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.

An old friend/classmate from Great Britain posted a link to a recent article by Jonathan Dudley entitled “My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?”.

I thought “ho hum another article/piece/post on the subject” and made the mistake of reading it.

My friend should put on his English teacher hat and evaluate the article as a piece of writing. Can one identify a thesis? crux? clear conclusion? What exactly is the position Dudley is attempting to defend? Do his arguments support his conclusion insofar as one can identify it? What other conclusions would his arguments support? How relevant is the evidence he brings to bear on the discussion? Even if you agree with him this is not a very good article.

Let me put it this way. Let us assume for the sake of argument that same-sex relations are entirely compatible with the Christian way of life. If so the piece by Dudley is a poor attempt to defend that conclusion.

An aside. Did a search to see who has rebutted and/or responded to Dudley. Surprisingly the only people who take note of his work are those who already agree with him. And it’s not like there’s a shortage of more traditional Christian scholars who are afraid to take on the position(s) he takes. This suggests (a) that this recent piece simply has not attracted much attention yet and/or (b) that those who normally would respond do not think this piece is worth their while.

Also found it odd that Dudley is often described as a Bible expert or scholar. Compared to the average American sure. But compared to thousands of people who would disagree with him and who have studied and taught and published more? In fairness to Dudley he is probably not running around touting himself as a Bible expert/scholar as much as those who wish to use his writing to bolster their own views.

He’s been to seminary and apparently did very well. Meaning no disrespect at all to his real accomplishments as a student and a writer so what? Been there done bought the t-shirt.

One of harsher criticisms of his article is the reductionism. He only focuses on explicit condemnations of same-sex relations. In one place – Romans 1. And characterizes the nature of Paul’s argument in the most simplistic terms. “Argument from nature”. That’s it? No attempt to delve into the entire biblical and theological background to Romans 1? No attempt to analyze possible differences between (his characterization of) Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 11? To what extent does Dudley engage the small libraries of scholarship on (1) Romans (2) sexual ethics in the New Testament (3) the issue of same-sex relations in the Bible and in Christian tradition let alone (4) the theological-anthropological framework in which Christian tradition addresses same-sex relations? To what extent has Dudley attempted to wrestle with the work of scholars like Robert Gagnon?

In fairness to Jonathan Dudley perhaps he has done so at length elsewhere. Just not here. Often when one writes an article/post there are time and space limitations. “I wrote a 50 page paper refuting 12 books on the subject. But I’ve got an anatomy exam next week and this article can’t be more than 500 words so this’ll have to do”.

(Added 2011/06/22 - Found another couple pieces/interviews and unfortunately so far it looks like variations of the “shellfish argument”. The Bible condemns x and it also condemns eating crawfish. No one worries about eating crawfish so why should we worry about x? A bright 7 year old might point out that x includes such things as bestiality or incest or defrauding the poor of their wages and so on and so on. This is why the title of the recent piece “The Bible condemns a lot of things why focus on?” is amazingly stupid. In fairness someone else such as an editor almost certainly assigned that title.)

One thing that strikes me as just a bit odd is how he conflates the issue of same-sex relations with the issue of gay marriage. I know that plenty of people do that but one must be careful to distinguish issues that are related but distinct. I dare suggest that one can favor gay marriage and think same-sex relations are incompatible with the Christian way of life. And one can oppose gay marriage and have no problem with same-sex relations. One must distinguish between how is a disciple of Jesus Christ the son of God supposed to live? and what kinds of family structures should society – which includes people who are not Christian – permit or encourage? In case dear readers are curious I lean towards the former position. There are plenty of things that are not compatible with the Christian way of life that perhaps society and government should not attempt to regulate.

Okay so the Christian church has had varying attitudes toward marriage and celibacy during its first 1500 years. What does that have to do with the specific issue at hand today? Was the Christian church against marriage during that time? No? So how is that piece of evidence (which we will take at face value for the moment) relevant to the issue at hand? This is another serious flaw with Dudley’s argumentation. Not “that is wrong” but “even if that’s correct so what?”

Let us also assume that modern evangelical Christians take many stances that would have been considered heresy a few hundred years ago.

Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin has noted that today’s “pro-family” activism, despite its pretense to be representing traditional Christian values, would have been considered “heresy” for most of the church’s history.

Dare we ask how well so-called progressive Christianity would have been regarded for most of the church’s history? Is Dudley arguing that what evangelical Christians promote is just as much “heresy” as what modern liberal-progressive Christians promote? If x is flawed how does that help y?

I think Dudley reveals his larger agenda when he brings in abortion. Wait a second. Are we talking about same-sex relations? and/or same-sex marriage? and/or abortion?

Again Dudley muddles the issue. He argues that the church has not historically and traditionally supported the idea that life begins at conception. Okay. Without doing further research am inclined to agree with that. I mean gee whiz how long have we known about conception? But that’s not the same as saying the church has always thought elective abortion is just fine. The church historically and traditionally has opposed elective abortion – am unaware of any evidence to the contrary – but not because of some particular view about human conception. So Augustine had some doubts about when the body has a soul. Does that mean he favored terminating pregnancies? Evidence x does not lead to conclusion y.

(Added 2011/06/22 - Have often noticed that progressive/liberal Christians group these stances together. Let me put it this way. My views on same-sex relations and abortion are pretty traditional. But I have no problems with evolutionary theory and many evangelicals would be horrified by my views on hell or the “security of the believer” or atonement theory. Am not “all or nothing” when it comes to these issues. And yet nearly every time I see progressive/liberal Christians defend elective abortion in the same breath as same-sex-relations-are-just-fine. As if they go together. Indeed are inseparable. Still struggling to understand quite why this is so. Can anyone anywhere point to an example of someone who says “elective abortion is unjust but same-sex relations are perfectly fine for Christians”?)

Dudley points out that evangelical Christians take stances against same-sex marriage and elective abortion – claiming that the Bible supports them in this – but can be pretty loose about other issues that the Bible clearly addresses such as divorce.

Okay. Fair enough. The church is arguably inconsistent. Although it is odd that when discussing divorces Dudley focuses on what Jesus teaches and ignores what Paul says. Whereas when discussing same-sex relations focuses solely on Paul. There is an apparent inconsistency in his methodology.

But this is where Dudley’s conclusion? position? thesis? is clearest and strongest. If there is any worthwhile value to be found in his writing it is this:

Evangelical Christians need to come to terms with two problems with positions they commonly take on moral-social issues. First – they claim that the position they take is “traditional/historical” when it might not be. [Rw - Okay this one is weaker and more debatable.] Second – they oppose these things that they think the Bible condemns but they are very tolerant of those things that others claim the Bible also condemns.

Evangelical Christians need (1) to improve how they understand and articulate the positions they take and (2) to be more consistent(?) with regard to what issues they care about.

Now this is not to get into the issue of just whether they are truly inconsistent or not. It depends on how one interprets Scripture does it not? Oh man there’s that common liberal refrain. Progressive/liberal Christians would say “you are wrong with regard to what the Bible says about sex and marriage and abortion and wrong with regard to what the Bible says about money and war and justice”. Dudley accuses evangelicals of explaining away Scriptures that deal with divorce. Dare we ask if progressives/liberals explain away Scriptures that deal with sex and procreation and marriage?

I would say yup. See my critique of Wright Knust:

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.

Dudley raises a good point about consistency and hermeneutics. But that point cuts both ways.

Gee whiz maybe evangelical Christians should heed Dudley and start opposing liberalization of divorce.

By the way this raises the question of exactly what Dudley is attempting to accomplish. Okay let us assume that evangelical Christians are inconsistent. They oppose x y and z but are lenient on p d and q which the Bible also condemns. What then? Is the goal to help the Christian church be more consistent? more faithful to what the Bible teaches? What exactly does Dudley want Christians to do? It would seem consistency and better understanding of tradition/history are not his true or ultimate concerns. Speaking of charades and honesty.

One last thing. Jonathan Dudley needs a mirror.

Whether the topic is hair length, celibacy, when life begins, or divorce, time and again, the leaders most opposed to gay marriage have demonstrated an incredible willingness to consider nuances and complicating considerations when their own interests are at stake.

See he actually makes a good point. How often are we just advancing our interests rather than what the Bible and/or Christian faith and tradition really teach? We need to ask ourselves that question. But what about progressive/liberal Christians?

Let me wax harsh for a moment. This was the part that struck me as downright offensive.

On the other hand, it’s not at all difficult for a community of Christian leaders, who are almost exclusively white, heterosexual men, to advocate interpretations that can be very impractical for a historically oppressed minority to which they do not belong – homosexuals.

Where to start? Dudley ignores and dismisses how many Christians who are neither white nor male? And he better not respond “yeah but those women and non-white Christians are just repeating what others tell them” which to be perfectly blunt is sexist and racist. As if women are not capable of forming their own opinions regardless of what men tell them. As if Christians of color are not capable. (That last sentence is exactly what many liberal Episcopalians often argue. I have seen it and have had people say it to my face.)

But let us think about this for a moment. It is somehow in the interest of white male heterosexuals to interpret Scripture and Christian tradition this way. Really? How? I have yet to hear a persuasive explanation. How exactly does a white male heterosexual benefit if he says “the Bible says no same-sex relations”? or for that matter “the Bible says no sleeping around with gorgeous women you are not married to”? or for that matter “no destroying an unborn child because you do not want her to be born”? or for that matter a host of other things?

Probably Dudley and/or others would offer some deconstructionist/theory-based scholarship or the like to demonstrate that yeah somehow such people do benefit. But I do not see it. Never have. Would it not be easier to say “well heck have sex with whomever or whatever you want”? Would it not be easier to say “child with Down’s Syndrome? abort it and don’t feel any guilt about it”?

If I embraced the whole progressive/liberal Christian panoply in many ways life would be easier. If nothing else would receive more approval and praise from the surrounding culture. The opposite of 1 Peter. But so far as I can tell the ones who truly benefit(?!?) are those who say “no no no the Bible and Christian tradition do not really restrain us so much from doing whatever we feel like doing”.

Dudley talks about “own interests” (see below). But how are more restrictive interpretations in our “own interests”? The opposite – that progressive/liberal Christians have their own desires in mind – appears more likely to be the case.

Dudley concludes his piece:

The [evangelical] community gave me many fond memories and sound values but it also taught me to take the very human perspectives of its leaders and attribute them to God.

So let’s stop the charade and be honest.

Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.

He makes a leap here in these last paragraphs. I don’t think he has truly proven that opposition to same-sex relations or gay marriage or abortion are the very human perspectives of its leaders or not the Bible’s values. He might be right. But he has not really proven this. All he has done so far is raise good questions – good and fair questions – about tradition and consistency.

Set that aside for the moment. Dare we ask about the very human perspectives of the leaders of progressive-liberal Christianity? Do they never attribute those to God? Do they never engage in charade? Are they always honest with themselves and others? Are they always defending the Bible’s values? Do they never use the Bible to defend their own?

Based on a quick and dirty internet search Jonathan Dudley is a fine young man who is now studying medicine and already doing some wonderful things for people with regard to medical care. Glory to God for this. (And of course evangelical Christians do many of the exact same things and more.) I would respectfully ask the good doctor(-in-training) to examine himself as well.

Addendum:

Where are Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity in this discussion? It’s all very well to pick on evangelical Christians and their flaws. But traditional Christianity is much more than evangelical Christians in America. How might Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christians contribute to this discussion? Dare we find out?

Update 2011/06/22 - Our excellent friend Opinionated Catholic kindly links here but more importantly offers a few excellent points of his own. Note especially the problems with how Dudley deals with history/tradition particularly with regard to the Jovian controversy. Hate to say it but it looks like Dudley just mangles if not downright misrepresents the historical record. This is a serious problem that forces me to re-evaluate my estimation of Dudley as a student/scholar/writer. I often disagree with what someone writes but can respect the quality of their thinking/scholarship. But poor scholarship is just not acceptable even in defense of a position with which one happens to agree.

This raises the issue of why are progressives/liberals promoting this young man’s work when it does not hold up well to scrutiny? The question almost answers itself. “Look! A Christian and Bible scholar who agrees with us!” One is reminded of 1 Kings 22.

Update 07/12/2011:

I chose not to respond any further to the comments offered because (a) my policy has always been there is a point at which one needs to just let people have their say otherwise the back-and-forth will continue forever and (b) although some decent points were raised (seriously) they were buried in so much {could not think of a diplomatic way to say it} I decided they did not merit any further response.

Therefore I commend both the post and the replies-to-objections made by Josh Gelatt. He clearly has more familiarity with (a) history of philosophy and theology and (b) some of the biblical/textual issues than I and his response to Dudley (and his would-be defenders) is much better than the poor offering above. Which recommendation calls into question the rhetorically clever but empty claim that my post is “best but still bad”.

Where Gelatt writes from a Reformed Baptist point of view let me also mention “A Critique of Jonathan Dudley’s ‘Take’” by Joe Hargrave at Non Nobis. He writes from a firmly Catholic point of view. Like the Opinionated Catholic – who *ahem* is not a Louisiana Tech undergraduate – he also suggests that the article by Dudley (along with Protestant replies thereto) demonstrates a serious problem with Protestantism and its emphasis on sola scriptura. In other words the debate over same-sex relations is a very Protestant debate. I am inclined to agree. Although I would argue that one does not have to be a Roman Catholic to see problems with the piece by Dudley.

Another Protestant response is “A Response to Jonathan Dudley” at Know It’s True.

Update 2011/08/21:

Despite (1) let people have their say and (2) some comments might not merit response – I was curious about the comment that Robert Gagnon recognizes the problem of argument from nature in Romans 1 regarding same-sex relations but regarding long hair for women in 1 Corinthians 11. Not exactly. Yes Gagnon recognizes the similarity between Paul’s argumentation in both pericopes (the relevant pages are 373-384) but does not conclude it represents a problem the way Jonathan Dudley presents. One can disagree with Gagnon’s analysis and conclusions but it is not accurate to imply Gagnon agrees with Dudley on this point.

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”)

From CBSNews:

Loughner’s parents, silent and holed up in their home since the shooting spree, apologized publicly Tuesday.

“There are no words that can possibly express how we feel,” Randy and Amy Loughner wrote in a statement handed to reporters waiting outside their house. “We wish that there were, so we could make you feel better. We don’t understand why this happened.

“We care very deeply about the victims and their families. We are so very sorry for their loss.”

One cannot imagine what such times are like for the family. Our child did this?!?

How does the community behave toward the parents and other family members? With hate? anger? scorn? Or does the community reach out to them with understanding? compassion?

Several years ago a young man in Baton Rouge was shot and killed after he exchanged gunfire with police. I knew his sister well. She was a strong Christian and often worshiped with my small congregation. She brought her/their mother a few times.

Because of my relationship with the family I drove over and stopped by their apartment. They were not there. They were staying with friends in order to have a few days of peace away from the spotlight. There were several cards and notes along with some flowers in front of the door. I had written out a short note and stuck it between the door and frame.

Several days later the mother called. Could she come by the church to meet and talk with me? Of course.

I will not relate the content of the conversation. But one thing I will share is how she described everything she and her husband did to try to help their son return from the path to destruction on which he was traveling.

Sometimes when a child commits a horrible crime people ask and where were the parents? what did they do? how did they try to stop this from happening?

I can tell you that at least some of the time the parents tried to intervene. And those efforts either worked or did not work or worked but only temporarily. Two years ago I conducted a funeral for a young man who was involved in drug addiction for many years causing his parents all sorts of grief and heartache. Finally he was no longer taking drugs was living in another city and working on a graduate degree. A friend came by his apartment and offered him a hit.

Could parents like these have done more? Could they have done better? Maybe. Maybe not. Who are we to judge? And how are we to judge?

There is a difference between our son was killed after shooting at police or our son died while taking drugs and our son killed more than 30 people and then himself or our son killed 6 people and injured several others but is still alive.

But I wonder what the parents of the young man who committed the shootings in Tucson are going through. And how the community as well as the nation are treating them. Despite what their their son did.

Best picture I could find - it ain't all about the football!

God has been most merciful because for almost 12 years one of my favorite Christian brothers on the planet is a member of University Baptist and a former Chancellor of Louisiana State University. A few weeks ago he came by the church to copy something for his Sunday Bible study group and we talked for a while. I asked him about the cuts being made at Louisiana State University.

He said such cuts happen periodically. Each time people predict the death of the university. And each time the university somehow survives and grows and thrives. Because every organization needs periodically to trim the fat that has accumulated. Positions and programs that are added when none are removed or ended. Mission creep that leads to a university taking on more projects in the region that might not necessarily be part of its essential purpose.

But this time is different. This is not just trimming fat. This is cutting into the flesh. Perhaps even into bone. This could make Louisiana State University less than what it should be. This could hurt current and future students. This could damage the state of Louisiana as a whole.

From The Reveille today:

All the instructors in the English Department have received termination notices, said assistant professor Daniel Novak.

“Instructors [have gotten] their termination letters extended but still don’t have job security even when they teach the majority of the writing classes for students in this University,” Novak said.

The extension assures the instructors’ employment for an additional six months “but instead of giving them a contract for six months, they were given a letter saying they were going to be fired in six months,” Novak said.

The English Department has approximately 90 faculty members, 36 of whom are instructors who teach the writing portion of the University’s curriculum.

Instructors teach 62 percent of ENGL 1001 sections and 74 percent of 2000 sections of the department’s writing program, according to the Director of the University Writing Program Barbara Heifferon.

The writing instructor who is quoted extensively is also a member of University Baptist. She and her husband are pillars of this church family. They have hosted English Conversation for us several times.

This gets my attention also because if ever I had to leave vocational ministry I would be interested in doing something like teaching English as a Second Language or teaching English writing. During my doctoral studies at Cornell University I took a course on how to teach writing in English and taught or helped teach two Freshman Writing Seminars. It was one of my best experiences in graduate school. I like to think I was pretty good at it. The director of the program borrowed one of my handouts (on crux versus thesis) and asked me to share with the program some of my experiences – like an idiot said no can’t too busy or something – and was the only writing instructor whose students on the last day of class presented him with a cake. On top of which was written something rather mushy.

I hurt for the university. I hurt for the families I know who are affected. I hurt for a program that has a special place in my heart.

But speaking of what has a special place in my heart.

University writing courses are not optional. They are required by university accrediting agencies. This could cause problems for some students who need these classes in order to graduate. So what will the university do?

Faculty and staff in the English Department worry that the University’s recent academic alliance with the Baton Rouge Community College may be the University’s solution to circumvent part of the problem.

“Bears 2 Tigers,” a program allowing students to transfer seamlessly from BRCC to the University to complete a bachelor’s degree, was signed Sept. 28 by Chancellor Michael Martin and BRCC Chancellor Myrtle Dorsey.

The partnership, which originally only included engineering, has been extended to BRCC students with business, science, and humanities and social sciences associate degrees.

Reading through the comments section it appears many think this is a terrible solution. Some make disparaging comments about community colleges.

Dean Ed Warner (right)

I think it is long past time such a partnership was put in place. Community colleges have a special place in the heart of my own family. My grandfather (top of page 5) was dean of Mohawk Valley Community College in Utica New York which is a model of what a community college can be. One of his great achievements was to create such a network that allowed students to “transfer seamlessly” from Mohawk Valley Community College to many of the top universities in the state.

This was 30-40 years ago.

I am deeply sympathetic to faculty and staff at Louisiana State University who are being affected by these cuts. But my sympathy is mitigated by my strong appreciation for the important role that community colleges play in a healthy system of higher education. So what if some students choose to get their basic requirements at Baton Rouge Community College and then transfer seamlessly to Louisiana State University? What is wrong with that?

There is an answer to that question however. Which is what about students who don’t do that? Who begin and remain at Louisiana State? How will they fulfill their writing course requirement? The university cannot outsource the entire program can it?

For the record my wife and I hope and plan for my children to attend Louisiana State. So far they seem pretty happy with the idea. We have a personal interest in the future of Louisiana’s flagship university.

Addendum:

Revolution 21 says it very well indeed in “Louisiana: Stupid Is As Stupid Cuts”. As much as some might rebel against the idea we have too many “university” campuses and greatly need to combine/consolidate.

H/T Opinionated Catholic.

Came across a Los Angeles Times article criticizing a Tea Party coloring book for kids. Fair enough. More interesting are the comments. Most take issue with the criticisms. Only a few take issue with the Tea Party movement and/or the coloring book.

One of the persons who takes issue with the Tea Party movement comments:

The Tea Party “claims” to be for small government, yet many of the candidates that are currently running for office think nothing of promoting ideas in which the government has jurisdiction over our private affairs and sex lives. That isn’t smaller government to me.

This is a point others have made. “You conservatives claim you believe in freedom and smaller government. And yet you have no problem supporting laws against same-sex marriage or elective abortion. These are private matters. In a way you want an even more intrusive government”.

It is not a bad argument. There are a few responses.

Really? Which Tea Party candidates – and how many are there really? – are promoting such laws? It is true that many social conservatives are part of the Tea Party movement. But for the most part it seems that the Tea Party movement and Tea Party candidates are being careful to focus on a broader consensus regarding smaller government and less government spending.

The person quoted above surely exaggerates. Although there is at least one example. Joe Miller running for United States Senator from Alaska.

A stronger response is to point out that smaller government means smaller government. It does not mean less government on every single issue. Let me put it this way. A statist might want the government to control 50% of everything we say do and spend. A classic liberal might want the government to control 10% of everything we say do and spend.

But it is entirely possible for a classic liberal to believe the government should control some things that the statist thinks the government should not control. That does not mean the classic liberal contradicts herself when she advocates more liberty and less government. As long as overall there is a net increase in liberty and a net decrease in the size and scope of government. Ten percent of our lives is still much less than fifty percent of our lives. It is entirely possible for someone to say “the government should intervene in how we define marriage or family relationships or at what stage a human being deserves legal protection – but it should not intervene in how much money we make or where we go to school or what kind of health care we receive or what legal contracts we honor or what political and religious opinions we hold or express and so on and so on”.

Smaller government means exactly that. Small-er government.

This is why when some Christians err when they invoke the Second Law of Thermodynamics against the(?) theory of evolution.

Basically the argument goes like this.

Evolutionary theory states that things are becoming more organized and complex as organisms evolve naturally over time. But the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the amount of order in a system decreases over time. There is no way that organisms could evolve without divine intervention.

There is a colossal problem with this common argument against evolutionary theory. It misunderstands and misapplies the Second law of Thermodynamics also known as the Law of Entropy.

So long as there is a net overall decrease in energy and order in the universe – it is entirely possible for there to be local instances of increased energy and order. Or as Professor Alan McNeil said to those of us studying biology at Cornell University “the Second Law of Thermodynamics is why we have to eat lunch”. Yes human beings are examples of order and organization. But we have to eat lunch. Something that is ordered and organized – food – must be destroyed in order for us to continue.

Not to mention the fact that we grow old and die. Even lunch cannot stave off the long term effects of the Law of Entropy.

Automobiles are examples of order and organization. But they use up large amounts of fuel. There is a net decrease in order in order to maintain a local instance of organization.

And yes this opens up a whole list of theological questions which will be raised in a future post.

Lanesboro Massachusetts 1968

Glory to God for Advent and for Christmas when we celebrate the incarnation of God the Son in Jesus of Nazareth! Advent preparation and Christmas joy.

Keep that in mind when I say that for our family December is a difficult month. I know there are many who will feel acutely and painfully the absence of loved ones on Christmas.

Between my wife and me three out of our four parents died – all of them very unexpectedly – within a week of Christmas.

December 26 before we ever met. She drives back to seminary – only to hear the news about her dad and must turn around and drive back for the funeral.

December 22 2000. Finishing up dinner when my mom calls. Something about having some sad news she found someone on the floor of the house. Could not quite catch who she was talking about so I asked her to repeat. She found my dad on the floor and he had obviously been dead for some time. I had not seen him in a year and a half – Virginia too far from Minnesota and now Louisiana too far from New York.

December 18 2006. Three years ago today. Getting ready to drive to Florida later that week to spend Christmas with my mother-in-law and her husband. We had not seen them in three and a half years – long way to Tennessee for some reason we had not been in a while. And my sister was flying from Minnesota to join us there. Church staff Christmas party. Step outside to answer a call from my wife. Her mother had a heart attack and had died.

So the fun trip to Florida and family and Disneyworld turned into a very rushed trip to the mountains of northeast Tennessee.

I am a dreadful poet – but this is what I wrote a few weeks later:

Buck Mountain

The wind is cold because it blows across the snow
That rests upon the frozen earth
In which our ancestors sleep.

They sleep these names that once
Are fathers husbands brothers
Wives and sisters mothers
Even children.

With slow and quiet smiles
They let me walk among them
And share with me
Their watch from high above the valley.

The wind is cold because it blows across the snow
As I return upon the melting path
That leads me back
To the valley of those
They loved and birthed.

What am I trying to say? Not sure entirely. Only to share that there is something about December that to us is dreadful and threatening. Dates on the calendar that are monsters of darkness and grief with gaping maws lined with teeth past which – through which? – we journey on our way to the new year.

We are not alone. We know others have lost loved ones. And each experience of grief is different. We do not “know just what you are going through”. Although we might understand a little bit.

There was a pastor who so many years ago – before my wife and I met – who in his morning prayer one Sunday said “and we know there are some for whom the Christmas season is difficult”. Just one brief sentence during a gathering of joy and celebration. But with that one sentence that young seminary student felt included. And was able to worship.

Ba`ereb yali(y)n bki(y) wlabboqer rinna(h)

In the evening spends-the-night weeping. But in the morning rejoicing. (Psalm 30:6)

(This is not a good poster for this particular movie.)

A Wright family tradition is to see a movie on certain holidays especially New Year’s Day. Frankly the selection is pretty poor right now and my kids had already seen most of what they were interested in (including *barf* “Twilight” *barf*). We went with “Marley and Me” starring Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston which is based on the memoir Marley and Me by Josh Grogan.

Is this the story of a couple (and later also their children) and a dog? Or the story of a dog named Marley and the family among which he lives?

Josh and Jen are newlyweds who move to Florida in order to follow their careers in writing/journalism. Each lands a job although at a different newspaper. Jen covers high-profile and exciting political issues. Josh is stuck with the “local beat”. In order to help stave off – well postpone – his wife’s desire to start having children Josh buys her a puppy for her birthday. A Lab if I am not mistaken.

(Good friends of ours decided to take in a stray Lab puppy which showed up at the school where the wife teaches. That cute Lab puppy became a baby hippo with yellow fur.)

The puppy grows and quickly turns into an almost uncontrollable nightmare of barking chewing and knocking things over (including sometimes their children when they start to show up).

There are at least three themes that struck me throughout the film.

First. I identify with Josh because Josh struggles with his own sense of passion and interest. He wants to be a famous reporter who covers super-high-profile stories like his best friend (who travels the world and writes long investigative pieces that land the front page of the New York Times). But he gets stuck with the “local beat”. And then a bi-weekly column… that becomes a daily column that is often funny and sometimes a serious reflection on local issues (parks, hospital emergency rooms, neighborhood safety, and so on). He never really fulfills his dreams as a famous journalist.

I used to dream of being a (semi-)famous or at least respected and productive scholar who teaches in a seminary or university setting. Dang I was in school until age 32 getting undergraduate then graduate degrees then a seminary degree. I have published two articles and one book (which was given a review than can only be called devastating). Pastor a tiny little church/ministry for internationals in south Louisiana and am on staff for a middle-sized American congregation. Often – especially on a day like today when I hit 42 – I wonder what the heck I am doing here and with my life and what happened to all my big dreams which frankly at this stage I have pretty much given up on them. Discovered I am even beginning to lose fluency in biblical Hebrew.

Josh did not imagine himself or plan on being a columnist. And yet (whether he believes in God or not) that is where eventually God led him. And where perhaps he belonged with his family and even with Marley.

Perhaps this is exactly where God wants me. Everyone – including a team of experienced missionaries from Cooperative Baptist Fellowship – tells me this that I do a “phenomenal” job in my ministry with internationals. They seem to believe it when seldom I can. (And maybe one day I can still go back and work on those dreams of doing research/writing and teaching.)

Second. And this continues from the first… notice how the “curse” of Marley the dog inspires his best columns. Not just the ones about life with a dog! Because of Marley he has to go to the emergency room which leads to a column about emergency rooms and medical care in his city (to pick just one example out of a lengthy montage about one third through the film). Here we see the providence of God – events which seem trivial unimportant even annoying lead to significant results with important far beyond the individual(s) concerned.

Third. Unconditional love. Josh (voice of Owel Wilson of course) toward the end of the movie lays it out for us. A dog does not care if you are rich/poor, smart/dumb, white/black, man/woman, old/young. If you love a dog he will love you back faithfully and unconditionally. “Give a dog your heart and he will give you his” (something like that).

{ADD QUOTE FROM THE SAMURAI BY SHUSAKU ENDO RE CHRIST LIKE DOG}

Fourth. Death.

You realize that dogs do not live as long as humans right?

I do not wish to say too much but be prepared to have your emotions wrenched by the last several minutes. How do we prepare for death? How do you act when death is happening under your very hand? How do you grieve?

The film forces us to think about how we deal with mortality illness and death.

Do dogs go to heaven?

I am not sure anyone or anything “goes to” heaven. Is heaven a place or a time? Could it be even a “place” but a place that is parallel/intersecting our own such that one does not so much “go to” heaven as one “shifts into” heaven?

If there will be a new heavens and a new earth… if God will make all things new… if there will be hills and rivers and trees in the new heavens/earth…

Why not dogs? Even if dogs do not have “souls” (and does anyone have a “soul”? or are we souls?) does that mean God cannot resurrect them?

We have the best dog in the world and we love him. I know that surely one day we will have to face this.

The film received mediocre reviews at Rotten Tomatoes (which I visit before watching any film) and I do not dispute the rating (although there are problems with a rating system which is basically binary) but frankly we enjoyed it.

Partly because pastors need to eat as well as feed and partly because I was sick of listening to the Jim Engster Show (which often is on NPR when I drive) I made an effort to find and download sermons which I would listen to in my car.

I chose Paul Zahl now rector or All Saints Episcopal(?!?) Church in Chevy Chase, Maryland and before that dean of Trinity Episcopal(?!?) School for Ministry near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Zahl enjoys science fiction and old movies and rock music. I think (more on this in a moment) I like his theology which centers largely around the idea of grace. He often critiques the Christian church for (according to him) becoming largely centered around law and judgment.

He has a short series of sermons/talks on parenting by grace. Rather than by law and judgment. Law and judgment are “do this or else” and “you disobeyed me what is your problem I am going to let you have it!” Zahl makes much of the Pauline argument that (1) human beings are naturally sinful/messed-up and (2) while law judges sin it does not improve behavior or increase love in fact it does the opposite – it sparks rebellion disobedience and anger. He gives a few examples of what parenting by grace might look like (such as when a son wants to move to live with a girlfriend the parents do not approve of, or when the teenage daughter in a devout evangelical family chews out her mother with vile language at the dinner table).

But still – while it is a great idea how exactly does one parent by grace? List the examples and the situations. Then tell me what exactly you say or do when your child (especially a teenager) speaks and behaves in certain ways?

For about the last two weeks I have been sharing this with my wife and trying it out even if imperfectly. Feeling my way clumsily through a principle that is long on power but short on specifics.

One daughter “cops an attitude” all day and is blatantly disrespectful to her parents at the dinner table. “Go to your room”. No – I won’t.

(Wow. It is one thing when a child does something wrong. It is quite another when they will not even accept discipline for what they do wrong.)

We tried something along the lines of “your mother has spent a lot of time with you today, bought you some things, and that is why it is difficult when you treat her this way” and “we would like you to spend some time in your room so you can have some peace and quiet”. And although we threatened to make her stay in there all evening and not attend a major school function later that week… after about an hour we said “we would like to enjoy spending the rest of the evening with you” and “if you still want to go to this event you can find some ways to show that”.

Rather than you are a disrespectful disobedient and ungrateful wretch and your punishment is… blah blah blah.

I thought that was roughly what “parenting by grace” might look like in this situation.

Last night our two children were fighting/arguing. Over something to do with the computer (often that or something to do with television). “We would like you to go to your rooms so that you can have a peaceful and quiet evening” and even “yeah that is frustrating that she got twice as many points on that website than you”.

They go to their rooms and start getting ready for bed.

I head back there to check on them and sure enough one child is in the other’s bedroom looking for and demanding something (a frequent problem and source of contention). I get that child into her room and try the “grace” approach. “Yes that is frustrating” and “How about you get ready for bed so that you can get enough rest for tomorrow?”

But she would not shut up. Kept beating the issue. She has and I don’t and she has and I don’t and that’s not fair and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah…. interrupting me and not stopping and not responding positively to my several minutes of trying to be non-law and non-judgment with her.

And that is when I lost it. Big time. Did and said things no father (let alone a Christian or a pastor) should say and do.

I don’t know.

Either Zahl is brilliantly correct or stupefyingly wrong about all this. And frankly I cannot figure out what grace-ful parenting specifically looks like in these situations. “Don’t judge. Don’t throw the law at them. Forgive. Love. And always pray for them”. Sounds great in theory but exactly what does one do and say in various situations?

Frankly I am ready to give up on the whole enterprise. But law/judgment does not seem to work much better – all that seems to get is more disrespect back-talking and disobedience and certainly more contention in the home.

Is grace-ful parenting truly possible?