Sermon
In the wee hours of January 5th, 2011, Mark had a problem. His daughter was about to go into labor, but he was still miles from the hospital. Rushing to get to the hospital, Mark ran a red light. He explained that the entire time he was driving, his daughter "Ashley kept saying, 'Dad, you have to get me there NOW...We didn't have much time." Just 40 minutes after arriving in the hospital, Ashley gave birth to little Breanna in under 40 minutes.
A few weeks after bringing his granddaughter home, Mark received his own little gift- a photo of his car going through the red light and a a hundred dollar fine. Mark contested the red light citation given the circumstances. He typed out a brief letter explaining what happened and attached a copy of Breanna's hospital crib card -- "It's A Girl!" -- with the date and time of her arrival.
Much to his surprise, that didn't qualify as an acceptable excuse to the folks at the Photo Safety Division within the Cleveland Clerk of Courts Office. The hearing examiner determined that Mohn did not present "sufficient evidence of mitigating circumstances to overturn this ticket."
Now- I’d like to see a show of hands, how many of you think he shouldn’t have to pay that ticket?
Of those with your hand up, is there anyone who is arguing that he didn’t actually break the law in running a red light? Put your hand down if that is why you think he shouldn’t have to pay.
Ok, so, for those of you with your hand still up, can any one explain to me why? After all, we have clear evidence on camera that he has broken a law.
(The congregation responded a couple of different ways, foremost that the impending birth took priority over the stop light)
So, in other words, we believe there are some circumstances where obeying, or enforcing, the letter of the law should take a back seat to a greater purpose.
We tend to be a culture in which the upholding of law and order is a critically important value. And yet, there are times in which the majority of us feel that rigidly enforcing those laws in all circumstances would itself be a violation of justice. Though a black and white mentality toward law and order might be clearer, it would not result in a system with considerably more cruelty and injustice.
In Paul’s letter to the church in Rome, he wrestles with the connection between the concepts of love and law. Now, we often think of the law in terms of regulations and restrictions. Prohibitions controlling our behavior. This is certainly the central thrust behind the ten commandments. 9 of the 10 commandments are specifically about things that we ought not do (quick bonus points- which is the exception?)
Love is generally not thought of in such a mechanical or restrictive way. However, law and love are not necessarily in conflict either. Paul indeed argues that the law can be summed up in the concept of “Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.”
So, does this mean love=law? Clearly not. We certainly wouldn’t consider the ticket given to Mark to be a “love note.” So, there must be some delineation here. Paul does not argue that upholding the law is the same as loving. Instead, he is trying to get behind the law, trying to understand the purpose for the law. Why were we given the law? What is it’s ultimate purpose?
By declaring that Love is the fulfillment of the law, Paul is pointing to the law’s higher purpose. It isn’t about the specific prohibitions, about dotting all the i’s and crossing all the ts in the Torah. The law is supposed to bring about and provide a path toward a people who love one another. And, though he doesn’t state it explicitly here, that law is supposed to be an avenue toward bringing about a love of God also.
But, how does this work? I mean, I am single, but I’m pretty sure the foundation of a loving relationship is not about rigorously adhering to a rule book. “But honey, code 352.2 subparagraph b clearly delineates that I have fulfilled my obligation to you.” No, the core of love is a mutuality contained within a relationship. For love to exist, a relationship must be formed.
Thus, fulfilling the law is not about following each and every aspect of it. Love is the fulfilling of the law- it supersedes the letter of the law, and sometimes, even the spirit. When they come into conflict, it is love- not law, that is supposed to win out.
What does this look like in concept? When in doubt, its good to look to Jesus here. On several occasions, Jesus gets into a conflict with the religious authorities. He heals someone on the sabbath- now wait, isn’t that one of the big ten? Jesus says that clearly it is more important to tend to someone’s aching wounds then it is to remain in reverent prayer on the sabbath. It is in the breaking of the restriction, even one of the big ten, when love is fulfilled.
But, wouldn’t this lead to anarchy? I mean, the idea probably appeals to us in concept. Sure, we want the entire world to be forgiving of ourselves. But Dave, back there, I’m not so sure I want to be constantly forgiving him. So, how bout, grace for me, law and order for thee! Sound good?
Often times, I think this is how we live it out. We don’t give others the benefit of the doubt while we bristle when someone reacts negatively to our good intentions. But, clearly, love does not mean breaking all the laws either. If I were to steal from you with no other purpose than to turn a profit, I am not setting the foundation for a good relationship.
When faced with seeming conflicts between law and order and love, I think we are obliged to answer the following question- Does upholding the law here lead to restored love with God? Does it lead to restored love with neighbor?
Let’s test this out- and I want to test it out in the arena that I think we struggle with the most as a culture and in our faith- let’s test this out in the arena of sex. In the Methodist church, in regards to sex we officially hold to an ethos of celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage. Now, there are absolute good reasons to argue in favor of reserving sex for marriage. We live in a culture of commodification where things and people are constantly used. When we engage in sex outside of a committed, loving relationship like marriage, we run the risk of using the other person for our own gratification. If after using the person, we discard them, we have certainly violated the core tenant of building a loving relationship with another person. This is of course in addition to the very real problems of unintended pregnancy and the proliferation of STDs.
But, let’s use a very real example. In our legal system, we link considerable benefits to marriage. Foremost among them is pension and health care benefits that one may obtain through their spouse, even after they have passed away. I know many widows and widowers have been placed in a scenario where they have lost their spouse but rely on that retirement check or that health plan as a source of sustainment. If they fall in love and find a new life partner, they would be forced to choose from marrying their new partner and losing that which sustains them, or violating the principle of celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage. Here, I believe the upholding of the letter of the law would destroy the opportunity for a loving relationship. And thus, that loving relationship should take priority.
Now, what are the implications of this? If we bless sex outside of marriage in this circumstance, are we abandoning the general principal? No, but we are acknowledging that life is messy. Law does a lot of good- but a black and white interpretation of it serves neither humanity nor our God.
So, it is not more law that we seek, but more love. In God’s divine wisdom- there is a remedy for this conflict- and it is grace. At the core of who God is, that which is revealed in Jesus Christ, we find a teacher and a savior who earnestly desires a relationship with us. Our creator loved us so much that we were given a law- a law designed to forge a loving relationship between our God and each other. A creator who loved us so much that when our violations of the law was harming our relationship, choose to forgive rather than to prosecute us under a law. A loving Savior who refused to let the law keep us from the ever more divine purpose of love. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment