An all too common occurrence in the Body of Christ today:
Denomination: You, church, are out of agreement with one (or more) of our core beliefs.
Church: We are just following what we have come to believe is true.
Denomination: We can’t have you professing an opposing belief and staying in affiliation with us.
Church: Can’t we talk about this?
Denomination: Talking is over. Either recant, leave, or be removed from our midst.
Church: We can’t recant and don’t want to leave.
Denomination: It’s time to vote.
Church: Can’t we talk about this?
Denomination: The “ayes” have it. You are removed. Good bye.
Now, this isn’t always the way it goes. Sometimes, the church leaves on its own. Rarely, the church recants. But often, the church attempts to stay and, in the end, the denomination votes to remove them or formally reestablishes the disputed belief as an absolute requirement of membership.
This scenario is actually as old as the Christian Church itself. What makes it a contemporary occurrence is what is being disputed. Ancient schisms were primarily over “substantial matters” concerning divine truth. Today, the disputes are many times concerned with morals: i.e. right and wrong human behavior.
But, it is interesting that the current disagreements about morals, often carry the same seriousness and consequences as those over substantial matters.
So having defined the situation, we pose a few questions: Is this scenario a good thing?; Is this a satisfactory outcome?; Is there a better way?
You might think that we will now proceed to provide answers to the questions we proposed. But, guess what? We will not be providing answers here or any where else, for that matter.
By not answering we are making our point that the debate over morals doesn’t belong in the Kingdom of God (the church) in the first place. Debating right and wrong human behavior is strictly a kingdom of the world thing.
Whenever the church gets pulled, by the world, into deciding how people should or should not behave, it gets itself into a position of either condoning or condemning. This is a “pick one” position that is opposed to God’s “all” character and nature. There is immense wisdom for the church in Jesus’ statement recorded in Matthew 7:1, that we are not to judge.
And it has been shown over many centuries of moral debate (on such things as abortion and homosexuality) just how unsuccessful and damaging is judging behavior. What has been gained by all the disagreeing and voting? Almost nothing except for division among brethren and derision from the world.
While on the earth, Jesus never engaged in moral debate. In fact he went to great lengths to show his acceptance of everyone regardless of their behavior. He fellowshipped with prostitutes and ate with tax collectors.
Even when pulled smack dab into a the middle of a moral dilemma, Jesus refused to play by the world’s rules.
This is the story of the adulteress woman in John 8. Jesus is in the temple courts where “all the people” are gathered around Him. The scene is interrupted as a woman “caught in adultery” is made to stand before Jesus and the crowd.
Jesus is challenged by the “teachers of the law and the Pharisees” to agree that the woman should be stoned for her behavior.
Faced with this moral decision, it seems that Jesus had no option but to either condone her behavior or condemn her to death.
But He refused to play by the rules of the world. He would neither condone nor condemn.
Without a word, He bent down removing himself from the fracas. He closed off the voices of those around Him and, instead, sought the quiet voice of His Father.
When Jesus rose, the words He spoke cut through the tension and shattered the debate into a million pieces. “Let anyone of you who is without sin be the first to throw the stone at her.” (John 8:7)
Having spoken what He had heard from His Father, Jesus stooped down again confident that those 18 words would do exactly what the Father willed. He wouldn’t be disappointed.
“At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there,” wrote the gospel’s author in John 8:9.
And when (and only when) the din and chaos are gone, He again gets up. Now alone with the woman, He can speak calmly and directly – just to her. The scene turns from a public spectacle to one of great intimacy: She, a frightened, desperate woman and He, her loving Savior. With the world out of the way, Jesus turned His full attention to doing what His Father had sent Him to do.
Jesus’ primary mission is totally depicted in the conversation that followed: “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” Jesus asks (John 8:11). “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
What an amazing outcome. Jesus fulfilled the Father’s mission despite the world’s attempts to distract Him from that mission.
This is how Jose Antonio Pagola (author of the Group of Jesus website) puts it: “That’s how Jesus is. Finally there existed in the world someone who hasn’t let himself be conditioned by any oppressive law or power. Someone free and magnanimous who never hated nor condemned, never returned evil for evil. In his defense and his forgiveness of this adulterous woman there is more truth and justice than in our resentful demands and condemnations.”
Likewise, the Church would do better to resist engaging in the world’s battles, played by the world’s rules, using the world’s wisdom. We can choose instead to seek God’s wisdom and act in complete accord with Jesus’ anointing “to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free.” (Luke 4:18)
Catholic Apostolic Group 