The Kingdom of Heaven Is a Mixed Field

The Parable of the Tares (Weeds / Darnel), found only in the Gospel according to Matthew (13: 24 - 30), is a curious story - not easily understood. And, unfortunately for us, the explanation put into the mouth of Jesus by Matthew (13: 36 - 43) does not really help us to understand it any better.

Jesus tells of a farmer who planted his field with wheat then, as he slept, an enemy of the farmer came during the night and oversowed the field with tares. The farmer’s servants recognize what has happened and ask for permission to root out all of the tares, but the farmer instructs them to be patient, and to instead let the wheat and the tares grow up together, saying that if the tares were yanked up, the wheat would be damaged as well. He tells them to wait until the harvesting time to separate the wheat from the weeds; the weeds will be bundled together and burned at that time.

The “tares” of the parable (Greek - ζιζάνια) have not been specifically identified, but are commonly thought to be not just “weeds” but Poison Darnel, also known as Bearded Darnel (Lolium temulentum), a ryegrass that looks almost identical to wheat, at least right up until the harvest time - and is susceptible to the Ergot fungus which can cause hallucinations, irrational behavior, and even death when consumed. It’s not just a prank. It’s not a minor irritation; the oversowing of darnel into the farmer’s wheat field was a deliberate and malicious act of sabotage. And, apparently, this was not an uncommon occurrence in the ancient world. There was,in fact, a Roman law against this kind of malevolent sowing. (Digest 9.2.27.14)

The parable seems to be an injunction against an overzealous attempt to root out heresies and other objectionable elements from within the Christian community. “Let them grow up together” is the instruction, at least for now, they’ll be separated and burned by the harvesters. But the explanation of this parable ostensibly given by Jesus a few verses later neglects this apparent meaning, and makes the parable into a stiff, apocalyptic allegory of the end of the age.

This disconnect between the apparent motive of the parable and the explanation, combined with a variety of other peculiarities within the explanation cause many biblical scholars to suggest that “it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the interpretation of the parable of the Tares is the work of Matthew himself,” (Jeremias 81 - 85) and not directly from the mouth of Jesus.

It is even suggested by Sherman E. Johnson that the Parable of the Tares itself may be a literary construction composed by Matthew (by rewriting his source material in Mark 4:26 - 29) to provide a twin parable for the Parable of the Sower (to fit alongside the twin parables of mustard seed / leaven and hidden treasure / the costly pearl) who then provided his own allegorical explanations for them both (Johnson “Introduction” 239, “Exegesis” 415), explanations which may or may not have been what Jesus intended in the telling of the parable.

The Kingdom of Heaven is a mixed field - the good wheat seed sown by the farmer muddled with the toxic, seed mingled in by his enemy. Both grow up together. But we are to carry on our work in spite of mixed results. (Kee 625)

“O you Christians, whose lives are good, you sigh and groan as being few among many, few among very many. The winter will pass away, the summer will come; lo! The harvest will soon be here. The angels will come who can make the separation, and who cannot make mistakes. ... I tell you of a truth, my Beloved, even in these high seats there is both wheat, and tares, and among the laity there is wheat, and tares. Let the good tolerate the bad; let the bad change themselves, and imitate the good. Let us all, if it may be so, attain to God; let us all through His mercy escape the evil of this world. Let us seek after good days, for we are now in evil days; but in the evil days let us not blaspheme, that so we may be able to arrive at the good days” (Augustine)

The servants of the farmer wanted to rush out to the field to pull up the plants sown by the enemy, to storm the fields yanking the pernicious plants up by their roots. But this would have caused damage and trauma to the farmer’s good wheat. Patience. Patience is what the farmer urged on his servants and not zeal, not furious anger, or even righteous indignation, but patience. This is not to say that we are unconcerned with bad doctrine or heretical theology, but it is not our job to go rip-roaring through the fields tearing up the plants and throwing them into the blazing furnace. The self-appointed sentry who takes it upon him or herself to rid the field of these weeds by confrontation and belligerence has taken up a task that the master has not given us and will not further the growth of the kingdom, but will instead cause damage and division.

Be patient. Let the kingdom (a mixed field though it be) grow as the farmer has told us.

See Also: Two Biblical Approaches to Dealing with Disagreement in the Ranks

Augustine, Sermon #23 on the New Testament.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Parables of Jesus. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1972. Print.

Johnson, Sherman E. “The Gospel According to St. Matthew: Exegesis” The Interpreter’s Bible Volume VII Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. 1951. Print.

Johnson, Sherman E. “The Gospel According to St. Matthew: Introduction” The Interpreter’s Bible Volume VII Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. 1951. Print.

Kee, Howard Clark.  “The Gospel According to Matthew” The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. 1971. Print.

You Fool – You Rebel! (A Sermon)

Matthew 5: 21 – 37
Psalm 119: 1 – 8

“I have not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets,” Jesus told his disciples. “I have come not to abolish, but to complete them.” (Matthew 5: 17) If Jesus was a radical, revolutionary prophet, he was not so in this regard; he followed the tenets of the Jewish faith and accepted the authority of the torah. (Evans 223)

How blessed are those
whose way is blameless,
who walk in the Law of Yahweh!
Blessed are those who observe his instructions,
who seek him with all their hearts,
and, doing no evil,
who walk in his ways.
You lay down your precepts
to be carefully kept.
May my ways be steady
in doing your will.
Then I shall not be shamed,
if my gaze is fixed on your commandments.
I thank you with a sincere heart
for teaching me your upright judgments.
I shall do your will;
do not ever abandon me wholly.
(Psalm 119: 1 – 8 New Jerusalem Bible)

But Jesus, in his “Sermon on the Mount” gives a series of antitheses, not this-but that statements. In this he does not contradict the law or abrogate it; he goes beyond and further than the law. The law spoke to a man’s outward actions, to a woman’s behavior. Jesus’ words speak to his inward thoughts, to the attitude of her heart.

The physical act of murder in the old law is punishable by death, but Jesus extends this judgment to inward anger – the murderous, malicious anger burning inside a person.  Jesus told his disciples that calling someone a “fool” or “raca” = liable to judgment

But Jesus himself called people fools. Later, in this same gospel – the gospel of Matthew, Jesus calls the scribes and Pharisees fools. “You blind fools!” (Matthew 23: 17) So either Jesus was inconsistent, didn’t heed his own instruction, or Matthew wasn’t accurate in recording either one or the other of these passages. Or it could be that we need to seek a different explanation for this text.

There are two terms to understand in this verse. The first is the word “raca” and is not easily explained. It seems to be an Aramaic word – a contemptuous form of address, “good for nothing” or “wretch” (Exegesis 295). This is more than a “fool;” this is the description of a heretic. (Schaff 61) The second is usually understood as the Greek word Morē meaning “fool.” But some scholars have suggested that it may be the homophonic Hebrew word Môrê which means “rebel” – that is, a rebel against God or Apostate. (Albright 61, Stott 84)

We can read these two phrases as roughly parallel – the first contempt for his mind – his “empty head”, the second contempt for his scoundrel’s black heart. (Stott 84) Jesus’ instruction is then: Whoever despises a brother or sister in the faith as a heretic, or as a rebel against God will be liable to the Gehenna of Fire.

Religious debate is often divisive; along with politics it is a topic to be avoid in polite company. It tends to leave people polarized, raging in a state of fury. Sectarian violence is plague on the faith – on all faiths: Catholic Christians murdered Orthodox Christians during the Crusades, Protestants and Catholics killed each other during the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants killed each other in Ireland from the 16^th century up through 20^th century.

Early in the history of Christianity, when Christians were still by and large Jewish and members of the Jewish communities, there was division between the traditional Jews and the Christian “followers of the way.” This internecine conflict led to a split in the two groups; the Christians were expelled from their synagogues and cut off from their community.

The rabbis eventually developed 18 Benedictions to be read as part of the liturgy. The twelfth of these blessings was the “blessing” on the heretics:

“For the apostates let there be no hope, and may the arrogant kingdom be uprooted speedily in our days and may the Nazarenes (notzrim) and the heretics (mînîm) perish as in a moment and be blotted out of the Book of Life, and not be inscribed with the righteous. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who humblest the arrogant.” (Encyclopedia Judaica)

But this cursing wasn’t one sided; there is a virulent strain of anti-Semitism that has run through the Christian church since the beginning.

It’s hard to come back from that. It’s hard to come back from that anger, from that hatred. It becomes an impenetrable wall between us.

I have been called a fool. I have been called an idiot. A blasphemer, a false prophet, a son of the whore heretic. And this by my fellow Christians, my fellow Salvationists. I have been, I am hated by some. Recently a friend of mine told me of a Salvation Army officer that she knows who has expressed a hatred of me, despite the fact that I don’t think we’ve ever actually met. This officer ‘hates’ me because I support LGBTQI people, and believe they should be welcomed and included into our churches. Hate is the word the officer used. And it’s sometimes difficult to believe that I am a part of this community – because of the animosity that is expressed.

This kind of hate is murderous. It kills. It destroys the bonds of fellowship, destroys the bands of brotherhood /sisterhood.

The one who keeps and follows the law of God, the torah, the divine rule of faith and practice was considered to be blessed. And to this we say amen, so say we all. We might all agree that we worship only one God, and that Jesus has saved us from our sins and that the scriptures of the old and new testaments are to be the foundations of our faith and practice, but problems and conflicts arise when we get right down to how that scripture should be interpreted and put into practice in our ordinary, everyday life. We cannot allow those differences in interpretation cause us to break the Christian fellowship of faith.

All who hate a brother or sister are murderers, and you know that murderers do not have eternal life abiding in them.  (1 John 3:15)

This is not to say that doctrine is unimportant, or of no concern. This is not to say that we should have a freewheeling, anything-goes approach to doctrine. We are called to study and to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). But we cannot let our disagreements – even in the matters of religious doctrine – become so inflammatory that we begin to hate and to despise our brothers and sisters.

If we call them “Racca,” empty headed, good for nothing worthless, reprobates, if we call them “fools,” black-hearted rebels and wretched apostates, then we have put ourselves in the place of God and judged them – and in doing so we make ourselves liable to the judgment of Gehenna Fire.

Albright, W.F. and C.S. Mann, Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, Inc. 1979. Print.

Buttrick, George A. “Matthew: Exposition.” The Interpreter’s Bible Volume VII. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. 1951. Print.

Encyclopedia Judaica. 2008 The Gale Group.

Evans, Graig A. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 2006. Print.

Schaff, Phillip. Ed.  A Popular Commentary on the New Testament by English and American Scholars. Edinburgh, Scotland. T & T Clark. 1879. Print.

Stott, John. Christian Counter Culture: The Message of the Sermon on the Mount. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 1978. Print.

Forgive Our Sins as We Forgive - Rosamond E. Herklots, 1905-87,

"Forgive our sins as we forgive,"
You taught us, Lord, to pray,
But you alone can grant us grace
To live the words we say.

How can your pardon reach and bless
The unforgiving heart
That broods on wrongs and will not let
Old bitterness depart?

In blazing light your cross reveals
The truth we dimly knew:
What trivial debts are owed to us;
How great our debt to you!

Lord, cleanse the depths within our souls
And bid resentment cease;
Then, bound to all in bonds of love
Our lives will spread your peace.

Psalm 37 During Divided Times

One of the lectionary readings for Sunday yesterday (October 2) was Psalm 37: 1 – 9:

Do not fret because of the wicked;

    do not be envious of wrongdoers,

for they will soon fade like the grass,

    and wither like the green herb.

Trust in the Lord, and do good;

    so you will live in the land, and enjoy security.

Take delight in the Lord,

    and he will give you the desires of your heart.

Commit your way to the Lord;

    trust in him, and he will act.

He will make your vindication shine like the light,

    and the justice of your cause like the noonday.

Be still before the Lord, and wait patiently for him;

    do not fret over those who prosper in their way,

    over those who carry out evil devices.

Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath.

    Do not fret—it leads only to evil.

For the wicked shall be cut off,

    but those who wait for the Lord shall inherit the land. (New Revised Standard Version)

Which strikes me as pretty good advice for life in general – but seems especially apropos for those of us living in divided and polarized times.

Do not fret because of the wicked - no matter what we may think of our opponents (politically, theologically, etc.) we are encouraged to without fret and worry. The faithful will see the wicked and wrongdoers brown and dry up like the grass and leaves in November. “Soon” may be subjective, but even so there’s the hope of justice and the universe brought round to right. The arc of the moral universe is long, and what not, but it does bend toward justice.

Trust in the Lord and do good – no matter what we may think of our opponents (politically, theologically, etc.) we can still do good; we can still be agents of righteousness. Whoever wins the election, we can still do good. We can (and will) serve the helpless and help the hopeless.

He will make your vindication - no matter what we may think of our opponents (politically, theologically, etc.) there’s no need for dirty tricks, for demonization, for slander, for lies. If our cause is just, if we are agents of the good, then God will vindicate us and our work. The ends do not justify the means; ugly behavior – even for a beautiful cause - only sullies us. Let God and the goodness of our work be its own vindication.

Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath – no matter what we may think of our opponents (politically, theologically, etc.) no matter who wins the election, anger and wrath only cloud our minds and our hearts. Those who vote for “the other guy” will still be our neighbors and brothers, our co-workers and daughters and we will still have to live with them after the election. 

Biblical Limericks: Make Them One

It’s not only for these that I pray
but for all who will believe some day -
Father, please make them one
else my work is undone;
if they clash help them love anyway.

John 17: 20 – 26

Oh, God! But Love Is Hard

Election season may be either an unfortunate or perfect time to preach from Paul’s “hymn to Love” (1 Corinthians 13). Perfect because it is timely and appropriate and vital for us to let its message transform us, unfortunate in that I doubt that we (as the larger body of Christians in America) will be willing or able to hear it in these divisive and polarized times. Where Paul would describe for us unfailing, unselfish love, love that trusts, love without rancor, we are daily bombarded on the radio, the television, in the mail and on the internet by messages of sour spite and acrimony. We are told to be fearful. We are urged on in our agitation. We are riled up on all sides and love seems lost.

There is no allowance for dialogue or civil debate; the volume and the hyperbole have been ratcheted up to eleven, the temperature of the rhetoric rheostat is cranked all the way up. Our political opponents are not concerned citizens who care about the country, but are consistently characterized as malicious and intent upon perfidy and evil. Demonization and damnation are the modus operandi of the day. We do not love. Love–real love, the kind described by Paul in today’s reading- in this highly charged and radically polarized election season, is a liability, a hindrance.

We may speak of love for God, and love for country but if we are not patiently, unselfishly loving each other, we do not know anything of real love. We may make a lot of noise about our holy faith, and wave the banner of our rigorously perfected doctrine, but if there is no love, it’s pointless; it’s a victory march around an empty square.[i] Catholic social activist, Dorothy Day is quoted as saying, “I really only love God as much as I love the person I love least.”[ii] If we took that as our measure, how much could we say we love God?

This chapter (not really a singable hymn with metered lines and stanzas, but capturing something like a hymn in its beauty) is part of the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Christian community in the city of Corinth. Paul had spent about a year and a half in that city (Acts 18:11), preaching and ministering to the people there. And though we have it described as the “First Epistle to the Corinthians,” it is actually Paul’s second letter to that church; the first has not been preserved for us.[iii]

From this epistle we can gather that the Christian church in Corinth was a fractured church; recoiling from sexual sins, squabbling in court as they sued one another for grievances and divided along party lines. Some of them rallied behind the teaching of Paul, others to the words of Apollos or Peter (1 Corinthians 1:11–12). The body of Christ (to return to Paul’s extended analogy from last week’s reading (1 Corinthians 12:12–31)) was cutting itself into pieces, bleeding and dying.

This chapter, this “hymn to Love” was written, not as an evangelistic tract to draw outsiders into the church or to convince unbelievers of the goodness of God’s love for and in us. Neither was it written to be read, as it often is today, as an all but obligatory part of wedding services (though the apostle did address the sanctity of marriage in his letter to the Corinthians…). This beautiful passage, this powerful text was written to challenge and to correct the dysfunctional behavior of the Christians in Corinth who were failing in nearly every way to live as “God’s holy people” (1 Corinthians 1:2). 

And though the letter was not written specifically or directly to us, we need to read it in the same way today – as a challenge, as a provocation. We should take it as a dare.

What good is it to anyone if I have a mellifluous tongue and can fluently speak in German, and French, and Spanish, Latin and Greek and Hebrew? What good is to you or to me if I can speak in the ethereal tongue of angels if I do not love? What good are political speeches or Sunday sermons or classroom lectures if the people giving them are not filled with love? All our beautiful words, all our polished deliveries, all our media perfected sound bites are nothing more than booming gongs or crashing, clashing cymbals. Mere noise, cacophony – which is, literally, a shitty sound[iv].

What good are the spiritual gifts-prophecy, knowledge, faith, leadership, healing, evangelism, and the like- if I don’t use them in love? They are worse than useless; they become dangerous weapons aimed against my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

Who cares if “I dole out all my property and hand over my body in order that I may boast (Orr 289)”? If I don’t have love, this doesn’t benefit me in anyway. It’s a fruitless, useless exercise. It’s hollow piety. It’s glitter and no gold.

We’ve probably heard the cliché: “Love is a verb,” so often that we nod our assent without thinking too much about it. But in the next several statements, Paul describes the dynamic quality of Love with a series of active verbs (Craig 172). Paul describes not what love is but what love does. Many translations may read “Love is patient” but translations like the King James Version provide a better rendering, even with the slightly archaic wording: “Charity suffereth long” (1 Corinthians 13:4 KJV).  The word of God is active and alive (Hebrews 4:12) and so is love. Love is action. Love endures. Love suffers. Love envies not. Love makes no self-aggrandizing boasts.

Love does not keep a storehouse of offense, storing up grievances, hoarding them like some sort of misanthropic miser. Love does not cherish resentment, burning it like fuel to warm a frozen heart. Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, squealing with glee when its opponent is caught in some misdeed. There is no room for schadenfreude in love.[v]

Love is extravagant. Love is magnanimous. Love is gratuitous.[vi] “Love is always ready to make allowances, to trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes” (1 Corinthians 13: 7 NJB).  Oh, that word “always.” It’s a killer. Always! Always ready to make allowances! Always ready to trust! Always ready to hope and to endure whatever comes. Love bears all things, covers over a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8). Love is always ready to believe the best. Love hopes and keeps right on hoping for the best. We may, on our good days, be willing to make allowance for a friend who annoys, who bothers, who offends. But always? Always ready to believe the best of someone? Oh, God! but love is hard.

And love never comes to an end. Love never fails (1 Corinthians 13:8 KJV). There is no expiration date, no shelf life, no half-life. Love never ends. Love never ends. Love never, never ends. Buildings will crumble, mountains will tumble into the sea. All of the bright shining stars of the universe will eventually burn out but love never fails. All the things that we value, and in which we put our trust will fail, run out, or be brought to an end – everything that is, except love. Perfect love.

This is our challenge. This is the dare. Do we love? It’s easy enough (sometimes) to love kin and kith, to love our family and our friends – though even there is often a challenge as well. The bonds of blood can bind us tight to our family so that we love them with a love that approaches this perfect agape love. Shared experiences and values can foster a sense of love for those of our party, our denomination, our tribe. But do we dare push our love even further?

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:43–48 NRSV)

The standard of our identification as Christians, the one true test of our religious devotion and the scrupulousness of our faith is not in the use of our spiritual gifts, or the perfection of our doctrine. The flawlessness of our faith is not proven in our strict adherence to a meticulously refined dogma. Our faith is demonstrated by our perfect love for one another.

After washing the feet of his disciples and speaking of his imminent death, Jesus gave his followers a new commandment: “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13: 34–35 NRSV)

How will the world recognize us as faithful followers of our Lord and Master? By our demonization of the members of the opposing political party? By our denigration of those who don’t hold to the same interpretation of the scripture? By our hostility? By our combative attitudes?  Is that what he said?

No.  We are to be known-as we are known-by our perfect and perfecting love, by our unselfish, sacrificial love for one another, even for those we may not like very much. This letter may not have been written specifically or directly to us, but we need to read it in the same way today – as a challenge, as a provocation. We need to take it as a dare. We need to let it propel us forward into dangerous new territory.

We need to ask the question: If “I really only love God as much as I love the person I love least,” how much do I love God? Do I love?

Graig, Clarence Tucker. “Exegesis: The First Epistle to the Corinthians” The Interpreter’s Bible Vol. X. Nashville, TN. Abingdon, 1953.

Orr, William F. and James Arthur Walther. I Corinthians: Anchor Bible Vol. 32. Garden City, NY. Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1976.

---

[i] And, as Leonard Cohen said, “Love is not a victory march.”

[ii] Whether she actually said it / wrote it, I don’t know. I can’t find the quote sourced, but it certainly sounds like something she would have said. 

[iii] In 5:9 Paul refers to his previous letter.

[iv] Cacophony 

[v] No Schadenfreude in our Salvation 

[vi] See the writings of Peruvian liberation theologian, Gustavo Gutiérrez.

Dealing with Disagreement within the Ranks: Attacking (and Becoming) the Enemy

The Salvation Army, like every other denomination, has a set of doctrinal statements that defines our expression of the Christian faith. However, like every other denomination, we have within us a spectrum of ways in which those statements are interpreted. We have our share of disagreements. And this causes friction.

I have, in recent weeks, been thinking a lot about how to handle these disagreements within the ranks of the church, and I’ve been writing a series of short blog posts on the topic.  And while I’ve been writing them with my experiences in my own denomination in mind, I hope that the posts will be helpful to the broader Christian community as well. 

One of my more vocal critics has commented, “Jeff – you appear to consider the biblical methods that only appeal to you, while deliberately ignoring the more forceful methods the scriptures teach.”

He then listed for my edification: Romans 16: 17 – 18, 2 John 1: 10 – 11, and Matthew 7: 15 – 19.

It has not been my intent to “cherry pick” only the verses that appeal to me, or to paint myself as some sort of saint. In fact, I’ve tried to allow that these biblical methods apply to us all, even if it could be demonstrated that I am wrong. But, in an effort to ameliorate my critic’s accusation, let me treat another biblical approach to dealing with disagreement – one that he brought up for me in 2 John 10 -11 – and more broadly in all three of the Epistles of John.

These epistles, written by the unidentified “presbyter,” were written to address the encroaching of what the author felt to be a damnable heresy into the Johannine community of Christians – 1 John being addressed to the house churches of a large, metropolitan area (perhaps Ephesus, as in tradition) to reinforce their loyalty to the doctrine that they have received, 2 John to the members of the provincial community nearby, in order to warn them of dangerous missionaries with false ideas, and 3 John written to other nearby house churches, within the city, to elicit their hospitality and support for the presbyter’s emissaries. (Brown 99)

The thing about these heretical missionaries is that they came from within the Johannine Christian community, “they have gone out from among us.” (1 John 2: 19) They were not outsiders coming in with what the presbyter saw as a dangerous message, but insiders who had gone wrong. “The adversaries were not detectably outsiders to the Johannine community, but the offspring of Johannine thought itself, justifying their positions by the Johannine Gospel and its implications” (Brown 107).

To understand the presbyter’s hostility towards this group we need to go a little further back in history. In the years prior to the Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, it would have been possible (and more accurate) to speak of Judaisms (plural) rather than Judasim (singular). There were numerous competing groups of religious Jews, each claiming to be an authentic expression of the Jewish faith. The more well-known of these were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the Zealots – but there were other various shades along the spectrum of the faith. We should also include in this listing the nascent Christian community – who did not yet consider themselves to be a separate faith, apart from Judaism. Until its destruction, the Christians still worshipped at the Temple, and they gathered with their Jewish coreligionists in the synagogues.

After the failed rebellion, most of these groups disappeared, and Judaism came to be defined largely by what was left of the Pharisee branch. And, in that precarious world struggling to preserve a Jewish identity, the theological disagreements between “the Jews” and the Christians became more apparent and more divisive. There was less tolerance for diversity under the Jewish umbrella.  Whereas before the rebellion there might have been a forbearance for other groups, afterwards there was a perceived need for unity.  And the Christians were eventually expelled from the synagogues. 

It was during this time that the “18 Blessings” of Jewish prayer were formulated by the rabbis.  The 12^th of these blessings is known as the “Blessing on the Heretics” (blessing here being a euphemism for curse). Though the identity of the heretics in question is debated, it is thought by many to be reference to Christians: “For the apostates let there be no hope. And let the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days. Let the noẓerim (possibly Nazarenes – i.e. “Christians”) and the minim (“heretics”) be destroyed in a moment. And let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not be inscribed together with the righteous. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who humblest the arrogant"

The Gospel of John seems to have been composed in the wake of this expulsion. You can easily see the vitriol and antagonism heaped upon “the Jews” in that gospel. They are children of their father, the Devil (John 8:44). This schism seems to have created a starkly dualistic mindset in the Johannine Christian community. Everything was understood in this binary, us-vs- them attitude. They are children of darkness, we are children of light. We have truth, they have only falsehood. We are from above, they are from below. We are children of God, they are children of the Devil. They hate us. They kill us!

The split was acrimonious and the hostility dangerously hateful. 

By the time we come to the Epistles of John, the threat is no longer an external one (Them! “the Jews!) but comes from within. Proponents of diverging interpretations of their text – the Gospel of John – began taking sides against one another. And that starkly, dualistic, us-vs. them attitude, refined during the community’s conflicts in the Jewish synagogue, turned inward. The presbyter, the author of the Epistles of John (who was, most likely, not the same as the Evangelist who wrote the Gospel) turned that invective inward.

“As understandable as this sense is, this dualistic articulation is dangerous, and in fact it encouraged Christians of later centuries to see a dualistic division of humankind into believers (Christians) and non-believers, into an ‘us’ who are saved and a ‘them’ who are not. Inevitably such a dualistic outlook will shift over into divisions within the ‘us’ and the cannons that once pointed outwards to protect the fortress of truth will be spun around to point inwards against those betraying the faith from within” (Brown 134 – 135).

Thus the presbyter can refer to those preaching a different interpretation of their shared gospel as “Antichrists” (1 John 2: 18 – 23, 4: 3, 2 John 7) as “deceivers” (2 John 7) trying to lead you astray (1 John 2: 26, 3: 7) as belonging to the devil (1 John 3: 8 – 10), as false prophets (1 John 4: 1) and etc. This is sourly ironic language in letters that repeatedly insist on the need to “love one another.”

This seems to be the method of dealing with disagreement preferred by my critic. He has on several occasions questioned my salvation, and called me a “false officer.” In one spectacularly over-the-top outburst of vitriol he wrote the following – and although he didn’t call me out by name, I’m quite sure that he had me (among others) in mind.

False teachers! Wolves and serpents among the flocks of God's people! Devils dressed in robes of priestly garb; falsifiers! Disgusting! Repulsive! Uncircumcised wretches of erupting evil! Dissenters and liars filled with hell and heresies of old! Darkness has consumed them! Satan has enchanted them with all the pleasantries of the world and like worms they burrow themselves deep into the mission field where the weak are led astray by their winds of wandering illusions of relativism and subjectivism.

You are children of the harlot riding the beast - indulging yourselves in all the fanciful pleasantries of worldliness. I am sickened to my soul by your words and driven to righteous indignation by all your divisive chatter and scheming! The Lord is coming with His sword of righteousness to lay low His enemies which dare to insult Him with their insolence, ignorance and rebellion against His Holy Word. (1)

My critic seems to have mastered the Presbyter’s invective – surpassed him, even. But this approach to dealing with disagreements is dangerous. While it may (potentially) be effective in preserving truth (or one interpretation of truth), this approach effectively turns us into the enemy that we hate. The Presbyter failed to see that by insisting that “if anyone comes to you bringing a different doctrine, you must not receive him into your house or even given him a greeting,” (2 John 10) he was acting in exactly the same manner as “the Jews” who had expelled the Christians from the synagogue.  In attacking the enemy, he became the enemy.

“Those who believe that God has given His people the biblical books as a guide should recognize that part of the guidance is to learn from the dangers attested in them as well as from their great insight” (Brown 135). This forceful method of dealing with disagreement may be effective in putting disagreements to a quick and decisive end, but at what cost?

 - I highly recommend this book:

Brown, Raymond E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple: the Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times. New York. Paulist Press, 1979.

(1) This is part of a much longer post that was shared on Facebook on August 18. I was later expelled from the group where it was posted, and unfortunately do not have a screen shot to display.

Dealing with Disagreement in the Ranks: What Does it Matter?

One of my more frequent and vocal critics in recent days has objected to my series of posts concerning various Biblical methods for dealing with disagreement within the ranks. I really don’t understand it, but he insists upon seeing my attempt to foster unity (in spite of disagreements) as an attempt to “serve as a wedge in the ranks of the [Salvation] Army…to divide and conquered [sic] territory with clever craftsmanship of words...” He has called me divisive, he has questioned my salvation; he has even called me a “false officer.”

So perhaps he will find this next biblical approach to disagreement to be especially suited to him.

In his letter to the church at Philippi, the apostle Paul wrote, “It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice!” – Philippians 1: 15 – 18

If my detractor were correct (and I would insist that he is not, not at all, not even close), even IF he were correct in his assessment of me, he could still rejoice that Christ is being preached.

 Two Approaches to Dealing with Disagreement 

A Few More Approaches to Dealing with Disagreement-

How Do You Interpret It?

Dealing with Disagreement: What Not to Do 

Dealing With Disagreements within the Ranks: What Not To Do

I have, in recent weeks, been writing about how to deal with disagreements within the ranks of our denomination, describing some of the biblical models for handling debate. I have, so far, worked through a few of the positive approaches and I thought that I’d write today about a negative approach– a what not to do.

In John chapter 7 we find the Pharisees, in conjunction with the chief priests, sending the temple police to arrest Jesus because there was talk amongst the crowds of him being the Messiah (7: 32). (We will set aside, for now, the historical questions of whether or not the Pharisees would have worked so closely with the chief priests, and whether or not the Pharisees would have had the authority or the influence to send the temple police out to arrest Jesus, and we’ll accept the story as it is.)

As it turns out, the temple police returned without making an arrest, and the Pharisees were infuriated. “Why did you not arrest him?” They shouted. The police answered, “Never before has anyone spoken like this!” Then the Pharisees replied, “Surely you haven't been deceived as well, have you? Has any one of the authorities or any of us Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd following him, which does not know the law—they are damned.” (7: 45 – 49)

The Pharisees (who have, unfortunately, come to us in caricature – almost like the mustachioed villains of old-time melodramas) in their zeal to defend the truth (as they understood it) could not abide the idea that the crowds were listening to this upstart Jesus, and that they were beginning to think and talk of him as the Messiah. The Pharisees considered themselves learned in the way of the law and scripture. They condemned Jesus for his teaching and dismissed the rabble following him as “accursed” or “damned.”

Just then Nicodemus, one of the Pharisees (who had made some steps toward believing Jesus and his teaching - see John chapter 3), attempted to slow this rush to judgement and condemnation; he reminded the group that the law didn’t actually allow them to condemn Jesus or the people following him without first giving them a hearing. They needed to investigate and weigh the issues carefully before making judgment (7: 50 – 51).

But, no. The Pharisees of this story had already been convinced that Jesus was a deceiver and that those who followed him were to be damned. They turned and attacked Nicodemus – one of their own – as well. “Are you one of them?” they asked him. “Are you from Galilee?  Are you a part of that damned mob?” (7:52).

This is a model of what not to do, how not to behave. Don’t be quick to judge. Don’t be quick to condemn. Don’t start attacking members of your own fellowship. You may miss something.

A Few More Biblical Approaches to Dealing with Disagreement within the Ranks

Yesterday I wrote a short blog post briefly outlining two biblical approaches to dealing with disagreement. I shared it online and it met with a flurry of response. One individual on the Facebook replied to me saying, “Jeff – you appear to consider the biblical methods that only appeal to you, while deliberately ignoring the more forceful methods the scriptures teach.”

He then listed for my edification: Romans 16: 17 – 18 , 2 John 1: 10 – 11 , and Matthew 7: 15 – 19 .

In one regard, my challenger is accurate – though not for the reason he believes. I did not consider every method. My very brief post was not intended to enumerate every verse of biblical instruction on this topic, but to treat (briefly) on two that are often disregarded. This was not a deliberate attempt to disregard some parts of scripture (as if that would make them disappear.) But since the challenge has been raised, let’s add to this list, that I and my interlocutor have begun, another biblical approach to dealing with disagreement within the ranks:

This one is found twice in the words of Jesus – though the different synoptic accounts largely overlap – in Mark 9: 38 – 39 and in Luke 9: 49 – 50.

The disciples saw some other fellows who were driving out demons in Jesus’ name. The driving out of demons was a large part of the good news of the kingdom that Jesus was preaching and his disciples, who were close to him, who had spent a lot of time in his presence, felt that they needed to protect their proprietary brand of that gospel.

“We saw some other driving out demons in your name – but we told them to stop because they’re not part of our group.”

To which Jesus answered: “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me,” (in Mark’s version)  or “Do not stop him; for whoever is not against you is for you” (in Luke’s – New Revised Standard Version).

Within the ranks of our Salvation Army officers and soldiers and adherents, there are a number of scriptural issues that are being debated. But let’s not allow a defensive sense of proprietary ownership of our brand of the gospel blind us the good work of the gospel where it is being done – Is the good news being preached (whosoever will may be saved…) are human needs being met in Jesus name without discrimination…even by those who may not be part of “our group”?  If so, then perhaps our disagreement should be put aside.


This post has been edited to be somewhat less inflammatory. - 

Two Biblical Approaches to Dealing with Disagreement within the Ranks

Recent online discussions with members of my religious denomination (The Salvation Army) have become more inflammatory than I like. I would prefer reasoned discussion. I would prefer to begin from the starting point that those with whom I may disagree are still followers of the same risen savior – even if we disagree.

But this isn’t generally how things go. I’m told (directly and indirectly) that I am a blight on our organization; I am accused of being duplicitous, and twisting scripture to fit my own sin or worldly interests. And, what is more, the suggestion is made that I should just resign from my position within this organization. (And all of this also directed towards others within our community who share similar viewpoints and interpretations with me.)

I don’t think this is a very good way to go. Might I suggest two different lines of approach? (Both of which, by the way, are drawn from those scriptures that I’m told I don’t follow.)

Peter and the other apostles, following what they believed to be the guidance of the Holy Spirit, began preaching a message that challenged long held traditions and accepted truths. This infuriated some of his coreligionists to the point that they wanted to put Peter and the apostles to death. But one member of the ruling council urged caution and restraint. “If this enterprise, this movement of theirs, is of human origin,” argued the well-respected Rabbi Gamliel, “it will break up of its own accord; but if it does in fact come from God you will be unable to destroy them. Take care not to find yourself finding against God.”  (Acts of the Apostles 5: 21 – 39 New Jerusalem Bible)

Gamliel allows for some uncertainty – a measure of doubt, a question mark. Gamliel allows for the word “maybe.” Maybe they’re right. Maybe we’re wrong.  But “maybe” is a dangerous word for those who desire certitude. Many are unwilling to concede that their opponent may be following the leading of the Holy Spirit. 

The other scriptural approach I’d point to is for those who don’t have any time or use for “maybe” and it comes from Jesus in one of his parables: “the kingdom of Heaven," he said, "may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. While everybody was asleep his enemy came, sowed darnel all among the wheat, and made off. When the new wheat sprouted and ripened, then the darnel appeared as well. The owner’s laborers went to him and said, ‘Sir, was it not good seed that you sowed in your field? If so, where does this darnel come from?’ He said to them, ‘Some enemy has done this.’ And the laborers said, ‘Do you want us to go and weed it out?’ But he said, ‘No, because when you weed out the darnel you might pull up the wheat with it. Let them both grow till the harvest; and at harvest time I shall say to the reapers: First collect the darnel and tie it in bundles to be burnt, then gather the wheat into my barn.’” (Matthew 13: 24 – 30 New Jerusalem Bible)

Even IF (and that’s a very large IF – one that Gamliel wasn’t willing to gamble) you could conclusively, with exacting certitude demonstrate that the person with whom you are disagreeing is an absolute ungodly heretic with nothing of the light of the Holy Spirit guiding them, rip-roaring through the field to uproot them – to demand their immediate resignation and/or termination – is still not the best course of action; you’re likely to do as much (or more) damage that way.

So 1- allow for “maybe.”  And 2 – wait.