The Idea of Feast Days
December 10, 2010
According to the Episcopal Church’s Holy Women, Holy Men, today is a day available to celebrate the great Karl Barth. Here is the collect:
“Almighty God, source of justice beyond human knowledge: We thank you for inspiring Karl Barth to resist tyranny and exalt your saving grace, without which we cannot apprehend your will. Teach us, like him, to live by faith, and even in chaotic and perilous times to perceive the light of your eternal glory, Jesus Christ our Redeemer; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, throughout all ages. Amen.”
I noted this on my Facebook wall with a link and an interesting conversation ensued. This began by something the always engaging Benjamin Guyer said, namely that Barth, a man who publicly berated his friends and who carried on a 20 year affair with Charlotte von Kirschbaum, could be said to be a major Christian intellectual but his moral conduct was far from being worthy of celebration on any calendar.
Responses tended to question whether this is a fair way to gauge the calendric worth of a saint. After all, it was said by one, “Luther hated Jews, Augustine killed heretics, St. Paul killed Christians”…it seems that being a saint is not dependent on a wholly virtuous life.
Ben stood by his guns though and said that “Barth lived in various ways that are fundamentally incompatible with what a calendar of saints is intended to do - namely hold up for emulation particular men and women.”
This brought up a question in my mind: Are calendars in fact intended to hold up lives for emulation? It seems that it will at least do this, but I think there is a deeper way to look at this that I think might make room for the possibility of “flawed” saints being joyfully celebrated.
Not that long ago, Derek Olsen put a piece up on the Episcopal Cafe’ asking some much needed questions about the criteria used to compile Holy Women, Holy Men. Do go read that piece. Though he does not there lay out a full argument, I believe he points us in the right direction. Ultimately, there needs to be a sense in which a calendar is christological and not reduceable to contemporary party idealogies.
I would like to suggest that the calendar of feasts should be less about pointing to exemplary lives for the sake of emulation, though this will be a very strong feature of many such celebrations, but more about recognizing that these lives represent particularly strong points of intensity in the life of the Church that witness to the saving grace of God – His salvation is here being worked out amongst us. We recognize in them that God’s life and work became undeniably clear and the feast is not to celebrate the virtue in a life as such, but to respond in praise to the God who has made Godself known. It is a mark of God’s continuing faithfulness to bring his work to completion.
To elaborate even further, I’d like to suggest that the saints point to a Life that makes our lives coherent. The trustworthiness of these lives points to the trustworthiness of the God for whom they lived. In pointing beyond themselves, there is room to ‘allow’ that even the saints will not always come off so saintly. +Rowan Williams expresses what I’m trying to say like this:
“Often all we can do is go on telling the stories of those who keep us going; I may not look very credible, but I can at least point to someone who does. And as long as there are those who effectively and bravely take responsibility for God, the doors remain open and the possibility is there for others, perhaps very slowly, to find their way to a point where they can say…’I want to live int he same world as them; I want to know what they know and drink from the same wells.” – Tokens of Trust, 28
I’m aware that +Williams was not talking about the same thing I am talking about per se, but I think this holds true for what the celebration of saints is supposed to accomplish. By doing this there will be some who will inspire us to deeper levels of discipleship by emulation, but there are others who are significant for reasons that are not explicitly ethical, for instance someone like St. Ignatius of Loyola. Just as there are many gifts, so there are many ways in which to build up the life of the Church.
The Life of the Body in this World
December 17, 2009
Part of an ongoing series on Leviticus and Law in Post-Culture War America.
"Hoarfrost" Camille Pissarro, 1873
“The question of human limits, of the proper definition and place of human beings within the order of Creation, finally rests upon our attitude toward our biological existence, the life of the body in this world. What value and respect do we give to our bodies? What uses do we have for them? What relation do we see, if any, between body and mind, or body and soul? What connections or responsibilities do we maintain between our bodies and the earth?”
- Wendell Berry, “The Body and the Earth“
More than any other book, Leviticus is often treated as one picks a strawberry bush: carefully fingering through the leaves, the reader searches out the fruit that seem to him or her ripe and pleasant while avoiding those spoiled or malformed. Each reader—like each picker—finishes the day with a different basket, a collection made more or less by personal preference rather than by any particular system. Such haphazard treatment has resulted in Leviticus—especially in twentieth century North America—being one of the most quoted yet least read biblical texts in public moral discourse.
My posts will survey creational themes in one of the most contentious sections of Leviticus, the Holiness Code (chps 17-26). These posts are not meant as an overly simplistic scheme, but an exploration into the ethics of the community that held these notoriously troublesome texts together. Of course, a degree of tension should be expected between our worldview and scriptures’—such vulnerability is what makes new insight possible. Thus it is my hope that a thematic approach will shake loose fresh takes on what this ancient literature meant—and for the person of faith—what it means.
The theme of Creation is one that permeates the Pentateuch, and the law texts in particular. It is not enough to simply record the story of creation—the authors evoke it in the phrasing of their poetry, in the clever crafting of parallel texts to tell different stories with the same words and in the underlying worldviews that feed the behaviors of ancestors and enemies. The themes are especially prevalent in the tabernacle passages (Ex. 25-31) depicted in seven divine speeches designed to evoke the seven days of creation, both ending with the Sabbath. The verbal blueprints of the tabernacle:
“[…] underscore the depiction of the sanctuary as a world, that is, an ordered supportive, and obedient environment, and the depiction of the world as a sanctuary, that is, a place in which the reign of God is visible and unchallenged, and his holiness is palpable, unthreatened, and pervasive.”- Jon Levenson, “Creation and the Persistence of Evil“
It is important for me to at least highlight this creational theme before moving into sex, dirt, food, blood and all the other titillating topics that characterize this section of Leviticus. Without bearing in mind this ancient but cohesive worldview, the plethora of prohibitions in the Law will inevitably feel heartless and arbitrary.
We can take comfort too, knowing that our ancestors in faith—ancient and distant though they are—believed that:
…vulnerable reflection and humble maintenance of these texts somehow made the holy presence of God possible amongst his people—and by extension, within creation itself.
|
||||||||||
Holiness & the Credibility of Faith
June 18, 2009
As so often happens, I’ve been running several new posts around in my head, but I wanted to throw this out because of a number of disparate posts and discussions I have gotten in around the interwebs. I understand this first post will not have a ton to say to our Mainline audience; but we have as many Evangelical readers I’m going to post it anyway, and in the next post we’ll open the conversation up to include the broader Christian community.
Having been raised in the AG, I happen to know a thing or two about the “holiness movement.” Of course we inherited it from Methodism, in a sadly degenerate form (poor Wesley, so many misunderstand him).
The wonderful thing about evangelical holiness is how gloriously simple it is, and how easily it fills one with a sense of deep piety. It can easily be summed up in a few hard and fast rules.
- Whatever you do for God’s sake don’t drink alcohol. Never mind that if you really press most conservative evangelicals they will grudgingly admit that drinking is not a “sin” (though of course within a fraction of a second they will practically scream: “BUT BEING DRUNK IS!!!@#$!”); none of that matters, it is bad
- Don’t smoke . . . anything . . . ever . . . Jesus doesn’t like smoke. Don’t chew either. Just nothing to do with that plant tobacco and its more insidious cousins.
- Don’t Swear Jesus isn’t really a fan of any bad word
- Don’t have sex before you’re married (man Christians like to talk about sex)
These are the big four, especially if you’re a teenager. These are the ones that will put you in the “your salvation is in doubt” category if you do them. There are, of course, minor rules that flow out of these.
- Don’t watch rated R and most PG-13 movies, unless Mel Gibson is in it or directed, produced or wrote it
- Don’t listen to “secular” music (you hear that Beethoven you sinful ass!)
Of course there were in living memory other marks of true Christian holiness, our parents remembered them, but conveniently forgot to tell us how they managed to not live by these rules anymore.
- Don’t go to movie theater’s at all.
- Don’t go bowling
- Don’t play with facecards
- Don’t dance – unless it’s in the Spirit (for charismatics only)
- Don’t spend any time with a non-Christian unless you are trying your darndest to convert them because they participate in the aforementioned unmarks of Christian holiness
We laugh, rightfully so, at these rules, or at least most of them. But should we? I suggest we should be appaled and disgusted by them. A couple of things to note:
1- They are all rules in the negative. There is not a single positive command here. The fruits of the Spirit and the characteristics of love as found (for example) in I Corinthians 13 are conspicuously missing
2- For all the talk of evangelicals about the Bible, these commands are strangely found nowhere straightforwardly in the Bible.
When I slowly made the transition out of conservative evangelicalism, I liked to talk about alcohol. In fact I still do. This frustrated a lot of my friends who agreed with me about alcohol. I like to pester on about it, how stupid it was that it was ever an issue. They would accuse me of making it as big a deal as conservatives, just from the other side. I still like to mention alcohol around conservatives. This is not because I still think about it; I mean I think about beer a lot, but not about its moral or spiritual ramifications or the opinions of conservatives on the topic. And I’m not doing the same thing only from another side. I think that the pre-occupation on these and similar rules within Evangelicalism is a sign of a deep problem and I want to tease some things out of this pre-occupation.
The lived Christian life in a community, and the emphasis’ thereof, create a sort of primary theology of Christian spirituality.
In simpler terms, while on the theoretical level, Conservative Evangelicals (from now on CE’s) may conform to standard evangelical orthodoxy, these and similar “rules of life” confirm unspoken theologies that are heretical mutations of true doctrine. A few of these are
- The replacement of baptism and faith as ONLY necessary marks of inclusion in the Christian community. When these and similar rules are enforced, implicitly or explicity as the true marks of Christian holiness and inclusion, the Gospel is trodden underfoot.
- The creation of a caste system of Christian worth based on the observance of shallow rules. So that while people might be a Christian if they do these things, they are not as good a Christian as X is or those who obey X’s rules. The subtle intrusion of a theology of “works righteousness” (for lack of a better term)
- The replacement of scriptural fidelity and Christian tradition’ing with strange and unscriptural rules. I just read something about this in Matthew today
These result in a plethora of problems, too many of which to write about. But, if I’m right, and I think I am, regardless of the fact that these rules may not be “evil” in themselves, when they are emphasized – and don’t underestimate how emphasized they are – they result in a community of marginalization and estrangement, of pride and failure. Rather the opposite of what the narrative of Jesus opens up.
But, far from holiness not being important, in the next post I would like to explore just how very important it is. But I will argue that Christian holiness will look VERY different than it does in many communities (not that I am excluded from such critique, far from it)
The Textual Tradition & Homosexuality
November 30, 2008
I would like to begin this post by insisting upon my humanity over this subject. I have felt a great many emotions concerning the rights and struggles of my gay brothers and sisters. I will not attempt to deny my anger or sadness, as this subject is one I have great difficulty simply intellectualizing – not taking personally.
—
There are a few passages in the Hebrew and Greek testaments that give reference to same sex relations. As I will attempt to show here, many of these interactions can be reasoned not as negative due to their same-sex status but rather an interaction that is either taboo or destructive socially. While assessing each of these scenarios keep in mind a couple of questions: Do the historical ramifications translate to our culture? Do these actions in themselves merit condemnation or simply understanding? Third, why does this matter to me?
The Abominable Act
Every sin and law mentioned in the scriptures has a qualitative rationale for its impartation. Laws against marrying cousins and siblings seem to us quite reasonable, almost unnecessary. For a culture such as the early Hebrew nation, exogamy and exclusionary tactics made interfamilial courtship and matrimony a viable solution. We are quite removed from this backdrop. We believe exogamous marriage to such an extreme is culturally taboo. Even more, we realize now the genetic disorders we are now predisposed to, many disorders that were not in existence during the early times of the Hebrew nation. Taking this in mind, we do not culturally recognize such acts as sin in the way our predecessors did. Take this in stride with laws against wearing multi-textile clothing, shaving your face at the sides , even having foreskin upon ones genitals. We are disconnected culturally from many of these sins/laws.
Take these into account in the writings of Leviticus 18. A culture straining to maintain equanimity as well as cultural identity among their Babylonian captors sought any way of weeding out those who would not assist in the populating of the culture; hence the word abomination – against culture.
Leviticus 18.22
You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (NASB)
One must ask the question “why” in reading this verse. I believe the question is not ‘what happens’ in terms of being gay but rather ‘what does not happen’. If one is sleeping with a man as they would sleep with a woman, a woman is NOT being slept with – not propagating the culture and not assisting in the development (numerically) of the people. If you read through this chapter it has a lot to say about nakedness, marriage and the act of “laying/knowing”. It should be taken into account, however, the scriptural ramifications address the act:
18.29 – “For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people.” (NASB)
A reasonable translation to this (yes from English to English) would be as such: “If you perform an act against our culture, you will be removed from our culture.”
Fast-forward several thousand years to the USA in the 21st century. Are we worried about the depletion of our population? Do we believe men sleeping with other men (ladies likewise) will propagate some sort of sterility in our world? I believe the answer to be “no”. We obviously no longer live in an exogamous society, the message of the redemption of Yahweh is no longer confined to Israel (please know I mean this historically, not theologically), we are not in captivity – fearing our race (religious as well as ethnic) to be obliterated. One should ask themselves, does the word abomination apply?
Homosexual?
The word homosexual has been a term of major dispute in the interpretation of the scriptures. Words such as malakoi, arsenokoitai, andrapodostai, have gone through significant typological and culturally influenced misinterpretation. Since the distribution of the scriptures “malakoi” itself has been translated as ‘masturbators’, ‘morally weak persons’, ‘catamites’, ‘sodomites’, ‘effeminate men’ etc. Notice each of these phrases have specific and different meanings dependent on their culture and interpretation.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (NIV)
The passage in itself seems to be a bit redundant (male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (malakoi oute arsenokoitai ) unless a little context is put in place. It was common in Greek culture for a young man to gain cultural and political esteem by sexual means. In these times a boy aged 14-18 would receive gifts, learn from and even sexually please an elder in their city in order to gain access to the social network of Greek city-states. This passage speaks specifically against actions of sexual promiscuity; more specifically acts of sex not performed in the proper ground of love and commitment. It is quite plausible to assume from this historical understanding, the boys performing sexual acts to gain esteem may be the malakoi. Likewise the older men soliciting sex the arsenokoitai.
There is no reference to acts of sex, between same sex nor opposite sex partners in this passage that are in the cradle of mutual love, affection or commitment. It is irresponsible to conclude from this passage that an act of love between two men expressed sexually can be construed as immoral.
Romans 1:24-27
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV)
As before, this passage refers not to loving acts of sexual exchange but rather lustful acts. Take in mind the real sin in this passage was misdirected worship (idolatry) as sighted above.
I would also like to note, passages concerning love are not limited to heterosexual relationships. Many scriptures refer to men who loved each other deeply. The scriptures do not paint sexual acts as ‘good’ solely because they are heterosexual. Sex must be loving to be good. Acts of lust, same sex and opposite, are sinful. Concerning this, I perceive an equation stirring in conservatives’ heads that I do not understand:
Straight + Lust = Bad
Gay + Lust = Bad
Straight + Love = Good
Gay + Love = Bad?
Gay + Lust = Bad
Straight + Love = Good
Gay + Love = Bad?
Is loving someone of the same sex bad inherently? Is it not plausible for a woman to love another woman or a man to love another man in a way sexually expressed? Where does the scripture dictate this as wrong action when done so in love? The scriptures say:
Proverbs 3:3
Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. (NIV)
John 13:34-35
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. (NIV)
1 Samuel 18:1-3
After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father’s house. And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. (NIV)
and most importantly …
1 John 4:7-8
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (NIV)
What boundary then does love have?
The church has been (and I mean this only from experiences I have had and those familiar to me) horrendous in teaching proper sexual interactions between even committed heterosexual couples. Many cite verses like Genesis 38 as completely logical rationale for oral and other types of non-life producing intercourse to be considered immoral in today’s culture. This takes scriptures such as these out of context. What form does sex have to take to be holy?
Here are a couple assumptions I have about the assumptions other people make who take an anti-gay position in theology:
1. A gay relationship can never be loving or committed
2. Gay individuals do not know god
3. God hates homosexuality
4. Gay people are sexually promiscuous
5. Being gay is weird
6. Homosexuality is effeminate/de-womanizing
2. Gay individuals do not know god
3. God hates homosexuality
4. Gay people are sexually promiscuous
5. Being gay is weird
6. Homosexuality is effeminate/de-womanizing
Let me say, I believe anyone who acts unloving and noncommittal or is promiscuous is not following the redeemer-god. And I do not believe homosexuality is inherently promiscuous or lustful.
I would agree the Christian tradition has looked unfavorably on homosexuality. I would argue however, homosexuality as a practice became wrapped up with prostitution and promiscuity (et al) and was not treated as an issue of love.
Gay individuals and marriage
While meeting with a pastor, whom I love and adore, several months ago I heard him say (and I am crassly paraphrasing) “Why do homosexuals have to get into marriage? Why do they have to affect the institution of marriage?”
I think this is an excellent question. Initially I would respond by saying, I don’t believe gay men and women are ruining marriage by getting married. While learning about Christian marriage I was under the impression marriage was the responsibility of my spouse, my Lord and me. When the man down the street beat his wife to a bloody pulp, I didn’t think my marriage was at risk of loosing some inherent value.
My marriage and its institution was and is locked tightly in the fortress of love and commitment.
When the divorce rates rise, my marriage doesn’t cheapen, it remains my personal commitment to my wife and my creator. Simply put, I believe anyone who chooses love and commitment may get married.
If one is worried about marriage somehow being ruined as an institution (and I believe this issue is more politically motivated than interpersonally) one should begin teaching couples about the importance of finance, require marriage counseling for church members, try to legalize a divorce ban (with obvious exceptions). I don’t think this is ever going to happen, though, because I don’t believe the issue has anything to do with ‘marriage’. If I may squeeze this out a bit more, I have never heard a minister (nor a politician for that matter) speak of the institution of marriage as being attacked when they hear of domestic abuse. Could this issue possibly be more about the taboo of homosexuality than us worrying about marriage?
Homosexuality and the Church
In the end what does ones view of homosexuality have to do with the church? One of my mentors asked me a few months ago, “Do you believe it’s okay to be gay?” My response to her was, “It doesn’t matter what I think.” I think the Church must answer likewise. If you think it’s wrong to be a glutton do you allow gluttons membership in your church? When searching about denominational beliefs, do you ask if they allow individuals who are financially irresponsible to take communion? This point can, as you know, go on for days. Our goal is love.
If homosexuality is wrong, a gay person will enter the church, fall in love with Jesus and be convicted of their sin – the triumph goes to our Lord. If homosexuality is right, a gay person will enter the church and fall in love with Jesus and be convicted by their sin – the triumph goes to the Lord. I am not worried because I trust my Lord.
Ultimately, I believe our reaction should be faith in love. I would urge church leadership to insist upon continuity in church theology. If you really do believe (enter sin here) is wrong then distribute judgment and consequence equally. It is upon this ground all Christians can gather, we seek after love, conviction and community.
1 Peter 4:8
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. (NIV)
Struggling to be Holy
November 29, 2008
This aims to be the last post by me on homosexuality for a while, although I have been fermenting on celibacy and Protestantism, it will have to wait; I don’t want to prattle on only about one topic.
But my proposals do seem to go against the grain of Western Evangelicalism, not least since it has been so influenced by Methodism and the “Holiness” movement. Is holiness then thrown out the window if we allow struggling sinners into the fold? I would point out that even in the holiness churches the definition of what is holy and what is not has changed with time. My father recalls how when he was a kid he couldn’t play with face cards or go bowling, let alone go to a movie theater! But just this last year, the church gave him a gift card to the movie theater for Pastor Appreciation Day and my family just played poker at our Thanksgiving gathering. How things change. So did holiness change? Have we all just gone down the slippery slope? I don’t think so, and I do not think that we are at risk of going soft on sin by recognizing the sloppy process of “sanctification.”
More important than individual holiness is recognizing holiness on the larger scale. The Holiness of the church is not determined by the individual members, but rather by it’s relationship to Christ and from the salvation that it enjoys through him. Just check out Ephesians 1:3-14 and 5:25-27. Hans Kung expresses it thus:
“It is God who distinguishes the church, sets it apart, marks it out for his own and makes it holy, by winning power over the hearts of men through his Holy Spirit, by establishing his reign, by justifying and sanctifying the sinner and thereby founding the communion of saints”
The Church p.273
So, while we are certainly called to personal holiness as a witness to the working of the Holy Spirit to re-shape us, we should not fear the reality of sin in our midst provided in prayer and discernment the congregation plots a way “onward and upward.”
*and check out this bit by none other than Father John Zizioulas on holiness, quite appropriate I think
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
