But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like.
I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Occasionally, even today, despite the wall between religion and government, some cities, counties, and states examine Saint Paul's list of "works of the flesh" and enact laws against them. They suppose there oughta be a law against such nonsense. Such behaviors don't belong in our community!
The entire nation attempted it in 1920, much to the amusement of European countries. Prohibition proved to be a boon for organized crime, which until that time had only dealt in gambling, loan sharking, and prostitution. When Prohibition failed -- as everyone knew it would -- the suddenly useless Prohibiting agencies took up the hopeless regulation of controlled substances. They renamed loco, ganja, and hemp with the suspiciously Mexican marijuana and tried to ban it, thus saving organized crime from extinction.
So here we are, in a new century, attempting to ban other popular consumer items, abortion and guns, despite Saint Paul's warning that, where the law enters, transgression increases. He intended to say, and did say very well, that "If you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law." He did not mean that God's law causes us to sin, for we always have free choice and are never forced to sin. But everyone knows that fruit is so much sweeter when it's forbidden.
Saint Paul explained that the law is necessary for those who don't have the spirit, and he used the analogy of children who cannot comprehend their parents' concerns. They are confined to a safe environment, like a fenced backyard, to prevent their being killed in the street. When growing children learn to unlock the gate or climb the fence, they must be disciplined by whatever means necessary, to keep them out of the street. They will not understand for several years their parents' adult concerns about careening trucks and careless drivers. Saint Paul understood Moses' law as preparing the immature children of Abraham for the maturity that would come with Jesus's Holy Spirit.
And he assured his budding Christians that there is no law against the mature fruit of the Spirit. Guided by a kind of instinct as sheep are guided by the shepherd's voice, they should need no discussion or concern for the old Law of Moses. They'll know what to do, especially if they are well-versed in the traditions of Jewish Law, Prophets, Psalms, and Wisdom. Some gentile customs might also prove useful. A new church, enculturated and energized by the Spirit, would invite the entire world to know the Lord.
In some ways, the Apostle's vision seems hopelessly naive. When has the Church ever been so holy as to need no laws? But we have worked at it. As I understand, the Church's Canon Law assumes maturity and allows more freedom than most people suppose, which is why it could not deal with an apparently systemic culture of pedophilia. The Church expects willing, cooperative Christians to attain the maturity they should attain even in this world. it does not intend to infantilize adults.
Saint Paul, in the Spirit of Jesus, expects his disciples to strive to enter through the narrow gate every day of our lives. We travel an endless road with Jesus into eternity. In the meanwhile we enjoy the Spirit's sweetest fruit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I love to write. This blog helps me to meditate on the Word of God, and I hope to make some contribution to our contemplations of God's Mighty Works.
Ordinarily, I write these reflections two or three weeks in advance of their publication. I do not intend to comment on current events.
I understand many people prefer gender-neutral references to "God." I don't disagree with them but find that language impersonal, unappealing and tasteless. When I refer to "God" I think of the One whom Jesus called "Abba" and "Father", and I would not attempt to improve on Jesus' language.
You're welcome to add a thought or raise a question.