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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One last thing. Jonathan Dudley needs a mirror.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dudley concludes his piece:

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

So let’s stop the charade and be honest.

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

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

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

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

Addendum:

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

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

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

Update 07/12/2011:

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

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

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

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

Update 2011/08/21:

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

Originally published in The Window, October 30 2006.

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

(Warning: This article contains mature content.)

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

There is a theological theme that has been… Play.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

Last time took eight to see “Turandot” by Puccini. Fairly full theater. People came up to us with tears in their eyes (I am not making that up) to express how much they appreciate young people coming to see the opera.

This time we had eleven. Theater was packed. And quite a few young people – children and college age. Why was “Carmen” even more popular than “Turandot”? Our international friends said “‘Carmen’ is very famous!” I saw more people from University Baptist Church this time.

To be honest after the first half hour I was a bit embarrassed. “Uh oh. Wonder what our Chinese friends are thinking. Wonder if they wish they had not come. Very very different from ‘Turandot’”. The opening songs are about soldiers hanging around and pawing at Micaela (Barbara Frittoli) and leering at the cigarette girls who sit around wiping sweat from their half-exposed bodies. Real high drama there.

And then you get Carmen (Elena Garanca – whom I saw also in Rossini’s “La Cenerentola”). With cleavage and at least one leg showing at all times. Who is seriously bad news.

If you want her then she does not want you. If you do not want her then she wants you. And if she wants you better watch out!

Si je t’aime, si je t’aime prend garde a toi!

Our humble soldier Don Jose (Roberto Alagna) – who already has a girlfriend – unfortunately attracts the attention of Carmen who trains her wiles on him like a laser beam. Dude you are so dead. It does not take long before Don Jose is making out with Carmen and letting her escape from arrest and planning to get together with her later at a resort.

What the heck is this opera about?!? At first glance it seems dirty and sleazy and slutty. Not at all like “Turandot” in which the passionate love of Calaf breaks through the cold cruelty of the princess Turandot – all very noble virtuous and glorious. This is about a respected soldier and good son with a nice girlfriend who throws it all away because some hot temptress hands him a flower.

Speaking of “love is like a bird”. The first act talks a lot about love – l’amour. But it does not seem to be about love so much as desire or shall we say lust. “I love you” seems to mean not much more than “you’re cute and I want to have sex with you”.

So what is going on here? What is Bizet trying to say? Who – or should we say what – exactly is Carmen?

There are several different approaches I would suggest.

The first is rather simplistic morality play. “Stay away from bad girls”. Something like that. No doubt feminist literary scholars would have something to say about “the patriarchal warnings against the archetypal temptress” motif – and frankly they would be at least partly right. Don Jose has a nice girlfriend who goes to church brings him letters from his momma and won’t even kiss him on the lips. Along comes the hot hussy Carmen with her blazing unrestrained sexuality. Before you know it Don Jose is hanging out with bandits and breaking his momma’s heart and strangling said hussy and getting executed. Bad bad bad. Sort of “Reefer Madness” meets “Fatal Attraction”.

(Yeah I don’t know where that came from either.)

Maybe. But that seems too simplistic.

At one point it suddenly hit me just who or what Carmen is.

Freedom.

She sings about “I will live free or die free”. She represents perhaps the freedom to throw off the constraints of law responsibility and commitment. Don Jose is not just a guy – he is a soldier. He obeys orders and enforces the law. He does not just go off with Carmen – he becomes a bandit. He leaves behind society with its laws and regulations. Perhaps that helps explain the famous habanera “L’amour est un oiseau rebelle”:

Love is a rebellious bird… He has never known law. If you don’t love me I will love you. If I love you – you better watch out!

Carmen will not be imprisoned – no handcuffs or jail for her! Don Jose spends time in jail because he sets her free – but what gets him through that time is the flower Carmen gave him. If you do not love freedom – then freedom will come hunting for you. And if freedom comes after you – better watch out! Don Jose will not live without freedom (Carmen). The opera seems largely about freedom and the desire for freedom.

I will not suggest that freedom is unambiguously good in the opera. What happens when the desire for freedom means you reject duty and obedience and commitment? Freedom yes – but balanced with responsibility and self-control? Perhaps the opera also explores the ambiguity of freedom.

There is another theme which has to do with ethnicity and class. Sure we may fault Carmen for being the temptress. But she is not just a woman. She is a gypsy. A member of an ethnic group – the Roma(ny) – that even today is considered outcast and undesirable in Europe. How else will these people fight back against a (Spanish European) society that rejects them and marginalizes them? Can we blame them when they turn to (a) sex and (b) crime to get what they want – or need? And how noble are these “white” Europeans who are quite happy to get their booze and cigarettes and sex and black market goods from gypsies? And who think torturing and killing bulls is somehow more noble and civilized? Is not the final act with its parade of the different kinds of bullfighter a kind of satire? How silly!

Toreador, toreador!

And notice how the toreador desires and wins Carmen – and transforms her into a proper Spanish lady. Carmen has gone from marginalized outcast gypsy to accepted member of Spanish high society. (I am reminded of how the prostitute civilizes Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh – but cannot quite make the connection.)

One last theme. Fate and free will. This is particularly evident when Don Jose and Carmen are with the bandits in the mountains. Two of the woman consults the cards to find out their fortunes. Wealth and fame. Sounds great. So does Carmen. Death and death. She knows ahead of time that Don Jose will kill her. And no matter how many times she turns the cards the result is the same. Death and death.

Oddly enough she seems resigned to this. “Oh well. Nothing I can do. The cards say I am going to die. Guess I better just follow the script to its end”. She convinces herself that she does not have the freedom – free will – to make different choices and change course. In a way she brings about the very “fate” she fears. One is reminded of how Voldemort creates his own downfall in the Harry Potter books because he is obsessed with a misunderstood prophecy.

So perhaps there are many different themes and issues that drive the opera – all at the same time. Women and sexuality. Race and class. Freedom and its ambiguity. Fate and free will.

Okay – enough about the opera. What about the performance?

Outstanding of course. The music was energetic and delightful. The acting solid. The singing exceptional. And the pas de deux (sp?) that opened each act masterful. I did find the physicality of the performance a bit distracting. Woman getting pawed and groped. Don Jose lying down on Carmen whose legs are spread wide. Pushing hitting fighting. Even Rene Fleming commented and asked if the singers felt bruised after their performance.

The sets were a bit drab but otherwise brilliant – giant rotating circular walls?!? Now it’s a jail… now it’s a town square. Now it’s a town square… now it’s the inside of a bullfighting ring. Amazing. Clearly only the best work for the Met.

My favorite part by far was when Rene Fleming was interviewing Escamillo (performed by… don’t seem to have his name available). Apparently the bass performer was sick and this guy got a call that morning at like 10:00 a.m. “Hey um we need you to sing Escamillo at the Met today”. You could not tell this man had filled in on such short notice. That alone earns my respect.

Even better she asked how he became an opera singer. Well apparently he used to be a certified accountant in his native New Zealand. Around age 30 or 31 decided he wanted to sing opera. Gotta love it. We all had a good laugh.

“I’m sick of this pastoring gig. Think I’ll join the opera”.

Toreador, toreador! L’amour t’attend!

Hey. A guy can dream.

Frankly I have not paid much attention to this because I do not care an whole lot.

The Rev. Alberto Cutié, the celebrity priest removed from his Miami Beach church after photos of him kissing and embracing a woman appeared in the pages of a Spanish-language magazine earlier this month, has left the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami to join the Episcopal church and announced that he will marry the woman he has dated for two years.

Read the whole thing at Miam Herald. You do not have to register.

You may not have followed this closely but perhaps you heard about this. The paragraph above is remarkably well written – good journalism if nothing else – because in just a couple sentences you get the picture. (I taught writing to university students for about a year. I try to recognize and acknowledge when people write well.) Catholic priest has relationship with woman. Comes to public light. Catholic priest leaves Catholic church – or does he? therein lies a rub – and joins Episcopal Church.

I have no interest in criticizing or judging Father Alberto Cutie. Really. Yeah he broke his vows. Yeah he should not have been doing that while a Catholic priest. But celibacy has got to be tough. Especially when you meet a woman you really like. Should he have left the Catholic church before pursuing this relationship? Yeah probably. But think about the practicality of that. (Counterargument below – he may have made his vows of celibacy while in this relationship. But set that aside for a moment.) If you want to leave the Catholic church in order to pursue a relationship with a woman…

Think about it. How can you even consider leaving (the “honorable” thing to do) before you have already started down that road? And are you really going to leave all that behind when you have been “dating”? One cannot terribly blame a fellow for pursuing that relationship to some extent before saying “oh man – I cannot keep doing this and remain a Catholic priest”.

Anyways. That is not what this post is about.

This post is about the Episcopal Church. And how Episcopal bishop Leo Frade of Southeast Florida has handled the matter.

“Well. What a great opportunity to kick the Catholic Church in the nuts”.

There is a certain diseased cynicism in immediately and publicly saying “Well – we would love to have this guy come join the Episcopal church. Our church allows clergy to get some”. Rank self-serving opportunism.

One wise parish priest in Baton Rouge summarized the problem in the Episcopal Church this way. “They have turned pastoral theology into dogma”.

But one wonders if this is even pastoral theology. Certainly not very pastoral toward the Catholic church or those whom Father Curie served. The reporter nails it with more good journalism:

At a press conference late Thursday afternoon, Archdiocese of Miami officials expressed disappointment in Cutié and had strong words for the Episcopal Church, especially Bishop Frade.

”This is truly a setback for ecunemical relations and cooperation between us. The Archdiocese have never made a public display when for doctrinal reasons Episcopal priests have joined the Catholic Church and sought ordination,” said Archbishop John Favalora. He said he had not heard from Frade about the transition and had not spoken to Cutié since May 5, adding that Cutié never told the archbishop he wanted to get married.

Great quote. “We don’t made a big public display when your guys join us. But when one of us joins you… you rub our faces in it”. Favalora is a real Christian bishop who refrains from calling Bishop Frade… a jerk.

But one more point. And I posted this over at Midwest Conservative Journal (which I no longer visit much – just interested in other issues right now):

There has been an exchange of unusual quality over at TitusOneNine concerning the issue of same-sex relations and the classic “shellfish” argument. By this I mean those who take the more “liberal” view (same-sex relations are not inherently sinful and those who engage in such – especially in “committed” relationships – should not be disqualified from ordained leadership in the church) have done a better-than-usual job of explaining and defending their view. Ross and D. C. (their monikers) have made some cogent points.

The bottom line is still this:

#67 Rick in Louisiana makes a very thoughtful reply, including among other things:

(Do those who say such also concede that the Bible never ever teaches that same-sex relations are fine? I hope so. I hope they have the honesty and intellectual rigor to say “the Bible does not support us on the matter of homosexual behavior – we just think the Bible is wrong on this point”. And to their credit some do say this.)

Yes, I’ll concede that.  When the Bible speaks explicitly about homosexuality, it always speaks against it.  You can quibble a little about definitions and cultural practices and so on, but when all is said and done, the Bible condemns homosexuality. [emphasis added]

That is not entirely correct. (And this is quibbling but the point must be made.) The Bible does not condemn “homosexual-ity” but more precisely same-sex relations. (The Bible does not condemn heterosexual-ity but does have some things to say about adultery.)

I occasionally discern in Scripture… I am not sure quite what to call them… little hints? vectors? that perhaps somehow – exactly how we might debate – those who (a) experience same-sex attraction or more precisely (and less clearly) (b) engage in same-sex relations just might somehow be welcome in the covenant community.

Cracks in the plating. The metal plating of my conviction(s).

To whit check out Isaiah 56:4-5:

For this is what the LORD says: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant– 5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off.

The passage as a whole is about how those who have been excluded from the covenant community (or people of God) will no longer be excluded. This includes (a) foreigners and (b) eunuchs. Focus on eunuchs for a moment. Men who (looking back at the Torah) have had testicles and/or penis removed. Sexually… damaged? Such that among other things they cannot produce children.

We might legitimately (and perhaps correctly) note that eunuchs are not the same thing as homosexuals (again to be more precise those who experience and act upon same-sex attraction). Eunuchs do not engage in same-sex relations. They do not normally engage in any kind of sexual relations. But I could not help but think of gay-lesbian-bisexual persons when I read this text. And more importantly note the vector of the prophecy. That those who have been excluded will one day be included.

This is not the only time or place I have noticed a verse or two that just might subvert the larger sexual ethic. I do not deny or reject the sexual ethic. But honesty requires me to note those places where at least I pause and wonder.

Monday is “Star Trek: Enterprise” night.

One of the episodes last night was “Stigma“. From Trek Nation:

While Enterprise visits a planet where an Interspecies Medical Exchange conference is taking place, Dr. Phlox tries to obtain research on a terminal disease from the Vulcan contingency there. But he must not reveal that T’Pol has contracted this disease, because that knowledge would forever stigmatize her among her people.

There are – and this is a general rule among television shows in general and “Star Trek” is no exception – two story-lines. The second is one of Phlox’ wives comes to visit. The first is T’Pol has this disease that normally is associated with the “minority” of Vulcans who engage in “unacceptable intimate behavior” namely mind-melds.

The first story (“main arc”) is transparently about homosexuality and AIDS. The “minority” who mind-meld represent those who engage in homosexual relations. P’nar Syndrome represents AIDS – which is associated with the “minority” although T’Pol is not a member of that group. She contracted P’nar Syndrome because of a psychic assault (forced mind-meld).

I am a moderately conservative Christian pastor who happens to agree with the more traditional teaching of the Christian church on same-sex relations. But I must admit as propaganda goes this is well done. The propaganda (or not-so-hidden agenda) does not overwhelm the story which stands well on its own. The issue is plausible. Some Vulcans mind-meld but for the last one thousand years this has become less tolerated in Vulcan society. Those who engage in mind-melds sometimes contract a particular medical condition. One sympathizes with T’Pol, with the scientist who “comes out” during the hearing, with Captain Archer. This is what good science-fiction is about. Exploring real issues in alternative settings.

(There are of course examples where this sort of thing is very badly done.)

The other story (“secondary arc”) is genuinely funny. Feezal – Phlox’ wife – is brilliant, charming, and gorgeous and quickly starts putting major moves on Commander Tucker who is a good gentleman from Florida who thinks it is just plain wrong to fool around with another man’s – I mean sentient being’s – spouse. He eventually dares discuss this with Phlox.

“I think your wife has been making… advances to me”.

“Sexual advances?” (Voice and eyelids lowered.)

Oh shoot. Here it comes. Phlox is gonna beat the tar out of Tucker.

Phlox then grins like a Cheshire cat. “Mmm… did she give you a rose petal bath?”

It quickly becomes apparent that Phlox thinks it’s just fantastic that his wife is hot stuff and is interested in Tucker and wonders why on earth Tucker is not more supportive of good interspecies relations. Nudge nudge wink wink!

“She’s your wife!”

Phlox explains that Tucker is confusing human morality with Denobulan culture.

Again – I am a moderately conservative Christian pastor who agrees with traditional Church teaching. But again – this is good propaganda. The situation is plausible. The message does not overwhelm the quality of the episode. Heck – it’s funny when Phlox grins at the idea that one of his shipmates is enjoying what a fantastic woman his wife is.

I happen to believe that if God has created multiple worlds with multiple “sentient species” (other people who image God) then the divine guidelines for what is moral and just will be similar. And so I do not quite buy that “what is considered wrong for humans is just smokin’ for Denobulans”. But if this is propaganda – sexual mores are arbitrary and one day we will get past all this rubbish – then I must admit it is good propaganda. A serious story-line balanced with one that is funny. Plausible situations that explore in an alternative setting current social-cultural issues that human beings face. 

This is what science-fiction is to a large extent all about.

One last note. Even if one agrees with traditional Church teaching on sexual relations (same-sex relations or extra-marital relations) one cannot argue with part of what “Stigma” is trying to say. That even if one does not approve of what the “minority” does they still deserve compassion and fair treatment. Should the junior scientist lose his job when he “comes out”? Should Vulcan scientists not work their tails off to find effective treatments for P’nar Syndrome? Of course not. And similarly of course even if one does not approve of certain sexual behaviors (same-sex or extra-marital and so on) then one should still support compassion and fair treatment.

Phlox to Feezal: “It’s too bad you and Commander Tucker didn’t get to know each other better”. Pause.

“Uh… I gotta go. The plasma conduits are overheating. Ma’am, it was nice meeting you”.

That’s good writing. Say no more. You know what I mean?

Sab- (or) Holy Snugglebunnies, part III

Richard M. Wright

(Warning: This article contains mature content.)

(Note: This article was first written for the church newsletter. Because it was going to a broad audience I used the euphemism “snugglebunnies”. Some parents with young children might feel that “look, I’m not afraid to talk about sex, but I was hoping to give my 6 year old a couple more years before explaining it”. However – here on the Internet… I could very comfortably switch out snugglebunnies for “sex”. Cut me some slack.)

(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”)