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.

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)

Originally published in The Window, October 30 2006.

Sab- (or) Holy Snugglebunnies, part III
Richard M. Wright

(Warning: This article contains mature content.)

(The Sab- is going somewhere. Trust me.)

There is a theological theme that has been… Play.

Many years ago during that tender first year I bought a book called The New Joy of Snugglebunnies* by Alex Comfort. Have hardly looked at it since then. But I will never forget something the author states in the introductory chapter. That snugglebunnies is for adults a “form of play.” (It is much more than that of course. But let me focus on that important insight. Snugglebunnies is fun. Play-ful.)

A few weeks ago I shared how Kevin Carroll – one of the speakers at the Catalyst Conference in Georgia – said adults do not play enough. (Not referring to snugglebunnies.) What if modern Western technological society… what if our culture… does not allow enough time/opportunity/permission for play? For children as well as adults? What happens if the deep human need for play goes unfulfilled?

Let us put the pieces together. Human beings need play. The need for play goes unsatisfied. Snugglebunnies is a form of play.

Then perhaps human beings will sometimes meet that need through forms of snugglebunnies that are broken and distorted. Before marriage. Not within marriage. Not with anybody. Hurt others. Hurt themselves. And so on.

Dare we consider that failure to play enough… perhaps even the failure to practice Sab- keeping… is one of the causes of s’ual sin?  Our exceptional minister with youth recently urged dads to pay attention to their daughters – or their daughters might try to meet that need elsewhere and less appropriately. Perhaps we can say, “Parents – play with your kids!”

Speaking of Sab- keeping and snugglebunnies… Turns out the Jewish rabbis taught that snugglebunnies on Sab- is actually a mitzvah. A commandment. That one of the benefits of observing a whole day of rest/play/prayer/worship is it provides time/opportunity/permission for snugglebunnies. (No books to recommend. Go write your own.)

Children or not… married or single… do we play enough?

*(Borrowed from Opus the Penguin, “Broome County”)

Originally published in The Window, October 10 2006

Holy Play (or) S-, part I
Richard M. Wright

(The S- is going somewhere. Trust me.)

There is a theme – a theological theme that requires a change in how we live – that has been impressing itself upon my soul/awareness. Play.

Three days in Atlanta for the (apparently well known) Catalyst Conference. The world’s largest pillow fight involving thousands at the Gwinnett Arena on Friday morning. The dodge-ball national championship team – comprised entirely of “youth pastors”, why are we not surprised? – shows up… a dozen from the audience throw official dodge-balls at them which they dodge or catch-and-return-with-force then quickly (d)evolves into thousands throwing their red rubber balls at these masters of a play-ground sport who manage to dodge-or-catch-and-return not a few amidst the red maelstrom.

Yeah the conference was inspiring, informative, challenging and all. But it was also fun.

Which brings me to one of the speakers: Kevil Carroll of Rules of the Red Rubber Ball fame. Worked for years as a “creative catalyst” at Nike.

One of his central points was adults do not play enough. Without play… imagination and creativity shrivel. And perhaps the reverse is also true? That play can be a holy activity. And one that can fuel creativity and imagination and by extension our ability to perform… succeed… innovate… problem-solve… fulfill our mission as individuals and as a church family.

I first learned this lesson from a Baptist campus minister at Cornell University by the name of Armetta Fields. (Interesting first name.) She thought Cornell students were too serious, studious, and stress out. (Oh and arrogant.) So she made us play once or twice a semester.

Crayons and coloring books at Thursday evening “Bible study/prayer” meeting. Taking us to a nearby vocational school at night to spend a couple hours on the playground. Swings and slides and death-by-monkey-bars.

More than therapy but fulfilling (in part) a divine commandment. Care to guess what letter it starts with?

Originally published in The Window (October 23, 2006)

Sa- (or) Holy Play, part II
Richard M. Wright

(The Sa- is going somewhere. Trust me.)

There is a theme – a theological theme that requires a change in how we live – that has been impressing itself upon my soul/awareness. Rest.

Three days in Atlanta for the Catalyst Conference. (Hey this article sounds strangely familiar…) Some of the “Lab” (one day of smaller pre-conference sessions) speakers focused on culture. (Such as Andy Crouch, Cornell class of 1989, my classmate for Attic Greek 101 and 103, and my small group leader in Cornell Christian Fellowship.) On how the Christian church must not only engage (our current “emergent”) culture… but even create culture. But how?

Some of them addressed how. Mark Buchanan on “The Rest of God”. Lauren Winner was going to talk about “Sleep, Kids, and Technology” (my emphasis) but focused on understanding/reading/engaging our culture.

The back of our lab booklet listed the speakers and the many books they have written. Several of the books by the various lab speakers were on the subject of Sa-. Mark Buchanan. Eugene Peterson. Lauren Winner comes from a lapsed-Southern-Baptist/Orthodox-Jewish home and has written extensively on what the Christian movement needs to learn from Judaism. (Did you know Jesus was Jewish?)

Speaking of Cornell and of Orthodox Judaism… one of my best friends was Leah Rosenthal who lived in Young Israel House (a Jewish co-op). About once a month I walked all the way across campus to visit her. Usually on Friday night. Sometimes I watched/listened to Sa- prayers. We hanged out and talked. Then stayed for Sa- dinner.

What struck me was how Friday night there was an oasis of rest dare I say peace (shalom) in the ocean of intense academic stress that was life at Cornell. Sit and talk. Read. Leisurely meal with friends that ended with vast quantities of schnapps (which I skipped) and boisterous singing. Sleep. No phones or television! No work of any kind! Sometimes Leah and I went for a walk. (Once to visit a classmate from Genetics – an international who lived in a single room smaller than some walk-in closets.)

More than a break but fulfilling (in part) a divine commandment.

Since seminary have used the lectionary and followed the Christian liturgical calendar. The two are related but distinct. Theoretically one can observe the liturgical calendar without following the lectionary. In fact back in 2000(?) when Keith Putt led University Baptist Church to make the transition to the liturgical calendar the congregations called upon me to explain and provide guidance for observing the Christian calendar and following the lectionary cycle.

After almost eleven years of service here have almost three full cycles of sermons and orders of worship. What is nice and saves time is that I can go back in my files and look up the order of worship for the same Sunday three or even six years ago. For example if this coming Sunday is the 15th Sunday in Ordinary Time (B) then I do not necessarily have to put together an order of worship from scratch. I can look through my files and see what we did on 15th Sunday Ordinary (B) in 2008 and 2005 and maybe even 2002. I might make some changes – hymns or which Scripture readings to use. Might make changes to the artwork. Might add some new or special elements such as a testimony or musical offering (what sometimes is called special music). But usually have something to work with.

(Now I can imagine some of my Baptist friends might not appreciate this. They might think this is laziness. But to me it represents consistency and rhythm. And frankly every hour saved in planning worship can be used to do something else.)

Lent and Pascha/Easter are unusually late this year. Ash Wednesday the beginning of Lent is not until March 9th. Last year it was February 17! And Pascha/Easter is not until April 29th! Last year it was April 7.

So what does this have to do with planning worship according to the lectionary and the liturgical calendar?

It means this year to my surprise I have nothing. For at least the last nine years there has been no 5th or 6th or 7th or 8th Sunday after Epiphany / Sunday in Ordinary Time (A). It is remotely possible that yes there is but somehow that worship guide was never saved – but so far as I can tell we are in semi-uncharted territory.

Dear readers might ask “so what?” Okay. But I find it interesting. And interesting how even with the repetition and rhythm and consistency of the liturgical calendar we can still have Sundays the likes of which we will not see for 9 or 12 or 15 or more years. Christmas comes every year. And the Christmas readings every three years. But 7th Sunday after Epiphany / in Ordinary Time (A) only comes every decade or two. There are still opportunities to be surprised by unexpected variations in the rhythm of the liturgical calendar.

Oh and Orthodox Christians and Protestant/Catholic Christians will celebrate Pascha/Easter the same day this year. (This happens roughly every 3-4 years.)

(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

The excellent Opinionated Catholic – your one stop portal for Catholic and Football news – recently had an interesting post about Pittsburgh Steelers player Troy Polamalu and his Orthodox Christian faith.

I wanted to follow up by focusing on a couple interesting things Polamalu said in his interview with Ann Rodgers of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Liturgy of the heart

Polamalu says in this interview:

Before he became Orthodox, he said, songs in church sometimes moved him to tears. He now distrusts those passing feelings.

“I’d start crying and feel ‘This is awesome.’ If I’d had a Red Bull, I’d feel it even more. If I’d had breakfast, I’d feel good. If I didn’t have breakfast, I didn’t feel anything, I was grumpy,” he said.

“It was a very superficial experience. I was thinking, ‘God, why did I not feel you today?’ because I wasn’t feeling the music today. Orthodoxy is very sensitive to that, to take the emotion out of it, to really go after the heart.” (emphasis added)

Several weeks ago I addressed this very issue in “Beyond worship as emotivism or rationality – liturgy of the heart”. My observation is that sometimes in Protestant Christianity the goal of worship – especially more evangelical/contemporary forms – appears to be generating a particular emotional response.

What struck me in particular was what one might call emotivism. The worship and reports and prayers – especially the sermon – seemed largely oriented toward evoking an emotional response. We need to care! We need to cry! We need to repent! We need to get stuff done for the kingdom of God! An intense emotional response that would lead to renewed commitment and thence to renewed action.

Now it would be dishonest to imply I never judge and evaluate experiences that way. And how exactly does one distinguish worship that stirs up emotions versus worship that engages the heart? Nevertheless I appreciate what Polamalu says and agree that worship that engages the heart – not emotions or rationality – is the goal.

It’s not just about winning

Polamalu also says during the interview:

He doesn’t claim that practicing the faith improves athletics. The player known for crossing himself on the field has seen his faith grow more from his injuries than his interceptions.

“When I got injured, I learned so much from it spiritually, just thanking God for the health that I had when I was healthy,” he said.

“People have this idea that the more pious and devout I am, the more successful I am. Which is very dangerous. If you look at faith in that way, you’re bound to fail at both — spiritually and in your career.”

This also got my attention. I could be wrong but it seems that sometimes Christians in almost any vocation/profession focus on how God helps us be successful. Believe in Jesus so that you can have a happier healthier more successful life.

Polamalu doesn’t go there. One is reminded of the apostle Paul when he wrote:

But [the Lord] said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. 10 That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
- 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 (New International Version)

Good words and testimony.

H/T Opinionated Catholic

The deacons of University Baptist Church asked me to lead the ordination process for one of my fellow ministers who is not yet ordained.

The church by-laws are not very clear on what exactly is the process.

In the event the Church is requested to license or ordain applicants to the ministry, the applicant shall present to the Pastor a written application, including explanation of both personal conversion experience and call to the ministry. The applicant should attach a record of education and provide a list of three references. The Pastor shall investigate, as he deems necessary. The Pastor shall appoint a committee of three Church members to aid in the investigation. Their findings and recommendations will be presented to the Deacons. Upon approval, the applicant will be presented to the Church for a final decision. Upon approval of the Church, the Pastor is authorized to implement Licensing and Ordination.

The by-law raises almost as many questions as it answers. What exactly is the pastor supposed to investigate? what findings are we looking for? what are the criteria for whether or not to ordain someone?

But these questions arise partly because of a larger question. What is ordination?

The dirty little secret is that Baptists have almost no theology of ordination. So who do we ordain? why? and what does ordination do? I did ask the candidate for an explanation of her understanding of ordination as well. Not as a test. But just to see what does she think we are doing?

I spent an afternoon searching through books on theology and Baptist history looking for answers to these questions. The results were disappointing but not surprising.

In seminary our primary textbooks for Christian theology were Ethics and Theology by the Baptist theologian W. James McClendon. There are only two brief references to ordination. And McClendon never truly explains it.(a)

The famous Baptist Faith and Message 1963 statement – one of the reasons I became a Baptist during my second year at university – says absolutely nothing about ordination. All it says is that the officers of the church are pastors and deacons. The 2000 statement is exactly the same except it adds that women cannot be senior pastors. Which means it says nothing about ordaining them.

I searched through Baptist Confessions of Faith by William Lumpkin. Most of them say something along these lines:(b)

• The officers of the church are pastors and deacons.
• The church ordains by laying on hands after prayer and fasting.

(Which is interesting because in twelve years with this congregation one sees little prayer and no fasting associated with the process of ordination.)

So at best we can surmise that ordination represents setting someone apart for a particular role in the church. The primary role of pastors seems to be preaching and teaching and watching over the flock. And since the candidate in question is a full time vocational minister clearly we are considering whether to ordain her as a minister/pastor not a deacon.

This in turn raises awkward questions about what happens if we ordain her as a minister-not-senior(?)-pastor. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement clearly states no women can be senior pastors. But how would the local Baptist association? the state convention? the Southern Baptist Convention respond if we ordain a woman as a minister but not as a senior pastor? There are Baptists associations that have removed congregations for ordaining women not as senior(?) pastors but simply as staff ministers. Since the 2000 statement says nothing about ordination or women as staff ministers clearly these Baptist associations apply the statement beyond its actual wording.

It is quite possible that if we ordain this person it will damage or end our relationship with the Baptist Association of Greater Baton Rouge. That does not mean we should not ordain her.

Speaking of her.

To me the issue is not “should we ordain women?” The issue for Baptist Christians is “why do we ordain?” I do not see how we can debate or object to the ordination of women as ministers or pastors until we first figure out how Baptists understand and therefore practice ordination.

Other Christian traditions have a clear theology of ordination. Typically along one or both of these lines:

• apostolic succession
• the authority(? right? power?) to perform sacraments

But Baptists have no real concept of apostolic succession. And no real concept of sacraments. Even McClendon – who stretches the envelope of Baptist theology in ways I appreciate – goes no farther than outlining the concept of effective signs. So how is an ordained minister or deacon different from someone who is not ordained? Often the answer is “no different at all”. Ordination is understood primarily in terms of affirmation and setting apart. Which mean what exactly?

Do not misunderstand me. I will do this just as I led the ordination service for a deacon who happens to be a woman. But these are some of the questions that challenge us as we journey through this process toward the ritual of ordination and what it means for the life and work of the Christian church.

Notes:

a) “Ordination may rightly be included here if we see it as partial recognition of distinctive vocations in the kingdom of God” (McClendon, Theology, 144).

b) See “A Short Confession, 1610″ sections 23-27 (Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 108-109) especially “Yet is not every one therefore a teacher, elder, or deacon, but only such as are orderly appointed to such offices. Therefore, also, the administration of the said offices or duties pertaineth only to those who are ordained thereto, and not to every particular common person”.

Also “English Declaration at Amsterdam, 1611″ sections 20-21 (ibid. 121-122) especially “That the Officers off everie Church or congregation are either Elders, who by their office do especially feed the flock concerning their soules, or Deacon Men, and Women”.

Also “London Confession, 1644″ sections XLIV-XLV (ibid. 168) especially “And as Christ for the keeping of this Church in holy and orderly Communion, placeth some speciall men over the Church, who by their office are to governe, oversee, visit, watch”.

“Second London Confession, 1677″ chapter XXVI sections 8-10 (ibid. 286-287) “A particular Church gathering, and completely Organized, according to the mind of Christ, consists of Officers, and Members; And the Officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the Church (so called and gathered) for the peculiar Administration of Ordinances, and Execution of Power, or Duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the World, are Bishops or Elders and Deacons.

“The work of Pastors being constantly to attend the Service of Christ, in his Churches, in the Ministry of the Word, and Prayer, with watching for their Souls, as they that must give an account to him”.

“The Orthodox Creed, 1679″ section XXXI (ibid. 319-320) is nearly identical to the Second London Confession, 1677.

Granted this is but a sampling. But does give some idea concerning not so much how ordination is performed as ritual but how ordination is understood in terms of who we ordain and why. The above emphasize setting apart for a particular office with special responsibility for the spiritual condition of the congregation.

Update: 2010-10-13

Sure enough Dale Moody in The Word of Truth – arguably one of the best Baptist theologies of the 20th century – has a good discussion of the issue (452-460) although he does not fully or finally resolve the question(s) of what exactly is ordination within the Baptist tradition. He does however explore the biblical evidence exceptionally well. With regard to the apostles he emphasizes the importance of dynamis and exousia – power and authority. With regard to the epistles he emphasizes the importance of charismata and cheirotonia – spiritual-gifts and ordination (literally “hand-stretching/laying”). With regard to the Pastoral epistles he emphasizes 1-2 Timothy and what appears to be the “pouring of one man’s powers into another man” (ibid. 158). Moody clearly and strongly distinguishes charismatic and official ministries within the Christian church. He summarizes:

The picture that develops is one of a large charismatic circle that includes all the people of God, all members of the body of Christ; but some members with unusual gifts and qualifications are set aside for special ministries that have official status…. There is no reason why those “who live by the gospel” should not be consecrated to the life to which they have given themselves. (ibid. 159-160)

It would appear that an important ingredient in any discussion of ordination is not just gifts and not just office but also whether this is the primary (perhaps life-long but not necessarily) vocation to which the ordinand commits.