Double Take (an apologetically lengthy blog entry with lots of quotes)

I have been reading a fascinating book recently. It has really challenged my way of thinking about a lot of things, especially about how I form my views of things, especially homosexuality (not necessarily the conclusions, but how I form my views). For example, read the following passages:

Americans who believed in the Scriptures as unquestioned divine revelation should have been troubled by the growing number of their fellow citizens who seemed willing to live without that belief. The most prominent among those coming to doubt the all-sufficiency of Scripture were savants…, elite literati…, and practitioners of realpolitik… who were turning aside from all a priori authorities, including the Bible. Instead, they were looking to scientific, legal, literary, business, or governmental substitutes to provide the necessary ballast required by what they hailed as an increasingly secular, consumer-oriented, and religiously pluralistic society.

With increasing frequency as the national debate heated up, biblical defenders against homosexuality were ever more likely to perceive doubt about the biblical defense against homosexuality as doubt about the authority of the Bible itself. In the words of Henry Van Dyke… from his pulpit in Brooklyn, “Open and Affirming leads, in a multitude of cases, and by a logical process, to utter infidelity… One of its avowed principles is, that it does not try homosexuality by the Bible; but… it tries the Bible by the principles of love…”

The power of the anti-homosexual scriptural position – especially in a Protestant world of widespread intuitive belief in the plenary inspiration of the whole Bible- lay in its simplicity… Thompson’s message was straightforward: if God through divine revelation so clearly condemned homosexuality… how could genuine Christians attack modern stances against homosexuality as an evil?

It was no coincidence that the biblical stance against homosexuality remained strongest in the United States, a place where democratic, antitraditional, and individualistic religion was also strongest… it was an axiom of American public thought that free people should read, think, and reason for themselves. When such a populace, committed to republican and democratic principles, was also a Bible-reading populace, the anti-homosexual biblical case never lacked persuasive resources… Protestants well schooled in reading the Scriptures for themselves also knew of many other relevant texts…

In Britain, with Bible-believing evangelicals in the lead, scruples supporting a scriptural defense against homosexuality were largely overcome… More generally, Western attachment to ideas of basic human rights, which ironically had been greatly stimulated by… the United States of America, made it increasingly difficult to imagine how prejudice against homosexuals could exist in a modern civilized polity… Christian humanitarianism was trumping biblical traditionalism.

The primary reason that the biblical defense against homosexuality remained so strong was that many biblical defenses for homosexuality were so weak. To oversimplify a complicated picture, the most direct biblical defense of homosexuality were ones that relied on common sense, the broadly accepted moral intuitions of American national ideology, and the weight of “self-evident truth…” More complicated, nuanced, and involved biblical defenses of homosexuality offered more formidable opposition. But because those arguments did not feature intuition, republican instinct, and common sense readings of individual texts, they were much less effective in a public arena that had been so strongly shaped by intuitive, republican, and commonsensical intellectual principles.

Although this debate is worth studying for many reasons, it is pertinent here for how Blanchard advanced the most popular form of the biblical homosexuality argument… Blanchard returned repeatedly to “the broad principle of common equity and common sense” that he found in Scripture, to “the general principles of the Bible” and “the whole scope of the Bible,” where to him it was obvious that “ the principles of the Bible are justice and righteousness.”

These passages fairly clearly lay out two distinct views of homosexuality. One is based on the Protestant and American principles of the primacy and accuracy of the Scripture and of reading Scripture individually and determining the meaning, while the other view is based more on the scope, or arc, of the Bible and the primary principles of mercy and justice. Which side are you on? Which side resonates with you, and which raises your hackles as a shiver runs down your spine? To be honest, I get a shiver of hesitation when I think about arguing not from specific passages but from the “big picture” when so many specific passages address the issue. In other words, I tend to resonate with the structural arguments against homosexuality presented here.

One problem, though. The above arguments were not made regarding homosexuality. They are only slightly modified quotes from Mark Noll’s book “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.” The arguments against homosexuality are constructed the same way that the arguments for slavery were constructed, while the proponents of the acceptance of homosexuality appeal in the same general way as the anti-slavery leaders of the 1800s, such as William Wilberforce.

Read the passages again, only this time unaltered:

By 1860 Americans who believed in the Scriptures as unquestioned divine revelation should have been troubled by the growing number of their fellow citizens who seemed willing to live without that belief. The most prominent among those coming to doubt the all-sufficiency of Scripture were savants like Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., elite literati like William Dean Howells, and practitioners of realpolitik like William Henry Trescot, who were turning aside from all a priori authorities, including the Bible. Instead, they were looking to scientific, legal, literary, business, or governmental substitutes to provide the necessary ballast required by what they hailed as an increasingly secular, consumer-oriented, and religiously pluralistic society. (p 31)

With increasing frequency as the sectional conflict heated up, biblical defenders of slavery were ever more likely to perceive doubt about the biblical defense of slavery as doubt about the authority of the Bible itself. In the words of Henry Van Dyke… from his pulpit in Brooklyn, “Abolitionism leads, in a multitude of cases, and by a logical process, to utter infidelity… One of its avowed principles is, that it does not try slavery by the Bible; but… it tries the Bible by the principles of freedom…” (p 32)

The power of the proslavery scriptural position – especially in a Protestant world of widespread intuitive belief in the plenary inspiration of the whole Bible- lay in its simplicity… Thompson’s message was straightforward: if God through divine revelation so clearly sanctioned slavery, and even the trade in “strangers,” how could genuine Christians attack modern slavery, or even the slave trade, as an evil? (p 33)

It was no coincidence that the biblical defense of slavery remained strongest in the United States, a place where democratic, antitraditional, and individualistic religion was also strongest. By the nineteenth century, it was an axiom of American public thought that free people should read, think, and reason for themselves. When such a populace, committed to republican and democratic principles, was also a Bible-reading populace, the proslavery biblical case never lacked persuasive resources… Protestants well schooled in reading the Scriptures for themselves also knew of many other relevant texts… (p 34)

Between… the early 1770s and the intensification of American debate over slavery six decades later, circumstances in the North Atlantic world shifted significantly. In Britain, with Bible-believing evangelicals in the lead, scruples supporting a scriptural defense of slavery were largely overcome as the Parliament first outlawed the slave trade… then banned slavery in all British territories… More generally, Western attachment to ideas of basic human rights, which ironically had been greatly stimulated by the founding of the United States of America, made it increasingly difficult to imagine how slavery could exist in a modern civilized polity… Christian humanitarianism was trumping biblical traditionalism. (p 35)

The primary reason that the biblical defense of slavery remained so strong was that many biblical attacks on slavery were so weak. To oversimplify a complicated picture, the most direct biblical attacks on slavery were ones that relied on common sense, the broadly accepted moral intuitions of American national ideology, and the weight of “self-evident truth…” More complicated, nuanced, and involved biblical attacks against slavery offered more formidable opposition. But because those arguments did not feature intuition, republican instinct, and common sense readings of individual texts, the wer much less effective in a public arena that had been so strongly shaped by intuitive, republican, and commonsensical intellectual principles. (p 40)

Although this debate is worth studying for many reasons, it is pertinent here for how Blanchard advanced the most popular form of the biblical antislavery argument… Blanchard returned repeatedly to “the broad principle of common equity and common sense” that he found in Scripture, to “the general principles of the Bible” and “the whole scope of the Bible,” where to him it was obvious that “ the principles of the Bible are justice and righteousness.” (p 41).

What!? Double take. You mean the same way I look to the simplicity of the Bible on the issue of homosexuality is the same way many defended slavery? And the way people advocate for acceptance of homosexuality is the same way people advocated for emancipation and human equality?

Obviously, this is an oversimplification of the issue. I encourage people to read Noll’s book not only for the insight in brings on the Civil War, but the intriguing light he shines on American theological development.

I’m not entirely comfortable with the idea of glossing over specific passages on homosexuality to fit some grand understanding of love and mercy and justice. And I’m certainly not comfortable with espousing a view that legitimates slavery in an effort to “plainly read” specific passages from the bible.

And before anyone says it, I know that the two issues are different (one is a sanction and one is a prohibition), and the issues are more thoroughly debatable on both sides. My goal is not to defend slavery or promote acceptance of homosexuality. Since it is not my purpose, I’m not even going to take a side. My motivation in sharing these quotes is to challenge us to realize how we form our beliefs and how we organize our arguments are just as important as what we believe and what we argue. We must be willing to look at not just our individual beliefs, but also our underlying cultural influences (as Noll points out repeatedly regarding the influence of American republican and democratic ideals on theological interpretations) that led us to those beliefs.

A well verbalized explanation of my view on abortion

Frequently, I come across something that makes me say, "Ah ha, that's it!" It is either a picture or verbalization of the complex and elusive thoughts I'm having. I came across one such explantion from psychology professor Richard Beck from Abilene Christian University discussing abortion. I could definitely add something to it, regarding the need for positive and meaningful reasons for abstinence, but for the most part, he verbalizes my unease very well.

The Power of Sacrificial Suffering

Jared shared something incredibly insightful and powerful a week ago, that has really stuck with me. I would go so far as to say that it was a conceptual hanger on which I will be able to hang much spirituality, humanity, and theology.

Paraphrased, we were talking about what the incarnation teaches us, or means to us. He said that it taught him about suffering. He pointed out that there is always going to be suffering. By sacrificing, that person takes on someone else's suffering. The suffering is still there; it still hurts; it doesn't lessen in the sacrifice. But by taking on someone else's suffering, by sacrificing, a creative force is unleashed; a space for love is created, where before there was none. Suffering has the power to generate anger, bitterness, regret, and sorrow on it's own; sacrificial suffering has the power to create love.

That gives a great framework for me to understand what Christ did.

Thanks Jared.

How a Christian song turned me into a humanist...

Well, sort of.

I was randomly singing my favorite song yesterday, which is "Micah 6:8" by Charlie Hall. For reasons I don't fully understand, the lyrics that I have always loved and admired suddenly struck me as not just a powerful call to living right, but as a musical embodiment of a powerful truth, the implication of which came rushing into my brain all at once. Here is the first verse and chorus:

You could feed the whole world with the crumbs of old bread
Spread the good news through dreams and stones
With a breath of the wind You could raise up the dead
But You ask us to go

chorus
Help us love mercy, help us do justly,
Help us walk humbly with You God

I had previously resonated most with the call to action and simplicity of the message. But it suddenly struck me - the song is right. God could have done those things, but instead chose to give us the responsibility. God has shifted the focus of activity from himself (best seen in the 'Creation' account) to humanity. We are not only the focus of activity, but the source of the activity.

That's not to say that I believe God isn't actively involved; I believe that he is. But the ring of 'truth' in the song is impossible to ignore. We, as humans, are called to help our fellow Man become what God has modeled for us in Christ.

While some may bristle at this theological humanism, a few others (often spurred by Jared) and I have been exploring theological humanism for a while now. It doesn't make me abandon God (in a personal, relational way), or even distance God (in a deistic sort of way). In fact, it makes me feel more alive and connected to God to realize the honor and power he has given humanity... and "with great power comes great responsibility."

True, there are huge implications about this thought that has been so succinctly embodied in this Charlie Hall song and that pierces my soul; but I don't shy away from them. I don't feel that I'm abandoning God, only perceptions of God that are not really justified, by the Bible or otherwise. For me, pondering this doesn't make God less real, but actually makes him more real.

I wonder if I will ever start living what I am being convicted of. I wonder if I will ever fully comprehend the implications of the 'truths' embodied in thoughts like this. I wonder what is realistic for me to achieve in my life.

I simply pray to God, daily now, "Help us love mercy, help us do justly, help us walk humbly with you God."

Lord, forgive (and correct) our manipulative fear-mongering

I went to a funeral service today for a friend's dad who passed away from colon cancer. I never knew Bruce. I only came to show my love and sympathy for my friend and his wife. But what I heard there has led to the above prayer.

A older pastor was officiating (I think it was the pastor from where my friend grew up going to church). He never knew Bruce, and repeated that several times; he also stated that he didn't know Bruce's relationship to the Lord. "But," he said, "I have the opportunity to share the gospel with you. In his death, Bruce is giving you an opportunity to know the Lord." He talked about how everyone dies, and that everyone faces judgement. He talked about how we don't know when we are going to die, but that we all will, so we better be ready. "There are some here who would never darken the doorstep of a church, or spend time with me talking about eternity, yet, here we are. In his death, Bruce brings us together to hear the gospel."

There was no mention of Bruce, of celebration of life, of supporting the family; there was no discussion of comfort or hope. There was only talk of death, judgement, and the pastor's "God-given" ability to take advantage of this time to preach the Word.

Thankfully, Bruce's aunt got up (uninvited) and spoke of the great life that he lived. Then, his uncle got up and gently but directly chastised the pastor for only talking about death, and spoke to his life.

Lord, forgive, prevent and correct your church's manipulative fear-mongering.

Opting out of the "American Dream"

If I were to say, "I'm considering opting out of the American Dream," I would likely be confronted with several questions. The most common would likely be, "Why?" One friend asked, "What is the American Dream?" My first question would be "Is it even possible to opt out of the American Dream?"

This jumble of questions and thoughts was spurred by the previously mentioned speaker, Shane Claiborne. To make sense of the idea of opting out of the American Dream, I think that all of the above questions have to be wrestled with.

The most basic starting point is defining the American Dream. And that, of course, is hard to do. Most would broadly define it as wanting a better life for yourself and your children. To that extent, I actually think that that is not an American Dream, but the Dream of Jesus. It is the particular way in which Americans seek that dream that is so disheartening.

Some define it with a tableau: A nice house with two cars in a two-car garage, a white picket fence with a nice yard, kind neighbors, good schools, sidewalks, and street lights. A two parent home with 2 or 3 (the statistical 2.5) children. This tableau, while nice and attractive, betrays a lot of prejudice and selfishness. How? Well, for example, the ever-prominent fence in the tableau indicates that division and separation (segregation?) are valued. The proverb that "good fences make for good neighbors" only makes sense when you have a strong sense of private (selfish?) property and value isolation. (As a contrast, in Norway, where I spent a summer, there are only fences to keep livestock/animals in check, and there are no trespassing laws; while people "own" the property, the society acknowledges that the use of that property -for hiking or camping, let's say- should be shared by all.) It says, what is mine is mine and not yours, and don't think of using it. And the fact that the tableau has a family that is barely recognizable in America anymore, inherently excludes singles, the divorced and widowed, and the growing complexity of relationships that share life together.

Another way of explaining the American Dream is functional. Looking back through history, and tracing the development of the suburbs (wherein the above American Dream tableau resides), one can see that the pursuit of the American Dream is a process of getting more (private) land, building bigger (extravagant?) houses, and leaving areas of poverty and hurt to start fresh. Essentially, as my best friend put it, the American Dream functionally says, "To hell with you and all your poverty, hurts, pollution, and decay, I'm outta here." It is the exact opposite pursuit from that of a life practicing resurrection.

I'm sure people who are striving for or are proud of having "achieved" the American Dream would ever overtly state those things. As someone who is currently engaged in that pursuit, I can attest to that. But it seems clear to me to be implicit in the American Dream.

So, as to "Why opt out of the American Dream?" There are many more reasons, such as sense of community, and economics, but if I were to sum it up for me right now, I would say that I'm trying to opt out of the American Dream to practice resurrection and live in community with those around me in the Way of Jesus. What does/will that look like? I don't know, but I'm excited about it, and thankfully, I have several brothers and sisters in Jesus who are also trying to opt out of the American Dream.

The one remaining question left unanswered for me: Is it even possible? I am hopeful that I can, at least to some extent. There are groups of people trying to. The Christian Community Development Association is a resource for those who are interested in being intentional with community. I think their three keys are a good start for me to consider: Relocation, Redistribution, and Reconciliation.

May God have mercy on us all as we strive to incarnate His body. Amen.

Practicing Resurrection

On Sunday, April 1, 2007, I got to hear Shane Claiborne share some powerful thoughts about living the life of an ordinary radical at Wide Eyed Life. He is part of a faith community called The Simple Way in Philadelphia. I could go on and on about how he and his book (Irresistible Revolution: Living the Life of an Ordinary Radical) have influenced me. More accurately, he and his book have given validation and expression to where my faith journey has been going already.

One of several things that Shane mentioned that has really stuck with me is that he and his friends try to “practice resurrection.” What a word picture. One of the central tenets of Christianity is the concept of renewal, with a hope of resurrection. It is hard to understand and see, since we don’t see physically resurrected people walking about town (at least I don’t recognize any!). But, our faith can grow through the process of seeing other things resurrected. It gives us hope and helps us understand it a bit better. For example, when someone repairs and remodels an old house, people can see the resemblance to the original, and yet it is different, beautiful, new, and vibrant. Sometimes walls are town down and put elsewhere, but in general, the floor plan is the same; yet it is almost unrecognizable. Doesn’t that describe the common understanding of the “final” resurrection?

So what does it mean to “practice resurrection?” Well, for one thing, it means to be involved in a renewal project, whether it be a house, a neighborhood, an economy, or someone’s career or spiritual life. Shouldn’t Christ-followers be involved in the same activities that Jesus was involved in? From the beginning, Jesus was involved in creation. But Jesus incarnated to re-create (renew, resurrect) things around him. But practicing resurrection also develops and exercises our faith in the concept of resurrection. If we believe that an old, run-down house can be resurrected, and we work to make it happen, we begin to see how our own resurrection is both currently, and ultimately, taking place.

May God grant me the strength to live a life where I practice resurrection.

Armpit Jesus (and other insights from the stories we tell ourselves)

I was at a Bible study last night, and a father of two young children was sharing some thoughts about celebration in Christianity. In the process, he shared a couple of stories about his 3 or 4 year old daughter, and that triggered a remembrance of another story. All three stories about young children’s thought formation about Jesus and God are extremely revealing of our Christian culture.

I remember one couple sharing their amusement and slight chagrin about the fact that their young son was absolutely terrified of Jesus. When asked why, the boy explained that he was afraid that Jesus was going to sneak in to the house at night and take him away, since Jesus was “everywhere” and “could go anywhere” and actually knew who the boy was, even though he was invisible. That phase lasted a little too long for his parents’ comfort

Last night, two similar stories were shared. His (three year old) daughter went through a phase where every time Jesus was mentioned, she would get angry, and she would say she was mad at Jesus and didn’t like him. “Really? Why?” asked her parents. “Because I have asked Jesus to come and live with me and he hasn’t.” (How can you argue with that?)

Later, his daughter went through a phase where she refused to talk about allowing Jesus into her heart. She didn’t like him, and didn’t want him in her heart. One day, the speaker came home and his wife excitedly told him that his daughter had made great progress. “Has she asked Jesus into her heart?” he asked hopefully. “No. But she has decided that he can live in her armpit.”

Though very amusing, these stories tell us a lot about how we adults think and believe. Can we blame children for their naïve assumptions? Though stories like these abound, I have never heard of a child seeing an act of service by someone, and asking if that person was Jesus. Children can’t see Jesus except in us. Explaining to young children that Jesus loves everyone, including a little child, needs to be done with actions, not words.

More than my child saying that they love Jesus (which is too abstract for very young children and even some adults), I hope that any of my future children, when they are young, will say that they want to be like Jesus, and act like it too.

Letting the Light Shine

Today I had the opportunity of worshipping with an emerging church plant called The Center. It was great getting to know new people with similar hearts.

The leader shared some thoughts from John 12:44-50. He focused on verse 46: "I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness" (NIV).

First of all, I find this a very powerful proclamation of Jesus declaring himself to be the Messiah. In Isaiah 49:6, referring to His Messiah, God states, "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth" (NIV). This statement would have induced quite a bit of fervor among the crowd. This description of the Messiah was well known to the Jews of Jesus' day.

But that is a side note. In the discussion, we talked about how darkness is not an entity unto itself. It is simply the absence of light. We talked about letting that light shine into all corners of our lives. And then the pastor asked the question, "What does it mean to give things over to Jesus?" (roughly paraphrased). It got me thinking. It is not enough just to turn on the light to see the problems, make a list of things to do, and start the process of cleaning. Those areas don't just need to be "cleaned" in the Light; they need to be inhabited with faithful actions. A parable that Jesus tells comes to mind, from Luke 11:24-26 (NIV):

24"When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' 25When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. 26Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first."

I think The Message gives a good idea of the gist of the statement:

"When a corrupting spirit is expelled from someone, it drifts along through the desert looking for an oasis, some unsuspecting soul it can bedevil. When it doesn't find anyone, it says, 'I'll go back to my old haunt.' On return, it finds the person swept and dusted, but vacant. It then runs out and rounds up seven other spirits dirtier than itself and they all move in, whooping it up. That person ends up far worse than if he'd never gotten cleaned up in the first place."

Vacant. I like how The Message phrases that. Our lives can be as "clean" as can be, but if it is vacant, if we are not letting the Spirit inhabit every part of our lives, there is still an absence of light, and more evil can sneak back. In fact, having one problem is better than getting rid of the problem, cleaning up an area of life, and then still leaving it free of God.

To me, giving something over to Jesus doesn't just mean letting the light shine onto the dark corners so that I can see them to clean them. It means cleaning it up and letting Jesus dwell there. How? I don't know. By putting prayer prominently in the newly cleaned area? Changing language? Changing routines? Beginning new actions in that area? I have much to meditate on.