An Anecdote

OK, guys. On Friday nights, my wife and I often go out to the local Brewpub with friends. No big deal. Today, my daughter and her fiancé come in, earlier than I expect, and join us. No big deal. Another couple joins us too. No big deal. At the end of a pleasant meal, we divide the check, and I'm caught a bit short, because I hadn't expected the kids to come, and of course, daddy covers. No big deal. I apologize to my friends, collect the cash, and put the credit card in the holder. The waitress comes, and I pass the holder back to her. No card. Big deal!

My friends had seen me put the card in the holder, so its a mystery. We look under the table, around on the floor. I tear my wallet apart. My wife tears my wallet apart. No card. Now ordinarily, this is a problem, but something you work through. But this is also the card that I've used to guarantee the caterer at the reception for my daughter's wedding, a mere eight days (and 198 guests) hence. And I'm computing in my head, is there enough time to cancel the card, and get a new one. To explain to the caterer what the deal is, and to get everything sorted out. My chest is a bit tight at this point, as you can imagine!

About five minutes pass, as we lift the table, and generally make a scene of ourselves, figuring out trajectories, etc. Another waiter stops by, and suggests that sometimes the holders wear out, and the card falls through the pocket, into the holder itself. I check. Hallelujah! It's there. I am amazed, breathless, and thankful. What an evening!

Peace

The Goals of Debate

Why do people participate in venues like this? Why do I write? Why do you read? Why do we enter into conversations through comments?

It seems to me to be too cynical to view blogs as interactive art: seductive, but ephemeral. No, I think we participate because we hope to learn, but even more to teach. We hope to be entertained, but even more to entertain. We seek community, but perhaps even more to establish our individuality. But we can become destructive when we get frustrated. Then we seek to sow confusion rather than knowledge, anger rather than entertainment, and to tear down others when we cannot build up ourselves. If I can't get what I want, then at least I can keep you from getting what you want!

Incivility is a consequence of frustration. Where does this frustration come from? I doubt there is a single cause, but it seems to me that a sense of powerlessness to meet our particular goals in debate is often a primary cause.

For example, we might enter a discussion hoping to convince the other participants of the rightness of a position we are strongly committed to. But the other participants come with their own experiences, their own prior beliefs, their own bound commitments. It may be the case that no matter how well informed our arguments are, or how artfully we've constructed them, no matter how passionately, how eloquently we argue, the other guy is not going to be budged. It is often at this point that we get frustrated. We realize that our goal—convincing the other guy—is not achievable, even in principle. What happens next is often not pretty. But does it need to be inevitable?

Tolerance matters. It is perfectly reasonable and appropriate to hope that our arguments will prevail; it is unreasonable to assume that when they don't, it is due to some character flaw in our opponents. It is often suggested by members of the left that intolerance is a characteristic of the right, and vice versa. Let me suggest instead that tolerance is a characteristic of maturity, and that immaturity correlates with both extremism and youth. The passing of youth is inevitable, but the passing from immaturity to maturity is not. Good examples, from both allies and opponents can help form maturity. We should aspire to be good examples.

I think we need to learn to accept secondary goals. If we cannot convince, then perhaps we can inform. Understanding isn't the same as agreement, but achieving understanding is rare enough and valuable enough to be a worthy goal in its own right. But there is a two way obligation here—if you want to be understood, you should be willing to understand the other guy's position too. You can understand without agreement, and there is nothing wrong with saying so. I understand your position, but I do not agree with it. Let us be at peace.

And I think that while we do well to understand differences, we do better when we acknowledge those things that hold in common: our humanity, our integrity, and our willingness to engage constructively with one another.

Peace

Civility

I know that I'm a new kid on this block, but I've been around a few others. The truth is, public proclamation coupled with anonymity has been with us since the first graffiti (likely the equivalent of "Ogg smells!") appeared on a cave wall, and set the standard form and content of this sort of discourse.

When I was about ten years old, I saw a bit of doggerel in an outhouse:

Those who write on shithouse walls, roll their shit in little balls. Those who read these words of wit, eat those little balls of shit.

I had no problem finding this again via Google, exactly as I remembered it. It must have been all the rage in the mid-60s. It does speak a truth, though, that still applies. And what is the internet, but the world's most visible outhouse wall? As the preacher said:

Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new”? It has already been, in the ages before us.

Are we doomed? Must the rising tide of incivility drown us in moronic invective, bad speling, and ALL CAPS? Yeah, probably so. But there are things we can do to encourage civility, to reclaim our little corner of the world for passionate discourse with civility. It's not easy, but I do have a few concrete recommendations.

• You can't advance the cause of civility by incivility. It seems obvious enough, but how many times have you seen someone try to shut up an obnoxious antagonist by insulting them? Usually their antagonist reciprocates, sometimes they just go away. But either way, the venue is brutalized.
• The hair-trigger on Alexander Hamilton's dueling pistols didn't work out so well for him. Having a hair-trigger isn't going to work out any better for you. Be slow to take insult. If things are getting heated, slow down. Delay your next post, and let everyone cool down a bit. Be explicit in giving your opponent time to reconsider, and perhaps amend or withdraw his words.
• Admit it when you're wrong. It won't kill you, and it won't diminish your authority in debate. We all know folks who believe themselves to be always right on every question. Think about them for a bit. Yeah. Do you want to be that person?
• Be eager to support today's opponent. Treat him with consideration and respect. Surprise him with consideration and respect. You must might find that he's tomorrow's friend.

I'd be happy to consider any additional suggestions to this little list. I suspect that there will be occasion to return to this topic from time to time, even in a venue whose very name is “peace.”

Peace

Metanoia

Over on Kirby's blog, in response to a question by Emmy Bea, I noted Luther's dissatisfaction with Jerome's translation of the Greek word μετάνοια as penance, and to my surprise (but great pleasure), these remarks met with jh's approbation. Moreover, his note contained some additional remarks on the meaning of μετάνοια, and as I'd had some similar thoughts, I'd like to develop this a bit further, to three distinct ends:

1. I believe the question of how to properly understand the concept of μετάνοια, as Paul intended, is important.
2. The issue of how best to translate μετάνοια is illustrative of the difficulties translators face, and why the hope for a “perfect” translation is misguided.
3. I see in this a good opportunity to develop the faith/works discussion, in a way that I hope is less bound by a priori stereotypes, and which I hope will make the Lutheran position more comprehensible to people with a Catholic mindset. Please note that I'm merely hoping to explain, not to win any arguments.

Μετάνοια

So let's recall the starting point. In Romans 2:1ff, Paul is talking about divine judgment, the consequences of sin, and he touches on the transformative effect of God's love. Let me mash up a bit of English NRSV and Greek:

Romans 2:4b Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to μετάνοια?

Jerome's choice of translating μετάνοια as penance was unfortunate, and Luther's choice of repentance was better, but it does not feel perfect. I believe that the imperfection is in that both Jerome and Luther translated μετάνοια in terms of the consequences of the transformation, rather than in terms of the nature of the transformation, and I believe Paul was talking more about the nature of the transformation.

According to BDAG, the base meaning is “primarily a change of mind,” and suggested translational phrases are “repentance, turning about, conversion.” It is worth noting that the roots are μετά + νοῦς. “Meta” is a proposition, the translation of which is always tricky and beset with language specific idioms, whereas “nous” refers to “mind, intellect, understanding, way of thinking, attitude” etc.

jh raised up phrases like, “turning toward,” “seeking understanding and love,” and even the analogy of lovers making up after a spat. I think these truly are at the heart of the matter.

The classic Lutheran understanding of sin is separation from God. What does God want? He wants relationship. He wants his love for us to be mirrored in our love for him and one another. To place this in terms of jh's suggestions, in sin, we have turned away from God. His kindness is meant to turn us back. This is indeed the making up of lovers after a spat, where the lovers are God and us.

Is this really all there is? Does God really require nothing more of us when we fail than that we return to him? In a word, yes. But to stop with that one word is immature.

It is in understanding the steps that a mature Christian makes after turning back towards God that Luther's word choice and Jerome's come into play.

A mature Christian will acknowledge the reality of their actions, that they were in fact the actor, and that God did not intend for them to act this way. They will acknowledge the consequences of their actions. They will feel regret. This is where Luther's choice of repentance hits the nail on the head. Maybe not quite the nail that Paul intended, but on the head, nevertheless.

The second thing a mature Christian will do is to take responsibility for their actions, and this means that they will do what they can to repair the brokenness that they have brought into God's creation. Often, our actions have injured others, and an appropriate step is to make restitution to that person—to make them whole. This is where Jerome not only swung at the wrong nail, he missed it. The focus on penance is a focus on punishment, not restoration of either the sinner or the injured. And as this came to be interpreted, it had the effect of transferred the restitution from the injured party to the church, so that the consequences of sinful acts remained uncorrected, the brokenness unrepaired.

Translation

It simply isn't possible to fit a discussion like that above into a single word choice, yet translators do not have the luxury of interposing explanatory paragraphs into the midst of their translations. Even the standard mechanism of footnotes is inadequate for even a brief discussion along the lines that I've given above. Such discussions are necessarily relegated to commentaries, or perhaps to translator's notes. Translators have to pick a word, or at most a short phrase, recognizing that their choices will tend to miss some of the nuances of the original, perhaps emphasizing this part a bit more, and that part a bit less. They have to trust that their work will not stand alone, but will be supported by others.

It is worth reflecting here on the specific kind of choice involved. Will a translator try for a translation in which there is a tight correspondence between the words in their original, and the words in their translation? If so, simply using the word “change” would have been an excellent choice.

Or does the translator allow themselves word choices that draw the reader further down the theological path that they believed that the author intended? This is the kind of choice that both Luther and Jerome made in wrestling with Romans 2:4. It is a reasonable thing to do.

Or does the translator allow themselves greater freedom, and forsake a word-for-word translation in favor of a freer translation, which they hope will nevertheless come closer to the author's original intent? Here, “change of heart,” rather than a more literal “change” or “change of mind” might have been suitable. The Message is a good exemplar of a translation that is made in this style.

I practice, no translation is going to follow a pure strategy. All translations will make choices that favor literal readings in some places, and sense readings in other. I believe it is important to understand the translation philosophy of whatever English-language bible you have, and very useful to look at multiple translations which follow different strategies in doing deeper Bible studies.

But I think that it is both wrong and unhelpful to say that one strategy is right and another is wrong. All of these strategies are trying to convey the original, they just do so with different priorities regarding the tradeoffs that must be met. If you want a book that fully conveys all the nuances of the original, you have to read the original.

Faith vs. Works

The debate over faith vs. works has resulted in much oversimplification of the Lutheran side, and perhaps of the Catholic side as well. The Lutheran side is often reduced to "salvation by grace through faith," or "sola fides, sola gratia, solus Christus." [Lutherans, by the way, do not affirm "sola scriptura," although some Protestants do, and this leads to confusion.] Often, the Lutherans themselves have done the reduction. But the notion that Lutherans don't value or understand works is incorrect, they've simply transferred the point in their theology to which works are attached, and thereby transposed the Catholic understanding of the causative relationship between works and salvation.

In the Lutheran view, our works don't save us, and can't save us. Only God working on and through us can save us.

But once are saved, how then do we live? What is the nature of Christian life? What are its obligations? How do we respond to this great gift that God has given us?

The gift that we are given is the gift we must return: love. And the remarkable thing about this is that giving love does not diminish our store of love, it increases it. It is only by hoarding this treasure that we risk losing it. It is in living a Christian life that we should find good works, not as a means of salvation, but as a joyful response to salvation. And mature Lutherans can read James with appreciation, nod our heads, and agree: if you claim you have faith, but you're not moved to share God's love for all of us with your fellow man, and you're not moved to ease the pain and suffering of the world, then what sort of faith do you have? We are not saved by knowledge of doctrine, as even the devil has a knowledge of history and of the nature of God. We are saved by grace through faith, and in particular by a faith that transforms us.

And I think in this, there is actually very little difference between the Lutheran and Catholic positions as regards the sort of life that Christians should lead. The disagreement is really just this: are we saved because of our good works, or do we do good works because we're saved? Either way, we have both salvation and good works. I believe that much would be gained by consciously embracing our agreements, instead of just obsessing over our disagreements.

Peace

What Song?

A text message from my daughter, who will be married in 2 1/2 weeks, “What song for the daddy daughter dance?”

I don't know.

I've spent a good part of the afternoon looking. Most love-ish songs are inappropriate: let's jump in the sack, or I'm going to pine away now that you're gone. I like almost everything, except country. She likes almost everything, especially country. And I don't do maudlin, although that's the best way to describe my feelings during this afternoon's exercise.

Here are my current thoughts:

• Turn! Turn! Turn!, The Byrds.
• La Chanson de Claudine, Mason Williams.
• Walk Away Renée, The Four Seasons.

I like the songs, none of them seem quite right. I've looked at a few websites, and was a bit surprised to find “Landslide.” I love the song, but doubt the appropriateness. My daughter told me a few days ago that “Butterfly Kisses” is popular, which to me is an argument against. And it violates the maudlin stipulation.

It's enough to make me think that writing the checks is going to be the easy part.

Anyway, serious suggestions would be gratefully received.

Peace

Fifty-five

There are two kinds of drivers in this country: people who admit that they speed, and liars. This is a perfect model for a fallen humanity:

• When we learn to drive, we're taught that we should "drive the limit," as if the boundary between legality and illegality, the very nexus of temptation, is the safest place to be.
• We all know that we're safest, and will get to where we're going the quickest, if we're all going the same speed, so the traffic flows. We all know that the intended purpose of the speed limit sign is to establish a common and sensible convention for what that speed should be. Yet unless limited by traffic, it is a rare road where the average speed is less than five over. The temptation to go just a bit faster than the people around you is always present, as is shame at the thought that we might be the slowest person on the road.
• The moment we see a police car, we all engage in the quiet hypocrisy of slowing down, and trying to look innocent. The police aren't fooled, they're just looking for even bolder (or younger, or blacker) sinners. We're ashamed if we don't sin, and even more ashamed if we get caught! And, of course, when the policeman tires of the hunt and decides to go home, he does so at a speed that would instantly earn him a ticket from himself, if he was anyone else.

For my part, I'd prefer to just set the cruise control at the speed limit, and not worry about whether or not there's a policeman three tickets behind this month's quota waiting around the turn. On four lane roads in the country, this is actually a feasible strategy. And when I do it, almost invariably, I pick up a tail of followers, all happy enough to be "legal," so long as they're not in the lead.

Try this on westbound I-80/94, heading into the city on a Friday evening, though, and you'll get killed. And this isn't hyperbole for "some nasty truckers are going to honk their horn at you." It's a euphemism—your death is going to inconvenience the local fire department.

So we make laws for our own protection, knowing that we are going to break them. We see crosses along side of the road, and know that there are parents or spouses who grieve over the lost, but we can't read the names because we're going by too fast. And we think we can save ourselves.

Peace

City Life, Country Life

One of the deepest divisions in contemporary America is that between urban and rural society. There is really no getting around this: the typical life experiences associated with these two subcultures are quite different, and people from one subculture often look at people from the other with incomprehension, or even hostility.

It is not my purpose here to summarize the differences between the two, but I do want to set out a minor prescription for improving understanding, and to explore one particular issue where these two subcultures are at odds with one another.

My prescription is simple: people should spend a significant amount of time living the life of the other subculture. Here I do not mean playing the tourist, but instead trying to find a way to truly live within the other community long enough to understand and be influenced by its values. I recognize that this is not an easy prescription, and I don't have any great ideas how to implement it generally, I just know that my life has provided me this opportunity, and with it a valuable perspective.

I should be clear here, that although I identify more strongly with the urban side of this divide, I think it is more common for rural folks to have some experience of city ways than conversely.

The issue I want to address is guns.

From an urban perspective, guns bring death. The urban experience involves a fair amount of potential friction each day, but also help fairly close at hand. The problem is that potential friction can become real friction fairly quickly, and that guns act on much shorter time scales than police response.

From the rural perspective, guns are part of the culture. They can be a means to obtaining food, as well as a significant and satisfying challenge to master. Guns can be a basis for friendly competition (as is often witnessed by road markers). Also, in an area where family is often near, but other help is often far away, guns can be a significant contributor to both perceived and real security.

We tend to approach matters as if the law for one must be the law for all. In general, I agree with this precept, but misapplication of this principle in the case of guns is making life more difficult. We would all be better served with stronger gun control in urban areas, and more flexibility in rural areas. And indeed the law is still the same for all, for each can chose to live in one environment or the other. This is not a issue where we should be counting votes, but instead we should be showing proper consideration to one another, and to the real differences between city and country life, rather than trying to impose an artificial uniformity that serves neither well.

Peace

Sexual Ethics, III

In earlier postings, I've tried to understand how God wants us to use the gift of sexuality. I recognize that my particular position is conservative in some respects, and liberal in others, and probably doesn't suit anyone but myself. So it goes.

In this posting, I want to understand how we as Church deal with individuals who fail to use sexually according to God's wishes.

Promiscuity

This one is relatively easy, from a theoretical point of view:

1 Corinthians 5:9-13 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons—not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.”

There are, of course, practical problems. Although some fornicators (i.e., braggarts) self-report, this can't be relied on. Suspicions may form an adequate basis for proposing counseling, but they're inadequate to initiate church discipline. In particular, the biblical standard (cf., Num 35:30, Matt 18:16, 2 Cor 13:1) requires two or more witnesses, and as fornication is generally done in private with an equally guilty partner, any witnesses would be implicating themselves as well.

Thus, congregations who take this seriously have generally limited themselves to hounding out couples who are publicly “living together” without the benefit of marriage (or engagement, depending on interpretation). But this seems to misdirected. Couples who are living together are (it is to be hoped, at least) in the midst of forming a pair-bond/union. And this isn't what we ordinarily mean by a fornicator, which would be someone who has sexual relations outside of a relationship that could reasonably be expected to mature into long-term pair-bond/union, e.g., someone who has multiple partners within a relatively short period of time.

The imperative to forgive makes dealing with sinners in the church problematic, fornicators included. We want to believe that repentance is possible; we want to be receptive to God acting in the sinner to heal and reform them. When asked how often we should forgive, Jesus once said seventy-seven times. Undoubtedly there are fornicators who would exceed even this limit, but I don't believe that Jesus's intent was for us to keep score. It seems that about the best we can do is to throw notorious fornicators out, let a reasonable time (e.g.., a year, which is roughly equal to 1/77ths of a normal human lifespan) pass for reflection, and then let them petition for re-entry by providing evidence of repentance.

Divorce

It would seem the divorce is much like promiscuity in terms of church discipline, but it actually seems quite different. In my confession (ELCA) divorce/remarriage is discouraged, but not necessarily viewed as a disciplinary matter, although I suspect a pattern of divorce and remarriage would be. I suppose that the theory here is that the church should be present for all, and what matters is that people are making a good-faith effort in the relationships that they're in. A curious reality of confessions that do not excommunicate for divorce is that rarely do you see both members of a divorced couple remain in the same congregation. Almost invariably, one stays, and one goes.

In other confessions, e.g., the Catholic Church, the remarriage is illicit and grounds for automatic excommunication, and the only paths back into the church are annulment of the original marriage, or re-establishment of the original, broken marriage. To an outsider, the practice of annulment feels like selective justice—a remedy whose availability may depend as much on who you know, or how much you're willing to contribute, rather than any objective analysis of the original "marriage." It is important not to prejudge the Catholic Church for how it handles this situation, but I think also useful to be honest about how that process is sometimes perceived, even by people whose predilection is to give the Catholic Church every benefit of doubt.

Here again, I could imagine a church that handled divorce along the lines that I suggested for simple promiscuity: an appropriate period of separation for reflection and amendment, and then an opportunity to rejoin under the status quo. I am not aware of any church that handles the issue this way.

Clergy Sexual Misconduct

This is a difficult issue, which is often associated in the public mind with the Roman Catholic Church. This is grossly unfair, as every church has had to deal with this problem.

The way various church bodies have chosen to react depends a lot on the framing of the problem. I've heard of two extraordinarily different framings. I know that there are others.

Abuse of Power This framing holds that clergy sexual misconduct occurs through an abuse of power by the clergy member, who holds the office of the keys in some confessions, and is the personal representative of God in others. The model come-on line in such cases is "God wants us to be together," through which a clergy member leverages their spiritual role into an intimate role.

Enticement This framing holds that clergy become involved in sexual relationships because someone whom they are counseling exploits the clergy member's empathy.

I suppose we are all constrained by our experiences. I ended up on my local synod's advisory committee for women, and as such, was sent as a synodical representative to the original VOCAL conference (Victims of Clergy Abuse Link-up) in '92. While there, I heard a number of presentations by individuals who had been involved sexually with clergy, and felt abused by it. Surprisingly often, two such victims would discover with shock that they'd had the same clergy "partner." These stories had an authenticity, and as such a tremendous impact on all who heard them. I also heard Marie Fortune give a very powerful talk on power relations and sexual misconduct. This made a powerful impression on me, because it provided a strong theoretical way to understand issues of faculty/student sexual relationships, and what felt instinctively wrong to me about them, too.

So, obviously enough, I came to favor the first framing, and still do. True consent is only possible in a context in which there is not a strong asymmetry of power within the relationship. Obviously, clergy hold power over their flock, just as professors hold power over their students. True consent is not possible in either case. This often puts me at odds with some of my colleagues (who would structure University policies so as to provide licit means for faculty/student relationships). Moreover, what I've read, reinforced with the "victim's reunions" I observed at VOCAL, made it clear to me that the recidivism rate among clergy who have abused their flock is quite high, and that it is extraordinarily difficult even for leaders of good will and discernment to reliably determine who has been "rehabilitated," and who has not.

It seems to me that we should, in a spirit of Christian forgiveness, provide an opportunity for clergy who have so transgressed to return to the church, but there is no reason any confession should accept the risks associated with their continuance in ministry. I recognize that this creates a particular problems for confessions (such as the Catholics) which interpret ordination as sacramental, but this is how it must be for the safety of all, and for the integrity with which the gospel is preached and the sacraments offered.

This sort of consideration, by the way, is a good part of the reason why I would never choose to be a part of any "independent" congregation. It seems to me that clergy discipline can only be maintained in the presence of a synodical structure. And it is a matter of concern to me that the bishops (and here I mean in the Lutheran Church, as well as other confessions) are often expected to be administrators more than pastoral leaders in their own right. For it is the bishop's primary function to be a pastor to the clergy who serve under them.

Peace

Fruits of Ecumenism

The ELCA is in full pulpit and altar fellowship with the Episcopalian Church, i.e., a congregation of either confession can call a pastor/priest from the other. I've thought this was a hypothetical adjunct to the ecumenical process, but no longer—I have a concrete instance of this having been done, and the person so called is an long-time (I would not say "old"...) and dear friend.

He was called jointly to two congregations, an ELCA congregation and an Episcopalian congregation in the same town. It's an area of great natural beauty, and a sizable proportion of the people who live in the area do so only during the summer. A joint call represents a great solution to their joint challenges.

Ordinarily, the congregations worship separately, but my wife and I were privileged to attend the first service at which they worshipped together. The Episcopalian congregation had previously arranged to hold their picnic at a local park. They decided to have the worship service as a part of that picnic, and to invite the Lutherans to both. So we worshipped in the Episcopalian style in a beautiful park overlooking an inland sea, and later enjoyed a very lovely church picnic, with Episcopalian brats and hamburgers. A great time was had by all, and I've heard that the Lutherans have plans to reciprocate.

The challenges of such a situation are worth reflecting on, but I find it delightful that these two congregations can now see the essential unity that they have as Churches of Jesus Christ, while retaining the ability hold on to and enjoy their distinctive traditions. This may be even better than union.

Peace

Sexual Ethics, II

Marriage

At the center of Paul message (in the undisputed letters, anyway) is the radical equality of all who live in Christ. While there are good texts to this effect in 1st Corinthians (e.g., 1 Cor 12:14-26), the classic expression of this radical equality comes from Galatians:

Galatians 3:27-28 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

I think it is important to really get this. Paul was not merely talking about a safe theoretical equality that doesn't require us to do anything differently—we're all the same before God—nor an equality that was limited to what happened within the congregation and its worship—slave, within these walls, you're my brother! He was creating a new society, a society in which everyone is equal, everyone is valued, and everyone is loved. As you read through 1st Corinthians, you'll see over and over again that Paul is battling the Corinthians' tendency to revert from his egalitarian vision to the norms of Roman society: divisions, food sacrificed to idols, sexual exploitation, the privileges of the rich, etc. And nowhere in the day-to-day life of a society are its norms more frequently encountered, or more rigorously enforced, than within marriage.

Roman society was built around the notion of power, the notion that some people had the right to do certain things to certain other people, or make those others do things for them. For the Roman, the law existed to define who had power, justice consisted of the unfettered application of the rights of power, and the legions existed to deal with anyone who resisted the perquisites of power. Within Roman marriage, men held power, and women did not. It was really that simple. The woman's role was to serve the man, and to be used by the man. Whatever power the woman had, e.g., over the domestic economy of the house, was delegated to her by the man, and the man could take that power away, or even cast her away entirely, if he chose. Women had no corresponding rights. In effect, women were property.

Christian society, as envisioned by Paul, is based on love, and radical equality. A Christian marriage is not built on power, nor even partnership, but union and love. Such high standards are difficult to obtain, especially when applied retroactively to marriages that formed under the old rules. Clearly the Corinthians struggled with this, at least this is the best explanation that I've heard for the following:

1 Corinthians 11:1-16 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

The claim (and this comes from Borg & Crossan) is that married women were using their new freedom in Christ to practice celibacy, and shedding their veils amounted to a public proclamation of this choice. Understandably, both the choice of celibacy and even more so the advertising thereof would have been deeply shaming to their husbands. But there is nothing new here. How many times have we heard about the abuse of a new freedom? It takes time and experience to learn to use any freedom responsibly and well. It is no wonder that the Corinthians struggled.

I do not doubt that there were loving unions in ancient times, just as there are abusive marriages today. But societal norms change. Sadly, the sense of radical equality advanced by Paul was lost as church and empire compromised with one another. It seems to me that the church, contrary to Paul's teaching, took upon itself the role ensuring that a woman's place in marriage was one of subjugation. This has changed in some of our churches, but not all.

It seems hypocritical to me that some churches decry the damage that has been done to the institution of marriage by the sexual revolution, when they've done far greater damage themselves by preaching and defending an unhealthy (Roman) view of marriage against a healthy (Pauline) view. Indeed, I believe that the sexual revolution has resulted not in a decline of marriage, so much as a winnowing of marriage, with healthy marriages encouraged and deepened, and diseased marriages healed or euthanized.

Homosexuality

I know that my readers are eager to continue the discussion of homosexuality, and Paul's apparent condemnation thereof, which began in Can't Anyone Here Play This Game. I'm sure that you'll all remember the distinction between μαλακός and ἀρσενοκοίτης in 1 Cor 6:9, and the observation from BDAG that what is condemned here are catamite (man/boy) relationships.

I came across an amusing source a few months ago, “Orgy Planner Wanted” on the remainder shelf at Powell's. (For the cognoscenti, that would be the original Powell's, on 57th Street, next to the Metra station.) This book does a fairly broad survey of occupations and lifestyles in the Roman world. It's written in a generally light and humorous style, and therefore is the kind of book that one hesitates to bring up in serious conversation. But it was great train reading, and offered some fascinating information that I think gives tremendous insight into why Paul condemned this particular kind of relationship.

In the Roman (and Greek) world, male-on-male sexual activity occurred between relatively rich men, and vulnerable young boys. Sometimes, this was a simple money-for-sex transaction (i.e., male prostitution), and sometimes it grew out of ‘mentoring’ where an older man would “take an interest” in a young boy. I suspect you already knew this.

But here are some particulars that you might not have known.

These were inevitably temporary relationships, even in the ‘mentoring’ case: the emergence of facial hair changed the older man's feelings towards the younger from desire to disgust. So the boys we're talking about here would have been roughly between the ages of 9 and 15. We all know how Paul felt about intercourse: it created a life-long union through the merger of two into one flesh. Moreover, the older man would have himself already been married, and therefore this was not only a promiscuous union, it was also adulterous.

If it became known in these societies that a male was anal-receptive, then they would lose their citizenship (if they had it). Moreover, they would be taken, stripped, have a radish shoved up their anus with the leaves hanging out, and paraded through town so that everyone knew. There was no corresponding lost of stature for older, penetrating male: Hey, if you want to bonk boys, that's fine by us, just let us know when you find one who's willing, so that everyone can get in on the fun! Thus, a catamite relationship incurred great risks for the boy. If discovered, he was invariably reduced to male prostitution until puberty, and then slavery or death. There was no path to re-entry to society.

So these relationships, practically by definition, were temporary, promiscuous, adulterous, inequitable, and exposed the vulnerable partner to catastrophic risks. You hardly need to get into the ‘ick’ factor to understand why Paul would have opposed such relationships: our obligation as Christians is to support and lift up one another, not to exploit or degrade one another; moreover, we should recognize ourselves as the vessel of God that we are, and not consent to our own degradation.

Finally, I'd like you to consider the following—that other “proof text against homosexuality” from Paul, in light of this discussion:

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

How many times have you read or hear this, and heard in the last line that the crime was the punishment? On one hand, this seems ludicrous, if homosexual sex is the punishment for homosexual sex, then I suspect that most gay guys would say, bring it on! What's the problem here? And why does the church insist on adding other punishments to those that God has already imposed? Perhaps it's a bit different if you imagine a young boy, sick with pain and humiliation as he is marched through the marketplace, naked, with a radish up his ass and its leaves trailing behind like a tail.

The Greek text, by the way, reads “ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν,” literally, “males in males,” which is a good deal more explicit than our squeamish English translations. But what I want to call your attention to is Paul's choice of ἄρσην (male) rather than ἀνήρ (man). Every modern English Bible I have except for HCSB translates ἄρσενες in Romans 1:27 as ‘men,’ which bends the underlying meaning so that it seems targeted against homosexuality as we understand it today, whereas Paul's particular word choice conveys maleness, without conveying adult. It seems particularly worth noting given that Paul uses ἀνήρ forty-three times in the consensus epistles, and ἄρσην only four times—three times in this very verse—so Paul's word choice is very much an intentional choice to convey a nuance that the standard English translations (I suspected equally intentionally) obscure.

So how should we regard modern homosexuality, which is very different from the catamite relationships Paul condemned? Note here that promiscuity is certainly sinful, and nothing that I've written should be taken as supportive of promiscuity, irrespective of sexual orientation. But we also know of dedicated same-sex partnerships that have essentially all of the attributes of healthy Pauline marriages (modulo plumbing): they represent true unions, in which two faithful partners chose to live lives together, sharing joys and sorrows for so long as both live. How should we react to these relationships? Shall judge them by the old taboos, even distorting scripture to do so? Or shall we consider how such relationships impact the people who enter into them?

Matthew 7:18-20 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.

So here at last is the answer. If the fruit is good, so too is the tree that it came from. Lifestyles that support the life and health of the participants, which lift them up, should be supported. Lifestyles that cheapen life, or damage the health of people involved, should be opposed. So put down that cheeseburger, get some exercise, love and serve the people around you, and if you have a partner, give them a good squeeze so that they know that they are loved too.

Peace

A Zwischenzug—Paul

Paul. That's what this post is going to be about—Paul. I'd hoped to get into his radical reinterpretation of marriage, and a discussion of his comments (specifically in 1st Corinthians) regarding same-gender sexuality, but this preliminary discussion of Paul has proven to be quite lengthy, so we'll put those discussions off for tomorrow and beyond.

Although we know a lot about Paul from his letters, it would be helpful if we knew more, because what we don't know raises some interesting questions of interpretation. I'd like to start from a somewhat conservative stance regarding Paul—I will give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to what he reveals about himself 1st Corinthians (and other consensus letters), and will consider evidence from other sources (disputed letters, Acts).

A key initial question regards Paul's own sexual history, because the more we know about this, the easier it is to evaluate what he has to say. We know that Paul was unmarried at the time he wrote 1st Corinthians [1 Cor 7:8]. He also wrote, “It is well for a man not to touch a woman [1 Cor 7:1].” He implies very strongly that he is a practicing celibate, but also that he views the ability to practice celibacy as a gift that not all are given [1 Cor 7:7]. Regarding Paul's celibacy, there are three theories that I am aware of:

1. Paul was a life-long celibate.
2. Paul was a widow, who chose not to remarry.
3. Paul was a non-practicing homosexual.

In favor of option 1 is both Paul's language of ‘gift,’ and the lack of reference to a wife in Paul's letters. This option is sometimes favored by those called to a life of celibacy themselves.

Option 3 is sometimes favored by gay theologians and their supporters. It provides an explanation for both Paul's celibacy (acting on homosexual urges would have been so contrary to his beliefs as to destroy him spiritually), and also a framework for discounting his remarks on homosexuality (“Methinks thou dost protest too much...”). Finally, consider this:

Romans 1:18-27 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

This is worth reading carefully. Paul presents “degrading passions” as God's punishment upon those who “by their wickedness suppress the truth” about God. Paul, as Saul, persecuted the early church, and perhaps he integrated his own desire for sexual contact with men by viewing it as punishment for this phase of his life. Likewise, Paul's description of male-on-male sexual activity seems a bit too explicit: who but gay people think that much about the mechanics of gay sex? It seems to me that these are attractive arguments, if less than compelling.

Finally, we come to option 2. I've heard the claim that Acts attributes a wife to Paul, but I haven't found an unambiguous proof text, and even if I did, I'd discount it without confirmation in Paul's own writing. But I do find some evidence for this proposition in 1st Corinthians. First we have this:

1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Doesn't this sound like a widower who still mourns his wife, and feels aggrieved that she's been taken from him? And his complaint to the Corinthians on this topic seems a bit misplaced, as I can hardly imagine that they would have objected to him getting married. But what if his beloved (and believing) wife died while accompanying Paul on his missions? Then their gain would have been inextricably tied to his loss, and him addressing this complaint to them is a bit easier to understand.

Also curious is his discussion about entering into marriage:

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

Note who can marry, if they cannot practice self-control: the unmarried and widows. Note a missing category? Widowers.

So, perhaps surprisingly, I tentatively favor a “romantic” theory of Paul's sexuality, which builds on option 2: He was married, and had a wife that he loved deeply. His marriage was unusually equitable for his time and place, and his radical views on equality were based on how his own marriage worked, and his esteem for the gifts and worth of women flowed from his esteem for his wife. His wife accompanied him on his early missionary journeys, but died before he started writing epistles. This may have even been causative: without a wife to talk to, maybe he turned to cathartic letter writing. Finally, I suspect that Paul did not believe in remarriage. This ties into slightly later Montanist beliefs that favored celibacy and denied remarriage (c.f. Tertullian). It is worth remembering that the Montanists were distinctly more Pauline than the Roman church of their era, and moreover were based in Asia Minor, where much of Paul's missionary activity took place.

This is perhaps easiest to understand if placed in contrast with one of the relatively few teachings on marriage that we find in the Gospels:

Mark 12:18-25 Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that ‘if a man's brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother.‘ There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children; and the second married her and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. In the resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her.”

Jesus said to them, “Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

In this (and parallel passages in the other synoptics, plus Luke 20:34), Jesus says that marriages are part of our earthly existence, and will not be preserved into the afterlife. Contrast that with this:

1 Corinthians 6:15-17 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, “The two shall be one flesh.” But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.

In this, Paul stakes out a position that is about as far from Jesus's teaching as one can easily imagine. In it, Paul views sexual activity as equivalent to marriage, resulting in a union of flesh, and therefore of person. And indeed, the passage suggests that by a kind of transitivity, if we, who are spiritually united with Jesus, unite sexually with a prostitute, then we unite her with him to our own condemnation. Since Jesus is dead (although resurrected as first fruits of the afterlife) it seems that Paul believed that marriage survives death (and since the Gospels were unwritten, they could not have contradicted him in this view). Moreover, through his sexual contact with his wife, they had become one body, and so she would have continued to live on through him! So he still believed his marriage vows were binding.

As a bit of self-disclosure, I've been married for thirty-one years to a wife whom I love deeply, and with whom I live and have lived a shared life in the Pauline model. So perhaps my preference for the “romantic option” is no different from the celibate's preference for a celibate Paul, or the homosexuals preference for a homosexual Paul. Maybe there isn't enough information to know, and so we recreate Paul according to our own vision, whatever that vision might be. But this is the vision I have, and that vision will matter as I look more deeply into Paul's writings on sexuality in the following posts.

Peace

Sexual Ethics, I

The comments on Can't Anyone Here Play This Game? lead me to hope that a more extended discussion specifically on sexual ethics might be productive.

For the first of these postings, I'm going to set aside scriptural proof texts, along with issues of church discipline, divorce, and abortion, and lay out instead where I stand on some more basic issues, and ask any who want to participate to do likewise. Here is why:

• It is very easy to mine scripture for proof texts that support a priori beliefs, and I believe this constitutes a misuse of scripture. When we turn to scripture, we should be listening to its voice(s), and not trying to impose ours upon it. This is a lot easier if we grant ourselves the license to speak for ourselves first.
• When we do look to scripture, it will be important to distinguish between Paul's culture (e.g.), and our own. This adds a complication to the discussion, and it's better to get our a priori commitments out first.
• If we involve church discipline, we have to discuss forgiveness. This is important, but represents a kind of “exception handling” that greatly complicates analysis. Let's the common cases first, and then worry about exceptions. The same consideration applies to issues like divorce and abortion.

My commitments:

I am big into faithfulness. We should keep the vows we make, and we should expect society to support us in keeping those vows. If our vow is a vow of sexual fidelity to a partner, we need to honor that vow. If our vow is a vow of celibacy, we need to honor that vow. Of course, the usual caveats regarding contracts apply—contracts are valid only if the parties to them are sufficiently mature to understand what they're agreeing to, and if they were free from coercion in making them.

I believe that life presents us with a succession of choices, and we should make each choice based on love for God's creation, ourselves included. Many of the most important choices we make impose great limits on our future behavior, but we can gladly accept those limits because of the benefits we believe will follow from the choice we make. It is important to take the long view. A choice to form a partnership, or to forego forming partnerships at all, is one of the most important life choices we will make.

I believe that if we reserve sexuality for committed partnerships, we enrich them. To indulge in casual intercourse today, at the cost of cheapening a future committed partnership, is a life-damaging decision.

So...

I oppose promiscuity, which cheapens sexuality, and reduces its effectiveness in maintaining a lifelong partnership. That said, it is not a wedding ceremony per se that creates a lifelong partnership, it is the couple themselves. I believe that the conventional tendency to view the wedding as if it was the starting gun for coitus can damage a partnership: the distinction between καιρός and χρόνος applies to couple formation, and a wedding is a χρόνος event. The purpose of a wedding is to obtain public ratification and protection for a pre-existing private contract, which might or might not have already been sexually ratified, and might not be so ratified until long after the ceremony. When this occurs is none of anyone else's business, and sexual activity that might occurs before marriage as a natural part of the formation of a lifelong partnership should not be carelessly confused with promiscuity, nor should a mutual decision to wait be viewed as unnatural.

Nothing in the foregoing is specific to heterosexual partnerships. I believe that people have their sexual orientation hard-wired in, and most folks are AC, a few are DC, and there are fewer still who could “go either way.” As for the later, I believe that a commitment to a partner comes with a decision to set aside the possibility of exploring the “other side” of their sexuality. The choice to “cleave only to one” is the choice to cleave to no other, irrespective of gender. I believe that folks who invoke “natural law” to condemn homosexuality (or heterosexuality, and yes, I've heard this too, and not just in La Cage Aux Folles) as “unnatural” are making the mistake of believing that everyone is just like they are (or, at least, everyone should be just as they are), and that this is an all too common and uninteresting kind of petty hubris.

Heterosexual partnerships come with the additional complication that their sexual activity may produce children, which can be either a great blessing or a great curse. Heterosexual couples have a responsibility to manage the reproductive consequences of their sexuality, and the joys and challenges that come if they do have children.

I also believe that partnerships should support the health of both partners. This results in all but inevitable sexual tension within partnerships, since it is a rare partnership indeed in which the sexual desires of both partners remain in sync at all times. In a healthy partnership, this discrepancy gets negotiated out (not necessarily verbally), so that each partner feels reasonably satisfied, and neither partner feels abused. Similar tensions exist over money, space, time, etc. I don't believe that it is possible in a healthy marriage for one partner to be rich, and the other partner to be poor. There must be balance, and a deep sense of a shared life, with shared joys, and shared challenges: we're in this together, come sunshine or storms.

Peace

Can't Anyone Here Play This Game?

Today was the fourth of four discussions at my congregation on the ELCA's draft sexuality statement. Something odd happened, which I'd like to recount.

A member of the congregation—one of those who in the language of the statement is, “on the basis of conscience-bound belief ... convinced that same-gender sexual behavior is sinful, contrary to biblical teaching and their understanding of natural law,” read 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 from the RSV. I'm sitting there with my laptop, trying to catch up. So I switch to the RSV, and do a word search for “homosexual,” a word that was emphasized in her reading. It's not there—anywhere in the entire RSV—so I search by verse, find it, and am left wondering whether she'd added the word herself. Here's what I had:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

No “homosexuals” there. So I show it to her after class, and she shows me her RSV— and there it is, “homosexuals” where “sexual perverts&rdquo is in mine. A quick check of the copyrights shows a 1952 copyright on her RSV, and a 1971 copyright on mine. There's also a very strange footnote in the 1952 RSV, “Two Greek words are translated by this expression.” Since I was the cantor at the next service, I didn't have time to dig any further, so off I went.

One thing that was really strange about this, and struck me as strange at the time, was her insistence when she read the passage on both the RSV version and the 1952 copyright. In retrospect, I believe she was aware that there were multiple editions of the RSV, and that they differed in how they translated this particular passage. Her purposes were better suited by her edition's language. And so she viewed the 1952 translation as authoritative, and subsequent changes as reflecting the efforts of those who would dilute God's word to excuse their own sinful behavior.

After service, I go back to the laptop, and check out Nestle-Aland (the current best version of the original Greek text), search out the underlying words, ἀρσενοκοίτης and μαλακός, and look at their respective entries in BDAG—A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition—a standard reference work for New Testament studies. I can't say that the resulting entries will set your hair on fire, but if you're used to this kind of reference, you'll recognize that it is not for lack of trying.

BDAG is pretty graphic in terms of what is actually intended: μαλακός refers to the passive partner in male-on-male anal intercourse, and moreover emphasizes that this likely refers to catamites, an English word that wasn't part of my vocabulary until today. According to Wikipedia, a catamite is “the younger partner in a pederastic relationship between two males, which was a popular arrangement in many areas of the ancient world.” Websters gives a different, but supporting gloss, “a boy kept for unnatural purposes.” OK, I knew the concept and the context, if not the particular word. But BDAG goes further, taking a calculated swipe at two major translations of 1 Cor 6:9: “ ‘male prostitutes’ NRSV is too narrow a rendering; ‘sexual pervert’ REB is too broad.”

The definition of ἀρσενοκοίτης complements that of μαλακός, it refers to the dominant (and, in the likely case of a pederastic relationship, elder) participant in male-on-male anal intercourse. Moreover, the criticism of particular translations really ratchets up here: “on the impropriety of RSV's ‘homosexuals’ [altered to ‘sodomites’ NRSV] s. WPetersen, VigChr 40, '86, 187–91; cp. DWright, ibid. 41, '87, 396–98; REB's rendering of μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται w. the single term ‘sexual pervert’ is lexically unacceptable.” This is pretty dense, in keeping with the style of the reference, citing with specificity two scholarly articles regarding the proper interpretation of ἀρσενοκοίτης, contradicting the translation(s).

For a neutral, scholarly text, this is remarkable language: ‘impropriety’ is a hapax legomenon in BDAG, a word that occurs only this one time; ‘unacceptable’ occurs only four times, and in each of the other three occurrences, it is used in defining the lexical entry, rather than as a commentary on a translation's word choice. These are, within the confines of this kind of scholarship, fighting words.

I've also looked at every occurrence of ‘RSV’ and ‘NRSV’ in BDAG, and there is not a single other occurrence in which the author (presumably the most recent reviser, Fredrick William Danker) criticizes either translation. Likewise, the REB, which gets it coming and going in this sequence, although often cited in BDAG, otherwise escapes anything that resembles pointed criticism.

And it's not as if unnamed translations do any better. ‘Homosexual’ is used by the NIV, NASB, NAS95, GWORD, ESV, HCSB, NET, NLT. ‘Sodomites’ is used by NJB. I suspect that the only translations that would evade criticism from Danker for mistranslation are Messsage and BBE, both of which are be too vague to inform discussion or behavior. It appears that pretty much every English-language Bible does a disservice to the reader in translating 1 Cor 6:9. With apologies to Casey Stengel, can't anyone here play this game?

This is why I believe it is important to learn Greek, and to be willing and able to refer to the original texts, and to be willing and able to refer to the scholarly resources that are available. Because an error of superficial scriptural literalism, for which this passage constitutes the major proof-text, has resulted in the full or partial alienation of a significant fraction of the population from our churches.

As for the inconsistent readings of 1 Cor 6:9 with the RSV that got this whole ball rolling, it turns out that there were two major editions of the RSV, and the term ‘homosexuals’ was changed to ‘sexual perverts’ in the 2nd edition. Strangely, while the introduction to the 2nd edition talks about many of the changes that were made, it is mute on 1 Cor 6:9. I didn't know.

Peace

Farmers Market

For those of us who live in sub/urban areas, farmers markets are a gift from the Lord. Down in Florida, where my parents live, the farmers markets are closed for the summer—it's just too hot. Naturally, up here in the land of two-seasons (winter and road-repair), ours just opened. And so starts a weekly ritual that will take my wife and me through October.

Saturday mornings. Caribou coffee, and a chat with a group of men from the church who meet there every Saturday morning, year round. Then off to the farmers market. We'll buy veggies from the two ladies, from the man and his mom, and from sad guy: green beans, zucchini, yellow squash, green peppers, cilantro. Later in the season, there will be watermelon and sweet corn, then spaghetti and acorn squash. There's the jam lady, my first stop. Yum!! If you see her, make sure to get some of the raspberry-orange and bitter orange marmalades. Then the breads: ciabbata, raisin-pecan baguettes, sourdough and multi-grain boules. The cheese guy started coming last year. I picked up a nice piece of chipotle-cheddar for kicks, but he also has craft farm cheeses that are unbelievable. You can't get everything all at once! Pace yourself!! There were two nice additions this year: a young couple from Michigan selling fruits and berries, and a couple of women from in town selling the most amazing flower bouquets, lettuces, and herbs, grown in backyard gardens. I'd love to see those gardens!!

The seasons turn, life is good.

Peace

Paul's Christology

The Apostle Paul was no Trinitarian. I do not say this to question or discredit Trinitarian theology, or to discredit Paul. He was a man of his time and place, and while the theology of the Trinity finds scriptural support (even in Paul's writings), it is much more a product of the fourth century than the first. So what did Paul believe about Jesus?

I'll restrict my exploration to Crossan's "First Paul" list: Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, 1st Thessalonians, Galatians, Phillipians, and Philemon. My feeling is that this list includes enough material of sufficient variety to give a reasonable level of insight into Paul's thinking, even if you think that Crossan's analysis is dubious. If you think this list is unrepresentative, feel free to create your own.

Here are some attributes that Paul ascribes to Jesus:

Attribute	verse count
Christ	105
Lord (κυρίος)	69
Son of God	3
Paschal Lamb	1
Rock	1
Image of God	1
God	??

The question marks about God come from the fact that Paul never says “Jesus is God” but he often speaks of “God through Jesus Christ” or “God in Jesus Christ.” How you count these is up to you, but I think that what is actually happening here is Paul saw Jesus as a human, adopted by God, in whom God chose to be uniquely present. For those who enjoy a more technical theology, this is a kind of unidirectional, non-Trinitarian, perichoresis. But I also see this as falling short of an actual identification of Jesus with God, or viewed Jesus Christ as a co-equal person with God the Father.

The closest I can find in this corpus to a statement actually equating Jesus with God is this:

Philippians 2:6-11 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death— even death on a cross.   Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

But as the indentation suggests (and this is even clearer in Nestle-Aland's Greek New Testament), this passage takes the form of a hymn, and it's not immediately clear whether Paul wrote it, or is quoting it. My intuition is that it differs enough in Christology from what I see elsewhere in Paul that he is quoting it despite its Christology, because it supports the point he wants to make: Christ was humble, so you should be humble too.

A particularly interesting passage is the following:

1 Corinthians 15:19-28 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.

This is not easy reading, and it's worthwhile reading carefully, making sure you've sorted out each of the pronominal references. Note also the very end—“When all things are subjected to him (God the Father), then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one (God) who put all things in subjection under him (God), so that God may be all in all.” It's not easy to reconcile subjugation of Christ to God (the Father) with Trinitarian theology.

I believe that Paul never stopped believing himself to be a Jew. Yes, he had a particularly mission to the Gentiles, and yes, he was an apostle of Christ, but I believe he never viewed this role as inconsistent with his Judiasm. And so he was intellectually committed to one God, but also a heavenly host with God, which includes angels, (perhaps as a separate person) the Holy Spirit, and that he incorporated Jesus Christ within this heavenly host.

Indeed, I think that the following is particularly telling:

Romans 1:1-4 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Got that? Declared, not begotten. Indeed, in this corpus, the Greek word that is sometimes translated as begotten (γεννάω), occurs only six times, and never refers to Jesus Christ. On the other hand, “promised beforehand” suggests Jesus's role was intended prior to his birth. This, I hope, is not too scandalous, after all, Paul often places flesh in contrast with spirit, in some ways paralleling Jesus's contrast of baptism by water vs. spirit. So I suspect that Paul's theory of the origins of Jesus, were that Jesus was born of women in flesh, in the usual way, but adopted through the Spirit as the Son of God, pre-existing in intent, revealed in prophesy, but not pre-existing as a distinct person of God.

As is this:

Romans 8:34 Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us.

Again, got that? Jesus is at the right hand of God, i.e., the foremost of God's companions, his principal lieutenant within the heavenly host. But the companions are not equal to the King, they are subject to the King, as Paul saw Christ subject to God.

Where do we go with this? I don't know. The Trinitarian consensus runs deeply through Christianity, and is not something to be rejected just because it wasn't worked out (or articulated) in the first few years of the Christian era. Perhaps working this out and understanding helps in understanding why there were so many heresies through the first four centuries, and that orthodoxy evolved, and was not handed down whole. Perhaps it is worth remembering that Trinitarianism is a human attempt to penetrate the great mystery of God, and the relationship between God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and that while it explains much, perhaps other models have their utility too. In particular, the Christology I attribute to Paul makes the gap between Judaism and Christianity seem much narrower than it is at present, and perhaps even capable of closure. This is an ecumenical pipe dream, but what man cannot do, God can do.

Peace

Redemptive Death

Kirby and I got into a brief discussion of the Battle Hymn of the Republic in the comments to American Civil Religion. A big part of that brief discussion was the bowdlerization of the hymn that has taken place over the century and a half since it was written.

While I still find the Hymn to be beautiful and moving, I've come to see it also as a seductive and dangerous piece of propaganda, which intentionally interleaves Christianity with the American Civil Religion, using the former to legitimize the later, and to encourage its listeners to confuse the two. I'd like to take apart one little piece of the Hymn, which I think is a key to understanding.

The original fifth verse of the Hymn was:

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me: As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, While God is marching on.

The fourth line of that verse (italicized) is often rendered these days as “... let us live to make men free.” Kirby and I both commented on this—both of us preferring the original. I said that the original “explicitly acknowledged the sacrifices the troops were expected to make,” while Kirby described it as “sadder.” We're both right, but I think we both missed the point that makes the original so potent, and so dangerous.

Consider the full phrase, “As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.” This explicitly sets up an equivalence between Christ's death on the cross, and death on the battlefield, and in particular, between Christ's redemptive or sanctifying death (i.e., a death that frees men from sin, and thereby makes them holy), and the Union soldier, whose purposeful death on the battlefield might hasten the abolition of slavery. Stated more bluntly, the equivalence claimed is between the formative event of Christianity (real religion), and what an individual might hope to achieve on behalf of the state (i.e., within the ersatz civil religion).

I think it is worthwhile to turn to Drew Gilpin Faust's brilliant “This Republic of Suffering,” which analyzes how dying and death were experienced within, and changed by, the Civil War. Soldiers in the Civil War expected to die. Whether Union or Confederate, they felt their cause was just, and that it was worthwhile for them to sacrifice their life to advance that cause. But soldiers also knew that there were many forms that death could take, most of which were not purposeful in the sense of advancing their cause, e.g., deaths by disease, which were approximately twice as likely as deaths due to combat.

Shocking as it may seem to our ears, the phrase “let us die to make men free” expresses a hope, which is rational if the alternative is a purposeless death. Moreover, and this is where I think the Hymn becomes most intensely problematic, the parallels that are set up imply that death in combat is not merely purposeful, but redemptive if the cause is just, and indeed redemptive specifically for the individual who makes that sacrifice. In other words, the Hymn argues that an individual might gain eternal salvation by sacrificing their life on behalf of political goals of the state. You might ask, “Where does the Hymn mention individual salvation?” It doesn't need to, because it set up exactly the parallels that will cause its listeners to recall this:

Matthew 16:25 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.

This is how a religion of non-violence gets twisted to justify violent action on the part of its believers.

So, who cares? Lutheran's would say, “we are justified by faith through grace,” and therefore would seem to be immune to the theological overreaching of the hymn. If we're not saved by works, we're certainly not saved by our own death. Certainly, these days, no one would buy into such propaganda, and it was in a good cause anyway. Right?

9/11

Peace

An Immigration Debate

The alien comes to this land to reside.

It's not fair, saith the conservative, that this man enjoys the benefits that come from living in our land, which we provide for out of our taxes and our military service for the good of all who live here. It's a good argument, and therefore the laws are written in such a way that alien is obligated to pay taxes, and to serve if called, and these obligations (and the state machinery for receiving them) are decoupled from the legality of his residence here.

It's not fair, saith the liberal, that this man pays into the common treasury, and serves at our call, yet is not entitled to the benefits that come from these contributions for the common good. It's a good argument, and therefore many (but not all) of the benefits that come from living in our land are made available to the alien. But since it is a good argument, that is the direction things tend to go.

It's not fair, saith the conservative, that this man should be allowed to convert his status from citizen de facto, to citizen de jure, because his coming here was tainted with the original sin of illegality of undocumentation.

At which point, the liberal saith, “This sin, as you call it, you were willing to overlook when it was in your interest to do so—when you wanted lettuce and tomatoes picked, when you wanted taxes for our treasury, when you wanted soldiers to fight in our war. Do you not understand the notion of precedent? Now, having overlooked his so-called sin of undocumentation when it was in your interest to do so, you have an obligation to overlook it when it is in his.” It's a good argument.

And what does the Lord say?

Exodus 12:48 If an alien who resides with you wants to celebrate the passover to the LORD, all his males shall be circumcised; then he may draw near to celebrate it; he shall be regarded as a native of the land.

Leviticus 19:33-34 When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Numbers 15:29-30 For both the native among the Israelites and the alien residing among them—you shall have the same law for anyone who acts in error. But whoever acts high-handedly, whether a native or an alien, affronts the LORD, and shall be cut off from among the people.

Deuteronomy 24:17 You shall not deprive a resident alien or an orphan of justice; you shall not take a widow’s garment in pledge.

Jeremiah 22:3 Thus says the LORD: Act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place.

Malachi 3:5 Then I will draw near to you for judgment; I will be swift to bear witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired workers in their wages, the widow and the orphan, against those who thrust aside the alien, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts.

What did David say?

Psalms 39:12-13 “Hear my prayer, O LORD, and give ear to my cry; do not hold your peace at my tears. For I am your passing guest, an alien, like all my forebears. Turn your gaze away from me, that I may smile again, before I depart and am no more.”

As David realized, we are all aliens, because this is not our land. It is God's land. And we belong to God's kingdom, not as citizens by birth, but as naturalized resident aliens, through rebirth and adoption.

Peace

The Saved and the Lost

I just did a word search for various forms of the words “saved” and “lost” in the Bible. (As an aside, having a good program for searching the Bible, and knowing how to use it, is a real joy. I use Accordance, and recommend it highly.)

Briefly, here is what I found. In the Old Testament, there is a lot of saving and losing, but you're saved or lost in ordinary life. You can be saved from your enemies generally (e.g. Numbers 10:9, Deuteronomy 33:29, 1 Samuel 4:3, and many others), the Philistines specifically (1 Samuel 7:8, 2 Samuel 3:18, etc.), lions (1 Samuel 17:37, Psalms 22:21, Daniel 6:27), and other temporal threats.

It is in Jesus's teachings that we first see the words saved and lost used in contexts that extend beyond ordinary life, e.g.,

Mark 8:35 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.

The issue, of course, is with that second occurrence of “save,” which it seems can only refer to some transcendent notion of salvation, rather than to an ordinary, temporal salvation. John seems even more explicit in a parallel verse:

John 12:25 Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

This is interesting to me, precisely because it tests my world view, which is that Christianity today is too hung up on the notion that our purpose is to seek a good afterlife, whereas I think that our purpose in life is to serve God through love by working for justice and peace in this world. Yet the obvious interpretation of the “eternal life” seems to be the afterlife.

But is it the correct interpretation? Does God look forward to the afterlife? Does God think about what he does in terms of his own salvation? Of course not! God doesn't dwell in the past, because dwelling in the past would mean dwelling on our sin. He doesn't dwell on the future, for he knows that he will be there when it comes. God loves us, and seeks relationship with us in the here and now. He loves eternally, hopes eternally, and seeks eternally. He does not love us to save himself. He just loves us. When we, in love, place someone else first, without thought of ourselves, aren't we living as God lives? Isn't that the eternal life, lived in the present, through our finite selves? Isn't that what Jesus was talking about?

And what do we gain from such an interpretation? Coherence. We align the Old Testament and the New, so that each helps to illuminate the other, rather than contradicting one another. The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament.

Peace

A Novel Theory of Punishment

Robert N. Bellah's article, “Civil Religion in America,” quotes Benjamin Franklin (italics mine):

I was never without some religious principles. I never doubled, for instance, the existence of the Diety; that he made the world and govern'd it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing of good to men; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded either here or hereafter.

I've heard a number of theories of punishment: retribution, opportunity for amendment, framework for rehabilitation, and protection of society. Perhaps you can think of a few others. But I don't believe that I've ever considered punishment on earth as a merciful prophylactic against punishment in the hereafter, as Franklin seems to imply.

Likewise, I think it is interesting that this passage also implies that unrecognized virtue is in some ways superior to recognized virtue, for the latter will find its reward in the afterlife. This, at least, is a more familiar notion:

Matthew 6:1-20 “Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven.   “So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.   “And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.   “When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

“Pray then in this way: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.

For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.   “And whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show others that they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.   “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.

As for the punishment aspect, I find the Franklin hypothesis—punish now, to avoid punishment later—uncomfortable. It seems to me that all arguments of the form, “this for your own good,” should be approached with considerable skepticism.

Peace

American Civil Religion

On the Fourth of July, perhaps the highest of the holy days of the American civil religion, it seems worthwhile to me to reflect on the relationship between US polity and religion. Today I will focus on one aspect of this, the way that universal religious ideas are a part of the constitutive self-understanding of the American republic.

As a starting point, I recommend Robert N. Bellah's article, “Civil Religion in American.”

There is a long tradition of criticizing the civil religion as a false religion. Bellah's article mentions this strand, but takes a more neutral point of view. For my part, I see the civil religion as deeply ambiguous, in that it founds some of what is uniquely the best, and also uniquely the worst, aspects of our republic.

On one hand, our civil religion confesses the reality of God as creator, and ultimate judge of our actions. As such, it stands as a measuring stick against which governmental policies that are purely self-seeking might be judged. For example, the US (at least, post-civil war) has not been a territorial empire, but has been general content with its holdings. Yes, critics might note a few acquisitions of territory, e.g., Puerto Rico and Hawaii, but these seem somewhat anomalous. For example, the same event that resulted in US possession of Puerto Rico also resulted in US possession of Cuba and the Philippines, both now sovereign nations. Likewise, territory conquered in war (again, post-civil war) has generally been ceded back, e.g., Japan was under US occupation after World War II, but it has been restored to full sovereignty, albeit in reconstituted form. To take a more modern example, whatever one might think of the war in Iraq, no one believes that the US has territorial ambitions in Mesopotamia.

On the other hand, our civil religion often leads us to demonize our opponents, and it imbues US policies with an often unconscious self-righteousness. The US truly believes itself to the the new Israel, granted a special role by the creator as a lamp to the nations. Such hubris runs a real risk that we will forget God, and remember only our particularity.

I think it is incumbent on all Americans with true religious commitments (and by this, I mean to more than the ersatz American civil religion) to repeatedly call our government to the better part of it's ideals. To remember that if we are indeed in a special relationship with God, we should be humble, not arrogant. To remember that we are called to protect the weak—the widows and orphans and those dispossessed from the land. To remember that, to the extent to which believe ourselves to be God's chosen, we need to respond as God's people, doing justice, loving kindness, and walking humbly.

Peace

Holocaust of the Pines

I've spent the day with my family, much of it at elevations over 8,000 feet. We hiked around Monarch Lake, in Arapaho National Park.

Some doubt the evidence for global warming. The National Park Service does not. Increases in winter temperatures have meant a greater survival rate for bark beetles, and with it, a higher rate of kills of pine trees. Evidence of their activity was pretty clear as we drove up from Denver, in large reddish brown strips of dead trees, climbing up the mountains.

Five years ago, my wife and I vacationed in Alaska, and saw the exact same phenomenon, albeit at much lower altitudes, and in a much more developed form. In Colorado, the death of the pines will mean ascendance for the aspens, and there will be a more or less reasonable succession. In Alaska, the succession will be more difficult, because the time scales are smaller, and the distance scales larger.

For those who deny the reality of global warming, and what it means with respect to our stewardship of God's creation, I offer this:

Isaiah 45:19c I the LORD speak the truth, I declare what is right.

A War Winds Down

Yesterday, the US pulled combat forces out of the cities of Iraq, according to the timetable negotiated between the Iraqis and US last year. The Iraqis called this “sovereignty day,” which is hyperbolic, but it is an important step in the process. US combat troops remain in Iraq, and are not scheduled to leave until August 2010, with complete withdrawal not scheduled until the end of 2011.

Still in all, this seems like a reasonable time to reflect on war. I'd like to set aside this particular war, since the basic facts of this war are likely to be in dispute, which makes rational discussion all but impossible.

This could be a stepping off point for the more abstract question, “Is there such a thing as a just war?” Moral theorists have debated this for a long, long time.

I'd like approach this from a different direction. As Christianity grew and expanded, it changed. Indeed, within three hundred years, it changed from a religion that confronted the injustices of Roman Empire into the official religion of that very empire. Now, Rome changed too, the accommodation was mutual.

It seems to me that the theology of a just war is a linchpin in this mutual accommodation. After all, empires grow and sustain themselves through war and the threat of war. Christianity became a religion of emperors and soldiers, and nations were conquered by troops carrying the banner of the Prince of Peace.

And I believe that Christianity diluted itself in the process, and lost much of its distinctiveness in God's plan. We should stand as witnesses against the violence of war.

Peace