Category: Heresy

“It Gets Better”

This post has nothing at all to do with the Beatles song by similar lyrics. But it has everything to do with what I’m convinced is the civil rights issue of our age: homosexuality.

First, watch the recent video from Fort Worth (TX) councilman Joel Burns:

Special thanks to my friends, Pastor Doc Newcomb and Pastor Joshua Manning for making me aware of this video today by posting it to Facebook.

As human beings, we are generally born with an orientation towards the “Golden Rule,” and especially as Christians, we are taught to love [New Testament Greek = αγάπη, written in English “agape,” pronounced a-gah-pay, an inclusive and outwardly-focused love] our neighbor. This isn’t a selective exercise, however; we are also taught to αγάπη our enemies. The takeaway is that as sons and daughters of God, we are to αγάπη everyone. Make no exceptions to your αγάπη, as Jesus makes no exceptions.

Now, certainly, in the life of Jesus, we find instructions on how to react toward the rejection of our αγάπη and our message: shake the dust off your feet and move along, because your αγάπη can be best utilized elsewhere. What Jesus is saying here is that there are no prerequisites for your αγάπη and your care, but people are free to respond to your message of inclusion however they like, after which you are entrusted to make a responsible decision about where and how to spend your time and share your αγάπη.

As a Christian disciple and heterosexually married man, I declare today that bullying toward “the others,” in this case, homosexuals or assumed homosexuals, needs to end. In Christ, no one is assumed as being “the other,” and bullying is never an act of αγάπη. Our children need to be responsibly taught these things, especially that hate gets you nowhere. Whatever your personal preconceptions about homosexuality may be (hey, I’ve got mine, too) and whatever Scriptural basis you may have for oppression, hate is not allowed in Christ.

Everyone deserves the same rights. Our ancestors had no right to forcibly remove Native Americans from their land. Just a generation or two ago, there was no justification for African-Americans to be forced to use different facilities than whites. While Christian marriage is defined as involving a man and a woman, today there is no reason why homosexual couples in our society cannot have every same legally binding right, perhaps defined as a civil union, as heterosexual couples. Biblical characters got these things involving rights dead wrong, too, and if you don’t believe me, read the book of Judges from beginning to end and tell me how holy ancient Israel was.

We can be the first society to get universal rights, and αγάπη, right. Something tells me that as a whole, we won’t, but for those of us called toward reconciliatory action, it’s time to come out of the woodwork and speak up.

EDIT: Apparently my comments are heretical and caused a minor firestorm on Facebook! Someone who I know from the church I grew up in challenged my ideas, and without naming names, I want to post our back-and-forth over the topic, particularly because I think my responses are an important part of the discussion that we need to be having. In some cases, I have simplified or rephrased our comments without altering the integrity of the content.
i couldn’t disagree more.homosexuality is a perversion and a sin. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Bullying IS wrong- but endorsing sinful behavior is also wrong. Where is the line to be drawn? wherever public opinion deems it to be drawn? and now people are being fired/legally fined for speaking the truth of God’s word?
Peace and love, [redacted]. But, if we’re going to turn to Leviticus, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and Romans for a constitutional read on what is definitively right and what is definitively wrong (speaking for God), then allow me that same power for a minute. 

Leviticus 19:19 identifies wearing clothing made of two kinds of material a sin. Leviticus 20:9 says that anyone who curses his mother or father must be put to death. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:5 that “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” In 1 Timothy 2:11-12, someone claiming to be Paul continues the misogyny, saying women should learn only in “quietness and full submission” and that women should never have an authority role, including teaching. Verse 15 claims that women will be “saved through childbearing.” In another of his letters, Paul writes that slaves should accept their lot in life, and obey their masters as they would obey Christ (Ephesians 6:5). I, for one, do not wish that “public opinion” hadn’t “drawn the line” against these laws, practices and beliefs.

Let’s go on. In Romans 3:10-18, Paul quotes psalms of David, affirming that that no one is righteous, no one seeks God, and all have together become worthless. Paul then says in his own words, in verse 23, that all have sinned and fall short of the glory, then in verse 24 we find that the same collective “all” from verse 23 are “justified freely by his grace.” What do you do with these verses as someone who is claiming perfect authoritative interpretation of the Bible? Is homosexuality too grievous a “perversion and a sin” to receive the grace of God through Christ?

I am also convinced that you read words, phrases, claims, etc. into my blog post that aren’t there. I said nothing of sin associated with the homosexual act; yes, a constitutional read of the Bible does come down pretty firm that the homosexual act is a sin. It may be so… again, I am refusing the power to speak for God in this instance. I realize that the texts of the Bible were written in a time where people had no concept of sexual orientation, that a given person may in fact be predisposed somehow to homosexuality. I didn’t always take this view; to me, homosexuality seemed and still does seem unnatural. Why, I ask, would God create people who desire homosexual activity over heterosexual activity? It’s not good for reproduction, or it doesn’t make sense, I would have said. But using this same logic, why would God create people with Down’s Syndrome, cerebral palsy, Tay-Sachs, cystic fibrosis, as eunuchs, or even with a predisposition to cancer (from an arbitrary thing like past family history)? Present day me says that these “don’t make sense,” and subsequently that a homosexual orientation – just like a congenital disease – does not constitute sin.

In the gospels, Jesus is silent on the issue of homosexuality, unless you read into his quote of Genesis 2 an implied curse against homosexuality (which is a major stretch). We do, however, have the entire body of Jesus’ actions on which to make a better assumption, one that is less of a stretch than that one. Jesus is a friend of sinners, one who will associate with everyone, including the biggest ostracized group of rejects of the day. Lepers did nothing to contract their disease, and Jesus still stood by them. Please, find an instance in the life of Jesus where he shows a prerequisite for his love and grace, or rather, where he refuses to be associated with someone based on some factor that he finds too repulsive, too “perverse.” Jesus is inclusive of everyone, especially the lowest in society, every time he gets the opportunity. And as Christians, we are called first to emulate Christ, and second to uphold the law and commands of the apostles (which apparently includes giving women an exceptionally low social status, owning slaves, killing our sons and daughters who curse their parents, and wearing only clothing made of the same fiber). We also have some quotes of Jesus that lead us in a better direction. Consider, Luke 6:32-42. “Do not judge, and you will not be judged.”

I know I am fighting a losing battle. Constitutional readers of the Bible are always going to have these verses to point to, to hold up as their ideal while ignoring others that are no less Scripture than the ones they prefer. I guess that’s what I’m accused of doing as well. However, I’m not afraid to claim it; I read the Bible as more of an anthology, a library, than a constitution.

As Christians we need to befriend homosexuals, to αγάπη love them and know their struggles, to understand their humanity and the oppression they have faced, well before we can say the first word about their sin. We need to stop speaking for God without having lived for God.

are you just as comfortable substituting “pedophile” for “homosexual” in all you’ve said? All the same arguments that can be used for granting civil rights to same-sex couples can be used to grant civil rights to any number of perversions….
I agree 100 % with agape love; I strive to practice it always. Building relationships with ANYONE living openly in ANY sin should be a pre-requisite, but the goal should always be to lead them to a realization of that sin, and therefore to the cross, and not to give it a stamp of approval by granting civil rights status. We are already seeing the repercussions of such a movement. Witness the college teacher, teaching a class of Roman Catholic beliefs, fired for doing just that.
Or the Pastor who was fined $7000 and ORDERED to “stop expressing his biblical perspective of homosexuality” for sending in his opinion to the editior of a newspaper.
There’s many more stories like this out there. When “civil rights” are given to a group of ANY kind living in open sin, then Christians LOSE the civil right to say what the Bible says concerning that sin.
[Redacted], moving from homosexuality to pedophilia is a fantastic, possibly homophobic leap. People of any orientation – toward the opposite sex, same sex, both sexes, giraffes, etc. – can be pedophiles, and they deserve the full extent of the law’s repercussions for the act of pedophilia, NOT their sexual orientation. 

But, what you just did in your response to me was 1) skirt the questions I asked you, and 2) tell me what my logic means to me. I can’t handle #1 myself – that is something you must do. But I can address #2, since you made another leap for me, one that I’d like to use my own logic on. You said:

“All the same arguments that can be used for granting civil rights to same-sex couples can be used to grant civil rights to any number of perversions.” 

Sure, they can, but those arguments used for other “perversions” are taken out of context, irresponsible, and not made by me. Since I mentioned giraffes above, I’ll take Leviticus 18:23 and 20:15-16. I agree about this; sex or even the desire for sex with animals is detestable, and a true perversion. Let me firmly say that a man and an animal do not deserve civil rights. But does it demand death of the person, as the latter passages say? I wouldn’t say so. Neither do relatives who wish to marry deserve civil rights, even cousins as is permissible in many states after reaching a certain age (Leviticus 18:6). 

Just to be clear, the civil rights I am talking about for homosexual couples include tax breaks, the ability to be present with one another at a hospital bed, and the like. These do not include forcing Christian pastors to marry homosexual couples, or even for you to approve of their being together (that is your choice). More to the point of my original blog post, as members of society often bound by the hand they are dealt, they deserve to live life, not to be bullied for their orientation.

Like you, I am extremely cautious and worried about celebrating flagrantly homosexual culture as if it is a great and wonderful thing. Doing this through the media, TV shows and whatnot goes beyond αγάπη love to rubber-stamping the culture, which is not something that I (as one who refuses to speak for God on this issue) am not able to do. But limiting the impact of this celebration of culture (don’t buy those TV channels, teach αγάπη love rather than oppression), rather than refusing civil rights to homosexual couples, is the better way to go about this.

As to the cases you cite, I am unfamiliar with them other than reading over the (biased) links that you provided. There are two sides to every story, and pardon me if I refuse to believe everything I hear from Focus on the Family. But I’ll take the cases one-by-one anyway.

First, you have to know that adjunct professors are adjunct professors for a reason. In Dr. Howell’s case, it seems that he splits (or used to split) his time between U of I and the St. John Institute of Catholic Thought, where he is the institute’s director. This alone isn’t terrible or contestable; you expect a Christian professor to be involved in other ministry activities beyond the classroom. But when the language of ministry is used IN the classroom to influence the beliefs of students, especially at a public university, you’re going to have problems. I agree wholeheartedly with the student (who claims to have been raised Catholic, by the way) who sent the email, which said:

“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.” 

Universities, even seminaries, are to be about free thought and allowing students to reach their own conclusions within an educational framework. That is why I’m going to the School of Theology at Anderson University, where I am not pressured to believe everything professors say (I don’t), but challenged to digest their thoughts in light of everything else I see in the world around me, including the Bible. In fact, most times the professors reserve their personal opinions about issues, instead allowing us to make our own judgments without those biases mixed in. It’s a beautiful thing. 

A lot of seminaries do fit you into a certain theological box. That’s fine and dandy, as long as students go there knowing what they’ve signed up for. It’s not okay in an undergraduate setting at a public university, where apparently Dr. Howell was saying “things that were inflammatory and downright insensitive to those who were not of the Catholic faith.” To teach natural moral law in the classroom as a belief held by Catholics as a whole is one thing; to preach natural moral law there as God’s absolute truth is quite another.

The second case is more difficult. I read other (less biased) articles about it, and it appears to me to be a free speech issue. With limited digging into the subject, I believe the University of Calgary professor is in the wrong, and the Reverend shouldn’t be fined for his (seemingly homophobic) letter to the editor. Particularly telling to me is the fact that “one national gay rights group has said that it won’t support Lund in order to respect Boissoin’s freedom of speech.” But, it’s important to view this as a case unto itself, and one in Canada no less, rather than a universal point of view to be imposed on me or you for expressing our own ideas.

Your last sentence is concerned with denying civil rights to groups living in “open sin.” As far as I know, Jesus makes no distinction between open sinners and closed sinners… all are sinners. In fact, Jesus is chastised many times by the Pharisees for associating with “open” sinners.

And finally, in many cases, Christians don’t have the absolute right to say what the Bible says concerning sin. You can say one thing or another from your own point of view, but in speaking for the Bible you are ignoring centuries of human intervention, revisions, copying errors, scribal additions, and the like, to say nothing of the translations from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. This is not a right we have lost, it is one we never should’ve had in the first place.

Ultimately, [redacted], this is a conversation that Christians need to have, need not be afraid of. But we also need to approach it with an open mind. Since I have first read your links, if you are willing, there are a couple of chapters from books I have that I’d like you to read, and then hear your perspective on. If you agree, I’d be happy to photocopy the pages and send them to you. If not, I understand, but I hope you’ll consider it.

Inconsistencies in Exodus’ Ten Plagues

For Old Testament, we students reflect weekly on “some topic, aspect or concept” from the volumes and volumes of assigned reading. This last week included the first twenty chapters of Exodus, about 13 chapters of Numbers, and corresponding commentaries. The topic about which I chose to write was inconsistencies in the account of the ten plagues.

I was limited to one single-spaced page, but probably could have gone on for a while longer. For example, the topic of naturally occurring disasters that could explain the plagues intrigues me quite a lot. But, I digress.

If you are interested in more selections from my School of Theology Coursework, follow the link to the category of SOT Coursework. I have also set up a new category for these Old Testament reflection papers called OT Weeklies. If all goes well, each new reflection paper will be posted automatically at 2:00 p.m. each Monday, when my Old Testament class convenes.

What follows is my reflection paper. Enjoy!

————————————————————————————————–

Ten plagues wreaked utter devastation on the Egyptian people, land and spirit before Pharaoh ultimately allowed Moses and his fellow Israelites to proceed out to the desert (Ex 7:14-12:30).  In a fascinating fashion, the Exodus narrative simultaneously highlights the power of God over Pharaoh and the forces of nature in a display that Victor P. Hamilton claims will allow all parties – Pharaoh, Egyptians and Israelites – to “indeed acquire knowledge of the true God.”[1] All may not have realized that goal, however, and the account of the ten plagues unfortunately leaves inquisitive readers with as many questions as answers.  This reflection paper explores such questions regarding two major inconsistencies in the Exodus reading.

After repeatedly hardening his heart and having his heart hardened by God through four plagues, Pharaoh is once again offered an opportunity to let the Israelites leave.  Pharaoh does not respond, and God sends a plague of pestilence upon the Egyptian field livestock – or more specifically, upon “horses and donkeys and camels and on your cattle and sheep and goats” (Ex 9:3 NIV).  Shortly thereafter, it is reported that “all” of the Egyptian livestock died, whereas “not one animal belonging to the Israelites died” (Ex 9:6 NIV).  Bart D. Ehrman asks, “How is it, then, that a few days later the seventh plague, of hail, was to destroy all of the Egyptian livestock in the fields?  What livestock?”[2] Furthermore, the tenth plague relates that not only have the firstborn of Egyptians from all different kinds of social classes and backgrounds been killed, but “the firstborn of all the livestock as well” (Ex 12:29 NIV).

If one assumes the particular view of Biblical inerrancy, he or she might also have to deduce fanciful manners of spawning by Egyptian livestock.  Perhaps, however, a more apt explanation is simply lost in translation.  In their exploration of the ten plagues as “an aberrant El Niño-Southern Oscillation teleconnection that brought unseasonable and progressive climate warming” to portions of Egypt other than inland Goshen[3], N. Joel Ehrenkranz and Deborah A. Sampson make a decidedly linguistic deduction.  “We take ‘cattle’ to be a generic term for two distinct collections of livestock: animals in pasture that are killed in plague 5 and animals destroyed in plague 10 that are located elsewhere – presumably at Egyptian dwellings.”[4] Still, this assumption begs the question: what division of animals died in the hailstorm (Ex 9:21)?

Another significant inconsistency in the account of the ten plagues comes after an irritated Pharaoh orders Moses away following the ninth plague, of darkness.  Pharaoh claims that Moses will die if the Israelite sees his face again, and Moses affirms that he will never again appear before Pharaoh (Ex 10:28-29).  But depending on one’s reading of the passages that follow, Moses and Pharaoh definitely meet again at least one more time (Ex 12:31-32), and possibly even twice (Ex 11:4-8).  And chronologically, on the latter of these two occasions, Pharaoh urges Moses to bless him – a far cry from attempting to kill God’s messenger.

Even with his willingness to bring up – and explain away – criticisms within the source text, Hamilton does not address apparent inconsistencies within the ten plagues narrative.  To be sure, the presence of inconsistent textual renderings does not detract significantly from my comprehension of the story, and neither is such a phenomenon limited to these five chapters.  However, they do create certain problems for Christians with more lofty views of the Bible.

[1] Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 159.

 

[2] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them) (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 10.

[3] N. Joel Ehrenkranz and Deborah A. Sampson, “Origin of the Old Testament Plagues: Explications and Implications,” Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 81, no. 1 (March 2008), under “Abstract,” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2442724/ (accessed September 25, 2010).

[4] Ibid.

The Bible, The Idol

As it turns out, we don’t even need a golden calf or figurines to set on our mantle tops. All we needed was a collection of some two millennia of writings.

More on that in a while.

For now, it suffices to write that I’ve kept busy with reading and other assignments for classes at the School of Theology. It demands my time so much that it’s difficult to dedicate half-hour blocks for blog entries. While I figured this would happen eventually – especially when thesis-writing becomes prudent – I didn’t suspect that it would happen on the third week! In fact, I’m not even supposed to have time to write right now – I had allotted this time frame to studying for tomorrow morning’s 8 a.m. exam, the first of my graduate career. However, I forgot the books I needed at home in Indianapolis. Great job, Rob.

But alas, such is life. Since I last blogged, I became the lucky owner of a part-time job at a not-for-profit organization near campus. It turns out that I can help the plight of the world – and make a few bucks for the family – while spending a few years in seminary. Who knew?

Back to my original topic. Though I know I wrote at some length about my views on the Bible within my Theology page, this topic continually implodes in my brain throughout everyday life. I need to preface this with the statement that the Bible contains a vast wealth of history, poetry, powerful narratives, characteristics of God, and much, much more – it is an invaluable resource. But consider the fact that just about every Christian organization, not to mention every church, swears up and down that the Bible is without flaw and “divinely inspired” by God. I will not argue the latter point, because I, too, ascribe some level of inspiration to the Biblical authors. However, the inaccuracies, contradictions, and outright errors found in the Bible are too numerous to count. Briefly, did Jesus die on a Thursday (Gospel of John) or a Friday (Synoptic Gospels)? Did Jesus go around mainly proclaiming whom he was (Gospel of John) or whom God was (Synoptics)?

The other day, I saw and retweeted a very apt and accurate tweet on Twitter concerning modern Christians and the Bible. Think about it for a second:

@jasmcfarland “To most Christians, the Bible is like a software license. Nobody actually reads it. They just scroll to the bottom and click ‘I agree.'”

This ignorance or refusal to care may be the kind of mindset that inspires claims of Biblical infallibility. Let’s look, for example, at the statement of faith of a Christian organization that doesn’t require naming, because it essentially agrees with a multitude of others:

The Bible is the first and final authority because it is the Word of God. We believe all the books in the Bible constitute the Holy Scriptures, inspired and infallibly written, fully inerrant in their original manuscripts…

I add the ellipses because there is more, but there is plenty to chew on here.  Let’s work backwards.

First of all, the concept of “original manuscripts” is really a moot point, as for all 66 books of the common Bible, the “original manuscripts” – those that date back to the original human author or scribe (by mode of dictation) – no longer exist. In fact, they haven’t existed for many centuries, and we have no way of knowing what exactly these “original manuscripts” said. In many cases, textual critics can narrow down the variations in the these manuscripts to the most likely (authentic and original) passages. However, people of faith don’t necessarily like the results that these scholars produce.

With a deep look at the statement of faith above, it seems to stress not that the Bible we have today is inerrant, but that it was written without initial flaw. Not many Christians with orthodox beliefs make this distinction, and in the end, it is a matter of faith. But that brings about the obvious question: why would God go to such great and immaculate lengths to inspire a perfect text if he wouldn’t do the same to preserve it?

And, how can the organization behind this faith statement contend that the books that appear in their Bible are the only ones of inerrant truth? Something tell me they haven’t examined apocryphal texts for their contents and are, again, believing what they’re taught.

One final point on the faith statement. The organization holds that the Bible is the final authority on… life, morality, faith, beliefs? On what exactly, it does not say. But what about difficult modern questions, ones that either the Bible itself never comes close to addressing, or addresses only through an Old Testament frame of mind without the presupposition of Jesus and his message? Does this organization allow room for God to and through speak to today’s believers?

With such a firm grip that some Christians hold on the Bible, it’s a wonder how we, as a body of Christ, are able to effectively minister to the people that need Jesus’ message the most. His message consisted of a lot of things, but it is summed up in his reading from the scroll of Isaiah: sight to the blind, freedom for the captives and loosing of the slaves… not the need to shoulder unnecessary amounts of dogma.

As Jesus sings in Godspell…

Alas, alas, for you
Lawyers and pharisees
Hypocrites that you are
Sure that the kingdom of Heaven awaits you
You will not venture half so far
Other men that might enter the gates you
Keep from passing through!
Drag them down with you!

Consider it the believer’s dilemma. Are we holding onto the Bible so tightly that we drag others down and away from the narrow gates? Is the Bible getting in the way of our personal and professional ministries? Have we made for ourselves an idol that replaces, or at least finds equality with, the living God?

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter. My words are by no means the last word on the subject. Thanks for reading, friends.

Labels

In varying circumstances, labels help us and they hurt us. They help our brain sort out the puzzle of life, but they irreparably prejudice our thoughts about what we’re labeling. Consider, for a minute: fishy aftertaste, used car salesman, feminist, Southern Baptist…

[Had to get in a denominational dig there. I’m sure I’ll write more about the poison of denominations at a later date!]

Anyway, McLaren writes at length about the things his detractors say about him, including the labels and terms used to discredit. My favorite among these, “heretic,” made its way into my blog’s title, because I’m sure I’m destined to be labeled the same way. Consider it some tongue-in-cheek truth in advertising.

So last night in the course of penning my first Truth and/or Heresy post, I wanted to check the date that Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus was published. My source became the all-knowing Wikipedia, and in the midst of fact-checking, my eyes were drawn to a quote from a critical review of the book:

Alex Beam, of the Boston Globe, wrote that the book is “a series of dramatic revelations for the ignorant”, and continues to say, “Ehrman notes that there have been a lot of changes to the Bible in the past 2,000 years. I don’t want to come between Mr. Ehrman and his payday, but this point has been made much more eloquently by … others.”

Now, I believe Ehrman’s intentions to be good and proper. He states quite plainly that he is agnostic, an ex-Christian who left the faith after wrestling with the question of suffering in the world. Fine and dandy! He notes, also, that among his goals is to educate lay people about the scholarly thought accepted by the large part of Biblical academia, a task that is very admirable and to which I also hold dear. But in the end, the reviewer takes offense because [1] he’s read better writers, and [2] Ehrman is getting (gasp) paid. As if the critique was written out of the benevolence of the writer’s heart.

Heretic and money-grubber. What isn’t to love about the path I’ve chosen?

My hope is that we could rise above categorizing one another by a handful of quotations or beliefs, to see more deeply the relative truths we speak within our narratives. That’s how the puzzle of life should be sorted.