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

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

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

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

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

And after these things God tests Abraham.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

"Supper at Emmaus" by Caravaggio (1601)

Two of them?

Observe this remarkable painting by Michelangelo Caravaggio. Notice anything different or strange about it? Apparently people criticized it partly because (1) the risen Christ has no beard and (2) the fruit on the table is the wrong season. But there is something it shares in common with every single painting of the Emmaus story – as far as I am aware.

One of my best teachers at Baptist Theological Seminary in Richmond was Sandra Hack Polaski with whom I took two required classes on New Testament and later two electives. No other teacher in seminary (a) was so prompt in returning tests and papers and (b) was so thorough in her comments.

(With the possible exception of Dean McBride across the street at Union Theological Seminary who wrote voluminous notes and comments all over my exegetical paper on Exodus 20:22-26.)

I will never forget the day she invited us to reconsider the journey to Emmaus narrative in Luke 24. She did not tell us the answer and then defend it. She just made some observations about the book of Luke in general. Asked a couple open ended questions. And left us to reach the obvious conclusion. Nicely done.

Permit me to quote myself from a sermon given to Church of the Nations on April 04 2005:

[BEGIN] Our story for this morning comes from the book of Luke – which often uses pairs. Pairs of stories or characters usually next to each other that work together speak together strengthen each other. The beginning of the book of Luke – first the story of Zechariah father of John the cousin of Jesus then the story of Mary the mother of Jesus. Chapter two – Jesus is born his parents take him to the temple in Jerusalem where we meet Simeon a holy man and Anna a holy woman. Chapter seven Jesus heals the slave of a centurion – a Roman soldier – then Jesus heals the son of a widow – a Jewish woman. Chapters thirteen and fourteen Jesus heals a woman who has a problem with her back then Jesus heals a man who has a disease. Chapter fifteen Jesus tells the parable of a man who has many sheep and loses one and finds it then tells the parable of a woman who has some coins and loses one and finds it. Man woman / man woman / man woman / woman man / man woman.

On that same day two of them - in Greek duo ex autoon – two of them are going to a village called Emmaus about twelve kilometers from Jerusalem. They talk with each other. We learn that one of them his name is Cleopas we do not learn the name of the other. These two walk together talk together stay at the same place in the village perhaps this is their home they live together they invite Jesus to eat with them they eat together.

Two… of them.

What is the question I am not asking? What is the answer I am not telling?

When you see a picture of this story… when you imagine this story in your mind – what do you see? Two men? Perhaps – and I am careful to say perhaps – a man and a woman. Perhaps husband and wife. Perhaps like another story from the book of Genesis chapter eighteen when Abraham and his wife Sarah invite three strangers – who are actually three angels or the Lord and two angels – husband and wife invite strangers to stay and eat with them.

So let us work backwards from the end of the story. Perhaps husband and wife explain to the other disciples what happened to them. Husband and wife proclaim the good news, The Lord is risen indeed! Husband and wife talk together about their experience of Jesus participate in a meal with Jesus – a meal that is very much like the ritual of Communion / Eucharist / Lord’s Supper / a meal that represents a central act of Christian worship. Husband and wife practice hospitality and invite a stranger to stay and eat with them. Husband and wife study the Bible with Jesus talk with Jesus travel with Jesus. Husband and wife tell a stranger the story of Jesus – a prophet from God powerful in what he said and did suffered died crucified Messiah raised from death on the third day – the basic kerygma or message of the early Christian community. Husband and wife follow Jesus together.

We see in our story for this morning from the book of Luke the power and potential of husband and wife who follow worship serve proclaim Jesus Christ together as partners. Later in the book of Acts – part two of the book of Luke the same person or persons wrote the book of Luke part one and the book of Acts – later we meet Aquila and Priscilla. Husband and wife who for a while work with the apostle Paul – traveling and helping to form new Christian communities and helping to teach new followers of Christ. Notice especially in our story from the book of Luke how one of the most important things that Cleopas and perhaps his wife do is to practice hospitality. How they welcome the stranger who is away from home open their home and share a meal.[END]

So back to our wonderful painting by Caravaggio. Do we not always assume that the two of them are two men? Are we to understand that the book of Luke presents us with two unmarried men who live together? (Think about it for a moment.) Does it not make much more sense that sure Cleopas is a man but the unnamed and unspecified other is…

His wife? That is – a woman?

Sgt Neil Wood and Co - United States Army in Iraq

The minister with youth has been taking Hebrew at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and we have had some interesting conversations.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life. – Psalm 23:6

The Hebrew verb in question is yirdpuuni(y)* < root r-d-p normally translated “pursue”. Why do we translate this follow rather than:

Surely goodness and mercy shall pursue me all the days of my life.

Does God follow us or pursue us? Is God the sheep who meekly follows along after us the shepherd? Or does God pursue us who are the wayward wandering and often imperiled sheep? Notice how this fits better the theme of the psalm and may represent an inclusio with the opening imagery: (a) shepherd, (b) host, (a’) shepherd/host.

The first and traditional translation seems weak and passive. The second more active and robust. God is a lover who pursues us. He is sometimes describes as the hound of heaven.

Another is something we sing quite often in Church of the Nations in French and Indonesian as well as in English.

This is the day that the Lord has made. – Psalm 118:24

What does this translation of Hebrew `aśa(h) < `-ś-(h) emphasize? The existence of this day that God has made. In other words the existence of creation. But most of Psalm 118 emphasizes not creation but the mighty saving acts of God. Try this on for size.

This is the day that the Lord has acted.

Do you see the difference? The activity of God is less distant and remote. Oh yes once upon a time eons ago God created the day. We are happy we have this day.

Or God is active today to answer our calls of distress to grant us victory to make the rejected stone the cornerstone.

Some might say so what? I don’t see the difference.

I would suggest it is a very big difference. Granted there is an important theological connection between creation and salvation but the focus of my point here is on the difference between a deist world from which God has effectively been removed and a world in which God acts. Indeed creation properly understood is not just past but also present. As Jon Levenson demonstrates in Creation and the Persistence of Evil salvation is a creative act.

I recently perused a brief post by D. C. Toedt who maintains the Questioning Christian blog in which he explains how the Greek term kyrios used for Jesus does not necessarily imply that Jesus was somehow divine. I thought it was a naive and sloppy argument by someone who apparently dabbles in theology and biblical studies just enough to be dangerous and paid it little mind.

William Witt – who has a doctorate in systematic theology and according to my sources has finally gotten an opportunity to teach at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry – was challenged by Toedt on TitusOneNine and decided to compose a more thorough response.

(The specific issue at hand is whether Luke-Acts assumes a “low” or more specifically adoptionist Christology. That is Jesus was a regular human being who was elevated at his resurrection.)

What I appreciate about Witt’s reply is not only that he so resoundingly refutes Doedt’s weak argumentation but that he does so by using critical biblical scholarship:

One of the causes for frustration in the current discussions between the orthodox and revisionists in the mainline churches these days (especially on the blogs) is that so often the debates are between an uncritical orthodoxy and an uncritical revisionism. Many of the orthodox seem under the impression that critical biblical scholarship is essentially unchristian, and always leads (or will inevitably lead) to heresy. Many revisionists endorse a kind of popularist uninformed version of biblical scholarship that amounts to little more than a philosophical prejudice that “miracles don’t happen” combined with a search for “gotcha” difficulties. In my opinion, both of these approaches represent a kind of naïve epistemological fundamentalism that has its roots in the Enlightenment, specifically in the Cartesian methodology of doubt and a “foundationalist” or “methodist” rationalism. (Perhaps more on this later some other time.) A single difficulty is thought to uproot the entire faith, so “conservatives” launch an all out attack against any recognition of genuine diversity or plurality or development in the Scriptures as attacks on Christian faith, while the revisionists regard such diversity, development, or pluralism, as definitive arguments against orthodoxy.

Read the whole thing here. In fact save it for future Bible studies on Luke-Acts and/or on christologies of the New Testament. (By the way notice who the first comment is from. Does that name ring a bell?)

This is partly why I composed the post on why “The Presiding Bishop is not entirely wrong about everything”. Religious conservatives sometimes go too far and reject the baby (critical scholarship) along with the bathwater (such scholarship used badly to advance theological revisionism/liberalism). For years I have been a strong advocate for the idea that the Bible contains more than one point of view on many theological issues – and yet these multiple views co-exist in a kind of semi-coherent tension (apologies to John Barton). Conservatives want everything to be a little too neat and clean. Liberals think the slightest hint of diversity means everything is up for grabs. (How is that for a little gross overgeneralization?)

In any case this is how Dr Witt lands the plane:

Luke is making the same point in Acts, and in his account the apostles’ sermons are summaries of this. It is not that Jesus was an ordinary human being, who received a celestial promotion after the resurrection; rather, from the beginning Jesus was the Lord (kyrios), the Son of God–and Luke lets his reader know this from the beginning of his gospel. However, Jesus’ Lordship and Deity were hidden in humility until the resurrection–he is the Lord who waits at tables. It is only after his resurrection, that Jesus is exalted to the right hand and his identity as “Lord of all” (panton kyrios) is finally recognized and proclaimed by his followers.

Thank you not only for a fine response to Toedt but for such a model of careful scholarship that represents well “critical orthodoxy”.

Pentheus. Pharaoh. Oven Mitt. Balrog.

These are some of the unflattering and not terribly respectful comparisons and epithets I have used to describe Katharine Jefferts-Schori the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. (Okay – not balrog. I love Tolkien too much to compare her to a balrog.) I have written some harsh criticisms of her, what she says, and mainly of what she does.

But she is not entirely wrong about everything.

If liberal religion (and politics) drive me crazy still I am at times uncomfortable with the excesses of conservative religion (and politics). I tend to read conservative blogs. But sometimes conservatives define too strictly and defend too zealously what is “correct”. And sometimes appear unwilling to consider that their opponents can sometimes be right.

Some of the attacks on (the theology of) the Presiding Bishop are a case in point. Do I think she is a disaster? Yup. A heretic? Maybe. Orthodox in her theology? No way. But that does not mean we should reject everything she say, thinks, writes.

Two recent examples come to mind.

The first is her interview with Terry Gross of NPR’s “Fresh Air”. Much of what the Presiding Bishop said (especially about conservative Anglicans and why they have a problem with her and with the prevailing ethos of the Episcopal Church) was just rubbish.

But I happened to agree more or less with her statement about creation and science. Including this:

I simply find it a rejection of the goodness of God’s gifts to say that all of this evidence is to be refused because it does not seem to accord with a literal reading of one of the stories in Genesis. Making any kind of faith decision is based on accumulating the best evidence one can find — what one’s senses and reason indicate, what the rest of the community has believed over time, and what the community judges most accurate today.

That is not to say that the tradition or community understanding is always correct, as we might note in the aftermath of Galileo’s discoveries. When the various sources of authority seem to be in tension, we must use all our rational and spiritual faculties to discern the direction in which a preponderance of the evidence points. To do otherwise is to repudiate the very gifts God has given us.

I am aware that very fine brothers and sisters in Christ will disagree strongly with me on this point. Fair enough and I do understand where they are coming from. I personally believe (1) all truth is God’s truth (and that includes scientific truth which yes is contingent and the understanding or articulation of which can change over time) and (2) even God works in the real world.

One commenter at Stand Firm objected to the idea of a “continuing creation” and wrote:

I think she’s desperately wrong about the continuation of creation.  Creation does not continue and we do not participate in it.  Creation was the work of the logos in the beginning.  The incarnation addressed the distortion of that creation–of the image of God in the human person and of the physical creation–by sending the agent of creation to redeem it.  There may be recreation but that is about returning to an original state, in which the image of God shines in every man and woman and nature functions as it ought, without moral, spiritual, or physical decay or death.

This is not a ridiculous thing to say but I must disagree (with the first and last part). The idea of a “continuing creation” in which human beings participate is sound biblical theology.

First one must recognize that creation is not just “making things exist” but more precisely “shaping chaos into order”. The Flood Narrative (Genesis 6-8) alone indicates the unfinished character of creation. In Genesis 1 God takes what I call the “dark ball or angry water” and divides into light, life, and shape. In the Flood Narrative God reverses creation – the language is almost exactly the same but in reverse – and the world returns to a “dark ball of angry water”. And after the Flood – back again. Creation. Un-creation. Re-creation.

The very presence of such a sequence demonstrates that “creation” is not an entirely fixed and finished state. And God calls human beings to participate in the management of creation. Look at all the things human beings create in the subsequent chapters of Genesis. We create new people. We create cities and culture. If some are concerned about equating human beings with God let me clarify that there is a distinction between how the Creator creates and how we as junior co-creators create. One theologian calls this “creaturely creation”.

The commenter is partly correct about returning creation to an original state – but this misses an important point in salvation history. Consider Exile. Israel is restored but is not quite exactly as it was before. Consider the book of Revelation. The world and the redeemed are healed and restored certainly but not quite exactly as they were before. Jesus is now the “lamb that was slain”. (Excuse me? The slain-ness of Jesus is now part of the eschatological vision.) Even the redeemed carry their scars and the memory of blood and tears.

God does not merely repeat himself. There will be a new heavens and a new earth. Not just a return to the old ones. C. S. Lewis also makes this point.

One reason why it is important not to relegate “creation” solely to a past event is to recognize the ongoing relationship between creation and salvation. Throughout the Bible these two are intertwined. It is a mistake to say “creation is here in the past, now we have salvation”. Salvation is in fact an expression of creation theology. Observe how often the Psalmist cries out to God as creator.

This is but a brief outline of what I argue is a biblical theology of continuing creation and human beings as participants in and managers of that creation. For more let me quickly direct you to three works that explain this more fully:

• Jon Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil
• Samuel Balentine, The Torah’s Vision of Worshop
• Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation commentary)

Now to a second example.

Much was made of how the Presiding Bishop made use of the baptism of Jesus in a devotion with diocesan clergy in (state? reference?). The conservative priest (after giving credit to the Presiding Bishop for being fairly pleasant in person – and this is consistently true) then did not understand how “you are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased” could possible apply to us. He objected that this was a gross misuse of Scripture. God the Father said this to Jesus his Son at his baptism. End of story.

Well no. Or rather yes but that is not the end of the story. She was using lectio divina in which part of what we listen for is what God says to us through the Scripture. It is not necessarily a literal, precise, or “original” meaning of the Scripture in question.

But more to the point this week I have been listening to a CD chock full of sermons (MP3 format) by Rev Dr Paul Zahl formerly dean of Trinity Episcopal School for Minister and now rector of All Saints Church in Maryland. Hardly a flaming liberal. And sure enough in one of his sermons he clearly takes the Father’s words to Jesus and applies them… to us.

Listen to the whole thing here. You do not have to register. (Oddly enough that sermon for January 13 which is also my birthday. Woohoo.)

Look. I have an amazingly low opinion of the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. She is a disaster. Her theology is not orthodox. (What I do not understand is why even liberal Episcopalians should tolerate her. You want a liberal Presiding Bishop? I quite understand. But why not have one who is a better preacher, better writer, better speaker, better retreat leader, better leader in general?)

But she is not entirely wrong about everything. And some of what conservative Anglicans are (too) quick to reject from her just might be (more or less) sound biblical theology.

I have by allusion compared Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Shori of the Episcopal Church to Pentheus in The Bacchae by Euripedes. (You all did catch that right?)

Two weeks after Hurricane Gustav (which is how one tells time in South Louisiana – “in the ninth year of Katrina yea the crawfish harvest was sore abundant”) I was driving three intelligent girls home from a youth activity. They brought up creation, Adam and Eve, how about those dinosaurs? and where prehistoric humans fit in and so on. Great stuff.

Next day I told the youth minister my colleague about this fascinating discussion and their at time brilliant (if ultimately unpersuasive) theories and interpretations. The youth minister said “boy I’m glad they didn’t ask about how God hardened pharaoh’s heart – that’s a tough one”. I shared what my seminary professor said about that.

As I was driving home – and in my Bible study with internationals we have been working through Exodus and Exodus has been showing up in the lectionary recently – it suddenly hit me.

Pharaoh. The Presiding Bishop. “And God hardened pharaoh’s heart”. Hmm.

See here is the thing. It seems cruel and violent what God did to the Egyptians. A fair concern which internationals raise. But God gave pharaoh ten chances to change direction. “Let me people go!” No! And let us see who has real power – me or this Yahweh of yours! He proceeds to oppress the people of Israel even more. Instead of progress toward freedom their situation only gets worse as pharaoh just keeps digging in more and more.

What my professor in seminary suggested is that God did not make pharaoh do anything he would not normally want to do. “Hardened his heart” means “make pharaoh more pharaoh – stubborn recalcitrant prideful oppressive and so on”.

Is this what is happening? Why the Presiding Bishop instead of seeking healing and reconciliation just digs in assumes more power and works harder to purge the Episcopal Church of all dissenters to her regime and agenda? That God is hardening her heart? (And arguably the hearts of many other bishops and their supporters.)

(Hence Pentheus. Those whom the gods destroy they first drive mad. Ultimately Pentheus is destroyed and Dionysos wins.)

And how does the story of pharaoh and the Exodus end?

It ends with the Pesach (Passover) of God. Pharaoh is defeated. The people of God are finally delivered. And Yahweh wins.

Is Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori ready for the Pesach of God?

And what will that day look like for orthodox Anglican(i)s(m)?