Micah Bournes says, “Thank God for Evolution.”

I saw this video for the first time at The Justice Conference earlier this year (HT). It is performed by spoken word artist Micah Bournes. The title is “Thank God for Evolution,” which is a bit of tongue and cheek since Bournes presents us a race that is as wicked as ever. As the debates over evolution and the historical Adam continue (e.g. see Peter Enns’ post “What’s the REAL Problem with No Historical Adam, Really?”) to unfold I think this piece of art provides us with another way of thinking about what is at stake. What do you think of Bournes message, especially the possible poetic defense of a literal, historical Adam?

C.S. Lewis on marriage governed by the State and marriage governed by the Church.

C.S. Lewis and his wife, Joy Davidman.

Yesterday I proposed that we should make a distinction between civil unions recognized by the State (for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike) and marriage, something to be offered by churches, synagogues, mosques, and other visible religious institutions in  ”A commonsense solution on same-sex marriage.” It appears that C.S. Lewis held to a similar paradigm. In a comment Ellen Cressman provided a quotation from Lewis’ Mere Christianity (p. 112 in the 2001 Harper San Francisco printing):

“Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question-how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.”

Now, let me be clear, I don’t agree with everything Lewis says in this chapter on “Christian Marriage,” especially his words immediately following on “headship” in the home. (Also, excuse his outdated reference to Muslims as “Mohommedans.”) Yet here I think he was on to something way back in 1952. Christians must be very, very careful about equating morality as governed by the Church with morality as governed by the State. We know this already, for as I mentioned yesterday we do not legislate divorce, even divorce save porneia, so we must be aware of the dangers of trying to use the State to do what even the Holy Spirit seems unable to do sometimes–hold together our marriages.

Now I know one reaction (and it was exhibited in the comments) is that if we move marriage away from the hands of the State, allowing them to provide a religious-less “civil union,” then we risk opening the floodgates to polygamy and all other sorts of “unions.” Fair enough, but at that we must ask what the State has to do with marriage/civil unions in the first place. I am not a historian of world culture, nor of marriage, but I assume that it has not always been so that the State dictated how marriage worked or determined who could or could not join together in a union. Christian marriage has existed with or without the approval and support of the State, so it was not the State that birthed Christian marriage.

We must ask what interest does the State have in governing the affairs of unions. Does the State care if you are married to one spouse but have sex with twenty? No, you cannot go to jail for adultery. Does the State prevent this form of polygamy? No, it does not. The State’s interest has to do with organization. There must be something about the particularity of small partnerships (whether or not sex is involved) that interest the governing powers.  So if Reverend, Pastor So-and-So cannot sign on behalf of the government does that mean suddenly the government will want to provide civil unions of one man and twelve women? I don’t know, but I think that complicates things for the State and moves away from the reason the State likes having its voice in our marriage rituals.

That said, do I care if nine people share assets or if their partnerships result in tax breaks? I’m not sure that I do. Again, the State’s actions are not concerned with morality or the imagery that Christian marriage attempts to present. The State is concerned with organization and control.

Now I am not saying that Christians shouldn’t vote with their religious convictions as motivation. I think our convictions should motivate us to participate in our “democracy” in ways that makes life a little better for the poor, the immigrant, the widow, and a little harder on the oppressor, the murderer, the abuser, and so forth. But as I said above, we realize that at times some things should not or cannot be legislated–maybe unions resulting in hospital visitation rights, tax bracketing, asset sharing, and child custody is not one of those things? Maybe Lewis is right that Christians must live out a very particular vision of marriage, not asking the State to control it. Maybe we should focus on our own marriages and actually doing marriage the Christian way before we spend time demanding that the perks of the State be given only to those who are “married” in the eyes of the State.

A commonsense solution on same-sex marriage?

What if there is a win-win approach to settling the debate over same-sex marriage?

Bob Hyatt, Tony Campolo, Kurt Willems, and others have advocated a “common sense solution” to the debate over same-sex marriage, but are evangelicals listening?

As I mentioned yesterday (see “Stanley Hauerwas destroyed my hermeneutical paradigm.”) I am perplexed by the unspoken methodology with which Christians approach addressing the matter of the legalization of same-sex marriage. I think most Christians use the logic of (A) Scripture forbids homosexuality + (B) same-sex marriage (SSM) affirms homosexuality = therefore, (C) we should vote against same sex marriage. There are more complex, well-argued versions of this, but most Christians don’t seem to have given adequate attention to formulating their reasoning for their views.

Last year Kurt Willems wrote a satirical piece asking Christians to sign his petition banning divorce (see “Sign My Petition for a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Divorce!”) that strikes at the heart of the problem I have with evangelical jargon on this subject. We use language regarding something being “biblical,” therefore we determine what should be “legal,” but we are inconsistent, especially regarding sexual ethics. Most of us would not want a constitutional amendment to ban divorce, even if Jesus gave very little wiggle-room on this matter. Why do we want people to have the freedom to divorce legally when divorce stands in opposition to a Christian understanding of marriage? While someone may ignore Willems’ post as being too tongue-in-cheek there remains an unanswered question: “On what premise do we fight against same sex marriage in the courts, but not against divorce?”

Today Bob Hyatt–pastor of the Evergreen Community here in Portland, OR–wrote a fine short piece titled, “Last Chance for a Win-Win on Same Sex Marriage” wherein he presented a view I share on this matter (a view that Tony Jones alluded to as a “common sense solution”). He wrote,

On one side, the Church is going to have to realize that gay men and women, in wanting what everyone else has, are asking for something reasonable. Rights of inheritance and property, custody and visitation- all of the rights granted currently by the state in marriage are good things, things we can affirm, even in relationships that we wouldn’t necessarily endorse. After all, even if we hold a more conservative view on divorce, I don’t see many churches advocating for divorced couples to lose the right to have custody over their step-children should something happen to their spouse. We may not endorse the relationship, but we can certainly try to understand the desire of those in it to have the same legal rights as other couples. And more than understand it- I think we can advocate for it, and practically demonstrate that we do in fact “love everyone.”

Then he acknowledged the deep sacramental and religious significance the word “marriage” holds for Christians:

On the other side, those pushing for SSM need to understand the depth of feeling involved in and around the word marriage- what is for many Christians a sacrament and for all Christians sacred. To have the State legislate an understanding of what is essentially a religious term, and to legislate it in a way contrary to the faith and practice of so many is profoundly offensive. This goes beyond legalization into the realm of endorsement and definition, and as such, is qualitatively different than many other culture war issues.

Then he provided his solution:

The State needs to get out of the “marriage” business. It should recognize that as long as it uses that term, and continues to privilege certain types of relationships over others this issue is going to divide us as a nation, and is only going to become more and more contentious. We need to move towards the system used in many European countries where the State issues nothing but civil unions to anyone who wants them, and then those who desire it may seek a marriage from the Church. When I pastored in the Netherlands, this was the system- you got a civil union certificate at the courthouse and then a Marriage ceremony at the church. This division largely negated the culture war aspect, and allowed those churches who objected to same sex marriage on biblical grounds to not only opt out, but to be able to continue to teach their biblical view of marriage, uncontradicted by the State.

I recommend reading the whole article. That this approach is being use elsewhere, successfully, ought to peak our interest. Sadly, I think many on both side are blinded by their desire to “win” this debate. There are Christians who think marriage is compromised unless the state reflects their views on the matter. There are others who think the “fundamentalist” win if they settle for anything short of the use of the word “marriage.” But if the heart of the matter is found in Hyatt’s first paragraph–that homosexuals want equal rights when it comes to sharing property that is their’s, or custody over children they raised together, or various tax benefits, then this isn’t about whether we say “civil unions” or “marriage.”

Let us leave “marriage” to the churches, synagogues, and mosques and the civil unions to the state.

If someone finds a religious body who will acknowledge same sex “marriage” then let that be a difference between various religious bodies, not a difference of civil standing in a pluralistic nation.

Psalm 1: comments and grammar chart

Psalm 1 introduces the Psalter as Torah. We are to read and meditate upon the Psalms. 

In this Psalm there is a juxtaposition of two types of people: the righteous and the wicked. In v.1 we are told that the righteous one is “blessed” or “happy” (אַ֥שְֽׁרֵי) if they do not “walk in the counsel of the wicked (1.1b);” “stand in the path of sinners (1.1c);” or “sit in the seat of scoffers (1.1d).” Through parallelism we learn that the wicked, sinners, and scoffers are essentially the same type of person

It is important to realize what the psalmist does with these images. While the righteous avoid the counsel, way, and seat of the wicked it is the wicked who will be forbidden from “arising” (לֹא־יָקֻ֣מוּ) at the judgement, sitting in the congregation of the righteous, or participating in the way of the righteous.

Righteous avoid/wicked are forbidden: 

- walking in the counsel of wicked (1.1b)

- standing in the “path” or “way” of sinners (1.1c)/wicked cannot “arise” at the judgement (1.5a)and the “way” (דֶּ֣רֶךְ) of the wicked is destruction (1.6b)

- sitting in the assembly (or seating place) of scoffers (1.1d)/sinners forbidden from assembly of the righteous (1.5b)

The righteous “delights” in the Torah of YHWH (1.2a). This is the starting point of differentiation. While it is true that this can refer to Torah as in the Books of Moses, it likely refers to the Psalter itself as well. It has been noted that the Psalms consist of five books (like Torah): 1-41; 42-72; 73-89; 90-106; 107-150. Each of these books ends with a doxology. Whoever arranged the Psalter was intention about creating a “musical Torah” if you will. So when Psalm 1.2 says that the blessed person “delights in the Torah of YHWH” and meditates on “his Torah…day and night” the Books of Moses are in view, but so is the Psalter that this psalm introduces.

Prior to the juxtaposition between the righteous and the wicked at the end of the psalm we find one of imagery in the middle. Since the righteous one delights in the Torah and meditates on it he becomes “like a tree (1.3a)” that is “planted by/upon streams of water (1.3b)” always producing its fruit in season (1.3c) and never experiencing a withering of its leaves (1.3d). It is as if the righteous one is a new “Tree of Life.” Everything that the righteous one does will prosper (an odd claim when we consider the psalms to come, 1.3e).

The “wicked are not so” in that they are compared to dried, dead “chaff” easily blown away by the wind (1.4) This preludes the statement in v. 6: YHWH knows the way of the righteous (hence, security), “but the way of the wicked will perish.”

The Septuagint has an interesting statement in v. 5a that makes me curious to how the early Christians would have read it. It says,οὐκ ἀναστήσονται ἀσεβεῖς ἐν κρίσει. This can be translated, “…the wicked will not arise in the judgement.” Interestingly enough ἀναστήσονται (ἀνίστημι) is the word uses for resurrection.

I have put together a grammatical flow chart to compare the MT and LXX if you are interested. That can be accessed here: LePort. Psalm 1. LXX.MT.Chart. Feedback is welcome.

Stanley Hauerwas destroyed my hermeneutical paradigm.

In December 0f 2006 I finished my first semester of seminary studies, grabbed a ride to the airport, and flew to New York City to attend the wedding of a couple of my close friends. I gave myself one extra day of travel to explore Manhattan afterwards. As my wanderings around the Big Apple came to a close I stopped into a Boarders (remember those?) by Madison Square Garden to browse. I came across a series of essays titled The Hauerwas Reader edited by J. Berkman and M.G. Cartwright. This book is an anthology of  essays by the Christian ethicist Stanley Hauerwas.

The Hauerwas Reader

I was challenged by what I was reading, so much so that I bought the book. I resonated with Hauerwas’ arguments, even when I couldn’t fathom the implications. Yes, Christian should live as an alternative people. Yes, Christians should refuse to kill. Yes to this and yes to that! Now what am I supposed to do with these arguments?

I am asking this question still.

One essay destroyed my black-and-white hermeneutical paradigm. It humbled me. I realized that I had a lot to learn regarding interpreting the Scriptures. I have been on a quest to reconstruct my hermeneutical approach to Scripture ever since.  The article was a short, three page piece that Hauerwas had written for the Charlotte Observer in 1993 when one of the major national debates was over whether homosexuals could serve in the United States military. It was titled, “Why Gays (as a Group) are Morally Superior to Christians (as a Group).” (You can access it through Google Books, pp. 519-521 here.)

In the opening paragraph Hauerwas wrote:

“I am ambivalent about recent discussions concerning gays in the military. I see no good reason why gays and lesbians should be excluded from military service; as a pacifist I do not see why anyone would want to serve. Moreover, I think it a wonderful thing that some people are excluded as a group. I only wish that Christians could be seen by the military to be as problematic as gays (p. 519).”

He proceeded to argue that we were excluding homosexuals from the military as a way of trying to restore some sense of morality in a world where our morality was already out of order. We didn’t know why we were doing what we were doing as a nation. We didn’t have sexuality “figured out” anymore than homosexuals did. Hauerwas wrote this stringing remark:

“As a society we have no general agreement about what constitutes marriage and/or what good marriages ought to serve. We allegedly live in a monogamous culture, but in fact we are at best serially polygamous. We are confused about sex, why and with whom we have it, and about our reasons for having children (pp. 519-520).”

Hauerwas argued that our moral confusion led to our grasping at straws, seeking a scapegoat, someone to call “immoral” so we would know how to define ourselves as “moral.” Then Hauerwas turned the tables on us Christians as he has righteously done for many years. He asked what it would look like if the Catholic tradition of “just war” was persuade with as much vigor as our stance against homosexuals in the military. He asked what it would look like if Christians were so dedicated to love and non-violence that the military considered Christians a threat to their aims just like they considered homosexuals a threat.

What if Christians prayed for peace? What if Christians refused to submit to anyone, even a general, whose orders were not aligned with the peace of Christ? What is Christians sought to witness to Christ at all times? He wrote this pithy paragraph:

“Finally, consider the problem of taking showers with these people. They are, after all, constantly going about the business of witnessing in hopes of making converts to their God and church. Would you want to shower with such people? You never know when they might try to baptize you (p. 521).”

Then he ended with these words:

“If gays can be excluded as a group from the military, I have hope that it could even happen to Christians. God, after all, has done stranger things in the past.

“However, until God works this miracle, it seems clear to me that gays, as a group, are morally superior to Christians (p. 521).”

I was a bit stunned. The thought came to mind, “Why do I judge homosexuals, especially Christians who struggle with homosexuality, yet honor Christians who serve in the military and possibly kill other humans?” Another thought came to mind, “Why does the church accept Christians in the military when Jesus spoke so straightforwardly about killing and violence? Why do we dedicate worship gatherings to honor military veterans, especially around the 4th of July? How have we explained away the call to ‘turn the other cheek’ and to never ‘return evil for evil’ so easily?”

If you were to ask me once every day for a week whether or not Christians should serve in the military I will say, “No!” three times; “No” twice; and “Maybe” twice. That is my pacifism.

What I have found most perplexing is how Christians can give so much energy to explaining why homosexuality is a sin while honoring Christians who participate in war as heroes saying nothing about the sins they commit. If you kill another person in Iraq you can come back to the United States and likely receive financial aid to attend almost any evangelical seminary around. This is not so if you write on your admissions essay, “I think I might be homosexual.”

I am not advocating the compatibility of Christianity with homosexuality. I am suggesting that our conversation on this topic is more rhetoric than substance. I agree with John Byron that this is a subject where we have shown little intellectual muscle strength, often fearing what might be said if we use the “h” word (see “Homosexuality: When will the church really have a conversation?”).

I see articles like James Emery White’s “The ‘No’ and ‘Yes’ to Culture Wars” where he advocates for Christians taking a political stance against same-sex marriage and I wonder why same-sex marriage is one of his “yes” answers while our nation’s military industrial complex is not?! Why is homosexuals aiming for a monogamous relationship worth our time, but the death of thousands of people (many who are not Christians, therefore damned in White’s worldview) isn’t?

I appreciate Christians like Tim Keller who are asking, “How do we acknowledge the image of God in all humans, including homosexuals ?” Yet I wonder what Keller says to an soldier home from duty about whether or not s/he could reenlist if s/he is a Christian (see “Tim Keller on how to treat homosexuals”)?

I am not asking Christians to affirm homosexuality as moral. I am asking why other matters of greater importance are ignored. What do we do with homelessness, disease, addiction, war, famine….on and on. Why is it “social gospel” for someone to make a call to care about these issues?

Christians who advocate military service for Christians often make arguments from silence like, “Well, John the Baptist and Jesus are depicted as meeting military personal and they never tell them to quit.” Sometimes I hear, “Yes, Jesus calls us to ‘turn the other cheek’ but [insert qualifications A, B, and C, including possible qualification D regarding "practicality in our sinful world."]! What if a Christian advocates for monogamous homosexuality by saying, “Well, in Romans 1 Paul isn’t writing about loving, monogamous homosexual relationships because he had never seen one.”? We respond, “Oh c’mon, you can’t argue from silence when we have so many clear passages that teach against it.” Or if someone says, “Yes, homosexuality was wrong back then, but we are in a different cultural milieu!” we accuse them of relativizing Scripture. God forbid they appeal to being “practical in our sinful world.”

It may be possible to affirm Christian military service while denying Christians being homosexual, but many of the arguments I hear are selective at best, disingenuous at worst. I wish more Christians would be smacked by someone like Stanley Hauerwas and forced to ask themselves, “What is my hermeneutical paradigm for saying biblical prohibition A no longer applies while biblical prohibition B does.” I think we have a long, long way to go to say we have done the hard exegetical and theological work to which John Byron calls us. I think many of us might discover our application of Scripture is already relativized by the majority culture. It is kind of like this comic:

First time presenting at SBL.

Society of Biblical Literature

I attended the Pacific Northwest Regional of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) this last weekend. It was my second regional, third SBL meeting, and first time as a presenter. I wasn’t terribly nervous because I am not foreign to public speaking, but this was a new venue.

If I were to relay some advice to any future “rookies” it would be the following:

(1) Remain within your time limit: The moderator for our group gave each speaker thirty minutes. I think I finished in twenty-five. I presumed I would be forgiven for going a little short, but I knew that it would not be a good first impression to go beyond the time I was given.

(2) Write your paper for readability: You can access my paper here. Since I knew I would be reading my paper verbatim I wrote it as I would speak it. It retains a formal feel to it, but it was designed primarily to flow well when read aloud. Some people don’t read their papers. There were those who used PowerPoint and some seemed to have notes that were more like bullet points. But if you read your paper, write it to be read.

(3) Let footnotes be your friend: You may anticipate that people will ask questions about this or that part of your paper. Don’t feel the need to address every potential question or objection in the body of the text. In World Turned Upside Down C. Kavin Rowe mentions that he uses his footnotes to allow people to see his presuppositions. I decided to follow that method as well. This allows the paper to stay on point while still showing you have thought about what you are saying.

(4) Dress respectably: I hate wearing suits, but I did for this presentation. It was the Pacific Northwest regional which tends to be casual (at least this is what I have been told about it in comparison to other regionals), but I was a first time presenter. I didn’t feel like I had earned the right to wear jeans. Maybe someday, but not for my first go at it.

(5) Encourage discussion afterward: My favorite part of presenting at SBL was hearing people brainstorm over questions that arose from my paper. I had the opportunity to listen and learn as people like John (Jack) Levison and Paul N. Anderson went back and forth discussing matters related to Acts 19.1-7. That was a learning experience. I may have been the presenter, but I became the student at the end, and it was great.

If you have presented at SBL what advice would you give to future first time presenters? 

Reflections on Islamic Diversity

Shiites praying.

As I mentioned previously (here), I’ve had the opportunity to spend some time in the Middle East. I took it as a time of learning about a place and a people whose geography, climate, topography, society, culture, and religion differ vastly from my own. As I resided in the United Arab Emirates, I found that despite how different the aforementioned list appeared, there were also similarities that I’ve observed.

There are two things that tend to happen when a Westerner speaks about the Middle East. The first is the tendency to rely upon media depictions and the second is the tendency to group everyone in the same boat. This isn’t to say that media depictions are completely incorrect, but they do tend to be skewed. Much of Islam that is depicted in the Western media I’ve seen makes Muslims appear to be radicals who are intent on terrorism. Not only that, but I know people often end up with the picture that all Muslims are radicals.

Actually, there is quite a diversity in Islam. Just like with other religious groups, there are those who are fundamentalist, conservative, moderate, and liberal. I’ve met Muslims who tend to follow a very literal reading of the Qu’ran, similar to how a fundamentalist or conservative Christian would follow a very literal reading of the Bible. On the other hand, I’ve met some Muslims who have made me scratch my head at their beliefs as I don’t think what they were saying was even in the Qu’ran or could be implied from it.

I say all of the above to point out that there is a diversity within the Islamic faith in regards to belief—even in a Muslim nation! Not only that, but even in praxis is there diversity. Some Muslims would not share the elevator with me. However, I’ve had other Muslims treat me out, pray for me, and even ask for my prayers. I’ve seen some Muslims who have appeared to be indignant to serve anyone, yet I’ve seen Muslims with a heart for serving others.

As a Christian, my life is to be oriented around loving God and others. This means that I am not to prejudge. I hope this post will help others not to prejudge those whom the media tends to mischaracterize, but will help one to learn about others with the intention of loving them just as they are.