Making the Cut: Romans 4:9-12

I had a seminary professor who one day spoke to us about an experience he had in a small town where he served a small, Lutheran congregation.  Right across the street from his church was another small, Lutheran congregation.  By this time, each congregation was in the same synod.  My professor thought it was pretty stupid that these two little congregations remained separate especially since they worshiped with the same hymnals; at the same time; with the same liturgy; and were with the same denomination.

One day, my professor asked one of the matriarchs of his congregation, “Why don’t we try to work to become one congregation?”

The matriarch looked at him and said, “Oh, pastor, that will never work out.  We use cards to register for communion.  They tell their pastor directly.”

That, my friends, is worthy of a major face palm!!  Some of the boundaries that we draw to distinguish ourselves from others are truly stupid.

Now, before I go too further, I want to make something very clear, this is not a sermon about bashing boundaries.  There are some well intentioned pastors, professors, and Christians who proclaim that Christianity is all about destroying the boundaries that exist between each other.  They say, “Jesus was a boundary breaker, and we should be too.”  As respectfully as possible, I would like to say that these folks are absolutely, completely, totally, wrong.  Christianity is not about abolishing boundaries.  Jesus did not come to eradicate them.  He came to redraw them.

God knows we need boundaries.  Boundaries help us know what is right and what is wrong.  “Do not steal” sets up a boundary between what you do not have and what someone else has and says, “Don’t take stuff that doesn’t belong to you.”  A marriage is a boundary that is formed between a couple and the rest of humanity that says, “We have committed to one another in a special relationship–no one else is allowed this intimacy.”  Property lines are drawn and sometimes solidified with fences to show–this belongs to one person and that belongs to another.

When it comes to the human aspect of boundaries, they help us know where one person stops and another person starts.  Boundaries say, “This is me.  This is not me.”  They give us a sense of identity, and they differentiate us from the environment and other creatures.  Boundaries help us distinguish ourselves from other animals.  What is the difference between us and apes?  What is the difference between us and chimpanzees?  What is the difference between us and stubborn, hard headed mules?  A few of you are looking around and saying, “Not much.  Not much at all.”

To eradicate all boundaries would leave us with a sense of chaos.  If everything is permitted, you have anarchy, and eventually, the law of the jungle will prevail.  The biggest and strongest will rule over everyone else, and everyone else would have to survive by hook, crook or subservience.  We need boundaries, but we must be careful with those boundaries.

If we draw the boundaries incorrectly or if the boundaries have no wiggle room or play, there can be drastic consequences.  For instance, we have a boundary called the speed limit.  Not too many really pay attention to it, but it is a boundary none-the-less.  If your child has an accident and you need to get them to the hospital as quickly as possible, is it okay to break the speed limit?  Most judges would be lenient because they realize that there are some circumstances where boundaries need to be a little flexible.  If boundaries are drawn incorrectly, conflict ensues.  Property owners go to court.  Nations go to war.  People resort to harsh words or even fists.  Boundaries must be drawn sometimes with the utmost of care.

As we work through the book of Romans we have come to a place where Paul is indeed carefully re-drawing the boundaries of what it means to be a child of Abraham and a part of the family of God.  To recap where we have gone so far, Paul began his letter by showing how all have failed to live up to the expectation of God.  All have missed the mark tremendously and are deserving of God’s wrath.  Yet, instead of unleashing His wrath against us, God worked a mighty act through His Son, Jesus Christ who became a sacrifice of atonement for all sin.  We have been made right with God not by any action of our own but through sheer grace–a gift of God’s gracious giving.  And we receive this righteousness–this being made right–when we trust in Jesus’ actions instead of our own.  As Paul says, it is “effective through faith.”

Paul now has to deal with several issues in light of God’s action through Jesus Christ.  The first is: if we are saved by grace and not by any work of the Law, does that mean that the law is meaningless?  Paul quickly answers: NO, but H-E-double hockey sticks NO!  We uphold the Law.  Paul will get into this later in the book of Romans and explain what this means.  There are still boundaries, but they have drastically shifted.

Last week, Paul worked through one of those shifts digging into the history of Judaism.  He showed how Abraham was not justified or made right with God through his following of the Law.  Abraham, according to Genesis 15 verse 6 was justified when he trusted that God’s promises would come true.  This was before the giving of the Law.  Now, Paul will show how the boundary regarding circumcision has been redrawn.

Let’s take a look at the text: 9 Is this blessedness, then, pronounced only on the circumcised, or also on the uncircumcised? We say, ‘Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.’ 10How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. Again, Paul digs through the scriptural history to prove his point.  Revisiting Genesis chapter 15 verse 6, Paul asks, “When did God say Abraham was made right?  Was it before or after Abraham was circumcised.”  The Jewish rabbis generally agreed that Abraham was circumcised 29 years after the events of Genesis 15:6.  Hence, it logically follows that it was not the circumcision that made Abraham right with God; it was not the circumcision that made Abraham the founder of the Jewish nation; it was Abraham’s trust in God.  Period.  If it was the only the circumcision that counted, well, then Abraham spent 29 years outside of the covenant with God.  Abraham spent 29 years without God’s blessing and promise.  Abraham spent 29 years as just Abraham and not the patriarch of the Jewish people.  No respected rabbi would dare to suggest that.  None at all.  So, Paul has this logic all sewed up.  Abraham was made a part of God’s family before he was circumcised not after.  So, what does circumcision mean, then?

Verse 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, 12and likewise the ancestor of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but who also follow the example of the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised.  Paul says that circumcision is a SIGN and a SEAL.  It is a sign that Abraham has put his trust in God–it is a response; an indelible mark that shows unequivocally that he is a Jew–a child of God.  It is also a seal of that same covenant.  It is a stamp over a signature that cannot be removed permanently holding that signature in place.  It is not a saving action.  It is a physical reminder of the promises that are made.  It is like a wedding ring.  The ring does not bind a couple together.  Their promises do.

And Paul wants to emphasize this because it has some important implications.  First off, since Abraham entered into the covenant and became the first of God’s family through the promise–and not through circumcision, then he can be seen as the father of the Gentiles who become Christians.  They are uncircumcised yet made right with God just as Abraham was uncircumcised when he was first made right with God.  Secondly, because Abraham was the first of the circumcised, he is also the father of all Jewish people.  It is extremely important for Paul to show this because Paul unequivocally wants to show that God was faithful in His promise to Abraham.  God indeed has ensured that Abraham’s descendants can be counted in the number of stars in the sky and grains of sand in the sea.  The boundary has been redrawn to do this.  The boundary of who is allowed into God’s family is not whether or not the follow the Law.  Paul’s answer is no one does, and all would be excluded.  Paul also now says that the boundary as to whether or not someone is in God’s family is also not circumcision lest some don’t quite make the cut.  (Thank you for your recognition of the brilliance of that pun.)

The boundary is whether or not a person trusts in Jesus Christ.  The boundary is whether or not someone trusts in Jesus’ redeeming action instead of their own actions.  The boundary is whether or not someone trusts in Jesus’ death and resurrection instead of any physical trait they have.  Trust in Jesus equals admission into the family of God.  Faith in Jesus Christ makes you a child of Abraham.  That’s it.  Period.  End of story.

What does this mean?

In today’s terms, the message is stark because there are those who still try to draw the boundaries hard and fast in other terms.  How so?  Tell me if you have heard these things or something like them:

∙ You can’t be a Christian and vote for Donald Trump.
∙ You can’t be a Christian and vote for Hillary Clinton.
∙ You can’t be a Christian and vote Democrat.
∙ You can’t be a Christian and vote Republican.
∙ You can’t be a Christian and drink alcohol.
∙ You can’t be a Christian and be homosexual.
∙ You can’t be a Christian and support our military.

Oh, I could go on and list many, many more–including the fact that there are some Christians who believe that only their particular denomination is the family of God.  There’s an old joke about a guy who dies and goes to heaven.  St. Peter meets him at the gate and starts showing him around.  Peter says, “Well, I noticed that you didn’t attend any particular church, so I am going to show you around up here and let you see all the different denominations.  After looking them over, you can decide which one you want to hang out with.  St. Peter points out the Lutherans, and they are all drinking beer and dancing having a great time.  The guy looks at them and thinks, “Well, that looks like fun.”  Next, Peter points out the Baptists many of whom are drinking beer and dancing for the first time while shouting out Amen! with great frequency.  The guy, thinks, “Well that’s cool too.”  And so Peter goes about continuing to point out each group.  Finally, Peter comes to a big wall.  The guy asks, “What’s up with the wall?”  Peter replies, “Shh.  Keep your voice down.  That’s the Missouri Synod.  They think they’re the only ones up here.”

These boundaries are not the correct boundaries.  It is in our nature to draw them and say who is in and who is out.  But we must remember something–God’s boundaries are the most important boundaries, and He has gone to great lengths to admit as many people into His family as possible.  He has gone through great pains and sufferings to welcome as many to the table as He possibly can.  He has done this because He loves the world and the people in it.  He does not want to see them perish.  We know this because Jesus unequivocally said, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world but that the world might be saved through Him.”

And that God justified the ungodly.  That God justified you and I when we were ungodly.  God justified us when we were most to be pitied.  And so we seek to proclaim that justification to others.  We seek to help them trust in Jesus and His action.  For God wants all to be in His family.  All.  We do not seek to condemn people for their differences–for their different boundaries.  We seek to help them to see how God has rewritten them to make a place for them.  After all, God has redrawn the boundaries, for you.  Amen.

The Primary Relationship

Last Thursday, my youth director and I attended a seminar on boundaries.

For the most part, the seminar was okay.  It was quite predictable.  Much of the material was essentially common sense thought in how to prevent abuse--sexual and otherwise.

But there were a couple of things that rubbed me a bit raw.

1. The power issue.  I belong to a denomination that is obsessed with power.  The ELCA has bought into the dichotomous thinking of liberation theologies where the world is viewed through the lens of oppressor/oppressed, and sense God has a preferential disposition toward the oppressed, the voices of the oppressed must be valued, raised up, etc.  Hence, there is no shortage of identity based theologies clamoring for ascendancy: Latin American Liberation Theology, Black Theology, Feminist Theology, Native American Liberation Theology, GLBTQ Theology, and the like.

There are a whole host of problems with this particular theological view, but now is not the time to go into such problems on a theological level.  I want to address something on a more practical level, particularly as it related to this course.  As we discussed the role of a clergy or a "professional" we were told that we, by virtue of our position are those in the power position.  (Never mind the conflict with Jesus' particular view that in order to be great in the kingdom--which we proclaim--we are actually last of all and servant of all.)  This differs from a marriage or dating relationship where two people come together as equals.

But wait!!!  If feminist liberation theologians are correct, then a marriage relationship or dating relationship is not of equals!!!  Males have the power!!!  Women do not!!!  How can we make a distinction between relationships if power dynamics govern both in such a manner?  Seems like we need to rethink our theology or our worldview in order to have a more solid basis when discussing boundaries.

2. Perhaps the most laughable line of the gathering was the emphasis that boundaries actually give freedom.  Not so much.

I mean, I'm going to split hairs here for just a moment because it is what I like to do.  :-)

I give my kids rules for a reason.  I tell them, "Don't play in the street," for a reason.  It's a limitation on their freedom, not for freedom, but for safety.  Within the boundaries (i.e. in the yard up to the sidewalk) they can run and play and go bananas--because they are safe.  They are not free.  There is a difference.

In this seminar, we were basically encouraged to make up more rules.  Make up more policies.  In theological speak, it was, "Make up more laws."

Newsflash: laws do not make you free.  They shackle you.  Martin Luther, the great reformer said, "The Law always kills."  There is a reason he said this.

First off, no one follows the Laws totally and completely.  No one.  In one part of the seminar, there was a list of rules to follow when it came to certain interactions.  I commented to my youth director, "I've probably broken nearly all of those."  Why?  Because many of those particular rules are broken each and every day in our relationships with each other as we laugh and joke and play with each other.  All one need do is turn on the television for a few minutes to see more than a few boundary violations.  Is it any coincidence that the rise in people getting offended has paralleled our loss of humor as a society?  We have failed to add context to what goes on in interaction, and that has led to some scary situations.

Among those scary situations is a societal trend of emotional reasoning.   Essentially this means a person allows his or her emotions to guide his or her interpretation of reality.  Some celebrate this; however, it is not to be celebrated.  It is actually a cognitive distortion.  (Leahy, Holland, McGinn, Treatment Plans and Interventions for Depression and Anxiety Disorders)  Just because you or I see something as reality does not mean it is actually reality.  A pastor who gently places his hand on a crying woman's shoulder--for all intent and purposes--is likely trying to offer compassion; however, that woman may have been a victim of physical abuse, and she interprets the actions as abusive or sexual in nature.  Who is right?  This pastor's life could be upset for years if this woman presses charges--even though her interpretation of reality is not reality.  The answer is not: more policies and more laws.  For heaven's sake, there were 613 commands in the Old Testament, and the people couldn't follow them!!  The laws and commands are not the problem.  The problem will be addressed below.

Secondly, if someone actually thinks he or she can and does follow the laws, commands, and policies, it almost always leads to a sense of self-righteousness, smugness, and confidence in one's ability to be morally upright and superior to others--almost always.  This leads to an "if I can do it, you should do it too" attitude.  Of course, the problem with this is two-fold.  Self-righteous people are almost always seen as a$$holes by regular folks.  (I speak from personal experience as one who has traveled long upon the self-righteousness road.)  Secondly, when such a person falls, and there have been many (think televangelists who get caught engaging in extra-marital sex) then great damage is not only done to that person's credibility--there is also great damage done to the institution of the Church.  Self-righteousness also leads to an us/them mentality.  We pure, upright, honest people are doing it right versus those heathens over there who can't get their proverbial $h!t together.  Such an attitude is hardly what we are called to espouse and set forth as Christians.

Both of these paths are "killer" paths.  They damage individuals.  They damage the Church.  They damage the soul.  More laws are not the answer.  More policies are not the answer.  What is?  Onto the third and final point.

3. The money comment which was made during this seminar was the following, "Abuse of boundaries takes place when there is a problem in the primary relationship."

Please re-read that comment again, because I think it is of vital importance.

But here is my fear: my greatest fear is that most people in the room thought the primary relationship had to do with their spouse or significant other.  My fear is that the "primary relationship" centered upon wife or husband or partner or boyfriend or girlfriend or the like.  And that is not the primary relationship.  It cannot be.  Why?

There are always problems with that relationship.  Always.  There are no perfect marriages.  There are no perfect relationships.  There is always going to be some sort of conflict.  There is always going to be some sort of animosity or anger or jealousy.  Two imperfect people cannot ever and will not ever come together to make something that is perfect.  And if those two imperfect people have added a couple of little imperfect people into the mix...well, then that just adds another whole layer or two or ten of imperfection, stress, anxiety, and the like--things that lead to boundary violations.

You see, our marriages, our friendships were never meant to satisfy us.  They were never meant to give us fullness or completeness.  They were never made to give us our identity or well being.  Imagine if you expect your closest relationship to bear all of those things.  Imagine if you thought your relationship with your spouse was capable of giving you all of those things even when your spouse or significant other is having a really, really bad day.  Is it any wonder so many marriages fail these days?

The problem isn't necessarily with marriage.  The problem is the focus on the wrong relationship.  The relationship with a spouse isn't the primary relationship.  The primary relationship is the one with one's Creator.  The primary relationship we have is with God.  We should know this in the church--should.

And so we return to that important statement: when something is wrong with the primary relationship, boundary violations occur.

Which raises the question: how do you make sure the primary relationship is right?  How do you make sure you are right with God?

Well, now we get to the heart of the Gospel.  For if we are orthodox in our belief, we confess that there is nothing we can do to make that relationship right.  There is nothing we can do on our part to make that relationship whole.  If we could--then we would become extremely self-righteous.  If we could, we would be able to follow every Law and command.  If we could, then there would never have been any need for Jesus and the cross.  We cannot make that relationship right.

But God already has.

Through the incarnation.  Through the cross.  Through the blood of Jesus, we are made right with God.

That relationship has been made right when you were unable to do it.  That relationship has been made right by sheer grace--by God's action and not your own.

Therefore, you have no room to boast or become self-righteous.
You have no room to become arrogant.

And...

You have no need to find your identity, your fulfillment, your sense of well-being from anything but God.  When you are seeking these things elsewhere, that means you are not trusting in what God has done--instead you are trusting in yourself--in what you think you have to do.

When you violate boundaries, it means you are not trusting in what God has accomplished for you.  You are returning to works/righteousness instead of the Gospel of grace.  The answer to the problem of boundaries is not make more boundaries.  It's trust God more.  He is and has made the primary relationship whole.

I learned this lesson the hard way.  My hope and prayer is that others might have an easier time.