Saturday, July 18, 2020

Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43

Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43 (NRSV)

24 He put before them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. 27 And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?’ 28 He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he replied, ‘No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. 30 Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’ ”

 

36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; 38 the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, 42 and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. 

Let anyone with ears listen!

 

Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43 contains the parable of the weeds and its allegorical interpretation.

Matthew 13:24-30 is the parable of the weeds. The source is the material unique to Matthew. The focus is on the discovery of weeds sown by the enemy, and upon the farmer’s intent to let the weeds grow until the harvest, when there will be enough time for separating wheat from weeds. The patience and grace of the farmer in the present time, the time between sowing the seed and the harvest, becomes the focus of this parable. His concern is to tend the field patiently, despite the mixed crop growing in it. In the ministry context of Jesus, it would represent a strong protest against the practice of groups like the Pharisees, the Qumran community, and the Zealots. They had as a goal a pure community defined by their obedience to the Law. Jesus will demonstrate how this parable works. He spends much of us time with people whom the righteous might consider weeds. He reserved his harshest words to the self-righteous and judgmental. He would have no sympathy with a moral crusade to uproot evil. Jesus is saying that the time before the harvest of the anticipated end of human history is a time for patience and grace by those who devoted to the rule of God. The reason is that even as the farmer sows good seed, the enemy, Satan, is sowing bad seed. Only God can see the heart. The slaves/servants do not have the capacity to divide the wheat and weeds. The time before the end is an ambiguous time. In other words, Jesus' presentation of the rule of God in these parables indicates that it is both "already" and "not yet."[1] The danger in trying to create a pure community is greater than being patient and graceful. The parable and the interpretation of it call into question the idea of anyone other than God separating "authentic members of the covenant community from false members."[2]

24 He put before them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven, a Jewish term, suggesting either the Jewishness of Matthew and his audience or the Semitic idiom Jesus might have used, may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field.[In other words, the situation with the kingdom is similar to the picture presented in the parable as a whole, rather than identified with the seed or the one sowing seed. 25 But while everybody was asleep, a fact that seems insignificant in terms of the challenging point Jesus wants to make, an enemy, in the villages of Palestine even today it is not uncommon for a man to have his private enemy, and for trees to be cut down and crops burned as a result of such feuds.[3] This personal enemy came and sowed weeds, the plant is a common cornfield weed, poisonous bearded darnel, growing two feet high, closely resembling wheat, among the wheat, and then went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. 27 And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?’ 28 He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ This situation calls for divine assistance as illustrated in the Lord's Prayer in 6:13 where Jesus teaches the disciples to ask God for rescue "from the evil one." The slaves said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he replied, ‘No, this being the critical point in the parable, for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. 30 Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, (the distinction between slaves and reapers may show the allegorical nature of the parable) Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’ ” The parable itself reflects realistic agricultural life of Jesus’ day.  At least, one would assume so. Yet, I note some debate about the agricultural situation depicted here. Why are the servants surprised?  Manson says it would be surprising if there were not some weeds in the field.  It would be absurd to weed the field at this stage. For Jeremias, the question by the servants is not foolish. It was typical to take out the darnel at various stages of the growing season. Jesus says they are to let both weeds and wheat grow together until harvest. Because there is so much darnel, and the roots have become intertwined with the wheat, the owner of the house believes it is best to let them grow together.  Owners today could make the same decision in Palestine.  The patience and grace of the farmer becomes the focus of this parable. Rather than endanger the wheat growing up with the weeds, the farmer chooses to let both weeds and wheat continue to grow side by side. The farmer refuses to do anything that might injure the wheat just to rid himself of the weeds. His concern is to tend the field patiently, despite the mixed crop growing in it. Furthermore, he might be implying a level of distrust in the ability of his slaves to separate properly the weeds from the wheat.  The expectation of the parable is that we will sow seeds despite affliction, trial, and difficult people that evil may use to impede us. The parable expects sowers to sow seed and refrain from taking the harvest into their own hands. 

In the context of the life of Jesus, it would represent a strong protest against the tendency of the Pharisees, the Qumran community and the Zealots to delimit a sect of devout believers.  They adhered to a code, the Jewish Law, but had different ways of being faithful to their code. There were those like the Essenes of Qumran, who went out into the desert to separate themselves from the culture and set up a "pure" community of faithful people. There were those like the Pharisees, who saw it as their job to pluck evil by the root by pointing out those individuals who were obviously violating God's law and assigning them to the fire of judgment. There were those like the Zealots who turned to violence to expel from the land those who rejected the code and directed violence toward Jews who were not faithful to the code. 

These approaches are still tempting to disciples of Jesus today. In a post-Christendom age, many want to separate themselves from a culture that is increasingly secular and even hostile to people of faith. They would rather maintain a pure crop, so they will wall off the field and watch for interlopers who might sow bad seeds among the faithful wheat. It would be better to create their own culture rather than be corrupted by the evil around them. On the other hand, some Christians have taken the role of judge and jury, pointing out the evil in others and rooting it out publicly. Although there are a few Christian militia, the militant brand within Christianity is lessening, although wars between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland and elsewhere can still arise. 

Such approaches are destructive because no matter how perfect the code might be, we are not. We will use and abuse the code for selfish and self-righteous ends. Communities that try to wall themselves off from the world eventually atrophy in their mission and are not sustainable. The weeds still infiltrate, and the sinful nature of humanity is hard to hold at bay. The Essenes eventually died out, as have many other sects that have tried the isolationist approach. The Pharisaic approach is equally destructive because it can damage the good seed while rooting out the bad. Many are the people who have been harmed by well-meaning Christians on a moral crusade who have led with judgment rather than grace. The energy needed to maintain a community by violence will eventually die out or run into a stronger military force that crushes them. What we might see as a deplorable orientation toward evil in another person might be an opportunity for God's grace to grow within them and change them. If we consign them to the fire before the harvest, we do more harm than good.

Jesus rejected the practice of adherence to a code and kept his circle open. God will rectify the opposition Jesus faced with the religious leaders. The point of the parable seems to be that it takes an expert to know the difference between real and fake ingredients, and that difference is only revealed at the time of the harvest. 

The parable may arise from the situation of the question: “how can the rule of God come when there are so many sinners in Israel?”  The answer is that just as a farmer does not delay harvest because of weeds, so the rule of God is not delayed because of sinners.  The intermixture of good and evil in Israel is vividly illustrated. Jesus expressly rejects a premature separation of the good and the bad.  People cannot perceive the heart.  Only God can do that.  To human eyes, they look too much alike.  In addition, God has fixed a time for the separation to take place. The parable illustrates that God is at work in the entire world sowing children of the kingdom. And just as God is at work in the world, so also is the enemy or Satan.[4] Thus, the parable suggests the coexistence of kingdom people with people of the evil one. Similarly, the parable points to the hiddenness of the rule of God in the present; both types of children coexist until judgment in the end. The fact that the two cannot be distinguished illustrates that one cannot be sure who will be God's elect in the end. Appearances are deceptive - those who appear as wheat may be tares and those who appear as tares may be wheat. Hence, the parable and the interpretation of it call into question the idea of anyone other than God separating "authentic members of the covenant community from false members."[5]

The parable acknowledges the presence of evil in the world alongside that of the presence of God and a form that this evil may take in its opposition to God and God's children. Thus, Ernst Kasemann's observation that one of the important Jewish apocalyptic questions "To whom does this world belong?" is pertinent to this pericope as well.[6] Even though both the Son of Man and the evil one sow in the field (i.e. the world), Matthew leaves no doubt as to whom the world belongs. Evil will be cast into a furnace of fire and the righteous will be vindicated, shining as the sun in the kingdom (13:41-43). Thus, neither evil nor the evil one has the last word. Indeed, in this parable Matthew suggests that the prayer of 6:13 "rescue us from the evil one" (NRSV) will ultimately be answered. In his depiction of future judgment, Matthew assures his readers of the certainty of divine rescue.

The parable reflects the concern of the young Christian community attempting to define itself over against an evil world, a concern not characteristic of Jesus.  Letting the wheat and weeds grow up together suggests the final judgment rather than agricultural practice. The parable deals with the apostasy of someone in the community, a problem that appears to be more typical of a certain stratum of tradition than of Matthew himself. There are good and bad in the church, but it is not the Lord’s will that people should expel anyone until the last judgment.  One may compare Paul in I Corinthians 4:5. The concluding eschatology of the interpretation is from the developed eschatology of the early church.  How many tares might there be? Judas was among the Twelve. In this life there remain many false Christians, hypocrites, and even notorious sinners among the faithful. It may well be that the fellowship of the church is always a mixed fellowship, and therefore only improperly said to be the Body of Christ.[7] The church has become keenly aware of the element of the provisional in human assessments about such differences. Thus, in accord with this parable, it remains open to the future of God and the divine judgment.[8]

When it comes to the community of those who follow Jesus, its purity is not something we will experience in our time. The genuine and the fake is something we wisely need to learn to distinguish. Groucho Marx famously said that the secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you have it made. We expect the label on the food to reflect accurately what is in the container. 

Jesus relies upon the experience of farming in this story. Maybe the closest experience many of us will have is with the garden. The gardener knows how difficult weeds can be. You fight dandelions all weekend and the beginning of the week they are back. They thrive in adversity (Hal Borland). Crabgrass can grow on bowling balls in airless rooms with no way to kill it that does not involve nuclear weapons (Dave Berry). They seem to know where to grow, and thus they must have brains (Dianne Benson, Dirt, 1994, 128). Yet, for the reflective gardener, weeding the garden becomes a metaphor of life. A Flemish proverb observes that people have enough weeding to do in their own garden. Some will think of their sins. Sins will grow like weeds and are difficult to remove.[9] Gardening requires a natural mindfulness. Such mindfulness includes removing weeds. It requires sustained attention. One needs to pull them with care, or you will hurt your hand or leave the root to grow and spread. Differing weeds will require differing techniques and tools. We need awareness as to where and how we walk and bend, for we might squash the plants we want to grow.[10]

Yet, the farmer in the story Jesus tells makes an interesting decision. He lets the weeds grow among the wheat. 

The good seed is already present, mingled with the seed sowed by the enemy. The church must always be aware that it has enemies. Sometimes, the enemy will come within the community. Such is the nature of the “already” in its imperfection and ambiguity. The “already” requires from us far more patience and grace than it does the judgment often found in moral crusades. We wait for the “not yet” of the final sifting represented in the Last Judgment, when the genuine and true will remain. Thus, our attention must focus upon our readiness for the Last Judgment. We must not have too much concern or the wrong type of concern for the readiness of others. The Son of Man will judge. We need to be sure we are the genuine seed that has grown into wheat. 

One of the reasons this parable hits home to me is that I have a very strong perfectionist streak in me.  I want the world to be a better place in which to live.  I want the church to live up to all its ideals.  However, I am hardest on myself. I can have more forgiveness for others than I am with myself. This parable moves against that perfectionist tendency. It reminds me of the importance of patience and grace. We need both qualities with self, with the church, and with the world.  

Many people have the opposite problem. They rarely face the ways in which they have fallen short of their ideals or contribute to the imperfections of the church or the world.     The title character in the comic strip Broom Hilda is an ugly yet somehow lovable witch. Her friend Irwin, the troll, has all the innocence and naiveté needed to be truly attractive. One day, we find Broom Hilda asking, "Irwin, what would be the best way to make the world better?" Irwin thinks for a moment and replies "Start with yourself! Give up your bad habits and evil pleasures. Then when you're good, when you're perfect, you'll stand as a shining example to others!" Broom Hilda swiftly responds, "What's the second-best way?"

The world is an imperfect place. 

Sometimes, such imperfections are inconveniences that create pressure in the moment, but we quickly set aside. When I was an associate in Plainfield, Indiana in July 1990, the pastor had been working on his sermon long and hard. I had just gotten off two weeks off that included vacation and continuing education. I had just gotten back from Boston area. I was home a little earlier than I planned. I received a call Saturday morning that the lead pastor had been to the dentist with a root canal but would likely would be okay to preach the next day. I started working on a sermon on this passage, just in case. Sunday morning, I received a telephone call that he would be unable to preach. What complicated matters was that I was scheduled to teach a Sunday school class, Questions of Faith II, that had a video. I was preaching in three worship and teaching a SS class! We live in a very imperfect, messy world. No matter how perfect our plans might be, life intervenes. What are we to do?

NASA put a large telescope into space.  It is valued at one and half billion dollars.  And yet, it was unusable. There is a small mirror on the telescope which does not work the way it is supposed to.  So now, the telescope gives a blurred image.  How could such a thing happen?  How can such imperfections be allowed to happen?  In this case, of course, it was because of a very simple test which could have been performed but was not.

Two Congressman had been judged by their peers to have done illegal things.  One was fixing parking tickets for a friend.  Another was from my home state of Minnesota.  He was judged to have illegally taken extra money for speaking engagements.  I can remember two years before (1988) when he was running for the Senate.  He had a very sensible explanation for the things which were then just coming out about him.  He was re-elected by the people of Minnesota.  And yet, as we hear such things by our elected representatives, we can wonder, how can such things happen? 

But then, there is also the church.  We have all the language of justice, and love, and kindness.  And yet, sometimes we fall so far short of our ideals. I am sure all of us can think of times when the ideal of kindness and giving to others has not been met by the church.  People believe, rightly or wrongly, that the church let them down in some way.  It is another imperfection we must deal with.  How can such things happen? The church at various times has been rocked by scandals.  Of course, there are the big names, like Jimmy Swaggert or Oral Roberts.  But many of us can point to pastors, or even bishops, who have fallen short of the ideal.  Pastors have run off with church funds, or with the church secretary.  But sometimes it is a respected a lay person who does something which embarrasses the whole church.  Another imperfection!  How can such things happen in the church?

I must also ask; how can we do some of the things which we do?  Maybe even just this morning, things were said or done which you wish had not happened.  You know, I think one of the most stressful times for families with children can be that hour right before church.  That can be such a hassle, getting everyone ready for church.  But I also would wager that for everyone here, if we are honest and look back over the past week, something we said or did causes us some pain.  It may have been a burst of anger.  It may have been a time of selfishness or pride.  It may have been a time when we hurt someone we loved.  It can happen so quickly and innocently. Yes, there is such imperfection in us.  How can such things happen to us, who hold such high ideals?

If there is anything which I want to share with you, it is this: Let us have a spirit of grace, with ourselves, with one another, and with the world in which we live.  

I also want to be very careful about what I am not saying here.  I do not mean that we should just excuse ourselves of every wrong-doing.  No, I believe that the ideals of the faith are there, and they need to be constantly before us.  But I want us to look at the other side of this striving for perfection.  In the real world within which you and I live, we are not perfect.  That should not surprise us!  But sometimes, I fear, we act as if we should be.  That can be dangerous.  It can lead us to defeat if we are not careful, a desire to give up.  That is what I want us to think about this morning.

Jesus had to face questions like the one I am raising today.  Jesus was a preacher of the kingdom of God.  He said that the kingdom of God was near.  And yet, look at his ministry, as many of his contemporaries must have.  He had only a small band of followers.  Oh, he was liked by the crowds, but was difficult to know where they stood.  And there was still so much evil in the world.  And after Jesus died, the church would remember this story.  You see, the early church had its struggles too.  There were differences of belief.  There were differences in how the worship.  There were differences in life-style.  Jews, Greeks, and Romans, wealthy and poor, were all trying to exist within the same church.  There was fighting in churches, and threats of division.  What were they to do?

First, the farmer says, let the wheat and the darnel grow up together.  When I hear this, I hear Jesus saying to us very clearly that we as human beings simply don't know the heart.  We don't know what is going on inside of someone.  It can be so easy to be judgmental of another's words or actions or beliefs.  In telling us that the wheat must grow together with the darnel, Jesus is telling us to have grace with one another.

Second, Jesus is also saying that God has already taken care of the separation of the good from the bad.  God has appointed a time when that will take place. The harvest will come.  So, don't worry about that.  

I have enough of the perfectionist in me that I want the world to be a better place in which to live.  I want the church to live up to all its ideals.  But maybe where I am hardest is right here, in myself.  When those imperfections and mistakes and sins arise in my own life, I can be very unforgiving of myself.  I want to get rid of them above everything else.  But then comes the word of Jesus.  It is a word of grace.  

One of the lessons that we can learn is precisely at this point.  Let us have grace with one another.  Let us have grace with the world in which we live.  Let us have grace with ourselves.

 

Matthew 13:36-43 is the allegorical interpretation of the parable of the weeds. The source is the material unique to Matthew. It is likely that the allegory and the interpretation are from Matthew himself.[11] If so, he is dealing with the presence of evil within the community of people who follow Jesus. How did they get here? Thus, it becomes a warning against false security. People are not to think they are safe just because they made it into the community. Matthew directs attention to the harvest that closes the parable. The harvest becomes the Last Judgment. The farmer becomes the Son of Man. The enemy is Satan. The field is the world. These verses become a little apocalypse about the fate of the darnel (children of the evil one) and the wheat (children of the rule of God). They focus upon future judgment that will separate true and false prophets, true followers of Jesus from the false. The unrestricted flow of time as we experience it meets here the eschatological expectation of Christ as oriented to an end of this time.[12]

36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” The allegory will focus on the end of time, the time of harvest, a time to which the parable only alluded. 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, not Jesus, 38 the field is the world, not Israel, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man (replacing the patient farmer) will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, 42 and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. 

Concluding with a piece of common wisdom we find in several places in the gospels: Let anyone with ears listen!

Matthew faced a situation in which there were strict observers of the Law, and in which there were tax observers.  There were Jews and there were Christians.  There were some with strong ethical motivation, and others with weak motivation.  Matthew’s answer is that the false believers will be separated at the last judgment.  These verses are a little apocalypse about the fate of the darnel and the wheat.



[1] (M. Eugene Boring, "The Gospel of Matthew, "New Interpreter's Bible Commentary [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995], 299; cf. C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom [New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1961]; Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus [New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1972]).

[2] (M. Eugene Boring, "The Gospel of Matthew," New Interpreter's Bible Commentary [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995], 311). 

[3](Lagrange, The Evangel of Saint Matthew, quoted by C.H. Dodd, in Parables of Growth)

[4] (M. Eugene Boring, "The Gospel of Matthew," New Interpreter's Bible Commentary [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995], 310-11).

[5] (M. Eugene Boring, "The Gospel of Matthew," New Interpreter's Bible Commentary [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995], 311). 

[6] (Ernst Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today, [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969], 136).

[7] Barth Church Dogmatics IV.1 [62.2] 697.

[8] Pannenberg Systematic Theology Volume 3, 526.

[9] Helena Rutherfurd Ely, A Woman's Hardy Garden, (1903).

[10] Sura Lama Das, Awakening to the Sacred.

[11] One should note the focus on the notion of future judgment here. One might expect an exhortation toward patience. It seems to apply to false prophets. Jesus could not have used some of the words here. Several expressions would be difficult to locate in the preaching of Jesus. The verses include linguistic characteristics of Matthew. Matthew is dealing with the incomprehensible question of the presence of evil in the community.  “How did you get in here?”  The interpretation, like the rabbis, is an allegory.  Matthew directs all attention to the Last Judgment. He has turned the parable into a warning against false security. 

[12] (Pannenberg, Systematic Theology 1998, 1991)Volume 2, 95.

4 comments:

  1. Interesting parable and lesson. I see it not to be gentle with our self', but anti code. There are other verses on that, like first John. But i think it needs to speak to the church. Both of us grew up in a code heavy environment. When it comes to LBGT community I think we have no choice but to welcome them in to our fellowship. I think this parable must speak to the UM church at this time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously, i disagree with you on gentleness. to have a sense of relaxing with the imperfections of our world, church, and individual lives requires a form of gentleness and grace. I also think that welcoming persons into the community is what we do. Whether couples living together, gay, or polyamorous, we are called to love and welcome. We are not called to baptize every form of sexual relationship the culture accepts. We do have a responsibility as the people of God to teach others the Christian way of life and that includes family life. I also think that your background and mine differ. I value the way of life taught in the evangelical church in which i was raised. I have come to disagree with the many of the beliefs i was taught, but i was taught great openness and kindness in the church in my youth and even in the Christian schools i attended. I would gently offer that where the church is adhering to a code today, it is on the progressive side. They are the ones who have such a strict adherence to a code that could not and do not make room for the view of family that Jesus, Paul, and Christian teaching for 2000 years have had. The progressive does not make room for the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox (2/3 of global Christianity), and most of African, Latin American, and Asian Christianity. There is a big difference between lovingly making room for people, regardless of what they do, and making room in the sense of accepting what they do as part of the Christian life. Lynn, I hope i have not misread you.

      Delete
  2. I think we need to be VERY careful with our codes. I know that you welcome all into your fellowship and have through the years. I also agree that there needs to be a standard which sets the church aside from society. I find it appalling that the county seat UM here has a gay men's choir. There should be no celebration of sin. I think that line needs to be drawn very carefully. I also think, accusing the other side of having a code, while it may be true, is not helpful. I've always felt before I throw stones I try to get my house in order.
    Your take on this parable is good. Let the tares grow with the wheat and God can sort it out. I think the church says here is life, both now and later. Come drink. The Holy spirit will tell you how to live your life "what to leave in and what to leave out" (Bob Seeger) . Again, I know there is a standard but we need to be very careful with it.

    I also think that, to an extent, the standards of society do have an impact on the church. When Paul tells the church to have nothing to do with the guy who was living with his father's wive, he pointed out that even the pagans think that is sin. It seems to me this indicates that society has some impact on what the church allows.

    In terms of the UM split I think the way the Presbyterians have done it is a better way. Each pastor and congregation decides what they want to do about the LBGT community. There seems to be no rock throwing between congregations that do gay marriage and those that do not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with much of what you said. 1) Getting our house in order is not possible. We are far too messed up to do that. If we wait for that, we will never address any issue. 2) I beliee that at this historical moment, the danger in a violent use of codes does not come from the right. It comes from the Left. 3) In the UMC, the difference from Presbyterians is bishops, who have a great deal of power. I assure you that as the UMC devotes itself to becoming part of the progressive tribe in America, instead of the "melting pot" it used to be, bishops will use that power to compel pastors nd congregations to adopt the progressive orientation toward sexuality. If you do not agree with them, you are hateful and bigoted. Period. It becomes okay to riot in the streets and commit acts of violence in order to enforce your code. 3) Your argument from I Corinthians misses the point. He had already identified their sinful behavior based upon their fellowship with Christ and then, in order to shame them, he pointed to their pagan neighbors and said that not even they would do such things. He did not derive his sense of their sinfulness from the culture, which your argument suggests. The culture and church abhorrence at what this local body of Christ was doing was an example of an overlap in morality, if you please, but had the culture andorsed Corinthian church sexual behavior it would not have been okay.

      Delete