I might have to take a page from the Red Stick Rant book and put this website into temporary(?) hibernation. The last 2 weeks have been working 10-12 hours/day which is fine. Hard work is part of congregational ministry. But has not left me with much extra time or mental/spiritual energy for posting. As for politics the situation is so bad what more is there to say? The health of this nation – by which I mean liberty opportunity responsibility prosperity security and charity – will not improve until the political-cultural left is removed from power by legitimate democratic means.

And now I have been offered the chance to teach Intermediate (Biblical) Hebrew at Louisiana State University as an adjunct starting this semester. Which is fantastic. But also means less than 5 weeks to prepare! So in addition to (1) full time congregational ministry which has become more demanding as our new co-pastors provide new direction and leadership and (2) part time computer/network support – which lately has been unusually time consuming because of the issues involved with getting two Mac computers to play nice with our Small Business Server 2003 network environment – add (3) teaching one course at the university which means both class time and extensive preparation.

Maybe I could just get in one or two posts a week. But cannot promise that.

Before turning off the light – hopefully temporarily – let me list some of the things I was hoping to address. Just so you know what I have been thinking and reading about.

Review of New York Metropolitan Opera performance of “Die Walkuere” by Richard Wagner. Quick summary = One does not normally expect to enjoy 5 1/2 hours of Wagnerian opera! But truly this performance/production will go down in history as one of the great triumphs in the history of opera.

Review of New York Metropolitan Opera performance of “Madame Butterfly” by Gioachino Rossini. Quick summary = Fascinating and excellent performance. An utterly heartbreaking and tragic story that raises cross-cultural issues as well as the (past?) problem of American colonialism.

Review of “Super 8″. Quick summary = Loved it so much paid to see it twice.

Review of “X-Man First Class”. Quick summary = Awesome.

Review of “The University in a Single Atom” by the Dalai Lama. Which I read primarily because it was a gift from my sister. Quick summary = Excellent and illuminating. Christians who are interested in (a) the relationship between science and religion and/or (b) understanding Buddhism do well to read this.

The Southern Baptist Convention’s recent resolutions on immigration and ministry to (illegal) immigrants. Quick summary = Rather surprising and leaves many people in the odd situation of regarding those Southern Baptists as too liberal!

Allen West versus Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Quick summary = There are more effective ways to rebuke the political-cultural left.

Modest proposal for how English language Bibles should translate Hebrew tsdaqa(h) and Greek dikaiosyne.

Terence Fretheim on the book of Exodus and to what extent scholars and pastors and teachers may misunderstand and even misrepresent biblical law and covenant theology.

1) Thanks to Disqus people can leave comments without registering with this website. They only need to be registered with Disqus.

2) I have closed registrations for this website.

3) I have deleted all but 3 registered users. See #1.

Real live human beings can still comment via Disqus. But no more spambots.

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.

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?

This looks like bottom floor of television studio where I first encountered Shouwang Church in June 2010

In May-June 2010 spent four weeks journeying through the People’s Republic of China. That journey ended with a second visit to Beijing during which had the opportunity to worship with two house churches. One a house house church. Several people who met in a small two(?) bedroom apartment. After which we went to visit Shouwang Church which at that time met in the bottom floor of a television studio building. I had joy and privilege of talking for about one hour with an intelligent young professional man who spoke impeccable English about the state of religion in general and of the Christian church in China particularly.

What that young man told me was different from what I am reading one year later. That apparently the Chinese government has enacted newer stricter rules regulating religious activity. And apparently Shouwang Church had been forced to leave the space it had been renting. And so come Easter they were attempting to worship outdoors. But the Chinese government would not allow even this. Members of Shouwang Church were arrested and hauled away in buses.

A recent article by David Aikman in the June 2010 issue of The American Spectator brought this back to mind.

Foreign correspondents in Beijing were alerted to something strange going on with China’s Christian community on April 10, 2011. Hundreds of members of the prominent Beijing Shouwang house church (whose name means “Keeping Watch”) were preparing to gather in a prominent open-air space in the Zhongguancun high-tech commercial area of northwest Beijing for an outdoor Sunday worship meeting. Many of the worshippers, arriving at the site, were barred by the police from coming any closer. Others were herded into buses and taken away by the police for questioning. Still others, anticipating a blanket police clampdown of their corporate worship, gathered in small numbers nearby, including in a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, where they went through the order of service that had been preprinted for that Sunday.

…

Though no one was formally arrested for the attempt to conduct Christian worship in an unauthorized location, by Easter Sunday, two weeks later, the authorities had clamped down even more fiercely. All of the top church leadership, all members of the choir, and hundreds of other prominent members of the congregation, more than 500 people in total, were physically prevented from leaving their homes by police planted outside their front doors. There was no letup the following Sunday, when even more church members were kept under house arrest, and dozens again detained for showing up at the Zhongguancun site.

It feels strange to read about this sort of thing happening to people that one has met and talked with and with whom one has worshiped.

Strangely enough have not been receiving the usual periodical emails from the aforementioned young man. The person who put me in touch with Shouwang Church his wife is battling advanced cancer and am reluctant to ask if he has received any word. Will keep you posted.

Note – This is the 500th post on this website. Woohoo!

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.

Andrea Da Firenze (1343-1377) Descent of the Holy Spirit

Truth, Translation, and Translucence: <Traduttore (no) Traditore!>
(or)
The Flesh/Word Became Word/Flesh and
Pitched His Language Among Us
(Acts 02)

Richard M. Wright
Church of the Nations
Pentecost Sunday (A)
June 12 2011

Everyone speaks French. Not really. But we think my father is funny.

For five years my family lives in England. My family does not travel very much. But during those five years we take many trips each year to different parts of Great Britain and to different countries in Europe. Spain / France / Italy / Germany / Belgium / Luxembourg / Switzerland. Now my dad can speak a very small amount of French. And what we think is very funny is that no matter where we go no matter what language people speak in that country we visit my dad tries to speak French. Because if people do not speak English and we do not speak their language for some crazy reason my father thinks maybe French will work.

One of my favorite stories is when we are in Rome. We are walking from our hotel to the coliseum. We walk by this very ordinary looking church. And there are cars and people everywhere. Something special is happening. So my father walks up to a police officer. Tries to ask him in French what is happening. Does not work. So my dad – the master of all languages – in his best Italian points at the church and says (shrug). The police officer points at his watch and says Il Papa! Il Papa! The Pope! The Pope! The Pope is coming to visit this little church.

Not everyone really speaks French. But my dad tries.

In our Bible story for this morning from the book of Acts chapter two no one speaks French. Not everyone even speaks Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek. Not everyone speaks the same language.

When the day of Pentecost comes, they are all together in one place. ² Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind comes from heaven and fills the whole house where they are sitting. ³ They see what seem to be tongues (Greek gloossai) of fire that separate and come to rest on each of them. ⁴ All of them are filled with the Holy Spirit and begin to speak in other tongues (gloossais) as the Spirit makes them able. ⁵ Now there are staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. ⁶ When they hear this sound, a crowd comes together all confused? amazed? because each one hears them speaking in his own language (Greek dialektos).

Today is my favorite day in the Christian calendar. The Day of Pentecost. The day when the family of God celebrates and perhaps experiences again when God sends the Holy Spirit upon the early Christian church. Last week on Ascension Sunday we hear the story of how Jesus appears to his followers after his resurrection for forty days. He shows them that he is alive. He teaches them about the kingdom of God. He tells them Wait for the gift my Father promised which you have heard me talk about. You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. And you will tell people about me in Jerusalem (your home city) in Judea (your home province) in Samaria (the country or province next to yours) and to the ends of the earth.

There is a small but very powerful very important detail in this story that almost no one notices or talks about. Think about this for a moment. You have all these people from different provinces different nations different cultures who speak different languages. The story tells us they are all Jewish. Maybe there is one language that they all can use. Maybe they all know Greek or Hebrew although probably not. Maybe the followers of Jesus can speak in Greek or Aramaic and the Holy Spirit can make all these people understand one language.

But the Holy Spirit does not bring all these people together by making them the same. By making them one culture or able to understand one language. The Holy Spirit does something much more interesting. Makes the disciples able to speak in other languages so that each person can hear the good news about Jesus in his or her own language.

As if God respects the different language cultures nations that are there in Jerusalem. God does not say “Okay let’s see we have Africans Asians Europeans – all of you will now be the same. We have people who speak Greek Latin Chinese Korean Swahili Japanese Polish – all of you will now speak French”. No instead God says “Yes I want all people everywhere to know me worship me serve me. Yes I want all of you to experience my love healing forgiveness and salvation through Jesus my son. I want all of you to receive the power of the Holy Spirit. All of you to be part of the family of God. But I do not want you all to be the same. I want you to be a church of different cultures languages and nations”.

So we have this huge gathering of people from different provinces nations and cultures. They proclaim who God is and the wonderful things God has done through his son Jesus – they do this in different languages that reflect their different cultures and traditions. We know from the rest of the book of Acts that these different people go back to their home provinces and countries and form Christian communities that preach teach worship and serve in different languages. They find ways to understand and serve Jesus Christ that are appropriate for their different cultures.

In a way this is the great contradiction(?) of Church of the Nations. Bible study and worship in simple English. English Conversation. But our goal is not in fact to become American or speak only English. Part of our mission is to help everyone learn about and/or grow in the Christian faith. To be a place that helps people understand and live within American culture. But(?) to respect and encourage you as people with your own culture who continue to have your own language of the heart.

Stephen Freeman is a pastor in Tennessee. Two years ago he wrote an article on his website that changed even more how I look at language and culture. He wrote:

“That the Bible can be translated says something about language. It is interesting that the Christian faith has always translated the Bible.

I believe sometimes a translation will reveal things that are true that could not have been seen in the original language. There are relations between words and ideas in a language that are only in that language. I believe we should not ignore such relations and the meanings they create simply because the same relations and meanings do not exist in the original languages. These meanings are not enough for the official teachings of the Christian church. But they can sometimes be part of what the Bible reveals to us”.

It might be possible to translate the Bible or a song of worship or an act of worship or a work of art of a book about the Christian faith into your language or your culture. And not only does that translation or song or art communicate the truth of God. But it can also communicate new ideas and new meaning that is not in the original. Tradutore no sempre traditore – the translator is not always a traitor.

Stephen Freeman writes this is because in the Christian faith a word or an action or even a picture is not just a word or action or picture. There is something more. Words and actions and pictures are windows through which we can experience what they represent. They are transluscent.

Yes we gather to worship God to study the Bible to learn about to grow in the Christian faith in simple English. Mostly. But we do not give up and we do not lose our national or cultural or linguistic background. In fact let us embrace and celebrate and understand better our own language and culture. So that we are better able to let the Holy Spirit proclaim to us and in us and through us the wonderful acts of God and most of all what God has done through Jesus Christ his son.

Seems like only yesterday when Michele Bachmann was supposed to be dumb… [L]ate last year, when I heard her speak at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend. I was sitting at a table full of professor types. We kept turning to each other and saying, “This woman is sharp, not at all the dunce she’s been portrayed as.”

Liberalism nowadays may be the last great holdout of old-fashioned prejudice. By telling themselves they’re against group hatreds of all kinds, and dismissing their opponents’ arguments as nothing but bigotry in disguise, liberals grant themselves license to despise. They swear, mock, and hate with a clean conscience, never guessing they’re turning liberalism itself into an outpost of bigotry in reverse. The flip side of liberal guilt is this hidden license to hate.

Same thing applies to Sarah Palin. Came across an article about the recent efforts to go through thousands of her emails. Some people leave comments along the lines of “she is still stupid” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Just naked prejudicial assertion. I frankly am increasingly tired of being told whom we should like.

Walter Russell Mead has made significant contributions to our national social-political conversation with “The Death of the American Dream I” and “The Death of the American Dream II”.

The one thing I do know is that change is on its way — more fundamental, more challenging, and also perhaps more exhilarating than many of us are ready for. The health of the American economy is going to require us to move away from the credit card economics of the consumer republic.  The health of American society and democracy require that we move beyond the life of the last eighty years.  We should be looking at new ideals in which domestic partners are enterprise partners, the home is more frequently a place of business, and education moves away from big box buildings and toward forms of community schooling somewhere between home schooling and charter academies.

One way to summarize the kind of change we need.  During the farm era the focus of American domestic policy was to create the most favorable possible environment for millions of ordinary Americans to launch flourishing small businesses.  Rather that focusing on home ownership, American social policy should probably be looking at small business formation as the key to mass middle class prosperity in the next fifty years.

The American Dream is not in the last analysis a farm or a home and a good job.  It is the dream that through hard work and good choices the average American can be prosperous and independent, and that ordinary people with these life experiences can govern themselves wisely and well without the ‘guidance’ of their ‘betters’.

Even many so-called/self-proclaimed conservatives might not get this. That they confuse “progressivism Lite” with true classical liberalism and the American Dream before the vision of Thomas Jefferson lost out to that of Alexander Hamilton. Mead’s important articles remind me strongly of an important and interesting podcast by Clark Carlton on “My Two Cents on Capitalism”:

Capitalism is a modernist economic system and progressivism is a modernist palliative—not an alternative.

The only real alternative to capitalism is something along the lines of what Jefferson envisioned. This is similar to the vision of the Catholic distributivists, such as Belloc and Chesterton, and to the third way of the Protestant economist Wilhelm Röpke. The foundation of such a system is widespread property ownership and decentralized government.

I should point out here that the Greek word economia means household management.