November 29, 2020 Faith Romans 3:21-27

            A certain preacher was preaching mightily about the need to trust the Lord.  “The good Lord is going to take care of us,” he said.  As he lifted his arms, however, his coat parted and the congregation noticed a pistol tucked into his pants.  After the service one of his members said, “Preacher, I thought you told us we could trust the Lord.”  “Yes, brother,” he said, “you sure can.”  The member retorted, “Then why are you carrying that pistol around?”  Without missing a beat, the pastor said, “That’s to hold off the enemy until the Lord gets here.”

            I use that silly story to introduce this sermon on faith.  Faith is a word with many meanings and how you define it can have real world consequences.

            You may have heard me say before that faith is not the same as believing the historical factuality of biblical stories or intellectually accepting church doctrines.  No, faith is a relationship of trust; especially a relationship of trust with God.

That definition of faith is very much a Lutheran definition of faith.  Many major protestant denominations will define faith similarly.  However the Roman Catholic Church will tend to define faith as intellectually accepting church doctrines and biblical stories.  Neither way of defining faith is categorically right or wrong, but they are different.

A theological dictionary will say faith has two definitions.  One is the belief or mental assent to some truth, whether it be the nature of God or about the past.  The second definition is the basic orientation of the total person, which may include belief but is also about trust, confidence and loyalty.   Again, this first definition is more in line with Roman Catholic use.  The second more in line with the protestant use.

The Roman Catholic use goes back to the period of the early church in the 2^nd century.  We seldom study that time and thus we know little about it.  However, it was a time when Christianity was growing rapidly despite being a technically illegal religion.  There were many religious movements afoot at the time.  Christianity was too young, too new, to have thoroughly developed ideas of orthodoxy.  The Bible was not standardized.  There weren’t widely accepted formal creeds.  There weren’t organized gatherings of church leaders to hash out what was orthodox, and there were many outright nutty beliefs floating around.  Faith came to be strongly understood as intellectual acceptance of certain truths about God.  These early believers looked at Paul’s trio of faith, hope, and love and said that faith was a first step but as it matures it is supplemented by hope and love.

I don’t want to get lost in the technical weeds of it all.  A Roman Catholic scholar could do it all justice.  But the definition of faith depending highly on intellectual acceptance of stories and doctrines runs into very serious real-world problems.  That problem is scientific thought.

Centuries of scientific discoveries, along with critical Bible study methods, have brought into question literal biblical accuracy and the understandings of the universe held by its authors.  Very simply, the biblical authors believed the sun and moon and stars revolved around the earth and things like that.  What then do we do with biblical teachings when human intellect has since called into question their understanding of things.  The stage is set for a faith vs. science conflict; which of course, has played out many times and continues to do so.  In the midst of that conflict far too many people simply abandon faith and biblical teachings as relics left over from the ignorant past.

However, let’s not outright reject this definition of faith and say Luther and some of the other reformers got it right and the Roman Catholics have some catching up to do.  Instead let’s look at how the Bible’s own authors understand faith.

First, we have to realize that the word faith is not used consistently across the Bible.  Different writers define it differently.  I think we learn a lot by using the understanding of faith we find early in the Old Testament as our foundation. 

In the oldest Old Testament writings faith is trust or reliance upon God; God who is himself trustworthy.  This understanding of faith is cosmic and especially for its age, profound.  God stands at the center.  It is God’s initiative and God’s design that is understood to be at work in the act of creation.  God’s initiative and design then continue to be at work in the Exodus story, the covenant, and the establishment of the chosen people. 

The Hebrew word we translate as faith is, for the most part, ‘to be true,’ or solid, or firm.  Think trustworthy, reliable.

In the oldest Old Testament writings faith is not applied to humans so much as it is applied to God.  The question then is: if God is trustworthy, reliable, and true what is the correct human response to it?  In the Old Testament the answer is to live correctly according to the law revealed by God.  The end goal is the restoration of God’s purposes for creation.

For the New Testament understanding of faith we want to use Habakkuk 2:4 as a bridge.  There we have the famous verse we read earlier today, ‘the righteous shall live by faith.’  Faith, here again means trust or fidelity.  Fidelity to God is the sign of a righteous person.  God alone can be the object of trust for God alone is the creator and organizer of the universe.  It is God who creates a person, gives that person value, and who keeps that person safe and whole.

Perhaps to take this out of just theory, let’s use this example.  We may say to ourselves that we accept that God made us and gave us value.  However, how valuable would you feel (how worthwhile would you feel) if you had to live in a broken down Winnebago parked out in the woods somewhere?  Perhaps you’d do it for the deer hunting season and think it’s cool.  But how would you feel if it was your permanent residence?  Would you not feel ashamed?  Would you not feel like a failure, unable to attain success, unable to care for yourself properly?

Faithfulness – trusting in God – means that you know your value lies with God alone; God’s capacity to create value.

Faithfulness also means trusting in God’s ability to bring about your salvation.  It means to use that as a sure and certain hope for the future.  But “hope” is the word for next week.  We’ll leave that one sit for now.

Habakkuk 2:4 is a passage quoted by St. Paul in Romans 1:17 and the foundation of his understanding of faith.  Pulling various pieces of Paul’s letters together to form a cohesive understanding of faith we find that for Paul faith is not an intellectual exercise in accepting doctrines but a dynamic one.  Faith is active.  It is expressed in love.  It involves striving and increases and is an energy that is at work. 

For Paul, faith is a strength that can overcome all things and makes all sorts of hardships not only bearable, but something that can be engaged with confidence.

We’re going to come back to Paul in a minute but another definition of faith in the Bible, especially in Matthew’s gospel, must be noted.  There we have something very similar to what I started by calling a Roman Catholic understanding of faith.  At the conclusion of the story of the centurion’s slave Jesus says, “Go, be it done for you as you have believed.”  Similarly when Jesus heals two blind men he asks, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?”  Also the story of the Canaanite woman who bugs Jesus about healing her daughter give us this line, “O woman, great is your faith!  Be it done for you as you desire.”  There are other examples as well.

Muddying the water though, Matthew does conclude with the story of Jesus resurrection and ascension.  There the disciples see Jesus in person face to face.  Matthew tells us that they worshipped but also doubted.  So, while faith for Matthew does involve belief he also includes wrestling with doubt as an authentic part of faith.  In other words, in Matthew’s gospel faith is not synonymous with unquestioning belief in the supernatural.

Finally though and landing very much were the Old Testament and St. Paul do, faith is a disposition in life that trusts God and is concerned first and foremost living within the idea that God is in the center,

God has things under control,

God can be trusted,

and that God’s salvation will ultimately come about. 

Faith like this is a long-term thing.  Paul does not say faith will give you supernatural protection from calamities or hardships.  Paul does not say faith will help you to conquer all things.  Faith is living in reliance on God’s promises, using them to establish priorities and guide your actions.  Sometimes you may find yourself succeeding.  Sometimes you may feel you are failing.  Always though, faith knows God is faithful and true, and live in that powerful trust.

November 22, 2020 Pseudepigrapha 1 Cor. 10:29-11:16

            Once in a while I come across one of those bumper stickers that say, “If it ain’t King James it ain’t Bible.”  I roll my eyes and think how well intended but misguided the thought it.  It must be said though that the King James translation of the Bible in 1611 is a remarkably good piece of scholarship.  Given the limited number of manuscripts they had available to them at the time, they did very well.  However, the real problem is that people tend to worship the King James translation as divine and unfixed, when in fact it is a translation.  And more there have been any number of inaccuracies discovered since then.

            People get this notion that the Bible fell from the sky as a divine truth for all eternity.  In truth the Bible comes to us from many sources and written over many centuries.  The name itself – Bible – means library, or literary collection.  We do not interpret the Bible evenly.  We give more authority to some parts than to others.  We also recognize that some parts are just plain dated.  In Deuteronomy there are building codes for how to build a house.  That’s perfectly fine, but in those days people used the roofs as living spaces.  We don’t anymore so things like make sure you put a railing around the roof just doesn’t make sense.

            The other thing is that while the biblical text is pretty much firmly set today – using 1^st century Greek, not 16^th century English – that was not always the case.  In confirmation class we’ve looked at how texts were often merged and edited over time.  Also, some things claim to be written by people who most certainly did not write them.

            There is pretty much a scholarly consensus that everything in the Bible claiming to have been written by St. Paul was not written by St. Paul.  Yes, books like Romans, Philippians, Galatians 1^st and 2^nd Corinthians, and others were written by Paul.  Some, like 1^st and 2^nd Timothy and Titus were not, despite claiming that they were.

            It appears that as St. Paul’s writing became authoritative others also began to write in his name.  Some of it was done in good faith.  Some was not.  The point is that it happened.

            St. Paul is often considered to be a very sexist writer.  I disagree.  In Galatians 3:28 Paul writes that in faith, “there is no longer Jew nor Greek, there is no longer slave nor free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”  That attitude stays pretty consistent across all of the writings firmly believed to have been written by Paul.  However, that is not the case in some of those claiming to be written by Paul, but not.

            And then there are cases like 1 Corinthians 10-11.  These are cases where it appears as if someone has added something into the text.  This one is kind of funny which is why I chose it to get at the topic.  Let me read to you from Chapter 10 into 11:

            “²³“All things are lawful,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. ²⁴Do not seek your own advantage, but that of the other. ²⁵Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience, ²⁶for “the earth and its fullness are the Lord’s.” ²⁷If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. ²⁸But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— ²⁹I mean the other’s conscience, not your own. For why should my liberty be subject to the judgment of someone else’s conscience? ³⁰If I partake with thankfulness, why should I be denounced because of that for which I give thanks? ³¹So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. ³²Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, ³³just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, so that they may be saved.

11Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

¹⁷Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. ¹⁸For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. ¹⁹Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. ²⁰When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper….  “  (1 Corinthians 10:29-11:1, 11:17-20)

 

…and that may start to sound familiar because we read that last week. 

I’m guessing that made sense to you, or as much sense as Paul’s writings ever make.  The arguments tend to flow along.  Paul is talking about the freedom of a Christian, especially in eating, and not being bound by social conventions.  Then he goes on to talk about abuses and problems when they meet for their community meals.  That’s what we read last week.

The thing is, I skipped 15 verses in what I read!  Right in the midst of a conversation about the freedom of a Christian and an ongoing conversation about food is a 15 verse digression about women’s hairstyles in 1^st century Corinth.  Those 15 verses are considered by many to be a “textual corruption.”  That is something dropped in by a different author some time after the original text was written.  Let me read it again, and I don’t think you have to be an expert to feel the change in tone that takes place, and then a return again. 

²³“All things are lawful,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. ²⁴Do not seek your own advantage, but that of the other. ²⁵Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience, ²⁶for “the earth and its fullness are the Lord’s.” ²⁷If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. ²⁸But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— ²⁹I mean the other’s conscience, not your own. For why should my liberty be subject to the judgment of someone else’s conscience? ³⁰If I partake with thankfulness, why should I be denounced because of that for which I give thanks? ³¹So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. ³²Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, ³³just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, so that they may be saved.

11Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 

 

²I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. ³But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. ⁴Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, ⁵but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. ⁶For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. ⁷For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. ⁸Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. ⁹Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. ¹⁰For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. ¹¹Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. ¹²For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. ¹³Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? ¹⁴Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, ¹⁵but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. ¹⁶But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

 

¹⁷Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. ¹⁸For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. ¹⁹Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. ²⁰When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper.

 

            I hope that sounded absurd to you.  Again, right in the midst of a conversation about the freedom of a Christian and a conversation about food, there is an aside about hair styles!  And there’s something about men praying with hats on that is disgraceful but women must have something on their heads.  And there is the bit about women having something of authority on her head because of the angels.

            It is an outright absurd argument.

            It must be said that many scholars do think these verses are authentic to Paul and original to the letter.  Obviously I am among those who do not think so.

            For some reason, who knows why, I believe these verses were added.  Some textual corruptions throughout history – and there are many of them, not just in the Bible – are done with good intent.  Some are done in ways that go against the intent of the author.

            My whole point is that the text of scripture is not as simple and straightforward as many assume.  The Bible as we have it did not come into the form we recognize until centuries after Jesus.  Different churches had different books in their Bibles – some more, some less.

            The Bible as we have it today emerged as a consensus of Christians over several centuries. 

            Those who explore ancient copies of scriptural writings find them to be fragmentary and varied.  It is a mistake to think that the Bible in any form ever just fell from the sky.

            Now, the Bible is considered the rule and norm for faith.  Almost all Christians across the world acknowledge it to be the highest authority.  And so whether we like what the texts say, or find them offensive, or if we find them relevant or dated, or whether we believe they are authentic to their original authors or insertions by others, they are all still authoritative.

            One of my seminary professors liked to say that it is all authoritative and we have to deal with it whether we like it or not.

            No church, no matter how much they claim to follow the Bible to the letter, does so.  The Bible is a huge collection of writings.  It contradicts itself numerous times.  The newest parts of it are still over 1800 years of age, and some appear to reach back 3000 years.  All of it was written in a time and place and language vastly different from our own. 

            Most people, whether they will admit it or not, accept some parts of the Bible and reject others. 

            A different seminary professor used to say it was best to see the Bible as a target with a bullseye.  The question was what is the bullseye?  For Lutherans and many protestant churches it is the book of Romans.  For Catholics it is Matthew’s gospel.  For many evangelicals looking for the end of the world it is Revelation.

            For me, I find the Bible to be centuries of writings inspired by God that show the struggle of humanity to grasp the ungraspable.  Context and structure are highly important in interpretation.  And even those parts we don’t like we can’t chuck out.  I’ve often said that if the Bible doesn’t offend you every time you read it you aren’t reading it carefully enough.

            The Bible is not a book to cozy up to.  It is a book that will challenge and inspire and teach and shape you.

            Complex and messy as it is, it will authentically and undeniably reveal God’s love for the world and God’s grace to humanity.  It is a holy book.  It will not give you simple answers to complex problems.  It will invite you into a journey for wholeness.

            Regardless of whether you have long hair or short hair, or are bald, or have bedhead because you haven’t combed your hair this morning, or if you’re wearing a hat - or not, you are God’s beloved creation.  May God speak to you in the Bible, and through prayer and through others around you; in order to love you and shape you every day. 

November 15, 2020 Orderly Worship 1 Corinthians 11:17-26, 14:26-33, 37-40

            Why do we worship the way we do?  Where do we get the idea that worship should be something that is done all together on a Sunday morning, in a special room, in a special building called a church?  (Of course with Zoom and this pandemic we are proving those don’t have to be limits!)  Why do we set up seating the way we do?  Why do we have a sermon and music and Bible reading and prayer and sometimes communion and all that sort of stuff?

            The truthful answers to most of these things -for us- is because that’s just what we’re used to.  It’s what we’ve grown up doing, or it’s just what every other church does.  We just assume that’s the way worship should be done.

            Perhaps another question isn’t why do we worship the way we do, but why do we worship at all?  What is the purpose?

            When I was a kid I remember comparing worship services with other church-going friends.  It seemed like all Lutherans worshipped basically the same way.  And all United Methodists worshipped the same way.  And all Roman Catholics worshipped the same way.  And all UCC worshipped the same way, and so on.  It seemed like what made church denominations distinct was the way they worshipped. 

There was also comparing of worship furnishings.  Why did some churches have simple things and other churches had all sorts of elaborate worship stuff around?  Of course of great importance to kids (and adults too if they admit it) is how long does the preacher talk each week?

            Kids will also have deeper questions that adults have too, but are too shy to ask.  Things like, what kind of worship does God like the most?  Or, perhaps they think that God is happy with you if you go to worship and maybe upset with you if you don’t.  For those people going to worship means finding the church whose worship is the most lively or engaging; or perhaps what church has the best music, the most entertaining sermons; or the shortest service.

             Anyway, what is the purpose of worship?  Is it to make God happy with us?  Is your plan on judgment day to hold up a worship attendance chart and show you’ve attending the requisite percentage of services? 

And again, why do we do what we do?

            The answer to why worship is simple.  It is God’s gift to us, for our building up, for our nourishment.  It is not our gift to God.  Participating in worship should be like sitting down to a nourishing meal.  Avoiding worship then is starving yourself of nourishment.   

The answer to why we do what we do is very complicated.  Christian worship has developed over centuries.  What we do here on a Sunday morning is based on worship in the 4^th century.  That’s when Christianity went from being an illegal religion in the Roman Empire to being not only legal, but the official religion of the Roman Empire.  If you’re interested in learning how worship developed you can borrow the book Christian Liturgy by Frank Senn. 

The real question of why do we do what we do is something we should ask ourselves over and over again.  The Bible gives no real guidance for worship outside of what we read in 1^st Corinthians today.  And we can sum up that guidance easily in two questions.  Does it nurture faith?  And, is it orderly?  Orderly not meaning strict and formal, but orderly as opposed to complete chaos.

The Christians in Corinth had nothing to go on to build their worship experiences.  They were Christians who had converted from what we would call paganism.  Contrast them with Christians who had converted from Judaism – or perhaps we should call them Jews who accepted Jesus as the Son of God.  For them worship was pretty easy.  They just kept doing what they were already doing.  Many of them even worshipped in the same synagogues.  There is a second century writing called The Didache which is a manual for church order.  It is Jewish/Christian in origin and it is basically practical advice on tweaking Jewish practices to teach Christian beliefs.

Churches like the Corinthians, with non-Jewish roots, had no such blueprints.  We have no way of getting a clear picture of what their worship was like.  The Bible doesn’t say.  But looking across the New Testament we do get some hints.  Biblical scholars suggest they were gathering for these things called “love feasts”.  They were basically potluck dinners.  Wealthier people would bring more and so in a very real way help provide food for the poor.  These dinners would include communion but it wasn’t a wafer of bread and a thimble sized glass of wine.  It was significant quantities of shared bread and wine. 

They also appear to have had time for singing, teaching, and maybe more charismatic things like speaking in tongues and prophesying. 

People being people, there were all sorts of problems.  From what Paul writes to the Corinthians it appears as if some people are bringing food but not sharing.  It would be like coming to a potluck supper at church but only bringing food for your family and close friends – or having delectable that you only share with choice people while excluding others.  It also appears as if wealthy people were able to arrive earlier than poorer people.  They’d eat their fill and not leave much for those who needed it most.  And of course, with large quantities of wine around, people were getting drunk.  (The only excuse I can come up with for that is that the sermons were really long and really boring!  Actually they probably didn’t have sermons.)

There also appears to have been chaos.  With no real plan in place some people overwhelmed others with their talking, or they interrupted.  Instead of imagining people sitting in rows facing forward imagine rows of tables with food – again, like a potluck supper with no real plan or MC.  We find Paul’s overarching advice in the final verse we read, “…all things should be done decently and in order.”

God has not placed rules, regulations, and expectations upon worship.  No one form of worship is more pleasing to God than another.  The only rule is that it be done to nurture faith and help people grow.  Just as there are a variety of people we should expect there to be a variety of worship.

I think it is our loss when the only way we worship is to have a preplanned service printed in a bulletin, sit in rows facing forward, politely listen during a sermon, and then in a very solemn way receive a scrap of bread and trace of wine.  Yes, there is much to be said for that.  But it should not be our only way.

You may remember that we have experimented with many things over the years.  Our Maundy Thursday service these last several years has been more like the early Christian love feasts.  We’ve also experimented with the dinner church model during Lent.  There cooking is a part of the worship experience too.  Plus there is clean-up!  The whole point is to move worship beyond just an orderly intellectual exercise and into something truly interactive and tangible. 

What happens many Sunday mornings when there are visitors?  We try to be friendly.  We welcome them, offer any help, hope they feel at home; but for the most part there is no real interaction until coffee hour.  Contrast that with what it is to cook with someone and share a meal.  These are also valid and important ways of building Christian community through worship.

As the dean of our conference I am working with several churches on the verge of closure.  Congregations think that in order to be a viable community of faith they need to own and operate a building, have a weekly formal worship service on a Sunday morning, have a pastor there to give a decent sermon, and have everything else that goes along with it.

Again, all of these things have their place, but we are missing the richness of ways God will nurture our faith when we limit it to a formal event once a week on a Sunday morning.

It is a real struggle, but I am trying to convince congregations that they can be very vital and valid churches if they do what their faith ancestors did in the love feasts.  They could be any day of the week or time.  They wouldn’t need a pastor at each and every one.

But old ways of finding meaning are deeply entrenched.  That is simply reality.  But again, whether our church is flourishing or dying, it is our loss when we only worship in the way we do on Sunday mornings.

My prayer is that we can embrace the fulness of worship opportunities that can be made, that we be creative, experiment, and explore.  Ultimately our faith is not buildings and rituals it is the faith of Christ alive and growing in our hearts making a real impact in this world.

November 8, 2020 Sexuality/Holy Living 1 Corinthians 6:12-20

Christianity is a religion of paradoxes. It also has many “doctrines” that dare to wade into the complex and messy parts of life. One of those doctrines is original sin. I don’t want to get stuck in bog of logic around it, but simply, it grapples with the issues of whether people are by nature good or are they by nature bad. If good, then what went wrong? If bad, then what about a newborn infant incapable of consciously choosing bad? Along with all of it is God’s grace and what is required for salvation.

There have been many contradictory thoughts. Since the days of St. Augustine in the 3rd and 4th centuries, original sin and sexuality have been linked. That is generally agreed to have been a mistake, but the linking persists. The end result is that sexuality can become seen as the root of all evil. The Christian understanding of relationships, marriage, gender and more all go back to mistakes made predominately by St. Augustine.

The point today is not to dive into Augustine’s doctrine of original sin. I just start with that to remind us that when we read things like 1 Corinthians 6 we have to be careful that we do not inadvertently interpret it through Augustine’s mistakes of original sin.

When 1 Corinthians is allowed to speak on its own Paul’s more positive understanding of it all can be seen.

First though, let’s make sure we are defining terms the same way Paul did. I have to make the disclaimer that Paul is not 100% consistent in this – he even breaks the pattern in the verses we have today. Overall though, Paul uses the terms: flesh, Spirit, and body in very specific ways.

When we hear flesh we think about the material substance of our bodies. When we hear Spirit we think about some immortal soul. Many people then think that when Paul is talking about flesh and Spirit he is talking about a body/soul differentiation.

Not so! Augustine may have made a mess of original sin, but he definitely got Paul right here. And so did many Roman Catholic scholars, Luther and many reformers.

When Paul says flesh he does not mean the atoms of your body. When Paul says flesh he means that part of you that is turned away from God – that part of you that is bad, or evil. When Paul says spirit he is not talking about some immortal soul. He is talking about that part of you that is turned towards God. “Flesh” can be both material things and attitudes. “Spirit” can similarly be both material things and attitudes. Keep Paul’s flesh/spirit use in mind as I read to you from his letter to the Galatians, 5:17

“Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want… Now the works of the flesh are obvious: [and notice these are both actions and attitudes] fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these.”

Hmmm, what does all that say about how we run political campaigns?

Paul goes on, and again note that these are not soul things but both actions of the body and attitudes, “By contrast the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things.”

Now flesh/Spirit does not come up in our passage for today, but Paul’s third word does – body. For Paul “body” is not a synonym for flesh. Body is the whole of your beingness. It is the atoms that make up your skin and bones, and it is your thoughts, and it is your actions, and it is your attitudes. For Paul your body is the fullness of everything about you. Keep that in mind whenever you read Paul’s thoughts about the resurrection of the body. He does not have in mind resuscitating a corpse.

Going to our passage from 1 Corinthians 6 lets start part way through with verse 19, “Or do you not know that your body [the wholeness of your beingness] is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God…” Your body – your “youness” is a gift and creation of God and should be treated as such.

All too often people let the opinions of others tear them down. You’ve heard me say it many times before. God does not make mistakes and God does not make junk. You are God’s good creation. Period. End of story. No debate. Don’t ever let anyone treat you as anything less than beautiful.

Similarly, you need to recognize that others are also temples of God. That is really hard to do.

Last week in the day after election day I was talking to a colleague who said that she knows she has to see the face of Christ in those whose political views she finds offensive and wrong, but she just doesn’t want to. She said she’ll get there eventually but right now she’s too full of anger and rage.

It is hard – really hard – but if we ever want to be a strong nation that is united – if we ever want to even think we can claim to be God’s people – we must, must, see others as God’s temple too.

That does not mean we all have to get along. That does not mean we have to like each other. Nowhere in the Bible does it say you have to be nice to people. However, I think we can certainly agree that Paul’s list of the fruit of the Spirit – love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, are all essential to be a strong nation. Also note, that when Paul lists the gifts of the Spirit – remember we talked about them a couple weeks ago – and Paul says that the gifts of the Spirit vary from person to person, he does not say that of the fruit of the Spirit. It even comes across in his grammar. Gifts is plural. Fruit is singular. The fruit of the Spirit is expected of all.

If we take body to mean the wholeness of who we are, and that it is the temple of God, then we are in a place to understand Paul’s words about destructive sexual behavior.

Notice, Paul does not say that sexual expression is a work of the flesh. He does not categorize sex as flesh or Spirit. He expresses it in the form of body – an expression of the wholeness of being. Keeping that in mind hear his words again, “The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. Do you not know your bodies are members of Christ?”

Fornication can be a nebulous term, so he gets more specific, “Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said…” and here Paul does use the word flesh but it is a quote from Genesis 2:24. “’The two shall be one flesh.’ But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit…”

Paul’s words are stern, but he is rooting them in the very beingness of ourselves. He calls for proper appreciation of our bodies and their powers. And he wants that to be understood in terms of God’s creative and saving work. Some people picture Paul as a curmudgeon, an overly righteous taskmaster, but that is a mistake. Paul wants people to be able to celebrate who they are as God has made them to be. Paul’s writings create wholeness and confidence.

May you always rejoice in God’s work in your body – the wholeness of your being. Enjoy it. Honor it. May you see that value in yourself and in others. That can be very hard, but it is a wholly worthwhile pursuit.

November 1, 2020 All Saints Day 1 Corinthians 3, 6:1-11

(Sarcasm) As you may have heard, we have a political election coming up on Tuesday, although many of you may have already voted. And it appears as though it is a rather important one. Polls suggest there will be a major upheaval in the leadership of our nation – with the possibility that control of both the executive and legislative branches of government could swing into the hands of a different political party.

I don’t know how things will turn out. I don’t know if we will have answers by Tuesday night, which is usually the case. I don’t know if the results will be contested or not. What I do know, however, is that no matter how things turn out, the tension in our nation will not be lessened, at least not in the short term. Different perspectives on the truth – or perhaps I should say different claims of is truth – are deeply entrenched. Different perspectives have: their own schools of thought, their own leaders, their own experts, and their own news organizations.

Those differences did not develop in just the last four years. Those differences have been growing over decades. Tuesday will certainly be a major clash of differences, but it will not result in tensions being lessened; at least, again, not in the short term.

I think the passages from Paul’s writings to the Corinthians that we read today speak to our country’s situation. And reading them on All Saints Day gives them additional perspective.

Let’s go in reverse order and start with Chapter 6 and then look back at Chapter 3. In 6 Paul says to the Corinthians that he hears there are lawsuits among believers. He says this doesn’t surprise him. Perhaps someone had written to him asking for his opinion on whatever it was that was the root of these lawsuits. Whether that is the case or not, Paul’s response tells them to see things in light of the bigger picture.

The civil law situation of those days was significantly different from what we experience today. Today (well, at least if you are a white person) you can reasonably assume you will get a fair trial, that truth will prevail, and that justice will be done. (People of other races in this nation may or may not be able to make such an assumption.) However, in Paul’s day only a wealthy person would bring a lawsuit against someone else. The poor would not sue the rich. And it appears as if judgments followed wealth, not truth.

If this is the case with the Christians in Corinth then it appears as though someone wealthy believer was suing some poorer believer. The end result was likely to be that that wealthy person would win and the poor person would lose.

Notice some things about Paul’s advice. First, he does not say something overly simplistic (and stupid) like, “Can’t you all just get along?” He also does not say that they should just ignore problems and wrongs. Nowhere does Paul (or Jesus for that matter) teach that people should be doormats who let the world walk all over them. No, Paul recognizes that the situation may be serious and complex.

However Paul does not think it appropriate for Christians to use the legal system to settle their disputes. He says, “Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to decide between one believer and another…” Obviously he wants believers to be able to settle their issues by staying within the church community. That way the situation is resolved in light of Christ, and Christ’s love. Everyone is seen as a child of God and deserving of righteousness.

It is possible that when the 2nd reading was read you mind got hooked on 6:2&3, “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? …Do you not know that we are to judge angels…” Indeed those are interesting ideas, but I wouldn’t try to run too far with them. Paul is not trying to make a great theological revelation here. Quite frankly, not even the best biblical scholars know for certain what he means by that. But the point he is certainly trying to get across is that God has given people a sense of fairness, a sense of good judgment, a sense of righteousness. Those things were not to be found in the courts of the day. Therefore, followers of Christ should use those things in settling disputes.

And what happens if a dispute can’t be settled among believers? What if justice is not able to be done? Should they then go to the courts. Again, Paul says no. He writes, “In fact, to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?” Indeed, in light of eternity, what is a civil court case? It’s a triviality.

Taking a step backwards to Chapter 3 we discover why. This is more of the same line of thought that we explored last week. Last week we talked about the body of Christ having many members, with each member having an essential function none greater than another. The theme shows up repeatedly in this letter.

Keeping the idea of justice in mind, in Chapter 3 we have a very big point being made by Paul. There are many divisions within that church. Paul says, “For when one says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ and another, ‘I belong to Apollos,’ are you not merely human?”

While it is not worth pondering what Paul meant by saying we will judge angels, it is worth letting these thoughts from Paul sink in, “What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, as the Lord assigned to each.”

So, who is actually acting? Who is important? Is it Paul? No. Is it Apollos? No. Both of them are just servants. They are servants of the Lord.

The time lapse video of a bean sprouting and growing that we used as our children’s sermon today illustrates verse 6 well. Paul says, “I planted. Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.” Part of that verse gets dulled in translation. Paul planted. That’s simple past tense. Apollos watered. Again, simple past tense. God gave the growth. In English that also sounds like simple past tense. But English is ultimately a pretty clunky language. The common Greek of Paul’s day was more sophisticated. In Greek, “God gave the growth,” is imperfect tense. The best we can do in English is to say, “God was continuously giving the growth.” In other words, Paul’s act was a one-time thing. Apollo’s act was a one-time thing. God’s actions were ongoing.

Paul wants the Corinthians to know that he and Apollo were God’s servants doing God’s work, and that God continues to be doing work. God’s actions and commitment to them are ongoing. They are completely enwrapped in God’s grace.

Like many things, those are easy words to say but hard words to believe, especially if you’re in a time when nothing in life seems to be going well. They are hard words to believe when all we see around us is churches and communities of faith declining steeply. They are hard words to believe when it appears as if our country is tearing itself apart from the inside.

Remember this. Hardships and decline and turmoil are not new at all. In fact, it’s just business as usual in this world. Perhaps we Americans have become complacent in our understanding of reality. We expect things to be easy, as if we deserve to have things be easy, when in truth they have never been easy; and we are laughable fools if we think we deserve to have things be easy.

Paul’s advice to the Corinthians is not flowery sweet. He is not envisioning lives of comfort and ease. He is equipping them for a struggle – but living that struggle in faith. And living that struggle in light of eternity.

With an election in progress that will wrap up two days from now the final words from 1 Corinthians 3 seem especially appropriate.

“So let no one boast about human leaders. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future – all belong to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.”