Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi

I shared this old Latin phrase of the church with our praise team last night at our rehearsal for the Sunday morning worship service.  Roughly translated it means something like, "Law of prayer/worship, law of faith."  It's shorthand for basically, "show me how you pray/worship, and I'll show you what you believe."

So I challenged our group to think about every minute thing we do on a Sunday morning--what are we demonstrating that we believe...

...when we gather on a Sunday morning for worship instead of a Saturday night or some other day/night of the week?

...when we sing songs with lots of "I's" and "me's" in them but very few "we's" and "us's" in them?

...when we take Communion/the Eucharist/the Lord's Supper every few weeks?

...when we turn up our microphones so loudly that we cannot hear the congregation singing?

...when we welcome visitors (or don't welcome visitors) at the doors of our church building?

...when we invite people (or don't invite people) to the altar for prayer?

...when we read the scriptures out loud in the service?

...when we set up a 'stage' in front of an 'audience' for 'worship'?

...when we have a time of 'fellowship' in which we encourage everyone to say hello to one another during the service?

...when we bring drinks into the worship service?

...when we tithe and give offerings to the church and those in need?

Lex orandi, Lex credendi.  Show me how you worship/pray and I will show you what you believe.  Every little thing that we do in our worship services--even the subtle or non-conscious things, even the type of building we choose to meet in--shape our theology, shape what we believe about God and our relationship to him and others.  People often think you get theology from the sermon, and maybe occasionally from the songs you sing on Sunday morning.  The fact of the matter is that for the average Christ, most of our theology is shaped by the countless subtle, small, individually insignificant things that we do (and don't do) in worship.

When I abstain from taking my latte in the worship service, I am doing so because of a subtle already formed in me concerning reverence for God.

When I choose to welcome a visitor at the door of our church, not simply by handing them a bulletin, but by inviting them to a seat in the service, I do so because of an already formed belief about the hospitality of Christ's Church.

More passively, when I see technicians in the church who run lights, sound, and computers, but who do not participate in singing the songs of worship, tithing, or taking the Eucharist, I am sent a distinct--though subtle--message about God and his church.

The very name of the place where we meet sends a theological message--like whether or not the name has the word "church" anywhere in it, or is a bit more hip like "Crossroads" (I only use this name because I see it everywhere--not trying to bash it).

So how about you?  What credendi (beliefs) do you and your church's orandi (worship and prayer) demonstrate?

Christian Craziness

Does all of the absolute insanity and sometimes downright violence that masquerades under the banner of Jesus ever just get to you?  It's been really getting to me lately.

Harold Camping predicts the end of the world and rapture on May 21, and (for the second time) gets it wrong....

Thousands of Christians expecting to be raptured out of the world and into heaven give massive amounts of money to avowed atheists to watch over their pets during the coming tribulation....

Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Arizona condemns men for peeing while sitting down and prays for the death of President Obama....

Premillennial dispensationalist Christians lobby and sends millions of dollars to AIPAC, CUFI, and other pro-Israeli organizations that further programs of forced deportation of Palestinians and the illegal occupation of their homes and lands....

I remember back when Jerry Falwell announced to the world that Hurricane Katrina was the result of homosexuality in America.....

You can find Youtube videos of Christians burning NIV, NRSV, and other non-KJV versions of the Bible....

The pickets at military funerals, saying the deaths are the result of pro-gay policies in the US....

I just recently saw several people on facebook lamenting that they were "still here" (i.e. the rapture didn't happen)....


I just jumped on Google's search engine and typed in "Why are Christians so" (a little trick I picked up from Leonard Sweet).  Do you want to know the options that Google gives me for finishing out that search?
...fake...
...divided...
...mean...
...ignorant...
...annoying...


These are apparently some of the most popular searches on the Inter and, you know what, it's kinda hard to blame people for asking these kinds of questions when we see such lunacy in our midst, isn't it?

How did it get this bad?  How come we have people who claim the name of Christ who obviously know so little about who he is, what he came to go, what he's about and what he's not about?

You know, I've noticed (at least) one common thread that binds much of the above-mentioned lunacy together; it's something I've only notice in recent years: All of the things that I've mentioned here are the product primarily of independent churches--churches or ministries that have broken away from or were never associated with a denomination or established church tradition--usually independent baptist or non-denominational congregations/ministries.


You might wonder why that matters at all.

When churches separate themselves from the established traditions of the classical Christian faith, they break themselves off from any theological or practical accountability.  There is no one inside the church tradition of Harold Camping to challenge him when he makes a doomsday prediction, because he has cut himself off from the body.  There is no one inside the church tradition of Steven Anderson or the late Jerry Falwell or the countless dispensationalist pastors in independent baptist and non-denominational churches across America to challenge them when they make their crazy or bigoted or down-right hateful assertions, because they have cut themselves off from the body.


There is an epidemic of independence in American Christianity today, and I have come to truly believe that much of the craziness, lunacy, and bigotry that masquerades under the banner of Jesus is enabled by the fact that our congregations and independent ministries have cut themselves off from the rest of the body that was designed to, among other things, keep them accountable to the truth.

So how do we correct this?  For one thing, stop starting new independent churches!  That phrase "independent church" ought to be an oxymoron to us anyway--if the church is anything it is an interdependent community, a body with many members (who are not just 'spiritually' connected, but who strive for actual connectedness and accountability).  Instead let's try working within (despite the many problems) our existing traditions and denominations (and there are plenty).  At least when you are a part of the Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Lutheran Church, the Church of the Nazarene, etc. you have checks and balances in place.  No one independent pastor or ministry organizer can spout of craziness or bigotry without being checked by others within their tradition.

And if we can learn to work within the existing traditions and denominations (as flawed as they are), then maybe we can even start working toward ecumenical unity--it was Jesus himself, after all, who prayed "that they be one." (John 17)  Obviously there is much work to be done, but separating ourselves into ever-increasing numbers of independent churches has created the environment for lunacy and heresy to spread throughout American Christianity, and the only check for it is the body of Christ functioning as the body of Christ.  Just saying "the Bible is all we need" won't cut it (just google "Steven Anderson" to see as much proof as you will need about that).

The ancient church fathers used to say, "You cannot have God as Father without the Church as Mother."  Unless we want to see more unchecked lunacy and violence spread under the banner of the name of Jesus, we would be wise to heed these strong words.

Heaven Is For Real

So I'm still in the giddy phase with my brand new Kindle--downloading and reading books left and right--and last night I downloaded a copy of a book that I have to say I am a little embarrassed to admit that I read. The day I got my Kindle as a graduation gift, I downloaded all kinds of sample books from Amazon (a great feature of the device; you  usually get the first chapter of a book).  One I downloaded at the recommendation of a family member was this book entitled Heaven Is For Real.  I'll confess that I downloaded the sample just to be respectful, not because I seriously thought I'd read it.  That is until last night...

I picked up the Kindle to read a bit of G.K. Chesterton last night, and after reading about a chapter of Orthodoxy, browsed through some of my samples.  I read through the sample chapter of this book.  Here's the DL: A Wesleyan pastor out of a small town (2,000 people) in Nebraska tells the story of his four-year-old son who, after undergoing an emergency appendectomy on his ruptured appendix, began telling his parents of seeing and experiencing heaven during his surgery.

I know, I know.  If you're like me you exit out of this blog right now and go about the rest of your day, thinking a little bit less of me than you did before you checked out this blog.  That's OK by me; I'm still processing what I think about this book, too, but I wanted to get it out there for conversation.

I'm not sure why I bought the book (although it was pretty cheap through the Kindle): maybe it was the fact that the preface included praises from both a General Superintendent and a District Superintendent of the Wesleyan Church, and I was a little curious as to whether or not this sister denomination was falling into some pseudo-Christian fantasy; maybe it was something else--but in any case I downloaded the book, intending to skim through the first few chapters and then head to bed.

At 2AM I finished the book, and only then did I head to bed.  I couldn't put it down.

Now, I've only ever read one other book on a near-death experience and it was awful.  I hesitate to give the title because it was a book given to me by a dear Christian friend.  But the fact of the matter was that it was the most gnostic and truly anti-Christian thing I'd ever read: stories about being a floating spirit, floating throughout the universe, soaking in all knowledge (Greek = gnosis), being happy about being free from the evil body (denial of the resurrection), talking about the transmigration of souls from heaven to earth and then back to heaven again...it was just awful.  I couldn't finish it all.

This book wasn't anything like that.  I kept waiting for it to turn into that, but it didn't.  It was a rather simple account, by the pastor dad, of the kinds of things his 4-year-old son revealed to him over the course of months and years about his experience while on the operating table.  Things like: seeing Jesus, who is the only one in heaven who wears purple, and who has "markers" in his hands and feet; getting a hug from his sister, who was a miscarriage his parents never told him about; meeting his great-grandfather, Pop, who had passed away 30 years before Colton's birth, while "sitting" next to the Holy Spirit; giving his parents a detailed picture of where they were and what they were doing while he was undergoing his operation, saying he could look down on them and see them.

As the dad processed what his son was telling him (in little spurts, here and there, over the course of many months), he kept going back to the scriptures and trying to reconcile what he said with what he found there.  Perhaps more than any other aspect of the book, this kept my attention.  The dad, who as I mentioned is a pastor, did not take his son's experience and then interpret the scriptures in light of it; he kept going back to the scriptures and trying to interpret his son's experience in light of them.  At times I thought, Well if he just had a more sophisticated knowledge of that passage in Revelation, he would realize that this imagery is not to be taken literally--Jesus does not necessarily wear a crown in his exalted state, for instance.  I was checked (I think by the Spirit), though, every time these thoughts would arise.

The question kept coming back to me, and I continue to wrestle with it today: Why is it so hard to believe that this little boy had an experience or vision of what he understood as 'heaven' (and what might be more accurately referred to, as Paul referred to it, as 'Paradise,' the place where believers await the resurrection of the dead?)  Do I really believe that Paul had such an experience? (See 2 Cor. 12:1-13, where Paul is most likely using a rhetorical function ["I know  man..."] to describe an experience he himself had.)  What about John the Revelator?  Was his Apocalypse simply a literary production, or did he really see through a "door" in heaven that stood open? (Rev 4)  Why am I so quick to dismiss the possibility?

The boy's story never undermined the doctrine of the resurrection; he described distinct visions of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; after the experience, his dad describes how deeply concerned he was that people "have Jesus in their heart," because, he said, they couldn't go to heaven without having Jesus in their heart.  This was no unitarian, universalistic, gnostic portrait of the afterlife; it was something, at least in my judgment, fairly agreeable to the visions of Paul and John in the scriptures.

So, I don't know....  Now I'm just starting to ramble.  As you can probably tell (if you've even read this far), I'm just kind of processing all of this "out loud" as it were.  But I'm curious: Have you read the book or heard this boy's story in the news?  If so, what do you think?  How much credence should we give to it?  Is there something I missed that really undermines its congeniality with the scriptures?  I would truly welcome feedback as I continue to process all of this.

All I know right now is that it is as if I didn't realize I was thirsty for something like this until I had been refreshed by reading it.  Now I realize that my sensitivity to such stories--even the ones we find in the scriptures--was...well, how to put it... dry.  I read them, accepted them intellectually, but never truly considered them.  And maybe that's a good thing--not to put too much credence in these obscure passages and experiences.  But maybe I've neglected these things too much?  Maybe....

Your thoughts?

The Three Men & the Kingdom: A Parable inspired by this morning's sermon

There once was a king who ruled over a vast, ever-expanding kingdom.  The borders of his kingdom were large and grew regularly as outlying territories gratefully accepted the king's lordship over their lands and his protection of their borders.  He was a good king, a benevolent king, and his kingdom spread through charity, not through conquest.

There were also three men who lived in a village in one of the outlying territories.  All of these men had heard of this benevolent king, but they each reacted to their knowledge of him in different ways.  The first man who knew of the king always spoke well of him.  He knew how the king loved his citizens and how he took care of their lands, so this man went around telling everyone in his outlying territory how good this king was.  This man could speak nothing but praise for the king, but when it came to the way he managed his own affairs he was anything but like the king.  He treated his family and his fellow villagers poorly; he mismanaged his meager wealth and land, selfishly hording all he had for himself and diminishing what little he had in the process.  He knew of the good king, and spoke well of him to everyone he met, yet he acted nothing like the king.

Then there was a second man who lived in this same outlying territory.  He also knew of the good king, but thought neither good nor ill about him.  He was indifferent toward this king, because he seemed distant.  The king was not the ruler of the man's territory, so he felt no need to acknowledge him in any way.  Nevertheless this man managed his affairs exactly the way the king had told the citizens of his own kingdom to manage them.  He cared for his family and for others, offering them free services of his trade, and giving to anyone who was in need.  He managed his meager wealth and his land well, seeing that all he had was used for the benefit of those around him.  He cared little for the good king, but he acted just as the king would in almost all things.

Then there was a third man who also lived in this outlying territory.  He knew of the good king, as well, and both spoke well of him and managed his affairs the way the king instructed his citizens to manage them.  Like the first man, he was constantly speaking well of the king to all those of his village.  Like the second man, he also managed his affairs in the way the king instructed the citizens of his kingdom to manage them.  He was just like the good king; he loved the king and his kingdom, and also ordered his life in a way that imitated the king.

One day, the good king's emissaries came to the outlying territory where the three men lived and announced to them that the good king was expanding his kingdom and rule into their territory.  This was good news because the territory had been threatened by various other clans and all knew that the good king could protect them from these threats.  The emissaries told the people of the outlying territory that they were free to leave the territory if they did not want to be ruled by the good king, and that there were only two stipulations for those who wanted to stay: first, they must acknowledge the absolute rule of the good king--they could pledge allegiance to no other; second, they must order their lives according to the law of the kingdom--the only law being that they must live as a servant to all their fellow citizens.

The first man heard this news and was very distraught.  While he spoke well of the king and had no difficulty pledging allegiance to him and his kingdom, he knew that his life would have to radically change in order to meet the second stipulation of citizenship--becoming a servant to all.  He almost turned away and chose to live outside the kingdom for this reason, but he eventually reluctantly chose to embrace citizenship in the new kingdom and strove to mend his ways.

The second man heard this news and received it with joy and only a little reluctance.  While he had never acknowledged the king before, and had some difficulty doing so now, as soon as he saw how the king's law encouraged him to live the kind of generous life he was already living, he quickly consented to acknowledging the king's rule over his lands.

The third man heard this news and received it with great joy.  The king he had loved and praised all his life was now lord over his lands, and the life the man had always lived was now acknowledged and encouraged by the kingdom's law of love.  He was the first man in the village to consent to the king's rule, and many followed his lead because of the sheer joy they saw in him.

Therefore, on the day when the kingdom fully subsumes our territory, it will be better for the man who lives like the King and does not praise Him than for the man who praises the King and does not live like Him.  Better still will it be for the one who both praises and lives like the King.

A Brief Review of Rob Bell's "Love Wins"

Well I recently read through Rob Bell's Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived--the most controversial Christian book for...err..probably the next two or three months (after which time we'll have something else to argue about).

It's stirred up more controversy and media attention that I think anyone anticipated, and yet, honestly, I thought that Bell has written more compelling stuff than this (anyone remember Velvet Elvis?).  As promised in this title, I'll try to keep this a brief review.  (Click HERE for another very helpful review from Relevant Magazine.)

Bell got lots of media attention as well as the stink eye from several conservative evangelicals for seeming to promote "universalism"--or what some mean by the term "universalism."  Basically Bell caused an uproar because, as some claim, he says that everyone will end up turning to God for salvation in the end.  Is this accusation valid, though?

The short answer is, "yes"; the longer answer is, "well, kinda."  The critical answer is: Bell is not very consistent with himself throughout even this one book.

This is my main critique: Although Bell is a thoughtful communicator, with a pastor's heart, and a love for the scriptures, he simply does not think very carefully.  He spends the majority of the book building a case that essentially says that, in the end--at the very ultimate end of all things--all people will finally desire to choose God and will thus be saved (which is at least one way of defining "universalism," though not the way I'm sure Bell would define it).  Then the very last brief chapter is all about a call for urgency in the present--today is the day of salvation!  ...or is it tomorrow?  ...two hundred years down the road?  ...a few millennia from now?  Bell is inconsistent here.  The vast majority of his book screams--though not always in so many words (he is an elusive writer)--'God will win us all back in the end!'  But the final appeal is: 'Accept the Gospel now!'  Bell ends his book by saying that "Jesus reminds us in a number of ways that it is vitally important we take our choices here and now as seriously as we possibly can because they matter more than we can begin to imagine." (p.197)  They do?  How much does my decision to reject Jesus now really matter if I know that in the end everyone is necessarily going to come to accept him?  At best this is simply naivete; at worst it is a very misleading notion about God's love and human freedom.  As Bell tries to affirm throughout his book, God grants us the freedom to reject him.  Bell wants to suggest, however, that none of us will reject him forever.  How truly meaningful is my acceptance or rejection of Christ (and how real is my freedom) now if in the end we all know that we're all going to accept him?  It seems to me like Bell recognized that you simply cannot get around the call to urgent repentance when considering Jesus' message--"Repent and believe the good news, for the kingdom of heaven is near!"  His whole book works against this urgent appeal, however, making the last chapter sound very forced and fake.  'It is urgent that you accept Christ,' says Bell, 'but if you don't, you'll get do-overs for the rest of eternity.'  What part of this message do you think will stick in the listener's ears?

A praise for Bell, then:  One very important pastoral and theological point that Bell makes throughout the book is stated clearly here: "To say it again, eternal life is less about a kind of time that starts when we die, and more about a quality and vitality of life lived now in connection to God." (p.59)  Bell wants to get away from the narrow definition of eternal life as "what we get when we die."  No, says Bell.  Eternal life is what Christ offers to us here and now, and it will extend throughout eternity.  But it begins now.  Well put!  This is much the point that I think C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce (which, also to his credit, Bell cites at the end of the book, in the Further Reading section) was written to make.  As Bell says elsewhere, ultimately "we get what we want. . . .  If we want hell, if we want heaven, they are ours." (p.116, 118)  Heaven and hell are not simply two desinations: they are two ways of living that begin here and now and are embraced by each and every step we take in this life.  I can thoroughly affirm this.

On a different note, Bell tries to call the tradition of the church to his aid throughout the central 'argument' (if there is a central argument) of the book.  For instance, he writes: "In the third century the church fathers Clement of Alexandria and Origen affirmed reconciliation with all people.  In the fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa and Eusebius believed this as well.  In their day, Jerome claimed that 'most people,' Basil said the 'mass of men,' and Augustine acknowledged that 'very many' believed in the ultimate reconciliation of all people to God.  Central to their trust that all would be reconciled was the belief that untold masses of people suffering forever doesn't bring glory to God. . . .  To be clear, again, an untold number of serious disciples of Jesus across hundreds of years have assumed, affirmed, and trusted that no one can resist God's pursuit forever, because God's love will eventually melt even the hardest of hearts."  (p.107-108)  Bell attempts to paint a picture of a "wide stream" of orthodoxy embracing the basic stance he takes in his book--namely that no one will choose hell forever, and eventually God will win us all back.  This is simply not true.  Once again, Bell is at best naive here, and at worst ingenuous.  The fact of the matter is that none of the Church Fathers he has here mentioned (and mentioned only in the briefest of passing, without any citation whatsoever) would affirm Bell's stance in this book.  The notions that Bell is suggesting in this book are almost exclusively products of the modern era (the past 250 years or so), and while that should not cause us to dismiss Bell's argument, the fact of the matter is that he cannot call the "wide stream" of orthodoxy to his aid here.  Anyone who has taken an introductory course in historical theology could affirm as much.  Augustine and Rob Bell do not say the same thing--believe me.

Another praise for Bell, then.  At one point he comments: "[I]t is our responsibility to be extremely careful about making negative, decisive, lasting judgments about people's eternal destinies." (p.160)  I want to affirm this point and say that many of us have speculated in this area far too much.  Whenever we speak about the eternal destiny of a person, we usurp the judgment seat of Christ and attempt to place ourselves upon it.  Christians may certainly have a measure of certainty concerning their own ultimate salvation, and those who overtly reject Christ and his kingdom throughout their lives may certainly earn our disapproval, but to make final judgments about anyone's eternal destiny is idolatry.  We set ourselves on Christ's judgment seat when we do this, and in dethroning him we only call down judgment upon ourselves.  Let us never forget the simple words of Christ: "Judge not, lest ye be judged."  A huge warning to us disciples if ever there was one.

Finally, let me also say that while I have some significant reservations about this book, I am always thrilled to read Bell because I will always find an attempt to actively dialog with the scriptures.  This is my highest praise for Bell: he seriously wrestles with the Bible.  For this reason, I would be willing to dialog with him about anything.  If he wants to suggest universalism (or whatever he wants to call it)--fine, let's talk about it, so long as he is dedicated to remaining faithful to the scriptures.  I do not think that Bell is always the best interpreter of scripture (some of his Greek and Hebrew word studies in this book were really off the wall, in all honesty), but the fact that he still feels strongly about being in dialog with the scriptures is very encouraging to me.

I hope you'll take time to read the book when you get a chance; and I welcome a continued dialog about it in the comments section below.  Thanks!

Faith Comes By Hearing

Lately I've been listening to the scriptures on mp3 instead of reading them. . . There's something about not being in control of the text, not handling it, not going back and forth, but rather just letting it wash over you aurally that is powerful. I recommend it! These texts were meant to be heard at least as often as read. (Check out FaithComesByHearing.com for free audio Bible downloads in several translations.)

 You'll be surprised, too, how much scripture you can listen to in a short period of time.  Listening through the whole Bible in a year--or whatever timetable you may have embraced--would probably seem a much less daunting task than reading through it in the same amount of time.

Just a recommendation . . . .

What About the State's Reaction to Same-Sex Marriage?

NYS Senator Diane Savino speaks on the Marriage Equality bill


I have written a lengthy blog elsewhere (click HERE) on what I believe to be a biblical reaction to homosexual relationships.  I think that the Christian tradition, founded upon the scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments, is quite consistent and clear: homosexual relationships are counter to God's intentions for humanity, and as such are to be rejected by the Church as sinful.  Though I did not go into detail in that blog about gay marriage, the natural outgrowth of this position would obviously be the belief that the Church ought not to condone or conduct same-sex marriages.

This is and ought to be, I believe, the stance of the Church.  But what about the stance of the State?  How should a secular nation such as the United States respond to some of its citizens' desire for legal same-sex marriage?  (As an important caveat let me simply say, despite the Christian/Deist heritage of our founding fathers, the Constitution of the US explicitly denies the State a role in regulating the religious beliefs and expressions of its citizens: for this reason I have referred to the US as a "secular nation."  I know this is a contentious point to some conservatives, but the often referenced argument concerning America's "heritage" is simply a moot point in relation to this fact.)

The above video is a 7 minute clip of a speech given by a New York State Senator, who argued for a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in New York.  I encourage you to watch the video before reading my brief opinions below:





DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO???








In my opinion . . . 
I  greatly appreciate this senator's statements concerning the prerogative of religious institutions, like her own Roman Catholic Church, to deny to ordain or recognize same-sex marriage.  I think she has here rightly understood the Constitution's insistence that the government stay out of the business of religious institutions.  On the other hand, I see her point when she argues that the United States--and each individual State, such as New York--does not have such a prerogative.  (Of course this is the very reason why some conservatives have pushed to make an amendment to the constitution that would define marriage explicitly as between a man and woman--a statement that as of yet does not exist in the Constitution.)  So in the end--while I would not have expressed my opinion in all the ways this senator has--I would have to agree with the basic conclusion: Religious institutions like the various denominations of the Christian Church have the right to deny recognition of same-sex marriage, and have the right to refuse to conduct same-sex weddings (a right that I believe the Church should exercise!); however, the Federal Government and State Governments of the United States of America do not have such a right, and have therefore breached their own Constitution in discriminating in this way.


I have to admit that this conclusion is difficult for me to swallow.  I do not want it to be this way, but I feel that this is the only consistent conclusion available to me.  This is, of course, a good example of why my primary identity is that of a Christian, not an American.  Of course I am also a citizen of this country, and am grateful to be one.  This is, however, an area where my allegiance to Christ comes into conflict with my allegiance to my nation; and when such a conflict occurs my allegiance to Christ must win out every time.  I do not--nor do I believe any follower of Christ should--condone same-sex marriage; but I understand why the nation within which I find myself must.  To not do so is a breach of its Constitution.  Since my allegiance is to a King and a Kingdom, not to a President and a Constitution, I am not interested in changing the Constitution of the United States of America; I am interested in enacting the prayer my Master taught me to pray: "Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."  The Church must stay strong here, holding fast to the biblical witness on this issue, even as we live within a nation that does not fully embrace the vision of the Kingdom/Reign of God.  The Church needs to focus more attention on better understanding, praying for, and incarnating the Kingdom/Reign of God, and less on trying to change the national Constitution.  The change that the world needs will come through the Kingdom, not through a nation's Constitution.  The Church must exercise its prerogative to discriminate when it comes to sin; the USA has not given itself such a prerogative in the case of same-sex marriage.  We disciples of Christ must always remember: We live in the world, but are not of it.

Resurrection story of Jesus Christ, Twitter Style

You've got to see this. What a brilliant way of taking the Gospel story to the present technologically inundated age. Very compelling.

Plundering the Twittering Egyptians

So I started Tweeting today.  (You can follow me by clicking on the "Twitter" tab to the right of this blog column.)

You need to know that this is a big step for me.  I have been pretty anti-social-media up to this point, but I think I received a little inspiration from recent visitor to ONU's campus--Leonard Sweet.  It wasn't any particular thing that he said as much as his "dive in and make a difference" attitude toward such popular social media as Twitter, Facebook, Google, and I-phone/pad/everything.

And as I signed up today for a Twitter account, I heard the words of the Ancient Church Father Augustine ringing in my ears: plunder the Egyptians!


If you're not familiar with that metaphor/image, you should be.  It's an image Augustine drew from the Exodus narrative and wrote about in his On Christian Doctrine.  The metaphor/image works like this: Just as the Israelites plundered the Egyptians of various articles of gold, silver, clothing, etc. when they left Egypt and, presumably, put them to the use of God's people; so also Christians today "plunder" the world about us, using what we find for the service of God's people and the Kingdom.


So maybe I'm making an excuse . . .  or maybe I've really tapped into something here.  Maybe (some, not all) Christians can utilize the social media we find, not in the same way the world around us puts these media to use, but in a way in which the people of God are served and the Reign of God advanced.  I hope that's what I end up doing with my blog, my Facebook account, my Twitter account, etc. (I have yet to buy into the I-pad thing: Why do I need to buy a $500 piece of equipment to play "Angry Birds"?)  And hopefully you can put these media to Kingdom use, too.

May we plunder the Twittering, Facebooking, Googling Egyptians of our day for the People and Reign of God!

He Is Risen!

Happy Easter to all those whose hope is firmly planted in the Empty Tomb!

Living into the End

I am becoming more and more convinced that the best way to handle the questions we often put to our faith--What ought I to do?  Who ought I to be?  Why?  What is God's will?  What is sin?--is to ask one simple question--a question I call the "eschatological question":


When God is through with us--through with his purposes for us and for the world--what will we look like?  What will the creation look like?


Obviously it is a simple question to ask, but a difficult one to discern the answer to.  Though, perhaps not so difficult as we might first assume:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.  I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.  And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.  He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

New Creation--both of us, and of the creation at large.  The expulsion of all evil; the embrace of all good.  The dwelling of God and the dwelling of men reunited.  This is the end toward which everything is moving.

The end of evil and wickedness; the eternal establishment of that which is of God.  God dwelling with us once again.  That's the answer.  Anything that draws us closer to that vision is of God; anything that pulls us away from it is not.  Of course which things do and don't still requires discernment (that's why were are given the Spirit of God), but this is the end toward which we are moving nevertheless.

As we wrestle with how to live out our lives as disciples of Jesus Christ, may we always keep the eschatological vision of the New Testament at the forefront of our prayers, our minds, and our lives.

May we live into it!

The Resurrection of Jesus: Another Reason to Believe

I have just posted a response to my friend Nick's blog post concerning popular Christian apologetics.  (Click HERE)  On that blog Nick was talking about how he's coming to view most of these apologetic agendas fairly negatively.  I agree with him; well-meaning Christians are getting caught in the modern myth of providing "absolute proof" for historical events.  Instead of such apologetic schemes, Nick proposed that we accept that the resurrection of Jesus is the basis for all "proof" of the Gospel.  While I agree in part--again, see my comment--this whole discussion got me thinking that I ought to share publicly one of the reasons that I have come to be convinced that the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical event.

Now--just so we're all on the same page here--the argument I want to here put forth is an argument concerning historical evidence, but it is not intended to be what popular Christian apologists like to call "proof."  I do not think that I can prove with 100% certainty any historical event--let alone the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus.  Proof is for the realm of science, which deals with repeatable events; not history, which necessarily deals with events that only occurred once.  (I cannot prove that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, because it is an unrepeatable historical event, though I haven't found anyone that doubts that he did.)  Nevertheless, there truly are some really good historical reasons to accept the resurrection, though accepting it might just cause you to rethink your definition of "history" and of what is historically plausible.  But, hey, that's what worldview-changing events like the resurrection do!

As a graduate student in the field of Biblical Studies, I have spent a significant amount of time studying ancient Judaism.  In so doing, I have found that the idea of "resurrection" is a relatively late development in ancient Jewish thought.  You will not hear much of any talk about resurrection in the Old Testament--except for one of the latest (perhaps the latest) books of the OT, Daniel (written around 150BCE).  Nevertheless, by the first century the idea of resurrection (in Greek, the word anastasis) was a well-known concept, and one that many Jews (perhaps the majority? it's difficult to tell) embraced.

Here's a funny thing about Jewish beliefs in resurrection, though: Although not all Jews believed in resurrection (see, for instance, the group known as the Sadducees in the New Testament), all Jews who did believe in resurrection believed that it was an end times event.  This is how Daniel describes it in Daniel 12:2-4, the only explicit (at least I think it's explicit, and so did 1st century Jews) reference to resurrection in the whole OT: "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.  Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.  But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."  So, if you were among the Jews who believed in the resurrection of the dead in the 1st century, you likely either believed (1) at the end of time, God would raise the righteous dead up into new, bodily life fit for his everlasting kingdom, while the wicked would remain in Sheol (the underworld) or (2) at the end of time, God would raise all mankind to new, bodily life and then invite some into his everlasting kingdom and exclude others (this is the belief of the majority of the first Christians; see, for instance, 1 Corinthians 15).  In either case, the resurrection was only conceived of as an end times event that would occur to either all mankind, or at least all the righteous, at the end of time.

Let me add another funny fact about the belief in resurrection during the 1st century: The wider Greek-speaking world of the first century was well acquainted with this notion and they wanted nothing to do with it.  For instance, in the great Greek epic, the Iliad (composed long before the 1st century, but still popular during the 1st c.), one character says to another: "Bear up, and don't give way to angry grief; Nothing will come of sorrowing for your son, Nor will you raise him up (verb form of anastasis) before you die." (Iliad 24.539-51)  Or again, take the scene of the death of the great Greek hero and philosopher, Socrates, poetically recounted in Phaedo, written by his famous disciple Plato.  As Socrates is about to take the poison that he is mandated by the city's officials to take for his heretical teachings, he bravely looks at his disciples and says: "Offer up a chicken to Asclepius on my behalf."  Now what you've got to know is that Asclepius was the Greek god of healing.  Socrates is saying, "Death . . . getting out of this body . . . this is exactly what I've been longing for--having my soul released from my body is actually an act of divine healing!)  There is A TON of more Greek literature like this from all over the years (see N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God for a MASSIVE amount of literature), but I hope this is enough to paint the picture: The non-Jewish, Greek-speaking world of the time of Jesus and his disciples were well aware of what "resurrection" (anastasis)--getting a new body after death--was, and they wanted no part of it.  Death was release of the soul.  Why would you want to go back to a body after that great release?

( I mention only briefly that, funnily enough, I think many Christians today think more like these pagan Greeks--i.e. "I can't wait to die and go to heaven."--than they do like early Christians--i.e. "I can't wait for the resurrection of the body!" [again, see 1 Corinthians 15])


So here's the picture: The first-century world, both Jewish and non-Jewish, was well acquainted with the particular idea of "resurrection" (anastasis).  It was the specific idea that entailed getting a new body after death.  Many Jews believed that it was an end-times events that would happen to either all mankind or to all the righteous; non-Jews knew of it and thought it horrendous--why would you want a body back after your soul has been released from its captivity to the first body?


In the middle of this world, some first-century Jews began to claim that Jesus of Nazareth--one, particular person--had undergone resurrection (anastasis), even though the end of time had obviously not come.


This message simply would not have been possible to invent given their cultural milieu.  It is non-sense to both Jews and non-Jews.  Jews would have said, "You know the end hasn't come yet, right?" and Greeks would have said, "that's a quaint but pretty stupid idea that we want nothing to do with."  What would be the disciples' motivation for inventing this?

If the disciples had seen Jesus in a "spiritual" form, or if they had had a mental breakdown and hallucinated seeing him, they would not have used the word anastasis to describe this experience.  To say that one person had undergone anastasis before the end of the age just would not have made any sense.

For this, and other reasons, I am convinced that the best historical explanation of the events of Easter--and of the kind of language that the disciples used to describe these events--is that Jesus of Nazareth truly did experience the resurrection of the dead.


And if that's true . . . everything changes.

Some Biblical Reflections Upon Being Gay and Christian

I first want to welcome those who have come to this blog via the ongoing debate on the Olivet Nazarene Univserity's Glimmer Glass online newspaper page, where we have been responding to the recent articles (click HERE) that have sparked controversy concerning the place of gay students on our campus.  For those unaware of this now somewhat lengthy debate, you can access it by means of the link I've provided; however, I have written this post so as to be accessible (though lengthy) to all, regardless of your familiarity with that debate.  I invite responses from any and all who visit this post.

My purpose here, as the title suggests, is to lay out some biblical reflections on what most of us would refer to as 'homosexuality', although I am aware that even this term carries some offense when wielded inappropriately.  I hope my readers will believe me when I say I do not mean for it to cause any offense; this is why I did not use it in the title of this blog.  Furthermore, I would encourage those who choose to respond to this blog (in the comments section below) to keep the conversation accessible, as I have tried to do here.  Although there ought to be well thought out and articulated comments, let's do our best to not engage in the 'big word wars', precisely because those who are not familiar with all the technical language need nevertheless to be encouraged to join in the discussion.

I believe that the current, popular level debate within Christian circles in America concerning homosexuality has been encumbered by several misconceptions (1) concerning what the biblical witness is to this issue, and (2) concerning the Christian doctrine of sin.  I want to here address these issues in turn.

The Biblical Witness


First of all, let me say that I engage in this debate with fellow Christians--both gay and 'straight'--who believe that, at least in some way, the Bible still has a central place in the faith of the person who--and Church that--claims that Jesus is their Lord and Savior.  There are, however, many who would call themselves 'Christians' who have essentially given up on the Bible.  A recent commenter in the Glimmer Glass debate, whom I'm assuming is a Christian, wrote: "People, please, please, please, stop quoting bible verses as if it were a text that speaks divine magic. Please stop limiting God to an ancient book that was written by violent desert dwellers just as flawed as we are, with mortal agendas, not to mention, canonized by even more flawed humans. For the sake of pete’s goodness, the bible advocates slavery, murder, inequity of women, and condemnation of homosexuals. Not to mention, has been used to start countless wars. How can you bible quoting fiends ignore these inconsistencies and still claim that the bible is absent of flaws, and endorses love. . . . God works through the hearts of individuals, not through an ancient book."  While I hear my friend's plea here, and would agree with some of his sentiments--for instance that the Bible is not "divine magic" and that its words have been and still often are used to support atrocities--I have to say that I disagree with his basic conclusion: My very life is a testimony to the fact that God does, in fact, somehow, mysteriously, transformatively  work through these ancient books.  To say that he does not is simply to contradict the experience of millions of Jews and Christians throughout the millennia.  It is to the community of faith that still believes that we must be faithful to the scriptural witness (not in a fundamentalist sort of way, but faithful nonetheless) that I direct my reflections here.  If you are not of that number, then I am not sure that we even have enough common footing to engage in this particular debate--a fact for which I am very sorry.


The Bible does not have much to say explicitly about what we would today call 'homosexuality'.  This certainly does not mean that it has nothing to say, nor that we can leave it at that and call it a day.  Unfortunately, however, the Bible has often been hijacked by fundamentalists and other half-wits who simply shout out 1 Cor 6:9 to their gay neighbors and think that this settles the debate.  Let me clear: I abhor this approach and condemn it as essentially anti-Christian.  My gay Christian friends are right in saying that Jesus (and for that matter, Paul!) would not have approached the matter this way, and I will not do so here.  Besides 1 Cor 6:9 there really are only a few other biblical texts that explicitly address the issue: I am thinking of 1 Tim 1:10, Rom 1:26-27 (which is the only text that I am aware of that references what we call 'lesbianism'), and Leviticus 18:22/20:13.  I will deal with each text in turn, beginning with the last two, which need to be considered in tandem.


Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie (Heb. shacab; LXX: koimao koites) with a male (Heb. zacar; LXX: arsenos) as with a woman (Heb. 'eesha; LXX: gynaikos); it is an abomination." (NRSV)  Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman (LXX: arsenos koites gynaikos), both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (NRSV)  (The scholar will recognize that I have listed the infinitive form of the Hebrew and Greek verb in 18:22, and the nominative singular form of the Greek nouns in parentheses.)


There are many Christians who seem to start with the assumption that appeals made to Old Testament texts have no validity within a Christian argument.  Let me say that if by "Christ" we intend to refer to Jesus of Nazareth, the 1st century Galilean Jew, and if we are in some way trying to identify his (or Paul's) opinion on the matter at hand (not just simply "what the Bible says"), then we are compelled to look at the Old Testament.  Why?  Because these are the scriptures that formed and shaped Jesus and Paul; for them there was no "New Testament."  When they made theological appeals, they made them on the basis of what we call "Old Testament" texts.  The Protestant Christian world has put up a large wall between "Old" and "New" Testaments--between "Law/Torah" and "Gospel/Grace"--that would have been foreign to any 1st century Jew, including Jesus and even Paul.  (For more, read E.P. Sanders's Jesus and Judaism and Paul and Palestinian Judaism)  If we are to speak on not just what "the Bible says" but on what Jesus and Paul said and why they said it, then we must pay attention to these texts from Leviticus, which come from the very heart of the Hebrew Scriptures--the Torah.


Now both Jesus and Paul had quite a lot to say about the Torah, and we cannot go into it all here.  Both of their attitudes (unlike modern Protestants') were quite positive toward Torah.  Jesus at least once said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt 5:17)  Paul, despite what we Protestants think of him, regularly noted that the Torah was "good" and "holy." (e.g. Rom 7:12; 7:16; 1 Tim 1:8)  Both Paul and Jesus radically critiqued points of the Torah, to be sure, as did most intelligent 1st century Jews, especially of the sect known as the Pharisees (this was more common than most Christians today realize), but we can be confident that at the end of the day neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any of the Pharisees they would have debated with advocated--as many Protestants do today--a wholesale rejection of the Torah.  (To be fair, even most Protestants want to hold that the 10 Commandments are  still valid commands for the Christian era, despite the fact that these are found in the Torah.)  The question of the relationship between the Torah in the pre-Christian era and the Torah in the Christian era is one that could take us far afield of the current debate, however, so I must move on.


I want to argue, then, that it is historically very probable that both Paul and Jesus would have been in harmony with the basic sentiments of the Torah, especially when it spoke on ethical concerns (over against, for instance, dietary or cultic [i.e. 'religious'] concerns).  It is especially the ethical dimension of the Torah that both Jesus and Paul want to hold onto: Hence why each can basically summarize the Law as "Love thy neighbor." (Lev 19:18;  Matt. 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27-28; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; cf. James 2:8 where this injunction is called "the royal Law")  Now you can be sure that by "love thy neighbor" Jesus and Paul--as 1st century Jews--would not have meant what we 21st century, American pluralists often mean by it: That is, "Love thy neighbor" for Jesus and Paul would not have meant "Accept everything that your neighbor does that doesn't physically or emotionally harm another individual."  (Notice, for instance, that this command "Love they neighbor" in the Torah comes in the chapter immediately before ch.20, where various sexual sins [including the one we are presently considering] are condemned as being worthy of execution!]  Once again, however, we will go too far afield if we further discuss the issue of defining "love" in its 1st century Jewish context.


Now I know that especially the Lev 20:13 text causes us to object immediately.  Am I saying that I think Jesus and Paul would have supported the execution of men who lied with other men as if with women?  No, I am not; let me tell you why.  We are here speaking of the sexual ethics of the Torah, so I think that the passage from John 8:1-11 is instructive (regardless of whether or not it was original to the first edition of John's Gospel).  Here we see Jesus presented with a woman "caught in the act of adultery" (v.3)--a sexual sin that the Torah had said was punishable by execution. (Lev. 20:10; cf. Deut. 22:22, both passages require the execution of both the woman and her male partner--a fact those presenting the woman to Jesus seem to have failed to take account of.)  In fact this requirement is found in exactly the same part of Leviticus (three verses earlier) as the passage presently under consideration.  But what does Jesus do with the woman?  We all know the story.  He condemns, not her, but her accusers implicitly by uttering those powerful words, "He who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."  Then what happens?  He looks right at her and utters even more powerful words: "'Woman, where are they?  Has no one condemned you?'  She said, 'No one, sir.'  And Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you.  Go your way and from now on do not sin again.'" (vv.10-11)  That's Jesus!  The one who could take a sinner condemned to death and turn her accusers away, restore her, and empower her with his own lack of condemnation.  Whether this is a text original to John's Gospel or not, I want to claim that it is faithful to the portrait of Jesus we see throughout the Gospels.  But notice what happens here:  Jesus both fails to follow through with the execution prescribed by the Torah (and, by the way, whether such practices frequently occurred or not in ancient Judaism does not change the fact that the Torah prescribes them), and he also makes it very clear that the adulterous sexual relationship she was involved in was sinful. Jesus turns her accusers away, not because she is not sinful but because they all are sinful (perhaps precisely because of their misogynistic interpretation of the Torah that caused them to neglect to also bring forth the male adulterer?).  He sends her on her way not because she is innocent but in order that she might "not sin again."  This is a microcosm of some of the Christian reinterpretations of Torah: Jesus both says "this is sin" and also says "the strict Torah requirement of execution is unnecessary."


All of this leads me to this conclusion: Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 clearly express that "men lying with men as with a woman" are in violation of God's Torah--that is, they have sinned.  Jesus and (as I will presently show) Paul both accepted this basic sentiment, though at least Jesus felt that the requirement for execution could be replaced by forgiveness through himself.


These passages are not unimportant to the present debate between Christians concerning homosexuality in the Christian community.  If both Jesus and Paul would have read, been shaped by, and accepted the Torah's sentiments on this issue, then--if the word "Christian" is going to retain any meaning whatsoever--we modern Christians ought to follow their example.


One other note on this passage, though.  I notice that Leviticus does not say, It is detestable for a man to be sexually attracted to a man as if he were a woman.  It says, however, that the specific action of lying with a man as if with a woman is detestable.  I do not think that we can use this text to justify an argument that says that it is overtly sinful for men and women to be sexually attracted to the same sex.  There is, in other words, a biblical precedent for distinguishing between "the sin" and "the sinner"--no matter how often that distinction has been abused.  (And as a sinner, I thank God for the distinction!)


1 Cor 6:9-11 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakos), nor homosexuals (arsenokoites), nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.  Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (NASB: I have chosen this translation because it retains two separate words in v.9 and does not use the archaic and misleading term "sodomites" as the NRSV does, not because I am completely satisfied with the translation.  In fact, I have yet to find any translation of this passage that completely satisfies me. Once again the scholar will here recognize that I have provided the nominative singular form of each of the nouns under consideration.)


The two key words in this passage--malakoi and arsenokoites--are notoriously controversial in modern biblical scholarship, and I've noticed these scholarly debates over Greek semantics have even spilled over into the popular level discussions, which surprises me to some degree and illustrates just how passionate people are about this topic--that people who never cared for Koine Greek before would become entrenched in arguments about it!  The weight of the controversy often falls on the second of these terms, arsenokoites, as the first is much more widely attested in Greek literature than the second and has a more established semantic range (that is, range of possible meanings).  I have nothing unique to offer to this debate, but I will obviously state my position.  I would refer the reader, however, to a few sources where she/he can encounter the debate full on: (1) As I mentioned in my Glimmer Glass critique, Richard Hays's book The Moral Vision of the New Testament, specifically the chapter entitled "Homosexuality," is the best resource that I am aware of which presents a compelling Christian, and throughly scholarly (he is Dean of Duke University's Divinity School), appraisal of this and other biblical passages concerning homosexuality.  He began co-writing the chapter with a gay friend of his before the friend died of AIDS prior to its publication.  It is a powerful, humble, and honest appraisal of the situation by both a homosexual Christian man and a heterosexual Christian man.  (2) Dale Martin is the head of Yale University's New Testament program and is an openly gay man.  His article entitled "Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences," which appeared in an edited volume entitled Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality (Westminster: John Knox, 1996), is the best articulation of which I am aware for the argument that the New Testament is silent on the issue of modern homosexuality.  While I ultimately find his arguments unconvincing, they are a helpful and welcome voice in the debate.  (3) A critique of Martin's article that I have also found helpful was written by Gary R. Jepsen.  It is entitled "Dale Martin's 'Arsenokoites and Malakos' Tried and Found Wanting," and was published in Vol. 33.5 of the periodical Currents in Theology and Mission.  If you are associated with ONU, any of these resources can be apprehended through our library and inter-library loan system.


Since this discussion is already becoming quite lengthy (how could it not?), I will attempt to summarize my position on this text briefly, recognizing that I am a student and not an expert of the nuances of the debate which rages over this text.  First, I believe that the meaning of the word malakos is ambiguous, and if it had not been followed immediately after by the word arsenokoites we would be hard pressed to understand to what Paul is referring here.  Malakos had a wide semantic range in the ancient Greek language, which included the ideas of being "soft"--either literally (for instance of a fabric) or metaphorically (for instance of a effeminate or "wimpy" man).  I am inclined to believe, based on its context in 1 Cor 6:9-11, that Paul meant here to refer to men who accept sexual favors from other men, but I am not dogmatic about that interpretation.

Second, the word arsenokoites is a much more interesting and unique word.  You need to know before we proceed that the ancient Koine Greek language did not have a technical word for "homosexual" like we do today, even though what we would call "homosexuality"--even amongst consenting adults--was probably as common in Paul's time as it is in ours.  Richard Hays notes that the word arsenokoites "is not found in any extant Greek text earlier than 1 Corinthians."  (Moral Vision, 382)  That is, we have no knowledge of this word's usage prior to Paul's words here in 1 Cor 6:9.  Could it be that Paul invented the word?  Both Richard Hays and the professor currently presiding over my thesis--a man who did his dissertation under Charles Talbert at Baylor University precisely on the sexual ethics of Paul--think that it is quite possible.  (I have not mentioned my professor's name because I do not wish to drag him into all of this without his knowledge.)  Since we have much extant ancient Greek literature, I am inclined to agree.  If Paul made this word up, though, how can we know what it means?


It is time to recall the Levitical passages we just looked at.  I provided the Septuagint translations of certain words precisely for this point. (The Septuagint--abbreviated LXX--was the standard Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible/"Old Testament" during the time of Jesus and Paul, and is the version of the Bible that Paul most often quotes.)  In the LXX version of Lev 20:13, the phrase "lie with a male as with a woman" is the translation of these Greek words: koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos.  The first word is a verb meaning to go to the marriage-bed with, or, euphemistically, to have sexual relations with.  The second word is a preposition meaning "with."  The third is a noun meaning "a man/male."  The fourth word is a noun related to the verb, meaning "marriage-bed," but euphemistically meaning sexual relations.  The fifth word is a noun meaning "a woman."  The two Greek words that are translated "a man (having) a marriage-bed/sexual relations" are arsenos koiten, which--I am convinced--is the place from which the word we have here in Paul (whether he or some other Jew reading the LXX invented it) has originated.  The New Testament Greek word arsenokoites seems clearly to be a compound word, invented by a Jew who read the Greek Septuagint (whether Paul or someone else) that was used, in lieu of the absence for a specific Greek term, to describe those who "lie with a man as if with a woman"--or as we would say in modern language, a homosexual or gay man.


This is obviously a point that Dale Martin disagrees with, and I would reference you to his article to hear his argument.  I would also reference you to the critique of Martin's article that I cited to see a clear argument on where Martin's logic breaks down.


In light of the semantic discussion, what can we say about the meaning of this passage in Paul as a whole?  There are several things that must be pointed out briefly: First, "inherit the kingdom of God" is not a one-to-one correlation with what many Evangelical Christians call "going to heaven when you die."  For the sake of space I will not go into all the implications of our misinformed view of the so-called 'afterlife', but it must be stated that when Christians assert that "Gays won't go to heaven when they die" they are not getting this view from Paul here--at least not in those confused of terms.  Second, Paul composes "vice lists" like this frequently in his epistles (Romans 1:29–31; 13:13; 1 Corinthians 5:10–11; 6:9–10; 12:20–21; Galatians 5:19–21; Ephesians 4:31; 5:3–5; Colossians 3:5, 8; 1 Timothy 1:9–10; 2 Timothy 3:2–5) and we Christians trying to be faithful to the whole of Scripture need to remember that much less (in our time) controversial sins like "quarreling and jealousy" (Rom 13:13), "greed" (1 Cor 5:10), "anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder" (2 Cor 12:20) are to be found in these "vice lists" as well.  Christians who disproportionately place an emphasis on the two times that Paul mentions homosexuality over against the other sins in these vice lists need to take heed that they do not sin themselves in "anger, gossip, slander," etc.  That said, Paul does place a particular emphasis on sexual sins at least in 1 Cor 5-6. (cf. esp. 6: 18-20)  Third and finally, Paul makes explicit in this passage--which is why I quoted more than just v.9--that all the vices listed in these verses are exactly what the Corinthian believers were freed from: "  Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (emphasis mine)  Paul's point is that they, as a result of Jesus and the Spirit, are no longer to be described in the ways listed in the "vice list."  They were changed.  Why would we expect anything less for ourselves as those also washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit?  I doubt this was an easy change for any malakos or arsenokoites Paul may have been thinking of there in the Corinthian church, but there was a change that Paul could celebrate nonetheless.


1 Timothy 1:9-10 basically reiterates the point we have just made about 1 Cor 6:9-10 because it, too, is a Pauline "vice list" that includes the term arsenokoites (the only other occurrence in the New Testament, and certainly a later one than 1 Corinthians).  There is, therefore, no need to do a full exegesis of this passage here. (If you're even still with me, I appreciate it greatly!)


Romans 1:26-27: "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions.  Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.  Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."


Richard Hays says that Roman 1:18-32 (the broader context) is "the most crucial text for Christian ethics concerning homosexuality . . . because this is the only passage in the New Testament that explains the condemnation of homosexual behavior in an explicitly theological context." (Moral Vision, 383)  It is also, as I noted earlier, the only passage in the Bible that deals directly with what we would call "lesbian" sexual relations.  The thrust of this opening chapter of Paul's magnum opus is, however, much different from what many Christians today suppose that it is.  We must understand the broad thrust of this passage in order to understand his specific statements here in vv.26-27.


Romans 1 is not about a list of specific sins and how God punishes them.  It is Paul's comprehensive theological assessment of the entirety of humanity as basically fallen, rebellious, and idolatrous.  All of us, says Paul, "worship the creation instead of the Creator." (v.25)  All of us, says Paul, are, in our wickedness and godlessness, "without excuse." (v. 20)  All of us, says Paul, are idolatrous fools! (vv.22-23)  And all of us are under "the wrath of God." (v.18)  The scope is universal.  No one is exempt--neither Jew nor Greek, neither heterosexual nor homosexual.  We are, all of us, fallen creatures in a basic stance of rebellion against our Creator.


It is only after making this universal point that Paul then goes on to say, "Therefore God gave them [all of us] up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves . . . to degrading passions [like unnatural sexual relations, as mentioned in vv.26-27] . . . and to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.  They [all of us] were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice.  Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they [all of us!] are gossips, slanderes, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents [!!!], foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.  They [all of us!] know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die--yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them." (vv. 24-32)


This is not Paul saying, These are the kinds of sins that will get you punished by the wrath of God.  No, the point Paul is making is much more dramatic, much more universal, much more startling to us today than that.  The point is not that we sin and then God's wrath comes on us for it; the point is that God's wrath has been poured out on essentially rebellious and idolatrous humanity and because of this we sin in all these various ways!  In short, as Ernst Kasemann, a prominent mid-2oth century New Testament scholar put it, "Paul paradoxically reverses the cause and consequence: moral perversion is the result of God's wrath, not the reason for it." (qtd. in Moral Vision, 385)  God's wrath is viewed precisely as God's "giving us up" (vv. 24, 26, & 28) to our own sinful desires.  God's wrath = letting rebellious humanity go its own way.  THE RESULT is all the sinfulness he characterizes here, including homosexuality.


Is Paul here calling God the author of sin, then?  Of course not. (cf. Rom 5-6)  He is simply, as Richard Hays has put it, "cast[ing] forth a blanket condemnation of humankind." (Moral Vision, 385)  As Paul will say elsewhere, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom 3:23)  Paul really believes that statement, as chapter 1 of Romans indicates.


So how does this passage come to bear on the current issue, then--especially in light of the fact that this reading may be unfamiliar to many Christians?  I think that this passage provides a good segue into the (I promise briefer) discussion of the Christian doctrine of sin.


The Christian Doctrine of Sin


Quite often I am frustrated to hear my conservative Christian brothers and sisters making the following argument in the debate over the place of homosexuality in the life of the Christian: They say, "Sin is a choice, and homosexuality is sin; therefore, you simply need to stop choosing to behave homosexually!"  


To this wrongheaded notion of sin the gay man or lesbian woman is going to inevitably respond: "You simply do not understand what you are talking about.  I didn't choose to be gay.  I am gay.  God does not condemn people for who they are!"


It is clear that both of these arguments are misinformed about the nature of the Christian doctrine of sin.  Let me bring back in Paul's Epistle to the Romans to help illuminate the issue.  Paul clearly states, as we saw, that "all have sinned (this is an aorist verb, scholars) and fall short of the glory of God."  He also clearly argues in Romans 1 that there is a blanket of condemnation over all mankind: God's wrath is poured out on us all, precisely because we are all essentially and fundamentally rebellious and idolatrous fallen creatures.  There is surely a sense, then, in which sin pertains to--as the popular definition goes--"willful transgressions of a known law of God," but there is also a sense in which--over and beyond these individual "willful transgressions"--wickedness and godlessness and sinfulness abounds in the entire creation, permeating every aspect of our being as individuals, as societies, and as the human creation as a whole.


Sin is much bigger than the conservative Christians believe it to be, and the wrath of God--his condemnation for our godlessness and wickedness--is much more comprehensive than the gay Christian community seems to often presented it as.  To my fellow conservative Christians I want to say, Sin is at work in this world in a much more comprehensive manner than simply individual behaviors.  Take, for instance, the girl who is raped at 5 years old and prostituted by her parents for the next 8-10 years before she leaves her home and lives a life of rampant promiscuity.  (My wife has counseled girls like this.)  I have gotta tell you conservative Christians that that girl does not just wake up each morning and decide to be sexually promiscuous each day.  It is simply a part of who she is, precisely because she has never known any differently.  Does that make the sexual promiscuity admirable or praiseworthy?  Of course not!  It's still sin, but it is far more than the sum of her behavioral choices.  Sin has been at work on her life as much as it is now at work through her life.  That is to conclude that sinfulness, wickedness, godlessness (call it whatever!) is much bigger than the sum of individual choices.


To my gay Christian friends, however, I also have a corrective to offer.  Saying that God does not condemn anyone for who they are is not, in fact, faithful to the scriptures either.  Romans 1 is just one text, but it is a clear articulation of a theme that runs throughout the Jewish and Christian scriptures--that theme is that everyone is under the wrath and condemnation of God, precisely because "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." 


The power of the Christian Gospel is usurped when we deny this fact, because the power of the Christian Gospel is precisely that Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah/Christ, has now made a way for us to escape the condemnation and wrath of God (or, more truly, to stand "justified" under it) by means of his own death and resurrection and our appropriation by faith of his death and resurrection.  


The Christian doctrine of sin, then, is much broader than the conservative Christian community often recognizes, and the Christian articulation of the condemnation brought upon us all by our essential sinfulness is much broader than the gay Christian community often recognizes.


I want to propose a way forward that I think remains faithful to the biblical witness concerning sin and condemnation, but perhaps uses some concepts and language that are more readily helpful to our modern situation.


Often the conservative Christian community has compared the sin of homosexual relations to the sins of murder, theft, adultery, and the like.  While I understand that there are some parallels--namely the argument that all sin is unacceptable to God--there are some hindrances to these comparisons that the gay Christian community rightly points out.  Most importantly, it seems to me, is the fact that gay Christians often object saying, "I do not choose to be gay in the same way someone chooses to murder someone else, or steal something, or even to commit adultery with another person's spouse."  And by the way, I believe my gay Christian friends when they say something like this to me.  


I do not think that gay and lesbian persons choose to be gay and lesbian in the same way that I choose to drink Pepsi today for lunch instead of Coca Cola.  They do not choose to be attracted to the same sex in the same way a child chooses to steal a candy bar from the grocery store.  These comparisons are naive at best and destructive at worst.


What I am getting at here is that I do not believe being gay is a simple behavior that one consciously chooses to engage in at any given moment over against heterosexual behavior . . . anymore than I believe that, for instance, my being a consumeristic, materialistic, gluttonous, environmentally wasteful American are behaviors that I consciously choose to engage in at any given moment.

These comparisons are helpful to me, and let me tell you why.  Many American Christians--myself included--do not realize on a moment by moment basis just how consumeristic, materialistic, gluttonous, and environmentally wasteful people we truly are.  But there can be no argument that we are all these things and more.  When someone calls us out on these things, we often respond quite similarly to the gay Christian, saying, "This is just a part of who I am."  Or rather, we sometimes say, "That's just the way the world and/or this society is."  Does that make all these characteristics of ourselves or our society good, godly, admirable, or praiseworthy?  Of course not!

We are a wicked, self-centered, greedy, fattened society that regularly engages in all kinds of materialistic, consumeristic, gluttonous, and environmentally wasteful behaviors--and this is all a part of what is broadly called "sin/godlessness/wickedness/unrighteousness."  Sometimes we have a moment of insight where we realize that these things are far from the intentions of our Creator for ourselves and for the world, but it is almost impossible to retain this insight in the front of our minds at all times precisely because these types of sins are so prevalent in the society within which we live.

It is my contention--and I truly pray it will be received as a humble and yet hopefully illuminating suggestion, not as dogma--that this is how homosexuality operates as "sin" in our American culture.


I truly do believe my gay Christian friends when they say, "I'm not choosing to be gay.  I am gay."  And I hope they'll hear me when I say that "I am not choosing to be consistently a consumerist, a materialist, a glutton, or an environmentally wasteful person (all things I am guilty of being, mind you!).  I simply am this way."  I think that in both of our cases, we are this way precisely because of the comprehensive nature of sin/wickedness/evil/godlessness/unrighteousness in our world, not because God made us this way or intends for us to stay this way.


That makes all of these sins something to be recognized as more difficult to reject than, say, simple petty theft; but it also recognizes that at the heart of all of these unconscious identities and behaviors is still sin.  


God didn't intend for me to be a consumerist, a materialist, a glutton, and an environmentally wasteful person, but I am this way because of where and with whom I live--namely, in a fallen world with fallen people.  This doesn't make my sin acceptable to God; therefore, I have to cast my full reliance upon him in ways that stretch me beyond my own limits.  I do not think that because I am a consumerist, a materialist, a glutton, and an environmentally wasteful person that God cannot wait to deny my entrance into his heaven.  Nor do I believe that God wishes to do so for the gay person who clings to Christ as Lord and Savior.  He alone must be our central identity and the Spirit through which our identities and behaviors are molded (i.e. "are sanctified").

I do think, however, that God expects us all to repent (lit. to "turn away") from sin insofar as he enables us to do this--whether that sin is an overt, one-time action like looking at pornography, or a more central part of our identity as fallen creatures, like being a materialist, or a consumerist, or a homosexual.  The Good News ("Gospel") is precisely that, in Jesus and the Holy Spirit, God has himself (wow!) provided the way to repent, to turn away from our own rebelliousness and to embrace his identity and intention for us.  We are all of us called to receive this good news--homosexual and heterosexual sinners alike--and I pray that you will accept it, whomever you are reading this.