“Why are you bringing each other before corrupt judges?”

1 Corinthians 6.1-8

Paul and Sosthenes have another gripe about the Corinthians, so it merits another chapter. This one isn’t about some guy shtupping his stepmother, but about how certain Corinthians are taking their fellow Christians to court—and how they absolutely shouldn’t. The apostles even go so far as to say they should let themselves be ripped off, 1Co 6.7 rather than take it to court.

And there are plenty of Christians who think this passage still applies to Christians today—and use it to justify handling legal matters in-house, instead of getting police and prosecutors involved. I am not one of them, and I’ll explain why in a bit. Today’s bible passage first.

1 Corinthians 6.1-8 KWL

1One of you¹, having an issue with another one of you,

has the nerve to be judged by the unjust,

and not by the saints?

2Didn’t you² know the saints will judge the world?

And if the world instead judges you²,

aren’t you² unqualified to rule in the smallest cases?

3Didn’t you² know we will judge angels?

Not just the things of daily life!

4So, cases about the things of daily life:

When you² have them,

the people thought the worst of by the church,

you² sit before these people.

5I say shame on you²!

So there’s no one wise among you²?

—who will be able to sort you out in the midst of your¹ family?

6Instead, brother judges against brother,

and all this in front of unbelievers.

7So this truly is a failing among you²—

that you² have judgments against one another.

Why don’t you² let yourselves² be harmed instead?

Why don’t you² let yourselves² be cheated instead?

8Instead you² harm and cheat.

And you do this to family.

Happy Halloween. Bought your candy yet?

For more than a decade I’ve ranted about the ridiculous Evangelical practice of shunning Halloween. I call it ridiculous ’cause it really is: It’s a fear-based, irrational, misinformed, slander-filled rejection of a holiday which is actually a legitimate part of the Christian calendar.

No I’m not kidding. It’s our holiday. Christians invented Halloween.

A perfect opportunity to show Christlike generosity—and give the best candy ever. But too many of us make a serious point of being grouchy, fear-addled spoilsports. [Image swiped from a mommy blog.]

I know; you’ve likely read an article which claims Halloween got its origin in pagan harvest festivals. That’s utter bunk. Some neo-Pagan (one of the capital-P Pagans who worship nature and its gods, whose religions date from the 1960s, even though they claim they’re revivals of ancient pre-Christian religions) started to claim we Christians swiped it from them, and Christianized it. There’s no historical evidence whatsoever for this claim, but they keep claiming it. Gullible reporters repeat it every year when they write about the history of Halloween.

The story has always been hearsay, but it’s been passed around so long, people actually try to debunk me by quoting 20-year-old articles which claim Halloween was originally Samhain or some other pagan festival. But those old articles were poorly sourced. Incorrect then; incorrect now.

Samhain (pronounced 'saʊ.ən) is a contraction of sam fuin/“summer’s end.” It’s a Celtic harvest festival which dates back to pre-Christian times. It happens at the autumnal equinox, which took place last month, on 22 September. It’s totally unrelated to Halloween. It’s as if you claimed the Fourth of July was originally a celebration of the summer solstice… and the fact you barbecue and drink beer on that day, just like the ancients regularly used to cook meat and drink beer, proves it.

Oh, and neither neo-Pagan nor Christian holidays involve a celebration of creepy horror movie themes. That got added in the 20th century.

How long does hell last?

As I explained in my article “The four hells,” there are four words translated hell in the scriptures, and the one I mean by “hell” is Gehenna, the trash fire outside Jerusalem, reimagined in Revelation as a pool of fire and sulfur outside New Jerusalem. Rv 20.10-15 Into it go Satan and its angels, the Beast, the fake prophet who promotes the Beast, the personifications of Death and Hades (i.e. the afterlife), and everyone whose name isn’t listed in the life scroll—everyone who refused to accept God’s gracious offer ofhis kingdom.

The Beast and prophet are explicitly described as being “tortured there, day and night, age to ages.” Rv 20.10 Y’notice even though this lake is known as “the second death,” Rv 20.14 it doesn’t have a sense of finality like physical death. Generally death feels like an absolute stopping point—when you’re dead, you’re not alive, you’re not moving, you’re not breathing, you’re not thinking, you’re not anything; you’re dead. Whereas the second death sounds more like the beings sent into it aren’t inert, but moving, conscious… and suffering from eternal torment. Because they’re in fire. Everlasting fire, as the King James Version put it. Mt 25.41 KJV Where quite unlike the trash fires of the literal Gehenna, the worms don’t die, and the fire never goes out. Is 66.24, Mk 9.48

Yeah, I know: Certain dark Christians who love this idea of eternal conscious torment. That’s why it’s been the prevailing view throughout Christian history. Often because there are certain people they’d love to see tortured forever. Satan obviously, but a lot of them are thinking of certain political opponents—and I don’t necessarily mean government politicos, but anyone with whom they’ve struggled for power. Difficult neighbors. Workplace foes and cruel bosses. Church ladies who weren’t as Christlike as you’d expect. We all have people we don’t like. But… longing to see them burn forever? What is wrong with these people? Since God doesn’t wanna see anyone perish, 2Pe 3.9 and these people do, this sort of fleshly, fruitless gracelessness suggests these people don’t have any real relationship with God, much as they claim to. I don’t care what they call themselves.

The other reason they love the idea of eternal torment—a reason which is slightly more legit than t’other—is because they figure it’s a powerful motivator for getting people into God’s kingdom. If anyone’s on the fence about this idea of living under Jesus’s reign in peace and harmony (mainly ’cause the church is full of a--holes like me), Christians can point out the alternative: Outside the kingdom, it’s hot, stinky hell. You don’t wanna go to hell! We don’t want you there either; God doesn’t want you there either; why go there when you don’t have to? Don’t worry about the jerks in the church; Jesus’ll deal with them. Focus on Jesus. Turn to him. Let him save you.

The rest of us really don’t love the idea of eternal torment. Problem is, we don’t really see any way around it. That’s what Jesus describes in the scriptures. So that’s the reality we’re obligated to deal with: When people reject Jesus, that’s the destination they’ve effectively chosen. If people prefer a cosmetic relationship with Christianity over a living relationship with Jesus, that’s where they’re going.

It’s not like we can make up a reality we like better. (Although that’s certainly never stopped people from trying, has it?)

“Nobody wants to talk about hell anymore.”

There’s a church in town whose members really love to leave gospel tracts in my local Walmart. They especially like the really bitter, bilious tracts—the ones which inform people IN ALL CAPS that they’re totally going to hell. That is, unless they give up all their favorite things, reject the pope and all his works, and turn to Jesus. You know, typical dark Christian tracts. Especially the ones full of half-truths and conspiracy theories, ’cause they’re those kinds of wackjobs.

This particular tract caught my attention because it began with the line, “Nobody wants to talk about hell anymore.”

Sure hasn’t been my experience! Dark Christians love to talk about hell, and speculate about who’s going there, and why. Unsurprisingly it’s for doing all the things they hate, which they’re entirely sure are sins, and entirely sure Jesus doesn’t like ’em either. So they figure he’s sending them to hell. They figure he’s sending a lot of people to hell. Most people. Maybe 90 percent of the world. Not them, though!

Which “hell” does the bible mean?

As I said in my article, “The four hells,” there are three ancient Greek words we tend to translate “hell.” (Plus one Hebrew word.) These three words mean three different things… and none of them mean the pop culture idea of hell which we find in movies, TV shows, and the “Hell House” and “Judgment Day” pageants which conservative Evangelicals like to host around Halloween. Satan’s not waiting for dead sinners in some otherworldly fiery pit, ready to throw them into the flames. Satan itself is getting thrown into the flames. But that comes much later.

Okay, but in the meanwhile, if your favorite bible translation insists, as many do, in translating all these four different words as “hell,” exactly which hell are they talking about? Glad you asked. Here’s my handy-dandy chart for determining which hell they mean.

The four hells.

C.S. Lewis famously wrote a book called The Four Loves, about four of the five Greek words which tend to be translated “love.” Two are in the New Testament—ἀγάπη/agápi and φίλος/fílos. Two aren’t; they’re in the Septuagint, and only teachers of classic literature like Lewis would know ’em; ἔρος/éros and στοργή/storyí. There’s another Greek word, ξενία/xenía, which has some related words in the Septuagint… but Lewis only cared to highlight the first four, talk about their differences in meaning, and riff from them about how people “love” in different ways.

People hear of this book and assume, “Wow, Greek is so precise and exact. It’s got four different words for love!” Yeah… but so do we. These five words can easily be translated charity, friendship, romance, affection, and courtesy. Plus check out any thesaurus; you’ll find we have way more than five words for love. English is just as precise as we want it be.

I say this by way of introduction: There are three ancient Greek words we tend to translate “hell.” Problem is—same as with “love”—translators won’t always bother to distinguish between them. Some bibles do, and good on ’em. But whether our bible translations do or don’t, it’s important Christians know there’s a difference.

’Cause I’ve discovered Christians have no idea there’s a difference. Nor that they’re describing different things. Nor that none of them describe popular culture’s idea of hell as a dark, torturous underworld for bad people.

I said there were three words, right? So why’d I title this article “The four hells”? Well the fourth hell is pop culture hell. I’m gonna deal with that idea first.

Praying for your homeland without getting all nationalist.

Many churches pray for the country they’re in. Every Sunday morning, during the worship service. Mine doesn’t; we pray for the United States, or California (where we live, obviously), whenever there’s a serious crisis, like hurricanes, wildfires, floods, mass shootings, and so forth. Our prayer team does pray for our homeland on a regular basis, but otherwise it’s up to each individual Christian to remember to do it. Some of us do; some don’t.

But we should! All of us should. The people of our homelands need Jesus. Need to recognize their need for him. Oughta be encouraged to seek and follow him.

And yeah, of course, we oughta pray for the usual civic problems. Pray for our leaders to govern wisely. Pray for obvious supernatural answers to civic problems which’ll get people to give God credit, and glory. Pray for elections; that voters will choose leaders of good character, and partisans will respect the rule of law and let the election happen without incident. (Used to be we didn’t have to pray for that last thing, but times change. Namely because voters didn’t choose leaders of good character.)

The only problem with praying for our homeland, of course, is an influence which corrupts Christianity all the time, and therefore corrupts our prayers. It’s nationalism, the racist belief our country should only consist of, or be ruled by, people of one race; namely the race of the nationalists. And of course there’s the “Christian” variant, Christian nationalism, which focuses less on race and more on religion, and insists our country should only be inhabited and led by Christians. Because if it isn’t, claim Christian nationalists, God gets upset and bad things are gonna happen to us.

Obviously the prayers of Christian nationalists are gonna look way different from the sort of prayers Jesus will suggest. Their prayers exclude; his includes. Their prayers condemn and vilify; his forgives and loves. Their prayers are all about our homeland becoming great; his are that God’s will is done, on earth as it is in heaven, and heaven has no border patrol.

So if you’re in a church where the pastor and prayer leaders are nationalists, praying along with them for our homeland is gonna prove a giant waste of time; y’all are praying for stuff which runs contrary to God’s will. Hope you’re not in such a church! And if you’re not, feel free to join in with their prayers for our country and state. If they’re praying for God’s grace and compassion for the world, by all means pray that too.

Christian nationalism: The civic idolater’s religion.

NATIONALISM 'næʃ.(ə.)nəl.ɪz.əm noun. Belief a particular ethnic group (i.e. nation) should be congruent with the state, or be supreme within it; and the state’s native identity must share this ethnic group’s characteristics.

2. Exalting one ethnic group above all others; promoting its culture and interests above (or against) those of other ethnic or multinational groups.

[Nationalist 'næʃ.(ə.)nəl.ɪst noun.]

CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM noun. Belief (white) Christians should be congruent with the state, or be supreme within it; and the state’s native identity must share (white) Christianity’s characteristics.

2. Exalting (white) Christians above all others; promoting its culture and interests above (or against) those of other religions and philosophies.

Let’s not mince words: Nationalism is a racist belief. Period. Doesn’t matter whether we put “Christian” before it: Still racist. Inherently racist.

French nationalists believe France should only consist of ethnic French people. To them, any immigrants from Algeria, Spain, Switzerland, or any other country aren’t really French, even if they were born in France, speak fluent French, have French citizenship, and contribute to society. In fact French nationalists would really rather they didn’t contribute to society, ’cause they’re “not really French.”

Turkish nationalists: Same deal. Israeli nationalists (often called Zionists, which isn’t always the same thing): Same deal; if you’re not Jewish you’re not really Israeli, which is why Israelis have no problem with utterly wiping out Palestinians like Joshua ben Nun did with the Amorites.

United States nationalists: Same deal. Except instead of insisting Americans be the original occupants of the continent, the aboriginal Indians, they insist the only real Americans are white English-speaking Anglo-Saxons like them. And sometimes other whites of European descent; largely they’ll include you if you speak English. They’d also really like it if everybody else would just “go back to where you’re from,” and thereby make America great again—by which they mean white again. As if it was ever only white.

Now yeah, there are various conservatives who admit they’re nationalist, but insist they’re not racist; they’re perfectly fine with nonwhite Americans! Some of their best friends are nonwhites! The United States is a melting pot; diversity is one of our greatest strengths; immigrants make some of the best Americans; and they just love ethnic food. They even have nonwhites in their family: A nonwhite spouse. Mixed-race kids and grandkids.

So why on earth do they identify themselves as nationalists? Well they’re Christian nationalists. It’s the very same idea the racists have… but now let’s swap out some of the racism for Christianity. To them, the United States should only consist of Christians. Any immigrants with other religions need to abandon those religions at the border, and either embrace Christianity or recognize its supremacy in American culture. And not resist that supremacy: They can practice their weird religions in private or in secret, but they must always remember America is a Christian nation.

Yes I said some of the racism. Though many Christian nationalists will claim they’re absolutely not racist, some of the racism is still right there, plain as day, proven by the fact they’re not entirely sure nonwhite Christians are real Christians. If nonwhites were real Christians, wouldn’t they attend their nice white conservative churches? Wouldn’t they join the same parties, hold the same political views, vote the very same way? Real Christians, they presume, would conform to white churches and white culture.

Whereas other Christian nationalists are fully, proudly aware they’re racist. Always have been. They want the United States to be a country for white Christians. But they find they get more traction if they emphasize the Christianity part, and downplay the racism part. Privately, they’ll tell you all about it.

No, nationalism isn’t just extreme patriotism. Some of the lousier dictionaries will define it that way… and some Christians will define it that way ’cause they don’t really understand the purpose of nationalism. They just think it sounds patriotic. It’s got “nation” in it! But they don’t understand “nation” doesn’t merely mean country; it means, same as גּוֹי/goy in Hebrew, ἔθνος/éthnos in Greek, and “nation” in the King James Version, ethnic group. It’s about race. Christian nationalism borrows the racist term, and it comes with all the racist baggage. Hence Christian nationalism has racism deeply embedded in it. Deeply.

“Why are you permitting blatant immorality?”

1 Corinthians 5.

Today’s passage is a whole chapter. It’s short, but yep, it’s a chapter.

It’s a little controversial among certain Christians—for the very same reason Paul and Sosthenes had to write it to the Corinthians. It has to do with sexual misbehavior in Corinth’s church, which Paul felt had gone beyond the pale—but the Corinthians were tolerating it, ’cause grace. And nuh-uh; that’s not how grace works.

I’ll start with where the apostles set up the scenario.

1 Corinthians 5.1-5 KWL

1Unchastity among you²

is getting reported everywhere—

the kind of unchastity

which isn’t even approved by gentiles—

with a man having his father’s woman.

2You² people are arrogant;

and don’t, more appropriately, mourn,

about how you² should remove from among you²

the one doing this work?

3For I, though absent in the body,

being present in spirit,

like one who’s present,

have already condemned this behavior.

4In the name of our master, Christ Jesus,

when you² are gathered together with my spirit,

in the power of our master Jesus,

5hand over such a person to Satan

for the flesh’s destruction,

so the spirit might be saved

on the Lord Jesus’s day.

I translate the word πορνεία/porneía as “unchastity,” because that’s precisely what it means. Chastity means appropriate sexual activity; porneía is the opposite. Yes, people tend to define chastity to mean celibacy—no sexual activity at all—and that’s inaccurate. If you’re a clergy member who took a vow of celibacy, as some have, that’s what chastity means for you—you gotta keep your vows! But for every other Christian, chastity just means monogamy. You and your partner only have sex with one another, and don’t deprive one another, yet don’t make your partner do anything they consider immoral or don’t want. (It’s about loving one another, not personal gratification.)

Chastity also means you can’t just partner up with anyone, like promiscuous people will. Stay away from people who don’t or won’t or can’t love you. Stay away from people who demand you prioritize them over Jesus. And of course, avoid someone who already has a partner; and no close family members, whether by blood, marriage, or adoption.

Anyway if you know the myth of Oedipus of Thebes—and of course the Corinthians knew it, ’cause Thebes was a longtime ally, and only 85km away—you’ll know it’s an icky story. The king of Thebes had a son; his son was prophesied to kill his father and marry his mother; the king was horrified and had the baby abandoned in the woods. Except the shepherd who was supposed to abandon him, didn’t. Oedipus was adopted by a different royal family, fled from them as soon as he learned the prophecy… and happened upon his birth parents, and unwittingly fulfilled the prophecy. And the gods cursed Thebes with a plague because of it—because even pagans thought that was nasty.

Yet here it was, happening right there in the Corinthian church. And the Corinthians were letting it happen.

The Johnson amendment, and preaching the wrong kingdom.

Despite the name, the National Religous Broadcasters isn’t just national, isn’t just religious, and isn’t just broadcasters. (It was founded in 1944, but it kept the original name.) It’s international now; it’s exclusively Christian; and of course in the internet age you gotta allow for more than just radio and TV broadcasts. It was founded in part to fight the Federal Council of Churches’ 1943 takeover of the religious programming of radio networks; nowadays it’s more of a support group for Evangelical media creators.

I bring ’em up because they’re suing the Internal Revenue Service, the tax-gathering agency of the U.S. federal government. Their argument is the IRS is inconsistently applying the Johnson Amendment to non-profits, and should just do away with it altogether.

Yeah, I’d better explain in more detail for people who aren’t familiar with any of that.

In the United States we have a Constitutional right to freedom of religion. And to keep the Feds and states from hassling churches by taxing their finances, churches are encouraged to become tax-free nonprofit organizations. We call them 501(c)(3) organizations, named for the specific subsection of Title 26 of the United States Code which defines ’em. For your convenience, I’ll quote it. Warning: Legalese.

Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. 26 USC §501(c)(3)

In simpler English:

1. None of your org’s incoming money should be controlled by, or benefit, one individual. Like the head pastor. Your church shouldn’t be merely a promotional tool to help your pastor get speaking engagements and sell books and videos. Nor should it spend all its money enriching your pastors, yet do little to no ministry.
2. The church shouldn’t spend “a substantial part” of its money (and other laws define how big is “substantial”) on pushing its politics: Promoting causes or lobbying government.
3. The church can’t promote a political candidate or campaign.

The Johnson amendment is the “which does not participate in, or intervene in… any political campaign,” etc. It’s named after Lyndon Johnson, who was still a senator when he got it passed in 1954. It applies to every 501(c)(3) nonprofit; not just churches. It wasn’t controversial when it was first passed, because back in the ’50s most pastors recognized politics is a dirty business, and didn’t wanna soil themselves in it.

But not anymore! Back in February, the NRB even had former president and current presidential candidate Donald Trump speak at their annual convention. He’s offering to overturn that pesky Johnson amendment if only they’d return him to power. “All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me,” he told them. Mt 4.9 Or something like that.

The NRB hasn’t officially endorsed Trump, but you know they wanna. Well, they’re trying to get rid of the amendment; if they succeed, they certainly can.

And lots of partisan pastors and churches would love to promote political candidates right from the pulpit. Would love to denounce the opposition party and its politicans, and call ’em tools of Satan. Would love to sway their entire congregations to vote their way. Some of ’em do it anyway, willingly risking their nonprofit status, figuring the IRS might not do anything if the people of their congregation never tell on ’em. Others have voluntarily given up their nonprofit status, pay taxes, say whatever they please, and roll around in politics like pigs in poo.

Patriarchy: When fathers ruled the earth.

PATRIARCHY 'peɪ.tri.ɑrk.i noun. System of governance in which the father, or eldest male, is ruler.

2. System wherein women are largely excluded from positions of authority.

[Patriarchal 'peɪ.tri.ɑr.kəl adjective.]

When people talk about patriarchy nowadays, they tend to mean the second definition above: The system is rigged in such a way that women can’t find their way into any official or significant positions of leadership. There is no way into it. At most they can have unofficial power, like a First Lady; they can have insignificant power, like being in charge of cleaning the break room. (Gee, what an honor.) But never any serious authority. The “old boys’ network” keeps shutting them out.

Obviously because the “old boys” don’t wanna work with women. Especially don’t wanna work for women. Doesn’t matter the reasons; they’re all different forms of sexism. It’s a way-too-common problem in the present day. But actually sexism isn’t what this article is about. (Not primarily. Sexism doesn’t have to be part of patriarchy. But it nearly always is.)

What I’m writing about is the first definition: The government we see among the early Hebrews, in the families of Noah, Abraham, and Jacob before the Law was handed down; and to a lesser degree the system we see in families thereafter. Before there were judges and kings, before there were cities and nations and empires, before there was anything, there were families. The families were led and ruled by the father or eldest male: The patriarch.

Now, we Americans grew up under democracy. When we’re in a situation where there’s no leadership, we often figure, “Okay, we’ll take a vote.” All of us are equal, so the majority should rule, right? If one of us tries to assume power, we object, ’cause that’s not fair. But that’s because we were raised to be democratic. The ancients weren’t. Popular vote didn’t rule the day; the strongest or loudest or most dangerous did. This is Darwinism at its simplest.

The one best able to strike down his foes dwas usually the physically strongest; the man. And in order to maintain power, patriarchy was the system these men put into place. The man, the father of the family, the paterfamilias, ruled. They taught their kids this was the way things worked. So whereas our culture falls back on democracy to decide things, theirs fell back on patriarchy.

It wasn’t egalitarian; spouses got no equal say. Wasn’t democratic, where the kids got a vote too. It was a dictatorship. What the patriarch decided, was how things were. No one to overrule him, no constitution to say he violated civil rights, no legislature to control his behavior, no police to stop him. If he decided he was taking a second or third or hundredth wife, he did. If he forbade his daughter from marrying a certain man, she had to obey. If he ordered his son put to death for disobedience, off with his head. Seriously.

And there are a number of Christians who read about these “good old days” in the bible, and wouldn’t mind returning to them. Oh, I’ll get to those guys.