Biblical Self-Defense

“In the current debate over homosexuality, the Bible has very little to say at all— though you certainly would not know it from listening to many church leaders, both fundamentalist and mainline. In this case especially, the use of claims to biblical authority for supporting textually tenuous positions is manifestly apparent. At the most generous estimate, the entire Bible contains only nine brief references to homoeroticism, six in the Hebrew Bible and three in the New Testament, occupying in all less than twelve verses of text. And even those numbers are misleading, since four of the references in the Hebrew Bible… may actually simply be prohibitions against prostitution by men and women and two of the references in the New Testament… are based on interpretations of Greek words whose exact meanings are actually unknown or unclear. This leaves two references in the Holiness Code of Leviticus… and Paul’s one assertion in Romans as to what he thinks is “natural” and “unnatural” (the only citation in the Bible that even mentions female homoeroticism, if that is indeed what it is about) as the sole biblical witness for a modern Christian rejection of homosexuality. Jesus in the gospels says absolutely nothing about the subject…”
—

—Mary Ann Tolbert

Let’s also consider that the 2 remaining references in Leviticus are among many other prohibitions that we blatantly disregard in light of the New Covenant through Jesus or just because we decided we didn’t need them. Unless you’re also upholding Sabbath laws, purity laws regarding periods and ejaculation, Kosher food laws, and avoiding mixed fabrics like polyester, among many others, don’t selectively claim that business.

Since that leaves us with one remaining quotation from Romans, let us consider that Paul’s ideas of what is natural and unnatural are derived from understandings of gender roles. He suggests it is unnatural for women to be dominant or men to be submissive, as he sees as a requirement for the act. Are we willing to accept these views of gender roles as part of adopting this last attempt at biblical support for anti-homosexual views? Additionally, even if we can accept those gender roles, we have to consider again, “natural” and “unnatural.” Animals in nature form same-sex relationships. What do we make of that? Animals aren’t capable of sin, are they? Why would God create gay animals?

Bible-based anti-gay perspectives are ones that give preferential treatment to those Biblical passages which are vastly outnumbered by other prohibitive themes and require specific translation uses to even suggest that they are, indeed, prohibitive of homosexuality. Such passages are tenuous and overwhelmed by other, contrary biblical themes which have far more textual support than the maximum of nine passages that folks claim, but which we can see should dwindle to a singular passage that must elevate Paul to the paramount voice of biblical authority (over that of Jesus, as we see above). Such a treatment of the Bible necessarily gives selective authority to an extremely small section of the scripture in such a way that it is completely indefensible and validates one’s own worldview (or the worldview of folks in power in your religious institution). Claiming anti-gay rights perspectives as religiously justified is hypocritical. People like to claim the Bible as justification because it validates preconceptions and fears that are perpetuated in certain circles, just like the Bible was used to support oppressing women and minorities. Anyway…

Using the Bible as a tool to support anti-LGBTQ issues is a misuse of scripture that manipulates religious folks into hurtful, misinformed understandings of the faith. Anti-LGBTQ biblical perspectives disregard the reality that there are far more prevalent themes of love and acceptance than than the small selection of “anti-homosexual” passages that don’t stand up to scholarly inquiry.

God is love.

What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.

Tolbert, Mary. “A New Teaching with Authority: A Re-evaluation of the Authority of the Bible.” In Teaching the Bible: The Discourses and Politics of Biblical Pedagogy, edited by Fernando F. Segoviov and Mary Ann Tolbert, 168 - 189. New York: Orbis Books, 1998.

Jazz and Karaoke

 I don’t know that I have ever “unpacked” how I do theology because I don’t necessarily think of myself as a theologian, although I guess we all are.  I want to borrow an idea from Inese Radzin’s introductory theology class, though I can no longer remember the author (If someone can throw their name in here, I would appreciate it).  In essence, the author suggested that theology was like jazz… a continual improvisation.  Each theologian whose works I “consume” is internalized-- at their best, theological works sink into your bones the way that music does and animate your soul/s with desire for movement or expounding.  Some theological works are ones I want to “cover”-- they merit that repetition with critical difference or maybe repetition with a lens that isn’t particularly critical, but a slight re-working of the performance for our particular vocal chords, soul, and audience.  As much as I love Amy Winehouse’s “Rehab” or The Fugees’ “Killing Me Softly,” I sing them differently than Amy and Lauryn because I see different opportunities in the melody or have different vocal limitations and/or gifts.  

Once I discern a meaning that is life-giving (or a resistance that is life-giving), I try to riff on that and play with symbols in a way that makes it mine and make it a piece of music I want to share with others.  

Song of the Builders by Mary Oliver

Song of the Builders by Mary Oliver


On a summer morning
I sat down
on a hillside
to think about God -

a worthy pastime.
Near me, I saw
a single cricket;
it was moving the grains of the hillside

this way and that way.
How great was its energy,
how humble its effort.
Let us hope

it will always be like this,
each of us going on
in our inexplicable ways
building the universe.

Theopoetics

"If the cosmological intuition of the priestly writer of Genesis is not primitive ignorance, just waiting to be debunked by modern science and defended by modern fundamentalism, it is theopoetics more than theoscience."

— Catherine Keller, On the Mystery: Discerning Divinity in Process (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2008), 50.

Meditation/Study Noise 9: Waterfall

I invite you to meditate for 10 minutes:

Waterfall Noises

Incremental Theological "Advances"

@orthodoxheretic answered: So, If Jews don’t have any unforgivable sins that they needed a savior for, where did the early Christian Church get that from? I’ve been reading several books such as The Misunderstood Jew and I’m a little turned around.

I have to start this by saying that I am not familiar with the book you are reading.  I do know, however, that Christians tend to present their interpretations of scripture as if they are obvious and consensus.  Jews often have very different understandings of the scriptures we share.  

People thought very differently during the time of Jesus.  Hebrew scriptures weren’t canonized in Jesus’ lifetime and the “school” of religious leaders that held power during Jesus’ lifetime (Saducees) didn’t hold onto power for much longer after Jesus’ death (they lost power after the razing of the temple).  

As we might be able to tell, it seems like Jesus’ followers weren’t quite expecting Jesus to die on the cross.  They had high hopes for their leader that didn’t involve him dying young.  After Jesus’ death, something happened.  I don’t pretend to know what that something was, but Jesus’ followers seemed to find a different understanding of Jesus after his death that they tried to reflect back onto their understanding of his life and ministry.  Part of that was trying to understand why Jesus died.  If Jesus wasn’t the new David, come to lead people out of political oppression, who was he?  

The new Moses?  Our gospel authors make a ton of Mosaic parallels.  They seem to suggest he was a great prophet.  Moses didn’t make it to the Promised Land.

The new Adam?  Paul seems to conceive of Jesus as someone who is a new beginning, a call toward a new kind of communistic, caring-for-everyone way of life.  Early Christian communities often existed like communes.  Paul was more about gentile inclusion and rejecting some Jewish practice for non-Jews than many of his counterparts were.  Paul’s ideas were not the only ideas– it seems he was at odds with James and Peter, early church leaders.  However, Paul wrote stuff down and his writing survived, making him a dominant interpreter of Jesus’ story, even though he never met Jesus.

I think it’s important to note that early Christians did not have the same kind of monotony of belief that many religious institutions suggest existed/exists.  As word about Jesus spread, people took what they learned about him in pretty different directions.  We can see traces of communities struggling with and against particular ways of living and believing in the epistles, as folks correspond with Paul and seek his aid in solving problems.  

It can be difficult to discern what happened so many centuries ago with the limited information that exists today.  If I were to interpret history, though, here’s what I would suggest:

At the time when folks “decided” what Christians should believe (Council of Nicea) and homogenizing Christian thought, they were also deciding what should be considered “legitimate” scripture.  Most of the apocrypha that we have today is far more more removed from the ministry of Jesus than what became canon (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John).  So in that respect, they may have done a pretty good job.  However, proto-orthodox movements before the Council of Nicea also weeded out what they deemed "heresy."  My point is that Christianity was pretty diverse in the first few centuries.

I think it’s also important to note that by this time, most Christians were well ostracized from Jewish communities and were less “Jewish” by this point– they weren’t as familiar with the themes and interpretations that had been passed on in Jewish communities and were less able to see the kinds of literary devices used by gospel authors (who were living in the first century and were more Jewish). 

I think that salvation theology comes from the Prologue of John and Paul.  There is good reason to believe that John’s prologue was a hymn or something of that nature.  I wrote an essay about some of what I think is going on in John’s prologue.  I’ll link at the end.

I think some of it comes from taking metaphor used by Paul and John too literally.  Jesus as “new Adam.”  Jesus there “at the beginning.”  Because of these folks’ distance from Jewish ways of thinking, they were interpreting John and Paul without being able to see the kinds of Jewish themes and symbols that were present and instead assumed more literal understandings because they no longer understood the texts’ contexts.  Atonement theology comes out of some metaphors that involve understanding Passover and scapegoating.  

The idea that “Jesus died for our sins” is a particular viewpoint that was advanced by the chance intersection of belief and power.  As Constantine put his support behind a particular understanding of Jesus held by the community that would become the Roman Catholic Church, “creed” and “doctrine” began to form. I think that theologies that buttressed Church power tended to be the ones advanced.  Augustine developed the idea of original sin.  If I need salvation because I’m born crap, and salvation is through the church, I need to go to church, right?  Original sin means we all need church intervention, not just our mean neighbors.  Original sin is an ugly idea, really, but one that profited the RCC. I don't mean that Augustine wasn't a great thinker for his day, in many ways.  I just don't know that we should put such authority in his interpretations of scripture.

Of course, a narrow selection of voices had authority after the centralization of the Roman Catholic Church, which shaped almost all of what Christianity was in the West until the Protestant Reformation.  Those voices wanted to protect their own power and ways of living.

I am not sure if any of this is helpful.  These kinds of historical developments are complicated and involve understanding a lot of what was going on in the early church, which can be hard to do 2000 years later.

John Shelby Spong has a couple of books you might be interested in:

Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes

and

The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic

I took a class from Spong and wrote a paper about the prologue, which I will post soon.  I’ll also look for other relevant things and try to get them posted soon.

Russian Jewish Immigration Experience

Jewish immigrants, unlike many other immigrant groups, often came to escape persecution in their home countries. However, treatment in the U.S. was sometimes as bad. Conditions in poor urban neighborhoods often paralleled the ghettos they were restricted to in Russia. Rising anti-Semitism led many Russian Jews to the U.S., where many still faced anti-Semitism. Universities restricted membership and immigration laws were passed that were aimed at restricting Jewish immigration.

However, Russian Jewish immigrants had some unique advantages. Unlike immigrants from other countries, they tended to be more literate and with more labor skill sets. Additionally, since Jewish families came with the intent to stay and built a new life, they came as families and were able to support each other in their new place. Jewish immigrants were white, which allowed them naturalization. Further advantages afforded to Jewish immigrants were communities of Jews who had immigrated in earlier waves from Germany. Jewish garment workers were able to change the way the industry worked. Their success in industry enabled many to support the education of their children.

Despite the success of many American Jews, they still face anti-Semitism. Many Christian communities continue to teach hateful narratives about the Jewish people and unfair negative stereotypes continue to circulate about Jewish identity and culture. Jews are often wrongly accused of killing Jesus, a narrative that, although false, is promoted by many Christian communities. They are also often falsely associated with international conflicts associated with the state of Israel, even though a diversity of political opinion exists within American Jewish communities.

God

I can smell God in the wet dirt after rain. I can see God in sunsets. I can feel God in cool river water. I know that God is the totality of all of that—God is every smell and feeling, every breath and song. God lives in my pain and is my mourning as much as my joy—God understands me because God is all of that. God is living every moment with me, every joy and every pain, and in that sense, God loves. God loves me because God is with me and in me. God wants my life to be better as much as I do… and God wants everyone’s life to be better as much as everyone does. God wants to see and feel happiness, joy, and community as much as we do, because God is what we create and God creates with us. God is seeking perfection in Creation as much as we are—God just knows better how to Be and Create in this world because God can see and experience reality in its totality. God, dwelling inside each of us, calls us to act in ways that are best for us, for each other, for all.

When we center ourselves, when we listen, we know what those things are—treating others kindly, living respectfully and sustainably, forgiving people’s faults, trying our best not to falter, living unselfishly so that our selfishness doesn’t prevent, in some domino effect, someone else’s happiness.
Those are things I know, yet cannot prove. I could argue that all of those things are acting against natural selection. I cannot draw from a math equation or a scientific theory to prove those elements of my “knowledge.” In that sense, those “knowledges” (if I may call them such) are faith. It is precisely because I have faith in such things that I believe there is a God. God is the interconnection and wants us to see It.

I think I do see it. I think I see it and it makes me want to cry… Cry with joy? Cry with sorrow? I don’t know, but I think it’s both.

Some people's soteriologies...

Some people’s soteriologies…

Apocalypse!

Sometimes I feel like the world is ending.

Global warming. Gas at $4.15. Are these not signs of the apocalypse? Our apocalypse. It’s the end of the world as we know it.

We are all going to die and it will be our own doing.

…
…
…

Either that, or this way of living must die.

…
…
…

So here is the apocalypse.

What was our sin? Was it sex? Was it homosexuality? Was it cussing or guns or rated-r movies? Was it video games or rap music or drugs?

No.

We did not destroy the world with “gayness” or abortion. We destroyed it with cars. We destroyed it with chemicals. We destroyed it with cities.

We destroyed it with arrogance.

Here is my midrash:

God gave us Eden and said, “This tree is forbidden. I gave you beautiful minds, beautiful bodies, a beautiful world. Please, do not eat from this tree… Do not be selfish. Remember my words and the words of others. Do not give into greed and eat the fruits you do not need.”

How arrogant we were. We said, “We can take this fruit! We can take our knowledge and make a better world! We can build tall buildings and make cars that can drive us places so quickly! Everyone will have cars! Cars for the world! Buildings for the world! Fields of stone and metal! We will genetically engineer food to be better! We will clone animals to be better! Who needs Love? Who needs compassion? We can make a better world with OBJECTS! ”

We thought we could create things outside the walls of Love. And we did. We created a world of meaningless materialism. We needed no Love to create such things.

God cried, but we did not hear God over our ipods and televisions.

We took the beautiful minds that God gave us, thanked God for God’s work in the most polite and ritualized ways. “Thank you, God. Thank you for the world you have given us to mold and play with. We looked at your plan, but we think we have a better one.”

God didn’t ban us from the garden. We marched out in the name of progress! Expansion! Westward, ho! We abandoned God in the garden. God stayed and watered the Tree of Life with God’s tears. God said, “I will keep watering this garden. I will keep crying.”

We dig into the Earth that is God’s body and God bleeds the oil. The Earth will die; it will run out of blood.

God cries and we dig into God’s body. Hurricanes moan through the sky as God cries out in pain, “Stop! Stop! You are hurting me!”

We cry back, “God, why do you destroy us?!”

We do not see that it is we who destroy God.

Maybe, if we are willing to be silent,

…
…
…

if we are willing to place our hands to the Earth, to place our hands on God, we will hear God crying in the garden. Maybe we can learn to help God water the Tree of Life.

First with our tears, as we understand the weight of our abuse.

Then with the warm sunlight of Love.

We will listen to God and do God’s work. Turn off our televisions… and listen to God, look at God. Be in God and with God in the garden, nurturing the Tree of Life.

Jesus

"We are now Christ’s representatives to each other, [but] I am I, and Christ is Christ…. If we forget this distinction, then… we are likely to give the impression that to accept Christ one must accept exactly and only the Christ and the version of his message that we model and teach. This promotes personal empire building, rather than Kingdom building. It leads people to ourselves, rather than to Jesus Christ."

— Thomas H. Groome, from Christian Religious Education: Sharing Our Story and Vision

My Soteriology

everydayimpastoring:

Jesus

Jesus was a person more aware of his divinity and wholeness than any other being and whose ministry influences my life and resonates with me in a way that is uniquely powerful and meaningful.

Meditation/Study Sounds 8: White Noise and Rain

I invite you to meditate for 10 minutes:

White Rain