Again, I have issues with this. I don't feel particularly holy, especially because I tend to associate the self-descriptor of holiness with self-righteousness. But the work for today extends yesterday's idea from the perceiver to that which is perceived.
I am holy because my mind is part of God’s mind. And because I am holy, my sight must be holy as well. “Sinless” means without sin. I cannot be without sin a little. Either I am sinless or not. If my mind is part of God’s I must be sinless, or a part of God's Mind would be sinful. My sight is related to God's holiness, not to my ego and therefore not to my body.
I love the way this course works. I've been struggling for a long time with the homosexual hate-mongers. First of all, I don't understand the Christian preoccupation with who and how people diddle one another. (I probably shouldn't admit this on the internet, but maybe I'm just so far off the grid sexually that not only do I not care, but I now fail to see why others care so much.) I've watched as our church falls into confusion over a gay bishop, then I've watched the media frenzy around Eddie Long (although in both cases, the alleged predatory acts upon subordinates are really the root issue, IMHO).
But I nearly cried today when someone posted a request for prayer for the family of a young man who committed suicide after his roommate allegedly live-streamed a video of him in a sex act with a guy. One of the responses to the prayer request was another self-righteous diatribe against homosexuality. It seemed the writer was blaming a teenager for being gay and being embarrassed that his sexuality was put out over the internet. I go back to Wesley's three simple rules, to "Do No Harm, Do Good, and Stay in Love with God." While I'm sure the person who did the writing was sincere and meant well, I failed to see how lambasting a troubled teen could fall into any of the above categories. I don't often post in opposition to people I don't know, but what I read just broke my heart -- not only for the kid and his family, but because of the harm that occurs when we Christians approach issues with a smug self-assuredness, leaving no room for God to enter in with a fresh Word that we perhaps had not considered.
What bothers me so much in the "Christian" discussions on homosexuality is the focus on the sin of homosexuality. I always infer from these conversations that the interlocutors are implying that all humans are not sinful, or that there's some sort of ranking system for sin and homosexuality is somehow worse than, say, eating pork or any of the other Levitical prohibitions. It seems like we want to play "single out the gays." It's always bothered me and struck me as unfair. Now I think I understand why, and it's not just that people proof-text Scripture without an adequate understanding of it (I'm ever grateful to be a church historian and to realize our faith has always been preached in translation, which implies interpretation. And thanks, Origen, for your realization nearly two millenia ago that when we simply quote Scripture, without allowing for contextualization of The Word, we run the risk of distorting the original intent and doing more harm than good. If we can't read our Holy Words in their original languages, then we at least ought to realize that what we are reading is the result of centuries of mis-and re- translation, political jockeying and social and political quests for position, power and control. Those facts alone should afford us a teensy weensy bit of room for compassion when expounding the Scriptures). Evangelicals would declare that aside anathema, but I'm reminded that it was fervent, tunnel-visioned fundamentalists who burned Origen's books. And let's not forget that the same people who shouted "Hosanna" on Sunday were shouting "Crucify Him" by Friday. When we are presented with a truth that differs from our accepted view of reality, it's rarely popular.
But if I am to be holy, my sight must be holy as well. Maybe my sight needs to focus on the redeeming love of Jesus and not the nature of humans. “Sinless” means without sin. I cannot be "a little bit" without sin. Either I am sinless or not. Clearly, in this body I am not sinless, but if my mind is part of God’s then it must be sinless, or a part of God's Mind would be sinful. Therefore, in my mind, I need to take the focus OFF sinful things, and put it ON the redemptive things. My sight, my ability to see, is related to God's holiness, not to my ego and therefore not to my body. It's a blessing to be able to see. It's a blessing to be able to see with the Holiness of God and not with the tunnel vision of humans. He that is in me is Greater than he that is in the world, so the Divine and Holy in me must be the overwhelming, overriding force, and must always trump that of the world.
This is not to say that sin does not exist, simply that my focus is not on (and my vision is not through) the sin of the World, but on (and through) the Holiness of God. That's how my holiness envelopes everything I see. It trumps the sin that is out there in the world; that sin is not my concern, not my reality, and does not impact my vision. I live in the holiness of God. My holiness envelopes everything I see.
That's an awesome, radical concept. My holiness envelopes everything I see. When I started this post, I wasn't sure about it, but I'm loving it now. My holiness envelopes everything I see!
No comments:
Post a Comment