How Jesus Opposed the Fundamentalists

 

Our struggle against fundamentalism within our own churches and within our own families needs all the help we can get from Jesus. Let’s explore this.

Did Jesus Experience Fundamentalism?

When the Gospels are explored, it is clear that homosexuality and same-sex marriages do not show up as pressing issues in the world of Jesus of Nazareth. However, what one does discover is that Jesus did confront Jewish fundamentalists during the period when he moved through the towns of Galilee and preached in their synagogues. Here is the first instance:

2:23 One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.2:24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 2:25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? 2:26 He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.” 2:27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath;2:28 so the Son of Man[i] is lord even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:23-28)

The setting here is that Jesus and his disciples are passing through grainfields as they go from one town to another (Mark 1:38-39). On the way, his disciples are hungry. They take the tassels of the wheat and rub them between their hands to remove the outer covering and eat the grains. I have done this myself from time to time. The grains are rather tasteless, but they do provide enough nourishment to at least take the edge off of my hunger. According to the traditions of the time, anyone was permitted to do this at the edge of a farmer’s field but they must not enter into the field (stomping down the stalks of grain as they go).

The Pharisees here are the Jewish fundamentalists that Jesus encountered. Notice that their complaint is directed toward Jesus and not toward the disciples themselves. They clearly regard Jesus as responsible for training his disciples; hence, the critique of the disciples is actually a complaint against Jesus that he has not trained them properly.

They probably expect that Jesus will rein them in. But he doesn’t. Rather, he turns his attention to the Pharisees and tries to win them over to his point of view. In brief, he engages them in dialogue. To do this, he cites the case of David and his companions who are fleeing the wrath of King Saul and take the liberty to raid the loaves in the temple reserved for the priests. This is an excellent teaching moment.

The Pharisees, in this instance, would hardly be inclined to support the claim of the priests; rather, Jesus would expect them to grant David the right (given the circumstances) to take (not to be given) the temple loaves to satisfy his hunger and the hunger of his companions. Jesus deliberately chooses this test case because David (who is not yet the king) here breaks the law to satisfy his hunger. But this is exactly what the disciples of Jesus are doing: they are breaking the law of the Sabbath in order to satisfy their hunger.

Fundamentalists don’t know how to make exceptions. They don’t make exceptions for themselves, and they are quick to bring others in line so that they don’t make exceptions either.[ii] They are sticklers for maintaining the letter of the law, which, for them appears black and white.

The Mosaic Law (Torah), by the way, specifically says that “harvesting” is not permitted on the Sabbath. Taking a dozen handfuls of grain can hardly be equated with harvesting. But Jesus doesn’t want to quibble with them as to how many handfuls a man can take and eat before it becomes “harvesting.” In other words, Jesus doesn’t want to get bogged down in the convoluted logic of the Pharisees. Rather, he wants to lift them out of their familiar mindset and to teach them that David took the liberty to break the law and that it follows, as night follows day, that every Jew has the right to break the law when their personal circumstances merit an exception.

How Jesus Opposed the Jewish Taliban

Same here with Jesus. He is not pestering the Pharisees to practice what he practices; rather, he is trying to stop them from imposing their thinking on everyone else. This is what fundamentalist love to do. They persuade themselves that they have “God’s absolute point of view” and that their mission is to bring everyone else into line “with their God.” In so doing, they become the Catholic Taliban and justify their “moral terrorism” as somehow required by God himself. This is why, as shown above, Pope Francis calls them “godless.”

Do the Phaisees stop pestering Jesus and concede that the disciples do have sufficient cause to override the Sabbath? We don’t know, but probably not. In any case, the Evangelists do not tell us. But the Evangelists do go on to tell us that Jesus put forward a general norm: “The Sabbath was made for [the benefit of] humankind, not humankind [made] for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27 and par.). Thus, Jesus takes the stand that “the day of rest” was designed by God as a blessing to relieve exhaustion from the six days of work. In Gen 1, even God shows himself as resting follow the exertions of the six days of creation. Thus, according to this, God learned from his own experience how a day of rest could be beneficial. Hence, according to Jesus, every Jew was invited to free themselves of a wooden conformity with Sabbath regulations, especially when the welfare of suffering individuals was at stake.

This has a bearing on our topic of homosexuality. How is it that Evangelical Fundamentalists are so quick to gather up texts condemning homosexual sex when they so easily dispense themselves from the Law of Moses that condemns anyone failing to keep the Sabbath rest with death by stoning (Exod 31:14, 35:3; Deut 5:13; Nehemiah 13:15-21)? Or, to take up again the argument of Matthew Vines: How can Evangelical Fundamentalists turn to those on their right hand and preach the good news of the Gospel to heterosexuals saying, “God solemnly promises you companionship and sexual intimacy when he says, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him’”(Gen 2:18) and, then, to turn to their left and say to the homosexuals, “None of this applies to you. God blocks his ears to your cries of loneliness, and he makes no provision for any sexual intimacy to gladden your hearts. You will go into your twilight years utterly alone and no one will care for you as you take you final breath”? And if Jesus acted outside of the letter of the Mosaic Law when he was moved by compassion for the man with the withered arm and moved by compassion for his disciples stricken by hunger, would not this same Jesus rush to act outside of the Christian Code of Ethics in order to bring a speedy relief to those homosexuals pleading to have Christians recognize the legitimacy of their love and their desire for marriage? And should not the churches be the first (rather than the last) to recognize that God created the blessings of marriage for both the heterosexual and the homosexual alike?

Then another case of Sabbath fundamentalism is introduced:

3:1 Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand.3:2 They watched him to see whether he would cure him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him.3:3 And he said to the man who had the withered hand, “Come forward.” 3:4 Then he said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent.3:5 He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.3:6 The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.3:7 Jesus departed with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed him. (Mark 3:1-7)

In the earlier case, Mark makes it clear that Jesus was not accused for violating the Sabbath. Only his disciples were accused. In this second case, Jesus stands alone as the healer and he alone is accused. This narrative presupposes that Jesus has already gained the reputation as a healer (Mark 1:39-2:12) and that his enemies acknowledged his power to heal but attributed it to Beelzebub (Mark 3:22). At one point, Jesus uses the metaphor of “the physician” to describe his work (Mark 2:17). It cannot be that “magic words” are used, since Jews distrusted magic and a magical healing would not constitute “work.” The presumption of Jesus’ accusers here must be that healing involved some manipulation of the arm or hand as a physician would do. Likewise, the term “withered” does not have to imply a congenital deformity because the term “restored” implies that the hand was useless and Jesus restored its use.[iii] Jerome, for instance, thought that the man was a mason who suffered an injury that put him out of work. Jesus restored his hand and restored his livelihood as well. It must also be noticed that if the restoration were very dramatic (bone and flesh are suddenly or gradually entirely transformed), the sheer power of the transformation would have caused awe and fear in Jesus’ enemies because they would know that he could afflict a man just as well as heal a man. So the fact that they do not back away or shudder with amazement also indicates that Mark does not think of this event as frightening. The issue, after all, is whether Jesus would heal on the Sabbath.

Notice also that the healing in this narrative is not endangering the life of the man. Everyone would recognize the legitimacy for life-saving remedies on the Sabbath. In this case, therefore, Jesus uses this as a teaching lesson for the Pharisees. The issue is not that of doing a “miracle,” since even a miracle would be presumed to be done with God’s power and God is surely the Lord of the Sabbath. The words of Jesus as well make this clear: “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?” Jesus is on target, here, when he gives them a black and white question. Do good or do evil? Save a life or destroy a life? If they say, the former, then Jesus has their approval and can go ahead without any fear that he and his adversaries are on the same page? If they choose the latter terms, then Jesus has them over the barrel because they will be unable to justify their choice from the Scriptures and will look silly in the minds of the people. So they are sullenly silent.

He looked around at them with anger (Mark 3:5). Most Christians only think of Jesus as flaring up in anger only when he drives the money-changers from the temple. But here he is livid with anger. Surely there is a message here for Pope Francis and his supporters who are menaced by Cardinal Burke and his Taliban supporters.

In sum, Jesus deliberately heals a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath and defends his disciples for picking grain and satisfying their hunger on the Sabbath. He turns on his critics by questioning them sternly: “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do well or to do harm?” (Mark 3:4 and par.) and again “Have you never read what David did when we was in need and was hungry?” (Mark 2:25 and par.). In the end, he entirely dismisses the notion of “true religion” held by the Sabbath fundamentalists. They imagine that they are defending God’s honor by ramrodding Sabbath rules that tolerate no exceptions down the throats of the weak and the suffering.

The Jewish Taliban Was Paralyzed by Jesus

Jesus turns on his critics by questioning them sternly: “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm?” (Mark 3:4 and par.) and again “Have you never read what David did when we was in need and was hungry?” (Mark 2:25 and par.). In the end, he entirely dismisses the notion of “true religion” embraced by his critics. He ends up saying to them, “The Sabbath was made for [the benefit of] humankind, not humankind [made] for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27 and par.). Thus, Jesus takes the stand that “the day of rest” was designed by God as a blessing to relieve exhaustion from the six days of work. In Gen 1, God shows himself as resting follow the exertions of the six days of creation. Thus, according to this, God learned from his own experience how a day of rest could be beneficial. Hence, according to Jesus, every Jew was invited to rid themselves of a wooden conformity with Sabbath regulations especially when the welfare of suffering individuals was at stake.

What Does Pope Francis Think About Fundamentalists?

Pope Francis understands the corrosive effects of fundamentalism. He knows full well that it has infected the Catholic Church and that it subverts true religion and causes tremendous suffering[vii] whenever it shows its ugly head. Let Pope Francis speaks for himself:

So some may ask, “Pope Francis is the pope. Why isn’t he fixing this?” If one of the reporters had asked this question, Francis would have probably replied:

I’m doing what I can. But I’m not a Superman that can see and hear the evil being done by fundamentalist in ever diocese in the world and then rush faster than a speeding bullet to provide a papal remedy. So that’s why I said a moment ago ‘We have to combat it.’ Be fearless!

Pope Francis is recruiting you and I to challenge this menace[viii] wherever it shows up in our part of the world.

Those who want to interact with this blog are invited to “Leave a Reply” below.  A solid way to begin doing this is to offer “readback lines.”  To do this, quickly glace back over the entire blog and pick out the one or two lines that have made a deep impression upon you.  Copy them [CTRL-C] and then paste them [CTRL-V] into an empty comment box below.  If you wish, signal the emotion that you feel when reading your readback lines.  The primary emotions are anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, surprise.   No need to further explain yourself.  It is enough to identify the text important to you and to name the emotion(s) that it evokes.  All of this normally takes less than a few minutes.

I and others will “thank you” for your contribution.  If you are tempted to say more, I urge you to hold back.  Your sense of safety and the safety of others is best protected by not getting overly wordy in the beginning.  This will come after a few days or weeks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Endnotes and Leave a Reply~~~~~~~~

[i] Some commentators take Mark 2:28 to be an assertion of Jesus’ authority to act like God, who is the Lord of the Sabbath. “To claim then to be Lord of the Sabbath was essentially to claim to be God.” This appears to me to be a mistaken understanding. Jesus is not pulling rank; rather, he is saying that everyone (his disciples and David included) has the right to judge (as a lord) when exceptional circumstances warrant setting aside the normal rules for “the day of rest.” Far from asserting his own authority, Jesus is affirming the right of his disciples (and of David) to judge such matters for themselves without any need to “get permission” from the Pharisees or from the priests. Notice, too, that David did not ask permission to take the special loaves reserved for the priests even though they were everywhere in the temple.

Scholars have noticed that the “son of man” sayings in the Gospels go in two directions. At times Jesus uses “son of man” as an oblique reference to himself (e.g., Mark 2:10, 8:31, 9:9, 9:31). At other times, Jesus clearly used “son of man” to refer to a heavenly being who will come in the end time to gather the elect and to judge the living and the dead (Mark 8:38, 13:26, 14:62). The Book of Enoch and Dan 7 specifically support this latter use of “Son of Man.”

Mark 2:28 doesn’t harmonize easily in either of these two directions. Mark 2:27 says, in effect, that ‘the Sabbath was made to serve humankind, and not humankind made to serve the Sabbath.’ Jesus, after all, is supporting the right of his disciples to decide for themselves whether they are permitted to take the edge off their hunger on the Sabbath. They don’t ask anyone for permission. They don’t even ask Jesus. Hence, Mark 2:28 has the sense of meaning ‘it therefore follows that everyone [every ‘son of a man’] has authority to decide how to keep the Sabbath.’ The Pharisees might have been inclined to accept such a judgment because they believed that every Jew had the right to learn to read and to interpret the Torah for themselves.

[ii] It is not exactly right to say they make no exceptions. Taking the case of tubal ligations, we saw how Kukla (following the teaching of the Vatican) allows it in some well-defined circumstances. So far so good. The menace of fundamentalism is that it apparently gives men like Kukla the right to decide what circumstances are allowed and which are not. They then adjust their definitions and their logic to permit just these and nothing else. The menace of fundamentalism is that Kukla now believes that he must guide every Catholic to use his definitions and his logic. When you check online, you will find a woman asking him whether she can have sexual relations with her husband if her reasons for getting a tubal ligation were immoral. “This greatly concerns me!” she says. What is going on here? Kukla is promoting this woman’s entry into a destructive fundamentalism. “Think like me and you will be saved,” says Kukla. Can you imagine the suffering that would be inflicted on her husband if this women would decide that his operation was a “permanent contraceptive” that required of her that she never make love to him again until the operation was reversed? Jesus says, “They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them” (Matt 23:4). To understand Pope Francis in a case such as this, see n. 111.

[iii] Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 153.

[iv] See full text at http://prolife365.com/porn-viewing/

[v] Used twice: http://prolife365.com/those-awaiting-the-synod-to-redefine-the-churchs-dogmatic-teachings-on-marriage-will-be-greatly-disappointed/ and http://prolife365.com/problems-with-gay-marriage/

[vi] Thomas Aquinas makes the point that anger is the passion that naturally arises when justice is being denied. “Far from being a sin, ira [Latin: anger] is a positive good when directed by reason” (II-II. 158. 8 ad 2). Thus, some theologians argue that “not being angry at times may, given the circumstances, constitute a sin” (Robert Miner, “Thomas Aquinas on the Passions: A Study of Summa Theologiae, 1a2ae 22-48,” p. 286).

[vii] Karen Doherty, an organizer of the Conference of Catholic Lesbians, tells her own personal story of the meeting that she had in 1984 with Cardinal John O’Connor in NYC:

So again, [this] was one of those naïve, hopeful beliefs that if they [the Church leaders] would only hear us and hear our story, then they’d change. And I did remember thinking about him, because his predecessor would not meet at all with lesbian and gay groups, that at least he did. And he didn’t come in with a battery of advisors or canon lawyers, or anyone. He came in alone. So he met alone with about ten or twelve representatives from the various groups, including Dignity and CCL [Conference of Catholic Lesbians]. And he listened to what people had to say. And there was some heated exchange. And what he ended the meeting was, is that the teachings of the church are very deep on this issue, and I’ve heard you, but I do not see that there is going to be any change whatsoever. And I remember (cries as she tells this story) a man sitting next to me that had lost his children [when he came out as gay] starting to cry. And all the Catholics crying because there was no escape [from our situation]. You were hearing it, that no matter what, we [the bishops] can’t take you as you are. And I remember just sitting there feeling bad. And there was just a sense of resolve that we were going to go on [despite the bishops]. (http://www.lgbtran.org/Exhibits/OralHistory/Doherty/KDoherty.pdf)

After hearing many cases of parents disowning their children, I did not want to overlook the grief felt by parents who have heard their bishops abandon them.  At the same time, this narrative tells the story of how parents often get abandoned by their children.  They do this, in large part, because they feel betrayed by the dark secrets that their parents have concealed from them and because they feel ashamed of their parent’s choice of a homosexual life-style.  Underneath it all is the nasty logic of Ratzinger’s dogma of homosexuality.

Those who want to interact with “Cardinal Ratzinger’s culpability,” are invited to “Leave a Reply” below.  A solid way to begin doing this is to offer “readback lines.”  To do this, quickly glace back over the entire blog and pick out the one or two lines that have made a deep impression upon you.  Copy them [CTRL-C] and then paste them [CTRL-V] into an empty comment box below.  If you wish, signal the emotion that you feel when reading your readback lines.  The primary emotions are anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, surprise.   No need to further explain yourself.  It is enough to identify the text important to you and to name the emotion(s) that it evokes.  All of this normally takes less than a few minutes.

I and others will “thank you” for your contribution.  If you are tempted to say more, I urge you to hold back.  Your sense of safety and the safety of others is best protected by not getting overly wordy in the beginning.  This will come after a few days

How Jesus opposed the Jewish Taliban

Consider the case of Jesus.  He is not pestering the Pharisees to practice what he practices; rather, he is trying to stop them from imposing their thinking on everyone else.  This is what fundamentalist love to do.  They persuade themselves that they have “God’s absolute point of view” and that their mission is to bring everyone else into line with “their God.”  In so doing, they become the Catholic Taliban and justify their “moral terrorism” as somehow required by God himself.  This is why Pope Francis calls them “godless.”

Do the Pharisees stop pestering Jesus and concede that the disciples do have sufficient cause to override the Sabbath?  We don’t know, but probably not.  In any case, the Evangelists do not tell us.  But the Evangelists do go on to tell us that Jesus put forward a general norm: “The Sabbath was made for [the benefit of] humankind, not humankind [made] for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27 and par.).  Thus, Jesus takes the stand that “the day of rest” was designed by God as a blessing to relieve exhaustion from the six days of work.  In Gen. 1, even God shows himself as resting follow the exertions of the six days of creation.  Thus, according to this, God learned from his own experience how a day of rest could be beneficial.  Hence, according to Jesus, every Jew was invited to free themselves of a wooden conformity with Sabbath regulations, especially when the welfare of suffering individuals was at stake.

This has a bearing on our topic of homosexuality.  How is it that Evangelical Fundamentalists are so quick to gather up texts condemning homosexual sex when they so easily dispense themselves from the Law of Moses that condemns anyone failing to keep the Sabbath rest with death by stoning (Exod. 31:14, 35:3; Deut. 5:13; Neh. 13:15-21)?  Or, to take up again the argument of Matthew Vines: How can Evangelical Fundamentalists turn to those on their right hand and preach the good news of the Gospel to heterosexuals saying, “God solemnly promises you companionship and sexual intimacy when he says, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him’”(Gen. 2:18) and, then, to turn to their left and say to homosexuals, “None of this applies to you.  God blocks his ears to your cries of loneliness, and he makes no provision for any sexual intimacy to gladden your hearts.  You will go into your twilight years utterly alone and no one will care for you as you take you final breath”?  And if Jesus acted outside of the letter of the Mosaic Law when he was moved by compassion for the man with the withered arm and moved by compassion for his disciples stricken by hunger, would not this same Jesus rush to act outside of the Christian Code of Ethics in order to bring a speedy relief to those gays and lesbians pleading to have Christians recognize the legitimacy of their love and their desire for marriage?  And should not the churches be the first (rather than the last) to recognize that God created the blessings of marriage for both the heterosexual and the homosexual alike?

Then another case of Sabbath fundamentalism is introduced:

3:1 Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. 3:2 they watched him to see whether he would cure him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. 3:3 And he said to the man who had the withered hand, “Come forward.”  3:4 Then he said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. 3:5 He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 3:6 The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him. 3:7 Jesus departed with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed him. (Mark 3:1-7)

In the earlier case, Mark makes it clear that Jesus was not accused for violating the Sabbath.  Only his disciples were accused.  In this second case, Jesus stands alone as the healer and he alone is accused.  This narrative presupposes that Jesus has already gained the reputation as a healer (Mark 1:39-2:12) and that his enemies acknowledged his power to heal but attributed it to Beelzebub (Mark 3:22).  At one point, Jesus uses the metaphor of “the physician” to describe his work (Mark 2:17).  It cannot be that “magic words” are used, since Jews distrusted magic and a magical healing would not constitute “work.”  The presumption of Jesus’ accusers here must be that healing involved some manipulation of the arm or hand as a physician would do.  Likewise, the term “withered” does not have to imply a congenital deformity because the term “restored” implies that the hand was useless and Jesus restored its use.[i]  Jerome, for instance, thought that the man was a mason who suffered an injury that put him out of work.  Jesus restored his hand and restored his livelihood as well.  It must also be noticed that if the restoration were very dramatic (bone and flesh are suddenly or gradually entirely transformed), the sheer power of the transformation would have caused awe and fear in Jesus’ enemies because they would know that he could afflict a man just as well as heal a man.  So the fact that they do not back away or shudder with amazement also indicates that Mark does not think of this event as frightening.  The issue, after all, is whether Jesus would heal on the Sabbath.

Notice also that the healing in this narrative is not endangering the life of the man.  Everyone would recognize the legitimacy for life-saving remedies on the Sabbath.  In this case, therefore, Jesus uses this as a teaching lesson for the Pharisees.  The issue is not that of doing a “miracle,” since even a miracle would be presumed to be done with God’s power and God is surely the Lord of the Sabbath.  The words of Jesus as well make this clear: “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?”  Jesus is on target, here, when he gives them a black and white question.  Do good or do evil?  Save a life or destroy a life?  If they say, the former, then Jesus has their approval and can go ahead without any fear that he and his adversaries are on the same page.  If they choose the latter terms, then Jesus has them over the barrel because they will be unable to justify their choice from the Scriptures and will look silly in the minds of the people.  So they are sullenly silent.

He looked around at them with anger (Mark 3:5).  Most Christians only think of Jesus as flaring up in anger only when he drives the money-changers from the temple.  But here he is livid with anger.  This is how I feel when writing about Archbishop Schnurr, Father Kneib, and Father Coelho—“Don’t you dare treat my Brothers and Sisters in this way!”  I want to scream at them.  “You’re destroying people’s lives with your fundamentalist bullshit.  Stop it!”[ii]  Pure and unadulterated anger[iii] is sometime the only authentic response to the evil that fundamentalist do. . . .

How the Jewish Taliban was paralyzed by Jesus

Jesus turns on his critics by questioning them sternly: “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm?” (Mark 3:4 and par.) and again “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and was hungry?” (Mark 2:25 and par.).  In the end, he entirely dismisses the notion of “true religion” embraced by his critics. He ends up saying to them, “The Sabbath was made for [the benefit of] humankind, not humankind [made] for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27 and par.).  Thus, Jesus takes the stand that “the day of rest” was designed by God as a blessing to relieve exhaustion from the six days of work.  In Gen. 1, God shows himself as resting following the exertions of the six days of creation.  Thus, according to this, God learned from his own experience how a day of rest could be beneficial.  Hence, according to Jesus, every Jew was invited to rid themselves of a wooden conformity with Sabbath regulations especially when the welfare of suffering individuals was at stake.

How Jesus impacts events today

This has a bearing on our topic of homosexuality.  How is it that Evangelical Fundamentalists are so quick to gather up texts condemning homosexual sex when they so easily dispense themselves from the Law of Moses that condemns anyone failing to keep the Sabbath rest with death by stoning (Exod. 31:14, 35:3; Deut. 5:13; Neh. 13:15-21)?  Or, to take up again the argument of Matthew Vines: How can Evangelical Fundamentalists be so certain that God wants to extend to heterosexuals companionship and sexual intimacy when he said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen. 2:18) but, then, he turns around and says to the homosexual, “None of this applies to you.  God blocks his ears to your cries of loneliness and he makes no provision for any sexual intimacy to gladden your lives”? 

And if Jesus acted outside of the letter of the Mosaic Law when he was moved by compassion for the man with the withered arm and compassion for his disciples stricken by hunger, would not this same Jesus rush to act outside of the Christian Code of Ethics today in order to bring a speedy relief to those gays and lesbians pleading to have some small recognition of the legitimacy of their love and their desire for marriage?  And should not the churches be the first (rather than the last) to recognize that God created the blessings of marriage for both the heterosexual and the homosexual alike?

Last of all, we need to note that confronting fundamentalists is a dangerous affair.  The Jewish fundamentalists take their complaints to the court of Herod, King of Galilee.  According to the Synoptic Gospels, Herod had John the Baptist arrested on trumped-up charges.  Because of his indiscretion on his birthday, Harod gets trapped into killing him even though “Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he protected him” (Mark 6:20 and par.).  Jesus could well be next on the list. . .

Many other texts in the Gospels demonstrate how Jesus even challenged certain bad habits on the part of his own disciples.  Consider this:

An argument arose among them [the 12 disciples] as to which one of them was the greatest.  But Jesus, aware of their inner thoughts, took a little child and put it by his side, and said to them, “Whoever welcomes this child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me; for the least among all of you is the greatest.”

One can think here of how the churches argue among themselves as to which denomination is the greatest or which is the closest to God’s heart.  One can think here also of how Catholic fundamentalists dispute with each other as to what sexual ethics is most pleasing to God.  And how about those Catholics who secretly pray in their hearts: “Thank you God for not creating me or any of my children as homosexuals”?  How does God respond to this prayer?

Those who want to interact with this blog are invited to “Leave a Reply” below.  A solid way to begin doing this is to offer “readback lines.”  To do this, quickly glace back over the entire blog and pick out the one or two lines that have made a deep impression upon you.  Copy them [CTRL-C] and then paste them [CTRL-V] into an empty comment box below.  If you wish, signal the emotion that you feel when reading your readback lines.  The primary emotions are anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, surprise.   No need to further explain yourself.  It is enough to identify the text important to you and to name the emotion(s) that it evokes.  All of this normally takes less than a few minutes.

I and others will “thank you” for your contribution.  If you are tempted to say more, I urge you to hold back.  Your sense of safety and the safety of others is best protected by not getting overly wordy in the beginning.  This will come after a few days or weeks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Endnotes and Leave a Reply~~~~~~~~

 

[i] Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 153.

[ii] Used twice: http://prolife365.com/those-awaiting-the-synod-to-redefine-the-churchs-dogmatic-teachings-on-marriage-will-be-greatly-disappointed/ and  http://prolife365.com/problems-with-gay-marriage/

[iii] Thomas Aquinas makes the point that anger is the passion that naturally arises when justice is being denied.  “Far from being a sin, ira [Latin: anger] is a positive good when directed by reason” (II-II. 158. 8 ad 2).  Thus, some theologians argue that “not being angry at times may, given the circumstances, constitute a sin” (Robert Miner, “Thomas Aquinas on the Passions: A Study of Summa Theologiae, 1a2ae 22-48,” p. 286).