Blogging While Upset

Today I have been brought back to a phrase Presbyterians have bandied about, "the essentials of the faith." The problem with it is that what someone says is essential others say is not.

I get worked up about this, but I shouldn't. Christians have been dealing with "the essentials" since Jesus began his ministry. The first time the church really got together to try getting it right, defining true essentials of the faith, came in about the year 50 AD at the Council of Jerusalem. This council's actions are reported in Acts 15.

In short, the council decided that the new Gentile Christians were not obligated to keep most of the Mosaic law, including the rules concerning circumcision of males. The Council did find Jewish dietary restrictions, commonly known as Kosher laws, to be essential. They also found prohibitions against against fornication and idolatry to be essential.

So this compromise means boys don't have to be circumcised, though the vast majority today are; and the Kosher laws were to be kept, which we don't. We have a funny way of following the essentials of the faith. I wonder if it means I can be disciplined by the Presbytery for having a ham sandwich at next week's meeting? Is it too late to ask for turkey?

Oh, by the way, for those who know their scripture, Peter receives a command to eat with a Centurion of the Italian Cohort named Cornelius. He is also commanded by God to eat what is put before him whether it meet dietary restrictions or not and does as he is told. Peter receives this command in Acts 10, five whole chapters before he sides with the Kosher crowd at the Council of Jerusalem. This is what happens when we follow the words and not the Word.

We talk about following Scripture, the explicit Word of God, without noting that we must follow the example of the life of Jesus Christ who is the Word Incarnate. We have become so legalistic that if we extrapolate law from the Acts of the Lord we can find ourselves out of the will of the church, but we can take text out of literary and historical context to make a point and that's fine.

Hearing people say "They are not fit to serve God's Kingdom" bothers me. It reminds me of the Pharisee who thanks God he's not the Tax Collector, when we are called to be more like the tax collector who says "forgive me for I am a sinner."

I like what Jan Karon attributes to "Anonymous" in her Mitford companion book "A Continual Feast: Words of Comfort."

The next time you think you have an excuse why God can't use you, consider the following. 

Noah was a drunkard, Abraham was too old, Isaac was a daydreamer, Jacob was a liar, Leah was ugly, Joseph was abused, Moses was a murderer, Gideon was afraid, Samson had long hair, Rahab was a prostitute, Timothy was too young, David had an illicit affair, Elijah was suicidal, Isaiah preached naked, Job was bankrupt, John the Baptist ran around in a loincloth and ate locusts, Peter was hot tempered, John was self-righteous. The disciples fell asleep while praying, Martha fretted about everything, Mary Magdalene was demon-possessed, the boy with the fish and five loaves of bread was too obscure, the Samaritan woman was divorced more than once, Zacchaeus was too small, Paul was too religious, and Lazarus was dead. No more excuses.

My point is "the next time we think God can't use someone, we should consider those God has used in the past." This is where I believe we should all hear God saying "You aren't so different from these. Go and do likewise."

We would all be better off if we decided the greatest essential is that God is sovereign above all, and it's up to us to seek to follow faithfully, especially when it takes us to places with people that are outside of our comfort zones.

This is what you get when I blog while upset.