Why God Breaks God's Rules

Drifting around in a variety of forms in the sea of ideas in our culture is this persistent kernel that there is a big difference between the contents and meaning of the Old Testament, and the contents and meaning of the New Testament. This idea may be expressed in the word Testament itself which suggests there were multiple different contracts God engaged in with human beings which contradict or overlap with one another. This idea may also be imported into the very identity of God as if we have a God of wrath and judgment on the one hand, and a God of love and peace on the other.

At a surface level I simply concede the point that there are indeed differences between parts of the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament. I believe the differences are usually exaggerated in conversation. The roots of all of Jesus' and Paul's preaching can be found all over the place in the Old Testament. Ideas of peace, and forgiveness, and love of neighbor are prevalent in the Torah and the Prophets. Furthermore, many of the real differences are, in my opinion, cosmetic - more a function of the gap in time between the writing of the documents, shifts in the culture, and the audience for whom the authors were writing than a deep theological divide. There are as many or more differences within the Old Testament itself, or within the New Testament as there are between the two testaments, but it is no skin off my nose to concede that one could easily find apparent conflicts between the Old Testament and the New if you wanted to.

This leads to a big problem though, because it puts us in the silly position of asking questions like "Why does God break God's own rules?" In the Torah God is depicted dictating the laws of the covenant to Moses who writes them down and delivers them to the people of Israel. In the New Testament, God is depicted as Jesus the Christ who comes in person and precedes to dismantle a number of the laws of the Old Testament. Paul and Peter follow suit in proclaiming God's covenant open to Gentiles, even those who follow none of the kosher food laws and who are not circumcised. There are a variety of possible (bad) solutions to this contradiction:

#1 - God changed God's mind. This is the solution of Open Theists and others who argue that God evolves over time and can change her opinion on things. There is Biblical support for the idea that God can change her mind- God does it several times in Genesis alone. To my mind this idea is lacking because it raises our understanding of God above God. It suggests that we understood God correctly then, and understand God correctly now and if the situation has changed the factor which is mutable must be God. As though it weren't more likely that it was we humans of limited perception that had misunderstood rather than that God had been unclear or inconsistent.

#2 - God's Laws Had An Expiration Date. This is very similar to solution #1, it is the idea of dominionists who believe that the history of God's providence is divided into eras and certain rules apply only in their respective era. I can agree with the idea that laws and ideas are contextual - ie: they matter to a certain time and culture in ways they may not to other cultures in other times, but I don't think this way of reading scripture really flies. Firstly, it chops the Bible up in ways that scripture doesn't seem to support. Jesus seemed to believe that his mission was the continuation and fulfillment of God's previous covenants with Israel, not a replacement for them. God's promises to Abraham and David didn't contain expiration dates. This ultimately makes God into an Indian Giver who promises things, but then takes them back after some hidden annulment clause triggers.

#3 - Only Some OT Rules Were From God. This solution basically says God is perfectly consistent, but only some parts of the OT were truly divinely inspired. Others were mistakes. Those mistakes got corrected in the NT and now we have it right. While I am agreed that the Bible isn't a "flat" text, meaning not every verse is equally important, I think this idea is ultimately unhelpful. How can we be sure we know exactly which rules were from God and which ones were not? The entire Torah is supposedly dictated by God directly to Moses. If they got that wrong, why should we believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter and the others got it so right? We can't start going at our Bible with scissors, that undermines the entire idea of inspiration.

All of these solutions are bad in my opinion because they are using the Bible incorrectly. The assumption behind each one of these approaches is that inspiration is in the text, as though it were a mineral to be mined out of the words on the page. All we have to do is use the right tools and we'll get the answer out of there. The truth (God) is contained in the black ink. That is why the solutions above either entail changing our ideas about God (#1) since the text itself seems contradictory we resolve the contradiction by making God flexible to our interpretation; or they involve adding something into the text (#2) like an entire mythological structure to history which makes sense of the contradictions; or they cut out the parts of the text we don't like (#3) until we can force it to make sense.

A better understanding of inspiration is that it is what occurs when the Holy Spirit intervenes between the believer and the text to reveal something true about God. The text is a dead letter. It is nothing but the human record of various people who had experiences of God through the Holy Spirit and tried to write them down. We return to them because of the witness of millions that they receive the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by faithfully engaging with them as scripture. Believers are what get inspired, not books. So here would be my solution to the apparent contradiction of God breaking God's own rules:

#4 - She Doesn't. The rules in Scripture are not God's rules and they never were. They are rules people of faith have written based on their best understanding of God's will. They are rules that people have sometimes followed and sometimes found that they led to a deeper relationship with God. But they are not "the Truth". Only God, revealed in Jesus is "the Truth" - and she is forever transcendent, forever undomesticated, forever surpassing our comprehension. All of our rules, and words, and images, and beliefs, and theologies, are sand mandalas that should be swept away every so often to remind us how fragile and impermanent our ideas about God are. To borrow a parable from Buddhism, we are standing on the shore of a vast lake and we want to get to the other side. Christianity is a raft that will take us to the other side of the lake. We should get into the raft and trust it to carry us across the lake, but when we get to the other side we're going to leave the raft behind, because the raft was never the goal. The raft was a vehicle to get us to the goal - the other side of the lake.

God is Sorry. Wait. No He's Not.

From BeAttitude

Does God ever feel shame and repent for his mistakes? Or is he a perfect God?

God apologizes, feels shame, feels regret, repents for his mistakes and openly admits that sometimes his perfect plan isn’t so perfect.

The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.“
Genesis 6:7

And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
Exodus 32:14

And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
1 Samuel 15:35

The LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?

Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous.”

Then Abraham said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.
Genesis 18:17, 20, 32-33

God is perfect. His ways and his word are without flaw.

As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless.
2 Samuel 22:31, Psalm 18:30

He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.
Deuteronomy 32:4

Conservatizing the Bible

Because the Bible has a well known liberal bias.

A project to authorize a completely conservative translation of the Bible is underway. Their goals include removing later liberal additions, emphasizing the "Free-market parables", and ensuring the hyper-masculinity of the text. I love people like this. They completely remove my need to create straw-men.

I'm curious though, will they rely on the past two centuries of liberal scholarship that has constructed the annotated hebrew and greek manuscripts now universally regarded as the best available source material? Maybe as true conservatives they should use the Vulgate and then they can just write a New King James Version. Oh wait, that already exists.

Getting to Know You

Fill this anonymous survey out so we can know more about who is reading...

Get Rich Biblically

This kind of stuff turns my stomach.

There will always be snake-oil salesman, but when the marketing (read: lying) is pulled from scripture and wrapped in the trappings of Christianity I take personal offense. I spend my life trying to persuade people (including myself) that the meaning of human existence is giving ourselves away in order to be truly found - and then someone like Dave Ramsey comes along and tells my parishioner that God wants them to hoard.

Blessed are the poor, Mr. Ramsey.

Indeed, since you're so concerned about what the Bible says about money, let's take a look.

Against our notion of private property contrast this: The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. (Lev 25:23)

Read that whole chapter about Jubilee which is a regular redistribution of wealth that would pretty much kill our credit economy.

The book of proverbs which you quoted as if it were supportive of your money-management scheme has this to say: He who trusts in riches will wither. (Prov. 11:28)

Jesus is the harshest critic of all. He said, "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon." (Luke 16:13) Mammon means wealth in Aramaic.

"Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20)

"Woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation" (Luke 6:24)

"Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again" (Luke 6:30)

"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth" for "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:19, 21)

The Bible frequently counsels an inner attitude of detachment from wealth, "If riches increase, set not your heart on them." (Ps. 62:10)

But Jesus goes much further instructing the rich young ruler to sell everything he owns (Matt. 19:16-22), and when the man can't he says, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matt 19:24)

"Take heed," Jesus says, "and beware of all covetousness; for a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions... Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail." (Luke 12:15,33)

Between those two verses Jesus tells the story of a rich farmer who hoards a good crop. By our standards he is savvy - Jesus calls him a fool. (Luke 12:16-21)

Pastoral advice about money abounds in the epistles as well.

Paul says, "Those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction." (1 Tim. 6:9)

"Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have; for he has said, 'I will never fail you nor forsake you'" (Heb. 13:5)

Greed is idolatry. It is as bad as adultery and thievery. It is the source of violence; "You desire and do not have; so you kill. And you covet and cannot obtain; so you fight and wage war." (James 4:1-2)

I'll stop here. As I've been admonished before, anyone can use a concordance. It will do no more good to continue piling up quotes.

But this is more than a selective list of proof-texts. This is a dominant, even overwhelming, theme in scripture that is exactly the opposite of what Mr. Ramsey says. He says on his site that money is mentioned in scripture over 800 times, but never bothers to let his readers know that nearly every single time it is in a negative light. It's demonic.

Don't listen to me, though. I'm depressing. Go listen to Dave Ramsey. He can tell you how you can get rich biblically.

Mission-al

Darrell Guder came to speak at the meeting of the Presbytery of Plains and Peaks yesterday evening. He was the principal editor of the book "Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America" which spawned the missional church movement a little more than a decade ago. He is an engaging speaker. This is my summary of what he said with some comments and questions of my own inserted.

According to Darrell Guder, for 1700 years the Church has been doing systematic theology, especially ecclesiology without so much as one word about mission. He doesn't mean that the Church wasn't ever doing mission, but if you think about it - where is the paragraph about mission in any of our creeds or confessions? The first use of the word mission in our Book of Confessions came in 1903 when a paragraph was added to the Westminster Confession - and the idea wasn't really fleshed out until 1967. Think about the major historic theologians - Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin... where are their writings on mission?

To explain this Guder refers to the popular narrative of Christendom which basically goes like this: for the first 2-300 years Christianity was a minority movement about the apostolic project of founding witnessing communities to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Then, around the time of Constantine and following, Christianity became "established" as the official religion. Once institutionalized the radical nature of the movement was subverted and Christianity basically went on its merry way, wedded to the State, for 1700 years until the rise of secular atheism "dis-established" the Church in Europe and America.

That is over-simplistic, but you get the idea. Theology for so long wasn't concerned with mission because mission is what you did "out there". Over here, we were living inside Christendom. We were the already evangelized. The movement had succeeded and was thus finished.

For Guder, and those advocating what they call "Missional Theology" (though the word missional is now just another over-used buzz word), the Church exists as God's community of witnesses in a particular location. The Church exists by mission, as a flame exists by burning - so goes the popular quote. It isn't that we "go" anywhere in order to do "mission". It is that we are either engaged in God's mission all the time or we are not being the Church.

I agree with Guder's basic premises, though I think he is exaggerating the extent to which the Church ignored mission. Vatican II said "The pilgrim church is missionary by her very nature," and I don't think they believed they were saying something new, but merely what was understood all along. That is, even if mission wasn't mentioned in those specific terms I think the Church understood itself to be about doing God's work in the world. It is definitely true, though, that the radical aspects of the movement were compromised by growing institutional security - thus our heightened institutional insecurity now is an opportunity to recapture our radical roots.

But one thing Guder said last night struck me as incongruent. He said that the Bible is God's instrument for creating witnessing communities. I think I tentatively disagree.

First of all, in the early Church the instrument used for creating witnessing communities were the apostles. Paul clearly sees himself as such an instrument. True, he used scripture and (if you credit him with writing 2 Timothy) even said "all scripture is useful," but it was nevertheless him who was using it. Scripture was a tool, but he was the instrument.

Secondly, "the Bible" is different from "scripture". "The Bible" refers to the canon. The canon is a relic of the institutional Church. It comes about as a key part of the process of the Church being established as the official religion of the empire. "Scripture" on the other hand refers to holy writings believed to express the intentions of God.

Doesn't it seem contradictory to suggest that we ought to be recapturing the missionary spirit of the early Church, but then claim the primary instrument for doing so is the central pillar of Christendom?

Not a Sin: Teleology I

The predominant modes of moral reasoning used by those who declare homosexuality a sin are both deontological: divine command ethics, and natural law. Deontology has numerous limitations, which I've yammered on about already, but among these limitations is that it focuses solely on actions. There is no room for consideration of intentions, circumstances and consequences, let alone more complicated moral concepts like identity and virtue. But these things are crucial to moral judgment.

For example, there is a moral difference between a qualified surgeon who takes a knife and cuts someone in order to remove a tumor, but ends up killing the patient, and the exact same surgeon using the same knife with murderous intent. Or what if an unqualified person picks up the knife with the same noble intent as the surgeon to remove a tumor? Or what if the consequence of the action does not result in the patient's death, but only severe injury? What about secondary moral actors in this scenario like nurses? Does a nurse become accomplice to murder by handing an unqualified surgeon a scalpel?

The branch of moral reasoning that grapples with the ends of our behavior is called teleology, or consequentialism. It certainly can be distorted and abused as any ethical approach can. You are probably familiar with the phrase "the ends do not justify the means." It is true that when taken to extremes certain forms of teleology are repugnant. It is a crass and flawed form of utilitarianism, for example, that is usually employed to justify torture. On the other hand, a person would be criminally insane who never considered the consequences of their actions.

Teleology is biblically supportable. The New Testament, especially, emphasizes the principle of "fruits" - meaning consequences. The phrase "by their fruits you shall know them" is a teleological principal. Indeed, the New Testament is highly critical of deontological ethics. Jesus in his sermons, actions and parables routinely criticizes the scribes and pharisees for following the letter of the law, but failing to be good people based on the consequences of their actions, or their self-aggrandizing intent. The parable of the Good Samaritan is a sharp indictment of deontological ethics, when the Priest and the Levite follow all the rules, but fail to be compassionate.

When we look at the morality of homosexuality through a teleological lens we realize first of all that we can't make sweeping statements. The difference in circumstances and intent between male temple prostitution, pedophilia, prison rape, and a consensual adult monogamous homosexual relationship are vast, as are the consequences. These things are not morally equivalent at all. Furthermore, human relationships are complex and it is difficult to generalize about a group or type of relationships even when they bear substantial superficial similarities. Not all heterosexual consensual adult monogamous marriages are morally equivalent. Why would we assume we could generalize about homosexual relationships?

Unfortunately, these generalizations do get made. Some conservatives have realized that their deontological arguments hold no water and have attempted to wade into the teleological realm alleging all sorts of harm that homosexuality causes. In the next post I will briefly address the question "what harm does homosexuality cause"?

The First Evangelist

John 20:1-18

She runs and her footsteps roll down the dark roads of Jerusalem like distant thunder. Her leather sandals, smacking dusty ground, shout retorts off the walls of white-washed sepulchres along the slope of the Mount of Olives, telegraphing her hasty retreat to sleeping citizens who stir momentarily, but roll over in their beds unaware of the momentous discovery she has made. For a heartbeat she nearly loses her balance while taking a corner too recklessly. She grabs the wall to right herself and keep on course.

Her race is born of shock and confusion. She runs to outpace the raging torrent of her emotions, which if they catch her will bear her haplessly down a merciless channel to dash her soul apart. Every breath she takes is a desperate gasp against the stabbing pain in her lungs, but it is hard to notice new wounds when you are nursing a freshly broken heart.

Only an hour before, she had set out, alone, in the quiet black before dawn, to carry her grief to her master’s tomb. She took with her a small satchel of fragrant herbs to spread over the body of the man who, until Friday afternoon, had been to her the shocking proof of God’s love. He was like a sudden bolt of lightning across a cloudless night sky. Impossible. Unpredictable. He was like the waves of a roaring sea against an earthen dam. He tore holes in your defenses until nothing could stop the spring of hope from flowing into your heart. She had dared to imagine, because of him, a world void of cruelty.

It was especially cruel, therefore, that the latest act of this rebellious world had been to tear his life to shreds on a Roman cross.

And so, as she climbed the hill near Golgotha, to the tomb where Joseph of Arimathea had laid His corpse, she was too desolate even to weep. She had trudged that lonely path till at last she came to the garden before the entrance and was suddenly jolted out of her misery. The stone was rolled aside. The tomb had been disturbed.

The satchel of fragrant herbs tumbled to the ground unheeded she was already running back the way she had come.

Running, as the sun rose over the city of David. Running over the threshold and up the stairs to an upper room. Shouting in a hoarse and breathless voice…

“Gone! … Peter!”

Collapsing onto a divan in a coughing fit, she struggles to master her throat and share her tale. Her dearest friends gather around her. Peter, John, Martha, Thomas… she has come to think of them as family. Brothers and sisters. They share her grief. In these past days especially, they have found the only solace possible in one another’s company. Lazarus, Matthew, James… It will devastate them to hear of this latest insult. They hurry to her sides and help her sit up. Someone gives her a bowl of new wine, which she drinks to quench the burning in her chest.

They look at her expectantly, and at once she begins to weep.

“They have taken the Lord out of the tomb,” she tells them. “They have taken him… the stone was moved… they…”

She can hardly bear it. Martha is slowly backing away and starting to wail – a high pitched ululation, the song of mourning. John’s face is turning red. Peter, however, leans closer and sets his ear near her mouth.

“Are you sure,” he asks.

She nods, “They have taken him, and we don’t know where they have put him.”

Peter shares a meaningful look with another man there, one of the master’s most beloved disciples, and kissing her on the cheek, the two of them depart immediately. James and Thomas press her for more information, others are prostrate on the floor of the room praying “Adonai, Adonai, Adonai” (lord, lord, lord) and the piercing sound of Martha’s wailing drifts out the windows and over the streets.

Repeated, the story of her horrible discovery seems paltry. So much is unknown. Some speculate that the thieves were Centurions. Others suggest that it was servants of the Sanhedrin who violated the tomb, but as the initial agony fades she grows impatient with speculation. She longs to see for herself, to know for certain that her teacher is gone, and perhaps to beg anyone, everyone, for information. Someone must know where they dragged his body. Someone must know what they have done with him.

While the others are still debating who may be guilty of this offense, she quietly slips out of the room and down the stairs. She pulls her headscarf tight over her hair and steps into the street once more.

The journey back up the mountain is different this time. A hook of uncertainty has caught in the tapestry of her emotions. Her cheeks still wet with tears she feels herself pulled up the slope by her unraveling worries. Could it be that she was somehow mistaken?

In the distance she hears the shofar blowing. It is the first day of the week and men are going to the temple for morning prayers. The sun has risen over the Jordan as she walks into the garden at the top of the hill. Rays of light through the branches of an olive tree make it seem on fire.

Beside the tree she sees the opening of the tomb, unsealed, and within she hears people moving. Her breath catches as two men come walking out, but it is only her brothers. Both have the look of shattered glass on their faces – Peter is especially perplexed. He shakes his head at her unspoken question. They all stand in total silence as the minutes pass, lacking the courage to say their fears aloud, before the men turn away and walk down the road.

Mary looks at the unguarded opening. A gust of wind ripples over the rooftops of the city, carrying the smells of dust, and clay, and baking bread past her nose. The shofar blows again.

And then she decides. She could turn away, fly this place, and shriek her righteous anger at the heavens until the fissure in her soul dries up and closes over, but she chooses instead to plunge into the darkness of the grave, to know for herself.

The light is gone and her nostrils are full of the scent of death. She rushes to the back of the enclosed space where she knows already, he is not. On the bier the cloths lay, folded. The shroud is separate and all of it caked with blood. She is alone, but she is not. Two men, with voices like crashing cymbals, are next to her, or on the bier, or all around, or not there at all. She turns away from them and they are there facing her. They smile and it is like clouds parting.

“Why are you crying?” they ask in unison.

It is too terrible, or too wonderful, or simply too much for her too look at them. She mumbles something about finding her Lord and stumbles for the entrance. She is stopped abruptly, running headlong into a tall man who was not there before. She crumbles to her knees, overcome. Her chest heaving, she tries to croak out an apology between sobs.

He takes pity on her.

“Who is it you are looking for?” he asks brushing a tear from her cheek. His hands are coarse from callouses and they smell of earth.

“Please,” she begs him and she bestows her very self with the word, “Please, if you have carried my teacher away, tell me where you have put him. Please.”

And she knows as she says this that it was not just her teacher they buried in this grave, but her life also, and if he has been taken from here, then her life has also been stolen away. She knows this like a stone knows the quarry it was cut from, and forever bears the marks of that memory on its skin. She knows that she must find him to find herself and thus she cannot think of giving up her search. She says this to the stranger with her pleading. He must hear her and have mercy on her.

As the shofar blows a third time he places his hand on her head, and says one word, “Mary.”

That one word, spoken from his mouth, is for her more than all the words on all the scrolls of all the prophets. For it contains a love so amazing, so divine, that if every continent were made of parchment, and every sea a well full of ink, and every person dedicated every minute of every day to writing the story of that love we could never finish the tale.

“Rabboni!” she cries, which means ‘teacher’, but in this case also ‘I love you’.

As her tears of sorrow are transformed into rivers of joy, he lifts her to her feet, and they embrace, and it is a moment that transcends time and space, but it is still only a moment, for he tells her that she must let go and return to the others, her brothers and sisters.

“Go,” he says to her, “and tell them.” He makes of her his first messenger, his first evangelist. “Tell them that I am returning to my God and your God, to my Father who is now also your Father.”

Though part of her wants to stay there with him, she goes without hesitation because she knows now that he cannot possibly be taken from her. She knows that not even the grave can hold him and thus all of her fear evaporates like the morning dew.

She runs, and her footsteps roll down the streets of Jerusalem like distant thunder. Her leather sandals, smacking dusty ground, shout reports off the walls of white-washed sepulchres along the slope of the Mount of Olives, telegraphing her joyous flight to the citizens at their morning prayers. Barely touching the ground she flies, for she brings good news of great joy for all people. For this day, in the city of David, a new world is born to us.

He is Risen! Jesus Christ is Risen! Alleluia!

And that is the news that the first evangelist had to share.

And that is the news that I have to share with you.

And that is the news that you have now, to share with others.

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor be unto them, Amen.

Not a Sin: Natural Law

Penises were made to go into vaginas therefore any other use of penises or vaginas is a violation of their natural purpose and a sin. So goes one argument for the sinfulness of homosexuality. This line of argumentation is an appeal to Natural Law.

Natural Law is another form of deontological ethics. Natural Law assumes that true, abiding moral principles are immanent in nature. Natural Law is discovered, not created, thus it is purer than human laws. In Christian ethics Natural Law is assumed to participate in and accord with the Eternal Law which is God's intentions for creation. Natural Law is often supplemented with (but never contradicted by) Divine Law, which is the revealed set of laws given in scripture and by the Church.

Being a form of deontological ethics it has the same limitations as Divine Command ethics I described earlier. It necessarily restricts itself to universal principles which are extremely rare. It cannot say much about specific human behaviors, because rules which govern human behavior nearly always require exceptions. It has no room for consideration of consequences, intentions, or circumstances. It is a blunt instrument.

The same Natural Law argument which would declare homosexuality a sin, for example, must, to be consistent, also label as sin any form of sexual behavior which does not serve the supposed final cause of sex, which is reproduction. That means that oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, intercourse during menstruation or after menopause, or when either of the parties are known to be infertile, or when any form of contraception is used must also be ruled out. To temper the obvious ridiculousness of this standard apologists will say that the sex act must only be "open" to reproduction, which they interpret to mean vaginal sex without use of contraception. They will say that sex with a post-menopausal woman, for example, is still "open" to procreation based on the example of Sara and other Biblical stories where God works a miracle in a woman of advanced age. But if we're including miracles in our rationale then any kind of sex must be "open" to procreation because nothing is impossible with God. In fact, I can think of one notable example in which there was no sex at all and a pregnancy still resulted.

The point is, to be consistent with this line of argument you must treat a wide array of sexual behaviors as equally condemnable with homosexuality. Masturbation is just as "unnatural" by this thinking - yet it is essentially universal.

Indeed, the irony is that saying it is "Natural Law" that penises should only be inserted in vaginas (and only for the purpose of procreation) goes against one of the foundational tenets of Natural Law theory - which is that true laws are immanent in nature, and thus deducible by observation. It is easily observed that there are actually a variety of uses for penises and vaginas aside from procreation, just as we use our mouths to breathe, to eat, to talk, to sing, to smile, to kiss, to whistle, to spit, to cough, to vomit and more. If Natural Law can be deduced by observation it ought to be susceptible to the evidence of the Biological sciences (more on that in a later post), which clearly show us that masturbation is natural and purposeful, and increasingly show us the same about homosexuality.

Natural Law is such a rude and useless instrument that not only is it limited to dealing with a few supposedly universal principles, not only does it often fail to accurately teach us what is natural, but it also completely fails to adequately demonstrate the connection between what is natural and what is good. By this reading of Natural Law there is nothing to distinguish rape from consensual heterosexual marital sex for procreation. As long as "tab A" goes in "slot B" the sex is "natural", but how can it in any sense be called good? To begin to approach what makes sex good or bad we have to examine consequences, circumstances and intentions - all things which a deontological method ignores.

Conservative moral reasoning swims almost exclusively in these deontological circles. Homosexuality is sinful either because "the Bible says," or "God commands" or because "it is unnatural." It is the persistent failure of these approaches that they focus exclusively on a narrowly understood sexual act, reducing all of human sexuality to the moment of coitus. They can have nothing to say about the morality of hand-holding, kissing, flirting, foreplay, or the deep emotional bonds formed in sexual relationships. They fail to address people in their sexual being, and thus they're found by most of society to be irrelevant. There is a reason why the Roman Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality are almost totally ignored.

We can do better.

Not a Sin: the Bible Says...

Those who believe homosexuality is a sin have a very pithy answer to the question why: because the Bible says so. It is a maddeningly over-simplistic answer. A clever retort with no depth that willfully obscures a host of important issues and questions, and intentionally ignores ambiguity in scripture. Nevertheless it is their constant refrain so it must be addressed.

All of the relevant passages of scripture have been pored over again and again by scholars in obsessive detail. I will not rehash that work here, nor pass judgment on it. You can form your own opinion about what various verses of scripture do or do not mean in relation to homosexuality. I will comment here in a more general fashion about the use of the Bible in moral reasoning.

The Bible doesn't "say" anything. The Bible has no will. It is an inanimate object. Everything we take from the Bible we do by effort and interpretation. We do not just passively sit and receive Biblical wisdom, we actively create meaning in our own minds by engaging the text. Furthermore different people frequently come to different interpretations of the same texts (even with access to all the same information), thus it is never adequate to say "the Bible says," but rather you should say "I understand this passage to mean..."

It is a fallacy to say "the Bible says" for another reason, which is that "the Bible" is not homogeneous. It is not one text, but a collection of many texts written over a long period of time by many different authors. Individual texts even show signs of composite authorship or redaction. There is no voice in scripture which can speak for all of the others. We are always only dealing with an individual passage and what we interpret it to mean. This is not to say that there is no relationship between the texts, but only to say that it is a mistake to leap from "this verse in Leviticus says..." to "the Bible says..."

There is still another reason that "the Bible says" is a poor basis for an argument: it is an appeal to authority that obscures the basis of that authority. What reason does anyone have for accepting anything "the Bible says" as authoritative? Because it is inspired by God? How do we know it is inspired by God? Oh, that's right - because "the Bible says". It is circular reasoning. In fact, there is no good reason to accept the Bible as authoritative except on the basis of another, higher, authority: either personal revelation (in which case it is actually our own experience we are taking as authoritative), or the testimony of the Church (in which case it is actually the experience of others we are taking as authoritative). No matter which way you go you find that the basis of the Bible's authority lies in human experience - we experience the Bible either directly or indirectly to be "inspired" by God.

I have not experienced a personal revelation about the trustworthiness of the Bible, but I am willing to trust the Church on this one. However, if it is the Church who has said the Bible is authoritative in the first place, then the Church is in a position to decide how the Bible is used and how it should be interpreted. This is precisely what we have done in the past, deciding that the inclusive ministry of Christ outweighed the pastoral command of Paul to prevent women from speaking in the assembly. It is precisely what is at stake now in the Church's debate about whether or not to ordain homosexuals. It is not that one side is sticking with the Bible and the other is abandoning it (an offensive lie). Rather it is that many in the Church feel that we are within our rights as the Church to understand the inclusive ministry of Christ to outweigh the other considerations against ordaining homosexuals.

In coming to the conclusion that homosexuality is (or is not) a sin, a person must do some moral reasoning. Though it does not appear that way, there is a kind of moral reasoning behind the insistence that "the Bible says" homosexuality is a sin. It is called divine command ethics. It is a type of deontology. Simply put, a deontologist says there are rules that must be followed in all times, in all places, by all people. Being good consists of following these rules. The rules are good because they come from a good authority (in this case a divine command). Deontology falls apart in one of two ways - either the authority can be shown to be unreliable, or the rules themselves can be criticized for their effects until even a deontologist must admit that the rule seems not to be "good" by any reasonable definition.

Allow me to say a few good things about divine command deontology. First of all, no one who believes in God (and believes God is good), can object that following God's commands is a good thing. I DO believe there are some rare examples of universal rules that are reliably correct. For example - thou shalt not murder. Good universal rules tend to be narrow in scope or abstract enough to have different meanings in different situations, for example: Love your neighbor as yourself.

However, deontology in general is weak for its inability to say very many specific things without running into problems. Too many rules do in fact require exceptions. Deontology does not consider things like motive, circumstances, or consequences. Either you broke the rule or you didn't - there are no mitigating factors. Divine command deontology is further weakened by the dubiousness of its authority claim. How can you prove that the rule you have described is, in fact, a divine command?

The Bible, especially, is a notoriously poor source of authority for supporting divine command deontology. The Bible is not a rule book, nor is it a treatise of moral principles. It is rather a collection of many genres of writing. How does one translate poetry into a cohesive moral principle? How does one use history or allegory as a source of authority for alleging a divine command? Most crucially, the Bible shows evidence of internal moral development. The Bible itself doesn't always rely on a deontological approach to ethics. The Bible doesn't always discern what is good on the basis of a divine command.

In fact, as I read scripture, the climactic achievement in moral reasoning in the Bible is the shift toward teleological or virtue based ethical modes. The principle of love is lifted up in the New Testament as the means to discern what is in line with God's will. By being concerned that your motivation is loving, and the consequences are consistent with that love you can be assured that you are already fulfilling all of God's commands. This teleological approach is also seen in the emphasis on "fruits of the Spirit". A virtue ethics approach is exemplified by Paul's insistence that if you develop the virtue of charity in yourself you will automatically fulfill the law.

In summary, using the phrase "the Bible says" as your first and last defence for why homosexuality is a sin must ultimately fail. Firstly, interpretive problems abound that any blanket statement of that sort glosses over far too easily. Secondly, this approach obscures the source of the Bible's authority which is principally in the testimony of the Church, meaning the Church is authorized to change her opinion on the meaning of passages of scripture (and frequently has). Thirdly, it is knowingly or unknowingly a form of divine command deontology which has severe limits as a mode of moral reasoning and is not even the best example of Biblical morality.

Ultimately I think all of these reasons point to the same underlying reality which is that nothing is as simple as "the Bible says." In calling homosexuality a sin you are making a moral judgment which means you must defend your moral reasoning and "the Bible says" is a very poor defense.

Not a Sin: Introduction

Behind all the arguments about ordination and marriage lies the basic argument over whether or not homosexuality is a sin.

It is not.

In this series of articles I will deal in a brief way with the variety of sources usually employed to make a case one way or another. I will ultimately suggest that the best way of determining what is sinful is careful moral reasoning, and I will point out that the dominant modes of moral reasoning on the right - divine command (a kind of deontology), and natural law (another kind of deonotology), are faulty.

Here is a taste of what's to come:

The Bible
Conservatives insist the primary source for arguing that homosexuality is a sin is the Bible. Every relevant passage has been carefully disected and analyzed by people on both sides. I will not rehash that work, but I will point out some big problems with using the Bible as a primary source for moral reasoning. In fact, I contend that our values have little to do with what scripture says, that moral reasoning and value judgments always precede our reception of scripture and claiming the Bible as a source, rather than a support is a lie.

Aesthetics
One example of value judgments prior to input from supports like the Bible, is our personal reaction of enjoyment or distaste upon encountering homosexuals. Look at the picture at the top of this article. How does it make you feel? Aesthetics have a huge impact, whether we admit it or not, on our moral judgments. This isn't all bad. It is a good thing for people to be sensitive to violence - to naturally and instantaneously abhor it. But these primitive, instinctual reactions are far from perfect, and they need to be analyzed. Aesthetic values are certainly no replacement for conscientious moral reasoning.

Biology
Evidence is growing that homosexuality is biologically conditioned. This is one topic which usually gets brought up by progressives to argue that homosexuality is not a sin. It is indeed relevant, but it is far from a slam dunk. It is not as simple as eye-color, nor as neutral. A genetic predisposition for same-gender attraction doesn't automatically make homosexual relationships morally neutral. Biology is an important counterbalance to natural law arguments, however.

Natural Law
One of the most popular arguments for deeming homosexuality sinful can be summed up in the catchy slogan, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Complementarianism asserts that because penises fit into vaginas they should always and only be used that way. I admit that it is difficult for me to treat these arguments with seriousness because they are so shabby, but I will do my best to fairly point out why Natural Law is a horrible mode for approaching the topic of sin or human sexuality, or almost anything.

Teleology
Does homosexuality harm anyone? That ought to be a defining question in the debate, yet it is rarely addressed, and when it is the answers given are so poor I am apalled. A partner question is, does homosexuality benefit anyone? Are there positive or negative consequences to homosexual relationships? Can homosexual relationships even be differentiated in their consequences from heterosexual ones?

Virtue
What kind of person does one become by accepting and living out a homosexual identity? Is there evidence in the lives of homosexuals that homosexuality impacts the development of virtue in any way? When we have gotten here we are really beginning to consider matters that will help us show why homosexuality is not a sin.

Gay Culture
As a sort of appendix to the main subject I will briefly put down some thoughts on "gay culture". What is it? What is good about it? What isn't? I venture into this area with some hesitance because I am not an insider to the gay community, but I feel like I can say some relevant, respectful things.

These Truths Are Not Self-Evident...

There are all different types of Christians out there. For example there are these guys. They are the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM). They tell you the answers, and you'd better agree with them. After all, eternity is a long time to be wrong.

Among their many fascinating articles is this gem. It is a list of 100 Truths About Jesus. Each truth is a pithy saying I'm sure the author wants you to take as "fact" supported by hyperlinked Biblical quotes.

Nothing shocking. But what strikes me as I read it is that these "truths" are anything but self-evident. Rather, they are so impenetrable they are nearly useless.

For example, what does it mean that, "Jesus abides forever - Heb. 7:24"? Where does he "abide?" Can I visit? To abide means to continue or to stay... what is he continuing? If he is staying forever does that mean he is never going? Or maybe they mean abide as in "tolerate". In which case what does Jesus tolerate? This is the kind of lovely koan-esque language that religions love to employ and it is wonderful for meditation and theology, but it is more poetry than apologetics where precise definitions are necessary.

One problem with this list of propositions (and it is true of the entire site) is that it assumes an incredible degree of pre-assimilated context. There is a near cultish use of insider vocabulary used without explanation as if the meaning is plain to any observer. What do these things mean:

• The fruit of righteousness comes through Jesus Christ - Phil. 1:11
• Jesus is the Rock - 1 Cor. 10:4
• Jesus is our only mediator between God and ourselves - 1 Tim. 2:5

Even if most readers have enough context to approach these propositions at a basic level of understanding what are they supposed to gain from them? Jesus is the Rock. Okay. Glad I know that now. Hmm. I guess that clears up my confusion about... nothing.

For these propositions to have any value the reader would have to be in a conversation where the assertion that Jesus is the Rock had any meaning. The writers on this site are clearly involved in such a conversation. They see themselves countering all sorts of cultural tendencies they deplore, but they don't give any hint of that here. Answers without questions are useless. (Interestingly the reverse is not always true).

Furthermore, the apparent simplicity (even if it is opaque simplicity) of these propositions belies an enormous amount of interpretation that has already gone into them. Consider number 100 on their list:

• Jesus came to proclaim freedom for believers - Luke 4:18

The citation they give is Jesus reading from the scroll of Isaiah in a synagogue in his hometown in Luke. The actual verse reads in the NRSV:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free,"

First of all, Jesus is not making a personal announcement here, he is reading scripture aloud in the context of something like a worship service. He does, later in the passage, tell the crowd that "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." So it is not unreasonable to assume that he intends these words from Isaiah as a kind of proclamation, but where does Isaiah mention freedom for "believers"? Freedom could reasonably be applied to two groups in the passage: captives and the oppressed. It mentions nothing at all about whether these groups contain any believers.

So how does the author get to his proposition from the supporting text? Interpretation, duh. The author is assuming that Jesus means something specific by "freedom" and that this "freedom" corresponds with what the author already knows and believes, partly on the basis of other scripture passages, belongs specifically to a group called "believers". I happen to disagree with the author in this case, but I don't think there is anything nefarious about such an interpretive move. I have a feeling, however, that the people at CARM wouldn't want to admit that such debatable interpretation underlies all of their arguments.

Firing the Canon

Is the canon a tool of oppression? Is it hopelessly corrupted by power interests? Is the very idea of a fixed library of truth inimical to freedom and human flourishing?

Could be. I'm going to give some of my responses to these questions, and because of the kind of person I am they will be equivocal, and qualified. I will say the situation is messy and complex and it will probably be unsatisfying to some of you. My thoughts:

1. Is the Canon oppressive? The Canon, repeating what I've said about the Bible, is an inanimate object - or perhaps an idea or way of thinking about an inanimate object. Therefore it cannot be responsible for either good or bad outcomes of our actions. Human interpreters of the Canon are solely responsible for their actions. In this sense we can't lay "oppression" at the foot of the canon. The canon doesn't DO anything much less oppress anyone.
2. But can't ideas themselves be powerful or dangerous Aric? Aren't they analogous to weapons? Isn't an unarmed person less dangerous? Ok, I concede the point that ideas can be dangerous and all those crazy oppressive idealogues out there would be less dangerous without tools like the Canon to use. But what choice do we have? It isn't possible to remove an idea that is so widespread. Nationalism is an idea that is FAR more destructive than the Canon ever could be, but there is no hope of getting people to stop being nationalistic. The Canon is here to stay, like it or not.
3. So you're saying that the canon is bad but we're stuck with it? Well, no. Anyone who has studied history at all would have to admit the fact that the formation of the canon was messy and involved all sorts of nasty power struggles, and the actual use of the canon has often been exclusionary and manipulative. But I don't think that means we have to write it off as an inherently bad idea. Frankly, every "idea" that humans have been involved in has been used in horrible manipulative ways. Check the use of the word "Freedom" in the last 8 years. I regard the canon as inevitable. Neither good nor bad really. It's what we do with it that matters.
4. If it's not really good or bad, but you admit that it has been abused why not jettison it? Other than my aforementioned belief that it is impossible to jettison, my reservation about tossing the canon is this: arrogance. Anyone who thinks they can set up a better canon or standard is fooling themselves. We can't cut out all the objectionable bits of the Bible and the rest assured we've made a book which is free from error or potential for misuse. What now seems clearly sinful to us in the Bible (mysogyny for example) was once normal. Therefore what now seems normal or acceptable to us is almost certainly sinful from another perspective. We are blind to our own failings just as people of other times were blind to theirs. It is impossible to construct a perfect canon, therefore I prefer to stick with the one we have as a means of training ourselves in humility. When we have to accept something as authoritative which we know to be faulty, it reminds us not to be cocky about our own righteousness.
5. I don't want to set up a better standard I want to get rid of ANY standards... Call me a skeptic but I just don't buy it. Everyone has standards they judge things by - ways we decide whether or not something is true. If we remove the canon it will be replaced by something else - reason, argument, democratic process, scientific investigation... take your pick. Frankly, all of these are already operative as ways of determining truth and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. In fact, the Canon has an advantage over most of these in that it is literature, which makes it LESS prescriptive than a democratic process (everyone must accept the majority opinion), or scientific investigation (everyone must be persuaded by evidence). In fact, as long as our debates in the church revolve around interpretation of scripture there will be a lot of diversity. It's once the matter gets put to a vote or the authority structure of the church weighs in that diversity gets squashed.
6. Is there room for criticism of the Canon within orthodoxy? Eh. I don't worry about it too much. We are not Roman Catholics, so there is no magisterium to decide exactly who is orthodox and who isn't. I get to claim I'm orthodox and so do the people I disagree with. We have different opinions about the canon and that is fine. In fact, there isn't any consensus on what is canonical and what isn't. Catholics have 7 more books than Protestants and most Eastern Orthodox Christians have even more. Prominent heros of the faith like Martin Luther have openly criticized sections of the Bible and argued that we should toss certain books out. So I think it is safe to say that the canon can be criticized.
7. Don't we have to take the whole Canon as authoritative? As my professor Ann Wire once put it - the only sections of the Bible that are authoritative are the ones that you take as authoritative. If you never read Habbakuk and never try to apply it to your life then it has no more authority over you than the Nag Hammadi or the Ring of the Nibbelungen. It's all about what actually gets used and how - not what some ancient conference of bishops says has authority. The canon has authority for the church precisely because it has been used that way, and more so than any other books outside the canon. Partly this is because at various times the church has declared the books in the canon authoritative, but it has always done so in response to their actual use in the church.

I'll stop there. I could keep going, but this is plenty for discussion, and I'll start repeating myself soon.

Thinking About the Bible

I am writing a curriculum for a Bible Study I will be leading in the very near future, and in doing so I've been forced to cogitate a bit about this holy book. My thoughts here are not new, even to me, but putting them down in a semi-organized fashion is helpful to me. I have to think this stuff out because as a pastor people ask me questions about it. So here are some thoughts about the Bible, laid out as propositions.

#1 - There really is no such thing as 'The Bible'. The book we refer to by that name comes in a variety of different editions and translations. Some versions contain entire sections and books that others do not. There is no official canon that everyone can agree on. Instead there are a variety of 'official' canons. Furthermore, there are blatant "canons within the canon" as demonstrated by the inevitably selective use of scripture in different churches. No one has a pure holistic approach to reading scripture which gives equal priority to every text and only uses texts which all can agree are canonical while also excluding no texts that some believe ought to be canonical.

#2 - The Bible is a creation of tradition. Even though there is no indisputable physical artifact we might conclusively call 'the Bible', there is for the purposes of tradition, such a thing as the Bible. The church creates the Bible, both in concrete historical actions such as the council of Nicaea, and in our continuous social reference to it. The interaction is reciprocal. Christians have from a very early time regarded themselves as people of the book, and it is by continuously referring to that "book" that we have slowly created our identities.

#3 - There is no inherent unity to the Bible. What we call the Bible is actually a collection of ancient texts written over a wide span of time by many different authors with divergent purposes. Even within a single book composite authorship is often evident. Furthermore, these voices regularly seem to be working in opposition to one another. The texts themselves are not of one mind on anything.

#4 - The Bible is tightly woven. Despite the chaotic fractured nature of the texts of the Bible, it is frequently self-referential in the extreme. One text dovetails into another, and relies for understanding on the knowledge of five or six others on a nearly constant basis. The complex interaction of texts in scripture means that no part of the Bible is really comprehensible in isolation.

#5 - The Bible is an inanimate object. It has no will and takes no action. The Bible does not 'say' anything. In every interaction with the Bible it is always the interpreter who bears sole responsibility for the result. Neither good nor bad behavior may be justified by recourse to the Bible.

#6 - God has reliably spoken to the faithful through the Bible. We should approach scripture with confidence that the Holy Spirit can and will speak to us through this medium, because of the testimony of countless faithful saints before us. Whatever scripture's historical limitations and contradictions we come to the Bible in order to be addressed. It remains our responsibility as listeners to test what we are hearing according to what we know of God and never to mistake the book for the speaker.