MetaCatholic

At different times, and in different ways, various people draw parallels between one or more of the Church’s admission of the Gentiles, Christian feminism, the emancipation of slaves and issues of gay equality. The mix of issues, and the points of comparison vary according to the case being made and the viewpoint from which it is put.

One thing they all have in common is that they required then, or require now, a fresh reading of scripture to make the case for something new. (Whether that case is made satisfactorily is another question entirely – and not one I’m exploring in this post). But I think it is also possible to argue that in all four cases, it required or requires something other than scripture to raise the question in the first place. That’s allowed in the case of Peter, because the apostolic era is judged a special case. It’s often denied in the case of slavery, because the input of new thinking is obscured by the huge contribution of evangelicals to the case for abolition. But the fact that the impetus for re-evaluating first the place of women, and currently the place of gay people comes from movements outside the church is seriously put forward as a major argument against and obstacle to either the full equality of women, or acceptance of gay people

(I should note that I’m not intending to suggest that these necessarily have much in common, but I do note that many who argue against both insist on their linkage as equally unbiblical threats to God’s division of the sexes, and his purpose for each)

There are more than enough Scriptures deployed in these arguments that remind God’s people not to live like the nations, but to be different. Those should not be overlooked by anyone, but neither should they be confined to fulminating warnings against uppity gays and women, but rather taken just as seriously on justice and mercy and those weightier matters of the law. But equally, I am increasingly drawn to pondering the significance of the Chronicler’s account of Josiah’s death.

After all this, when Josiah had set the temple in order, King Neco of Egypt went up to fight at Carchemish on the Euphrates, and Josiah went out against him.  But Neco sent envoys to him, saying, “What have I to do with you, king of Judah? I am not coming against you today, but against the house with which I am at war; and God has commanded me to hurry. Cease opposing God, who is with me, so that he will not destroy you.”  But Josiah would not turn away from him, but disguised himself in order to fight with him. He did not listen to the words of Neco from the mouth of God, but joined battle in the plain of Megiddo.  The archers shot King Josiah; and the king said to his servants, “Take me away, for I am badly wounded.”  So his servants took him out of the chariot and carried him in his second chariot and brought him to Jerusalem. There he died, and was buried in the tombs of his ancestors. All Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. (2 Chronicles 35:20-24 NRSV)

Was there, I wonder, amore unlikely source for the “word of the Lord” than Pharaoh, or a more unlikely servant of God? And was there a more unlikely word to come from God than “Don’t fight these invading Egyptians, they’re doing my will?”

This is by no means an argument for the uncritical acceptance of any new idea. But it is a firm reminder that it is quite biblical that God’s word comes from surprising sources, and says things that scripture and past experience would make extremely unlikely.