First Sunday in Lent

I am not putting much here, just a note for next time we cycle to this passage: a few weeks ago I bemoaned Paul's coming to the Corinthians without wisdom, knowing only Christ crucified - and below, I am going to talk about how we are back to the clever arguments that I so enjoy.  Ironic, then, to also be contemplating this passage at the same time, which explicitly decries worldly knowledge!  I am not interested in reconciling these two - I think there is a place for wisdom and knowledge, and a place for innocence and purity, and God has given us plenty of space for both.  Certainly for me the challenge is embracing both, that I can appreciate not knowing as much as I do appreciate knowing.

Finally!  Back to the clever arguments.  This is the Paul I love, the intense and logical Paul, with his depth of thought and understanding and brilliant rhetoric.  Plenty of ink has been shed on this passage and I don't need to retread that.  I am also regretting that I don't have the bandwidth to go through this whole passage, and so I leave here a couple interesting bits that I might revisit in more detail later, as they have some very interesting repercussions:
> those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam [just chew on that one]
> so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all [oh may we hope!]

Overall this is one of the most hopeful passages I can remember.  Reading it today I started weeping - sin coming into the world, and the world receiving grace, righteousness, justification and life.  Two men, two very different results, neither existing in isolation from the other.  Sections of this, which are so familiar, I find very easy to skip over when I am reading individually; thinking through it intensely for this exercise, though, I am reminded how it is an incredibly powerful argument, in the midst of many incredibly powerful arguments, and just how precious and dear that grace is.

Today, though, I am going to stick to processing verse 17:
> If, because of the one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Honestly this is quite a sentence, and I am sorely tempted to pull out a whiteboard and graph it out - I have been guilty of using similar depths of clauses, and I can't deny that it is a challenge to read!  Let me break it down (disclaimer: I AM EXPLICITLY REMOVING IMPORTANT CONTEXT HERE!  PLEASE DO NOT USE THE PARAPHRASES!):

(Those) (will reign)

Okay, this one freaks me out a little.  I'll be honest, the idea of Christians reigning gives me the shivers.  When the popes started to focus the church on an Earthly kingdom, they ended up doing all kinds of horrible things to each other, to their communities, to each other, to both Christians and non-Christians.  We need look no further than Innocent 3 or Alexander 6, both of whom were reasonable morally decent personally, for their times.  However their intrigues, violence toward the rest of Europe, catastrophic violence toward Asia, cavalier attitude (in the latter case) toward all non-Christians, make it hard to see the church as bringing the peace of Christ that surpasses all understanding.

To be clear I don't even think the popes were doing anything with ill intent!  The church was growing but so was Islam and many other factions, and Innocent was put into the unenviable situation that he either needed to submit the church to the domination of an Earthly authority - certainly not! - or build a liturgical empire that superseded the Earthly authorities and could protect believers in all jurisdictions.  I am not sure that he had much of a choice, given the tight association Europe had developed with religion and empire.  But it is also true that, by redirecting the focus of the church from being a transcendent organization to an Earthly power, the mission was changed in many important ways.

This change in mission I see the same in the political ambitions of many modern, conservative American Christians, who seem primarily interested in a more theocratic or moral rule in civic life; to me this seems obviously futile, since sin can only be corrected by God; at best sin is merely changed to avoid the law.  At the same time I worry a lot about about my own views, too; when I petition for universal healthcare, or basic income, or creation care, or any of a thousand things that I believe the government could and should do for its citizens; am I trying to rule everyone into compassion, or trying to declaim my own personal responsiblity?  Christ told his followers to be generous, not to make everyone else be generous - greed cannot be healed by generous laws, either.  For Christians who are in political leadership positions, what a responsibility you have!  I hope you have some wise counsel, and I am glad that I am not it.

[those (who have received abundant grace and righteousness) will reign] (in life) (through the one man, Jesus Christ)

To be clear, I am fairly certain that Paul was never talking about politics here.  I believe in my introduction I said not to expect my thoughts to always be relevant to the passage!  To go back to the passage, this bit is the really exciting - or, perhaps, scary, wonderful - part of this passage, and let me show you by some alternative (NOT REAL) phrasing that this passage could have been.  Imagine Paul had written (HE DID NOT):

...through one man Jesus Christ, who brings the reign of life to the world. [NOT A REAL PASSAGE]

See that difference?  Fake Paul says that Jesus brings life into the world.  I am guessing if I wrote this no one would even blink an eye.  But real Paul, here, says that we - those who have received abundant grace and righteousness - are the ones bringing life into the world.  Jesus is the mechanism, of that there is no doubt!  But what an awful and aweful responsibility for us, to be the antithesis of death in this world.  Let's scope it out a little more:

(Death reigned because of Adam) (but now, certainly,) (those who have received) (will reign) (in life)

Dozens of times a week I turn my head at intersections, ignoring the human standing with the sign.  Once a month I fob some early or late church visitor to a pastor for the discretionary fund, or blow off someone to attend to my Sunday duties.  Sometimes I show up to an outreach event, sometimes call a friend, sometimes visit with a colleague - but am I really bringing life?  Life, to the level that opposes - quite literally - the universal bondage of death?  We are all under death, we have been under death since the first man; and now, because of Jesus, we are called, whatever our vocation, to bring life to all.  All!  The poor, the sinner, the destitute, even the rich and healthy and employed and writers and theology professors.  What a responsibility, what a response to that abundant grace and righteousness.  Bring life!  Oh, God, may it be so.