Paul’s “therefore” indicates the point of his argument.

“You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.”

Paul has laid a trap, and many of us fall right into it.

For most anti-gay crusaders, Romans 1 & 2 are the main Pauline justification for their campaign.

Do you believe this is legitimate justification? Is Romans 1 & 2 adequate justification for an anti-gay crusade?

I don’t want to belabor this point insofar as we’re talking about the subject of teachers in the church. We can agree to disagree on this up to a point.

However, this issue is pertinent in so far as it overlaps with the discussion back a level to the issue of the clarity of Scripture on the subject of homosexuality. Here, I contend, Paul speaks clearly.

Do not answer a fool accoring to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.

Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. (Proverbs 26)

2) Two statements, not quite “contradictory.”

He who is not against you is for you.

He who is not with Me is against Me.

Historically Christians have considered “alleged contradictions” as attacks on the Bible, and apologists and logicians have expended a lot of time and effort to reconcile the “alleged contradictions,” as though the existence of an *actual* contradiction would be a catastrophe.

My goal here is not to ferret out the wisdom of these matching pairs of statements, but to point out their instructive utility.

These pairs of statements are examples of simple “contradictions” which invite exploration and thinking.

Since Proverbs is so focused on insight and understanding, I believe the writer was actually providing the reader with an exercise in “beginning thinking.” How to take two seemingly contradictory commands and developing “insight.”

The goal was to demonstrate that opposite commands were not necessarily “contradictory,” but were complementary. You can choose to answer a fool, or you can choose not to. Both courses of action are commanded, each is wise in its proper execution.

I still maintain that the Scriptures are, in many regards, multivocal.

Some Scripture is for certain people, but not all. For example, Jesus taught that his command regarding divorce was difficult, and that the disciples’ conclusion that it was better not to marry was only for some. The Lord responded that the gift of celibacy is only for those to whom it is given. This is actually something that God Incarnate and Paul agreed upon which is not for everyone. Go figure.

Likewise, as I understand it, the command to allow no one to call you teacher is only for those to whom it is given, or to those Christian communities to whom it is given.

It is completely acceptable for individuals or congregations to take a radically anti-hierarchical position, citing Jesus’ relevant commands.

For me, I will not dilute the clear command of Christ regarding hierarchical titles. I acknowledge that this is a subjective application, but I must insist *legitimately* subjective.

I don’t believe Christendom is in any danger from my quirkiness. The Hierarchy is skilled and experienced in self-perpetuation.

I agree with you that there are distinctive commands of Jesus that modern Christians explain away, and that is a problem. Of course, the original post contends that Brian McLaren and other post-moderns are continuing to move in this vein. However, failure to keep one set of commands does not negate others.

I’m driving at the authority of the apostle Paul and how it is neither greater nor less than that of Jesus in regards to the commands and instructions given to Christians. There is a difference between ecclesiastical heirarchy and the use of spiritual gifts. Paul doesn’t simply accept functional heirarchy and then recommend ways to use it. He says in Ephesians 4 that Jesus himself gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to the church. Paul talks about spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. 12 in the context of the body of Christ. In other words, the world today can see Jesus by those with the gift of teaching carrying out that function in the church (and those with helps, mercy, faith, etc.). You can’t have the body of Christ without teachers according to Paul.

Other places in the Greek Scriptures do indicate that there is to be some kind of human authority in the local church (Hebrews 13:7,17; 1 Peter 5:1-5; cf. James 3:1). Since these Scriptures are inspired by God, these instructions are not at odds with Jesus’ words concerning not calling anyone “Rabbi.” If there is an apparent contradiction, then we must seek a synthesis. We must also take culture into consideration and ask not “What do these words mean to me?” but “What did these words mean to their orginal audience?”

You asked where we differ. I’m not sure whether to characterize things as major and minor, but here goes.

You wrote, “we learn from Jesus what our attitude should be toward human teachers and their attitude toward us.” My difficulty with this is that it takes the sting and demand from the commands of Christ.

“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ” (Matthew 23:8-10).

There are two specific reasons why we are not supposed to call one another Rabbi, Master, Father, or Teacher.

The first reason given is that we “are all brothers.” There is a radical equality between us which does not allow for hierarchy or exclusivity.

The second reason is because our only Father is in heaven, and our only Teacher is the Christ.

This is the basic issue in Christ’s prohibition of what you term “honorific titles”: equality vs. hierarchy.

Our congregations and denominations are rotten with hierarchy. I could go on about that, but I will suffice it to say that many congregational problems stem from the territoriality and jealousy which stem from hierarchy.

If the hierarchy were somehow rooted in true spirituality, giftedness, and servanthood, then the territoriality and jealousy wouldn’t be such a problem. After all, you don’t see people fighting over the privilege of getting crucified and dying a failure, which is the true end of spiritual and gifted servanthood.

* * * * * * * *

One version of the Great Commission includes this: “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

Here is a short list of commands that the majority of Christians and Christian leaders try hard to explain away:

1) Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

2) And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

3) Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

These are the concrete actions for the following “attitude” we’re supposed to have:

4) Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

I’ve heard all sorts of reasons for not obeying the commands of Christ 1 thru 3. If we hedge those commands about with reasons why we can ignore them, then how can we claim to have the “attitude” Christ endorses? It’s far too easy to con ourselves into believing we have the right Christ-like “attitude” all the while refusing to obey Christ in the concrete commands.

* * * * * * * *

Therefore, everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

‘Nuff said.

For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.

People who say they believe the Bible from cover-to-cover, yet find both practical and theological reasons for disobeying the commands of Christ–well, the word “hypocrite” comes to mind.

(If I understand correctly, Dispensationalists actually dismiss the Sermon on the Mount as being “Kingdom Ethics,” which don’t apply to us today since Christ did not establish the kingdom of God at his first coming. Or something like that.)

* * * * * * * *

Let me pursue this particular line a little further.

In his encounter with the “Rich Young Ruler” Jesus said, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come follow me.” (Matthew)

How many times have you heard, or said, that this was a command given to a particular person because Jesus knew precisely what this particular person needed to do?

I’ve heard that bit of hocus-pocus more times than I can tell you. But from my own pastor it is a serious problem. Jesus gives the same command in a general sermon!

“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor.” (Luke)

Now unless we want to argue that sermons to specific audiences don’t apply to us today, then we need to pay heed.

* * * * * * * *

Scott, this Rabbi-Master-Father-Teacher issue is part of a larger pattern of ignoring the demanding, life-changing commands of Jesus Christ.

The church is a gutless wonder of disobedience, virtually identical to the world in every way because we have ignored Jesus where he would really change us.

We are content to make adjustments to our understanding of this doctrine or that principle. We’re willing to tweak our theology or practice here or there in the light of a Bible verse.

But–we habitually disobey, stubbornly explain away, piously go astray, and “not only continue to do these very things, but also approve of those who practice them.”

* * * * * * * *

So, one respect in which we *may* differ is in my attempted refusal to explain away Christ’s prohibition of hierarchy in favor of Paul’s acceptance of functional hierarchy, who is apparently unaware of Christ’s anti-hierchical teaching.

I say Paul accepts functional hierarchy, as opposed to his own egalitarian statements and his own version of mystical union.

* * * * * * * *

You have raised the question of the canon several times, especially the relationship between the gospels and the epistles.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, “All Scripture is inspired by God, and has utility for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.”

Personally, I am accountable to God for how I handle the Scriptures. “Do your best to present yourself to God a worker who does not need to be ashamed, who correctly handles the word of truth.”

If I were a preacher, I don’t think I would spend too many Sundays mornings on the lengthy O.T. genealogies, or on questions of authorship (like JEPD), or on gnostic elements in the epistles. They are Scripture, and I take their inspiration for granted. But I am responsible to God for correctly handling the word of truth.

Correctly handling the word of truth includes deciding what seems relevant to a specific group or discussion, and what seems irrelevant.

Another person, in her own capacity as a handler of the word of truth, may discern relevance differently. No problem. Different organs of the body will find utility in different passages of the Scripture.

* * * * * * * *

Scott, I like this forum for sharing. I’m just concerned about the extreme lengths I go to in my responses!

“The Apostle Paul describes Christians as epistles, or letters of God, written on human hearts. With each story lived, the church becomes a place that is rich with God’s stories; and with each story, faith increases and deepens. What then happens is that those without similar stories begin to search for their stories. They begin where those who have traveled their journey recommend they start. The Christian experience becomes a journey of discovery and experience with God, and with each added story, the momentum of this life-transforming movement exponentially increases.”

I have fond memories of times when people have been given 15 or 20 minutes in a meeting to describe their walk with God, how it bagan and where God has lead them. Fellow Christians who had been virtual strangers to me, that I felt distant from, suddenly become people with whom I have very much in common.

Thanks.

Hope you have a good trip. Be safe and Happy New Year!