Jesus and the Woman "Caught in Adultery"

There's something that's been on my mind since this morning. Referencing the account of the "woman caught in adultery," there was a picture that said something along the lines of "the only one who had the right to throw a stone didn't." And it just hasn't sat well with me ever since.
     This wasn't a trial. This wasn't legal, or justice of any kind, not Jewish and not Roman. The Mosaic Law required two or three witnesses. None came forward. Roman law forbade the Jews from executing anyone themselves for any reason (with good justification from their past dealings with Jewish rulers). This was a woman who was thrown in front of Jesus as though her life meant nothing and threatened with death for the sole purpose of entrapping Him. No actual witnesses were brought forward. She might have been just pulled off the street at random. Worse, she might have been a teenage girl seduced by one of the Pharisees for the sole purpose of doing away with Jesus. Yes, they and the Sadducees could be that hateful and nasty. We see the same kind of events play out in countries like India, Iran, and Saudi Arabia where women are raped, treated like trash, and then accused of adultery and executed. 1st Century Judea wasn't much different than Afghanistan or Iran in this respect. If anything, it was Roman law and order which helped to restrain these abuses if only a little. Even the Romans didn't execute defenseless women in front of temples to their gods by throwing rocks at them, and certainly not for infidelity.
     What bothers me most about the little bumper sticker blurb which got under my skin is that many churches teach this passage as though executing this woman might have been a right, or even just course of action. This blurb assumes that Jesus picking up a rock and stoning her was a real possibility.
     Anyone who knew or knows Jesus Christ would know that was never going to happen. I guarantee you, this was one of the few times the smile left His lips, and there was cold rage in his eyes for the men who did this to her, and in front of His Father's house. I guarantee you, He did not care if she had been caught in adultery, prostitution, or pole dancing naked in the street. Using this woman so callously and heartlessly as this was the greater crime, and they had done it not just within His sight, but in full view of His Father's house, without any regard for the true justice of His Father. They might as well flipped His Father the bird right in front of Him.
      The mercy towards the woman was guaranteed the second she appeared. The greater mercy was that the men who did it were allowed to walk away that day. The fig tree which wilted at His word was proof of that.
      We can't normalize this kind of thinking where "moral law" is taken as such an absolute that life means nothing. We especially need to not be okay with a woman, or anyone, being abused or mistreated because someone is twisting said "moral law" to their advantage. The commandments which Jesus taught and said were the most important were to love one another, be merciful to one another, forgive one another. Not once did He ever teach that it was okay to be violent or hateful towards anyone regardless of what they did or what moral law they violated. It was the "Bible Thumpers" who murdered Him who saw their "moral law" as inviolate (except of course, when it came to their own machinations).
     Agreeing with the men hellbent on bashing this poor woman's head in with rocks in any way is not Jesus, is not Christian, and is the antithesis of what being a disciple of Jesus Christ is all about.

The Lost Hen

     We count our adult chickens and guineas every night. With over a hundred up and coming chicks, that may fall by the wayside because of how overwhelming it will get. But for now, we know exactly how many adult birds are in each coop, and we know immediately when one goes missing. When one does go missing, it's an immediate man-hunt for a lost chicken.

      That happened last night. We have 13 bielefelders, five dark brahmas, five light brahmas, and six buff brahmas at the barn coop. In addition, we now have ten guinea fowl that roost in the rafters. I counted once, four dark brahmas. I counted twice. I counted a third and fourth time. Four dark brahmas. All of the chickens come back to their coop to roost regardless of where they are in the pasture. The only reasons why they wouldn't are if the hen is trapped, gone broody, or dead. In every case, we have to find her if at all possible before we shut everything down at the barn. With the predator pressure we have, it's not an option. I searched every paddock, the overgrown walkways, the inside of the barn, the goat pen, the store room, the tool room, out near the road, along the road, and even out into the west pasture behind the barn as far as I could get in the fading light. Even though we had all those other chickens and chicks in the coop to worry about, everything stops when a bird goes missing and we search until we either find it, or can't search any more. We go through this every time the count comes up wrong whether it's in the backyard coop or the barn. Whether it's a chicken, a rabbit, or any other animal we have. When it goes missing, the manhunt begins to account for it.

      Raising livestock has given me a new understanding of the shepherd leaving the ninety-nine sheep to go after and find the one. It sounds almost counterproductive when you first hear it coming from a more urban, non-rural setting. Why would you leave the other ninety nine seemingly unlooked after to go find the one? Because when you raise and breed livestock, you raise each of these animals from very young, if not birth. You know each of these animals, even their personalities. You care about each one of them regardless of what their final fate is going to be. You want closure if an animal is actually dead (and you want to remove the attraction for predators and scavengers to draw close to the rest of your animals), and if it is trapped or injured, the clock is ticking for you to reach and help it before it dies. In other words, you don't give up until you know for certain what happened to your animal. When Jesus spoke this parable to the people, a lot of them were from rural Judea and Galilee. They knew exactly what He was talking about. And the meaning of the parable is clear in that it is God who is the shepherd desperate to recover the lost sheep until it is found, and rejoicing when He does. God is the Shepherd that doesn't give up until the sheep is recovered, no matter how long it takes or what state it's in.

      After all that searching last night, we finally found the lost hen. She was broody in the inner coop's nest box. We missed her when we separated the adult chickens in the morning from the chicks. She never left the inner part of the coop. You want to bet how relieved we all were that she was safe and sound?

 

More Thoughts on Genuine and Counterfeit Christianity

      Scripturally, what is the standard of orthodoxy? If we were to look at the writings of the New Testament, the standard of orthodoxy for disciples of the Way is Jesus Christ Himself, and always has been. The standard of orthodoxy is that God as Logos was born in human flesh, what He taught, how He died, and that He rose from the dead. The vast majority of the New Testament, whether it be the Gospels, or the writings of Paul, John, Peter, James or Jude are dedicated to expounding on and explaining these truths. If we were to look at the teachings of Jesus Christ, the standard of orthodoxy is love, forgiveness, mercy, compassion, and all of the fruit of the Spirit which Paul writes about in Galatians 5. When the Apostles spoke in the Book of Acts, they spoke with the voice of Christ, that is, it was the Spirit of Christ speaking through them teaching, admonishing, and prophesying. The standard of orthodoxy in the New Testament has never been anything else. In fact, Paul was explicit about not getting caught up in schisms and arguments about things in the spiritual realm which no one had any direct experience with. Everyone could have their ideas or opinions about those things, but if it went against what they knew firsthand about Jesus, what they had directly experienced or been taught by those who knew Jesus Christ, then it was to be tossed aside. The practice of the Way was the practice of putting oneself under the guidance and control of the Spirit of Christ, cooperating with Him in everything while letting go of one's natural responses and behaviors which were governed by one's very literal, malfunctioning flesh. It was never about submitting to rules, regulations, or laws which could do nothing about the source of the harmful behaviors themselves. It was about Jesus Christ acting and speaking through you, and learning to let go and cooperate with Him doing it.
     Counterfeit Christianity happens when we get away from this standard of orthodoxy. It happens when we take our focus away from the centralized, laser sharp focus on Jesus Christ in every aspect, and start putting on things we have neither seen nor heard ourselves. It happens when Jesus Christ becomes just one part of our necessary theology instead of our whole theology. It happens when we abuse and misunderstand what He and His Apostles taught, and turn what we should be seeing as His behaviors within a person into laws which if broken can send a person to hell. It happens when the central command and teaching of the Way, to love unconditionally everyone and everything, and meant to be fulfilled by the Spirit of Christ through us, is sidelined in favor of these other things. As the Tao Te Ching says, when the Way is lost, there is "goodness." When "goodness" is lost, there is the dead husk of ritual. The Way is the practice of surrendering ourselves to the Spirit of Christ instead of to the meat of our own malfunctioning brains. To be a disciple of the Way is to commit to this surrender and making progress in this surrender in everything. Counterfeit Christianity is what happens when the Way is lost, shoved to the side, and legalism, ritual, and theological doctrines enforced upon the people.

A Ramble About Mainstreaming Counterfeit Christianity

     I've been seeing more and more about the Duggars and Bill Gothard's "Institute for Basic Life Principles" (IBLP) in the news and here on Facebook lately. The recent revelations describe IBLP as a cult, and Bill Gothard as a cult leader who molested his "purity culture" followers, even those underage. Thing of it is, this doesn't surprise me all that much. I ran into Bill Gothard's teachings on relationships back in 1994 when I was trying to have a relationship with a young woman I met as a camp counselor. I was able to speak with her and tell her how I felt for one night. At the time, it seemed like those feelings were reciprocated (indicated by the tears in her eyes). After that, I was never able to speak to her again and spent the next frustrating year being stonewalled by her Gothard following father over the phone until I finally gave up.

      I remember at the time in the early to mid nineties at least where Bill Gothard's IBLP had gone mainstream in some way in most Evangelical churches and organizations. I ran into it everywhere, even when I didn't really know what the source was. Gothard was held in high esteem by folks from my home church at the time, and his purity culture teachings were even somewhat reflected in our courseworlk at the first Bible School I attended. The Duggars were held up as the Christian family you aspired to be in the mid 90s.

      Think on that long and hard. What is now recognized as a cult group whose leader took advantage of his flock, like so many others, was held as a standard of holiness for a large percentage of the Evangelical church in the United States at the time. Why? Why didn't we recognize it at the time? In the same way, why didn't we recognize Hillsong for what it was at the time? Or any of the others which rose to prominence in Evangelical teaching and then fell apart as the internal corruption was exposed?

      The simple yet painful answer is the American Evangelical Christianity doesn't actually know what real Christianity looks like. They use a standard of theological doctrines and anyone who teaches within that standard is considered okay. The "purity culture" sounded "Biblical," even as the legalism within the IBLP was the driving force behind it, and not the Spirit of Christ. They're more concerned with a person's position on abortion, creationism, and whether or not they adhere to their Biblical interpretations than whether or not the person is living as Jesus taught, and walking as He walked.

The Evangelical churches can't distinguish a counterfeit because most have never seen or identified the real thing. And chances are, when they do see the real thing, they've been so indoctrinated that they wouldn't recognize it if they did, and would possibly attack it as being "unbiblical."

      Real Christianity isn't about following laws or rules. It's not about moral codes or theological creeds and political positions. It's about internally cooperating with and submitting to the Spirit of Christ with whom you are joined. It's about channeling Jesus Christ so that when you speak or act people will see and hear Jesus Christ through you. As Paul wrote, "Walk in the Spirit and you will absolutely not bring the works of the flesh to completion." Those who are cooperating with and in submission to the Spirit of Christ have no need for laws, rules, or "purity culture" because it is Jesus Christ who is acting and speaking through them, and there is neither reason nor need to constrain His behaviors. When love incarnate is acting and speaking through you, are you going to murder, steal, commit adultery, lie, covet, or any other harmful thing against the person next to you? No! God forbid anyone should accuse Him of such things.

      This clinging to counterfeits isn't going to stop until Christians start seeing and understanding what the real thing looks like and are able to actually be discipled to follow the Way. This is the primary reason why the churches are falling apart, because they weren't being the Church to begin with.

 

Working Through My Attachment Disorder

      What follows are deep rooted, difficult, very personal things which I have been working through over the past week. I am posting them here in the public eye as with everything I post, vulnerable as it makes me, so that these might benefit others who might be going through similar things:

     Lord, what is it you want me to know today?
     "That I love you, and I have always loved you. And that I am so proud of the man you've become."
     Is there anything else?
     "Not yet. Later."
     These were the words the Lord gave me yesterday when I asked Him what He wanted me to know. And I... I questioned it. I felt numb and non-reactive. Was that really the Lord? Yet it was the same message for me every time.
     Why was I questioning it? More to the point, why didn't I trust it? Why was there a massive shield wall standing as a barrier between God's very positive message of love towards me and my heart, or my innermost emotions? Why did I feel the need to protect myself from it?
     I have felt His love before. It was overwhelming, all consuming, an infinite plenum. But now as I sit and think about it, I always deflected it towards others even as He told me that it was the same towards me as well. I protected myself from it then too.
     The question which was asked of me then is "why?" The truth is that while I have made it a choice and a point to love others in the best way I can at the moment, I have, since I was very little, come to not trust that anyone truly does or could love or have affection for me. Naturally, as this extended to virtually everyone, it also extended to God's love for me.
     What do you do when God tells you He loves you, and you just stand there frozen and unable to respond because you've made such a practice of assuming no one is going to, that your first instinct is to assume you heard wrong, and not trust it. But then you know at least intellectually that He does. And for some reason, it's not processing. And so you try to make your brain process it, and your brain fights back and tries to start shutting down, causing headaches, and making you feel ill because it is fighting to defend itself from trusting that love. You make it a point to do everything you can to love, but it becomes a threatening thing that you might actually be loved back. And you have to dig, really dig internally to figure out why you're reacting with such a pushback against it emotionally. And the deeper you dig, the worse it gets.
     You run into fear where no fear should exist. You run into pain. You run into feelings of not being enough, or being unworthy. And even still, you are being handed the thing you want most in the world freely, and you are terrified to accept it freely, to welcome it, to see it as something you can trust.
     It was only two sentences. The words weren't lofty but ordinary and simple to understand. But those two sentences began to act like wrecking balls within me, and I am still struggling through it this morning as my own deep, unconscious barriers aren't coming down easily. The words were simple, but they, like every word from Him, don't return empty and accomplish the purpose for which He sends them.
*  *  *
     I'm working through how to accept love from others, and God in particular. I've come to understand where the barrier came from to begin with. There was someone I knew who outwardly didn't want to be loved. They never would have said this openly, but they reacted negatively every time I would try to get close, berating and abusing me emotionally and verbally. I think they did actually want love, but they themselves were in a place where it frightened them when it was actually offered, and they didn't know what to do with it. Eventually, their constant rejection and abuse of attempted love transferred to me as well as I began to internalize that abuse, and then began to emotionally and verbally abuse myself. I struggle to keep myself from trying prove how unworthy I am, how bad I am, how stupid I am by bringing up all of the mistakes I have made in the past. But now I am aware of it, and I am aware of where it comes from. Throughout my life, I've had all the classic symptoms of an attachment disorder, pushing away those who tried to get close to me and almost clinging to total strangers I would never see again at times, and now I know where it comes from, and where it began.
     And now it's time to cut those threads and connections so I can work on healing from it. It's time to let go of that person. Not to stop loving them, but to stop giving them emotional power over me. Real love lets go. And the attempt to give and elicit affection where it should have been relationally expected was a natural attachment, not actual love. It is this continued attachment which has brought on a great deal of misery and suffering in my life. It's time to let it go, and love this person by letting them go.
     I can't let their attachment disorder be mine any longer. It helps no one. It benefits no one. It doesn't pull them out of it, it only drags me back to be a participant in their personal hell. And I am no longer willing to do that. It is time to let go, and move on.

A Ramble About Shaming Men for Committing Adultery in the Heart

 “You heard that it was said, ‘You will not commit adultery.’ Yet I tell you that every single person who looks at a woman towards desiring her already committed adultery with her with his heart.” - Matthew 5:27-28

“You heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘You will not murder, and whoever should murder is culpable to the judgment.’ Yet I tell you that every single person who is inflamed with his brother is culpable to the judgment.” Matthew 5:21-22a

     The first of these verses is something which is used to incite and browbeat unnecessary guilt in young churchgoing men from about the age of twelve onward, and has been for a very long time. No matter how much the church might say it’s all about the Grace of God, these verses and the others like them in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 are taught, not only as though Christians are under the Mosaic Law, but that the Law just got a lot stricter regarding murder, adultery, swearing oaths, and loving others. So strict that, quite frankly, it is literally impossible for any human being to keep, and adult male human beings in particular.
     This is something that just about every man knows (and feels ashamed of), and virtually no woman actually believes no matter how much I’ve tried to explain it (where the latter are concerned, it isn’t their fault, the average woman’s brain just doesn’t work this way and most find it difficult to believe that anyone’s could). Males are sexually aroused, biologically speaking, on sight alone. This is a biological, textbook fact. Sometimes it doesn't even take that. Just an errant thought will do the job. A teenage boy in particular is at the peak of his hormones, and it takes hardly anything to get that train rolling. It isn't really a choice for that to start. I guarantee you, a lot of guys are loaded with an enormous amount of guilt for the arousal that gets started with just the sight of a woman's body. Of course it's a choice what the guy does with it once it is started, but the "objectification" of a woman's body isn't a conscious choice at first. It's a deeply rooted part of male neurology, and in order for the guy to even get his wits back, he's got an uphill battle to fight.
     Why? Because this part of his brain is governed by the hypothalamus, and the limbic system in general. The limbic system governs all behaviors and responses which deal with survival. It is a deep, primal part of the brain, and governs the fear and aggression responses to threats, but also governs feeding responses, and of course reproductive responses, that is, the sexual drive. In women, it also governs childbirth. Making these verses in the Sermon on the Mount into stricter versions of the Mosaic Law means that in order to keep those commands at this standard, those basic survival responses would have to be overridden or shut down.
     In other words, by imposing this as a commandment onto young men, and men in general, you are setting them up for failure, guilt, and shame because in order to keep any of them, they would have to have the self-discipline and enlightenment of a monk with decades of experience at the very least. You are asking them to have full self-mastery of their deep, primal, survival biology in their very thoughts from the time puberty hits, and threatening them with hell if they can’t. And many churches do just this. It is very frustrating as well when, quite honestly, there are some women, many of them feminists and atheists for that matter, who hold men to the same moral standard by condemning them for “objectifying women’s bodies” and don’t understand why they can’t just not think that way to begin with. They don’t understand why an attractive woman or certain parts of their bodies draws a man’s eye and seem to believe that the man is always conscious of it. I guarantee you, he is not, and many when they are made aware of it force themselves to stop immediately. That’s why a lot of men, young men in particular, who are trying to remain moral and decent might try to avoid looking at a woman at all.
     And the truth of the matter is that creating a harsher, impossible standard to make men feel ashamed or guilty because they can’t meet it was never Jesus’ intent in the first place. His point was that human beings in general can’t avoid “sin” because it’s hardwired into our brains. It’s the malfunction of the human limbic system as compared to other animals. Just being angry at someone is also a response governed by the hypothalamus; that is, it’s also a survival response. And everyone without exception gets angry or feels aggression when they or their loved ones appear to be threatened. One might make an argument that believing an oath to be necessary is a fear response, also governed by the hypothalamus. He wasn’t trying to shame or guilt anyone. He was trying to level the field by making those hearing him understand that there wasn’t a divide between “righteous” human beings and “sinners” like they both thought and taught that there was (and many churches still do whether they realize it or not). Every human being has this malfunctioning survival part of their brains.
     We need to stop shaming men for being what they are and having the male biology they do, both within and outside of the church. It’s not fair. It’s without compassion. And it’s just as bad as men shaming women for having off days during their menses. Do men need to keep it under control? Of course. Do men need to be made to feel guilty for how their brains work? Not at all. It would be better if some folks understood that just some compassionate understanding of the problem to help those men who have the hardest time with it because of their hormones would go a long ways to solving the problem. No one likes to be judged for what they are.