One of my favorite examples of ancient art

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

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

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

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

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

And Instapundit earlier notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cannot remember what is point / thing we learn

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

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

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

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

does not know / does not understand

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

Two ways to shed light on this new understanding of faith

1) Tolkien

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And after these things God tests Abraham.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I cannot explain how but starting about five years ago in two thousand and six began to include works of art in our worship guides. So if one of the Bible readings for that day 1 Samuel 3 would include “Samuel and Eli” by Gerrit Dou (1613-1675) just to pick one example. I think this was partly because pictures can help prompt us to think in different ways about biblical texts. Because some people are primarily visual learners/thinkers. And because sometimes the artwork is from non-Western nations and cultures. For example the work of Chinese Christian artist He Qi. Or the stories of Jesus in an African setting/context at Vie de Jesus Mafa. Part of my ministry is to look for ways to communicate effectively across cultures. But more than that to celebrate other cultures which God creates – and that is one of my theological convictions – and the ways biblical stories can be expressed in the artistic conventions of these other cultures.

The response was tremendous. Since then people have frequently expressed how beautiful and interesting is the artwork we include. University Baptist Church – the American church of which Church of the Nations is a ministry – also began to adopt this practice on occasion.

Anyways wanted to share a couple new artists I have discovered. One is Bhanu Dudhat who appears to be an artist in(? from?) Gujarat in north India. He and his wife – also an artist – have an excellent website where one can see many paintings of stories from the Bible but done in an Indian cultural style.

The other is Yoram Raanan who is a Jewish Israeli artist born in the United States and moved to Israel in 1977. He works largely with oils and acrylics but also does collages and paintings on unusual media such as used book covers. He has several paintings of biblical subjects some of which are quite interesting. I commend to you his painting of the Aqedah aka Binding of Isaac in Genesis 22. That is one of the lections for his Sunday and the focus of the sermon I am preparing which is how I came across Raanan in the first place.

Whether it be Bible study or catechism or worship – how can we include all the human senses in the life of the church? What are the many ways we can incorporate visual art?

Originally published in The Window, October 30 2006.

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

(Warning: This article contains mature content.)

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

There is a theological theme that has been… Play.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published in The Window (October 23, 2006)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hold that thought because we will come back to it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(To be continued)

(Song of Songs 2:17) by Marc Chagall

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruth and Boaz

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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking of ambiguity.

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

David and Jonathan

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

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

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

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

Song of Songs

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

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

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

Methodological problem

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

Androgyny in Genesis 2

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

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

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

Minor note

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

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

Preliminary conclusion

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

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

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

H/T Opinionated Catholic

That the left would invest so much time and energy to portray opposition to the current administration and Congressional leadership as motivated by racism – thereby prompting said opposition to waste time and energy responding to these portrayals – is revealing. Especially when “black conservatives have endured the racial slurs from the left for decades, and the media has never had our backs”. Journalist and Massachusetts Republican Bob Parks asks why the mainstream media has never addressed the racism that comes from the left.

So what? Tea Party movement and other critics of this administration and Congressional leadership should still be defined by the ugly and racist sexist homophobic and Star Wars prequel loving extremists in their midst right? In other words for thee.

Gay Patriot says it very well in “Defining Us By Our Extremes, Revealing Their Prejudices”.

He [his date to a Democratic social event] said the gathering reminded him of similar such gatherings for Democrats in Denver (where he had grown up and first became active in politics).  Most of the people were decent folk, but there were a few overly obsessed with politics and burning with bile.  I try to keep that notion in mind every time I hear some harangue from an angry left-winger. That person doesn’t define their movement, but represents its extremes. [emphasis added]

Well that it one way to look at it. Or we can take such examples and hang them prominently on the walls of our minds as excuses for dismissing all Democrats as obsessive and bilious jerks. Why not?

Well because most Democrats are not like that.

The rabbis say, “What is hateful to you, do not do to others”. Think about that. Think about that very carefully. Rabbi Jesus the Christ and Son of God warned us that how we judge others is how we ourselves shall be judged.

So in the spirit of Mishnah Pirke Avot let us reconsider the opening sentence of this post.

That some on the left.

And maybe some on the right?

That what is true for thee is also true for me? And what is not true for me is also not true for thee?

I will rake my leaves when you stop having loud parties at night.

Get that mote out of your eye while I get the beam out of mine.

God is God and we are not.

You are human. And so am I.

Was listening to NPR in car this morning (yeah yeah I know) and “Writer’s Almanac” with Garrison Keillor came on. It was more interesting than most days.

Ah yes a poem about cleaning up after the dog. Guess who walks the dog in our family? And yes letting everyone see you use the bag is important.

Birthday of Chaim Potok. This got my attention because Potok is one of my favorite writers and I have read most of his books. He is one of the people I draw upon for my theology of the importance of silence. His books also help us understand the Jewish religion. Most of my teachers were Jewish and so I have a special respect and affection for the Jewish religion and people.

Premiere of the opera “Madame Butterfly” by Giacomo Puccini. Did terribly until Puccini made some changes and then presented it again later that year.

And a great quote that every preacher should heed:

A good sermon should be like a woman’s skirt: short enough to arouse interest but long enough to cover the essentials.

Word! From Ronald Knox born this day in 1888.

Today is Ash Wednesday. Today we enter Lent.