really are.
Aric,
I'm sorry you lost me somewhere in your statement. You started out discussing G-6.0106b and then added "Clinging ridiculously to a rule which outlaws using depictions of Christ in Sunday school, images in stained glass windows, and women performing baptisms (among other things) is just a way to prove how sinful and backwards we really are."
Could you clarify your position please?
I believe Haberer was mostly writing about G-6.0106b since he wrote, “The whole denomination, indeed, the whole western church had been wrestling with the matter of absolutes, standards, and exceptions for years, particularly with regard to the status of believers who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered in orientation (GLBT).”
I believe the problem, here, in his essay, is that he has substituted works for grace and then tried to use failed works, sin, as a reason for not accepting biblical absolutes. But it is the other way around. We are given grace in Jesus Christ because of his death on the cross and because of that the “shall nots” are absolutes that are covered by grace, meaning we can repent and find forgiveness. For instance, he writes about his parents divorce and how that shattered his views of absolutes. He writes of the failure of biblical heroes and how that shattered his views of absolutes. But, the grace of Christ happens because of Christ not because of our sin. And that doesn’t change God’s absolutes it simply opens the door to make room for us without blessing our sin.
Otherwise we are asking God to bless our sin.
Viola,
G-6.0106b is the rule that "outlaws using depictions of Christ in Sunday school, images in stained glass windows, and women performing baptisms (among other things)." It's a bad rule, badly written and not at all what people often claim it is when they start talking about needing 'standards' for ordination. If 'b' is one's idea of standards then it proves that far from caring about a universal call to holiness or promoting God's justice we're sinfully obsessed with sexual impropriety to the point that we would rather keep a bad law than repeal it or replace it with a good one.
There are several good 'replace b' overtures coming to GA this summer. I urge you to read them carefully and choose one to support. They would all be a vast improvement.
Drink the Kool-Aid, Viola.
Just drink the Kool-Aid...
Thanks Toby-that helps! I was actually going back and rereading G-6.0106b to see if I had missed something!
I think I will go back to cleaning my house its much more profitable.
The only officer I have seen removed from office in our presbytery in 7 years was removed for lying about the use of his educational money.
It seems his mom got sick around the time he was scheduled to go to a conference he used the funds to go see his sick mother, when questioned about it he was removed from the pastorate, disciplined and then adminastratviely defrocked.
Not one GLBT has been defrocked in our presbytery although I've been told they do exist here - I just don't know who they are.
Cute, Toby.
"Persons refusing to repent of any self acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament."
"Q. 97. Should we, then, not make any images at all?
A. God cannot and should not be pictured in any way." BOC 4.097
"IMAGESOFGOD. Since God as Spirit is in essence invisible and im-
mense, he cannot really be expressed by any art or image. For this reason
we have no fear pronouncing with Scripture that images of God are mere
lies. Therefore we reject not only the idols of the Gentiles, but also the
images of Christians. IMAGESOFCHRIST. Although Christ assumed hu-
man nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide
a model for carvers and painters. He denied that he had come “to abolish
the law and the prophets” (Matt. 5:17). But images are forbidden by the
law and the prophets (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9)." BOC 5.020
" This is why we abandon the teaching of the Roman Church
and withdraw from its sacraments; firstly, because their ministers are not
true ministers of Christ Jesus (indeed they even allow women, whom the
Holy Ghost will not permit to preach in the congregation to baptize)" BOC 3.22
"We teach that baptism should not be ad-
ministered in the Church by women or midwives. For Paul deprived
women of ecclesiastical duties, and baptism has to do with these." BOC 5.191
There is even more silliness in our confessions that by the present wording of 'b' is made a standard for ordination.
Aric, it is amazing to me that you couldn't, at first, just be straight forward in what you were saying.
There is a debate going on in our Church about sexual sin. There is an agenda being pushed in our denomination and others that Christians have never had to deal with before, at least not an open worldly push to allow sin in the Church and to bless it, and here I am writing about fornication as much as homosexuality. If one reads such books as the Decameron, a series of short stories written in the fourteenth century, you understand that there has always been such sin in the Church although it has always been either deplored or made fun of or both. But you are actually making a joke out of the attempt to keep the Church pure.
You may disagree with the biblical text that fornication, adultery or homosexuality is sin, but the matter is not a joke or something to be cute about.
Viola,
Perhaps it is because we are hindered by this medium from communicating effectively, but I was never jesting in any of my comments above. Nor was I trying to be obtuse. I said exactly what I meant - 'b' is a horrible piece of legislature that makes untenable things into 'standards for ordination' and those who defend 'b' or cling to it because in the name of holiness reveal that their concern is not holiness at all but a myopic puritanical focus on sexual sin. Keeping 'b' in our constitution is a vote in favor of keeping women out of ministry among other things - issues that are farm more important than who is sleeping with whom.
excuse me *far* more important. Not *farm* more important. No offense intended to the agricultural community.
Thanks, Aric.
My wife tells me its what I'm really good for.
Others disagree.
Aric,
I do believe you are the first person, at least that I have heard, suggest that G-6.0106b will keep women out of the ministry except of course if they are practicing lesbians.
It seems to me that this part "Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness." qualifies the last part. "Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament." And now with the ruling of our top court I would think that G-6.0106b is totally clarified.
Viola wrote “But you are actually making a joke out of the attempt to keep the Church pure.”
“Reformers who are obsessed with purity and cannot see that their obsession is impure.”
E. M. Forster
Aric,
That analysis was too clever by half.
What it really shows is that the PCUSA needs to have one confession it can get behind entirely, with anything else being for information only. Even if it's one of the ancient creeds, that would work (I'd suggest the Nicene with filioque and anathemas removed).
But to ask someone to actually be accountable for believing in a personal God - and that Jesus is somehow that personal God in the flesh? MH GENOITA!
Well John I do believe I am in good company. And I would rather be in the company of saints past and present then E. M. Forster.
Chris,
Amen brother. I can totally and without any reservations agree to that suggestion (right down to the removal of the filioque and anathemas). It would solve a lot of dilemmas in our church and help us refocus our energies.
Viola,
B certainly is clear about excluding homosexuals from ordination, but it is equally clear that anything which the confessions call sin is prohibited to ministers. That 'b' hasn't been used this way is evidence of our own hypocrisy and not that the law doesn't say what it says.
It is ironic, to say the least, to find myself in the position of pointing out the plain sense meaning of a text in this crowd.
Post a Comment