This Blog Is Going on Hiatus

AND I'M GOING ON A SABBATICAL

I started this blog to add my voice to the conversation about human sexuality that was then current in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the wider church, and our society. The debates have not ended, not by a long shot, but the ELCA has made its decisions. We have paid some small cost for doing what I believe is the right thing. Our church body is now kinder, more inclusive, and more just. We have begun to move on.

I've derived a deal of satisfaction and pleasure from writing these blogposts. I've gone on some interesting side-trips dealing with biblical interpretation and translation. I had some fun with Harold Camping's failed Judgment Day prediction in May of 2011. I have interacted with some terrific people who read and commented on my blog. Some of them have agreed with me. Some have disagreed. Either way, I've enjoyed the conversation.

Now I'm thinking this blog may have run its course.

At the end of the month, I will be taking a sabbatical, an epic bicycle tour from Seattle back to my home in Illinois. I've started a new blog, Velocipedic Saturnal, to chronicle the trip. And yes, if you read the blog, I promise to explain what "velocipedic saturnal" means.

Thanks to everyone who has read this blog. If you are a subscriber, don't unsubscribe. I may choose to revive the blog after my return from Seattle.

God bless,

Brant

Traditonal? Sure. Biblical?

NOT SO MUCH

There are no Chik-fil-A restaurants in my hometown. People tell me that they are good. Like, really good. I wouldn’t know. I’ve never eaten at one.

If Chik-fil-A wanted to build a restaurant here, I wouldn’t raise a finger to stop them. The rule of law prevails in the United States. Chik-fil-A has a right to do business here, provided they conform to the pertinent regulations. I might even welcome them because they would provide jobs and contribute to the local economy.

On the other hand, I don’t think I would choose to eat there. The reason, naturally, is that I disagree with their corporate stance on same-sex marriage. I don’t want to spend my fast-food dollar patronizing a business that contributes to organizations which actively seek to deny what I see as a basic civil right to a minority population.

I am not perfect in my moral judgment, but I buy shade-grown, organic, fair trade coffee and I try shop at Wal-Mart as little as possible. I think I could forego the untasted pleasure of waffle fries.

Then again, I’m not out to organize any boycotts. If you choose to eat at Chik-fil-A, or even to speak out against same-sex marriage, I will defend your right to do so. I will disagree with you, vigorously and vehemently, but I will not try to stop you.

These waters, after all, are somewhat murky. Even Wal-Mart sells shade-grown, organic, fair trade coffee.

In the midst of all the furious flapdoodle pursuant to Chik-fil-A’s COO Dan Cathy’s anti-marriage equality remarks, I happened to be reading through the book of Deuteronomy once more. I was forcefully reminded that, while “One Man/One Woman” is certainly a traditional definition of marriage and a longstanding value in our culture, it is not, as some people claim, the biblical definition of marriage. In fact, there is no single definition of marriage in the Bible.

If a man has two wives, one of them loved and the other disliked, and if both the loved and the disliked have borne him sons, the firstborn being the son of the one who is disliked, then on the day when he wills his possessions to his sons, he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the firstborn. He must acknowledge as firstborn the son of the one who is disliked, giving him a double portion of all that he has; since he is the first issue of his virility, the right of the firstborn is his.      (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)

I have quoted those verses from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Read them in whatever translation you like. Read them in the original Hebrew if you are able. But please note the following points:

1. These purport to be the direct words of God mediated through Moses.

2. This law assumes the possibility, even the legitimacy, of polygamy.

3. No judgment is rendered against multiple marriage, only against a father’s favoritism toward the children of one wife over those of another. 

Maybe the case for marriage as the union of one man and one woman can be made on other grounds, but simply calling it “biblical” is neither helpful nor accurate.

I don't know where the chart above originated. It has appeared, typos and all, on numerous websites. I lifted it from Dr. Robert Cargill's blog. Click it to enlarge.

Senseless

I am a bat-fan of long standing. I have probably read hundreds of Batman comic books. I'm sure that I watched every episode of the old Adam West TV series. I have watched a few of the many animated cartoons made of Batman. I have seen every big screen movie depiction of Batman, including the 1943 and 1949 serials, except the latest. Some of them more than once.

Batman is easily my favorite of the costumed superheroes, mostly because he is not "super." He has no special powers. He is human and quite mortal. His character is morally complex, psychologically twisted, and, well, open to diverse interpretations.

For my money, director Christopher Nolan's take on Batman has, with only a few missteps, been spot-on. All of which is to say that I have been anxiously anticipating the movie The Dark Knight Rises. I'm not a first-day-midnight-show kind of guy. I prefer to catch a matinee after the crowds thin a bit. But that does not mean I haven't been eager to see this film.

My excitement has been dampened somewhat by the news from Aurora, Colorado where a heavily armed man named James Cooper allegedly entered a movie theater during a midnight showing of Dark Knight Rises, and opened fire on the crowd killing a dozen people and wounding more than 50 others.

"Allegedly." Let's be clear about this. The shootings were horrifically real. We use the word "allegedly" only because Holmes has not been convicted.

When arrested in the theater's parking lot, Holmes is supposed to have told police "I am the Joker," a reference, I surmise, to the 2008 film The Dark Knight. In that movie Bruce Wayne's faithful butler Alfred obliquely refers to Batman's nemesis the Joker when he says "Some men just want to watch the world burn."

Senseless. If that word is overused in reports of this tragedy, it is because it is such an apt descriptor. When events of this type occur, we are left unable to make sense of them. Why do such things happen? How can a person go so terribly wrong? Our minds stagger and reel trying to make sense of it all, but there is no sense to be made.

Senseless. That doesn't stop pundits and bloggers from trying to make sense of things, usually by blaming their favorite scapegoats. Rep. Louie Gohmert said that the shootings were the result of "ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs." No, really, he said that. And mega-church pastor Rick Warren posted a tweet implying that blame rests on the teaching of science.

Finger-pointing and scapegoating are not helpful. Perhaps in the weeks and months ahead more helpful responses will be heard. Perhaps new ways to prevent such acts will be found. Then the tragic shootings may still be senseless, but at least we will have learned from them.

One thing I know. Occurrences such as this remind us vividly that life is short, fragile, and precious.   I have written before that I believe Jesus' core message can be summed up as "Trust God and take care of one another." Or, in more biblical language:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself. (Luke 10:27)

What else can we do?

Hold those you love close. Pray for the victims, their families, and their friends. Pray, too, for the shooter and his family, if you can. Give to the relief of any who suffer. Help, if you are able, to find ways to prevent future tragedies. Trust God. Take care of one another.





I had a nice picture of Lewis Wilson, the first screen Batman, to illustrate this post, but when I got done writing it no longer seemed appropriate.

Love’s Courage To Be Strong

This morning at my weekly pastors’ text study, we discussed, among other things, next Sunday’s second reading, Ephesians 2:11-22. In this passage the apostolic author writes that Gentile Christians have been made a part of God’s people through the work of Jesus Christ ending the former divisions of Gentiles and Jews.

For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. (Ephesians 2:14-16)

I was particularly struck by the idea that hostility had been put to death on the cross. When I commented to that effect, one of my colleagues and friends asked, “But has it?”

And of course it hasn’t. Hostility among believers seems particularly rampant these days.

I was reminded of a favorite poem, a sonnet by Edwin Arlington Robinson (1859-1935).

Calvary

Friendless and faint, with martyred steps and slow,
Faint for the flesh, but for the spirit free,
Stung by the mob that came to see the show,
The Master toiled along to Calvary;
We gibed him, as he went, with houndish glee,
Till his dimmed eyes for us did overflow;
We cursed his vengeless hands thrice wretchedly,--
And this was nineteen hundred years ago.

But after nineteen hundred years the shame
Still clings, and we have not made good the loss
That outraged faith has entered in his name.
Ah, when shall come love's courage to be strong!
Tell me, O Lord -- tell me, O Lord, how long
Are we to keep Christ writhing on the cross! (1897)

The image in my mind is this: Hostility was crucified with Christ. Like all things Christian, the death of hostility is a reality that is not yet fulfilled. When fulfilliment comes hostility will finally be destroyed. Until that day, when Christians are hostile toward one another, or toward the world that God so loves, Christ still writhes on the cross.





Scripture is quoted from the New Revised Standard Version. Robinson’s poem was copied and pasted from this website. Illustrating this post is Rembrandt’s remarkable painting Descent from the Cross by Candlelight.

Carnival!

JORDAN'S HYPOTHESIS GETS FURTHER ATTENTION

Hosted by a different website each month, the Biblical Studies Carnival is a round-up of blogposts in the field of...well...biblical studies. No matter where it is hosted, the Carnival is always full of fascinating scholarly links.

By "fascinating" I mean "fascinating to me." Your mileage and all that...

This month's Carnival is found at Mike Kok's Gospel of Mark blog. It includes a link to Joel Watts' post of Jordan's Hypothesis.

Yay, Jordan!




I found the carnival poster image at the Pocket Blonde blog, which deals with another of my interests: pens and inks.

Jordan's Hypothesis: The Real Solution To The Synoptic Problem

IN WHICH I POUR ONE OUT FOR AN OLD FRIEND

If you don't know anything about the Synoptic Problem, please click here to read a post that will give you enough information to get the joke.

My junior year, that is, my first year of seminary I shared an apartment with a a fellow student, a young man my own age, named Jordan Scharf. Jordan was intelligent, articulate, and witty.

He was my friend.

I was studying for a Master of Divinity, a professional degree. Jordan was going for a Master of Theology, an academic degree, a step toward a doctorate. As I recall, his thesis was to be something about the theologian Tielhard de Chardin. Jordan seemed destined for academic greatness.

Unfortunately, at the end of our first year of school, my friend was diagnosed with leukemia. His doctors treated the disease aggressively. Jordan went in and out of remission. He was able to return to school for a short time, but after a two year struggle, my friend succumbed to the illness. I think it was 1982, when Jordan was about 25 years old, that he died.

Okay. That's not the funny part.

Jordan once shared with me his "solution" to the Synoptic Problem. I thought it was funny, have always remembered it, and have shared it many times. Recently, when Joel Watts posted a humorous video extolling the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre Hypothesis at his Unsettled Christianity blog. I replied by posting Jordan's Hypothesis:

The Gospel of Mark was the first draft of a doctoral candidate’s dissertation. He submitted it to his advisor who suggested the need for more background information about Jesus’ birth, maybe some more teaching material, and a stronger ending. The student rewrote his dissertation and submitted the Gospel of Matthew.

His advisor thought the revision was much stronger but felt that the teaching material should be better integrated into the narrative, thought a story about Jesus’ youth might be helpful, and suggested that the genealogy could be expanded back to Adam, etc. The PhD candidate did another major revision and produced the Gospel of Luke.

Once again the advisor was critical and asked for major revisions. Frustrated, the student took drugs and wrote the Gospel of John.

Not surprisingly, Joel liked this bit of theological geek humor. He asked if he could publish it on his blog, and so it got a post of its own which drew a comment from none other than Mark Goodacre, the third name in the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre Hypothesis.

Then Dr. James McGrath picked it up and posted it on his Exploring Our Matrix blog. I've also found it on Dr. Platypus's blog.

Now, Joel has asked permission to possibly use Jordan's Hypothesis in his book. (As if permission were mine to give). This means that three decades after his untimely death, my roommate may actually be cited in a scholarly publication.

Sweet.




Anything clever or funny about my quotation of Jordan's "Hypothesis" owes directly to him. Any lapses of grammar or errors of fact are strictly my own. 

The Synoptic Problem

IT'S MORE OF A PUZZLE, REALLY

The word "synoptic" comes from the Greek and literally means "seen together." The Books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the "Synoptic Gospels" because they contain much of the same material and largely follow the same outline. They can be laid out in parallel columns for comparison and study. These three Gospels can be seen together.

The Gospel of John goes its own way. It is made up mostly of unique material and doesn't lend itself easily to comparison with the other Gospels.

The Gospel of Matthew contains roughly 90% of the Gospel of Mark. Luke contains a little more than 50% of the Gospel of Mark. Matthew and Luke also have some material, mostly teachings of Jesus, in common that is not found in Mark. All of the synoptics have some material found in none of the others.

The "Synoptic Problem," as scholars call it, is the question of just how these three Gospels are related.

The most commonly held solution to the Synoptic Problem is the so-called "Two Document Hypothesis." This theory postulates that Mark was written first. Matthew and Luke both had copies of Mark which they used as one source for their own writings. Matthew and Luke also had another common source, a hypothetical, probably written, collection of sayings that scholars call "Q."

The designation "Q" probably comes from quelle, a German word meaning "source." The simplest definition of "Q" is material found in both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.

So, the Two Document Hypothesis holds that Matthew and Luke, working independently, both used Mark and the hypothetical Q  as sources for their own Gospels. They also included a certain amount of their own material, referred to as "M" for Matthew, and "L" for Luke.  The Two Source Hypothesis is often illustrated with a diagram like this one:

Although the existence of Q is strictly hypothetical, the International Q Project, a group of notable New Testament scholars, worked to reconstruct its text as nearly as possible. Using their knowledge of how Matthew and Luke used Mark, they built what they believe to be the nearest possible approximation of what an actual Q source would have looked like. Based on this work, some scholars claim to have found two (or is it three?) layers of tradition in the Q material and have even proposed a structure for what the community that produced Q would have looked like. It is fascinating work (at least to a New Testament geek like me) but seems an elaborate structure to build on the shaky foundation of a hypothetical document.

There are other possible solutions to the Synoptic Problem.  The strongest contender is the "Farrer Hypothesis" (also known as the "Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre Hypothesis" after some of the prominent scholars who have championed it). The Farrer Hypothesis does away with the need for hypothetical sources. In this scenario Mark was written first, Matthew expanded upon Mark, and Luke was written using both Mark and Matthew as sources.

Other possible solutions to the Synoptic Problem have been proposed, but the Two Document Hypothesis and the Farrer Hypothesis have the best scholarly support. There are also highly nuanced variations of these two hypotheses.

As a student of the Bible, I find all of this quite fascinating. As a preacher, I am less concerned with the solution to the Synoptic Problem than its very existence. Paying attention to the way that Matthew, Mark, and Luke handle the same material helps me better understand what each author is trying to say. Understanding a text is a necessary step before proclaiming it.




Coming soon: The Real Solution to the Synoptic Problem. I found the illustration of the Two Document Hypothesis at this website.

Adam and Eve and the Cat in the Hat

 DISCERNING GENRE IN SCRIPTURE

When I was young, one of my favorite books told a story about a cat, an anthropomorphic cat, about the size of an adult human. This cat walked upright, carried an umbrella, and wore a red-and-white striped top hat.

In the story, the cat shows up unexpectedly to torment a pair of human children who are home alone while their mother is away. The cat's mischief causes mayhem and consternation for the youngsters. Somehow, by the story's end, the cat manages to clean up the mess it has made and beat a hasty retreat just as the children's mother returns.

The story also features a talking goldfish.

I'm sure you recognize the book I'm talking about as Dr. Seuss's The Cat in the Hat. It's a great book. It is not only highly entertaining, it also teaches some valuable life lessons. It is not, however, factual.

I think that even at age five or six I would have laughed out loud at anyone who dared suggest that the events of this story had actually occurred. It is not that kind of book.

Another favorite book from my childhood tells the story of a man and a woman who live a harmonious life together in a beautiful garden. There they enjoy a close relationship to the God who created them. They are innocently, naively, naked.

One day, when God is away from the garden, a talking snake happens along. The snake's mischief causes mayhem and consternation for the couple. Did I mention that this snake apparently has legs? Unlike the Cat in the Hat, the snake doesn't clean up after itself, and by the time God gets back to the garden, everything has gone to hell.

This is, of course, the story of Adam and Eve from the book of Genesis. It, too, is a great story and highly entertaining. Beside this, it teaches some valuable life lessons. Perhaps most importantly, it describes the nature of our life in this beautiful, broken world.

Describes, not explains.

Some Christians insist that the story, because it is in the Bible, must be factual. This overlooks the fact that the Bible contains many different genres of literature, sometimes within the same book.

Last month, in this post at the Slacktivist blog, Fred Clark had a pointed reply to those who would read such a story literally:

Seriously, people, it’s a story. If you don’t know how to read stories, then you don’t know how to read.

If you don’t know how to read stories, then you become the literacy equivalent of that person who never lets you finish a joke because they’re always interrupting with irrelevant questions and thinking they’re particularly clever for pointing out that a bar stool probably couldn’t support the weight of a gorilla.

 I sometimes encounter Christians who say that the story of Adam and Eve must be factual because, without a real Adam, there is no need for a Savior. This is wrongheaded thinking. For humankind to need a Savior, Adam does not need to have been real. Only sin needs to be real.

 A talking snake with legs!

I Don't Write All The Good Stuff

Clint has a good post titled "If It Weren't For The Bible I'd Give Up On The Bible" over at his blog Lutheran Confessions.

Seriously, if this is all the bible does, all it is good for, if this is how the average non-Christian experiences the bible as it is used in Christian community or quasi-Christian culture, then I want nothing to do with it. I'd rather leave the bible dusty and aging on the shelves it typically occupies, and move on. At this point I sympathize more with the agnostics, atheists, and post-religious.

What pulls me back from the precipice: The bible is just so damn interesting.

Read it all here.

Are Lutherans Protestant?

MY CONVOLUTED AND UNSATISFYING ANSWER 

Years ago, a fellow Lutheran told me, “The Catholics think we’re just like the Baptists; the Baptists think we’re just like the Catholics.” That statement is based on some broad generalizations. So it’s not completely true. But it’s not entirely false either.

My mother-in-law told me that she once asked a Lutheran pastor, “Are Lutherans Protestant?” I assume that she must have attended a service at a Lutheran church. Worship in many Lutheran congregations is very Roman Catholic in its style and feel. In fact, our published Communion liturgies are closely based on the Roman rite. I have several times had Roman Catholic visitors to my church remark to the effect that “You worship just like us!”

I’m sure that the pastor, in his reply to my mother-in-law, was well-intended. Unfortunately, his answer was convoluted and unsatisfying. I’m not, however, sure that I can do any better. The fact is the question “Are Lutherans Protestant?” is not so straightforward as it may appear.

On the one hand, Lutherans are the original Protestants. The word might not have been invented for us, but we are the first Christian group to whom it was applied. Only later were other Christians, who were not affiliated with Rome or the Orthodox (capital O) churches, called “Protestants.” In this general sense of “neither Roman Catholic nor Orthodox,” Lutherans are unequivocally Protestant.

On the other hand, some Lutherans pointedly reject the title “Protestant.” Lutheranism, they say, is not a protest movement. It is a reform movement. Luther and his compatriots sought only to correct some abuses within Roman Catholicism and thereby to restore the Church to a pristine state of theology and practice. To the end of his days, they (correctly) point out, Martin Luther considered himself a good Catholic (or was it “catholic?"). Later, more radical reformers, may deserve the title “Protestant,” but not us.

I have to admit that this point of view is appealing. Unfortunately, the idea that Luther’s reforms did not involve protest strikes me as a romantic fiction. In fact, the early Lutherans protested many Roman Catholic practices (e.g. the sale of indulgences) and doctrines (e.g. papal primacy). It also seems to me that there is an essentially, and perhaps dangerously, conservative impulse behind this thinking. If Luther’s reforms were not protests, but an attempt to repristinate Christianity, and if those reforms were successfully enacted in Lutheranism, then further reform, change, and progress are neither necessary nor desirable. Lutheranism then becomes locked in the 16th century, like a prehistoric insect encased in amber.

Still, I don’t want to move too quickly to embrace the term “Protestant.” The reason is that Lutherans are not “just like the Baptists” or any other Protestant group. (And yes, I know, those other Protestants are not all alike either). In theology and practice Lutherans have not really strayed too far from our Roman Catholic roots. Though not Roman, we remain a part of the Church catholic. We affirm the historic creeds and we abandon tradition only when it stands in the way of the proclamation of the Gospel. An old theology prof of mine described Lutheranism as a movement within the catholic Church.

Some Lutherans like to describe themselves as “evangelical catholics.” That’s really not a bad description. We are evangelical because of our commitment to the gospel (the "evangel") of justification by grace through faith. We are catholic because we are a part of the universal Church. Unfortunately the “evangelical catholic” moniker is applied inconsistently. Sometimes it is used in ways that are polemical, divisive, or just plain silly.

So what shall we say? Lutheranism is a movement within the Church catholic. Lutherans have certain distinctive emphases that set us apart from both the Roman Catholics and other Protestants. The Lutheran distinctives are gifts that we bring to the whole Church. We are catholic but not Roman. We are Protestant but with an asterisk.




What do you think? Whether you are Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, or some other kind of Protestant, I'd like to hear your take on the question "Are Lutherans Protestant?"

Too Good Not To Share

Over at Huffington Post, Esther Hamori, Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible at Union Seminary, has a clear and incisive article titled, Biblical Standards for Marriage. Quote:

While the traditional view is that the Bible sets standards, and cultures either follow these standards or don't, the Bible itself shows us that cultural norms and biblical positions shifted in tandem. This does not mean that anything goes; it's simply what we see in the biblical texts themselves. It does not mean that there are no standards; there were always incest taboos, for example, but what counts as incest is culturally dictated, and our society does not embrace many biblical perspectives on this (e.g., the ideal of marrying one's first cousin). It does not mean that God is a pushover; it shows, if anything, a God who will engage people in the world in which they live.

Click here to read it all.

Gender Language

 PART 10 IN A SERIES ON TRANSLATION

Gender language is one of the most contentious issues in biblical translation. "Inclusive language" Bibles are welcomed by some and reviled by others. The Today's New International Version (2005) was scuttled by controversy concerning its inclusive language, while the masculinist English Standard Version (2001) has been warmly adopted by "complimentarian" churches.

Unlike English, biblical Greek and Hebrew are gendered languages. In Hebrew every noun and adjective is either masculine or feminine. Greek has three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. Grammatical gender does not necessarily correlate to any physical reality. For example, a city is not female, but the Greek word πόλις (polis = "city") is feminine.

The Greek word ἀδελφός (adelphos) means "brother," a male sibling. It's (nominative) plural is αδελφοι (adelphoi). The Greek word ἀδελφή (adelphe) means "sister," a female sibling, and has its own plural, αδελφαι (adelphai). When refering to a mixed group of male and female siblings the masculine plural αδελφοι (adelphoi) is used. How, then, should this word be translated?

Context is a key factor in translating αδελφοι (adelphoi). In some instances it clearly means "male siblings" as at Mark 12:20 ff, where the Sadducees tell Jesus a story about a woman who married seven brothers in succession. In other cases, it is not so clear. The Apostle Paul regularly refers to his fellow believers as αδελφοι (adelphoi). Are his words intended only for male believers? In some cases I think it is clear that Paul is addressing both men and woman. I've heard it suggested that the Christian community at Galatia was exclusively male, and I have a pet, though unproven, theory that the community addressed in 1 John was all male. Does that mean that αδελφοι (adelphoi) should be translated as "brothers" in Galatians and 1 John? Or does the message of these works apply also to female readers?

Don't even start me on the word ἄνθρωπος (anthropos), a masculine noun that refers to a  human being without reference to their physcial sex.

The bottom line is: modern English doesn't work the same way that biblical Hebrew and Greek work. Translation always involves compromise. Personally, I prefer to err on the side of inclusion. I recognize. however,  that this reflects my own theological biases, just as masculinist translations reflect someone else's theological biases. There is a lot of sloganeering and vituperation around issues of gender language. Perhaps it is wise simply to note that the issues exist and that they are by no means simple.

When choosing a Bible, be sure to read the translators' preface carefully. It will probably tell you a lot about the translators' approach to gender language. When reading a translation of the Bible, pay attention to footnotes.



Don't take any wooden nickels.

I Really Want To Give This Bible Away!

REALLY!

So, if you have any interest at all in the Common English Bible...even if it's just a passing curiosity...reply to this post. Give me your name and mailing info. I'll forward it to the publisher and they will send you a FREE paperback copy of the CEB. FREE.

I promise that I will not publish or in any way misuse your personal information!

The CEB is a good, readable translation of the Bible. So, come on, sport, whaddaya got to lose?

  
I mean really what do you have to lose? I mean it's free and all.

Good Article at Guardian.UK

There is a good article titled "How Biblical Literalism Took Root" by Stephen Tomkins over at the guardian.uk website. A teaser:

One practical problem of this text mania is that the Bible, unlike the church, can't answer questions, clarify earlier statements, arbitrate disagreements or deal with new developments. So those in search of religious certainty have to find it all in the text: if it says the earth was created in six days, or that gay sex is an abomination, them's the facts, end of story. And if it forbids charging interest, well there's always wriggle room.

 Click here to read the rest.

Ecumenical Rep Stuff

OR, HOW I SPENT MY MOTHERS DAY

Yesterday, after a Mothers Day luncheon with my mom and mother-in-law, I had the privilege to attend a service of "Solemn Vespers in anticipation of the Episcopal Ordination of the Reverend Monsignor David J. Malloy, J.C.L., S.T.D. as the Ninth Bishop of Rockford." I was there as a representative of the Northern Illinois Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. My Bishop, Gary Wollersheim, was not able to attend.

I was running close on time and had to park three blocks away from the Cathedral of St. Peter in Rockford. I hurried along and entered the cathedral just behind a group of four priests. A woman wearing a name badge greeted us. "Fathers this way," she said.

"I'm Lutheran."

"Oh, this way," she said. Taking me by the wrist she hustled me to the very front of the sanctuary and led me to a pew with a sign taped to its end.

ECUMENICAL GUESTS AND CIVIC OFFICIALS

I was seated between 2 aldermen.

The service was conducted with a high degree of professionalism. We sang a hymn and intoned three psalms. There was a brief reading followed by a "Welcome by Rector, Father Carl Beckman, to Ecumenical and Civic Leaders." I stood as my name was called. "We are honored by your presence," the rector said to all of the leaders. I'm not used to being treated as a dignitary.

Next came a homily by retiring bishop Doran. Then Bishop-elect Malloy made his profession of faith and oath of loyalty.Bishop Doran blessed Msgr. Malloy's miter, crosier, and ring, the insignia of his new office.  We sang the Magnificat. as the altar was censed, prayed intercessions and recieved a triune benediction.

The Ecumenical and Civic leaders were ushered into a reception hall where we were given a gift, a handsome glass paperweight which I have given to my own Bishop. The Bishop-elect greeted us individually. As I shook his hand, I gave him greetings from Bishop Wollersheim and assured him that we in the Northern Illinois Synod would pray for him.

Later, as I walked the three blocks back to my car, I found a dollar bill in the street. All-in-all it was a good day.





Something I noticed: when Bishop Doran handed his crosier to anyone else, they did not touch it directly, but held it with a cloth. Can anyone tell me whaddup with that? The photo of Bishop Malloy, at his ordination, came from the website of the Rockford Register Star.

Just Realized

I haven't given a Bible away this week. Want it? The first reply to this post gets a paperback edition of the Common English Bible. Give me your name and mailing address. I WILL NOT PUBLISH YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION! I promise.

A Reflection on Pastoral Ministry

 IN WHICH WE REVISIT PHILIP AND THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH

My sermon yesterday was based on the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch from Acts 8. I drew on some of the same ideas that I had also used in this post. The main point of my sermon was that the Gospel of Jesus Christ welcomes the outcast and invites into the kingdom of God those whom we might choose to exclude.

Now ours is a small congregation. We really have only one child member, a bright and inquisitive 10 year old girl. Saturday evening, going over my sermon, I decided that I'd better call her mother.

"I don't usually run my sermon past anyone before I preach it, but I thought you should know that tomorrow I'll be talking about the Ethiopian eunuch. I don't want to raise any awkward questions for you. I don't plan to explain what a eunuch is, but I plan to say, 'One form of genital mutilation was required for a man to enter the temple; another form of genital mutilation would keep him out.' I'll find a way around it if you want me to."

She thought about it before she said, "That should be OK. She's at that age where she's curious about sex. We try to give her honest answers. If she asks, I think we can handle it."

"Okay," I said. "As long as your answer isn't 'Let's go ask the pastor.'"

We both laughed.

No one had signed up to serve as lector yesterday. That didn't worry me. I have members I can call on at the last minute and trust that they will do a good job. I drafted a woman to read before the service started. The assigned lection uses the word eunuch about five times. My last-minute lector was doing a great job, but the third time the word came up, she stopped, looked at me, and asked, "How do you pronounce that?"

Did I mention that ours is a small congregation?

I said, "Yew-NICK. You're doing fine."

She finished the readings. The congregation began singing the Alleluia verse as she stepped down from the dais. I stopped her for a second and quietly asked, "Do you know what a eunuch is?"

"No," she admitted.

So, a few minutes later, I found myself in the pulpit, departing from my notes.

"I wasn't planning to do this, but I think I'd better explain about eunuchs. A eunuch is a man who has been fixed the way a cat or dog is fixed."

There is no deep meaning in this blog post, just an acknowledgement of something that my colleagues in pastoral ministry knows: Sometimes being a pastor is a lot of fun, but even when it's not fun, it is always interesting.

Oh, and a request for any laypeople who happen to read this: please pray for your pastors. They, after all, pray for you.




I snagged Rembrandt's painting of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch  from wiki.

Birthday Bible Giveaway

Today is my birthday. In celebration, I'm giving away another paperback copy of the Common English Bible. The first person to reply to this post wins it! Give me your name and mailing information, so I can forward it to the publisher. As always, I promise that I will not publish your private information!

 

That can't be my cake. There aren't enough candles.

Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch

WHOM WOULD YOU EXCLUDE?

To begin, this Sunday's first reading:

An angel from the Lord spoke to Philip, “At noon, take the road that leads from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a desert road.) So he did. Meanwhile, an Ethiopian man was on his way home from Jerusalem, where he had come to worship. He was a eunuch and an official responsible for the entire treasury of Candace. (Candace is the title given to the Ethiopian queen.) He was reading the prophet Isaiah while sitting in his carriage. The Spirit told Philip, “ Approach this carriage and stay with it. ”

Running up to the carriage, Philip heard the man reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, “ Do you really understand what you are reading? ”

The man replied, “Without someone to guide me, how could I?” Then he invited Philip to climb up and sit with him. This was the passage of scripture he was reading:

Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter
and like a lamb before its shearer is silent
so he didn’t open his mouth.
In his humiliation justice was taken away from him.
Who can tell the story of his descendants
because his life was taken from the earth?

The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, about whom does the prophet say this? Is he talking about himself or someone else?” Starting with that passage, Philip proclaimed the good news about Jesus to him. As they went down the road, they came to some water. The eunuch said, “Look! Water! What would keep me from being baptized?” He ordered that the carriage halt. Both Philip and the eunuch went down to the water, where Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Lord’s Spirit suddenly took Philip away. The eunuch never saw him again but went on his way rejoicing. 40 Philip found himself in Azotus. He traveled through that area, preaching the good news in all the cities until he reached Caesarea. (Acts 8:26-40)

I’m really not clear on just what the Ethiopian eunuch was doing in Jerusalem. The text says that “he had come to worship” but, as I understand it, he would have been barred from any meaningful participation in Jewish worship. As an Ethiopian he was probably not Jewish. He may have been a God-fearing gentile, but as a eunuch he would not be allowed to become a proselyte, a full convert. And as a eunuch he would not have been allowed to participate in the ritual of the Jerusalem temple.

It’s a curious thing: one form of genital mutilation was required to get into the assembly (Genesis 17:14). Another form of genital mutilation would keep a man out (Deuteronomy 23:1). I guess God’s people have always had an unseemly fascination with genitalia.

At any rate, Philip told the good news of Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch, and when they came upon water in the wilderness (resonant as that phrase is with imagery from the Hebrew Scriptures), the eunuch asked, “What is to prevent me from being baptized?” The answer, apparently, was “Nothing.”

That answer was not good enough for some early Christians. By the second century, a verse had been added to this narrative:

Philip said to him, “If you believe with all your heart, you can be.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is God’s Son.” (Acts 8:37, rightly relegated to a footnote in modern Bibles).

I think I can understand the impulse behind this added verse. We can’t go around baptizing people willy-nilly, can we? But in some ways this is a troubling addition. It undermines one important point of the story. The Ethiopian eunuch was an outsider. Rules and regulations had kept him from participating in worship of the Lord, the God of Israel. In Jesus Christ, God was now reaching out beyond the borders of Israel to include even an Ethiopian eunuch among the people of God. The most marginalized, the most excluded, were now being brought into the fold, and nothing...NOTHING...could prevent them from being baptized.

Someone has said that whenever we draw a line to exclude people, Jesus stands on the other side of the line. Jesus stood on the side of the Ethiopian eunuch. Who does Jesus stand with today?

To state that question another way, whom would you exclude from your fellowship? Whom would you marginalize?

Some Christians exclude women from roles of leadership in their churches. In those churches, Jesus stands with the women. Some churches marginalize lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered individuals. (An unseemly fascination with genitalia persists among God's people to this day). In those churches Jesus stands on the LGBTQ side of the line. I am convinced of this.

But here is where it gets tricky for me. Although I am convinced that it is wrong to exclude or marginalize women and LGBTQ individuals, I find that I want to exclude and marginalize the Christians who disagree with me on these issues.

Ut-oh...

Does this mean that Jesus stands on their side of the line that I have drawn? I’m afraid so. And though I don’t think that Jesus agrees with them, nevertheless, he stands with them, loving them as his sisters and brothers, inviting me to cross the line that I have drawn, to embrace the brothers and sisters with whom I disagree.

Lord, increase my faith! (Luke 17:5)

If you are the kind of person who checks out parenthetical Bible references...(Isaiah 56:1-8). Scripture quotes are from the Common English Bible. I snagged the image of Lambert Sustris' 16th century painting of Philip baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch at wiki.

While I'm Thinking Of It

WHO WANTS A BIBLE?

Reply to this post with your name and mailing address, I will not publish your information. I will forward it to the publisher and they will mail you a shiny new paperback copy of the Common English Bible, all for free!