Liberty of Gentile Christian

1. Jesus has all authority.

This is given in Matthew 28:18. “And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.’”

2. He conveys this authority A. to Peter on his own, and B. to all the disciples in concert, and

3. he promises to be with any two or more who gather in his name, and

4. he promises to order heaven just as Peter and the disciples and the two or more order themselves earth.

In Matthew 16:18 & 19, we read: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever your bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever your loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18:18-20 states (referring to the disciples), “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

Presumably it will be impossible for any two or more disciples to agree to impose their will contrary to what has been bound or loosed by Peter and all the disciples together. All other agreements by Christians will be binding upon those making the agreement, e.g., those in a Christian union.

Also notice the logic. The reason that whatever two of the disciples agree on will be accomplished in heaven is because they are a two of any "two or three" who are gathered in the name of Jesus and thus encircling him within their embrace. This would seem to be a clear bell to the church for the sanctioning of monasteries of two or three Christians, even as the marriage can be considered a special case monastery comprising only two, one male and one female. Any thing asked in unity with Christ will be honored by God in any judgment. We have this upon the acknowledged word of the Lord.

5. Peter and all the disciples in total agreement with each other, acting together as the Council of Jerusaelm, and with the concurrence of the Holy Spirit, convey liberty to the gentiles except for four stipulations, the “necessary things”.

I should first like to extrapolate from Paul's writings to arive at his (presumed) argument to the Council which resulted in this liberty and the speech of the Edict itself (added 1/18/04):

"You disciples of the Lord are possessed of the Holy Spirit and you know that I am also. I was called by Christ just as you were, but alone while you were called together. You recognize that of me, that my heart is as yours. I was sent by Lord expressly for the gentile as Peter was sent to the Jews. The Lord took me by storm and forgave me because of my ignorance and has turned my zeal now into his own cause. I can speak to the gentiles as an example, for I, formerly the great enemy, have been transformed into now the good friend. The gentiles are not enemies, I can say, but merely ignorant of the Lord, and which condition is being now rectified by my preaching. The Lord invites the gentiles to follow him just as they are, without the least change in any condition of their life. They do not have to become Jews or follow any externally imposed law. They are accepted merely by getting up and following him in the Way, i.e., living and acting according to the Three Loves. We all have his word on this. They are acceptable. I have taught them further that in this frame of mind each person will become captive to the Holy Spirit and their very bodies will be temples for the Most High, made of flesh and not of stone.

"Peter and I both report of the transformations experienced by the gentiles, where they have become new people in Christ and go about doing good and enjoying doing that good. God himself (Romans 2) has given testimony to the correctness of this view, and gave us the “righteous gentiles”, those gentiles doing good things for the very sake of doing good. Consider also the experience reported about the Lord himself and which you have relayed to me, how he was himself actually amazed by the faith of the gentiles who ventured to cross the line and approach a Jew. In that amazement our Lord will have seen the promise of God, that it was not for the Jews alone that he would die, but rather for the gentiles too, for the whole world.

"Now while my commission from you is clear, namely that you accept my conversion and my calling to speak authoritatively to the gentiles and also my transformation, people have come from Jerusalem to Antioch, purporting to speak for you, and have brought my gospel into question. For that reason I am appealing to you now to make clear to all the world your intentions and our agreements with regard to the gentiles. I ask for the following verdict:

"That the gentiles be declared to be forever free of any law, and that I be commended by you to them for their sakes. The following is my clear intention: that they understand that the love exemplified by our Lord for you, his disciples, is what is required of anyone pretending to be a friend of Jesus, namely that they are to love their neighbor as self, and if the neighbor is a fellow Christian, they are to love him more than self. And for this reason they are to defer in their liberty before the conscience of another Christian who may be “weaker in faith” and who calls for props to make himself acceptable in the sight of God. For example a Gentile Christian would never eat idol meat in the presence of a Jewish Christian) if the latter thought it were unclean and distasteful to God for any one to do that.

"Secondly the gentiles will understand that the mark of our dedication to the Lord lies in our determination to make ourselves worthy temples for the Holy Spirit, and that, in the first instance, lies in our intention to exercise self control in all things, and we exemplify this, like unto a circumcision, by our dedication to chastity. Every man is to get his own house in order for the sake of the Lord. Self control is expected of the servant and the friend of Jesus.

"Now, my brothers and sisters, I beseech you to issue your Edict and declare the gentile Christian to be free, but is to avoid two “necessary things”, i.e., 1., avoid offense to the Jews; and 2. exemplify self-control for the sake of Christd, and signal this with the oath of chastity."*

[* It seems likely that the prohibition against unchastity was imposed in order that the human being prove him or herself able to make a meaningful vow, be it to Christ or be it to another person in a Christian union. For how can the promise of an untested person be trusted, even when sincerely made? The self restrain called for in the subjugation of the sexual desire to the service of Christ is not unlike an antique knight doing some great deed, slaying some great dragon, in order to prove himself worthy of the attention and respect and finally the hand of "his lady."]

The ensuing Edict is apparently unnanimous (since the Holy Spirit is reported to have concurred) and is related in Acts 15:28-30 and is directed to the gentile believers.

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchasity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

6. Paul is presented to the gentiles by the disciples’ representatives, and the liberation is proclaimed to the gentiles in the agreeing presence of Paul and the representative and by letter from the Council (of Jerusalem).

This is given in Acts 15. In verse 22 we read, “Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders and the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.” Judas and Silas joined Paul and Barnabas and carried the letter of emancipation with them to address the gentiles. We read further in 30-34, “So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch; and having gather the congregation together, they delivered the letter. And when they read it, they rejoiced at the exhortation. And Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words and strengthened them.”

Since all of this was orchestrated by Paul, it is fitting that he be called Father of the Gentile Christian (or today the Paulian).

7. Paul derives the four “necessary things” from the third of the three great loves (God, neighbor, fellow Christian), and shows that all things are lawful to the gentile (or Paulian) Christian, and that every right action can be derived from the 2nd Love and the 3rd Love. Indeed the "necessary things" are reminders 1. to be sensitive to the conscience of others whose faith is weaker, and also 2. that the expected practice of self control is exemplified in chastity (when apart from the confines of a Christian union), as the mark of every servant of Christ (Milton's: "they also serve who stand and wait." On his blindness.) (Modified 5/30/04)

The task here is two fold. First we must show that the “necessary things” are not infringements upon the liberty of the Paulian, but rather merely explain the character of the Christian. And then we must also show that Paul was in full accord with this Edict and is what he wanted anyway (as sugested above in 5).

The "necessary things." The key to the solution to some of the "necessary things" lies in Acts 15:21 where we see that the mind of the disciples was on the conversion of the Jews living abroad in gentile lands, and in1 Corinthians 8 & 10:23-33 where we see further that these restrictions were not binding on the gentile in the immediate, literal sense, and then in Romans 14, where we learn the entire sense, namely the gentile were not to flaunt their liberty in the face of Jews who are considering the Christian faith or in the face of those Christians who seek to adhere to the law, as did the disciples themselves. This reasoning holds for the first three of the four necessary things, namely idol food, meat from strangled animals, and blood products.*

[* This is possibly a style of speech, for Jesus often gave two or three specific instances with the expectation that the principle could then be derived as the common element, e.g., the admonitions to turn the other cheek, give the extra cloak, and go the second mile render the principle of cheerful giving and not taking recourse to a legalistic code of limitations to acts of love, for such legalism leads to minimalism, i.e., don't do any more than you absolutely have to.]

The matter of chastity is in a different class of necessary things from the first three. Paul has just made clear that food is clean just as was also revealed to Peter in his dream of Joppa (Acts 10). And this would take care of the first three necessary things which all have to do with food. But he speaks out against unchastity (1 Corinthians 6 & 7) in terms of an absolute prohibition. But it will be desirable not to have this as a law due to Paul’s formulation (to be examine shortly) of the guidance of the Christian, namely finding the expedient way to represent Christ, given that all things are lawful. The solution seems clear from Paul’s own thinking here and which can easily represent that of the disciples and should be assumed as doing so (since Paul is the authorized representative of Christ to the gentiles). A person who becomes a Christian announces that his body now belongs to Christ and will be directed toward the three loves of God, neighbor and fellow Christian, and he announces this subjugation of the body to Christ by a vow to chastity. Hence to say that a Christian is chaste is an analytical statement and comes from the meaning of the term Christian.* It is much as though it were a circumcision defining the Christian.

[* In a like manner, and for purposes of comparison, a Christian marriage is devoid of the possibility of divorce. This is made clearer in the appendix relating to divorce and law.]

In this sense then all of the "necessary things" are analytical derivations from the meaning of Christian and the three loves. If we serve Christ we remember the third great love, fellow Christian more than self, and we remember our total dedication to all of the three loves by virtue of the subjugation of our bodies to chastity (apart from marriage).

And so the Council is reminding the Christian of two things. First the third of the three great loves (God, neighbor and fellow Christian), which was not formulated to the world, but only to the disciples (John ??). This is part and parcel of what one is about as a Christian. And secondly the Council is reminding the Christian of his subjugation of his body in order to be the body of Christ. The Council has not imposed any law upon the Paulian, but has made clear what is entailed in being a follower of the Lamb: “You will be loving the fellow Christian as well as loving God and neighbor, and your body will be the body of Christ.”*

[* There is a practical dimension to the chastity which calls for comment. By virtue of chastity you also prove yourself able to make a meaningful vow to a mate in a marriage or a monastery. For how can you be expected to remain faithful in marriage if you cannot remain chaste before marriage. Temptations will come.]

And so we end up with a clear declaration of independence of the gentile in the character and spirit of the Christ, that character being the ever ready servant of the Holy Spirit. No law of any culture is superior to this dedication to the spirit of the Law of Love, or even equal to it.

Paul's Agreement. Now the question arises, was Paul in agreement with this? We know from Acts 15 (as noted above) that two independent representatives went out from the Council with Paul and Barnabas and read and discussed the Edict letter with the gentiles in Antioch. And Paul was present. There is no record of any objection on the part of Paul. And when we read the letters of Paul we find several, very sweeping statements which reflect this hypothesized spirit of the Council, e.g., all things are lawful, and the only question is expediency. (1 Corth. 6:12)

But then we read Paul further we suddenly come upon something suggesting that same-sex sex is sinful on its own (Romans 1:26 & 27) which would constitute a law, for it cannot be derived from the Law of Love any more than a rule in support of right handedness can be so derived; and so as such it is equally inane and thus puzzling. Either Paul is not prescribing law and instead is speaking to something else, or else there is a confusion in the scriptures concerning this liberty.

I shall now seek to develop a solution to this question by showing that Paul was addressing something different.

Everyone, including then of course Saint Paul, must be understood in accordance with his own understanding. Consider this episode from my childhood: my father learns that one of his sons was seen breaking windows in junk cars. I was about six years old and my brother eight. My father asks me about this in a very serious way, and I tell him that Jimmy and I had been playing by throwing things through car windows in the junk yard, meaning: "you know, the cars that nobody wants." He then did not proceed to punish me, for he had seen in my naivete nothing morally amiss. What he did do was to tell me that these were just called junk cars, and that actually people took windows out and used them in other, non-junk cars. My father had just judged me as he, a believing Wesleyan, expected someday to judge angels, and just as he expected to be judged by God. He had judged rightly, for I was innocent of malice and any ill intent, and simply had understood words differently. He judged me in accordance with my own understanding at that time. Thank God my father understood me, for this is not always the case with all authorities.

Consider a second case, that of Don Quixote who sees windmills as evil giants in a disguise. In accordance with this understanding, and given his commitment to fight for the right and for decency, he charges a windmill/giant to destroy it. He is no need of any moral correction, but merely a correction in his understanding. What he does is noble enough, but misguided in a practical way due to his understanding.

Let it be also with Paul as indeed it is with each of us. We shall all be judged according to our own respective understanding. (As Paul indicates so clearly in Romas 14:4)

Now let’s look at the general understanding in Paul’s world. Consider for example Paul's admonition just to look around you and confirm this "fact": isn’t it an obvious disgrace when a man wears long hair--it is downright unnatural as you can tell for yourselves. (1 Corinthians 14) When he says that he is speaking for people to decide for themselves, like looking at a triangle to see that a thing composed of three straight lines where every end point is an end point of two of the lines would necessarily enclose a space. He is appealing to their own, common experience and understanding.

In a very general sense, Paul lives in a world which can best be described as a giant planetarium, but where there is no projection machine, but rather where the little dots of light, the stars, are actually connected to the domed ceiling that the ancient Hebrews called a sky (Genesis 1:6-8). The people of his day found it irresistible to speculate when figures were spotted in this sky, like a Big Dipper and they drew all sorts of conclusion which would be considered weird according to today's scientific understanding, i.e., astrology. He lived in a world where left handed people were still only slowly obtaining acceptance by the right handed people.* Fortunately things had advanced so far that Paul felt no need to chastise left handed people for being recalcitrant (as would have been his understanding in an earlier time**). The handedness had no moral significance, although expediency might call for left handed people to be trained to act in a right handed way. The left handed person could rightly and properly be described as a quirk of nature. Not a birth defect, but a quirk. Not morally defective; just odd and curious.

[* The Latin word for "left" is the root of the English word “sinister." The root of the French for left hand is "clumsy" while that of the English is "worthless." Over the ages left handed people have been as battered as have been homosexuals.]

[** The logic of this earlier thinking is clear. If left and righthandedness were fifty-fifty, then no one could pay any attention to it. But it is 10/90. And that is so strange that it is easy to understand someone coming to this conclusion: obviously all people are right handed and will have been made that way by God (for otherwise you would expect naturally 50/50 or 100% left or 100% right). Hence it would be quite clear that these people wanting to use their left hands have a recalcitrent disposition and should be whipped into line, and indeed for their own good even, so that God not find them disobedient in what they do.]

Paul did not believe that the earth moved, and he did not believe there were such a thing as a homosexual. For him all men were heterosexual. Hence when a man engaged in same-sex sex he could have only one purpose. It was not for pleasure, for that was best gleaned from women (for, as we are assuming here, the man is naturally heterosexual); rather it was demonic in that it was undertaken to show one's utter contempt for law, indeed for all law, and which was exemplified in this deliberate breaking of the law of one's very own sexual nature. And so of course such a demonic spirit would also break the moral law and would readily engage in murder and mayhem. Such a spirit as this was diametrically opposed to the spirit of Christ, and it remains so today.*

[* Other than homosexuality we can identify four categories of same-sex sex which would encompass hetersexuals, i.e., Demonic (already described), Domination, Deprivation and Dissipation,** it is possible that Paul has some especially immoral conduct in mind in Romans 1, like the Domination sex of domestic rape and jailhouse rape, which then he would ascribe to all people engaged in same-sex sex, including then also the homosexuals. It is clear that he would have no more thought of homosexuality as natural than he would have thought of the earth as moving around the sun.***]

[** Domination = using another person as a toy to demonstrate superiority (commonly called "jailhouse sex"); deprivation = using a person of the same sex as a surrogate for a person of the opposite sex (also common in prisons), and dissipation = turning to a person of the same sex due to excessive engagement with persons of the opposite sex and an ensuing boredom a la "familiarity breeds contempt."]

[** The Christian scriptures are thought to have been composed by inspired men, i.e., men who have been given an idea (or an experience) by God and then who are moved to develop that idea or experience in terms of their own understanding, e.g., that the world is ptolemaic or copernic. This is in stark contrast to the Islamic conception of the Quoran as a divine dictation where nothing can be ascribed to man who (in the person of Mohammed) serves merely as a scribe, and also to the Mormon conception of Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon which is reported to have been transcribed from a golden book (subsequently taken to heaven) by means of supernatural spectacles for translation.]

Today we know that the earth moves and there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that homosexual desire is as natural as left handedness. Now Paul's general thesis for the Paulian Christian was exceptional in its simplicity: we are to serve Christ in our condition (unless we can change and unless we want to change), and the only rule is expediency with regard to some goal, i.e., all things are lawful to the Christian, and the three loves of Christ are together the supreme goal of any Christian

Given this thesis, we will consider now the case of an unmarried, homosexual, left handed thief who is called by Christ. If he answers that call then naturally he gives up his thievery, for that is incompatible with the law of love; but he is not called to give up his sexuality or his handedness, for these cannot be found incompatible with the law of love.

Now if the former thief wishes to marry to quince the "burning" of his passion, he must be provided with a meaningful, i.e., homosexual, means. Paul ordered a Christian marriage be recognized for the people under his charge (thinking that all people are naturally heterosexual), and so the possibility of a like union with a person of mutual attraction must be provided this former thief (since we today can easily assume that some people are as naturally homosexual as some people are naturally left handed).

Let’s take that same Paul now and leave everything constant, except we shall change only his understanding. Now the sky is no longer a dome, but rather we have instead an immense space which no one can fathom and which may be called awesome, and the earth itself moves about the sun within that space. Slavery has been outlawed as demeaning. We no longer believe that every governor is personally ordained of God. The sexes are equal in moral strength and in intellect. And homosexuality has become the gracious gift of a benevolent nature.*

[* While earlier the need of the world was to obtain more children, today the need is to discern how to have less children. Now there is a growing understanding that the command to "multiply and be fruitful" was not to be taken as a dictation of God, which would make it absolute (à la Mohammed), but rather as a man’s understanding and expression (via inspiration) of God’s provision for the world through a benevolent nature. The usual ways controlling the population have been war or famine or pestilence or genocide or abortion or birth control drugs or contraceptive or self restraint. The homosexual is able to help in solving this problem of world overcrowding in a way which does not even call for self restraint, the weakest of our control mechanisms (for the male has no period, and thus no need for abstinance). And so instead of homosexuals thwarting the needs of the world by selfishly refusing to give rise to children through their sexual energy (as Paul might have understood it then, if not as a demonic intention), we now have the homosexual aiding in curing the (now different) need of the world by doing exactly what he does naturally. Indeed today homosexuality is not to be considered merely as a quirk of nature like left handed persons; homosexuality is a valuable and benevolent gift. Thus while in Paul's time homosexuality would have been disfunctional, today it is highly functional and, if not a natural occurance, should be encouraged.]

Now today the Paul of our current understanding would be speaking about unions for homosexuals, and would most certainly speak of monasteries (to capture and utilize a related term) where two of the same sex can join in Christ and avoid burning with passion (1 Cor. 7:9), just as two of the opposite sex can join in Christ (the only difference being that the latter is a marriage, meaning it is preferred for the rearing of children, where both sexes are represented in the upbringing)*

[* This is a fascinating point. The preference by society for the heterosexual marriage over the homosexual monastery will have nothing to do with any sanctity of the former over the latter, but rather will be derived entirely and solely from the right of a child, for it is the right of every child to be exposed to both sexes equally in their upbringing, next only to the avoidance of trauma and the right to be healthy and happy, and to be prepared for adulthood. This is a duty of the species to itself.]

Nothing at all changes regarding Paul’s spirit or his dedication to Christ and the meaningfulness of his conception for us. The only thing that changes is his understanding. And this is something that the human species will always be faced with. We are all responsible in accordance with our understanding. Paul spoke quite rightly in accordance with his understanding even as we speak rightly when in accordance with our understanding, and as I as a child spoke rightly according to my understanding of junk cars at that time. There is a spiritual or moral distinction between breaking a car window at no one’s expense and breaking a car window that some one wants; just as there is a spiritual distinction between destroying a windmill and destroying evil giants disguised as a windmill as we see in the case of the fictional Don Quixote.

Paul told us to be very much at ease with regard to our encounter with Christ at the resurrection and for this reason: Christ does not judge any one in accordance with the understanding of another but only of one’s own understanding. Paul will be evaluated in terms of his own understanding, and so shall each of us. Romans 14 (verse 4) convinces us that the Master can make his servant stand. The judgment will be of our dedication to the three loves: God with total self, neighbor as self and fellow Christian more than self. Our understanding will come into play only as we exemplify these three loves in application in our condition. Hence the member of a homosexual monastery (union of the same sex) will answer for his dedication to his vows of faithfulness, just as member of a heterosexual marriage (union of the opposite sex) will answer for his or hers.*

[* Things can be summed up about so: the good doctor always wants to prescribe healing, but the understanding of the malady can be different and thus the medication, and two good doctors can be doing different things with one and the same malady. compare a witch doctor and a modern medical doctor. They both have the same spirit, let us say, but they vary in their understanding of the illness and of the means then of curing it.]

Given now this understanding of sexual beings who seem quirky by reporting an attraction to their own sex in the same way that the left handers report a equally quirky preference for their left hands, and given now the moral equivalency between the left hander and the right, and the homosexual and the heterosexual,* we can now not only recognize the homosexual as a quirk of nature like the left hander, we can even thank God for the provision of what must one of the more wonderful of his many, many gifts, namely a population brake which imposes no force or artificiality whatsoever.

[* It is possible, of course, for a heterosexual to think that a homosexual is as sinister as the right handed people used to think of left handers. I suppose this can be overcome only be realizing that the Law of Love does not address sexual orientation any more than it addresses handedness. And then perhaps by talking with trusted persons of another orientation and discoverning in them the same moral and loving spirit as persons of the same orientation. For example, St. Mark United Methodist Church in Atlanta makes this possible at its fellowship tables.]

We can now conclude that the edict of the Council of Jerusalem does indeed permit homosexual activity within the bounds of a monastery of two, and that the sole determination of our final judgment as individual Christians will be our dedication to the three great loves. And we conclude finally that Paul is not at odds with the Council of Jerusalem and that there is perfect unity in the Christian scriptures.

8. The expectation of Peter and all of the disciples and the Holy Spirit and of Paul is that by means of self control and mature judgment all right actions will be derived from the the three great loves, and especially the 2nd and the 3rd.