The Family, the Church, and Justification by Faith

Thinking about the whole Chick-fil-A controversy.....Even though Jesus himself made the family unit secondary to discipleship to him/fellowship with other disciples, there's been a movement in the U.S. for a long time that Christians ought to "save the family," i.e., the traditional unit.

While respecting my friends who believe otherwise, I think a focus on the family (no pun intended with that organization) doesn't reflect this aspect of Jesus' teaching about discipleship, and it misses the varieties of families in the Bible itself.

Plus, there are so many different kinds of families today (same-sex couples, blended families, single parents, grandparents raising grandchildren, etc.). Why can't they be preserved and supported, too?  How about divorced persons?  (Mr. Cathy of Chick-fil-A was thankful about company persons being married to their "first wives," but has there been much objection about that statement from divorced persons? I don't know; the gay-related aspect of the controversy takes center stage.)

But by now, the idea of "upholding the family," meaning the traditional unit and first marriage, is so deeply ingrained, especially among many conservatives. Supporting and strengthening one another is certainly a biblical value!  But I think there are issues about the nature of the church, and thus who is part of the fellowship of mutual support and upbuilding.

I've been reading an essay by the distinguished New Testament scholar Nils Alstrup Dahl (1911-2001) in his book, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977). Chapter 6 is “The Doctrine of Justification: Its Social Function and Implications” (pp. 95-120).

from gaychristian101.com

For the Apostle Paul, the doctrine of justification has social implications in that there is no distinction between persons in Christ---e.g., the famous Galatians 3:28. Paul’s controversy with Peter (Galatians 2:11ff) shows how Paul strongly asserts Christian unity at the Lord’s table because there is no distinction: we are all sinners, but God justifies sinners through faith (pp. 108-109). God acquits Jews and Gentiles alike because we all are sinful (p. 111).

“In his requests and exhortations, Paul puts heavy stress on Christians’ relationship with one another. The commandment to love one’s neighbor is interpreted to be a commandment to love one’s brothers within the community (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14-15). In the life according to the Spirit which Christians live and in their mutual love, they fulfill the real requirements on the Law, on the basis of justification (Rom. 8:4)” (p. 113).

We Christians tend to narrow the doctrine, according to Dahl, when we interpret the doctrine mostly in terms of the individual’s relationship with God as part of an ordo salutis: awakening to the Law’s requirement, rebirth in faith and the accompanying justification (acquittal), and then sanctification” (p. 118). But then, the broader implications of justification tend to be lost (p. 118).

As a Methodist I have to be a little careful, because John Wesley affirmed an ordo salutis and closely linked sanctification and justification.  But I still want to think along with (Lutheran) Dahl as he discusses Paul's gospel of justification.  Dahl notes, “The revivalist movement and the evangelical world mission provide obvious examples that the doctrine of justification can have far-reaching social consequences....But it is hard to deny, precisely on the basis of the experience of the missionary churches, that a Christianity which limits the doctrine of justification to personal religious experience and salvation is insufficient. Young Asian, African and Indian Christians today ask for guidance to overcome the problems which their societies and their churches confront. Like many Westerners, they have trouble finding the answers in pietistic-evangelical religiosity. Missionaries brought not only the justifying gospel, but also Western patterns of behavior and a ‘ceremonial law’ enacted by the traditions of the different churches. The questions are complication. One example is polygamy. ‘The missionaries preach salvation by grace alone,’ said one African pastor, ‘but in practice that turns out to mean salvation by only one wife’” (pp. 118-119).

Dahl continues that justification does tend to move into the background as aspects like social responsibility, ecclesiology, sanctification, etc. are brought to the front. But for him, “The urgent task is rather to rediscover the social relevance and implications of the doctrine of justification...to what extend does the current practice of the church deny de facto the doctrine of justification, because it excludes certain groups of people from free access to God’s grace in his church?” (p. 119).

He uses the example of racial discrimination and asserts that the problem is “not something outside the task of preaching the gospel... It belongs to the heart of the gospel message that God shows no partiality, and that for this reason neither can the congregations which gather in his name, wherever they may be” (p. 119).

“The social implications of the doctrine of justification mean that believers must visibly express their unity in the fellowship of the Lord’s table, as Paul so forcefully insists” (p. 120). But churches continue to disavow the doctrine in practice.  “Has the message of the doctrine of justification, “There is no distinction,” had any impact on the social structure of the churches? Today, does not full acceptance into a suburban congregation presuppose a certain social standard and certain patterns of behavior?  Do I go too far to suggest that middle class social standards and stereotyped forms of conversion experience and of religious expression have become the ceremonial and ritual law of our time?” (p. 120).

I wonderful if the whole Chick-fil-A controversy---with people evoking God's word and "the biblical definition of the family"---is an example of "middle class social standards" and "religious expression that has become ceremonial and ritual law" that excludes persons.  In this case, gays are excluded, but I think there is also the possibility of persons who are not in traditional families, persons who are divorced, and so on.

A small example is a church I attended, where there was an effort to rethink the annual "mother-daughter banquet."  Not every mother in the church had a daughter, and one mother had lost a daughter to suicide.  But the banquet went on, and to me, it felt like the banquet disregarded the experience of others with different experiences, and if they didn't like it, they just needed to get over it.

Another example is a divorced person I knew, who felt hurt and uncomfortable by churchgoer's comments about divorce.  Needless to say, LGBT persons have experienced exclusion, prejudice, and sometimes physical attacks.

The famous story of Jesus and the adulterous woman is such a powerful story: the people who condemn her and her sin are themselves sinners who excuse and overlook their own sin.  But when Jesus tells the woman to “sin no more,” many of us interpret that as a kind of probation period: God lets us off the hook once but won’t love us anymore if we fall back into sin. But my gosh, don't we all fall back into sin, continually, every day, if not "big sins" involving our genitals, but our attitudes and hatreds and lack of love?  True, God hates sin----and for that reason, he justifies sinners!  God never stops loving us---and God continues to help us as we struggle with our sins and our figurative demons.

God is more loving and constant than we are----because in our own lives, we do have to distance ourselves from hurtful and “damaging” people.  But even though such persons are safe for us, God hangs in with those people, too.  

I wrote on another blog post about ordination of LGBT persons.  I argued that such ordination is appropriate because it’s analogous to the experience of the first Christians: God is actively blessing and empowering persons who are not keeping biblical laws. (In the first century, it was Gentiles who don’t keep Torah; in this case, it is persons who, in some people’s eyes, violate the biblical condemnations about homosexuality.)  But the fact of the Holy Spirit’s work among both Jews and Gentiles became, for Paul, the foundation of the necessity of table fellowship that enacted the truth, “God shows no partiality.” 

Dahl uses the example of racial discrimination, but I think a strong sense of the doctrine of justification can help us overcome discrimination of LGBT persons in the church, too.  It can help us be more inclusive to persons whose family structure is different from our own. It can even help us to be more loving and serving to persons who are not part of the church: for instance our Muslim neighbors who face hostility from persons in our current time.

To affirm, “God shows no partiality,” is to affirm that God showers us with love regardless of our politics or our sexual orientations or the obvious and subtle sins that we commit everyday. “God shows no partiality” means that God’s blessings and favor are so much broader and inclusive than we ourselves might agree with!