I said in another context (which of course was Germany) that my Bible study group had recently read 1 Cor 6. I am still reflecting on it, because it is very countercultural (especially since we got to it in "June"). But if I am going to take seriously St. Paul's admonition in the second half of the chapter to people who are thinking abou…
I said in another context (which of course was Germany) that my Bible study group had recently read 1 Cor 6. I am still reflecting on it, because it is very countercultural (especially since we got to it in "June"). But if I am going to take seriously St. Paul's admonition in the second half of the chapter to people who are thinking about returning to the slavery of sin (instead of deciding that it's fine to write books that say this old stuff doesn't apply to us now), then I think I also have to take seriously his admonition in the first half of the chapter which concludes with something like "To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?" (the alternative to taking it seriously and thinking about it to see how my perspective on the world ought to change and how my actions ought to change is to claim that this old stuff doesn't apply to us now).
"Why not" is the start of a conversation (and like the conversation with Abraham about whether to destroy Sodom, or Moses about whether to destroy the chosen people and start over, the roles have been reversed, we are the ones advocating for mercy, leaving God as the one to advocate for justice; but this time, because we ought to know how to argue for mercy by now, we took the initiative.)
Ordinarily I just ask what I should do, which you can see is more of a neutral question; if, that is, I remember to ask at all. This is not radical like the question St Paul poses (which at bottom is the same as the radical commands in Matthew 5: "you have heard it said... but I say to you..."). But just the same as with the neutral question, God's answer is not a foregone conclusion (which is the same as saying: it's not a rhetorical question, it's a real question) and we have to listen for it. As you point out, the answer might be to take drastic action or to take someone to court, and also in an unfolding situation we have to stay in the conversation whatever the initial answer was; sometimes things turn on a dime, like the apparent reversal (or, the very precise timing) in the wedding feast at Cana where the answer changes from basically "it is not time for that *yet*" to "it is time".
(in other news, I can't figure out which button in the Substack app is the right one to reply in a thread and I had better stick to using the web.)
I said in another context (which of course was Germany) that my Bible study group had recently read 1 Cor 6. I am still reflecting on it, because it is very countercultural (especially since we got to it in "June"). But if I am going to take seriously St. Paul's admonition in the second half of the chapter to people who are thinking about returning to the slavery of sin (instead of deciding that it's fine to write books that say this old stuff doesn't apply to us now), then I think I also have to take seriously his admonition in the first half of the chapter which concludes with something like "To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?" (the alternative to taking it seriously and thinking about it to see how my perspective on the world ought to change and how my actions ought to change is to claim that this old stuff doesn't apply to us now).
"Why not" is the start of a conversation (and like the conversation with Abraham about whether to destroy Sodom, or Moses about whether to destroy the chosen people and start over, the roles have been reversed, we are the ones advocating for mercy, leaving God as the one to advocate for justice; but this time, because we ought to know how to argue for mercy by now, we took the initiative.)
Ordinarily I just ask what I should do, which you can see is more of a neutral question; if, that is, I remember to ask at all. This is not radical like the question St Paul poses (which at bottom is the same as the radical commands in Matthew 5: "you have heard it said... but I say to you..."). But just the same as with the neutral question, God's answer is not a foregone conclusion (which is the same as saying: it's not a rhetorical question, it's a real question) and we have to listen for it. As you point out, the answer might be to take drastic action or to take someone to court, and also in an unfolding situation we have to stay in the conversation whatever the initial answer was; sometimes things turn on a dime, like the apparent reversal (or, the very precise timing) in the wedding feast at Cana where the answer changes from basically "it is not time for that *yet*" to "it is time".
(in other news, I can't figure out which button in the Substack app is the right one to reply in a thread and I had better stick to using the web.)