I Corinthians

Scriptural Sermons

New Testament: I Corinthians

By Rebecca Clancy May 16, 2022
“Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” Paul’s right about one thing. God has made foolish the wisdom of the world. Put another way, there’s no such thing as the wisdom of the world. The wisdom of the world is then an oxymoron. How about the wisdom of the world that youth and beauty are to be prized and pursued at all costs? Really? Then why is it that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, “had no form or majesty that we should look at him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him?” Or how about the wisdom of the world that wealth proclaims status and worth? Really? Then why is it that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was born in a stable and was buried in a borrowed tomb? Or how about the wisdom of the world to look out for number one? Really? Then why is it that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, “gave himself up for us as….a sacrifice to God.” The lesson here, obviously, is that we should not accept the wisdom of the world as the gospel truth. Just the opposite, we should be suspicious of it. We should question it, assess it, judge it, and, by and large, reject it. Nowhere is this more true than with regard to the wisdom of the world that responsibility is a bad thing. “Responsibility? The less of it the better!” This is what the wisdom of the world would have us believe -- that responsibility is for chumps and drudges, and the cleverest among us have escaped it. They are sipping margaritas from dawn till dusk on a tropical beach without a care in the world. God has definitely made foolish this wisdom of the world...at least according to the Word of God. There are certain things that the Bible consistently condemns. One is hypocrisy. Another is hardness of heart. And another is complacency -- complacency -- being excessively at ease. If you think about it, complacency is the opposite of responsibility. Consider this morning’s Old Testament lesson. The prophet Amos was addressing himself to a society just like ours -- a prosperous society that was afflicted by social injustice. In Amos’ day, as in ours, there were the haves, and there were the have nots. The have nots were defenseless, resourceless, and vulnerable, so they fell prey to social injustice. For example, in Amos’s day there was an institution called debtor prison. If the have nots found themselves in debt, which was often, their debtors could march them to debtor prison. The jailer would pay off their debt, and the have nots would then work off their debt to the jailer in debtor prison. Naturally such an institution was in no way regulated, so abuse was prevalent and egregious. For the smallest of debts, the present day equivalent of a few dollars, the have nots would remain in prison for years, in conditions you don’t want to hear about; but you could say that debtor prison made Alcatraz look like the Four Seasons. Often whole families were incarcerated. If this isn’t social injustice, then I don’t know what is. And what was the response of the haves? They had no response. They passed the debtor prison day by day on the way to shops or social events. So they knew it was there. Still, they had no response. This is because they were complacent. In Amos’ words, “they lounged on beds of ivory, sang idle songs on their harps, anointed themselves with the finest oils, and drank wine from bowls.” They took no responsibility for debtor prison or anything else for that matter. Amos blasted them for it as only Amos could. No, the Bible doesn’t think much of complacency. It thinks much of responsibility. It’s heroes evince as much. God called to Abraham and told him to leave his country and his kindred and his father’s house and venture to a new land. What if Abraham had said no; said that he was at ease in his country and kindred and father’s house? But instead, Abraham took responsibility. He ventured to a new land. God called to Moses and told him to leave off his life in Midian and return to Egypt to rescue his fellow Israelites from slavery. What if Moses said no, that he was at ease in his life in Midian? But instead, Moses took responsibility. He returned to Egypt and rescued his fellow Israelites from slavery. God called to David and told him to leave behind his flocks and to forge the nation of Israel. What if David said no, that he was at ease following his flocks? But instead, David took responsibility. He forged the nation of Israel, forged its capitol Jerusalem to boot. Where would we be if the Bible’s heroes evinced complacency instead of responsibility? I am not sure, but it would not be a good place. I don’t even want to think about it. We could even remove these considerations from the Bible entirely. Where would be if surgeons did not take the responsibility to acquire and execute highly sophisticated skills in order to save lives? Where would we be if the military and police did not take the responsibility to keep us safe? Where would we be if explorers of all kinds did not take the responsibility to broaden our horizons? Again, I am not sure, but it would not be a good place. I don’t even want to think about it. What good there is in our society has been through people who have taken responsibility. And beyond that, responsibility is good too for the individuals who take it. This is because it is through responsibility that individuals find the meaning they do in life. This is as true as a mathematical equation. Say you take the responsibility to care for an elderly parent. The meaning you find in life will correlate to that. Say you take the responsibility to rescue or advocate for animals. The meaning you find in life will correlate to that. Say you take the responsibility to agitate for social improvement and progress. The meaning you find in life will correlate to that. Responsibility and meaning. The two go hand and hand. And another thing is true. The more responsibility you take, the more meaning you will find. That too is simple math. But returning to the Bible, one more thing is true. If you take divine responsibility, you will find divine meaning. That brings us to Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He assumed the most divine responsibility and found the most divine meaning, for he assumed divine responsibility for human sin and found divine meaning in human redemption. With him as our guide let us forswear the wisdom of the world, and embrace responsibility. Amen.
By Rebecca Clancy April 21, 2021
Amos 6:4-7 I Corinthians 13 Matthew 5:42-48
By Rebecca Clancy August 9, 2020
Sirach 44:1-5 I Corinthians 15:12-19
By Rebecca Clancy May 20, 2020
We have all heard the old cliché that patience is a virtue, but for Christians this is more than an old cliché. For Christians this is a literal fact. Patience is indeed listed among the Christian virtues. There are seven in all – chastity, temperance, diligence, kindness, charity, humility, and patience. Patience is then something to which we as Christians must aspire if we are to be virtuous. And who among us does not want to be virtuous? But what is patience, exactly? It’s a word we banter around all the time. Be patient! we say again and again. But it's one of those words that if someone puts you on the spot and asks you to define it, you might find yourself stammering. I have given the matter some thought. Here is my own working definition. Patience means bearing or enduring something that is unpleasant in calmness, peace, and wisdom. Patience means bearing or enduring something that is unpleasant without resort to retaliation or complaint. But no sooner than we have a working definition than it becomes necessary to issue a few caveats, because there are cases in which patience is not applicable. You could say there are cases in which patience is not a virtue. Patience is not a virtue if we happen to fall victim to social injustice. This is because social injustice does not right itself by dint of some natural moral progress that is automatically unfolding. Social injustice is righted by brave, tireless, costly, conscientious action. To be patient, then, if we happen to fall victim to social injustice is simply to perpetuate our victimization. And too, patience is not a virtue in the face of evil. Evil and its foot soldiers – violence, hatred, and cruelty -- are like murderers on the rampage, causing senseless mayhem and suffering in their wake. Evil is an urgent danger that must be met with immediate counter force to stem the destruction it causes. And too, patience is not a virtue in case of abusive relationships. Dysfunctional individuals are insidious. They very often aren't known to themselves, and so they imperviously suck functional individuals into enabling their own abuse. The effect is life destroying. No, once an abusive relationship is recognized as such, timely evacuation is the necessary course. No, patience does not apply in cases such as these, in which patience is extolled as a virtue to sanction vice. But these caveats aside, let’s return to my own working definition of patience: Patience means bearing or enduring something that is unpleasant in calmness, peace, and wisdom. Patience means bearing or enduring something that is unpleasant without resort to complaint or retaliation. Now, we've seen cases where patience does not apply; but where does it apply? It applies to the unpleasantness of everyday life – the annoying relative, the long wait, the inconsiderate driver, the chronic medical condition, the incompetent clerk, the grieving process, the difficult personality, the over scheduled day, the tough transition, the road back, the hassles, the headaches these kinds of things. But just hearing this list, makes us a bit….dare I say it…impatient. How do we summon that peace, calm, and wisdom, how do we forswear complaint or retaliation? To put it simply, how do we practice patience? This is the real question. Well if the Bible is any judge, we do it by, of all things, reminders that we make to ourselves. Take a look at Moses. Think about his life for a minute. He happened to have been, as the Bible puts it, snatched like a brand from the fire. His countrymen had been enslaved by the Egyptians. In enslavement their population exploded, and they came to be seen by the Egyptians as a threat. So Pharaoh decided to thin their ranks by killing their infant sons. By a fluke Moses' mother defied Pharaoh and hid her son from Pharaoh; by a fluke Pharaoh's daughter discovered and adopted him. By a fluke then, Moses, and he alone of all his enslaved countrymen, grew up with every imaginable privilege and advantage. This allowed Moses to cultivate self- actualization. You may have heard of Maslow's pyramid. Maslow was a psychologist who believed that certain needs had to be met in order for one to cultivate self- actualization. First there were the basic needs - food and water. Then there were the safety needs - security and shelter. Then there were the social needs - family, friends and community. After that there were the needs that built self esteem like achievement and mastery. And after all these needs were met, one could cultivate self-actualization - that is to say, one could be autonomous and free, one could be creative in coordination with one's basic being. The point is - Moses was at the top of Maslow's pyramid. He had cultivated self- actualization. But his fellow countrymen were at the bottom Maslow's pyramid, struggling to get their most basic physical needs met. To put it bluntly, Moses was refined; his fellow countrymen were rabble. And because Moses was refined, the Lord chose him to deliver his fellow countrymen from Egyptian slavery. The Lord hedged his bets that Moses would succeed. He orchestrated through Moses supernatural interventions - plagues, pillars of cloud and fire, a parted sea. And so Moses delivered his fellow countrymen from Egyptian slavery. But it didn't make his fellow countrymen any less rabble. They continued to fret about their most basic physical needs - and did they ever complain about it to Moses! They had not ascended Maslow's pyramid. They did not comprehend the need for short term sacrifices for the sake of long term goals. They could not see the big picture, much less read their situation theologically. They had no self- restraint. They had no gratitude. They were out for what they could get. And the complaints kept coming. They made Moses' life unpleasant. Yet the face of it, Moses practiced patience through reminders he made to himself. “These people have known hardship that I haven't. They just aren’t there yet. If I don’t help them, who will? God is on the move. He will see me through. This is how our future as a people is being wrought.” Or take a look at Paul: Like Moses he was set apart from his people, but in his case it was not due to a series of flukes. It was due to his intellectual acumen and his personality. Due to his intellectual acumen he actually “got” the Christ event. Due to his personality - we'll call him a firebrand - he was in a position to do something about it. But the problem was that none of the other players around him recognized his personality and intellectual acumen for what they were. All the other players around him thought that they themselves "got" the Christ event. All the other players around him thought that they had the personality to do something about it. And so all the other players around him went off half-cocked, interfering with Paul's work, undermining him, contradicting him, defying him. They made Paul's life unpleasant. Yet in the face of it Paul practiced patience through reminders he made to himself. “I am a true apostle. God revealed to me the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. God sent me. My opponents don't know that they don't know. And so I can and I must become all things to all people. I must get into their head and into their hearts if I am to help them to know as I know so that Christ may be served.” So then, how do we practice patience? We do it with like reminders we make to ourselves. God is good. Life is worth living. I have heard the upward call of Jesus Christ. My life overflows with blessings. Most people on this planet would love to change places with me. I have enough to eat and a roof over my head. I live in safe environment. I have been loved. I don't know the realities that my detractors face. We are all up against our own struggles. It's not all about me. Whatever reminders work for us, we practice patience with the reminders we make to ourselves. Thus far I've said much about patience. What it is: It is bearing or enduring something that is unpleasant in calmness, peace, and wisdom. It is bearing or enduring something that is unpleasant without resort to retaliation or complaint. What it is not: It is not acquiescing to social injustice, evil, or abusive relationships. Where it applies: It applies to the day to day unpleasantness which is a permanent fixture of the human condition. How it is practiced: It is practiced by reminders that we make to ourselves. But there's one more thing, one more question. Why is patience practiced? Why is patience practiced? Brace yourselves for the answer. It’s about God’s nose. Yes, his nose. His nose was long. Pinocchio was not the only one. I confess that when I learned that I was required to master biblical Hebrew for academic degrees, I was less than thrilled. But once I actually mastered it, I discovered that reading the Old Testament in its original language is fascinating, yes, but mostly it is very surprising. One of the things that is surprising is that Hebrew idioms, figures of speech, expressions, and the like are not translated into English. Translators have concluded that they would stymie the English reader. So for example, if the Hebrew read, "he kicked the bucket," it would be translated simply, "he died." One of the most famous quotes from the Bible is from the book of Exodus. You all know it, "The Lord, the compassionate and gracious God is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love." "God is slow to anger" in Hebrew really reads, "God is long of nose." Now we read about the arm of the Lord, the Lord's right hand, the face of the Lord, but God's long nose? But in fact God's long nose is an idiom for God's patience. This famous quote gives expression to one of God's central attributes, and one of God's central attributes is patience. So why do we practice patience? Because God practices patience with us. He practices patience with us to the extent that in the fullness of time he gave us his own beloved son, even let us have our hateful way with him, so that in the wake of our hatred, we would stand the chance to become more like him. God practices patience with us. May we practice patience with one another. Amen.
By Rebecca Clancy May 18, 2020
We all carry within us deeply embedded memories of our childhood, though many of them would never be unearthed save for some reminder. For me, my sister Rachel serves as that reminder. Somehow, she manages to keep memories of what seems our entire childhood at all times at instant recall. When I last visited her, I too revisited my childhood when she asked, “Remember weekends at Grandmas’s?” In my childhood, my parents, once a month, would drop the four of us - Rachel, my brothers, and me, off at Grandma’s on Friday afternoon and pick us up on Sunday evening. My parents always told us as we drove to Grandma’s how terribly they’d miss us, and how difficult it was for them to share us with Grandma, but how lonely poor old Grandma was and how forwards she looked to our visits. Now that I have children of my own, I see my parents for the adroit manipulators that they were. These protests of theirs were merely their way of conditioning us against any possible threat to what was for them a very sweet deal. One weekend a month to themselves? I bet they drove off every month as giddy as fools. At any rate, the instant my sister mentioned weekends at Grandma’s we both went to the exact same place. “The early bird catches the worm,” I said. “The grass is always greener on the other side. Slow and steady winds the race,” Rachel joined in. “A poor craftsman blames his tools. Never put off to tomorrow what you can do today. A penny saved is a penny earned.” It was over to me. “Not to oversee workmen is to leave them your purse open,” I said, digging deep. “Fish and visitors stink after three days. Plow deep while sluggards sleep and you will have corn to sell and to keep.” Yes, Grandma was filled with wisdom. She had wisdom for every occasion and contingency. And she imparted it with such judgment and authority that I believed it all very important and strove to commit every word to memory. But then, one Sunday evening when I couldn’t have been much older than eleven, something occurred that made begin to think that there was something fishy about Grandma’s wisdom. We were at Sunday dinner. I was feasting on what at that time was my favorite meal - bread, butter, and cream corn sandwiches. As I reached for the bread to make my third sandwich, Grandma put her hand on my arm and said, “In all things, moderation.” But then moments later as she sliced herself her second piece of pecan pie, she said, “You only live once!” After that, I was en guarde for further inconsistencies. I didn’t have to wait long. After dinner that very night we were watching an episode of “The Wonderful World of Disney,” in which a backwoodsman, who, for being an eccentric loner, was reviled by the local townsfolk, until he rescued a cat and her kittens for a burning barn. “Never judge a book by its cover,” she pronounced when the show ended. But what my father arrived to pick us up wearing, as he did to the day of his death, desert boots, she said to him peevishly, “You can judge a man by the shine on his shows.” I determined then and there that I would challenge Grandma on these inconsistencies. The next visit gave me my opportunity. I was setting up for a croquet tournament with Rachel. I rarely beat her but had been working on skills. “I hope I win,” I said to Grandma. “He that lives on hope dies fasting,” she said. “Hope springs eternal in the human heart,” I retorted. " Respect your elders!" She rebuked me, and in such a scandalized and scathing tone that my blood ran cold. My mortification forbade any future challenges, but it didn’t change my privately held opinion that Grand’s wisdom was not very wise. I thereafter developed an intolerance for wisdom. Whenever I heard it spoken, I judged the speaker a hypocrite. An overreaction, I suppose, but my youth was my period of righteous indignation, and based upon my experience of wisdom, I had reached the conclusion that it was nothing more than authority cited in the advancement of self-interest. My intolerance for wisdom waned thorough the years as I came to realize that it hadn’t been wisdom itself that was at fault, but rather Grandma’s misappropriation of it. But lately I've been thinking that there was some truth to my original conclusion that wisdom is nothing more than authority cited in the advancement of self-interest. Think of what passes for wisdom in today’s world. “Look out for number one.” “Nice guys finish last.” “Whatever floats your boat.” Today’s world doesn’t even trouble to mask its self-interest as Grandma did. Today's world shamelessly and brazenly proclaims that self-interest is the beginning of wisdom. And so wisdom, it must be concluded, is at least predisposed or pone or vulnerable to manipulation by self-interest. And so, if wisdom is not trustworthy as wisdom, what value has it? Fortunately, the Bible sheds some light on the issue, as it does on all issues. In fact it spreads some bright light, for wisdom is nothing new. It is in fact very ancient. It predates, in fact, the Old Testament period. There was wisdom in Egypt before the people of Israel were enslaved there. There was wisdom in Canaan before the people of Israel invaded and conquered it. This reflects, I suppose, the perennial human tendency to draw conclusions, often proverbially, from observation and experience. And so the Old Testament writers, because wisdom was around, encountered wisdom and made determinations about it. Wisdom, thy determined, - this human tendency to draw proverbial conclusion form observation and experience - is good. It is, in fact, beyond good. It is a positive obligation and responsibility. Recall this morning’s Old Testament lesson’s admonition against ignorance, “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?” But the Old Testament writers insisted that the sine qua non of wisdom, its indispensable prior, its interpretive axis, was “Fear of the Lord” – awe of the Lord, respect for the Lord, reverence toward the Lord, and yes, just as it sounds, fear of the Lord as he has revealed himself though his law and precepts. And as the Old Testament gives way to the New, ever brighter light is shed on the issue. For as the Apostle Paul writes in this morning’s epistle lesson, the wisdom of God – which is deemed foolish by the wisdom of the word, but which, in truth deems foolish the wisdom of the world – is revealed in the cross of Jesus Christ, that cross on which the one unself-interested man ever to have lived, sacrificed himself that we may be reconciled through him to God and one another. Fear of the Lord then, as the beginning of wisdom, gives way in the New Testament, to the cross of Jesus Christ as the beginning of wisdom. And so this is the way that the Christian deals with the issue of wisdom, particularly the self-interested wisdom of today’s world. When today's world declares, “Look out for number one,” the Christian may declare, “Love your neighbor as yourself,.” When today’s world declares, “Nice guys finish last, “ the Christian may declare, “Blessed are the meek, Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. Blessed are the merciful. Blessed are the pure in heart. Blessed are the peacemakers. And blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake." When today’s world declares,”Whatever floats your boat,” the Christian may declare, “Not in reveling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness…but put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh, to satisfy its desires." We, as Christian, are yet called to wisdom, to draw conclusions from observation and experience, and we have been given all we nee d to be assured that wisdom is indeed wisdom, "Christ Jesus who became for us the wisdom of God. Amen.
By Rebecca Clancy May 18, 2020
There are many proponents around these days of “Family Values.” And at first blush these proponents would seem to have a benign enough agenda. Proponents of “Family Values” would seem at least to be proponents of the sanctity of the family. The sanctity of the family. Could there be a more benign agenda than that? But in fact, “Family Values” is a loaded expression, as the Bible would call a shibboleth. Proponents of “Family Values” are proponents of the sanctity of the family, true enough, but the sanctity of only a certain kind of family -- the “traditional” family, as they refer to it. The “traditional” family, as they understand it, is about what you’d expect – a mom, a dad, and two or three children with straight teeth. Proponents of “Family Values” believe in the sanctity of the “traditional” family because they believe the traditional family is the basis for moral society. Conversely, proponents of family values believe that the “non-traditional” family is a threat to moral society. And the strange thing about all this is that they use the Bible as support for their position. And so let us examine the biblical family for what evidence it may yield that the traditional family is the basis for moral society. We may as well begin at the beginning, with Adam and Eve and their sons Cain and Abel. A mom, a dad, and two kids – O.K. so far, a nice traditional family, assuming Cain and Abel have straight teeth. But the family of Adam and Eve, in fact, gives testimony to the fact that the traditional family is not necessarily the basis for moral society. Adam and Eve, after all, through their disobedience occasioned nothing less than the fall of humankind, some time after which Cain murdered his brother Abel in cold blood. The first biblical family in fact, though traditional, would appear to be the basis for immoral society. Well then, what about the second biblical family, the family of Noah? Again, a nice traditional family -- a mom, a dad, and three sons this time -- Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Noah was, as the Bible states it, “a righteous man, blameless in his generation.” This in fact is why he was preserved from the flood. He wasn’t disobedient, like his forebear Adam. The Lord told him to build an ark, and he built an ark. The Lord told him to bring animals on board two by two, and he brought the animals on board two by two. But after the flood, Noah’s run of righteousness and blamelessness ended. Maybe it was all that family time on the ark, but after he disembarked, he planted a vineyard and got drunk off the fruit of the vine. Poor Ham stumbled upon his father naked and unconscious, and when Noah learned of it he took it out on Ham’s son. He cursed his own grandson, declared that his descendants would all be slaves. Another biblical family that, though traditional, would appear to be the basis for immoral society. Then comes the family of Abraham. Unfortunately, the family of Abraham starts off at a disadvantage, because it is not a traditional family. To be sure, there’s a mom and a dad, Abraham and Sarah, but then there’s an extra mom Hagar. And not in succession either; Abraham was a polygamist. He had the two sons, but that does little to override the polygamy piece. No doubt about it, the family of Abraham was a non-traditional family. And the family of Abraham give testimony to the fact that the non- traditional family is not necessarily the basis for moral society either. Abraham’s wife Sarah got jealous of her rival Hagar and banished her and her son into the dessert where she hoped they would die of thirst. Add to this that Abraham nearly slit his son’s throat. The non-traditional family too would appear to be the basis for immoral society. And if, in the interest of time, we skip a generation and jump ahead to the family Abraham’s grandson Jacob, we discover that the apple did not fall far from the tree— The family of Jacob was another non-traditional family that would appear to be the basis for immoral society. Jacob too was a polygamist. He married a sister set, Rachel and Leah, and then took their maids Bilhah and Zilpah as his concubines. And lest we lay all the blame on Jacob for this arrangement, the women were in full collusion. They didn’t care a fig about being one of four wives. All they cared about is getting a shot at Jacob so they could compete with one another as to who could produce the most sons. Recall this morning’s Old Testament lesson. Leah’s son Reuben found some mandrakes in the fields. Mandrakes were thought to induce fertility. So Rachel traded Leah her mandrakes for a night with Jacob who was temporarily in her custody. “…then he may lie with you tonight for your son’s mandrakes,” she bargained. Maybe if we jump ahead a little further we could find the evidence we seek that the traditional family is the basis for moral society. What about David? Unfortunately, David is the worst of them all all. Definitely a non-traditional family -- at least 10 wives -- and innumerable concubines. King’s harems were huge. David’s son Solomon’s had 1,000 women in it. And again we discover a non-traditional family that would appear to be the basis for immoral society. David impregnated a woman not of his harem, a married woman to boot, then murdered her husband to legitimate his child. And the Bible reports over and over again that David was a downright bad father – weak, indulgent, and inattentive. One of his sons raped his own sister, and another of his sons, because David refused to discipline him for it, avenged the rape by his murder. He was so embittered that he was driven to do what his father refused to that he rebelled against his father and brought the nation to war. And then there is that biblical feature that never fails to raise eyebrows, even the eyebrows of progressives – the so-called Leverite marriage. If a woman’s husband died, her husband’s brother, without benefit of formal marriage, was obligated to inseminate her so that she could produce children. This is so non-traditional as to border on repugnant. What did the children call their father, Uncle Dad? But enough of the Old Testament. Maybe the evidence we seek that the traditional family is the basis for moral society is to be found in the New. We can’t exactly appeal to Jesus’ family though, because his family was unique. His father was, quite literally, out of this world. And when Jesus grew up, he had no family of his own. As he declared in this morning’s gospel lesson, “….there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” That was his way of saying that because of his messianic destiny to die, he chose to remain celibate. So what then about the apostle Paul? In this morning’s epistle lesson, he counsels Christians against marriage. Only if they do not have their desire under control should they relent and marry, because marriage is preferable to fornication. This is not exactly evidence that the traditional family is the basis for moral society. Paul would seem to be suggesting that the basis for moral society is unmarried celibates. And when Paul does in another of his epistles describe the traditional family as he understands it, he states that women must be subject to their husbands and slaves to their masters. This model of traditional family advances the subordination and domestication of women and the legitimacy of slavery. Few to none in this day and age would offer this type of traditional family as the basis for moral society. I think it’s safe to conclude that proponents of family values must look elsewhere than the Bible for support that the traditional family is basis for moral society. For one thing, the traditional family as they conceive it is not privileged as such in the Bible. For another, where it exists it is not equated with moral society. The Bible depicts all different kinds of families that were peculiar to its day, just as there are all different kinds of families peculiar to our day. And the Bible would appear to be saying that none has cornered the market on righteousness. So maybe we too should refrain from equating the traditional family with moral society. There’s certainly no biblical evidence on which to do so. And too, it only serves to stigmatize nontraditional families -- to make them feel inadequate or inferior or ostracized. And why add to their burden? Why add to the burden of anyone for that matter? That’s not what Christians are called to do. It’s much better, I think, to recognize and affirm that just about anyone can make up a family. So long as there’s one key thing: Love, love and all that cascades from it: respect, commitment, acceptance, encouragement, forbearance, affection, sacrifice. My sense, anyway, is that if we want to equate the family with moral society, it’s not about traditional families over against non-tradition families. It’s about loving families. It’s nothing more than Christ taught us: In all respects, love is the basis for morality. Amen.
Share by: