Filtering a Community

申命记第23章：1-18节
There was an incident more than 10 years ago where I still wonder if I had done the right thing. There was a youth serving as a musician in our worship band. One day, she dyed her hair blond. It is probably not a big deal these days, but it was quite shocking back then. A decision was made. Either she dyed her hair back, or she could not continue to serve as a musician on stage. The band leader who had to give the instruction came to me for advice. I was the previous band leader. People who know me can easily tell that I’m not fussy about appearances. I’m flexible with most things, ok, maybe too flexible. I’m fine with any hair color you like, as long as you are serious about serving God on stage. All these years, I have only 1 criterion for serving in the Worship Ministry in Jubilee: an understanding and commitment that this is a service, not a performance. Though I’m personally fine with the blond hair, I also respect the authority of leadership. A judgement call had to be made, and as long as it is not a moral issue, I typically submit to the judgement given. And so in this case, I did not object to the decision. Unfortunately, that youth later left the church, and till this day has yet to return. There are probably many factors for her departure, but I think this issued ultimatum was the main reason. Like I said earlier, I still wonder if I should have done something different.

To be honest, I can understand the leadership decision back then. As the worship ministry chairperson, I often act as a gatekeeper for what gets to go on stage. What songs can we sing? Who gets to speak? What should we wear? These days, I’ve delegated many of the responsibilities, such as letting the service Chairperson manage the order of service and the worship teams to manage the overall discipline, but the buck still stops with me. It is a heavy responsibility. On one hand you want to be open-minded about different preferences in music, fashion and sermon styles. On the other hand, many in our community, from the pastoral team to the regular church member, can be highly absolute about their subjective taste. And so I do sympathize with those who have to make these judgment calls. I’ve rejected very popular songs because of questionable theology. I’ve offended all my female musicians because exposed toes on stage were considered by some to be too casual. Tough calls are inevitable. Leadership often means making the call and living with the consequences.

Today, we want to talk about the boundaries of membership. I’ve begun by reflecting on the membership of the serving personnel, but membership issues also include the membership of a community, and the membership of the leadership team. First, you become a member of a community, then a member who serves and finally a member who leads. Becoming a member means you cross a certain boundary that requires a judgment call. How do we decide who is in and who is out? At the national level, such questions affect immigration laws and voting and election rules. Who is a citizen, and who is eligible to vote or to stand for election? At the church level, we ask: who can be baptised? Who is eligible to serve in which ministry? And who is fit to lead the church as a Session member? Today, we will discuss this issue using the laws found in Deuteronomy. As a nation, as a community of the people of God, how do they decide on their boundaries of membership? In the past, I often run through all the cases before I conclude. This time, I hope to just analyse just one particular case in great detail, and use its conclusion to reflect on the rest of the cases. This is a case about eunuchs.

Deuteronomy 23: No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord.

The law itself is straight forward. Eunuchs cannot become a member of the Israelite community, much less enter into the place of worship. The tricky part is why. There are two explanations. One, it could be a separation because of religious differences. “There may be a link with the exclusion of people who have allowed themselves to be genitally mutilated, as this ritual was part of religious practice among some peoples.” [1] Two, it could be a separation because of theological differences. Sexual potency, the ability to be fruitful and multiply, was a mark of divine blessing and wholeness. This separation becomes a theological statement about the separation from the creative and life-giving God. [2]

So this is one case study on a judgement call on how to draw the boundary line to become the people of God. Simply put, eunuchs, whether those serving the Israelite kings or those visiting from neighbouring countries, cannot become the people of God. If you cannot become a member, naturally it also means you cannot be worshipping in the temple as well. If there are any eunuchs among us, sorry, you are out.

If this was the end of the story, then it would seem like making judgement calls on membership seems equally straight-forward. Just give me a list of criteria and we will be assessing everybody based on one fixed set of rules. But the story did not end there.

Isaiah 56: 4 For this is what the Lord says: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant— 5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will endure forever.”

“Through the prophet Isaiah, the Lord spoke to the eunuchs and foreigners, who kept the Sabbaths and held fast to God’s covenant. God tells them that He will not cut them off. Eunuchs will no longer say, “Behold, I am a dry-tree” because he is incapable of sexual acts due to castration, and therefore, unable to have any children or an heir to his name. But yet, God says that He will “give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.” (v. 5) They are known as proselytes, converts to Judaism who were not born an ethnic Jew. In Isaiah 56, even though the eunuchs and the foreigners were non-Jews, God bestowed grace upon them. Even though the eunuchs and foreigners were considered outcasts by the Israelites, they remained very much in God’s plan of salvation of the world.”[3] They don’t just become a member of the people of God. God even gave them an everlasting name within the temple itself. They enter into the assembly. They can even enter into the temple.

Were the vision of Isaiah and the words of the Lord eventually fulfilled? Yes.
Acts 8: 26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” 27 So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means “queen of the Ethiopians”). This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah the prophet. 29 The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”
30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.

The baptism of the Ethopian eunuch was not coincidental. The Holy Spirit specifically brought Philip to bring the good news to him and eventually to baptize him. A eunuch who is not even a Jew can now become the people of God through baptism. His name is forever in the Book of Life before the great white throne of God.

So far, we’ve studied just this one case study extensively because I think it brings such revelatory insights into our discussion topic today. When drawing the boundary lines for membership, we can have many reasons to set a high standard. The eunuchs were rejected in Deuteronomy with strong religious and theological reasons. Yet the grace of God can even overturn his own restrictions. The eunuch cannot leave a name through reproduction. But God gave them an everlasting name through the salvation of Jesus Christ.

And it is the same as we read on with the rest of the case studies in Deuteronomy. These criteria for boundaries were not set in stone.
Deuteronomy 23: 2 No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.
But we say, “What about the descendants of Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife?”

3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. 4 For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you. 5 However, the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loves you. 6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live.
But we say, “What about the descendants of Ruth?” Both of these names, Uriah’s wife and Ruth, can be found in the genealogy of Jesus. Once again, the grace of God surpasses his own boundaries.

But if you think that Deuteronomy is all about exclusive boundaries which were later overturned, you would be wrong.
7 Do not despise an Edomite, for the Edomites are related to you. Do not despise an Egyptian, because you resided as foreigners in their country. 8 The third generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord.
The Edomites have always had a bitter fighting relationship with the Israelites. The Egyptians were the previous slave owners. In the context of Moses, the previous generation had just barely escaped from them. Yet Deuteronomy talks about being inclusive to them. The reasons were given in the verses, kinship with the Edomites and Egyptian hospitality prior to the times of slavery. Yet we wonder why the reasons of inclusivity were sought out here, and yet we could not see any in the previous cases. If they had wanted to give mitigating reasons to be inclusive, such as mentioning that Moabites and Ammonites are descendants of Lot (like in Deut 2), I’m sure they could. Instead we observe a judgment to be exclusive in a scenario and a choice to be inclusive in another.

The difficulty of setting boundaries lies in a constant struggle between two principles: the principle of holiness and the principle of compassion. The principle of holiness stresses exclusivity. Anything that falls short of God’s high standards must be removed. Like in the case of war in the next scenario. A holy war is empowered by the presence of God, and the high standards of holiness must be maintained.

9 When you are encamped against your enemies, keep away from everything impure. 10 If one of your men is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, he is to go outside the camp and stay there. 11 But as evening approaches he is to wash himself, and at sunset he may return to the camp.
12 Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. 13 As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. 14 For the Lord your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you.

Yet, besides the principle of holiness, there is also the principle of compassion at work. Such as can be found in the immediate next scenario.
15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.
The principle of compassion stresses inclusivity. Acceptance of a runaway slave breaks all kinds of rules about ownership and social contracts. This exception can be easily abused. Yet, for the sake of compassion, for the possibility that this slave might be in trouble and needs a new beginning, we see a demand for compassion in this chosen scenario in Deuteronomy.

Yet the same compassion is not extended for the poor eunuchs, or others in equally pitiful situations. Again, judgement call in the next scenario is reversed back to the principle of holiness. There is no compassion for prostitutes and gigolos.
17 No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. 18 You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the Lord your God to pay any vow, because the Lord your God detests them both.

I struggled for a while whether to preach this passage or choose another one. It is hard to discuss a topic where the conclusion is seemingly rather subjective. When talking about membership, you can use the principle of holiness to set very high standards. For example, when I think about who gets to serve on stage, there is a Chinese saying: 台上一分钟，台下十年功。Your presence on stage is a reflection of your years of spirituality. It is true that I should be selecting only the best and most well prepared to be serving on stage. Before anybody wants to preach or lead worship, I should check if they have a halo of saintliness. This is the same for church membership. We can do it like the Catholics. You need one full year of weekly catechism class, before you can be baptised.

But “the need to show vigor and firmness in maintaining the internal purity and integrity of the community had to be tempered with the need to display compassion and openness. The enthusiasm to maintain high standards and firm boundaries all too readily becomes harsh and unrealistic.” [4] So you might prefer the principle of compassion. “Yet openness and laxity can equally easily tear away the very heart of the commitment to a sense of high calling established through God’s election and covenant promises.” Then what? When is it the principle of holiness, and when is it the principle of compassion? I wondered if I should open a topic so important but conclude with choices so ambiguous. It seems that in very scenario we can choose to set high standards of holiness, but also to choose to be compassionate instead. When is it the principle of holiness, and when is it the principle of compassion?

Then I realize it is not about holiness versus compassion. It is actually about the “bully in me” versus the “neighbour in me”. What is the “bully in me”? “The bully in me always bullies in the name of principle or in the name of rules. The bully in me acts quite reasonably and regrets that others must suffer as a consequence. This part of me is a coward – it hides behind “what is right” so I won’t have to admit my desire to hurt.” [5] We all have this “bully in me”. When we don't like someone, or we disagree with the values of certain types of people, we exclude them with the principle of holiness. Yet when we want to favor somebody we like, we make exceptions for them with the principle of compassion. That is the “bully in me”. It is not about the decision itself, whether you choose to be exclusive or inclusive. It is about the true intention of the decision. Is it about you, or is it for the sake of others? The bully can be exclusive to show how holy he is. The bully can be inclusive to show how compassionate he is. Can you see that I'm such a nice guy? I'm accepting him or her whereas the rest of you are so judgemental. It is not about the decision and which principle you eventually choose to use. It is the true intention that is important. The “bully in me” is often about setting boundaries the way we like it. In this way, we can easily justify to whom we can be harsh, to whom we can be nice. We are even using “biblical principles”.

But boundary setting shouldn't be about justifying yourself.
Luke 10: 25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
Jesus then told him the parable of the good Samaritan.
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Instead of us asking the question “who is my neighbour?”, Jesus reversed it for us to ask ourselves “am I a neighbour to others?” The one who is a neighbour is the one who truly acts out of love. It is not the decision, it is the intention that I care about. The “neighbour in me” can be exclusive. We can be using the principle of holiness to emphasize the seriousness of membership. We do that because we want others to know what it truly means to be a member, what it means to be serving. The “neighbour in me” can be inclusive. We can be using the principle of compassion to be welcoming in our membership. The offering of membership would then express what is grace. The question is not which principle we eventually use. It is not the decision but the intention of the decision. The question is if we are acting out of the “bully in me” or the “neighbour in me”.

I remember once there was 2 newcomers who came into our worship service. They were fashionably late, yet they sat in front with their portable coffee mugs like they were here to watch a show. What should we do? Should we use the principle of holiness to discard their coffee mugs? Should we be compassionate and understand that they are unaware of the Christian value of worship and let them be undisturbed? Yet I realise that it is not about the decision but our intention. The main question is: Is it the “bully in me” who made the decision or is it the “neighbour in me” who made the decision? The “bully in me” just wants to express my approval or disapproval. I could be an exclusive bully who feels, “how can you treat my worship place in this way?” and so I discard the coffee mugs. Or I could be a bully who is inclusive and leave them undisturbed. I'm still a bully because I do that to feel pleased about myself or to show off to others how much more Christian love I have. The question is: did the decision come from the “bully in me” or the “neighbour in me”? The “neighbour in me” would act out of an intention to help the newcomers gain a better understanding of God. As a neighbour, I can be exclusive and discard the coffee mugs. I cannot allow this because I want to share what it means to be respectful in a holy place. As a neighbour, I also can choose to be inclusive and leave them undisturbed. I'll allow it this time because it expresses the God is also patient and full of grace. In this entire discussion on boundary setting, the final decision may end up looking the same. Whichever decision, I'm sure we are using either of the principles to back it up. Yet, my primary concern is about you. What made you make the decision? Is it the “bully in you” or the “neighbour in you”? You may think that “of course, I do everything for the good of others”. But look deeper. Is it really? That is the critical question. How you set boundaries for others may decide instead, whether you yourself are still within the people of God.

The Psalmist ask in Psalm 24: 3 Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord? Who may stand in his holy place?
4 The one who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not trust in an idol or swear by a false god. I have also come to the same conclusion. Who may become the people of God? Who may serve him and lead his people? It is the one who is a neighbour, whichever principles he chooses, whether to be exclusive or inclusive. It is the one whose primary concern stems from loving God and loving others. He is the one with the clean hands and a pure heart. He is the one who remains in the assembly of God's people.

Let me be clear. I’m not saying that principles and boundaries are not important and we can do whatever we like. 国有国法，家有家规。Someone still needs to make the judgement calls for proper order in the community. What I am saying is that intentions matter even more than the final decision. The “bully in me” can use principles self righteously too. So the call is for us to make the difficult judgement calls with the “neighbour in me”. Not just as individuals, but also as a community. Let us set the boundaries we need, with tough love and with tender love. Let us do it, because we want to be a neighbour, to the world and also to one another.

[1] John Goldingay, Numbers and Deuteronomy for Everyone, p 173
[2] Before we continue, perhaps a little background on eunuchs. Many of us are familiar with the eunuchs of the Chinese dynasties. Those typically came from prisoners or drafted from poor families. They serve a practical purpose of male servants in the royal household. With lots of concubines and female servants, it’s the obvious but cruel solution to protecting the royal bloodline. It is a similar situation in the ancient near east. Given the importance of passing on the family name, no one would willingly serve as a eunuch. Yet the royal household want capable educated people serving them as well. Hence, many eunuchs were actually spoils of war from defeated royal households. See Isaiah 39:5-7.
[3] Wilson Tan, http://www.jubilee.org.sg/sermons/id/332/
[4] The new Interpreters’ Bible, vol 2, p 463
[5] Hugh Prather, Notes to Myself