What to do with real people

Sermon for March 11, 2017 at Green Lake Church of Seventh-day Adventists

Preliminary manuscript, subject to revision.

Texts: 

Acts 15:4-10

Deuteronomy 13:6-10

2 Kings 5:15-19 

In Acts 15 we read about a huge debate in the early Christian church. Did Gentiles who wanted to join the Christian community have to be circumcised and observe all the other life style rules and traditions of the Jewish people? They held a general conference, a gathering of the leaders of the church. Debate was intense. Finally, Peter stood and made a speech. “Look, you all know that God chose me to be the first to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. And God clearly demonstrated his approval by giving them the Holy Spirit the same God gave to us. God made no distinction. So why on earth are you trying the patience of God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?”

To summarize: Peter used two arguments. First, the spiritual life of new Gentile believers was just as good as the spiritual life of Jewish believers. Second, the experience of the Jewish people with their rules and regulations argued against the validity of those very rules and regulations. The Jewish people had found them burdensome and impossible. So why impose them on new believers?

Note, Peter did not quote the Bible in his argument. And for good reason. There was no biblical basis for dispensing with circumcision. In fact, to the contrary. The Bible was crystal clear. Circumcision was obligatory.

There are repeated statements in the laws of Moses, mandating kind treatment of foreigners. Foreigners were to have the same rights in court as native born people. But when it came to religious practice, there was a emphatic distinction. Foreigners were prohibited to eat the Passover. This celebration of the fantastic deliverance from Egypt belonged to the Hebrew people alone. No foreigners were permitted. If a foreigner wanted to participate in the Passover, he was required to first be circumcised. No exceptions (Exodus 12:43-49).

The early Christians understood themselves to be the “true Jews.” They were the authentic inheritors of the spiritual heritage of Abraham. So obviously, Christians had to be circumcised. That was Bible. Advocates of this belief could cite chapter and verse.

But Peter dismissed all this with a wave of the hand. In essence, Peter said, “I don't care about your Bible verses, we know from experience, both from the long experience of the Jewish people and from the immediate experience among us as Christians that it is time to let go of this circumcision rule. Let it go, and welcome the Gentiles the same way that God welcomes them."

Today, we Adventists imagine ourselves as the inheritors of the spiritual heritage of the apostles. We are the true apostolic church. And the temptation is to prove our authenticity by rigorously enforcing every rule and tradition we associate with the early Christian church. Just as for the early Christian church a rule associated with sexuality epitomized "faithfulness to all the laws of God," so now Adventists (along with other conservative Christians) focus on ancient rules associated with sexuality as a symbol of their full devotion to God.

Against the clamor of this tradition, I stand with Peter and say, God has clearly shown his disregard for our boundaries. God has demonstrably gifted people outside our boundaries. Single people, women, homosexuals, divorced people have all demonstrated noteworthy spiritual gifts. Women evangelists contradict our notions of "male-only ministry." Many homosexual musicians have served as highly effective ministers of music. All sorts of people other than married men have exhibited the generosity and kindness of God. They have demonstrated God's lack of pickiness when it comes to choosing whom he calls into service. Further, we have had long experience with trying to squeeze everyone into a particular mold. Over and over and over we have seen people damaged by our efforts to make them conform to our narrow expectations. We have seen church rules and traditions alienate our children from God. It is time to join with Peter and say, “Enough.” If God draws people who are we to turn them away in our devotion to anachronistic applications of ancient rules.

The theological justification of letting go of the requirement of circumcision we read in the writings of Paul came after the conference in Acts 15. The church moved forward because of Peter's speech which cited the evident moving God in the experience of the people of God. The theology came later. 

I am going to cite some Bible stories in support of letting go of some of our ancient rules, rules that are based on actual Bible texts just like the Bible support of circumcision. But let me be clear, I'm citing these stories in support of a truth that God has already made abundantly clear in our experience.

In the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5) we read: Do not make any images. Do not bow down to any images. The command is repeated several times in the Books of Moses. Perhaps the starkest, harshest expression of this prohibition is the law that states that if a friend or relative secretly invites you to participate in worship of another god, you must report them. Even if the person is your own spouse, you must report them and then when the community comes together to stone the idolater, you must throw the very first stone.

Do not bow. If anyone even hints that they are prepared to bow, kill them. That's the law.

Then we read the story of Naaman. Naaman was commander of the army of Syria. He came to Samaria and was healed of leprosy by the prophet Elisha. In gratitude, Naaman pledged himself to worship the God of Israel from then on. “But I have one problem,” the general told the prophet. “Back in Damascus, when my king enters the temple to pray, as part of my duties, I must accompany him. And when he bows, I must also bow. Is that going to be okay?” The prophet answered, “Go in peace.”

Bowing in the temple of Rimmon was obviously not the ideal worship life. But it was the right accommodation to the real life situation of Naaman. It was holy.

The Gibeonites were a Canaanite tribe. God had ordered the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites. Completely. Obliterate them. Genocide. The divine order was crystal clear. The Gibeonites were terrified and decided to try to side step the divine order. They tricked Joshua and the Hebrew leaders into thinking they were not Canaanites and persuaded them to sign a non-aggression treaty. When Joshua's army learned they had been tricked, that the Gibeonites were, in fact, Canaanites, the army insisted that Joshua obey God and destroy the Gibeonites.

Joshua refused.

Joshua refused to obey his army. Joshua refused to obey the very clear, direct command of God. Joshua protected the Gibeonites. Joshua did not just “tolerate” the Gibeonites. When other Canaanite tribes threatened the Gibeonites, Joshua and his army protected them.

The parallel between the situation of the Gibeonites and homosexuals in the church today is obvious. Those who wish to exclude homosexual couples from church membership can cite direct statements in the Bible just as Joshua's army could cite direct statements by God ordering the exclusions and even annihilation of the Gibeonites.

But in this story, Joshua is symbolic of Jesus. Joshua and Jesus are, in fact, different forms of the same name, like Juan and John. If we are going be the church of Jesus, we will follow the inclusion of Joshua, not the holy blood lust of his army.

What was Joshua's justification for sparing the Gibeonites even though God had said to annihilate them? Joshua cited the ordinary human value of honoring his word. I signed a treaty, I will not violate it. I promised. I will keep my promise. Joshua did what any decent human being would do.

When we face the question: how shall we treat our LGBT children, we don't go first to some sentence in the book of Leviticus. We act instinctively out of our identity as mothers and fathers. We build a house that will be a safe place for our children to grow up in. That is simply what decent parents do. Good parents do not attempt to squeeze their children into some predetermined mold. They respond to the children who are actually alive right there in front of them.

Peanut butter sandwiches are perfect food. But we do not give them to children who are allergic to peanuts or have a gluten sensitivity. Tomatoes are marvelous. But if your daughter hates tomatoes, what do you do? You serve something else. That's what good parents do. We bend and adapt to the real children in our homes. We don't imagine they are the theoretical children in a book.

At our house right now, we have an illustration of the collision of Adventist tradition and taking care of a real, live person. In our kitchen, there is a whole collection of foods for Joel. High fat yogurt. High fat cookies. Heavy cream. Peanut butter. Coconut oil. Butter.

When we feed Joel vegetables, we soak them in butter. When we make cookies for him, we coconut oil. When we serve him oatmeal, we smother it with butter and heavy cream. Why? Because he is dangerously underweight and has been for a long time.

I'm not going to write a book on nutrition for children and begin advocating ice cream, heavy cream, and lots and lots of butter as an ideal diet for infants. But if someone tried to insist that “the best diet” for our grandson was a vegan diet high in fresh fruit and vegetables I would laugh in their face. Joel is different. He is not normal. So we don't treat him normally.

Since we are an outpost of the kingdom of heaven, our life together is shaped by the principles of the kingdom. Jesus gave very high moral challenges:

Do not hate. Even people who are hateful.

Do not worship while reconciliation is languishing.

Do not damage your enemies.

Practice generosity.

Practice radical honesty.

Practice radical sexual restraint.

Don't be too attached to money.

Practice regarding every human being, especially the needy, as the incarnation of God.

Be a neighbor.

Allow the needs of others to become your problem.

Help.

Do to others as you would have them do to you.

This is an exalted ethic. A challenge. A beckoning. A dare. It is far higher, and far more challenging than mere obedience to rules. It requires us to first understand one another before begin attempting to prescribe how to live. After all, that's what we would want for ourselves.

Let's embrace this radically. Let's practice listening long before we speak. Let's be careful not to prescribe for someone else a pattern of life we are not following.

When someone attempts to use ancient rules and texts in Leviticus and Romans to exclude our children, let's stand with Peter and say, “Enough.”

Let's stand with Jesus and say, “Let the children come.”

The Adventist Church and Homosexuality

The Adventist Church and Homosexuality

A proposal by John McLarty

(This is a revision of an early version of this piece.)

I have been quite outspoken in my criticism of common conservative approaches to applying their understanding of the Bible to issues of irregularities in sexuality. I have read nothing in articles by scholars at the Adventist seminary or respondents on Facebook or middle-aged “reformed” homosexuals that would persuade me the conservative position is true to Scripture or to human experience.

A few of my conservative friends have responded to my criticism with a very appropriate challenge: If you don't like current Church policy, what do you propose the Church do? If someone made you King of the Church for a day and charged you with writing formal policy that would be included in the Church Manual for the global, incorporated Adventist denomination, what would you write?

Below is my attempt at spelling out the policy I would write in that situation.

Let me be clear: I am not writing my personal convictions. My thinking is deeply rooted in and shaped by the Adventist theological heritage. However, I have taken elements of that heritage and pushed them so forcefully that conventional thinkers would see my conclusions as a contradiction of the heritage rather than as the natural development of that heritage. If a leader required the Church as a whole to embrace all the details of my own personal theology it would severely damage the living community that is the real church. While I dissent from some aspects of conventional Adventism, I am unwilling to destroy the Church in an effort to “improve” it.

Church policy is a political animal. It has to balance tradition, exegesis, regional variations, money, and temperamental differences. Effective policy change—change that brings people along instead of cutting them off—must be evolutionary. No wise policy will appear wise to an ideologue because wise policy is always a messy compromise among people and values. It is never pure. And it should be always open to change.

So with these qualifications in mind, I will propose the following as church policy to be voted by the church bureaucrats at the General Conference:

Preamble

God's ideal for humans as portrayed in the first two chapters of Genesis is that every man and every woman find a happy, life-long home in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage that produces good children who will in turn have grandchildren who continue to live out their lives in happy, life-long monogamous fruitful marriages. In its worship and teaching the Church honors this glorious ideal. The Church encourages all persons to live as close to this ideal as possible.

Not every person in the Church can live this ideal. Among our members, there are marriages that endure but are less than happy. There are childless couples and people who are single for decades. There are divorced people, homosexuals, and people who have been married several times. There are people of indeterminate gender. There are people with disabilities for whom marriage is impossible. All of these people are members of our churches. They respond to our evangelism. It is the duty of the Church to provide opportunities for worship, spiritual encouragement and pastoral care for all of these people.

How does the Church both honor the ideal portrayed in Eden before the fall and minister in Christ's stead in the real world we live in today.

First, we recognize that clergy are symbols of the ideals and commitments of the Church. The higher the ecclesiastical dignity of an office, the more closely must the office holder live to God's ideal. Therefore:

1. The Church will provide a distinct, separate ordination for clergy who serve as presidents of conferences, unions, divisions and the General Conference.
2. Clergy serving in leadership (i.e. presidencies) above the local congregation must be married and parents. If they are divorced or if the majority of their children have rejected the church, this should be seen as a major impediment to continued service in any position above that of a local congregation. Further, because of their role as symbols of the ideals and commitments of the church, no one who is obese may serve as a president.
3. Departmental directors would have the same spiritual rank and pay rate as pastors serving local congregations.
4. Single persons may serve as leaders—either clergy or lay—in local congregations where direct knowledge of their gifts, piety and integrity would counterbalance the deficiency in their symbolic function.
5. The church would not ordain homosexuals to the clergy.

In the Western Adventist Church there is significant conflict regarding God's will in regard to homosexuality. In light of this conflict, we decree:

1. Just as Adventist clergy have historically been forbidden to perform marriages in which only one of the persons is Adventist, Adventist clergy are prohibited from solemnizing homosexual marriages. [Personal note from McLarty: just as there are a few pastors who quietly disregard the rules regarding “mixed marriages” there would be pastors who would quietly disregard the rules regarding homosexual unions. At present, this disregard of rules is tolerated as long as it stays off the public radar screen.]
2. Adventist Churches may not allow their buildings to be used for performing forbidden marriages.

We, the leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church gathered in council, refrain from promulgating rules for how congregations are to manage their response to homosexuals and to people who divorce and remarry. Congregations are charged to respond to these situations in light of God's ideals, Adventist tradition, and the well-being of the individuals and congregations in each case. [McLarty's note: Some congregations would be accepting. Most would maintain traditional norms.]

My Commentary on the Above Proposed Polices

Even-handed church law

If we are going to bar practicing homosexuals from our congregations we ought to bar divorced and remarried people from our congregations. Then we ought to bar from being elders and pastors all who come short of Paul's requirement: “He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him.” And as a church which officially embraces healthy living as part of our mission and doctrine it is simply inconceivable that we would allow obese men to serve as presidents within the church. [Commentary on the commentary: I think what I've written in the first part of this paragraph is logical. It also highlights the sickness of focusing on standards. While holding “elders” responsible for the behavior of their children is biblical, it is socially sick. But if we are going to hold homosexuals to “biblical” standards, then it follows we ought to hold the “elders” to biblical standards as well.]

There is already precedent for allowing exceptions to full agreement with the doctrines of the church.

There is a loud clamor in official church circles these days declaring that belief in 6 days/6000 years is an absolute requirement for being Adventist. Ted Wilson declaims, “If you don't believe in a short chronology you are not Adventist.” But I have personally heard Fernando Canale (a conservative theologian at the Andrews University Seminary) say that if a scientist believes all the rest of our doctrines and keeps Sabbath and pays tithe but does not believe in a short chronology, he would baptize such a person into the Adventist Church. Michael Hasel was present and did not demur.

If the recent creation doctrine can be set aside in exceptional cases, why can we not, in exceptional cases, set aside our doctrine about the absolute necessity of heterosexual marriage?

This approach requires from homosexuals an acknowledgment of the church's ideal of marriage—which is heterosexual, life-long marriage. Homosexual unions are other than this ideal. This approach requires from traditional members a recognition of the fact that the ideal is not possible for all people and that non-traditional relationships are righteous even if not ideal. (Of course, the actual ideal—life-long, heterosexual, monogamous, HAPPY marriage, is absent in many church homes.)

The inhumanity of enforced celibacy

We rightly lament the damage to persons that flows from the Catholic requirement of celibacy for participation in the ordained ministry. Yet we require life-long celibacy by homosexuals as a requirement for participation in church life. This is inhumane. The inhumanity of this requirement is highlighted by the fact that church officials who vote on the doctrines and policies intended to impose this obedience on homosexuals have themselves typically been active sexually for at least twenty years. Even the homosexuals we promote as advocates of celibacy have had decades of sexual engagement.

But something further needs to be said. The requirement of celibacy is not merely a restriction on genital activity. It requires sexual beings to carefully avoid deep friendships and real intimacy because of the “threat” and appearance these kinds of close relationships create. The Bible declares it is not good for man to be alone. Yet we say to a whole class of men: you must remain alone for your entire life. Who are we to contradict this declaration in our zeal to support other declarations in the Bible?

If God calls an individual to such a solitary life, let's us support them in that strenuous calling. But it is evil for us to impose this when we know that we ourselves could never bear it.

Jesus said something to the Pharisees about laying burdens on others. It was not a compliment. It is the height of spiritual arrogance to teach others there is an onerous requirement for salvation that they must meet—a requirement which we ourselves have never even contemplated attempting.

For Now

This is not my imagination of the best the church can be. I do not propose these polices as a picture of an ideal church life. I have written this to attempt to provoke a response, to challenge conservatives who selectively apply which “biblical rules” to enforce in the church. Especially, I would emphasize that this is not my idea of some final destination for the corporate church. It is a description of a place where we might be able to live together for awhile. I expect that over time the church will follow society in learning to place homosexual relationships within a moral framework analogous to the moral framework for heterosexual relationships. Attentiveness and loyalty will be affirmed. Promiscuity and unfaithfulness will be condemned.

We will come to see the picture in Genesis—a man and woman together in a life-long, happy monogamous marriage that produces children—as an ideal, not a standard. We will acknowledge that no one—let be more emphatic, NO ONE—lives the ideal. In our world no marriage is untouched by sin and pain and every marriage eventually is broken, either by death or divorce. The ideal is not available to us as a lived reality.

My sermon on Matthew 19 can be found here: http://greenlakesda.org/2014/10/legally-dumb/

An article I wrote for my church newsletter that explains the foundation for my theology can be found here: http://greenlakesda.org/2014/10/foundation-of-my-religion/

An Astonishing Mercy

Sermon manuscript for Gig Harbor Adventist Fellowship. (Andreas is preaching at Green Lake Church on December 13)

Sabbath, December 13, 2014

Based on Joshua 9, 2 Samuel 21, Luke 10, and Acts 15

It's one of those tense moments that in the hands of the right movie director make you hold your breath. What's going to happen?

Over here on the right of the screen you see angry argument. An army of rough characters is arguing with their general and a few other chiefs and dignitaries. Over on the left side of scene you can see people cowering, mothers holding their children close. Men standing with crossed arms. Impassive faces, awaiting their fate.

The camera zooms in on the argument. The soldiers are insisting the general give the order to attack. This is going to be a quick slaughter. It's the right thing to do. Just give the order.

The general stands feet planted, his arms on his hips. Listening, but not bending. There is no negotiation. He had already said no. It's not going to happen.

He repeats what he's said dozens of times:

We gave these people our word. We signed a treaty. Yes, they tricked us. Yes, they were dishonest. But we will not sink to their level. We will not go back on our word. We will not violate a treaty. No!

Slowly the commotion subsides. The angry soldiers move back into their groups muttering. The people at risk, the people whose fate was the center of this fierce conflict relax a bit. The crisis eases.

Finally, the general, having quieted his men, turns to talk with the people on the other side of this treaty. He is joined by tribal elders.

“What were you thinking?” he demands. “Why did you deceive us? Why did you trick us into signing a treaty by saying you lived nearby?”

They replied, "We did it because we--your servants--were clearly told that the LORD your God commanded his servant Moses to give you this entire land and to destroy all the people living in it. So we feared greatly for our lives because of you. That is why we have done this. (Joshua 9)

Did you get that? These people—they were called Gibeonites—knew that God had ordered the Jewish people to annihilate the residents of Canaan. The Gibeonites had heard about the miraculous triumphs of Israel against the Egyptians, the Amorites and the people of Jericho. They knew they didn't stand a chance militarily, so they decided to try a different stratagem.

They sent a delegation to ask for a peace treaty with the Jewish people. Of course, they knew the Israelites weren't supposed to make treaties with local people in Canaan, so they stole a different identity. The delegation dressed in worn-out clothes, they carried stale bread and old, cracking wine skins. They wore sandals with broken straps.

When the Gibeonite delegation arrived in the Jewish camp, the Jews were suspicious. “Don't you know we're not supposed to make treaties with people from around here?”

(Moses had specifically allowed them to make treaties with distant nations but had forbidden them to make treaties or even any concessions to the local residents of Canaan. The locals were to be exterminated. Moses repeated this command over and over. There was no ambiguity.)

“Oh, course, we understand,” the Gibeonites said. “We know you can't make treaties with Canaanites, but we are from way far from here. This stale bread: It was fresh from the oven when we started our trip. These wine skins—their water bottles—they were in pretty good shape when we set out. And our sandals. They were new. It's taken us weeks of travel to get here. But your fame has gone everywhere. That's why our elders sent us to make a treaty with you. You are clearly going to be a great nation. We want to be your allies.”

Joshua and the elders were suspicious, but the bread was stale. The wine skins were cracked. The sandals were worn. It was gratifying that the fame of God's power was so widespread, so sure, why not. Joshua and the elders made a treaty. They pledged protection and non-aggression to the reps of the Gibeonites.

Three days later, the Jews learn they've been had. These people are the Gibeonites, a subdivision of one of the major Canaanite tribes. These are the very people God had told them: Don't make treaties with them. Show no mercy. Exterminate them. Annihilate them. Absolute eradication.

The Israelite army marched to Gibeon.

The rank and file of the army wanted to get busy doing God's work. They wanted to rid the earth of these lying, conniving, scheming pagans. But Joshua stops them.

“We gave our word. We took an oath. I don't care what God said. I know what we said. We will not break our word.”

My question to you: Was Joshua right? Or was the army right?

God said destroy these people. Joshua said spare them. The army wanted to do what God said. Joshua refused. Was Joshua right?

For a minute, I'm going to ignore your opinion. Let's look to see if the Bible itself answers this question. In Joshua 9, the chapter that tells this story, it seems evident to me that the writer is making a statement in favor of Joshua, but this is implicit, not explicit. However, in 2 Samuel 21, the Bible is horribly explicit.

There was a famine in the land of Israel during the time of King David. King David has his priests inquire of God regarding the reason for the famine. God says the famine has come as punishment on the nation because of actions taken by the previous king, King Saul. His patriotic zeal had led him to slaughter the Gibeonites. He imagined he was carrying out the will of God. Weren't these Gibeonites part of the Canaanite peoples? Hadn't God spoken through Moses repeatedly ordering the complete extermination of the Gibeonite people?

Now God is requiring King David, the “man after God's own heart” to address this issue. God makes it's clear that Saul's action, the slaughter of the Gibeonites was unjust, immoral.

Acting in accord with the justice system of that ancient culture, David delivered seven descendants of Saul to the Gibeonite elders to be executed as pay back for the slaughter Saul had directed.

After these executions, the famine went away. The land was at peace.

This whole story sounds bizarre to us. But before we dismiss it as an irrelevant, ancient tale, let me ask you, have you ever wondered if you were hopelessly excluded from the favor of God?

I have a friend who frequently tells me he knows he is going to be lost. I don't know for sure where his certainty comes from. As he's gotten older, his connection with God has gotten shakier. According to standard Christian formulas if his faith is shaky, then his salvation is shaky. Because we all know that God says if you don't believe you will be damned, sent to hell, lost.

But is that really so?

What if a person's loss of faith can be traced to dementia? If a person loses his faith because the person has lost mental function, do you imagine that God would really damn such a person? Don't you imagine that Jesus, like the ancient Joshua would step in and say, Hey wait a minute, I gave that person my word.

What about people who are developmentally disabled and are never able to articulate faith? What about people who are forty years old, unable to talk, and still in diapers? Is it still true that we would insist, they can't be saved because they haven't said the necessary words expressing faith?

What about homosexuals? Christians are so sure they are like the Canaanites. God hates them. God excludes them. But what if these folks have seen God's power and presence in this church, and they want to enjoy the grace of God that is specially available here? Will we act like Joshua's army and rehearse the words of condemnation or will we act like Joshua and defend their right to a safe and secure home here among the people of God?

In the famous story of the Good Samaritan, the good conservative religious scholar set up the story by asking who deserves to be included. Jesus answers by asking who is good enough to open the door. In Jesus story, it is the person with defective religion who is celebrate as the truly good person, the person who embodies the intentions of heaven.

What about us? When we read our Bibles do we underline the passages that express divine displeasure or divine welcome?

In Acts 15, the leaders of the early Christian church were debating the rules for including and excluding people from the church. There were devout conservatives who wanted to hold up the standards. They wanted to make sure everyone who joined the church measured up to exalted standards. Peter finally stood up and said, “Look, you know that God included people who had none of the credentials you people are talking about. God astonished us by giving a demonstrable gift of the Holy Spirit to unbaptized, uncircumcised pagans. Are we really supposed to be more particular than God? Then Peter made this fascinating statement: “Why are you now challenging God by burdening the Gentile believers with a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear?”

Note Peter's argument: we have tried the approach of measuring everyone by standards. It doesn't work for us. It didn't work for our ancestors. Why would we impose it on the new people. Leave them alone.

My appeal to us: will we stand with Joshua and protect vulnerable people, even people who have questionable credentials? Or will we stand with Joshua's army and demand that God's harshest judgments be implemented?

Will we stand with the Pharisees and work to keep the church pure or will we stand with Peter and boldly welcome all God calls?

The Adventist Church and Homosexuals

If I had a magic wand, I would have the Annual Council vote something like this:

God's ideal for humans as portrayed in the first two chapters of Genesis is that every man and every woman find a happy, life-long home in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage that produces good children who will in turn have grandchildren. The church is committed to doing everything we can to support people in pursuit of this ideal.

We recognize that not every person can live this ideal. There are childless couples, people who are single for decades in spite of their preference, divorced people, homosexuals, people who have been married several times. These people are members of our churches. They respond to our evangelism. How should we respond to these non-ideal lives?

Here is what I would require, if I were writing the rules:

1. Any clergy serving in leadership above the local congregation must be married only once and not divorced. They must be parents and if the majority of their children have rejected the church, this should be seen as a major impediment to continued service in any position above that of a local congregation.
2. Single persons would not be qualified to serve in leadership at administrative levels above the local congregation.
3. The church would not ordain homosexuals to the clergy.
4. Adventist clergy would be prohibited from solemnizing homosexual marriages, just as Adventist clergy already are forbidden to perform marriages in which only one of the persons is Adventist. (And just as there are pastors who quietly disregard the rules regarding “mixed marriages” there would be pastors who would quietly disregard the rules regarding homosexual unions.)
5. The denomination would forbid use of its churches for forbidden marriages.
6. The denomination would refrain from promulgating rules for how congregations manage their response to homosexuals and to people who divorce and remarry. Congregations would be allowed to respond on a case-by-case basis to these situations. 

My rationale for the above set of policies.

There is already precedent for allowing exceptions to full agreement with the doctrines of the church.

There is a loud clamor in official church circles these days declaring that belief in 6 days/6000 years is an absolute requirement for being Adventist. Ted Wilson declaims, “If you don't believe in a short chronology you are not Adventist.” But I have personally heard Fernando Canale say that if a scientist believes all the rest of our doctrines and keeps Sabbath and pays tithe, he would baptize such a person into the Adventist Church. Michael Hasel was present and did not demur.

If this doctrine can be set aside in exceptional cases, why can we not, in exceptional cases, set aside our doctrine about the absolute necessity of heterosexual marriage?

This approach requires from homosexuals an acknowledgment of the church's ideal of marriage—which is heterosexual, life-long marriage. Homosexual unions are other than this ideal. This approach requires from traditional members a recognition of the fact that the ideal is not possible for all people and that non-traditional relationships are righteous even if not ideal.

The inhumanity of enforced celibacy.

We rightly lament the damage to persons that flows from the Catholic requirement of celibacy for participation in the ordained ministry. Yet we require life-long celibacy by homosexuals as a requirement for participation in church life. This is inhumane. The inhumanity of this requirement is highlighted by the fact that church officials who vote on the doctrines and policies intended to impose this obedience on homosexuals have themselves typically been active sexually for at least twenty years. Even the homosexuals we promote as advocates of celibacy have had decades of sexual engagement.

But something further needs to be said. The requirement of celibacy is not merely a restriction on genital activity. It requires sexual beings to carefully avoid deep friendships and real intimacy because of the “threat” these kinds of close relationships inevitably create. The Bible declares it is not good for man to be alone. Yet we say to a whole class of men: you must remain alone for your entire life.

If God calls an individual to such a solitary life, let's us support them in that strenuous calling. But it is evil for us to impose this when we know that we ourselves could never bear it.
Jesus said something to the Pharisees about laying burdens on others. It was not a compliment. It is the height of spiritual arrogance to teach others there is an onerous requirement for salvation that they must meet—a requirement which we ourselves have never even contemplated attempting.

Even-handed church law

If we are going to bar practicing homosexuals from our congregations we ought to bar divorced and remarried people from our congregations. Then we ought to bar from being elders and pastors all who come short of Paul's requirement: “He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him.”

For now.

What I have written is not some final destination. It is a description of a place where we might be able to live together for awhile. I expect that over time the church will follow society in learning to place homosexual relationships within a moral framework analogous to the moral framework for heterosexual relationships. Attentiveness and loyalty will be affirmed. Promiscuity and unfaithfulness will be condemned.
We will come to see the picture in Genesis—a man and woman together in a life-long, happy monogamous marriage that produces children—as an ideal, not a standard. Our rules will be informed by this ideal and by the actual reality of available life.

My sermon on Matthew 19 can be found here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHMtZ6DcQtc

An article I wrote for my church newsletter that explains the foundation for my theology can be found here:  http://greenlakesda.org/ideas-discussion/

Legally Dumb

Sermon manuscript for Green Lake Church of Seventh-day Adventists

Sabbath, October 28, 2014

Texts. Leviticus 19:9-19

Matthew 19:1-15

Yesterday I got home a little before 5 p.m. As I got out of the car I was spotted by a few beady-eyed expectant chickens. I carried some stuff into the house. When I came back out, I could scarcely get off the back porch. Thirty chickens were clustered at the bottom of the steps. A few more were running my direction.

I felt like a rock star. I pushed my way through the mob and headed for the barn, barely avoiding stepping on chickens that crowded my feet.

It was dinner time.

I got a scoop of chicken feed and headed to the back side of the barn where I feed.

I made little piles here and there trying to reduce the amount of squabbling between hungry birds.

Once the feed was on the ground I could hear the sounds of birds snatching food bits from the ground. Every now and then a bird would look my direction to see if I was going to throw out any more food. For a very few minutes, I enjoyed a certain sense of magical power.

I think it was something like this with Jesus.

Everywhere he went, people clustered in expectation. They were going to receive good stuff. Recall the words Dianne read a few minutes ago.

Jesus left Galilee and went down to the region of Judea east of the Jordan River. Large crowds followed him there, and he healed their sick.

Of course, they followed him. Of course, they clustered around him.

In a world without morphine, he offered relief from pain.

In a world without antibiotics, he cured infectious disease.

In a world without wheel chairs, he restored mobility.

In a world without Braille, he gave sight to the blind.

And sometimes he fed them.

No wonder the people thronged him everywhere he went.

But Jesus was also a problem. He was a problem for theologians and the clergy and the civic authorities. He threatened the established order. Jesus made these guardians of the established order in religion and society nervous. Since Jesus drew huge crowds, the theologians could not ignore him. In fact, they hounded him constantly.

The people came for healing. The theologians came to try to limit the impact of Jesus teaching.

The people came hungry for healing and wisdom. The theologians came to argue.

Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: "Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife for just any reason?"

Scholars tell us that among the Jewish theologians at that time this was a lively question. Some conservative Jewish theologians believed divorce should be completely illegal and some liberal theologians argued divorce should be legal in all situations.

The Pharisees figured if they could get Jesus to take sides in this debate, it would be a fine rhetorical trap. If he sided with the conservatives they could ask about extreme cases. What about when there was a real threat of bodily harm or even murder? Should divorce be illegal even in those cases? What if the woman could not have children? Surely he would not expect a man to forgo having children just because his wife was sterile.

On the other hand, if Jesus sided with the liberal theologians, they could accuse him of undermining the very institution of marriage, the foundation of human society. You can't go squishy on something as vital as marriage.

"Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.' And he said, 'This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.' Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together."

Jesus sides solidly with the conservative position. No divorce. When people get married, they create a new, divinely-blessed entity called a couple. If you split a marriage, you are going counter to the purpose of God. Jesus even cites the Bible to back up his stance. He references Genesis Two.

The Pharisees are taken aback. They did not expect this. Jesus was a liberal. He was always expressing mercy and understanding for human weakness. The Pharisees themselves were not prepared to live this ideal. Jesus' words caught them off guard.

"Then why [they sputtered] did Moses say in the law that a man could give his wife a written notice of divorce and send her away?" they asked.

Jesus quoted the Bible in support of the fundamental permanence of marriage. The Pharisees quoted the Bible back in support of divorce.

This highlights something about religious arguments. We can almost always find support in the Bible for whatever rule we want to impose on others or for any loophole we want for ourselves and our friends. The Pharisees were not looking for wisdom. They were looking for an argument. They wanted Jesus to define a rule so they could then debate the fine points of that rule.

Jesus refuses to play their game. He goes straight to the fundamental principle that undergirds marriage—God's ideal for humanity, according to the creation story, is for a man and woman to marry and to have children—and to live happily ever after. That's the way it's supposed to go.

Jesus continued:

"Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended. (this last phrase reads literally, it was not so from the beginning.)

Then, just in case they didn't get it, Jesus pushed it further:

And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery--unless his wife has been unfaithful."

So there you have it. Unless your wife has run off with someone else, you're stuck. :-)

If your wife puts poison in your soup, that's no excuse. If she beats you black and blue or hires her brother to do it for her, sorry, you're stuck. If there are no children. If she gets tired of you bossing her around and starts answering back. . . .

If you're looking for rule, there it is: once you're married, you're stuck. The Pharisees might have been inclined to argue further because they were not there to learn. The disciples, on the other hand, took everything Jesus said with great seriousness. They thought Jesus was setting up a new law and they worried it would be impossible to keep.

"If this is the case, it is better not to marry!"

In responding to his disciples, Jesus finally acknowledges he is not actually setting up some new law to replace the law of Moses. He was reminding people of the Creation ideal: a man and woman together forever in a harmonious union. A relationship that was so free and confident the two persons could be naked together with no risk of shame. This is the ideal. It is not always possible.

"Not everyone can accept this statement," Jesus said. "Only those whom God helps. (or, “but only those to whom it is given.”)

Jesus goes on to make a cryptic statement that no one really understands:

Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."

Whatever the details of meaning lie behind this statement, what it says on its face is this: human sexuality cannot be neatly prescribed by any law. We cannot go back to the Creation story and try to write a law for today. There were no eunuchs in the Creation story. This kind of human aberration were clearly not part of God's original plan for humanity, but Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven included even these folks.

You can almost see the Pharisees sputtering with more questions. But, but, what about polygamy? What about the stories of King David and his many wives? What about the rules in the Old Testament about men marrying the widows of their brothers? What if a woman can't have children? There were all sorts of questions Jesus didn't address. All kinds of rules to argue about. But Jesus was ready to move on.

If the Pharisees wanted a rule, he gave them one: no divorce. Ever. Period.

But if they understood the principles of the kingdom of heaven, they would know that God meets us where we actually live, not in some hypothetical state.

Let me say this to you:

God's ideal for humanity is for a man and a woman to marry and have children. That's the creation ideal. And the Kingdom of God—and the Church of God—has lots of room for people who cannot live that ideal.

If you are getting beat up at home—get out and get help. If your spouse or parents or children are abusing you, tell someone. Tell me. Tell one of the elders here in the congregation. We will help you. We will find help and protection for you.

If you are living in a marriage that is less than the creation ideal, a marriage where sometimes you have secrets, where sometimes you are not happy, where sometimes you are tempted to call it quits. Don't run too quickly to explore your legal options to get out. Do all you can first to rekindle the early fire. Do all you can to pursue the ideal of heaven.

If divorce must come, make sure it comes only after every other option has been tried.

If you fit into that mysterious category of “eunuchs”--and here I'm using the term metaphorically to refer to those whose sexuality is not congruent with the model presented in the creation story—if you are one of those eunuchs, know that Jesus made a place for you, too, in the kingdom of heaven. Don't let the Pharisees impose their rules on you.

One last point here, before we move on. When the Pharisees asked about a rule for divorce, Jesus said the only exception to the rule against divorce was adultery. Which was a little holy humor because in Matthew 5, Jesus had said that looking at a woman with desire was already adultery. Taken literally as a legal precedent, this would mean that every woman here is free to dump her husband. And if we are even handed, most of the men would also be free to dump their wives. Jesus is not writing legislation here. He is pointing us to ideals that are higher and nobler than any law could ever hope to be.

If you want wisdom for your life, Jesus reminds you of God's ideal for humanity—a life-long, happy marriage. If that is not possible for you, then aim for the place in life that is closest to that ideal.

If you are looking for rules to cover all the cases where that ideal is not possible, Jesus refuses to go there.

Rules are necessary in any community. They are necessary in the church. But rules are a statement of the lowest tolerable level life. They do not embody our dreams. They embody our fears and concerns.

Jesus calls us higher.

We began with a picture of crowds gathering to Jesus. Jesus drew them irresistibly.

The theologians show up and try to slow the momentum of hope and healing by asking complicated questions about rules.

I was reminded of these theologians by one of the chickens yesterday afternoon. After I put out the piles of food, one of the roosters, Archie, ran around chasing some of the birds away. They did not deserve to eat. There is one rooster in particular that Archie will chase if that rooster is anywhere in sight. Archie will run fifty or sixty feet across the yard to chase that rooster away from the food. I have to sneak this rooster food around the corner of the barn where Archie can see what we're doing.

It was like that with these theologians. They wanted to make sure that no unauthorized people enjoyed the favor of God. They wanted to make sure everyone had passed their standards.

Jesus did not let these theologians get away with their effort to write the rules for the kingdom of heaven. Jesus explicitly opened the kingdom of heaven to people who were formally excluded from full participation in Jewish worship.

After addressing the theologians, Jesus turned his attention to the really important people.

One day some parents brought their children to Jesus so he could lay his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples scolded the parents for bothering him. But Jesus said, "Let the children come to me. Don't stop them! For the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to those who are like these children." And he placed his hands on their heads and blessed them before he left.

Why did the disciples send these parents away? Because that's what they thought Jesus would want. In that culture kids were not important. Half of them died anyway. Don't get too attached to them. Parents with kids were certainly not worth taking the time of the Messiah, a preacher who was constantly surrounded by crowds of thousands.

But the preacher said otherwise. “Let the children come. Don't stop them. The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them.

Jesus confronts the devout religious culture of his day.

The theologians said that women had no status. A man could dump his wife at will, because the man's will, the man's judgment was supreme. Jesus said. No. Just because it was legal to divorce at will did not make it moral.

The devout religious culture of Jesus' day knew without any question that people with sexual irregularities were properly excluded from full inclusion in the worship of God's people. Jesus included them in the kingdom of heaven.

Even the disciples of Christ dismissed children as beneath the concern of the Messiah. Jesus corrected them.

What about us? Will we pat ourselves on the back because we do not murder, don't rob banks or cheat on our spouses or on our exams? Or will we allow Jesus to spur us to dream of doing truly great things? Will we seek to build together relationships that mirror the dreams of God in creation? Will we join Jesus in touching the world with hope and healing? Will we welcome all of God's children?

  

Countermanding the very Words of God - revised

Countermanding the Very Words of God:

Biblical Guidance for the Church

in its Ministry to People with Sexual and Gender Irregularities

By John McLarty

Sometimes, to do right we must countermand the very words of God. This sounds blasphemous, but it is plainly taught in the Bible.

Example one: Jesus in Matthew 5

Jesus declares, “It has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ “But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” So Jesus supersedes the words of God in Deuteronomy 24:1 with his own dictum.

“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ “But I say to you, do not swear at all . . .“But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.” Here Jesus contradicts the explicit language of Numbers, warning people that if they follow literally what God said in Numbers regarding oaths, their words will be “from the evil one.”

Finally, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” Here Jesus contradicts God's prescription for justice, a prescription that is stated three times in the Pentateuch. Jesus calls instead for radical mercy.

You might counter, Jesus was God. As God, he had the authority to contradict or supersede words God had previously spoken. But if we mere mortals dared to challenge God that would be blasphemy.

My response: Not always. Consider the story of Abraham.

Example two: Abraham and Sodom

God tells Abraham he is going to investigate Sodom and Gomorrah. The implication is that judgment (doom) is at hand. God does not ask Abraham for his opinion. God simply announces his intentions. Instead of bowing and agreeing, Abraham challenges God, accusing him of injustice.

“Surely you wouldn't do such a thing, destroying the righteous along with the wicked. Why, you would be treating the righteous and the wicked exactly the same! Surely you wouldn't do that! Should not the Judge of all the earth do what is right?” Genesis 18:24-25.

Abraham does not approach this conversation with God as a sycophantic courtier. He is not the president's lawyer inventing legal justification for “enhanced interrogation.” To press it further, Abraham does not respond to God with an “Oswald Chambers-like” submission. Abraham knows God has the power to do whatever he wants, but having the power does not automatically confer the right. For Abraham, God's overwhelming power does not confer indisputable authority. God must conform himself to justice.

God readily agreed to Abraham's conditions limiting God's freedom to act destructively against the cities, and when the investigating angels couldn't find even the ten righteous inhabitants specified by Abraham, God honored Abraham's scruples by evacuating Lot and his family before the fire fell (Genesis 18, 19).

We could appropriately argue that God intended Abraham to act the part of “savior” in this story. God announced an investigation, Abraham knowing the moral plight of the Sodomites, stepped in to plead for them. In this story, God was deliberately setting up Abraham as a type of the Savior. Interpreted this way the passage makes my point even more strongly: The mission of Christians is not to join God in his work of “investigating” and “condemning.” Our job is to join the God the Savior in advocating for mercy.

Example Three: Moses and the Idolatrous Israelites

The people of Israel were camped at Mt. Sinai. Moses was up on the mountain communing with God. After Moses had been on the mountain for weeks, the people began to fret. They wanted a visible god to lead them. So Aaron made a golden calf and the people began dancing around this idol in worship. God informed Moses of this problem and then gave him a direct order,

“Now leave me alone so my fierce anger can blaze against them, and I will destroy them. Then I will make you, Moses, into a great nation.” Exodus 32:10

In the case of Abraham and Sodom, Abraham challenged God. Here, Moses defies God. He countermands the very words of God. There is no hint of diffidence or ambiguity in God's command. Moses understands it perfectly. But instead of obeying and getting out of the way, Moses questions God's judgment. “God, I don't think you really want to do that. If you do it, you'll be sorry.” Later, Moses upped his protest. “I will not step aside. To kill them, you're going to have to go through me.”

God backed down.

Both Abraham and Moses are celebrated as righteous men. Their challenges to the very words of God are recognized as acts of righteousness. These leaders were honored by God for their obedience and also for their bold challenges.

Example four: Joshua and the Gibeonites

The people of Israel invaded Palestine. At Jericho, acting on orders from heaven, they annihilated every man, woman, child and animal—except Rahab and everyone in her hotel. After Jericho, the Israelites destroyed the city and people of Ai. Both of these savage exterminations were ordered explicitly by God. When tribal groups throughout Palestine heard the news, they formed a league to fight the invaders. The Gibeonites, however, tried a different tactic. They sent a delegation to ask for a peace treaty with the Israelites.

When the emissaries arrived, Joshua interrogated them. “Who are you? Where do you come from?”

The ambassadors answered, “Your servants have come from a very distant country. Stories of your exploits have reached even as far as our country. We've heard about what your God did to the Egyptians and to Hesbon and Bashon. We have come offer ourselves as vassals. We're prepared to pay tribute. We just want to be on your side. We want to connect with the God who is able to do what your God does.”

Joshua responded, “God has forbidden us to make treaties with any one in this area. How do we know you live far enough away for us to even consider making a treaty?”

The Gibeonites managed to convince Joshua and the elders that they did, in fact, live far away. Joshua and the elders agreed to a treaty. A few days later the Israelites discovered they'd been fooled. The Gibeonites lived only three days away from the Israelite camp. The Israelites were outraged. They marched to the region of Gibeon to annihilate these deceiving Canaanites.

Once in the Gibeonite neighborhood, however, Joshua restrained his army. “We gave our word,” he said. “When we make a promise, we keep it. Even to pagans. Even if they tricked us.”

The army was outraged at Joshua's refusal to exterminate these worthless people. They threatened mutiny, but Joshua was adamant. “Yes, they are Canaanites. Yes, they fooled us. Yes, they are on God's extermination list. Yes, God forbade us to make a treaty with people like this. But, no, we are not going to break our word. A treaty is a treaty. An oath is an oath.”

Joshua summoned the Gibeonite leaders. “Why did you deceive us, saying you lived a long way away?”

The Gibeonites answered, “Your servants had heard definite, detailed reports about the command your God gave you to wipe out all the inhabitants of the land. We've seen your God's power in Egypt and in the battles against Sihon, king of Hesbon, and Og, king of Bashon, and Jericho and Ai. We are helpless against you militarily. We did the only thing we could think of to save our lives. We are in your hands. Do to us whatever seems good and right.”

So Joshua saved them. He imposed severe “tribute.” They were consigned to serve as temple slaves in perpetuity. But they were alive.

God's command to wipe out the people of Canaan was so emphatic, so clear and unmistakable, the pagan people themselves had memorized it. There was nothing fuzzy in God's directions. God had ordered the Israelites to exterminate these wicked people. When Joshua saved the Gibeonites, he was countermanding the very words of God. Was he right to do so?

A few generations later, King Saul violated the treaty Joshua had made and tried to carry out God's command to exterminate the Gibeonites. During the reign of the next king, David, God sent a famine to punish Israel for Saul's effort to obey God's extermination decree. To atone for Saul's actions against the Gibeonites David executed seven of Saul's descendants. Only after this act of retribution against Saul's family did God revoke the famine decree. Whatever else we make of this story, it clearly demonstrates God's endorsement of Joshua's contravention of God's explicit command regarding the peoples of Canaan. Joshua, a type of Christ, disobeyed the divine command and saved the condemned people. Saul, a type of Satan, attempted to carry out God's verdict of condemnation. Is there any question about which of these leaders is a more appropriate model for leaders today? (For an example of the righteous breaking of an oath for destruction see the story of Jonathan and the honey in 1 Samuel 14.)

“Doing right is more important than obeying God.”

Of course, as believers, we would say this differently. We would say that doing right is the truest, purest interpretation of God's words. If obeying God's words leads someone to mistreat people, we would argue the perpetrator has misunderstood God, that God's words didn't really mean what they thought. But I put it the other way, because sometimes we are so sure we know what God meant by what he said, that our consciences are anesthetized. When American Adventists expressed support for the American use of torture during the Iraq war, they imagined they were merely showing respect for Paul's words about the ruler and his sword. The whole world could see that American practices of rendition and torture were evil, but some of my own church members thought they saw justification for these things in the Bible. When Charlie Fuqua, an Arkansas Republican, proposed legislation that would allow parents to seek the death penalty for an incorrigible child, he was attempting to be faithful to his understanding of the words of God recorded in the Bible.

These examples of people misusing the words of God show that it is not enough to ask, “What did God say?” Sometimes a better question is, “What is right?” Adventists are champions of God's Law. We see the divine law as an explication of eternal principles. The foundation for the law is so universal, so noble and exalted, God himself is not free to violate it. Obviously, if God is bound by the eternal law of love and justice, we mere mortals not free to violate it even if the Bible orders us to do so.

If our consciences—feeble and scarred as they are—warn us against an injustice, courageous leaders among God's people will join Abraham and speak up, even if there are words in Scripture which can be cited in support of the injustice. We will not allow traditional understandings of the explicit words of God to seduce or coerce us into complicity with institutional or societal injustice. We will refuse to be seduced into imagining that our cooperation with injustice is the will of God.

In the Bible, one criteria shows up repeatedly for countermanding the words of God: mercy. Abraham argued to save Sodom on that basis. Moses saved Israel from the understandable wrath of God. In the case of the Gibeonites, Joshua faced two contradictory, legally-binding claims: God's verdict of destruction and his own oath of protection. Certainly customary justice would privilege God's command over a human's oath. However, mercy triumphed, setting aside the very command of God.

Example five: Jesus and the Sidonian Woman

When the pagan woman from the neighborhood of Sidon asked for Jesus' help, he ignored her. When this did not dissuade her, Jesus announced that helping her would violate his God-given mission. Then Jesus compared her to a dog which meant the gospel was not to be preached to her (See Matthew 7:6). Jesus could hardly have been more explicit about her place outside God's favor. In face of this reiterated, explicit rejection citing God as the authority, the woman refused to yield. Instead of submitting to plain meaning of Jesus' words, the woman turned them back against him: even dogs get crumbs. Finally, Jesus capitulated. Jesus (God) bent to the insistence of this mother who demanded mercy for her tormented daughter. To dramatize the divine capitulation, Jesus said to the woman, “May it be for you as you wish.” (Not “as I wish.” Not “as God's wishes.” “As you wish!”)

We believe Jesus' words expressing exclusion were a dramatic set up for his eventual gracious response to this mother. We believe his initial rejection was only apparent. Its purpose was to demonstrate all the more powerfully the universality of the kingdom of heaven. God was speaking through the mother when she rejected the explicit words of Jesus and demanded mercy. Her words, not the initial words of Jesus, were the truest expression of the purpose of God. (Of course, Jesus was deliberately eliciting her words.) Which brings us back to the truth captured in Jesus' twice repeated quotation from Hosea: “You would not have condemned my innocent disciples if you knew the meaning of this Scripture: ‘I want you to show mercy, not offer sacrifices.'”

Some real-life applications

Occasionally, devout, conservative Christians talk to me about their quandary regarding their homosexual friends and children. They read the Bible's explicit condemnations of homosexual acts. On the other hand, they have a gut sense that our condemnation of all homosexual unions is wrong. They know the words of Romans 1 do not describe their homosexual friends. What to do? How can it be righteous to set aside the explicit words of the Bible to accommodate this virtually unalterable human condition? I point my devout, conservative friends to the story of Joshua and the Gibeonites. Yes, like Joshua's soldiers, we can quote words of God to justify condemning the class of people we call homosexuals. Or we can act like Joshua and put the full weight of our influence and leadership into protecting and welcoming these vulnerable people who seek sanctuary among us. Surely Joshua, a type of Christ, is a more righteous model for us than his soldiers.

When we ask if there are any words in the Bible that can be used to justify excluding people, we are acting like Jesus' disciples who wanted Jesus to send away the Sidonian mother. We are acting like Joshua's soldiers who wanted to be God's enforcers. The Bible is crystal clear that it was Joshua and Jesus who did right, not the soldiers and disciples. We are called to follow the example of Joshua and Jesus.

Our treatment of homosexuals cannot be separated from the lessons of Christian history in regard to slavery. The Bible explicitly condones and regulates slavery. For centuries, Christians used these words of the Bible to justify the status quo of slavery. We now know they were tragically wrong. No matter what Deuteronomy or Ephesians says about the legitimacy of slavery, Christians now decry its immorality. Even though there is no explicit warrant in the Bible for abolition, Christians now agree this non-biblical stance is right. What was explicitly allowed by the words of the Bible is now universally condemned as immoral.

Something similar has happened in regard to the death penalty. The Bible prescribes death by stoning for Sabbath-breakers, adulterers, rebellious sons, homosexual unions, women unable to prove their virginity at their wedding, blasphemers, witches, and rape victims if the rape occurred within the city limits. The people of God rightly judge any attempt to impose these Bible commandments in our day as barbaric and immoral.

We fail to cooperate with God when we use his words as weapons for defending the privileges of the privileged or as cudgels for keeping less-privileged people in their place. We partner with God when we use the Bible as an instrument of mercy or as a device for opening prison gates. In the synagogue at Nazareth, Jesus read Isaiah's words as his mission statement:

The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed

To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.

When the people fully realized what Jesus was saying, when they understood the full measure of his radical mercy, they rushed to throw him off a cliff. I pray we will not be equally offended by the radical mercy of God in our day. I pray that we will instead rush to join him in his mission, welcoming the unattractive, protecting the threatened. To reference another of Isaiah's prophecies (Isaiah 56), we are called to participate with God in providing sanctuary for even the eunuchs and aliens in God's house of prayer.

John McLarty is senior pastor of the Green Lake Church of Seventh-day Adventists in Seattle, Washington and author of Adventist Spirituality for Thinkers and Seekers published by Review and Herald.