Unintended Consequences

This semester one of the classes I am teaching is Theological Foundations for the Christian Life. The primary goal I have in the class is to teach students some basic theological ideas with a constant focus on how those ideas intersect life. We don’t have an altar call at the end of each class session, but the New Testament’s emphasis on the inseparable relationship between what we believe and how we behave makes me think a theology class should constantly be talking about that intersection.

Early in the semester I spend a few days on the topic “Doing Theology in the 21^st Century.” The cultural upheaval of the 1960s and beyond simply can’t be ignored. That doesn’t change the theological ideas, but it does change how we come to understand those ideas and how we talk about those ideas with our contemporaries. 

One of the areas of upheaval since the 1960s is in the area of sexual ethics. I spend a little time contrasting the television images I saw growing up as compared to what they see.  I saw Luci and Dessie sleeping in twin beds, despite Luci’s pregnancy; they see Friends, where it is hard to tell from episode to episode who is sleeping with whom. I would be comfortable suggesting that neither of those scenarios are without problems, but that the subconscious message of modern culture, reflected as some level in Friends, is that tolerance has become the chief moral value of our times. 

Tolerance, of course, is not necessarily a bad thing. Paul, for example, encourages believers in Colossae to “Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another.” (3:13) The verb “to bear with” could easily be translated “tolerate.” I’m very glad my wife has “tolerated” me for 41 years, and that my colleagues at Point “tolerate” me as a co-worker. Life could quickly become unbearable for any of us without the willingness of others to tolerate us.

But for Paul, “bearing with” is placed in a context where the idea of “setting your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God.” (3:1,2)  He clearly isn’t suggesting that “bearing with one another” is an open-ended, anything goes approach to life. Tolerance is not his chief moral value.

The problem with making tolerance the chief value is that it becomes all but impossible – actually impossible – to define tolerance. The tolerance of sexual promiscuity on Friends – and lots of other television and movies, I don’t mean to pick on Friends – convinces us that we should be tolerant of promiscuous behavior – primarily of the heterosexual kind. It is interesting to think about what Friends would look like, had it never been made and was a new comedy in today’s world that insists that we tolerate homo- and hetero-sexual behavior. Could it be produced with five young adults “living together” in a New York City apartment building without a homosexual component?

If you work in the context of higher education, you know that the bureaucratic gods of tolerance have set some limits. Big, well-respected universities are being written up by the US Department of Education over “tolerance gone amuck.” It primarily has to do with young adult males who are bombarded daily with a message that says sexual behavior is little more the fun part of biology and “everything goes.” -only to discover that a girl saying “no” is to be taken seriously. Obviously it isn’t entirely a male problem, and I’m certainly not remotely excusing bad behavior on the part of young males.

But why are we surprised? We bombard young adults constantly with the “sex is fun biology” idea, declaring that only the simpletons among religious people think one should control his or her sexual urges in a way consistent with that old, worn out book called the Bible, but somehow expect their yet to mature minds to understand that there are “gods” who determine how far tolerance can be taken.

The path from tolerance to behavior can be a very short one, especially when there is no guiding principle to define it. It seems so easy these days to think that whatever we tolerate, we should also do. It is hard to read Colossians and think that Paul would define tolerance as either “condoning” or “following the example.” Rather it is more along the lines of caring for a person enough to “bear with” the issues so we have an opportunity work on them together. 

As long as we continue to insist that what Scripture would describe as promiscuity is to be tolerated – we shouldn’t be surprised with the unintended consequences.

For the sake of you Gentiles . . .

It isn’t uncommon at the beginning of a new year to have conversations about “resolutions.” They often – in first-world contexts at least – have to do with how much weight we are going to lose; how much more disciplined we will be about exercise; maybe plans to read the Bible from cover to cover in a year; and other worthwhile ideas. This year I’ve seen a lot of Facebook postings about how many books people are planning on reading – a cause to celebrate!

I don’t know that the apostle Paul made New Year’s resolutions but a comment he makes in Ephesians 3 might suggest that his encounter with Jesus created a life-long resolution to be transformed by the gospel in ways that are remarkable. What he says that seems to suggest this to me is “”This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner of Christ for the sake of you Gentiles.” (Ephesians 3:1, NRSV) He follows that with the reminder that they “have heard of the commissions of God’s grace that was given to me for you.” (3:2)

The imprisoner has become the imprisoned – and that “for the sake of you Gentiles.” That is a fairly easy sentence to say. But if you stop for a moment and think about its implications, it says more than we can fully comprehend about the power of the gospel to transform lives. 

Prior to his encounter with Jesus, he is a raging, anti-follower of Jesus terrorist. The Pharisee of Pharisees (Philippians 3:4-6) has zero tolerance for those simpleton Jews who have decided that the Jesus story was the story of their redemption. Lest you think the word terrorist is too strong a word, read his testimony in Acts 26:9ff where, among other things, he says “”I not only locked up many of the saints in prison, but I also cast my vote against them when they were being condemned to death.” Luke also reminds us that “Saul approved of their killing him” (Stephen) in Acts 8:1 and Acts 9, where we read the story of his encounter with Jesus, Luke begins that chapter by saying “Meanwhile Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest . . .”

All of that is describing his attitude toward his fellow Jews who had decided to follow Jesus. Gentiles aren’t yet invited to become a part of the kingdom. If he thinks that about his fellow Jews and is willing to murder them in the name of Jewish orthodoxy – what do you think he would have said about Gentiles? As a Pharisee among Pharisee, would he have viewed them as fully human? Objects of God’s love? Would he have ever dreamed of a day when he would sit down with a group of Gentile women “God-worshippers” in Philippi and tell them the Jesus story in transforming ways? (Acts 16:11-15) He was busy imprisoning and murdering his own people, would he have ever dreamed that one day he would rejoice over the privilege of being in jail, for perhaps four years by the time he writes Ephesians, “for the sake of you Gentiles?” Could he imagine that the imprisoner would become the imprisoned?

In those moments when I wonder about my own faith and questions like “Can I be sure this ‘stuff’ is true?” flood my consciousness, this is one of the places I always find myself coming back to review. Is there any explanation for the nearly indescribable change in the life of Saul of Tarsus other than the simple truth of the Jesus story? Honesty compels me think that the answer to that question is “No, he had to have met Jesus that day on the way to Damascus.”

My own background isn’t nearly as dramatic as was Paul’s. I’m not claiming to be “Sammy Sunday School” over the course of my life, but my story pales in comparison to Paul’s. Yet, sometimes I think I don’t have the confidence in the power of the gospel to transform my life that Paul did. But the old adage, “if it was good enough for Paul, it’s good enough for me” might be the very thing I need to focus on at the beginning of a new year to help motivate me to allow this great power to make me into something that no one who knows me would think I could be.

Paul would end up writing nearly one-half of the New Testament and probably more books have been written about him than any other biblical character other than Jesus. His literary skills are such that the greatest minds of the Christian world continue to seek to better understand him, believing that in doing so we better understand the gospel. 

But when all is said and done, despite the fact that I’ve spent my whole adult life, in part, studying what he wrote, what I view as his most important gift to the body of Christ is the example of his life. Today I’m wondering about the impact we could have on the entire world if we allowed that example to be the model for how we relate to the world around us. 

If Paul could muster up the courage to spend time in jail for people he once viewed as something less than a real human – do we even know people who would be more challenging when it comes to being Jesus to them? If he could sit down with a group of Gentiles – women no less – and have a conversation with them about Jesus and out of that conversation a kingdom post was established in Philippi, shouldn’t we be looking for similar opportunities.

Here’s the bottom line – if we let the gospel transform our lives as it did Paul’s, there simply is no telling what our list of resolutions might look like!