I might have to take a page from the Red Stick Rant book and put this website into temporary(?) hibernation. The last 2 weeks have been working 10-12 hours/day which is fine. Hard work is part of congregational ministry. But has not left me with much extra time or mental/spiritual energy for posting. As for politics the situation is so bad what more is there to say? The health of this nation – by which I mean liberty opportunity responsibility prosperity security and charity – will not improve until the political-cultural left is removed from power by legitimate democratic means.

And now I have been offered the chance to teach Intermediate (Biblical) Hebrew at Louisiana State University as an adjunct starting this semester. Which is fantastic. But also means less than 5 weeks to prepare! So in addition to (1) full time congregational ministry which has become more demanding as our new co-pastors provide new direction and leadership and (2) part time computer/network support – which lately has been unusually time consuming because of the issues involved with getting two Mac computers to play nice with our Small Business Server 2003 network environment – add (3) teaching one course at the university which means both class time and extensive preparation.

Maybe I could just get in one or two posts a week. But cannot promise that.

Before turning off the light – hopefully temporarily – let me list some of the things I was hoping to address. Just so you know what I have been thinking and reading about.

Review of New York Metropolitan Opera performance of “Die Walkuere” by Richard Wagner. Quick summary = One does not normally expect to enjoy 5 1/2 hours of Wagnerian opera! But truly this performance/production will go down in history as one of the great triumphs in the history of opera.

Review of New York Metropolitan Opera performance of “Madame Butterfly” by Gioachino Rossini. Quick summary = Fascinating and excellent performance. An utterly heartbreaking and tragic story that raises cross-cultural issues as well as the (past?) problem of American colonialism.

Review of “Super 8″. Quick summary = Loved it so much paid to see it twice.

Review of “X-Man First Class”. Quick summary = Awesome.

Review of “The University in a Single Atom” by the Dalai Lama. Which I read primarily because it was a gift from my sister. Quick summary = Excellent and illuminating. Christians who are interested in (a) the relationship between science and religion and/or (b) understanding Buddhism do well to read this.

The Southern Baptist Convention’s recent resolutions on immigration and ministry to (illegal) immigrants. Quick summary = Rather surprising and leaves many people in the odd situation of regarding those Southern Baptists as too liberal!

Allen West versus Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Quick summary = There are more effective ways to rebuke the political-cultural left.

Modest proposal for how English language Bibles should translate Hebrew tsdaqa(h) and Greek dikaiosyne.

Terence Fretheim on the book of Exodus and to what extent scholars and pastors and teachers may misunderstand and even misrepresent biblical law and covenant theology.

One of my favorite examples of ancient art

This Thursday evening my children and I will fly to upstate New York to spend a week visiting with my mom as well as my sisters and brother and his family who all live in Minnesota. My mom lives on a farm outside a village in rural upstate New York and internet access means driving into town and hanging out at a coffee shop. *ahem means probably not gonna update this for a couple weeks*

Simply put the state of New York has legalized gay marriage. Much more importantly has done this (a) through the legislative process and (b) with a Republican dominated state Senate. To put it bluntly that is how it should be done. Rather than by judicial fiat that often presumes to override the collective will of the citizenry even when they have amended their state constitution. The executive branch does not make law. The judicial branch should not make law although one can understand why some argue in a way it does. That is the job of the legislative branch. As Gay Patriot comments:

Elected state legislatures, I have always contended, are the appropriate fora to decide such issues.

The process was often messy, the rhetoric regularly exaggerated, the understanding of marriage generally at odds with the history of the institution, but at least those who made the final decision were elected by the people of the various jurisdictions of the Empire State and thus answerable to them at the ballot box.

We may not have had (and indeed did not have) the type of civil discussion of the importance and meaning of marriage that would have helped strengthen the institution (and not just in New York), but the branch of government responsible for deciding whether the state should privilege same-sex unions as it has long privileged different-sex monogamous unions resolved the issue.

And Instapundit earlier notes:

I think it’s good that it was passed by the legislature rather than imposed by a court.

Let me pause for a moment and lay out some of my thoughts on this issue:

I am a traditionalist and am convinced the Bible is the primary authority for Christian teaching and practice. The Bible is pretty clear that (a) marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman and (b) same-sex intercourse – along with a whole bunch of other things – is not compatible with the way of life in Christ. Some Christians who have no objections to same-sex attraction/relations/intercourse openly concede this. One cannot interpret the Bible in such a way to make it somehow endorse or tolerate same-sex intercourse. The only option for Christians who disagree is to say the Bible is just plain wrong on the matter.

Ah but how does that play out in the public square? That is where traditionalist Christians must recognize the issue is more complicated. There are many things that are not compatible with the way of life in Christ. But are we arguing that all of things should be prohibited by the government and said prohibitions enforced by the power of the state?

I have a great deal of respect for The Other McCain and by extension those they quote. But I cannot agree with the blanket statement that marriage is a religious institution and therefore our only options are (i) recognizing it even the point of amending the United States Constitution or (ii) have it removed from the government entirely because of church-state separation and have the government then enforce legal contracts between two or more adults.

Is marriage a religious institution? You betcha. But so is the church no? So what does the government have to do with that?

My undergraduate and graduate studies focused mostly on the history and culture and languages and literature of Ancient West Asia aka the Ancient Near East. I have some familiarity with how marriage worked in the Ancient East Mediterranean around 3200-400 B.C.E. They had it. I have read some marriage contracts in the original languages. Even plaster casts of the original cuneiform tablets. They were not Christians. Most of them were not Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. (Strictly speaking one should not use the terms Jewish or Judaism until after the Babylonian Exile.) Most of them were not trying to follow the teachings of God in the Bible. The point is that marriage is a very widespread very ancient legal-social institution that does not appear to be linked to any one specific religion. Marriage was not so much divinely ordained committed relationship between man and woman as it was a legal contract. This is not to say that is all it was. That there was never love or affection or any sense that this was somehow endorsed by the gods. We have interesting examples of how husbands and wives in the ancient world were bound together by love and affection.

Now I will confess that ancient marriage is not my area of expertise. I know what I have seen read and studied. There may be scholars who focus on this that have more to say on the subject. Particularly with regard to marriage as religious not just legal. Indeed one might argue that religious versus legal is an artificial distinction when talking about ancient societies. But I have reason to believe that most ancient societies did not necessarily regard social-legal institutions as expressions of relationship with the gods. Consider the distinctive character of the Book of the Covenant in the book of Exodus 21-24.

Where is all the above going? That we have the remarkable situation in the United States (and elsewhere) where clergy (of whatever religion) act as agents of the government when they perform marriages. If I perform a wedding and sign the certificate then those two people are legally married even if they never appear before a judge or justice of the peace. I have to say – well maybe I don’t but I say it anyway – “with the authority I have as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and from the state of Louisiana“. Do you see that? I have the power to enact(?) a significant legal contract/relationship between two people that must be recognized by the state.

My tentative point of view at this time is that the issue of gay marriage is so sticky partly because the Christian church along with other religious communities have allowed marriage as a religious institution to become confused and entangled with marriage as a social-legal institution.

I vaguely recall a couple years ago when Gay Patriot – along with others – argued that perhaps the Christian church needs to pull out of the legal marriage business. Allow marriage to be a social-legal institution. License then civil ceremony then certificate and so on. And then there can be a religious ceremony that enacts this new relationship as a recognized institution within that religious community. I could be wrong. But that is where I lean right now.

This may help clarify some of the controversy surrounding so-called gay marriage. And clarify some of the true motives of those who advocate or oppose gay marriage. So many Christians object to it. Therefore they think it should not be allowed by the state. Do you see the leap/jump there?

Now that does not mean there is no reason for that leap/jump. Some might reason “God – revealing himself and his will through Scripture – would have marriage be between a man and woman for life (except for certain unusual/extreme circumstances). God – ditto – would also warn us to eschew same-sex relations/intercourse. We understand that this is not (necessarily) a Christian society. We understand not everyone is Christian. Therefore why should we expect everyone to obey what we are convinced reflects the revealed purposes of God for humanity? Well there are plenty of other things God endorses or condemns that are allowed/permitted in our society. Nobody complains about those laws we already have that happen to agree with biblical law. Nobody complains well the Bible says do not steal so we can’t have any laws against theft. Nobody says well the Bible tells us to show compassion to the poor so we better stop that because separate of church and state ya know. So the revealed purposes of God alert us to what leads to a peaceful just society and those things that lead to disorder and injustice. That being so we may be able to articulate we these things are good for society and those things are not in ways that people of other religions or not religion can understand and support. One is reminded of the less well known but vitally important Socratic dialogue Euthyphro. Perhaps we can say these things are not good not just because God says they aren’t. God says these things are not good because they aren’t. Or in the language of Socrates that which is holy is loved by the gods because it is holy (Euthyphro 12). And thus so-called secular society for its own good reasons may decide that there should be such a legal institution called marriage and that these are its limits and requirements. Because that is what so-called secular society regards as the best most stable most healthy way to order and structure itself. In other words no to gay marriage – not because of God allegedly says but because we just don’t think it’s a good idea. How many examples of gay marriage do we find in the ancient world? Why did ancient societies – most of whom were not Christian/Jewish – do marriage this way and not that way?”

Oh dear I may have neatly refuted myself. Well maybe not. But you get the idea. In a nutshell those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons might want to find ways to articular their case that do not depend solely or primarily on divine revelation. And we might need to separate marriage as legal institution from marriage as religious institution. I could be wrong. Neither is a hill for me to die on. I am not firmly convinced of either. But this is where I stand tentatively at this time.

And if any of those excellent friends at Gay Patriot stop by (c) they have articulated reasonable and principled arguments in favor of committed same-sex marriage and (d) the above paragraphs imply the possibility of non-religious arguments in favor of same-sex marriage do they not?

Our excellent friend Opinionated Catholic does however express grave concerns about the religious exemption language in the New York State law. This should not be overlooked. Because what good is it to say “okay hey separation of church and state and all that so let’s separate marriage as religious from marriage as legal institution” – perhaps in order to disarm and neutralize people who object chiefly on religious grounds – and then turn around and force religious communities to endorse/celebrate/tolerate/enact gay marriage because of the law? That’s a neat trick. Rather like how this administration disarms Americans by saying “it’s not a tax” and then argues “this is a tax” before federal courts. “It’s not a religious matter” in order to get gay marriage and then the government turns around and makes it a religious matter.

By the way in 16(?) years of ordained ministry not once have I preached a sermon about same-sex relations or abortion or stem-cell research. On only a few occasions have I expressed my views on these subjects in private conversation/correspondence. So who really focuses on these issues hmm?

And also by the way would commend to you an excellent post “Stray Thoughts on Gay Marriage” at Ace of Spades HQ. Which outlines how to a large extent gay marriage has been achieved by dishonest (and inconsistent even contradictory) arguments. That’s not to say Ace has any particular beef with gay rights as such. But like Ace I happen to believe that the means to a just end must also be just. I don’t like it when people deceive and manipulate to get what they want. Even if I happen to agree with that goal.

Back to New York because this is really the main point I would like to make.

James Taranto makes some particularly brilliant points in his recently piece “Dire Straits”. He reminds us that one year ago New York State became the last state to enact no fault divorce. Think about that. And then think about what gay marriage advocates think they just won. But this is not really or primarily about gay marriage. Therein lies his brilliant point.

Deroy Murdock made a good point some years back when he observed, in a column posted at NRO, that “social conservatives who blow their stacks over homosexual matrimony’s supposed threat to traditional marriage tomorrow should focus on the far greater damage that heterosexuals are wreaking on that venerable institution today.”

Murdock should have written “have wreaked for decades,” because the developments we note all long predate any serious consideration of the idea of same-sex marriage. …

Thus for the foreseeable future, civil marriage is likely to retain its character as little more than a financial arrangement. To be sure, many individual marriages are deeply committed relationships. But under a regime that permits either spouse to opt out of the commitment at will, the legal recognition of marriage is mere symbolism.

Boom. It’s like getting upset that water is getting into your house when for decades you haven’t done anything to maintain the roof and walls. People are upset about gay marriage when they should have been paying more attention to marriage.

What is marriage? Why bother getting married instead of living together? And – this is where many Christian friends will disagree with me – it’s not enough to say “this is what God ordained”. One would like to think even God ordains things for a good reason. Can we articulate those reasons? And articulate those reasons in ways that both people within and people outside our religious communities can understand and appreciate? We/some/they say gay marriage is such a terrible thing that will result in the collapse of healthy stable social order. Well maybe. But have we explained why we should have marriage to begin with?

Christians have not failed to make the case against gay marriage. They failed to make the case for marriage.

Note – These are my notes from Evensong last night. I apologize that all this is in note form. I will add the text of the quotes – which are important – later.

Was planning to talk about ecclesiology/church in 1 Peter
But Genesis 22 – might be one of most important
repeat some of this morning but expand

Difficult challenging story
David Regenspan in Muhammad and Rise of Early Islam
“Don’t preach this text. Stay away. Too dangerous”

But we must not avoid/stay away
What it shows about (a) faith (b) God (c) way of relationship w God

Context
life of Abraham – basically Genesis 12-22 (technically 11-25 = prologue/postlogue)
lek-lka in Genesis 12 and 22
what Genesis 12 begins Genesis 22 finishes
powerful impossible promises
struggle and wait for 25 years
finally Isaac is born!
and now God wants A to offer him as sacrifice?!?
threatens(?) to destroy and undo past(?) and future

Pause
if we only have Genesis 12-21 what is faith? way of relationship with God?

Why does the story disturb and bother us?
because of context – will God undo everything so far?
only place God asks for human sacrifice?

How can we unpack story to understand what is happening / what it teaches?

“Through Isaac the child of the impossible promise. And now God tells Abraham to offer this child as a sacrifice. What will happen to everything that God has promised and everything God has done?

Perhaps that is the point. Perhaps that is the first thing we learn from the story.”

Cannot remember what is point / thing we learn

Literary structure
Walter Brueggemann
3 times call-answer-statement
God-Abraham-command
Isaac-Abraham-question-statement “The Lord will see to it”
angel-Abraham-command
(in every case Abraham is the focus – the one who answers)
what stands out? what is extra / does not fit pattern
verse 8 is key – “The Lord will see to it”

Beginnings and endings
The Lord tests… “Now I know”
“Take your only son whom you love” … “Have not kept back your only son whom you love”
both cases – what is in the middle? what holds the beginning and ending together?
no matter how we approach the story verse 8 is the center – “The Lord will see to it”
what does this mean? why is it important?

What is faith / way of relationship w God in Genesis 12-21?
conversation with member of University Baptist
faith and prayer
faith makes a difference
“your faith has saved you”
“help my unbelief”
faith has something to do w God answers our prayer (does/gives)
something to do w what we see / experience / understand

Whole new understand of faith in Genesis 22
stretches / challenges -> deeper understanding of biblical faith
Abraham does not understand (a) command (b) how will God keep his impossible promises?
(some will debate #b – does Abraham know? does he know how?)
be careful not to bring in Hebrews 11 – not yet
try to understand text on its own terms

does not know / does not understand

Faith beyond God answers / does / gives
faith beyond see / experience / understand
can we have faith / do we have faith when we see no reason to believe?
no job / no healing / no change
all we see if failure / defeat / loss / death
we do not understand – but we trust you
(earthquake/tsunamis in Japan)
God test and provides
God is mysterious but reliable
(some Christians avoid one or the other)
often mistake of either/or not both/and

Two ways to shed light on this new understanding of faith

1) Tolkien

conversation between elven king Finrod Felagund and wise woman Andreth (Morgoth’s Ring)
“have yet then no hope?” amdir = looking up <-> estel = trust
perhaps biblical faith ~ estel = deep radical trust beyond ways of world / experience
common theme in Tolkien
quote Dickerson, Following Gandalf, 138
(people continue to choose good even when they see no way they can win)
quote Ralph Wood, Gospel According to Tolkien, 101-102, also 105

2) Related words/concepts that shed light on each other
faith (or trust in sense of lean upon) – H ‘aman
hope – qawa(h) (not in Genesis 22)
fear – if this story is about faith why mention fear?
trust – rather set confidence – not common and unclear relationship to faith/trust

Note – I am not entirely happy with this sermon as sermon. In other words it need more work and the central idea/point needs to be developed much better. But I share it because of the central idea/point which is challenging.

“A Whole New Understanding of Faith/Estel (or) The Unavoidable Story”
Genesis 22
Richard M. Wright
Church of the Nations
2nd Sunday of Pentecost (A) or 13th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Stay away from this story. Because it is too dangerous.

Cornell University. Two thousand and two. Graduate seminar on Muhammad and the Rise of Early Islam with Professor David Powers. Each student must choose and topic and give a presentation and write a research paper. My friend and classmate David Regenspan – who is also a Jewish rabbi – says that he is going to focus on the story of when Abraham will sacrifice his son. In the Bible his son Isaac. But in the Qur’an his son Ishmael.  He wants to focus on this topic – how the Qur’an takes our Bible story for today and tells it in a different way – because when he is in graduate school preparing to become a rabbi his teachers tell them never preach this story. Stay away from it. Because it is too dangerous.

Our Bible reading for today from the book of Genesis chapter twenty two is dangerous. But we cannot stay away. Because this story is so difficult and challenges how we understand faith and how we understand God and how we understand the way of relationship with God.

And after these things God tests Abraham.

After these things. Our Bible reading for this morning from the book of Genesis chapter twenty two is part of a larger story that begins in chapter twelve. One of the most important chapters in the Bible. When God says to Abraham, Leave your land / your relatives / the house of your father and go to a land I will show you. And the Lord gives to Abraham powerful and important promises. I will give you descendants. I will make you a great nation. I will make your name famous. And through you all the families of the earth will be blessed.

This is what God promises to an old man and woman who have no children and no land of their own. They begin a long difficult journey with God. Ten years twenty years. Abraham and Sarah both struggle with worry and fear. Will God keep / how will God keep / when will God keep his promises? Sometimes they try to make the promises come true on their own and it does not work very well. Sometimes God appears to Abraham and repeats the promises / even holds himself to them.

And then finally after waiting for twenty five years Abraham and Sarah have a child of their own. And Isaac is born in chapter twenty one. God keeps his first impossible promise. Abraham will have descendants through Isaac. Through Isaac Abraham will become a great nation. His name will be famous. Through this family all the families of the earth will be blessed.

And now chapter twenty two. After these things… God says to him, Abraham! Here I am. Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac and go to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a a sacrifice/offering on one of the mountains that I will tell you.

Chapter twelve. God says lekh-lkha go from… to a land I will show you. Chapter twenty two. Qah-na take. Lekh-lkha go to a mountain that I will show you. Almost the same. In a way our story repeats the command of God and completes the journey with God that begins in chapter twelve. Both times Abraham does what God says and he goes.

Already we struggle to understand what this story is about. God makes impossible promises to Abraham. For twenty five years Abraham goes and trusts and waits. Finally everything that God promises to Abraham is going to come true. Through Isaac the child of the impossible promise. And now God tells Abraham to offer this child as a sacrifice. What will happen to everything that God has promised and everything God has done?

Perhaps that is the point. Perhaps that is the first thing we learn from the story.

To understand this story better we need to look at how it is shaped. Walter Brueggemann is very important scholar of the Old Testament. He describes how three times there is call / command / response.

The first one. God calls Abraham / Abraham responds, Here I am / God commands. The second one. Isaac calls Abraham / Abraham responds / Isaac asks a question / Abraham answers. The third one. The angel calls Abraham / Abraham answers / the angel commands. What does not fit the pattern? What is different? When Abraham answers Isaac, The Lord will see to it (the lamb for the sacrifice).

{{Look at how the story begins and ends. The Lord tests Abraham… God says, Now I know that you fear God and have not kept back your only son from me. God tests / now God knows. Or take your only son whom you love – a command that we do not understand makes no sense that will destroy everything that God has promised and done. But at the end you have not kept back your only son from me – the danger of this strange command is over. }} (skipped this paragraph – not necessary or clear)

The Bible – especially the New Testament – presents Abraham as the model of faith. Abraham believed God. This is what faith looks like. So what do we learn about faith? Learn about God? Learn about the way of relationship with God?

I do not completely understand this story. I do not have all the answers. But there is at least one thing I think I understand. This story invites us to discover a whole new understanding of faith.

Abraham has faith in God. Another we to say that is he trusts God. He believes that God is good and will do what he says. He believes that God will give him and his wife a child who will become a great nation and all the families of the earth will be blessed. He sees God do this.

And now God asks Abraham to do something he does not understand. He does not know how God will keep the promises / does not understand how his family will have a future if he does what God says and offers his only son whom he loves. There is no reason to believe. Abraham does not understand. But he still has faith in God. He still trusts that somehow God will see to it.

Not just, I have faith that God will answer my prayer / do what I ask / give what I need. Not just, I trust God because I see / experience / understand. But a whole new understanding of faith that is beyond what we see / what we experience / what we understand / beyond God answers / does / gives.

Faith that says, I do not understand. But still I trust you. No matter what.

James Tissot, "The woman who had been crippled for 18 years" (1886-1896)

First published in The Window (November 2006)

Sabba- (or) Holy Liberation, part V
Richard M. Wright

(The Sabba- is going somewhere…)

Last week I suggested that Sabba- in part represents the opposite of slavery. Perhaps liberation. And therefore asked, If we choose not to practice Sabba- are we choosing (a kind of) slavery over freedom?

In Luke 13 Jesus heals a woman on the Sabba-. “On a Sabba- Jesus was teaching… and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years… When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, ‘Woman, you are set free from your infirmity’” (13:10-12; NIV).

What is strange is that Jesus does not use the language of healing. Not “woman you are healed” but “woman, you are set free (Greek apolúoo “set free, release, pardon”; Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: 96b). And when some complain that Jesus is healing on the Sabba- he replies, “Should not this woman… whom Satan has kept bound… be set free (Greek lúoo “loose, untie, release”) from what bound her?” (13:16).

Jesus uses the language of liberation. Of untying… of forces of evil (spiritual? psychological? socio-economic? even physical?) that hold prisoner and that keep in bonds… of release. This is not just about healing a sickness. This is about setting a human being free from the forces that make her a prisoner and hold her down. The Sabba- is a day for rest and worship… for playing and praying… The Sabba- is also a day for liberation and for setting human beings free from whatever holds us prisoner.

Two questions.

First. Does the Christian community ever turn this day of liberation into a day of… bondage? slavery? drudgery?

Second. How do we – as individuals, as families, as a church family – practice Sabba- even more as a day of liberation?

Arthur Waskow describes Sabba- as a revolutionary act – and Sabba- keepers as guerilla soldiers who liberate time. I would add that Sabba- must become even more a liberating time and Sabba- keepers as those who not only liberate time but set human beings free.

Philip Ratner, "Remember the Sabbath"

Originally published in The Window (November 10, 2006)

Holy Liberation (or) Sabb-, part IV
by Richard M. Wright

(The Sabb- is going somewhere…)

Are we slaves?

(Say whaaa-?)

That is an offensive question but bear with me. One of the speakers at the (can you guess?) Catalyst Conference was Gary Haugen, who works with the International Justice Mission which basically finds and rescues people from slavery. No kidding.

Even in countries where it is illegal some people sometimes engage in slavery. Haugen described a brick-making complex somewhere in Asia where people – including husbands and wives and children of all ages – were forced to make bricks 12-14 hours each and day and 7 days a week. Beatings for failure to keep quota. No escape. And no rest from work.

That – among other things perhaps – is a key characteristic of slavery. Working without ever resting.

Rewind a few millennia. The Hebrews are former slaves about to enter the land of Canaan. God through Moses reminds them of ten things. The fourth – which is the longest commandment so maybe it is rather important – says:

“Observe the Sabb-day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabb- to the Lord your God. On it, you shall not do any work, neither you, you’re your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the foreigner within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God broutht you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord you God has commanded you to observe the Sabb- day.” Deuteronomy 5:12-15

Fascinating. Why should you observe this day of rest/fun/worship/prayer? Because once you were slaves but now you are no longer. Sabb- in part represents the opposite of slavery. Perhaps freedom. Liberation. (More about that next week.)

(So, if we choose not to practice Sabb- are we choosing to live like slaves?)

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” (Galations 5:1)

I have never entirely understood the connection(?) between sin and death.

Let me confess that I am not much of a Satanologist. What do I mean by that? That in my understanding and teaching of the Christian faith do not emphasize the Devil/Satan/Lucifer.

Why? For at least three main reasons. First because it seems to give too much credit to evil. When bad things happen to Christians and they claim they are under attack from Satan I wonder “wow do you really think he has that much power?”

Second because I would rather emphasize the power and goodness of God than the power and activity of his enemies. Prayer is primarily about communion with God rather than praying against Satan.

And third because I was educated primarily by Jewish scholars and a primary focus of my years of graduate study was the Hebrew Bible aka Old Testament. And so my personal understanding of the Christian faith is heavily colored by the Old Testament in which Satan is at most a minor figure who appears quite late.

Speaking of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament there are forces that are opposed to God. It is not always clear however if these forces are personal or impersonal. The impersonal forces are the forces of chaos in various forms. Tehom. Leviathan. Behemoth. The sea(s). Creation in the Old Testament is not only calling something into existence. Creation includes bringing order – more specifically a just and compassionate order – out of chaos. See especially Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Drama of Divine Omnipotence by Jon Levenson.

But surely those forces opposed to the purposes of God are also personal. There are occasional references to other deities – however these are understood – such as Baal. The plague narratives in Exodus are partly about the victory of Yahweh over the gods(?) of Egypt. And the best example is pharaoh in the book of Exodus – oddly unnamed perhaps because he represents more than a single historical figure. See the commentary on Exodus by Terence Freitheim in the Interpretation series.

What I am still trying to figure out – and here I speak more as a scholar of the Old Testament than as a Christian pastor – is the relationship between chaos and what we might call (moral) evil. Is Satan simply the personification – dare we say hypostatization? hey that’s pretty good – of the primordial watery chaos which God restrains in Genesis 1 and later Genesis 7-8?

Or is chaos a symptom or manifestation of (moral) evil – understood as free beings (angelic or human) who choose against God?

Perhaps we can phrase the question as which came first – chaos or evil?

I would suggest that the Hebrew Bible seems to say chaos. But Christian theology would say evil – here understood as free personal beings acting in revolt against God.

Enter the Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky in his 137 summa theologicae entitled Orthodox Theology. He writes:

Evil originated therefore in the spiritual sin of the angel. And the attitude of Lucifer reveals to us the root of every sin: pride as revolt against God. He who was first called to deification by grace wishes to be God by himself. The root of sin is thus the third for self-deification, the hatred of grace. Remaining dependent on God in his very being, since his being was created by God, the spirit in revolt consequently acquires a hatred of being, a frenzy to destroy, a thirst for an impossible nothingness. (emphasis added) [ibid. 81-82]

This is a remarkable paragraph. For my purposes what is striking is not what Lossky says regarding the origin of evil so much as how he describes the psychology of evil.

A hatred of being. A frenzy to destroy. A thirst for an impossible nothingness.

Hold that thought because we will come back to it.

What Lossky wrote reminds me of another remarkable paragraph by J. R. R. Tolkien in Morgoth’s Ring The History of Middle Earth volume 10 edited by Christopher Tolkien. No serious student of Tolkien can afford to be without this book.

In an obscure discussion on the differences between Sauron and Melkor/Morgoth we find the following description of the psychology of Melkor/Morgoth who is the closest analogue to Satan/Lucifer.

Thus, as ‘Morgoth’, when Melkor was confronted by the existence of other inhabitants of Arda, with other wills and intelligences, he was enraged by the mere fact of their existence, and his only notion of dealing with them was by physical force, or the fear of it. His sole ultimate object was their destruction….

Hence his endeavor always to break wills and subordinate them to o absorb them into his own will and being, before destroying their bodies. This was sheer nihilism, and negation its one ultimate object: Morgoth would no doubt, if he had been victorious, have ultimately destroyed even his own ‘creatures’, such as the Orcs….

Melkor’s final impotence and despair lay in this: … Melkor could do nothing with Arda, which was no from his own mind and was interwoven with the work and thoughts of others: even left alone he could only have gone raging on till all was levelled again into a formless chaos. And yet even so he would have been defeated, because it would still have ‘existed’. (emphasis added) [ibid. 395, 396]

Sauron was merely a control freak. Melkor/Morgoth on the other hand was a nihilist consumed with a hatred of being. Moral evil – here revolt against Eru Iluvatar. Its ultimate goal to reduce creation unto formless chaos.

The psychology of evil. And its relationship to (no longer so primordial?) chaos.

(To be continued)

(Song of Songs 2:17) by Marc Chagall

Jennifer Wright Knust is a professor of New Testament and Christian origins at Boston University. She has attracted some attention lately for her series of articles on sexuality and marriage in the Bible. These have appeared in the “On Faith” section of the Washington Post:

Since the Bible offers so little in the way of consistent advice about marriage, sexuality and desire, it is time to quit using it as a justification for our moral decrees.

By which she means – or so it appears to me and I could be mistaken – that the Bible does not teach that sexual relations should only be between a man and woman who are married.

(Please forgive me – I will not provide a direct link to the articles but only to the “On Faith” section.)

Unlike some of those who are leaving comments to these articles I will not dismiss Jennifer Wright Knust out of hand. She is an intelligent accomplished and capable scholar of the (Old and) New Testament(s). Even if we disagree strongly with her there is no reason to address her as “Jennifer” rather than Professor Knust. Or Professor Wright Knust.

I do not have the time or desire – speaking of desire – to offer a thorough analysis and critique of her arguments. But let me offer a few comments and rejoinders.

Ruth and Boaz

One example she provides of how “the Bible is simply too complicated and too contradictory to serve as a guide to sexual morals” is the story of Ruth and Boaz. She describes the famous night encounter between Ruth and Boaz in chapter 3 as an extra-marital seduction.

No.

Yes what happens between Ruth and Boaz can be interpreted as sexual relations. Ruth gets dressed up and puts on perfume. Boaz gets finishes a hard day of work threshing barley gets drunk and falls asleep on the floor. Ruth goes to Boaz while he is sleeping. “Uncover his feet” almost certainly means she uncovered his genitalia.

I have no problem interpreting what happens as sexual relations between Ruth and Boaz. The problem is characterizing this as extra-marital seduction. Okay seduction for sure. But extra-marital? The term has almost no meaning in this context. What Wright Knust forgets(?) – although perhaps she addresses this in her book but do not see how she overlook this in her article – is two things.

Generally speaking in the Old Testament you become married by having sexual relations. The modern concept of pre-marital sex therefore has little meaning. Jacob and Leah anyone? Granted texts such as Exodus 22:16-17 demonstrate it is not as simple as that. Which leads to the second point.

According to the Mishnah Kuddushin 1 there are three ways to get a wife: (1) bridal price (2) contract or (3) sexual intercourse. But in the case of levirite marriage (which is the situation in the book of Ruth – Ruth is a widow and Boaz is a go’el although not first in line as we see in chapter 4) through sexual intercourse. In other words Ruth and Boaz are married by virtue of sexual relations. To describe this as extra-marital seduction makes no sense. Speaking of taking our modern concepts  and reading them into the biblical text! Good professor – heal thyself!

(So why the whole scene with the nearest relative in chapter 4? That is precisely the point. If Boaz has already acquired Ruth as his wife then the nearest relative – the go’el who is first in line – understandably no longer wants Ruth. See inter alia Gary Rendsburg, “Eblaite U2-MA and Hebrew WM-“, Eblaitica volume 1: 33-42.

Also yes the Mishnah was written how long after the book of Ruth? I would suggest the Mishnah appears consistent with biblical evidence for how marriage was accomplished in the Old Testament.)

A few years ago I heard an alternate interpretation from the former senior pastor of this congregation. Basically Ruth and Boaz do not engage in sexual relations. But Ruth makes sure Boaz thinks that is what happened! The story is ambiguous. But either way – Boaz believes he is already married to Ruth by means of sexual intercourse.

Speaking of ambiguity.

Furthermore how does this story compare to other narratives where a woman must bend the rules in order to get what she needs? Does Genesis 38 mean the Bible is contradicting itself with regard to incest and temple prostitution? I think it is too simplistic to argue that such narratives mean the Bible does not have a semi-coherent/consistent understanding of how sex and marriage are supposed to work. These exceptions do not disprove the general rule.

David and Jonathan

As soon as Professor Wright Knust argues that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers – I had trouble taking these articles seriously. It raises the question of just who it is that reads modern concerns back into the biblical texts.

Let me cite just two voices who challenge this interpretation. One is Robert Gagnon professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary whose magisterial The Bible and Homosexuality (Abingdon, 2001) deals with this. To my embarrassment cannot find my copy – buried somewhere in my office – and cannot provide specific citation.

(It is possible that Wright Knust deals with Gagnon’s arguments in her book.)

Also my seminary classmate Nate Solomon gave a paper at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature in Philadelphia (2005?) on “David and Jonathan in Iraq”. Solomon (the scholar and Navy chaplain – not to be confused with the Israelite monarch) suggests that civilians do not understand how shared combat experience can generate the degree of intimate friendship we find between David and Jonathan. Although he is careful to note he is neither trying to defend nor refute the idea that had a homosexual relationship. But there are other ways to interpret what David says about Jonathan that Wright Knust does not appear to take into account.

Song of Songs

It is not clear the Song is about pre-marital sex. If one can even talk about that in the context of ancient Israel.

Yes for years I have read this as a book that celebrates erotic-sexual love between a man and woman. That the people of God – Israel and later the Christian church – have applied(?) to the relationship between God and his people || Christ and his Church. However Robert Jensen in his commentary on Song of Songs for the Interpretation series makes a strong case that the book is first about the divine-human relationship. Which then can be applied(?) to the relationship between men and women.

The point simply is this. The book is ambiguous. It is not clear if this is primarily about divine-human or male-female love. And if it is about male-female love it is not clear if these two people are married or not. If that question even makes sense within the context of the Old Testament.

Methodological problem

These two examples illustrate what may be a problem with Wright Knust’s methodology. Which is what I call Heads I win, Tales you lose. Yes the Bible is often ambiguous and not entirely consistent. But what we see is when the text is ambiguous Wright Knust consistently chooses the reading that most undermines traditional Christian teaching on sexuality and marriage. If there is the remotest chance that a text could be read in such a way as to endorse something other than sexual-relations-within-heterosexual-marriage then that is how we choose to read it. And if there is a remote chance that a text can be read in such as way that it does not warn against sexual-relations-outside-heterosexual-marriage then that is how we choose to read it. Clear texts are no longer clear. And ambiguous texts are no longer ambiguous.

Androgyny in Genesis 2

I must make reference to and acknowledge with great appreciation a series of posts by the Reformed Pastor that critique the articles by Wright Knust. Excellent work and thanks to him for such thorough and thoughtful replies.

One small point which does not detract from the quality of these posts is the issue of androgyny in Genesis 2. I respectfully suggest the Reformed Pastor overstates his case on this point. It is not so bizarre to interpret ‘adam in Genesis 2 – before the woman appears – as a sexually undifferentiated human. See especially the very careful analysis by Reuven Kimelman, “The Seduction of Eve and the Exegetical Politics of Gender”, in Women in the Hebrew Bible ed. Alice Bach (Routledge, 1999), 241-269 especially 247-251.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying this is the one true and correct interpretation. Yes I am aware this is not the “orthodox interpretation for the last 2000 years” but that opens up a whole can of worms about how one interprets Old Testament texts. Using the texts themselves? Or using later New Testament and early Christian interpretation? The excellent Reformed Pastor is certainly free to disagree with the idea that the ‘adam in Genesis 2 is androgynous(? is that the correct term in this context?). But that interpretation is sounder and older than some might realize.

Minor note

I found a little odd the way she immediately presents herself as a “biblical scholar, historian, ordained Baptist pastor”. What is the purpose of emphasizing her credentials right at the outset? Is it to say “you need to take me seriously because of who I am”? Or more likely “because of who I am you cannot dismiss me out of hand”? Fair enough.

But what should we conclude if we encounter a “biblical scholar, historian, and ordained priest/minister” who completely disagrees with Wright Knust? I am not accusing Wright Knust of intellectual solipsism – but we need to remember that more than one side in a debate can play the I haz credenshuls card.

Preliminary conclusion

Professor Wright Knust – believe it or not – provides a service to the Christian church when she warns us that our modern/traditional views do not line up with the Bible especially the Old Testament as neatly as we often think. And when she invites (provokes?) us to read and think more carefully about these complex and not entirely consistent/coherent texts that address(? or not as she would argue) sexuality and marriage.

I am not saying Wright Knust is a heretic. But will say that heretics have a habit of prompting the Christian church to examine and clarify orthodox faith and practice. The ecumenical Councils are largely(?) a response to heresy.

Whether Wright Knust is largely incorrect – although I could be wrong that is my preliminary impression – or not we can give glory to God that her publications invite the Christian church to reflect more deeply on sexuality and marriage.

H/T Opinionated Catholic

I admit not looking forward to hearing/reading the President’s speech at the memorial service in Arizona. Ace of Spades HQ had mixed reactions. My excellent friend Jonathan called it the “best speech of his life”. So grit my teeth and read the transcript.

Here’s how it starts.

To the families of those we’ve lost; to all who called them friends; to the students of this university, the public servants gathered tonight, and the people of Tucson and Arizona:  I have come here tonight as an American who, like all Americans, kneels to pray with you today, and will stand by you tomorrow.

There is nothing I can say that will fill the sudden hole torn in your hearts.  But know this: the hopes of a nation are here tonight.  We mourn with you for the fallen.  We join you in your grief.  And we add our faith to yours that Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the other living victims of this tragedy pull through.

As Scripture tells us:

There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
the holy place where the Most High dwells.
God is within her, she will not fall;
God will help her at break of day.

And it only gets stronger.

There is a certain hubris – please note the word – in daring to evaluate critique dissect any speech given at such a solemn occasion. I would like to come back and emphasize certain elements of it – positively – but for now let me simply say thank you sir.

I have criticized this president and his administration quite harshly. For this I do not repent.

But it was reverent. Genuinely reverent in the sense that Paul Woodruff describes in his book Reverence.

Could we sift through it with a fine comb and quibble with this or that? Could we ask cynical questions about who wrote it and whether he will live up to his own rhetoric? Could we critique elements of the memorial service that resembled a political rally?

Yeah.

But I also believe that when there is an opportunity to praise and encourage something that is genuinely good we should seize it.* That among other things is what true reverence is all about.

*In our public schools this is called Positive Behavior Reinforcement. Unfortunately as some of the comments at Ace of Spades HQ and National Review Online indicate some erstwhile conservatives fail to grasp this simple point. If we disagree with 98% of what someone says and does should we not praise that person when he says or does something with which we agree?!?

Papyrus Fouad 266 - 2nd oldest Greek Old Testament text from 1st century B.C.E.

Needed to get by this weekend a Bible to present to my fellow minister on the occasion of her ordination this evening. She recently said something about “really need to read the Apocrypha” so found a nice New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha. Just like the hardback edition I used through seminary that at this point is held together by moving tape not to mention lost after a recent Bible study. So got one for myself.

Hold that thought.

Have been listening in the car to two recent podcasts by Father Thomas Hopko dean emeritus of Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York. One on reading the Old Testament and one on reading the Bible.

The reason for bringing these up is they were interesting and surprising. Especially in light of the recent exchange I had with an Orthodox priest concerning the Septuagint and its relationship to the original(?) text(s?) of the Hebrew Bible. I was more interested in the scholarly question of which preserves the original(?) Hebrew text(s?) better – the Septuagint or the Masoretic Text.

Father Hopko made some interesting comments about the extent to which the Greek Bible was the Bible of the apostles. The Greek Bible was a Bible that the biblical writers used. And we must remember it is a translation and that makes a difference in how we understand the way the biblical writers and apostles used the Greek Bible.

Put it this way. I have studied Hebrew and Greek. But in a Bible study I might quote an English translation. Later historians should not on that basis conclude that the English translation is the Bible of the Christian church.

Father Hopko also touched on the issue of which preserves the original(?) Hebrew text(s?) better. And gave examples where he thinks the Masoretic Text makes more sense than the Septuagint. The excellent Doctor Eugenia Constantinou in one of her podcasts mentions that there are examples where the Septuagint clearly is more correct.

My intent is not to argue with Orthodox Christians one way or the other. Only to share that Father Hopko made some interesting points which do suggest the issue is not as simple as some Orthodox Christians seem to say.

He also spent considerable time addressing the relative worth of different English translations. This is not entirely unrelated to the issue of Septuagint versus(?) Masoretic Text because most English translations of the Old Testament are based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

His personal favorite English translation is the Revised Standard Version. And he spends quite a long time explaining why he thinks the New Revised Standard Version is simply unacceptable and recommends that Christians not use it for personal devotion or in worship.

This is one day after I spend more than fifty bucks on a nice new copy of the New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha.

I have studied Greek and Hebrew but admittedly have not done an exhaustive comparison between original and translation. Some of the examples of poor translation in the New Revised Standard Version that Father Hopko provides are new to me.

Interesting no? How the Revised Standard Version is his favorite. And the New Revised Standard Version – very popular among mainstream Protestants and is what we used throughout seminary – is unacceptable.

One of my professors in seminary was part of the translation team for the New Revised Standard Version. On one occasion he shared how the editor sometimes ignored and/or changed what the translation teams recommended. The power of the editor!

So now what? I prefer to have a Bible that includes the Apocrypha whether or not one regards them as Holy Scripture. One of the few modern translations that includes the Apocrypha is the New Revised Standard Version.