Why a Covenant?

           The Covenant is the tool of freedom of choice.  If we were not free to choose, the defining characteristics of our relationship with God seem to me to have two options.  One, according to Paul, is that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, because in the revealed glory of God, there is no way to stand against that.  The second, everyone carries the consequences for their sins, and, according to Paul, the wages of sin is death.

          In other words, God could reveal the Divine Majesty and we are all bowled over into belief and praise.  Or God could let us bear the consequences of our fallen natures.  No freedom of choice. 

          But that is not how God created us.  The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a very sophisticated way of trying to explain human nature.  Without free will, our options are either the Ultimate Good, God’s Glory, or the Ultimate Evil, punishment for what we have done against God.  In this dichotomy, God created a middle way.

          The human being is an amalgamation of good and evil.  There are very good and very evil people who have claimed Christianity as their faith.  There are very good and very evil people who have nothing to do with our faith.  And we have the ability to choose how we will behave.  But we are more than just choice.  We are inclusive of instinct, addiction, environment, and circumstance.  And the rules of Good and Evil change.  And there are exceptions.  The classic?  One does not lie, but, in the Second World War, if one were hiding Jews, one would lie to the Nazis who came knocking to save their lives.

          It is this messiness called Humanity that God has chosen to deal with.  God begins with a promise, I will be your God…  And this is a good promise because God is love.  Then God establishes the parameters of the Covenant, what we generally call ‘the Law’, as the measure of right behavior.  Then God establishes grace, a way of restoring our right standing with God when we breach the terms of the Covenant.  Which we will as humans are flawed, fallen beings.  This is the consequence of free will. 

          That grace finds ultimate expression in Jesus.  By His death and resurrection, He carried the consequences of our sins and He descended into hell.  But He rose again from the dead and, in his resurrection, opens the way to bowing knee and confessing freely that He is Lord. 

          That’s why a covenant.  A tool for allowing people of free will, even when that free will cannot measure up to the perfection of our God, it brings us to the God who loves us.

Peter Hofstra    

The Covenant as an Interpreter of Scripture

           A Covenant, a treaty, an agreement, a negotiated contract between two parties.  That is the basis of my understanding of Biblical theology.  On the one side is God and on the other is us.  There were covenants made with Abraham, with Moses, with David, each on behalf of the people.  The final covenant is that which came to us through God Incarnate, in Jesus.

          The basic theme of the covenant is pretty consistent.  “I will be your God and you will be my people.” 

          This is definitely NOT a treaty between equals.  There is the senior and the junior partner to be considered.  God is the senior, humanity the junior.  Which makes sense, considering God made us. 

          There is a reason for the string of treaties that can be found across the Scriptures.  That reason is us, humanity.  The basis of this promise is faithfulness between partners.  God faithful to us and vice versa.  But that covenant gets broken, by the junior partners, us, continuously. 

          Until Jesus, the way of the Covenant was the way of Works, of Obedience, of us working obediently to hold up our end of the Covenant because God, all-perfect and all-powerful, always did.  This was defined in blessings and cursings.  We people of the covenant would be blessed when we were obedient and cursed when we were not. 

          For much of Biblical history, these were tangible effects.  Blessings were rather specific.  Like sufficient rain to turn the Promised Land into a Garden.  Like material prosperity and empire-building (as under David).  Cursings were also specific, drought and foreign incursion, finally even Exile for seventy years in Babylon.

          But in Jesus, the covenant shifted.  Instead of being cursed and punished for our disobedience, Jesus took on those curses and that punishment.  So, in Jesus, God is the giver of blessings AND God is the recipient of cursings. 

          Which leaves humanity in a very interesting position.  Instead of our proper actions indicating our proper heart of obedience in upholding the covenant, we enter with the proper heart to uphold the covenant and our proper actions follow.  Good works become the illustration of our covenant commitment instead of the requirement for that covenant commitment.  Which is a good thing because the one thing that humanity proved through all the covenants before is that they could not carry the work of the covenant. 

          Tomorrow, why a covenant at all?

Peter Hofstra

To Bible or Not To Bible…but How?

          So what is it about Biblical interpretation?  How can some Christians welcome and some condemn homosexuality and homosexuals?  Much less the questions of acceptance or rejection of gender self-identification?  How can theology swing so far back and forth in its treatment of people?  In the name of Jesus?   

          Who is our Biblical interpreter?  Is it our local pastor? Some other leader, perhaps of a denomination or a large church?  Local?  On television? 

          Does someone reading this feel like they can begin to develop the tools for how to interpret the Bible for themselves?

          I have not posted for the last couple of days because this very issue has jammed up my thought processes.  I have put down a lot on what I think the Bible says and how I think the Bible should be interpreted.  And maybe if somebody likes what I have to say, they will go with me on this journey. 

          This does not even begin to get at the source material.  The Bible is quite the volume.  In my Bible, there are 66 “books”, running from half a page to a hundred and fifty chapters.  There are ‘chapters’ that are two verses long and chapters that are dozens and dozens of verses long.  There are ‘verses’ that are two words long and some that are run on sentences.

          Then there is the problem of history.  The same church/denomination/faith group can see its interpretation change over time. 

          Then there is the problem of consistency.  Is it an interpretive fallacy to claim that the Bible speaks with one voice?  I presuppose that one voice is consistent with Biblical interpretation, although with very particular caveats. 

          But wait, there’s more!  For the PCUSA, there is an entire book of Confessions, documents written at various places and times that speak to the truth of the Scriptures as understood in those moments.  Does not mean they are Bible-grade God-stuff, but as good as the Humans could put together in their times and places. 

          And there are things that read as fairly contradictory on first blush.  But God wrote it…didn’t He (is it He? She? Them? What does the Bible say about that?)

         They say the first step to solving a problem is acknowledging that there is one.  So I suppose this little stream of consciousness did that.

Peter Hofstra

“How Do We Use the Bible as a Legal and Moral Guide?”

         Or “To Bible or Not to Bible”

So there is a principle that says “You can prove anything from the Bible.”  That is not a theological principle, that is a worldly cultural principle.  Because the Bible has been used to justify some extraordinarily cruel and vicious things.  Like Slavery.  Like Fascism.  Like Extremist Terror.  Like highly sexist, genderist, and misogynist principles of behavior ‘in the imitation of Christ’.

          So what do we do about that?  On the one hand, the Bible is ‘the Word as inspired by God’.  Even that will cause a ruckus about how best to state what ‘inspiration’ is, what ‘literal meaning’ is, what kind of absolutism can be adopted in how we interpret the Scriptures. 

          The push of this post is a conversation with a lovely couple who have run into issues of their public participation in the commercial and personal life of their community because they are both female.  The reaction to their purchasing a business was that it was being taken over by a ‘gang of lesbians’ that would tarnish the reputation and memory of the previous owner, all from a Christian and Christian guided means of thinking.

          So what do we do?  Because there are verses in the Bible that condemn homosexual behavior on first sight.  This is not a place where I am going to go verse by verse.  “The Children are Free” by Rev. Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley is a resource to look at six key Scriptures used in condemnation of homosexuality and verses that bring consolation to those so injured by misinterpretation of the Bible’s message.

          My place of focus is not the Torah, but the Sermon on the Mount.  It is not the Beatitudes, probably the most iconic sermon opening in the history of sermon openings.  Rather, I want to go to Matthew 5:18, where Jesus doubles down on the law.  “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”  The earlier translation goes ‘not a jot or tittle shall pass away…”

          But the thesis statement of this section of the sermon, this portion that tightens up laws concerning murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, and retaliation to insurmountable sins of people’s thoughts and desires-not their actions, it begins with “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.”

          For me, it all turns on the phrase of ‘fulfill’ the law.  Jesus takes us from the actions to the personal motivations for the actions, what sparks the actions, what in the heart and mind presses sinful thoughts that lead to sinful actions.  What was Jesus’ fulfillment of the law?  Punishment.  Taken upon himself.  For every punishment of the law-for sin-back to its original motivation.  This is to give every sinner (all of us) several things:

1.   A fresh start.

2.   Assurance of pardon (the promise of Jesus’ forgiveness)

3.   The primacy of faith unto salvation (we are not working our way into heaven)

This fulfillment of the law in Christ realigns our perspective to understand Jesus’ summary of that law, “Love God with all, love neighbor as ourselves.”

This is so important because love does not change, but the law does.  Oops, there is the other key piece.  The law changes.  How many death penalty offences are to be found in the Law of Moses?  According to Google, citing a BBC source, there are 36 capital offences.  A piece I had not drawn together, from a Google lead citing Wikipedia, is that there are four means of execution, stoning, burning, strangulation, and beheading. 

36.  For the morbidly minded, the Bible is there for you to read about them, the law of Moses being the first five books, Genesis to Deuteronomy.

But what is legal and what is illegal, broadly, and what is a capital offence and what is not, has shifted in time and place.  The civil authorities, whom we are called upon to obey, represent different sets of legal systems and codes over time.  What does not change is love.

Now, there is a lot more detail that could be argued over.  But, for me, the law as understood in the bible, is the means by which we understand what is NOT loving behavior.  And our knowledge of the power of love has only been enhanced over time. 

So, Rule 1 when invoking law and the bible, where is the love?  That becomes the measure for everything else.

Peter Hofstra

So Where DOES Politics Belong in Worship?

          Last Sunday, the sermon considered the question of the place of national politics in the worship life of the Church.  The conclusion, for me, was in the Prayer of Confession.  That is the place where we can confess the sinful behaviors and attitudes that are so integral to the polarized political landscape of the present day.  But that was not enough for me.  There were questions and issues remaining.  Where does one step off the pulpit and into life?

          Honestly, what I have been seeking is a theologically and heartfelt place of comfort for the church in this political landscape. 

          There was a triggering event.  On June 1, 2020, former President Trump walked across Lafayette Park, cleared of protesters ahead of time by law enforcement, for his photo op at St. John’s church with a bible in his hand.  Until that moment, compartmentalizing things of politics and things of faith was manageable.  But through the remainder of his term in office, into the insanity that was the transitional process, through the present time, I have struggled to fit these things together. 

          I have very strong beliefs politically.  I will make no secret of that.  But there was a huge disconnect.  I know what Jesus teaches-not to every jot and nuance, but love God and love neighbor is a summary of a way of new living in Jesus Christ.  But to preach about the political mud pit is to get pulled into the political mud pit. 

          Our political system is classic high-level conflict.  It is not about issues, which marks a low level of conflict, and one where compromise can lead to solutions.  It is about personalities.  Once it gets there, a huge will to find resolution is needed to move things back to a place where we can talk about things without attacking one another. 

          That’s where Jesus’ power is needed.  The sinfulness of this political climate of name calling, lies, and horrible personal attacks needs something more.  That’s the stuff we need to leave at the door of the sanctuary when coming to worship the Living God. 

          Humanity sins, God forgives.  Then God brings resolution in ways we cannot even imagine.  What’s a Christian to do?  Open the doors wide to forgiveness.

Peter Hofstra

What if Christianity Became the Mark of a Political Point of View?

           So here is a premise that has been pulling at my mind.  There are certain Christian sectors that are highly identified with certain political beliefs.  More evangelical and fundamentalist streams of Christian thought and expression have been deliberately identified with the Republican right by Republican strategists.  Karl Rove is the name that I remember best in constructing this connection.

          But it is certainly not as simple as that, but that is the most visible connection I see.

          So here is the thing.  My understanding is that it was a political strategy on the right to intentionally court the vote and voice of this Christian stream of thought.  Honestly, it has left me very uncomfortable on a number of occasions to hear the defense and unconsidered approval of evangelical Christianity for President Trump. 

          But what if the evangelical church no longer serves as a secure and extended voting block for the political right, but becomes a marker of the political right?  What do I mean?  What if being a church member in that particular stream of thought becomes a litmus test for a Republican candidate?  What if it moves beyond simply being able to say that one is a Christian of the evangelical stream of thought, to having to have that proof, that congregation who claims their membership?  Who can speak to the faith foundation of the one seeking office?  What influence over a candidate does that offer?

          And I tell you, that scares me because there is a judicial theology concerning gender roles and identity, masculine authority, very broad considerations of application of the death penalty, and justification of defiance of democratic authority if it runs against this judicial theology, a theology that, in my mind, coopts the authority of God into the hands of fallen humanity with the hubris to speak in God’s name.  A literal cherry picked interpretation of the law of Moses as presently binding could pronounce the death penalty for homosexuality.

          To consider the Ten Commandments, as it stands now, "Thou shalt not murder" is the only one that is linked to the death penalty in our current judicial thought.  But making idols, using God's name in vain, and adultery all carry the death penalty in the law of Moses.

          History of both church and state are filled with the abuses of well-meaning Christian leaders (and exploitative Christian leaders) doing things for the political ‘good’ that are horrendous.  John Calvin, a leading theological thinker in my stream of Christian thought, was involved in a death penalty case in his tenure in Geneva. 

          The potential for such religious exploitation has been explored in novels like “The Handmaid’s Tale”. 

          The KKK was based in a very specific Christian theological stream of thought (a terrifying one!).  Christianity in this country divided when the nation divided over slavery at the time of the Civil War.

          There is a double-edged sword to a Christian lead in blending with a political ideology.  The first is that theology will be warped and twisted to provide support for aspects of that political ideology because they have been coopted into what defines ‘the faith’.  The second is that a judicial theology that can be absolutely brutal, especially in the face of having the power of the state to back it up, can twist a political platform that is still designed for a democracy into something authoritarian, even draconian.

          Doomsayer…I suppose I am.

Peter Hofstra

Is A Christian Political Agenda Even A Thing?

          So, Titus 3:2 and the Fairness Doctrine.  Be calm and tell the truth.  Not so much a political agenda as a dream for a better, calmer political landscape?  What then is the basis for a Christian Political Agenda-if we are going to use the language of the day?  Is that even a reasonable expectation?

          In the mainline, of which I am of a Presbyterian persuasion, Matthew 25, verses 31 to the end offers a pretty good template. 

31 ‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, ³³and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. ³⁴Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; ³⁵for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” ³⁷Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? ³⁸And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? ³⁹And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” ⁴⁰And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” ⁴¹Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; ⁴²for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” ⁴⁴Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” ⁴⁵Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” ⁴⁶And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’

          It is such a good template that it has been the basis of worship resources from the PCUSA for her churches to use. 

          This is a scene from the final judgement.  Now, I grew up with the image that every person will appear before the throne of grace and will be put on trial for their lives.  That image comes from a Christian tract, a mini-comic where the sinner has been walked through the evil of their lives before being cast into the fiery pits of hell, very Hieronymus Bosch in its visual presentation.  It is also highly personalized.  The one panel that sticks in my memory is the one where the man on trial cries out when ‘the dirtiest joke he ever heard’, told to a friend on earth, is being rebroadcast in the Throne room of the Lord.

          So, to avoid hell, let the love of Jesus be expressed in the loving behavior of personal daily living.

          (It is SO tempting to get sidelined into a theological discussion of faith and works, but not today).

          But in Matthew, the schedule of proper and improper behavior is not the behavior of personal daily living, it’s living life in relation to others, by definition it seems, less blessed than we.  To play off a Buddhist metaphor, this is a ‘six fold path’, to feed the hungry, to slake the need of the thirsty, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, care for the sick, and visit the imprisoned.  To whom is this carried out?  To the least of one of my family (“My” being personal pronoun for God).  It is sort of an applied ‘love of neighbor’.

          It is an agenda of love and justice.  “Peacemaking” is huge for us. It is also a corporate vision. 

          For me, I have preached on how the expression of our love of neighbor, our love being defined in terms of what happens in Matthew 25, being an expression of our love of God. 

          Here’s another bite as food for thought.  Borrowing the Buddhist metaphor, we find the same call to care of others in that faith-maybe more powerfully focused than in our own faith.  If we are going to gather these all into a group we call ‘charity’, it expresses one of the pillars of Islam.  And one does not need a faith-based reason to carry out such behavior.

          Sounds like the basis of a “political platform” that would find broader appeal than just to a Christian base.  Or would it be more appropriate that this expression of ‘love of neighbor’ being the “platform” of good living?

          I do not think a Christian Political Platform can even be a thing.  So what else is there? 

Peter Hofstra