After the religious group threw the lady caught in the act of adultery at the feet of Jesus. Which begs at least three questions: 1-How exactly did they find her in the act of adultery? 2-Where's the man because the Leviticus law directed them to stone both the man and woman? 3-So, they were willing to break one law (not stoning the immoral man) to uphold the other law (stoning the immoral lady)?
After all the above is on full display, Jesus diffused the mob by asking them to take personal responsibility for their own sin. It's interesting that he never really refuted the law. He simply said, "Whoever is without sin, throw the first stone." The Pharisees weren't willing to admit they were without sin. Or maybe they weren't willing to be the ones to instigate violence under the watchful eyes of the Roman soldiers who were observing the exchange. Starting riots can land one in jail.
After Jesus exposed their motives, he said to the lady, "Who condemns you?"
"No one, sir.
"Then neither do I.”
After Jesus demonstrated compassion to the lady, which did nothing to dissipate the anger, frustration, and anxiety of the religious group. Actually, the frustration only intensified and became redirected onto Jesus. BTW, this is called scapegoating. It’s what ultimately led to the death of Jesus. How amazing is the love of God? Being willing to step into the violence and take it upon himself? I name all this atonement. Atonement is the willingness of Jesus to have at-one-ment with those the religious culture desired to throw out. It wasn't a payment Jesus made to God or anyone. It was his willingness to absorb our anger and judgment and become the scapegoat to end all scapegoating.
After all of that, he says, "Go and sin no more."
Before we go any further in this unbelievably beautiful story… to the church-folk who probably mean well, but who are hell-bent on telling us that we have a responsibility to go and tell people to sin no more… please just think about all that happens before Jesus says, "Go and sin no more."
The religious folk proved themselves to be hypocrites.
Jesus purposely stepped into the crossfire of all their anger.
He willingly declared at-one-ment with the scapegoated.
We could ask ourselves questions. Who are we most like in this story? Are we willing to be numbered with the transgressors? Are our churches known for being at-one with sinners? Have we dealt with our scapegoating passions? Is it possible we are hypocritical?
As I said, we can ask these kinds of questions. But… sigh… responses require reflection and thinking. And most of the time, the church-mob-folk can neither think nor reflect. It's not because they are incapable of doing so. It's because reflecting and thinking are almost impossible with…
amygdalas captured by fear,
imaginations hi-jacked by hell,
emotions filtered through a lens of scarcity.
The typical responses wind up being simplistic black and white pronouncements of guilt. I don't think most of the modern-day-church-folk want to live this way, any more than most of the Pharisees wanted to live this way, it's just the only option our sacrifice-driven theology has given us.
But there is a way out. There’s always a way out. It’s the way of Jesus.
After Jesus befriended the lady, he responded, "Who condemns you? No one. I don't condemn you either. Go. Change. Act differently." He avoids condoning even as he refuses condemnation.
Please note what he doesn't do. He doesn't ask in anxiety-ridden fashion, "Hey, is this true? What were you thinking?" Or, "What were you wearing that caused the man to think he could have sex with you?" Or, making it about himself, the male-rabbi, and demanding, "How could you do this to me?" He didn’t ask the kinds of questions that all too often appear in our religious systems, rather, it appears he had enough insight, self-security, and compassion to recognize the matrix of questions problematizing her life. Questions like, what kind of system did she grow up in? Was she without options? Was she in an affair with a man to gain protection, to eat, to put a roof over her head? What kind of unhealthy patriarchal environment had she been exposed to? Had she been abused? Manipulated? Used? Did she believe in herself enough to know she had the capacity and agency to make different choices?
There are just so many questions to get to the bottom of this sin thing.
Yes, it appears Jesus had insight, self-security, and compassion… things sorely lacking in our contemporary church culture. Sheesh, things, all too often, sorely lacking in me. We're not any different than the ancient temple culture. We want the power and the privilege of telling people to stop their sinning without owning our own judgmental attitudes or our own ignorance about what sin is in the first place.
We continue to treat sin as if you can define it with a list of behaviors. We seem to never really check the motive behind the list-making in the first place.
But there's a better way. It's the way of Jesus. The church could follow the way of Jesus and be known as a friend of sinners. Better yet, we could just stop calling everyone sinners in the first place. Good grief. We get it, preacher. We all got issues. But there's more than just sin in our lives. There's also goodness, beauty, and grace! Let's start there. Let's welcome all people. Let's reinforce the inherent capacity we all have to name our own sin. After we "love the sinner and hate our own sin" then maybe we will earn the right to humbly invite people to consider their sin.
This is just a few of the problems with us Christians wanting to quote the whole, “go and sin no more" passage. We don't seem to consider all the "befores" and “afters.”
If we did, it might change everything.