Along the Way: At the Bottom of “The Slippery Slope”

When I wrote ‘For the Sake of the Bride’ in 2014, I received immediate pushback and censure from colleagues at Asbury Theological Seminary, and from the larger conservative Wesleyan world.  One parachurch group described me as “the latest evangelical to go down the slippery slope.”  As it turned out, there was an exodus by many people from evangelicalism in 2014, orthodox Christians who saw the movement becoming increasingly fundamentalistic/legalistic in theology and judgmental in temperament—an exodus which still continues six years later. [1]


The recent dismissal of two Asbury University professors for being LGBTQ+ affirming has taken me back to “the slippery slope,” which they have now surely gone down in the eyes of some of their colleagues and others for whom being an LGBTQ+ ally is the new unpardonable sin in the “one strike and you’re out” game being played in some denominations, educational institutions, and parachurch organizations. [2]


The phrase “the slippery slope” has become the  indication of someone’s abandonment of faith (as defined by the group leveling the charge), a stigma akin to being “unclean” in the Bible, so that offenders are henceforth placed outside the camp.  “The slippery slope” is the icky exit offered to those who once were found, but now are lost—a means that relegates offenders to persona non grata status.


Having been alleged to have gone down that slope, I want to send back a report from the bottom of it.  I offer it to the two Asbury University professors, who now find themselves on the slope—and to any others who may be on it in the future.


Interestingly, critics only speak of the slope, leaving the bottom to a speculative nether-world status akin to the lake of fire in the Book of Revelation. [2]  But the fact is, going down the slope is not only survivable, there is abundant living at the bottom—something critics don’t want folks to know.  At the outset, there is pain.  No one sets out to be rejected. But as the initial wound heals, it becomes a place of  expanded wellness and wholeness.  Here are some things at the bottom of “the slippery slope.”


First, there is an expanded understanding of friendship.  Jeannie and I have some longtime friends with us at the bottom, but a plethora of new friends now added to the list–a lot of them are LGBTQ+ people.  At the bottom of the slope, we experience friendship not contingent on secondary (and often invisible, fleeting) factors. We have found community created not by institutional ethos statements that are required to be signed by those who want to be students, faculty, or employees.  We have friendships that are not subject to being lost at a moment’s notice or by a declarative act. 


Second, there is an expanded vision of humanity and the oneness of the human family.  Recognizing the nonbinary nature of creation (revealed in Scripture and confirmed by the sciences), we recognize the sacred variety of people (Psalm 139:14), and we are enriched by the love they show and the gifts they brIng.  At the bottom of the slope, Joseph’s coat of many colors is our clothing, and the imago dei is the basis of our life together.


Third, new passages of Scripture create the vantage point.  The one that has become my North Star is Colossians 3:11, “Christ is all and in all.” [4]. The first three words (a statement of Christ’s Lordship) has been at the center of my faith for nearly sixty years.  The last three are words I see better now in the last six years.  This verse has become a window for seeing other passages in a new light (especially the Covenant, the two great commandments and the fruit of the Spirit), and for understanding that Jesus (the Word made flesh) is our lens for interpreting Scripture, because in the final analysis, he is the Gospel. [5]


Fourth, there is an expansion of community.  I now understand in new ways that there is a wideness in God’s mercy, a breadth of faith not just a depth.  A host of fully-devoted Christ followers (living and dead) have become mentors, opening onto a grander vision of the Kingdom of God.  Christians across the theological spectrum (and some from other religions) have increased the size of the great cloud of witnesses (Hebrewsv12:1) beyond what it once was for me.  There is indeed light from many lamps.


Fifth, at the bottom of the slope, I find God’s new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) and I recognize that I am alive at a time when God is doing a new thing, as God has done in the world and church before.  We are in a new pentecost, with a fresh wind blowing and new wineskins being made to hold God’s new wine. [6]  More than anything else, at the bottom of the slope, I find the path of an ongoing journey into the new heaven and new earth (e.g. Ephesians 1:9-10, Colossians 1:15-20).  And I say with E. Stanley Jones, “I am a Christian under construction.  God isn’t finished with me yet!”


The past six years, at the bottom of the slope, have yielded these treasures and more. The bottom of the slope enables me to understand that you have to be outside the box in order to realize it’s a box.  As long as you stay inside, it looks like a room, and fellow insiders decorate it so as to make you believe it is the only room worth living in.  By their words and deeds they say, “You need not go elsewhere; indeed, you must not—or you will head down the slippery slope.”


Don’t believe it….get out of the box….come on down!  The bottom of the slope is a place of fresh air,  where you can drink freely of the Living Water.



[1] David Gushee, ‘Still Christian: Following Jesus Out of American Evangelicalism’ (WJK, 2017).  David’s experience of pushback and rejection is very similar to mine.  We have compared notes.  He will publish a book in August that will further describe the validity and vitality of a post-evangelical Christian faith.  I tell my story in chapter one of ‘Holy Love: A Biblical Theology for Human Sexuality.’ (Abingdon Press, 2019).


[2] The U.S. Government allows private Christian institutions to be exempt from Title IX  anti-discrimination laws.  Both Asbury institutions have been granted exemptions.  This post is not about the legality of their actions (based on ethos statements that are not LGBTQ+ affirming), but rather about the morality of their actions.  Christians always distinguish between legality and morality.


[3]  This is exactly the image Franklin Graham used in the July/August 2014 issue of Decision magazine, with the cover title, “Cowards Destined for the Lake of Fire.”


[4] E. Stanley Jones wrote, “Nothing in all literature can compare with this” in his book, ‘In Christ’ (Abingdon Press, 1961), Saturday, Week 40.  


[5] Today, this is referred to as The Jesus Hermeneutic.  Richard Rohr describes major features of it in his book, ‘What Do We Do With The Bible?’ (CAC Publishing, 2018), 41-56.  I write similarly in my book, ‘Holy Love: A Biblical Theology for Human Sexuality’ (Abingdon Press, 2019), 23-28.


[6] I write more about this in my book, ‘Fresh Wind Blowing’ (Cascade Books, 2013.












Posted in Along the Way

Love: New Testament Style

​Our first step into love in Christian history occurs before we leave the Bible itself.  It happens in the New Testament.  In this post I will illustrate love from three vantage points found in the New Testament.

First, the priority of love.  Jesus established it in John 15:9-17, calling love “my commandment” and enjoining it as the ultimate task of the apostles.  Paul carried the principle into the Greco-Roman world, making love “the greatest of these” in his message (1 Corinthians 13).  In doing this, Jesus’ was fulfilling the Law (Matthew 5:17) and Paul was establishing it as the cornerstone of missiology.

We have already noted the priority of love in our look at the Trinity.  Here is the opportunity to see that the first Christians “got the memo” and wove the thread of love into the tapestry of the Church as its golden thread.  For them, love was the core of their theology—the sign that they were living for God alone. The priority of love moves right into the next point. 

Secondly, the practice of love. The commitment of early Christianity to love was seen on the first day of the Church.  Immediately after Pentecost, the first Christians had the daunting task of organizing the believers whose numbers had swelled in one day from 120 in the Upper Room to at least 3,000. The administrative challenge alone was breath taking, but in Acts 2:42-47 we see that the effort was as much about substance and spirit as it was about structure, if not more.  It’s a biblical confirmation of the principle that form follows function.

And clearly, as these verses in Acts show, the church’s function was to manifest the two great commandments.  Their design gave expression to worship and service, and in so doing it was a fellowship of love.  The truth of this was not in their naming themselves a loving church, but in the surrounding society’s declaration as captured in Tertullian’s ‘Apology’ (chapter 39), It is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. “See how they love one another, they say.”  As we say it today: the proof was in the pudding, or as Jesus put it, “You will know them by their fruit” (Matthew 7:16)

The first two points of this post lead into the third one: the preservation of love.  The Church did not exist long before it faced the temptation to make its theology of love a principle without practice.  In his old age, and likely as the last living member of the Twelve, John made it is mission to call out the counterfeiting of love by making it a dangling doctrine divorced from behavior. 

He wrote succinctly, yet powerfully, about the problem in 1 John 4: 7-21.  Cutting through all the rhetoric, John simply said, “Those who don’t love their brothers and sisters whom they have seen can hardly love God whom they have not seen” (4:20).  [1]  Professed love without expressed love makes our witness a lie, John said, in the same way James had said earlier to the Church, “Faith is dead when it doesn’t result from faithful activity” (James 2:17)—activity clearly that of love.

The trajectory of Christian history is set before we leave the New Testament.  It continues from then until now: love abides.


[1] Some have alleged that the phrase “brothers and sisters” limits the expression of love to fellow Christians, but there is nothing in this passage to support that.  In fact, the context (e.g. 1 John 3: 18-24 and in 5:4) shows the victory of love is a world victory, not just one inside the Church.

Posted in Love

Love: Eager to Love

​Far from being an abstract concept, the Trinity is what makes us us eager to love.  We are motivated to love because we are made like God, Who is Love. We love, as John put it, because God first loved us (1 John 4:19).

I wish you could have known Clyde Latimer.  I met him during my college years, and I imagine Clyde was at least forty years my senior.  He was a retired rough-neck worker in East Texas oil fields, and he lived many years with no faith in Christ.  In fact, the “gentle Jesus meek and mild” image only made Clyde less interested.  I remember Clyde saying that a lot of Christian art turned him farther away from Jesus because “it looked like one gust of wind would blow him away.”

But as with so many others, the Hound of Heaven was on Clyde’s trail, and his “come to Jesus” experience happened when, during a time of depression, Clyde read the 23rd Psalm.  His response was, “I can love a God like that!”—a response that changed his life.  Clyde lived his remaining years loving God and loving others because in the Shepherd, he had found love (or better, been found by love) as never before.

If we keep the Trinity locked in a conceptional/doctrinal prison, we will never understand why we believe in it in the first place.  But when we recognize the Godhead as a passionate Lover, we will find ourselves eager to love, saying through our words and deeds, like Clyde Latimer did, “I can love a God like that!”

This is why the image of fire has been used in Scripture and tradition to describe someone filled the Spirit—the fire of love. The next round of posts in this series will move through Christian history looking at selected people whose hearts burned with love.

Posted in Love

Along The Way: Tending the Flock

​“Tend the flock of God among you” (1Peter 5:2)

During the course of my thirty two years as a seminary professor, I taught courses in United Methodist history, theology, and polity in two theological schools and one Course of Study program.  In doing so, I came to see the differences between these three strands which weave together to create a denominational heritage.

In particular, I saw the distinction between theology and polity, and how in an operational sense, polity often consumes more time, money, and energy.  And while this is a kind of chicken/egg reality where theology and polity are never completely separated (and where one can generate reflection on the other), it is still fair to say that institutional Christianity is given over to polity more than to theology.  Our United Methodist Book of Discipline is a documentary illustration of that fact.  Sociology of religion takes precedence over theology of religion, sometimes leading to more consideration and conflict over the container than the content.

That reality is once again playing out in the dynamics directing the discussions and debates swirling around the future of Methodism as it has been institutionalized in The United Methodist Church since 1968, and before then in pre-UMC days. [1]  

All this came to focus for me in a conversation with an LGBTQ+ person who said, “What’s happening in the UMC has ceased to be about people like me, it is about power and control.  Sometimes I wonder if it has ever been about us.  But whatever the case, LGBTQ+ people have been eclipsed by what the institution is going to look like in its various expressions.”

Part of me wanted to say, “No, you are  still what it’s all about,” but I did not respond that way.  I have been trained to know that in times of oppression, it is the voice of the oppressed that needs to be heard.  And in this case, it was a voice speaking from seeing thing like the following questions increasingly taking center stage in the futuristic controversy…

               –what happens to pensions?

               –how do congregations and Conferences decide whether to stay or go?

               –how do those who leave maintain their church property?

               –how many regions will there be, and what will they look like?

               –how much money will departing entities receive?

               –if there are bishops, what tenure will they have?

               –how will boards and agencies need to be restructured?

Let me be clear: I understand that institutions must deal with the sociology of religion.  I am not trying to create an either/or dynamic in this post.  All I want to highlight is that it is possible to become so institutionally focused that we lose sight of the reason we’re doing all this in the first place.  The Church is people, and the institutional side of Christianity dares not lose that.

The person’s words, “It’s no longer about us….sometimes I wonder if it has ever been,” cleaned the lens of my mind, returning me to the center.  His remark hit home against the backdrop of the questions above, and many others like them.  And in the revelation that his words provided, I asked myself the question, “How do we prevent LGBTQ+ people from being lost in the shuffle….from becoming grist for the institutional mill…..from becoming invisible in something alleged to be about them?”

And from the soil of that question arose the sprout of an answer—a sprout emerging from Peter’s words, “Tend the flock of God among you.”

Let the institutionalists give themselves  to the sociological task.  We have a process and delegates chosen for this task. They will come up with something, and each of us will know where and how to locate ourselves in what they create.

Instead, give yourself to the pastoral task.  Peter’s words describe it.  So do words from Paul, “Watch yourselves and the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as supervisors, to shepherd God’s church” (Acts 20:28).

More recently, Eugene Peterson formulated what he called the pastor’s question, “Who are these people, and how can I be with them in such a way that they can become what God is making them?” [2]  His question is a gift and guide for ministry in general but it is particularly useful in preventing LGBTQ+ people from being forgotten in the institutional process.  Played out for them, it means things like this…

(1) Visiting with LGBTQ+ people in your congregation.  Ask them the Wesleyan question, “How is it with your soul? “—that is, how do they feel about what’s happening?  Where do they feel encouraged?  Where are they discouraged?  How can the congregation be more loving to and caring of them?  These are the folks who have not left the church.  Befriend them.

(2) Attend and become active in community groups made up of LGBTQ+ people and allies.  A lot of people you never see in church will be there, and if you care for them or ever intend to hear from them, you must go where they are.  Some groups will be faith-oriented; others will be civic in nature.  Become familiar with both.  Together they provide a panoramic view of your locale.  The world is your parish.

(3) Utilize existing resources to increase your understanding of LGBTQ+ people, the challenges they face, and how churches have been in ministry to them.  Reconciling Ministries Network has an excellent resource list of organizations and materials on their website.  I have also placed a resource list on my Oboedire site.

(4) As you do these things, prayerfully “ask, seek, and knock” to discern how you can deepen your personal involvement and how you can engage your congregation on behalf of LGBTQ+ people.  Turn your affirmations about inclusion into actions.

In calling these things pastoral acts, I am not limiting them to the clergy.  Anyone can do these things.  

“Tend the flock of God among you.”   It’s the means of insuring that LGBTQ+ people do not become invisible to you.  It is the way we answer the question “Lord, when did we see you?” as Jesus intends.

 

[1] Ashley Boggan-Dreff, ‘Entangled: A History of American Methodism, Politics, and Sexuality (New Room Books, 2018).  She offers the definitive work today to show how we got to be where we are today.

 

[2] Eugene Peterson, ‘The Contemplative Pastor’ (Word Publishing, 1989), 11.

 

 

Posted in Along the Way

Along the Way: Real Love

It’s not even noon, and my email box, facebook page, and related social media have presented a host of people and groups, all espousing love as being at the heart of what they are saying and doing.  And not surprisingly, some go on to solicit financial contributions, appealing for would-be donors to “support love.”

Well…yes.  What else would anyone in their right mind want to support?  And if we factor Jesus into the picture, the obvious becomes even more so.

But the moment we make Jesus the portrait and pattern of love, the momentum shifts from the espouser of love to the recipient.  Jesus reframes the narrative away from the giver to the receiver.  For him, the question is not do we allege to be lovers, the question is do people feel loved by us?

Do children feel loved by their parents?

Do wives feel loved by their husbands?

Do LGBTQ+ people feel loved by Christians–or any others, for that matter?

Do non-whites feel loved by white people?

Do non-Christians feel loved by Christians?

Do co-workers feel loved by their colleagues and employers?

Do the “dreamers,” immigrants, and refugees feel loved by this nation?

Do the poor feel loved by the rich?

Not every context uses the word love to define things.  Sometimes the word is ‘respected’….’safe’….‘cared for’….’treated fairly’…. ‘befriended’….’protected’….etc.  But love is the word we all like to claim because we know “the greatest of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13:13).  So, every group claims to be loving.

But Jesus does not let us get away with that. For him, the story does not end with what we say. He predicates the reality of love not on those who claim to love, but on those who are the said to be loved.  To say, “I love you” means nothing if the other person does not feel loved.

Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 5:16).

Whenever I claim to love someone, Jesus immediately invites that person into the room and says, “Steve claims to love you? Do you feel loved by him?”  That’s the moment when allegation become authentic, or dies on the vine.  That’s the moment when words become Gospel, or just remain words.

The “Jesus Test” of love is whether the words of our testimony land in the hearts of those we claim to love, or hit the ground in front of them with a deadening thud.  The historical principle is this: don’t ask the sender about love, ask the receiver.  Until others feel loved by us, we are only using the word love as a salve to cover over reality and make ourselves feel good.

Jesus loved in word, and deed.  He told people he loved them, and they felt loved by him.  He defines the reality of love for the rest of us.

Posted in Along the Way

Love: Spirit Love

​Galatians 5:22 is an awkward sentence: “The fruit of the Spirit is…” and then we read nine words.  At first glance, it seems that the sentence should read, “The fruits of the Spirit are…” but it doesn’t.  The reason is significant.

The sentence is singular because the fruit is singular.  The fruit of the Spirit is love—what John Wesley called “the root of all the rest.” [1]  The other eight words are expressions of love…

          Joy—love’s celebration

          Peace—love’s wellness

          Patience—love’s endurance

          Kindness—love’s compassion

          Goodness—love’s being

          Faithfulness—love’s trustworthiness

          Gentleness—love’s tenderness

         Self-control—love’s humility

The phrase “fruit of the Spirit” means that the Spirit makes us what God is, which is love.  Inwardly in character and outwardly in conduct we are made to be loving.  The Holy Spirit, as the third person of the Trinity, is the mediator of love.  Growth in love is what it means to mature. [2]

We are familiar with the phrase, “You are what you do.”  It communicates the truth that our actions pattern us.  But there is a deeper truth, “You do what you are.”  Our actions emerge from our essence—at least they’re meant to.  It is the indwelling Spirit, who is love, who produces the fruit of the fruit of the Spirit, which is love.  The Holy Spirit is the spirit of love, and when we are filled with the Spirit, we are filled with live—and  thus, most like God.  Through the Spirit, the love of the Trinity comes alive in and through us.

[1] John Wesley, ‘Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament’ (1755).  His comment about Galatians 5:22.

[2] E. Stanley Jines’ book, ‘Christian Maturity’ (Abingdon Press, 1957) is the best study I know of that connects love and maturity.  His book, ‘Growing Spiritually’ (Pierce & Washabaugh, 1953)  explores the fruit of the Spirit in depth.

Posted in Love

Shepherd’s Care: The Jesus Pattern–The One We Need

Jesus had a clear pattern for his life and ministry.  Luke described it in 5:15-16,

“Huge crowds gathered to listen and to be healed of their illnesses.  But Jesus would withdraw to deserted places for prayer.”

His pattern was a rhythm between pastoral ministry and personal formation–between the public and private aspects of his life–a pattern which actualized the larger pattern of working and resting, doing and being, engagement and abstinence which is at the core of the spiritual life. [1]  In short, Jesus knew he could not sustain a vital public ministry if he was running on empty in his soul.

There is a need for a recovery of this pattern in the lives of ministers today.  We clergy are not good at self-care.  We are very familiar with Luke 5:15 (public ministry), but strangers to Luke 5:16 (private prayer).  Moreover, institutional ministry, by its very nature, leans toward the public side (with a host of criteria for it practicing it and related reporting mechanisms for assessing it), with a comparative lack of attention to the private side.

The consequence of the imbalance is a low-grade malaise, described this way by a young pastor, “I know what to do, I just don’t want to do it anymore.”  When this acute sense becomes chronic, we become dropouts, even if we remain in ordained ministry.

We clergy are good at asking for some things: money, people to hold church offices, etc.  But we are not so good at asking our laity to help us establish the Jesus pattern in our lives, so that both dimensions described by Luke are alive in us.  In fact, most laity don’t even know about the pattern; most of what they’ve been shown is a corporate pattern.

Nevertheless, I believe our laity are as willing to help us live well as they are to assist us in being institutionally  successful.  But the fact is, they don’t know how do that unless we bring them into the picture.  I offer these thoughts for doing so.

First, invite into conversation several people whom you know to be spiritually mature in general, and suppotive of you in particular.

Second, share the Jesus Pattern (Luke 5:15-16) with them, telling them you want his pattern to be real in you, but being honest to say that it is not in the kind of balance (on the personal side) as you’d like it to be.

Third, have a Rule of Life ready to share with the folks–one that includes a weekly sabbath day (not your day off), a monthly retreat day, and a sustained formation experience that enhances spiritual vitality over the long haul. There may be other aspects of your Rule besides these.  [2]  Ask the group to offer their ideas about how you can make this vision a reality.

Fourth, invite these people to be your support group, not just your idea-gathering group.  Ask them to pray for you as you take action to realize the Jesus Pattern in your life.  And develop a process (e.g. periodic meetings, social media messaging) to turn their initial help into spiritual companionship.

This formative process is not secretive, but neither does it have to be voted on.  A weekly sabbath and monthly retreat day are things you can implement without any diminishment in your public ministry.  Jesus’ periodic withdrawals were integrated into his public responsibilities.  Yours can be too.  In fact, the more natural you can make it, the better.

With respect to a sustained formative experience, consider having a spiritual director. [3]  And explore formation programs that unfold over an extended period of time. [4]. If the costs for either of these things exceed a budgeted amount for your Continuing Education, ask your support group for suggestions regarding increasing that budget, or funding these things in other ways.

The point of this post is twofold: there is a Jesus Pattern for ministry, and laity are willing to help you incarnate it.  But you will have take the initiative to bring the two realities together.

The relevance of this post lies in the context of the church’s institutional decline, the increasing none/done phenomenon, etc—and your wellbeing in such a time.  The simple fact is, the church must have a vision for its clergy larger than “religious CEO” or “institutiinal shopkeeper,” and you must have an experience larger than that for the sake of your soul.

[1] Dallas Willard, ‘The Spirit of the Disciplines’ (HarperSanFrancisco, 1988). This is the best book I know of in describing the engagement/abstinence rhythm of the spiritual life.

[2] Stephen Macchia, ‘Crafting a Rule of Life’ (IVP Books, 2012).  Macchia draws on the Benedictine Rule to offer concrete guidance in making a personal rule today.

[3] A directory of certified directors is available online from Spiritual Directors International.  Also, if there are retreat centers, monasteries, or convents in your area, leaders there will likely know directors to recommend. Your denominational office may have suggestions as well.

[4] I am familiar with these programs: The Upper Room Academy for Spiritual Formation, the Renovaré Institute (part of the ministry begun by Richard Foster), the Apprentice Institute (begun by James Bryan Smith), the Living School (begun by Richard Rohr), and the newly-established Spiritual Leadership Certification Program (begun by Matthew Fox).  Each one nuances spiritual life and formation differently; what they have in common is that they are sustained experiences in community, not one-time events.

Posted in Shepherd's Care

Love: Son Love (Jesus)

​Two great thoughts bring the love of God the Father into the love of God that we see in Jesus: the Word was God…and…the Word became flesh (John 1:1, 14).  In Jesus we see the incarnation of love.  Reading the gospels shows us a multitude of ways that Jesus loved God and others.  We could do a whole series on Jesus’ love, expressed particularly to those who felt unloved by the political/religious system of their day.  And while that’s too much to write about in a blog post, we must not fail to see the radical nature of Jesus’ love for all.

Recently, I have come to see a good summary of Jesus’ love in these words, “ Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end” (John 13:1 NRSV).  The phrase “to the end” is an insightful one in the original Greek, telling us two important things about Jesus’ l love.

 First, he loved people from beginning to end—all the way through from his first day until his last day.  Here we see Jesus’ unwavering love—expressed without variance despite the many fluctuations of love expressed toward him by others.  When John wrote that he loved them “to the end,” it meant Jesus loved people all the way through.

Jesus’ unwavering love was the basis for Paul’s later words, “Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8: 38).  We must not miss the word ‘nothing.’  If we do, we will come up with some condition (as people often do) that makes us believe that “God could not love someone like me.”  But that’s not what we see in Jesus.  He loved people from beginning to end—when they responded to his love and when they did not.  Nothing separated people from the love of God in Christ because he loved people unwaveringly.

Second, he loved people fully.  The Common English Bible translates “to the end” with this word.  Here we see Jesus’ undiminished love.  He did not dispense his love in measured amounts depending on who he was with.  Jesus loved extravagantly…and…sacrificially.  He did not play it safe.  He loved everyone to the “nth degree.”

This is one of the main things that angered the political/religious leaders, who had devised their elaborate systems of rules and regulations to determine who was “worthy” of full love or only of something less.  Jesus moved the giving of love from a merit-based system to one of grace.  It incurred the wrath of the legalists to see that Jesus loved everyone the same.  This kind of love is always a threat to meritocracy.  But it was Jesus’ kind of love—undiminished love, for all.

Given this twofold vision of Jesus’ love (and there’s more that we could say), we see the power of his words, spoken only a little while after John 13:1—the words he used to exhort his disciples to “love each other just as I have loved you” (John 15:12).  Because he had “loved them to the end” they knew what that meant, and we know what it means too:  love unwaveringly…and…love undiminishedly.  We see this love in Jesus.

Posted in Love

Along The Way: Our New Friendship

​On the night of his betrayal, Jesus gathered with his disciples.  John records it in chapters 15-17.  The evening was filled with one treasure after another, which we can read and re-read for our edification.

One gem was Jesus’ definition of the relationship he had with his followers. “I call you friends,” he said (John 15:15).  That simple sentence changes everything.

Can you imagine sustaining a friendship with someone who constantly demeaned you and repeatedly criticized you?  Of course not.  Yet, many have accepted that idea of their relationship with God.  To them, God is thought to be mad at us, looking for any opportunity to enact retribution upon us.  But that is not the picture Jesus painted and left with his disciples.  Jesus gifted us with the portrait of God as our friend, not our foe.

So, how have we hung the “God Is Foe” painting in our soul’s gallery?  Several factors have caused us to do so.  First, the courtroom metaphors in Scripture have shaped the theological paradigm which many of us accepted.  God is the Judge.  We are criminals.  And even if we factor in the presence of the Spirit as a defense attorney and Jesus as the one who bears the punishment we deserve, it still leaves us a with a legalistic sense of our relationship with God, not a friendship sense.  We hang the “God Is Foe” portrait in our souls because of a theological perspective advanced in large segments of the Church.

A second reason we hang the wrong picture is psychological.  Many have been nurtured in a family system and/or social environment where love was overshadowed by a performance-oriented relationship in which we never “measured up” to the standards set for us by others, often including the expectations of our parents who gave us our primal, but deformed definition of love–one which remains inside us even when we move beyond it.  When we are strangers to grace, we hang the “God Is Foe” portrait in our hearts.

The third factor integrates the first two and creates a false self.  We do the very thing on the inside of ourselves that we refuse to do on the outside.  We travel through life with a companion self who demeans us and lies to us about who we really are. The voice of the false sends us many bogus messages…
          –“you are stupid, ugly, no good, distorted, damaged goods, lost, etc.

          –”you exist as an object of gratification and exploitation for me/us”

          –”you are not white, male, heterosexual, patriotic, or Christian”

          –”you are only as valuable as your possessions and achievements”

          –”your acceptability is determined by whether or not our group accepts you”

          –”you are a failure in a one-strike-and-you’re-out system”

          –”you are hopeless, no longer worthy of attention and investment”

Depending on the moment in which we find ourselves, these are the impressions which come when the “God Is Foe” portrait hangs in our soul.  These are what the voice of the false self speaks and what it tries hard to convince us to accept and believe.

But there is another voice.  The True Voice, delivering the message from God that we long to hear, that we are made to hear.  He says, “I call you friends.”

From him, we receive this invitation, “Say no to your false self and follow me. Take down the “God is Foe” portrait and throw it away.  Hang the “God Is Friend” painting in your heart. Don’t listen to what an aberrant church, a sick family member,  a toxic human being, demagogic leaders, or your own wounded spirit has been telling you.  Listen to me.  Take your cues, define yourself, and order your life by what I call you.  I call you friend.”

Posted in Along the Way

Love: Son Love (Christ)

​To see the love of God in the second person of the Trinity, we must explore the love of the universal Christ and the incarnate Jesus.  We look at the universal Christ today and the incarnate Jesus next week. [1]

The Son of God is the excarnate Christ. [2]  As the second person of the Trinity, Christ is an aspect of the eternal God, bearing the nature of love with the Father and Spirit in the Godhead. In relation to  time, Christ is the 13.8 billion year “firstborn of all creation” who created all things and in whom all things are held together (Colossians 1:15-17).  Just a little later in the same letter Paul summed it up in one sentence, “Christ is all and in all” (Colossians 3:11).  E. Stanley Jones said that nothing in all literature compares with that sentence. [3]

With respect to love, this means what Richard Rohr says: love is the meaning of everything. [4]  As I noted in the second post in this series, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin saw this reality in the physical structure of the universe, and contemporary cosmologists are saying similar things as they see an essential oneness between things seen and unseen (Hebrews 11:3).

Beyond this, the love of the excarnate Christ is woven into the essence of our being because everything that is made is made by him (John 1:3).  We bear the mark of our creator. And we do so beyond any particular religious affiliation; indeed, we bear the mark of love even if we do not practice any particular religious faith.  All this is to say that love is not some kind of subsequent feature, it is an intrinsic quality.

As such, love becomes the one-word summation of our ethics—love of the kind we have pointed to in the words hesed and agapé.  But from that kind of love, we can speak and act in congruence with the nature of Reality and the flow if the universe.

And more, at the personal level, each of us has an “I-Thou”relationship as God’s beloved child.  To live consciously in what some call “the womb of love” is to be fully alive. Because of the cosmic Christ, we are never outside if or separated from that womb (e.g. Psalm 139: 7-14).  Whatever causes us to lack this awareness is not due to God’s coming-and-going, but rather our varying consciousness relative to it.  How can it be otherwise when we remember “from everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psalm 90:2).  It is Christ who makes this so.


[1] Richard Rohr’s book, ‘The Universal Christ’ (Convergent Books, 2019) is a must-read to be drawn into the magnificence of the excarnate Christ.

[2] I use the terms “excarnate Christ’ and “incarnate Christ” thanks to E. Stanley Jones.  The terms provide proper differentiantion –excarnate/ incarnate—while  preserving the essential unity—Christ Jesus. Jones’ book, ‘The Word Became Flesh’ (Abingdon Press, 1963) is one of the best books I know of to be drawn into the incarnate Christ.  It is still available.

[3] E. Stanley Jones, ‘In Christ’ (Abingdon Press, 1961), 296.

[4] Rohr, ‘The Universal Christ,’ chapter five.

Posted in Love

In-Sight: We Never Get There First

​Paul’s visit to Athens (Acts 17:16-34) is insightful with respect to evangelism and missiology.  Today, I want to highlight only one insight—that we never get there first.  God is always ahead of us, present in people and places before we ever arrive on the scene.  Paul walked around the city and the first words of his public address in front of the Areopagus were, “People of Athens, I see that you are very religious in every way” (17:22).

Two phrases are quite telling: “very religious” and “in every way.”  The presence of God was deep and wide.  And Paul’s first words were a respectful acknowledgement of that reality. His understanding undercuts any notion that “we take God to the pagans.”  God is already there.  We never get there first.

The reasons for this are obvious even when our attitudes and methods say otherwise.  A theology of creation in general, which includes the particular fact that the image of God is in everyone, is the basis for Paul’s words.  So too, a theology of prevenient grace further teaches us that God is present and active before we are even aware of it, much less responsive to it.  We never get there first.

My friend, Darrell Whiteman, uses this biblical truth as the basis for his teaching of missiology around the world.  Adding to it Peter’s experience in Cornelius’ house in Acts 10, his teaching emphasizes “the importance of looking for where the Holy Spirit is already at work in the lives of people and in the structures of society, and becoming more welcoming and less judgmental.” [1]

He notes that this approach often causes people to confess that their evangelism and missions has carried an underlying negativity toward others, including in some cases a despising of others.  Even referring to some as “unbelievers” is a very telling phrase, and sets a far different tone for our witness than Paul set for the Athenians.

 Darrell goes on to say that the Petrine/Pauline approach in Acts 10 and 17 enables people to see with new eyes and greater empathy, “perhaps even understanding them more like God sees these people.” It is an aporoach, he says, that moves us away from latent ethnocentrism and into a fresh experience with the Holy Spirit.  [2]  

This is the spirit we are to exhibit in our witness.  We are to begin with inward humility and outward respectfulness, both things arising from the understanding that we never get there first.  Our witness connects with our having seen God in others, and connecting with their hunger for more.  In our witness we are not “taking God to people,” we are acknowledging that God is already there and in bearing witness to Christ we seek to enrich the experience they already have.  We never get there first.


[1] Dr. Whiteman’s statements are found in his May 2019 letter to supporters and other followers of his ministry.  He serves through the auspices of Global Development.

[2] Ibid.


Posted in In-Sight

Love: Parent Love

I am comfortable with using “Father” in describing the first person of the Trinity, and that’s because I had a great dad.  But I recognize many are not comfortable with “father” language, and I respect that.  Some are uncomfortable because they did not have good fathers.

Others are uncomfortable because they rightly recognize that God’s nature cannot be masculinized; indeed that the Bible itself affirms the feminine in God (e.g. Gen 1:2, Gen 17:1, Ps 22:10, Ps 131:2, Isa 42:14, Isa 49:15, Isa 66:13, Mt 23:37, Lk 13:34, and Lk 15:8-10).  [1]

Therefore, in this post I envision love in the first person of the Trinity as inclusive of the kind of love we experience from both good fathers and mothers.  In this respect, I note a few examples.

First, parental love is mysteriously marvelous.  That is, it is love fully given to each child.  Every couple wonders, “Will we love our second child as much as our first?”  That question is soon laid to rest as we find the extravagance of love that moves toward one child as much as another.  In this respect, our human love is a reflection of God’s parental live—a  love, in God’s case, that not only exhibits itself toward a few children, but toward 7+ billion children!  

Second, the fact of God’s equal love does not mean God loves us the same way.  In fact, the marvel of God’s love is increased by the specificity of it.  We are not impersonal parts of a generic cosmic love.  We are loved “by name” (e.g. Ex 33:17, Ps 91:14, Isa 43:1, Isa 49:16, and John 10:3).  And more, this specific knowledge becomes expressed to us as compassionate care (e.g. Ps 139 and Mt 10:34).  We know this too from our human experience as parents, but we see it universalized in God.

Third, God’s parental love accompanies us on out life journey.  Here I simply point to Psalm 23 and ask you to read it again, this time as a revelation of God’s love.  It is significant that Jesus picked up the same shepherd imagery to describe his love—not surprising, however, given he said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).  This third point has become especially important as I get older, but it is a precious truth to claim in every stage of life.

One final thing to say about God’s parental love comes through the image of home making.  I believe that being a home-maker is one of the vocations nearest to God’s heart.  Henri Nouwen was moved by the imagery of home as one of the supreme revelations of God’s love. [2¡  Most of us remember our parents leaving the light on for us when we were away from home.  In a similar way, God leaves the light on for us and keeps the home fire burning for  us all the days if our life, no matter how far away or how long absent we may be.

I had a friend decades ago, who was transformed by God’s parental love, and for the rest of his life he told whoever would listen, “You can love a God like that.”  Indeed!

 

[1] Hold on to your hats, but the best English word to describe God’s essence is ‘transgender,’ just as it is the word that best describes Adam prior to Eve.  It’s not surprising that Adam would have been transgender at first, since that is the nearest “likeness” of the divine being and the human being.  For those who would make a male/female binary reality necessary for creation, they fail to see that a nonbinary God was able to create the heavens and the earth.  In fact, some early Christians (e.g. Philo) believed that the original Adam would have been able to perpetuate the human race.

[2] Two of his books, ‘The Return of the Prodigal Son’ and ‘Homecoming’ illuminate the metaphor of home in relation to God’s love. 

 

Posted in Love

Along the Way: Mastery or Mystery?

​The longer I explore a theology of human sexuality, the more I realize that the differences we hold regarding it are produced by something larger than the topic itself.  With respect to anything, we are directed to a great extent by whether we fundamentally view our knowledge in the context of mastery or mystery.

When knowing is mastery, we view our knowledge as a closed system of completed inquiry.  Our knowledge becomes a “final word” that provides us with certainty.  The mastery system goes to seed in arrogance. When we view knowing as mastery (and ourselves or our group as having mastered something), then right and wrong are fixed categories assessed in terms of agreement or disagreement.  A leader I know who is in the mastery system summarized it this way, “ You are free to explore and ask questions so long as after having done so you end up where we are.” 

When mastery is the context for knowledge, what we know becomes a destination.  New knowings are incorporated only if they confirm and conform to what is already known.  Alternatives are seen as defections and departures from truth.  In the mastery system, “others” are menaces and suspect. People are “in” to the extent that they conform to “what is” and are willing to defend it.  The image of the mastery system is the fortress. The personification of it is the gate keeper.  The one-word summary for the mastery system is obscurantism.

When knowing is mystery, we view our knowledge as an open system of ongoing inquiry.  Our knowledge is an “intermediate word” that provides us with conviction.  The mystery system exudes humility.  When knowing is mystery, ourselves and our groups view right and wrong as fluid categories that are enhanced by further knowledge.  A leader in the mystery system was E. Stanley Jones, who captured the dynamism of faith by saying, “I am a Christian in the making.” [1]. When asked to name the best years of his life, he would say, “the next ten.”

When mystery is the context for knowledge, what we know becomes a waystation on the journey to know more. New knowings are integrated into existing knowledge—sometimes confirming it, and sometimes revising it.  Alternatives are seen as opportunities to discover new aspects of truth.  In the mystery system, “others” are messengers and welcomed.  People are “in” to the extent they genuinely want to contribute to “what is” and are willing to enhance it.  The image of the mystery system is the forum (E. Stanley Jones called it “the round table”).  The personification of it is the explorer.  The one-word summary of the mystery system is openness. 

The fork in the road with respect to what we know and how we know is whether we choose to view knowledge about something in a mastery system or mystery system.  We see this playing out on many fronts today.  Human sexuality is one.  In the rest of this post I want to mention a few characteristics of a mystery system that especially influence our theology of human sexuality, and also set those characteristics in the context of the current United Methodist situation.

First, the mystery system recognizes the complexity of the matter.  Our sexuality is made up of multiple factors and cannot be painted with one brush (e.g. heterosexuality is right, homosexuality is wrong)—it is more complex than that.  The mystery system acknowledges the complexity and welcomes a multi-faceted exploration.  Many factors come into play.  The mystery system welcomes an interdisciplinary approach, with the conviction that truth anywhere enhances truth everywhere. With respect to human sexuality this means incorporating insights from the behavorial and physical sciences that show the nonbinary nature of sexuality and the spectrum of diversity on which it exists.

Second, the mystery system believes in progressive revelation.  Theology is a deepening and widening enterprise.  The Church has experienced the evolutionary nature of belief in the past with respect to such things as cosmology, racial equality, slavery, women’s suffrage, civil rights, divorce, and women in ministry—to name a few.  On every occasion, mastery and mystery systems competed for outcomes.  In these cases (at least in the United Methodist context) mystery has prevailed, and the Church has altered its beliefs, moving into greater love and inclusion.  The mystery system welcomes this as a sign that God’s plan to reconcile all things in Christ is coming to pass (Ephesians 1:9-10, Colossians 1:20).  The mystery system believes human sexuality is a another arena where God is at work to bring the Church into a new day.

Third, the mystery system believes that “iron sharpens iron,” and that knowledge increases and is enriched through conversations that include a diversity of views.  In the mystery system the line is drawn when harm is done.  But prior to that, the mystery system operates on the conviction that there is no such thing as a “pure church” and that the Church advances when love (not legalism) prevails.  Mystery does not eliminate boundaries, but it does not begin with them. Universals (e.g. the human family and the common good) create the vision,  generate the conversation, and ignite the conviction that God has given us the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18).

Fourth, United Methodism has chosen mystery over mastery in its theological hermeneutic called the quadrilateral.  This hermeneutic incorporates all three of the elements above, and it integrates the past (Scripture and tradition) and the present (reason and experience) into a theological task that shapes the future.  Believing that mystery better describes what it means to be co-creators God, United Methodism adopts a hermeneutic that enables us to live in Christ and serve Christ with a “generous orthodoxy.” [2]

If as has happened before with respect to other things, we live in mystery (not mastery), we will see the Church in general and United Methodism in particular embody the truth that “Christ is all and in all” (Colossians 3:11), move toward the oneness Jesus himself prayed for (John 17:21), and bear witness to what Jesus himself said would happen, “When I am lifted up, I will draw everyone to me” (John 12:32).


[1]] E. Stanley Jones, ‘Song of Ascents’ (Abingdon, 1968), 17.

[2] Kenneth H. Carter, Jr., ‘Embracing the Wideness’ (Abingdon, 2018).




Posted in Along the Way

Along the Way: On Point

​If I were a pastor, I would make youth ministry the cutting edge of my church’s mission.  There are a number of reasons why I would do this.  I write today only about one, and it is a reason fueled by Paul’s words to Timothy, “Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young.  Instead, set an example for the believers” (1Timothy 4:12).

That’s what a growing number of young people are doing—setting an example the rest of us should be following….and….being looked down upon for doing so.  I have watched as youth do their dead-level best to protest evil, only to be demeaned and caricatured for doing so.  Two stories illustrate the point.

Not long after the murders at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, student leaders who spoke and acted in favor of measures to prevent future shootings were said to be motivated more by a desire to skip school than to end gun violence.  I remember thinking, “What kind of demented thinking does it take to produce that kind of backlash?”  In the midst of their grief and fear, courageous young people literally took to the streets doing what they could to say, “Enough is enough” only to be ridiculed by some for doing so.

Similarly, Greta Thunberg has been targeted by obscurantists time and time again.  The day after Time magazine named her its Person of the Year, none other than Donald Trump assailed the choice and in typical trumpian fashion made disparaging remarks about her.  I could not believe my ears, but then, considering the source, I saw how small-mindedness can live even in the White House.

And again, this past week at the Davos economic summit, Steven Mnuchin demeaned Thunberg, telling her to go to college and learn what’s really going on.  That from a Secretary of the Treasury whose economic expertise (after going to college) has made him a leader in the “Feed the Greed” system that has increased our national debt by a trillion dollars during his time in office, and further widened the gap between rich and poor in this nation.

Paul’s words to Timothy have rolled down the corridors of time into our congregations (and congresses) where older white males maintain their power, even to the point of disparaging those who have eyes to see our nakedness.  The Church should be at the forefront encouraging young people to continue speaking and acting on behalf of the common good.  Youth ministry should be the place where prophets are made, and where prophetic ministry is celebrated. Youth groups should be training grounds for nonviolent living and resistance to evil.  

As an older adult, it is easier  for me to see now that God provides us with a recurring window of opportunity to see and hear things in ways that impede us from doing so once we are sucked into communities and systems whose status quos and sacred cows “buy our souls” in the name of loyalty.  That window of opportunity is youth and young adulthood.  Paul commended it in Timothy, and the Church should be commending our young people, who still attend, and have not given up on institutional Christianity.  

God provides each generation with an opportunity for humanity to make a fresh start.  God gives us young people.  We dare not squander the gift.  Our calling is clear: we must not despise them because they are young, but rather rejoice as they set examples for those of us who are older and who too often have allowed the world to squeeze us into its mold.



Posted in Along the Way

Love: Trinitarian Love

​For much of my Christian life, the Holy Trinity has been simultaneously a central doctrine and a marginal attraction.  I would never hesitate to say, “I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” but either out loud or to my self I quickly added, “but it’s a mystery we will never understand.”  The second phrase kept me from exploring the first one.

Of course, the Trinity is mystery, and we will never understand it.  But thankfully, a few years ago I came to see that it is a mystery intended to draw us into it, like a magnet draws iron filings to it.  I am grateful to Richard Rohr’s book, ‘The Divine Dance’ for opening the door to my knew experience of the Trinity. [1]

Simply put, the Trinity is the paradigm for everything. [2]  It is Reality revealed and expressed. As such, it is the revelation of love.  We see this in some key ways

First, the Trinity is the union of love that we explored in the last post.  Every person in the Godhead is loving itself in the other two persons because they all “are” in the others.  In this dimension it makes no sense to think of the separateness of beings in the Trinity because it is one Being. [3]. With respect to love, this means that love is singular–or as Jesus put it, the second great commandment is “like unto” the first one.  The love of God, neighbor, and self are not three loves; it is one love in three manifestations.

This is very significant because it prevents a gradation of love.  There is an odd spirituality which affirms a love for God without a corresponding love of others.  St. John squelched that idea in his first letter when he wrote, “Those who don’t love their brother or sisters whom they have seen can hardly love God whom they have not seen” (1 John 4:20). “  The Trinity says there is only one love, and it is either present or absent, real or imagined.

Second, the Trinity is the purposefulness of love.  Love is one, but not the same in every case.  We say of the Trinity that the Father creates, the Son redeems, and the Spirit sustains.  Theologically, it’s not that distinct.  But it is a revelation that love is not a generic, one-size-fits-all thing.  It manifests differently in order to achieve different purposes.  

Like the Father, some love creates, generates, and ignites.  Like the Son, some love redeems, restores, and renews.  And like the Spirit, some love sustains, preserves, and guides.  We do not have to overthink or overplan these differences.  All we have to do is love.  Love achieves its own purposes.

Third, the Trinity is the joy of love.  We must not overlook the fact that one of the early metaphors for the Trinity was a dance (perichoresis).  I have never been to a dance that lacked joy.  In fact, a dance floor is one of the most joyful places we can ever be. [4]

Some non-Christian religions use the metaphor of dance to sound the note of joy better than some Christians do.  The fourteenth-century Sufi mystic, Hafiz, wrote of 

“the God who only knows four words

And keeps repeating them, saying:

‘Come dance with Me.’ [5]

I can only ask, how does religion in general look as a dance?  How does Christianity look with a dancing Trinity?   How does love look when it only knows four words, “Come dance with me” ?

In these ways, and more, the Trinity is the lens through Whom we look to see the nature and expression of love.  And because we are made in the image of God, we can manifest this kind of love in our humanity.

 

[1] Richard Rohr, ‘The Divine Dance’ (Whitaker House, 2016)

[2] Rohr’s book develops this idea in a wide variety of subjects.

[3] This is why Christianity is a monotheistic religion.  

[4] Amazing, isn’t it, that with this understanding of the Trinity, any Christians could have been against dancing.  The prohibition comes from a “ joy stealing” spirituality rather than a joy-infusing one, and may reveal the person’s lack of restraint more than it does dancing itself.

[5] Part of a longer reflection in “Matthew Fox’s Daily Meditations,” October 6, 2019.

Posted in Love

Along the Way: Dreaming

​For the first time in our nation’s history, Martin Luther King Jr. Day falls in the midst of a presidential impeachment/trial process. [1]. The juxtaposition of these two things shapes my thinking as we observe MLK Jr Day today.

On the Day of Pentecost, Luke used the words of Joel to describe what was happening.  The passage Luke cited includes the words, “Your young will see visions. Your elders will dream dreams” (Acts 2:17 from Joel 2:28 CEB).  For some reason, I assumed that Luke meant young adults would look forward as visionaries, while older adults would look back as dreamers.  Reading Luke’s words for the first time, decades ago, I was young.  So naturally, I located myself in the first sentence, and I wanted to be a visionary.

But now I am an elder, dreaming dreams.  And I have come to realize that dreamers are not those who look back.  Looking back is about memories, not dreams—it is to become nostalgic and long for “good old days” sanitized by time to appear better than they were.  That’s not dreaming.

Martin Luther King Jr. helped me stop misunderstanding Luke’s words, and enabled me to realize what living in God’s pentecosts (decisive moments in history) means.  He was a young man when he stood before the nation and declared, “I have dream.”  His words were forward looking.  Dreaming was not about looking back.  Quite the contrary.  Dreams are prophetic imaginings of new way.

 Later he reminded us that dreams are not just for the young. They are within all of us at every age. When Luke wrote that elders would dream dreams in God’s Pentecost, he was saying that people of all ages can be filled with the Spirit and imagine a new way.  Dreams and visions are not directional (backward/forward), they are transformational.  Martin Luther King Jr. helped me see this.

Yesterday in her ‘Sunday Paper,’ Maria Shriver captured what Martin meant as she wrote, “Each of us can decide at any moment to no longer simply be an observer, and instead to rise up out of our comfort zone and march, or imagine, or go within, and come back out with an idea that will surely help others.”  [2] People young and old can be filled with the Spirit, can be given the strength to love, and accept the call to rise up and call out evil through the nonviolent and prophetic pursuit of the common good. [3]

This year, I am experiencing Martin Luther King Jr. Day as an invitation to recommit myself to “no longer be an observer, and instead to rise up out of our comfort zone” to speak and act as disciples of Jesus whose eyes have seen “the coming of the glory of the Lord.”  Today is a fresh opportunity to join the growing number of people young and old who are crafting new wineskins  to carry God’s wine that we call the Kingdom of God, beloved community, etc. Today is a day to reenlist in the movement King personified and Micah 6:8  summarized  as doing justice (practicing fairness, equity, and inclusion), loving kindness (embodying God’s hesed, shalom, and compassion), and walking humbly with God (as servants).

We are living in a Micah moment in history—a time when many of our leaders have failed us (see Micah chapter three), a time when the Holy Spirit is once again turning to the people en masse, to mobilize for “the practice of the better” (Richard Rohr’s description) that turns the words of St. Francis’ prayer into actions,

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace;

Where there is hatred, let me sow love;

Where there is injury, pardon;

Where there is doubt, faith;

Where there is despair, hope;

Where there is darkness, light;

Where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master,

Grant that I may not so much seek

    to be consoled as to console;

    to understood as to understand

    to be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive.

It is in pardoning that we are pardoned.

It is in dying that we are born to eternal life.


 [1] MLK Jr Day and the impeachment/trial of Bill Clinton occurred close together in 1999, but they did not overlap.

[2] Maria Shriver’s ‘Sunday Paper,’ 1/19/2020.

[3] King’s book, ‘Strength to Love’ is a moving and instructive description of how we are called to live in perilous times.  Walter Brueggemann’s book, ‘Journey to the Common Good’ is another powerful word about the same thing. 

Posted in Along the Way

Love: Amazing Love

Every language has a word or words for love.  The biblical languages of Hebrew and Greek are no exception. The two main words are hesed and agapé.  [1]  In both words, love reaches its apex as “love for the sake of the other.”

This kind of love includes altruism, philanthropy, etc.  But it is not defined by these ideas.  They reflect a commendable desire to live unselfishly, and that would be a major step forward for some people.  But hesed and agapé do not merely describe an other-orientation , they describe a sense of oneness with others.

Our being created in the image of God (that we noted last week) is a good place to focus our look at God’s amazing love.  It is love based in actual likeness.  But it is not a love based on our merit, but rather on our essence.  If that were not so, God’s love would be spasmodic and conditional.  Instead, hesed and agapé are continuous and gracious.  We refer to this as steadfast love.

God’s love says, “You are mine’” and in addition to the idea of our being a cherished possession of God, it means we are beloved children of God.  In a very holy sense, God sees God’s nature in us, and it is a real seeing because we are made in the image of God.  This means that God’s love is amazing, not because it is transactional or obligatory, but because it is a genuine Heart-to-heart relationship—a Lover/beloved relationship.

Part of the amazing nature of this love is that Jesus said we could love others the way we are loved by God.  It’s the second great commandment: , “Love your neighbor as you love yourself” (Matthew 22:39).  Of course it means loving others the way we like to be loved (as per the Golden Rule), and it includes the psychological truth that our capacity to love others usually reflects the extent to which we love ourselves in a healthy way.  But again, there is more goung on in Jesus’ words than that.

Loving your neighbor “as yoyrself” is recognizing the oneness between yourself and another person in the same way God recognizes the oneness between ourselves and God.  We love others “as ourselves” because in a genuine (though indescribable) way, they are us!  Buddhists have a word for it: interbeing—an essential oneness that everyone shares with everyone else.  Bringing the word alongside Jesus’ words that say the same thing, we find that love is amazing because it exists and expresses itself because of a radical oneness in the whole of creation.  How we love anyone is how we love everyone.  And how we love anyone is how we love God (1John 4:20-21).

That’s amazing love.


[1] This post is not a word study on love.  For that, I recommend William Mounce’s ‘Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words’ (Zondervan, 2006), 424-429.

Posted in Love

Along the Way: What’s Going On?

We are living through an intense time of polarization, with resulting fragmentations of all sorts and sizes.  Every day adds new impetus for asking, “What’s going on?”  The depth and breadth of our conflicts makes a blanket answer impossible.  I limit my frame of reference in this post to the fractured state of contemporary Christianity in general, and how it is expressing itself in my denomination—the United Methodist Church.  Even on this smaller field multiple factors are in play, which also go beyond the scope of a blog-length post.  But this more specific context does provide a basis to ask, “What’s going on?” in a way that can face us in a helpful direction.

In Christian circles, one of the allegations is that we have differing views due to varying commitments to the authority of Scripture.  And that plays out along this general line of assertion: conservatives believe in the authority of Scripture, and progressives do not.  Right now, that assertion is being used to attempt to answer the question, “What’s going on in the United Methodist Church? ”  The marketed assumption is that conservatives are the “true Bible believers” and everyone else is less so, or in some cases, not at all.

The problem with that allegation is this: it isn’t true.  And….conservatives who are honest about it know it’s not true.  Across the theological spectrum, Christians affirm the authority of Scripture with equal devotion.  Conservatives simply do not have the corner on that market.  To make the authority of Scripture the answer to the question, “What’s going on?” is a straw-man allegation which ends up misleading people and obscuring a larger perspective with respect to the question.

A more accurate response to the question has to do with the fact that we are living in a pivotal moment, a time of fundamental change—what some have observed in history as axial ages.  We can see this from the Bible itself, where God said about a time roughly 2,700 years ago, “Look I’m doing a new thing; now it sprouts up; don’t you recognize it?” (Isaiah 43:19)   This biblical passage was written during the very time called the axial age by Karl Jaspers, a period of time running from the 8th through the 3rd centuries BCE, with “new things” happening everywhere.  Isaiah’s words are a sign that Scripture recognizes the dynamic nature of history and the unfolding nature of revelation. [1]

A full description of our new axial age is beyond the scope of my knowledge, and of this blog. [2]. As before, our new axial age is transforming things in multiple fields of knowledge and in numerous places. Suffice it to say that it is this larger reality (not the authority of Scripture) which provides the backdrop for exploring the question, “What’s going on?’  Simply put, we are living in a time of awakening, and the end of our polarization—or the perpetuation of it—hinges on whether we are those who accept this, or reject it.  It is not about the authority of Scripture, but rather about the belief that God is doing “a new thing,” and God’s question to the people of Isaiah’s day is now the question God is asking us, “Don’t you recognize it?” [3]

Our new axial age is, as they all are, simultaneously a recovery and a discovery.  In our case, it is a recovery from a nearly 600-year period of analytical rationalism that has served us well in many respects, but has failed us in others—one being the separating of things to the extent that egotism and ethnocentrism have room to create falsehoods based on superiority and expressed in conflict.  Truth is couched in right/wrong categories which eclipse its both/and dimensions.  Dualistic thinking takes charge, and we take sides where someone has to win while designated “others” must lose.  We descend into sectarianism where, in fact, everyone loses.  Nationalism and other forms of groupism define and control us. For the past 600 years (the “Enlightenment era”) we have been on this downward spiral, reaping the whirlwind in terrible ways today, and bringing us to tipping points which threaten our future.

 But our new axial age is also a time of discovery—of “treasures old and new” as Jesus put it when teaching us about the Kingdom of God, in contrast to the fallen kingdoms of this world (Matthew 13:52).  In fact, he taught that it is our call to be the kind of people who keep both old and new things together.  We are called to be nondual thinkers who live a unitive consciousness.  We are called to bring separated things together.  We are called to pour Kingdom wine into new wineskins.  We are called to rediscover Wisdom and consecrate our knowledge to its advancement.

Our new axial age is recovering/discovering the oneness of all things.  The physical sciences at the micro level (atomical and genetic) and macro level (astrophysical and cosmic) are revealing the universality of all things in ways we’ve never known before.  We are called to be co-creators with God in furthering the trajectory of God’s eternal plan, “to bring all things together in Christ, the things in heaven along with the things on earth” (Ephesians 1:10). 

This unification does not ignore differences, but  it refuses to turn them into conflicted hierarchies. It does not ignore evil, but it interprets it differently than fallen-world ideologies do. It’s energy is expended in creating community and living for the common good.  It is rooted in love (hesed/agapé) where restoration, not retribution, is the spirit and aim. It refuses to create “others” based on some notion of superiority.  It seeks to live in a common human family that understands loving is more difficult and messy than labeling.  It calls for the end of in/out thinking.

“What’s going on?” is not answered by an assertion of the authority of Scripture by one group against another.  “What’s going on?” is addressed by the recognition in our day of what others before us (like Isaiah) have recognized—that there are times when God does a new thing, and when God is doing so, we are called to join in.


[1] For more about the Axial Age see, (1) Mark W. Muesse, ‘Age of the Sages: The Axial Age in Asia and the Near East (Augsburg, 2015), and (2) Karen Armstrong, ‘The Great Transformation’ (Anchor, 2006).

[2] I may write more about this.  If I do, I will use the same title (“What’s Going On?”) with a numbering system, so you can immediately spot sequels.  They will be included in this “Along the Way” category if you want to re-read them.

[3] My initial exploration of this question resulted in my book, ‘Fresh Wind Blowing: Living in God’s New Pentecost’ (Cascade Books, 2013).

Posted in Along the Way

Love: God is Love

Three words sum up the essence of everything: God is love.  They not only tell us who God is, but also who we are, and who/what everyone and everything else is.  At the creation level of cosmos and cells, love is seen in the law of attraction. [1]  In our humanity we see love in the imago dei, which gives us an existential likeness to God.  In short, love saturates all of life, revealing Reality as it is meant to be.

But true as this is, we must not leave love in the abstract.  When we say that God is love, we are not simply declaring a grand idea, we are describing a glorious relationship.  Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann sees it in the name of God we call Yahweh.  Through this name God reveals the relational essence of the divine nature, entering into our lives with mercy, grace, faithfulness, forgiveness, and steadfast love. [2]. Yahweh is the name of God through which we see God’s love (hesed).

At the outset of this series, the realization that God is love is the centering vision.  It locates us at the Source.  To acknowledge that God is love is the transforming vision.  It means that nothing other than God has the final say in our lives (Romans 8:38).  To believe that God is love gives us hope.  It brings the present moment into our lives to be a redemptive force in whatever ways we need to be free. [3]

In the course of this series we will move around the circumference of the circle of love, noting one thing after another.  But no matter where we are standing, we will be making our exploration in relation to one Center: God is love.. As they say, “It doesn’t get any better than this.


[1] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin saw the union of creation and theology in the word love.  He wrote about it in nearly all his books, especially ‘The Divine Milieu.,’  Ilia Delio has made Teilhard accessible to us through her Omega Center.  Her book, ‘Compassion’ (St Anthony Messenger Press, 2011) traces the theme of love through Sts Francis and Clare.

[2] Walter Brueggemann, ‘Theology of the Old Testament’ (Fortress Press, 2009), 215 ff.

[3] This is Paul’s affirmation in Galatians 5:1.  St. Ignatius of Loyola made freedom one of the hallmarks of his understanding of the Christian life.  Father James Martin’s book, ‘The Jesuit Guide to Almost Everything’ (HarperCollins, 2010)) is a good guide into the life of freedom.

Posted in Love

In-Sight: Incarnation

​Having recently celebrated Christmas, the Incarnation has been front-and-center in our faith.  In the birth of Jesus, the Word became flesh, and lived a while on the earth full of grace and truth (John 1:14).  The coming of the pre-incarnate, eternal Christ (second person of the Holy Trinity) was the perfect fusion of spirit and matter.  In Jesus, heaven and earth were united as never before, or since.

But the incarnation was more than unique and historic, it is also universal and timeless.  The Bible teaches that Jesus was the new Adam (Romans 12:5-18), now often referred to as “The Human One.” [1]  In Jesus we see how humanity was meant to be, and was, before the fall. [2]  Christlikeness is the one-word summary for the definition of life as God wills it to be for us.

We are not, and will never be, the perfect fusion of spirit and matter that Jesus was, but we are a fusion of spirit and matter—what the Bible calls “living souls” (Genesis 2:7).  In our humanity we are holy, as God is holy in deity. Far from being a wild idea, this “likeness” to God is what it means to be made in the image of God.  St. Thomas Aquinas described it in these words, “Grace renders us like God and a partaker of the divine nature. Divine virtue gives deification itself, that is, participating in the Godhead, which is through grace.” [3]

This is a grand truth, but we must not allow it to hang in the air as a dangling doctrine, and even worse, we must not let it deteriorate into wishful thinking or, still worse, into sentimentalism–which is precisely where the world leaves “baby Jesus” during Christmas.  The incarnation of Jesus is the revelation that our humanity is not only to be gentle and meek, but also strong and courageous–that is, pastoral and prophetic.

Jesus show us what the full range of human holiness looks like, and the revelation becomes an invitation.  This is complicated, but we must not let that prevent us from receiving the message which comes from Jesus’ incarnation to us: we are human, and that glorious reality is a vision which is meant to invite us into fullness of life—life in Christ.  The new year is a fresh invitation to become what we are meant to be, God’s beloved children.  The incarnation is meant to recur in us.  It is one way God says to us, “Don’t forget who you are.”  Jesus is the living reminder.


[1] Adam is the word for  humankind–before being represented in maleness and femaleness.  As the new Adam, Jesus revealed in his flesh the nature of humanity irrespective of gender.  By calling him “The Human One” we see his example to be applicable to people of all genders.  The Common English Study Bible has good articles about “The Human One,” and uses this translation in place of the traditional rendering “Son of Man” to more clearly describe Jesus’ humanity as an example for all people.

[2] This is impossible to put into words because it is Mystery.  Adam was not the Christ in the technical and full sense of the word, because humanity and deity are distinct.  But being fully human, Jesus revealed what we can call a pre-fall humanity—a humanity which is possible for any of us.  We never become God (that’s heresy), but we can be “like God” (that’s biblical—Genesis 1:26-28).  

[3] Quoted in Matthew Fox’s Daily Meditation, December 23, 2019.

Posted in In-Sight

Love: Introduction

​Decades ago, a popular song said  “Love is a many splendored thing.”  Indeed it is, and I have been blessed to know this throughout my lifetime.  This coming April, Jeannie and I celebrate our 50th wedding anniversary, and every year of our courtship and marriage she has shown me what love is..  She has given me love in every way a human being can.  And she has been a means through whom I have experienced the love of God..  I have decided to make “Love” the 2020 theme series here on Oboedire, and I dedicate this series to Jeannie, the love of my life.   

Our desire to be loved is the deepest desire, and I believe it is so because we are made in the image of God.  When we open ourselves to this Reality, we find that the love of God not only becomes alive in us, it flows through us to others.  Each week, over the course of this coming year, we will follow the flow of love from its inward manifestations to its outward expressions.

We find ourselves in a love-starved world.  Individually and collectively we hunger for love.  So, this series is more than a sentimental examination of a beautiful idea, it is a call to be lovers of God and others as a means of shining light and giving life.  Our souls and our planet depend on love in order to survive.

The need for love is particularly acute in our country right now.  The past few years (actually, decades) have strained our will and capacity to love.  The national renewal we need is a renewal of love.  It is not an exaggeration to say that our problems, challenges, and sins are manifestations of a failure to love. We are once again in a great need for strength to love. [1]

I hope you will join me on this love journey.  If you know others who would benefit from it, invite them to do so.  It’s easy and free to subscribe to Oboedire by entering an email address into the ‘Sign Me Up,” box on the righthand sidebar. 

When the early church was just getting started, the elder apostle John is said to have had only one message whenever he spoke to the community, ‘Dear friends, let’s love each other, because love is from God, and everyone who loves is born from God and knows God” (1 John 4:7).  I hope this series brings an increase of love to you and a fresh outpouring of love through you. 


[1] Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s book, ‘Strength to Love’ (Harper & Row, 1963) made the three words part of our national vocabulary in the 1960’s.  His book remains on my desk to this day, and I read from it frequently as a way of seeking a fresh inpouring of strength to love in my life.

Posted in Love

Christmas: Descent Into Oneness

​Christmas is the time for experiencing the formative work of descent.  We sing, “Love came down at Christmas.”  It is the hymnodic way of declaring with John that “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14).  Christ’s “coming down” was a descent into oneness, and his incarnation is a model for a similar descent in our lives

Descent is where we find commonality.  Thinking of it linguistically, descent is living as nouns without adjectives.  Descent is shedding all the modifiers which so easily separates us from each other.  For the cosmic, universal Christ the singular noun is ‘flesh.’  Christmas is the revelation of Christ’s descent into oneness with everyone of us. The singular noun is ‘human.’

We manifest the descent into oneness as we live into the second great commandment, “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39).  We typically and correctly interpret this through the word ‘love,’ and ponder the depth and breadth of our love for others.  Indeed, “Love came down at Christmas,” and love is the essence of our oneness with God and with everyone and everything else.

But the lens of affection is not the end of the interpretation.  The commandment is also about identification, and that comes through in the words ‘as yourself.’  To love others as ourselves is to recognize our oneness with them.  Buddhists call this ‘interbeing’—that is, the awareness that at the base we literally share a common existence.  Reality is oneness.  Illusion is separateness.

Jesus brought this reality into Christianity in the words ‘as yourself.’  Affection and identification come together.  Love and oneness are conjoined.  St. Paul described the same reality, “If one part suffers, all  the parts suffer with it; if one part gets the glory, all the parts celebrate with it” (1 Corinthians 12:26).  Meister Eckhart put it this way, “what happens to another, whether it be a joy or a sorrow, happens to me.”  

Dorothy Day experienced this oneness during her first time in jail.  She wrote, “I was no longer myself… I was no longer a young girl, part of a radical movement seeking justice for those oppressed. I was the oppressed. I was that drug addict, screaming and tossing in her cell, beating her head against the wall. I was that shoplifter who for rebellion was sentenced to solitary.”

Martin Luther King Jr. spoke similarly, “The self cannot be self without other selves. . . . All life is interrelated. All people are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.”

These affirmations of faith are paralleled in the cosmos through quantum entanglement–that is, the interconnectedness of all things.  The revelation is that there is one Life, and we share in it in our life together.  When we think otherwise we fall prey to pride which manifests itself as superiority, partisanship, exclusion, power/control, greed, and violence.  Christmas is God’s annual invitation to become Christlike and “come down” into oneness.

This oneness was effected by Christ, who broke down the dividing wall and reconciled everyone into a new common humanity (Ephesians 2:14).  As a result, we no longer see or support separatism, choosing rather to live “as one” with others.  Just as Christ descended into oneness with us in the incarnation. We descend into oneness as we love our neighbors as ourselves.  Love not only came down that first Christmas day, it comes down whenever we descend into oneness as siblings in the human family.

Posted in Connections

Oboedire 2020

Except for a meditation on Christmas day, I’m taking a break from Oboedire until January 1st. But here’s what’s in store for 2020–a continuation of some themes and the beginning of some new ones…

(1) 2020 Theme: “Love.”–Each Wednesday we will focus on some aspect of love, as a way of living the two great commandments more faithfully.

(2) “In-Sight”–This longstanding series continues on the first Saturday of each month, exploring the spiritual life from a variety of vantage points.

(3) “Along the Way.”  A new, occasional series that addresses a current event in relation to spiritual formation.

Thanks for being part of the Oboedire community.  I hope these posts in 2020 will be helpful to you.

Blessings!  Steve

Posted in Site Updates

Holy Love: A Final Word

​I hope your reading of ‘Holy Love’ and these related posts has been helpful.  In the book, I include two additional writings: a word to LGBTQ+ people (“You  Are Loved”) and a word to those who disagree with me (”A Word to Non-Affirming Christians”).  I add the following remarks to what’s there, and use this post to bring this series to an end.

First, to LGBTQ+ people.  The past 5+ years have been a blessing to Jeannie and me, getting to know you, and seeing in you full humanity, genuine faith, and devoted discipleship.  No matter what others may say to you, or about you–never cease to know that you are God’s beloved children.  You do not need to change who you are or who you love.  All you have to do is what all the rest of us have to do: love God, love others, manifest the fruit of the Spirit, and grow in grace.  Thank you for showing us how deep and wide God’s love is.

Second, to non-affirming Christians.  The past 5+ years has confirmed that there is (and has always been) more diversity in Christianity about human sexuality than you are willing to admit.  I do not say this harshly, but only realistically.  I wish more of you would admit it too.  In the past 5+ years my belief concerning the inspiration and authority of Scripture has not diminished one bit, and I have discovered it is possible to be a “Bible believing Christian” and also an ally with LGBTQ+ people, affirming their civil rights and their full inclusion in the Church–with complete access to its sacraments, ministries, and ministries.  Thank you, non-affirming Christians, for pushing back on my becoming an ally; it is a gift even if you did not mean it to be so. Your rejections have caused me to explore beyond your borders and see a depth and breadth of God’s love I did not see for so long.

We are engaged in a great and unresolved debate in the world, the nation, and  the Church concerning LGBTQ+ people.  In the past 5+ years one verse has increasingly guided my thinking and living, “Christ is all and in all” (Colossians 3:11).  The first three words have been my affirmation for 57 years, “Christ is all”—Jesus is Lord!  I say so now.

The second three words “and in all” have been God’s revelation into which I am now living, and doing so through friendships with LGBTQ+ people, the study of Scripture and extra-biblical material, and by participation in LGBTQ+ groups and related advocacy organizations.

The only way I know to end this series is as a witness, not a debater. I can only tell you what I have seen and heard: “Christ is all and in all.”  All means all.  All I can do is invite you to find this out for yourself, if you have not done so already.  And if you have discovered it, all I can ask you to be is a public witness to this reality, and an active ally with God’s beloved LGBTQ+ children– our siblings in the human family.

Posted in Holy Love

Holy Love: The Life

In the final chapter of ‘Holy Love’ I hope to turn theory into practice, beliefs into behaviors—what John Wesley called “practical divinity.”  He believed that faith had to be practiced, not just professed.  He called it “living faith”—in the spirit of St. James who wrote, “faith without actions is dead” (James 2:26).  And so, to the already-existing Anglican trilateral for doing theology, he added experience (lived theology) to the picture.

In the final chapter of ‘Holy Love’ I seek to do the same.  Since I became an ally with LGBTQ+ people in 2014, many people have asked me how they might consider becoming so.  The last chapter of the book is my response to their inquiry.  This post develops that response further.

I begin broadly, and with a pastoral challenge.  Attitudes and actions toward LGBTQ+ people are critical today–significant matters in our time—both with respect to the society and the Church.  Here’s my question/challenge: are you willing to base your opinion solely on second-hand information and on what you have been taught—or—do you recognize the need to do your own homework and develop first-hand convictions?  Are you willing to stand on your own two feet, or are you going to settle for only getting your ideas from others?

This is a serious question.  It means are we active or passive—engaged or disengaged?  This is important to think about with respect to any significant matter, and it is a crucial consideration with respect to our beliefs about and behaviors toward LGBTQ+ people.  As Christians, we are called to “ask, seek, and knock,” ourselves and not be spoon fed by others.  I hope you are willing to do this.  The rest of this post is a response to the question, “How can I go about doing my homework?”

First, establish relationships and friendships with LGBTQ+ people.  Talk with them.  Invite them to speak in your church, and attend the meetings of religious and civic LGBTQ+ groups and related advocacy organizations.  More than anything else, forming these relationships will provide you with discoveries, experiences, and learnings you cannot get any other way. [1]

Second, study.  Hopefully, your reading of ‘Holy Love’ has already set this point in motion for you.  Now, use the Reading List in the back of the book to keep going.  Ask LGBTQ+ people what you should read.  Inquire the same from local organizations.  There is plenty more to explore.

Third, manifest the fruit of the Spirit.  If you become proactive, and especially if you seek to learn about views other than those advanced by conservatives/traditionalists, you will receive pushback.  Accept that fact, knowing there is more than one way to view the matter.  Keep love for all paramount.  

Fourth, follow the example of Jesus.  He bore witness to inclusion through his words and deeds. Do the same.

I cannot predict how these four things will change you or where you will end up.  But I guarantee that a year from now, you will not be exactly the same as you are right now.  And that brings us back to the original question, “Are you willing to do the work necessary to form your own opinion, or will you settle for second-hand information?”


[1] Begin by going online.  The websites for the Human Rights Campaign and the PFLAG organization contain a wealth of information, including contact information for local chapters of these groups.  This action alone will get you started.  You can also call your City Hall, Chamber of Commerce, and United Way to discover additional groups in your area.  Once connected, you will be able to befriend LGBTQ+ people, be befriended by them, and learn so much in the process.



Posted in Holy Love

In-Sight: Immanuel

​Michael Card has been one of my favorite musicians for a long time, recognized by many as a musical theologian, not just a performer.  His composition, “Immanuel,” is the song Jeannie and I turn to every Advent. We are still moved listening to it, even after doing so for decades.

Immanuel is the one-word summary for Advent—God with us.  The cosmic Christ fit into a manger and lived among us full of grace and truth (John 1:14, 17).  Indeed, the Kingdom of God has come near.  We no longer have to ask what God is like.  Jesus puts a face on God.  We no longer have to ask what it means to be a disciple.  We are followers of Christ.  We no longer have to ask what the Christian life is.  It is Christlikeness.

Immanuel provides the vision, the intention, and the means of our faith and our life. [1]  Indeed, in him we live, and move, and have our being (Acts 17:28).  Advent is not a time to limit our focus on “baby Jesus,” though the stories in Matthew and Luke are memorable and moving.  Advent is a time, as the word shows, to begin (begin again) our journey “with God.”  Advent is the reminder that it is God who initiated the journey, becoming incarnate in Jesus—and who now, through the Holy Spirit, continues to be with us.  Immanuel is the one-word reminder that we are never alone. [2]

Advent is our annual opportunity to renew the with-God life.  The Christian Year begins in Advent as a realization of the fact that twelve months is the maximum amount of time any of us should be in a distant relationship with God.  Every year, God says in Christ, “I am with you.”  Every year, God asks, “Will you be with me?”  And in these days of Advent, we have the marvelous opportunity to respond, “Yes, O yes!”

Listen, as Michael Card takes you into this good news…https://g.co/kgs/BLHsPk

[1] The ‘Life With God Bible’ (HarperOne, 2005) uses the “With-God Life” the interpretive paradigm for the entirety of Scripture.  This version of the Bible was developed by Richard Foster and others involved in the Renovaré spiritual formation ministry, and it is remains the central resource of that ministry.

[2] Joseph Girzone has written a moving testimony to this reality in his book. ‘Never Alone’ (Doubleday, 1994).

Posted in In-Sight

Holy Love: Passages #4

Romans 1:18-32

There’s no doubt that this passage is the focal text for interpreting human sexuality in general and LGBTQ+ sexuality in particular.  Romans links in spirit and substance with Leviticus.  Just as Israel was entering a new land, so too Christians were moving into a new world.  In both contexts, separated by more than a thousand years and a thousand mikes, the people of God were moving into cultures and religions that viewed and practiced sexuality differently than God intended.  In both cases, it was important to address sexual immorality and affirm sexual righteousness in keeping with the principles of the Covenant which we have previously explored: sacredness, fidelity, permanency, and (with the coming of the New Covenant) monogamy.  This is why some scholars view this passage as a “Holiness Code” for Christian sexuality.

The passage also provides the larger context for the sexual addiction (malakoi) and sexual abuse (arsenokoitai) which Paul specifically named in the two passages we explored in the last post.  Romans provides the “why” factor to any of the “whats” regarding human sexuality.  Consequently, it is the pivotal passage.  And like the other passages, there is a key in the text itself which opens the door to interpreting it: the “downward spiral” that Paul describes as the passage unfolds.  We can trace it through the following words and ideas.

First, multiple concerns.  One of the immediate mistakes in interpreting this passage is the rush to make sexuality the emphasis.  The same mistake is made with respect to the Holiness Code. Paul’s and Moses’ concerns included many things.  Paul mentions twenty two concerns in this passage.  We must begin here, or we will never interpret Paul’s words correctly.  There are things that Paul is equally concerned about.  Read the list in verses 29-31, and be prepared to be surprised by what’s on it.  Also, ponder why there is comparative silence about 21 sins and so much “noise” about one.

Second, idolatry (v  21-23).  This is the single source from which all the sins mentioned by Paul emerge.  He begins exactly where Moses began, setting sexual sin in the context of Covenant violation, and specifically the violation of the first commandment (Exodus 20:3).  In Canaan, Greece, and Rome sex was idolatrous because it was egoic, glorifying the fallen self rather than God.  This takes sexuality out of its original context (the imago dei), turning God-given sexuality into self-serving gratification—a complete perversion of covenant love. Paul sums it up as sex that “ worshipped and served the creation instead of the creator” (1:25), sex that does not “ acknowledge God” (1:28)—that is, sex which is not sacred.

Third, lust (v 24). Here is the one-word summary for fallen-world sexuality, whether in Canaan, Rome, or our country.  It is the sexual manifestation of idolatry—what the Bible describes in two key words: fornication and adultery.  Lustful sexuality is inordinately passionate and promiscuous.  It includes the two kinds (malakoi and arsenokoitai) that we have already explored—and more.

Interestingly, John Wesley used the phrase ”lustful idolatry” to summarize this passage. [1] He rightly saw the comprehensiveness of the sinfulness Paul was pointing to, emphasizing in his notes the multi-faceted ways in which we abandon the ways of God and embrace thevways of egotism/ethnocentrism.

Fourth, the downward spiral continues with promiscuity (v 24-27).  We see this in two ways: Paul’s use of plural words and more especially in his use of the words “ traded in” (CEB) or “exchanged” (NRSV).  The Greek word means “temporarily set aside” their orientation for another one.  This is the pivot for the kind of sexuality Paul is describing.  Get ready.

He is describing heterosexual persons, not homosexuals!  The sinners here are heterosexuals who behave as if they were homosexuals. Simply put. Paul is not writing about LGBTQ+ people, but about heterosexual persons who sin by acting contrary to their orientation.  And this leads immediately to the next stage in the downward spiral.

Fifth, this sexuality is unnatural (v 26-27).  Scholars are generally agreed that the word “unnatural” as used here by Paul is not a physical term, but a philosophical one taken from Stoicism.  For the Stoics, “natural” sexual behavior was respectful, relational, personal, and affectionate. [2]  The kind of heterosexual sin described by Paul as “unnatural” was (as the larger context shows) exploitive, transactional, objectified, and loveless.  The connection of Paul’s thought with Stoicism comes through his use of the word ‘foolish’ twice (v 21 and 22), the very word that Stoicism used to describe “unnatural” sexuality.  

It is worth noting in this point that Paul is being a good evangelist in this passage.  He used something the Romans who read his letter would understand, Stoic thought about sexuality.  He did not appeal to the Law (as Mosrs did in Leviticus) because the Romans would either not have known it or would have ignored in their culture.  Without ever saying it outright, Paul was saying, “Heterosexual sin is denounced in your own culture by the Stoics.”  In other words, heterosexual sin (behaving as if they were homosexual) is wrong, and the Romans’ own accepted philosophy said so.

The Romans passage is complex, and to fully understand it requires a depth of historical, cultural, and religious knowledge beyond what I have written about here.  But the gist is this: the passage is not about LGBTQ+ people or their sexual behavior.  It is about heterosexuals behaving contrary to their orientation because they idolatrously and lustfully prefer self-gratification over God-glorification.

In short, sexual sin as Paul describes it here is sexual behavior contrary to one’s orientation.  So, when. LGBTQ+ people express their sexuality in congruence with their orientation and with covenant love (sacredness, fidelity, permanency, and monogamy), their sexuality is holy. [3]

And so…

(1) Assuming this interpretation of Romans 1 is new to you, rather than posing a question, I simply ask you to reflect further upon this post.   It took me a while to “see into” the passage.  Be willing to do so.

(2) Consider reading one of the books in the “Scripture” section of the ‘For Further Reading’ list at the back of ‘Holy Love.’  Jennifer Knust’s book is a good overview.


[1] John Wesley, ‘Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament’ (1755), comment about the passage as-a-whole. He makes no comment about homosexuality.

[2] Arius Didymus’ work, ‘Epitome of Stoic Ethics’ goes into detail about these qualities of wise sexuality.

[3] After I wrote ‘Holy Love,’ I found five additional books that are noteworthy for understanding the Romans passage in its historical/cultural context: (1) Marilyn Skinner, ‘Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture’ 2nd edition, (2) David Garrison, ‘Sexual Culture in Ancient Greece,(3) Judith Hallett, Roman Sexualities, (4) K.J. Dover, ‘Greek Sexuality,’ and (5) Craig Williams, ‘Roman Sexuality.’


Posted in Holy Love

Here and Now: Resting

​Our journey this year through the lens of “Here and Now” has taken us in many directions.  As we conclude the series, we must remember that here-and-now living brings us into a deep rest.  We live from the rest of a contemplative foundation. 

It is the rest of existence.  E. Stanley Jones said it’s the sense that enables us to say,”for this I am made.”  Living here-and-now is living from the core purpose of loving God and others, being an instrument of God’s peace.

it is the rest of pace.  Susan Muto calls it living in the pace of grace. It is entering into what is happening rather than working to make something happen. Living here-and-now is living receptively.

It is the rest of increments. Mother Teresa called it the “little-by-little principle” It is living with the belief that the meaning of life is in its steps than in its conclusions.  Living here-and-now is living appreciatively.

It is the rest of authenticity.  Parker Palmer calls it living in our “season” of life rsther than trying to be someone other than who we are.  It is receiving the gifts that each stage of life has to offer. Living here-and-now is living abundantly.

This coming Sunday, we begin a new Christian year. I hope that Advent and the seasons which follow it will be provide you with many opportunities for living here-and-now, and that as you do so you will find rest for your soul.

Posted in Here and Now

Holy Love: Passages #3

​1 Corinthians 16:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10

Paul’s missionary journeys had taken him to Corinth and Cyprus before he made it to Rome.  So, I decided to treat these two passages before Romans 1.  What he experienced with respect to sexuality came through his firsthand observation in Asia Minor.  In fact, what he wrote in Romans 1 was based on second-hand information, only later confirmed when he ended up in Rome.

As with the Levitical passages, these two texts are directly related to their cultural cultural/historical context. [1]  And as with the Levitical passages, we must begin with that context but use it to glean abiding messages that we can apply today.  In ‘Holy Love’ I write mostly about the abiding message and its application.  In this post, I will say more about the original context.

Paul’s writing in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy is linked to the misogynistic culture of the Greeks.  At the extreme of unbridled hedonism, the sexual ethic was a male “anything goes” sexuality.  But even where the virtues of truth, goodness, and beauty were factored in, Greek culture gave wide-ranging license to men’s sexual behaviors.  The fact that some male sexuality was more civil and discreet (just as some of it is today) did not mean it was moral.  

By pointing specifically at two aberrant male sexual behaviors, Paul was calling out misogyny in general and  expressions of it in particular.  Although in its early stages, here are two texts that show a new day was dawning with regard to gender equality.  Jesus’ regard for women was the pivot, and the first Christians continued to open the door to equality.  We see this even more clearly in other of Paul’s writing– Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 5:21, 1 Tim 3:11, and especially his naming of Junia as an apostle in Romans 16:7.  This dawning of egalitarianism reset the context in which human sexuality came to be viewed in Christianity.  We catch a glimpse of it here through the two male sexual sins that Paul denounces.

In the two texts we are looking at today, Paul addresses both of the expressions. Malakoi is the more general practice.  Arsenokoitai is a more specific practice.  Both words are difficult to interpret because they are not used frequently in the Bible.  In fact, arsenokoitai only appears in the 1 Timothy text.  And even outside Scripture it is a strange word. [2]. In ‘Holy Love’ I focus on these two words because it is through them that we get the abiding message which we can apply today.  I will say a bit more about them in this post, and then turn to an unfortunate turn of events with respect to the words.

Malakoi—this is the word which more generally describes mysoginistic sexuality that characterized Greek culture.  The word literally means “soft,” and it was a way of saying a man was effeminate. But with respect to sexual morality, the “softness” applied  to hedonistic practices that were unbridled, sensual, and egoic.  Today, we would describe it as sexual addiction.  In Greek culture, malakoi frequently expressed that addiction by becoming prostitutes.  But the word means more than that, it means men whose sexuality was out of control.  It describes males whose sexuality lacks restraint.

Arsenokoitai—this word included the ideas contained in malakoi, but in a more sinister way.  Arsenokoitai were males who exploited others for their own gratification, treating their partners like objects, not people.  These males went beyond consensual sex to forced behaviors (e.g. rape), and the word is used outside the Bible to describe men involved in the sex industry (prostitution) and related sex-trafficking. Ardenokoitai are sex abusers.

In looking at these two words, it is important to know that neither of them describe a male’s sexual orientation, but rather his behavior.  The fact is, it is not possible to say these words refer to homosexuals. 

But that’s how both words are viewed.  The two words are generally thought to refer to homosexuals.  How did this happen?

The answer lies in The Revised Standard Version that came out in 1946. It was the first translation to use the word ‘homosexual’ in these two passages.  It was an inaccurate translation so far as the Greek words are concerned (as we have seen above), and it was more nearly a linguistic capitulation to an emerging cultural perception—namely that homosexuality is itself sinful.  With the publication of the RSV, conservative Christians could make their case from the Bible.  Other subsequent translations followed the RSV’s lead.  So that today, there is a cut-and-dried “the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it” viewpoint—a viewpoint made and held onto simply because the word ‘homosexual’ was put into the biblical text. [3]

So, where does all this leave us?  What is the abiding message?  Most importantly we learn that the two passages are not about homosexuality as we think of it today.  They are not about sexual orientation.  Today, we would call it “males behaving badly”—in promiscuous and abusive ways that violate the Covenant requirement that sexual behavior honor sacredness, fidelity, permanency, and monogamy.  Neither malakoi males nor arsenokoitsi males do that.

So….

(1) What did you learn today that you have not known before?

(2) How do your learnings influence your thinking?


[1] Since writing ‘Holy Love,’ I have found Dale Martin’s book, ‘The Corinthian Body’ (Yale University Press, 1999) and also Marilyn Skinner’s ‘Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture, 2nd Edition (Wiley-Blackwell, 2013).  Both look at the cultural context for Paul’s words in great detail.  

[2] Dale Martin has written one of the most complete studies of these two words, in a chapter entitled, “Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences” in the book edited by Robert Brawley, ‘Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture’ (WJK. 1996).

[3] Kathy Baldock and Ed Oxford have been at work to show how the 1946 RSV charted an inaccurate course, one that a senior scholar on the translation team later acknowledged.  Kathy and Ed have gone through the complete archives of the RSV translation project, and in January 2020, their book ‘Forging A Sacred Weapon: How the Bible became Anti-Gay.’  In the meantime you can read some interim articles on the Canyonwalker Connections website.

Posted in Holy Love

Here and Now: Engagement

​When we are  present to life here and now, we become engaged with life itself.  Communion, celebration, and compassion connect us to life in the present moment in ways that are life-giving to us and to others.  We see this in the life and ministry of Jesus.

Communion.  Out of his ongoing communion with God (Luke 5:16),  Jesus made the astounding claim that his every word and deed was in response to what the Father told him to say and do.  There is no closer connection between heaven and earth than this.

Jesus also communed with nature, “the first Bible.”  I believe this is why he could so easily connect us with life through his parables, many of which were drawn from nature.  He taught against the backdrop of a firmament that showed God’s handiwork (Psalm 19:1), and his insights help us to see it too.

Celebration.  Jesus lived with the note of joy as his keynote.  Sometimes it was the joy of  pleasurable moments and people.  He seems to have been a regular party goer. But he also found joy in the challenging moments of life through offering others hope and healing.  And in his own experience, he could see joy in his endurance of suffering on the cross (Hebrews 13:2).

Compassion.  The first two elements illustrate compassion, but we speak of it in order to remind ourselves that there is no authentic spirituality apart from compassion.  Jesus “went about doung good.”. This was the disposition of his heart and the expression of his will. Several times we read that his first response to others was to have compassion on them.

In these ways and more, he exemplified engagement and told us to “go and do likewise.”  As the Father sent him, he sends us.

This kind of spirituality is not a separate entity, a compartment, or a day of the week. It is the essence of life as God intends for us to live it–to live it engaged, which means to live it in love.  Mirabai Starr describes it this way, “love—active, engaged, fearless love—is the only way to save ourselves and each other from the firestorm of war that rages around us. There is a renewed urgency to this task now. We are asked not only to tolerate the other, but also to actively engage the love that transmutes the lead of ignorance and hatred into the gold of authentic connection. This is the “narrow gate” Christ speaks of in the Gospels.” [1]  This kind of here-and-now engagement is the sign of genuine spirituality.


[1] Mirabai Starr, ‘God of Love’ (Monkfish, 2012), loc 153.

Posted in Here and Now

Holy Love: Passages #2

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

Honestly, I was not prepared for the complexity regarding these two passages.  Far from being cut-and-dried as a one-sentence, straightforward condemnation of male homosexual activity, the passages are in relation to a cultural and religious context far different from ours today.  An exploration of this context reveals a number of significant things.

First of all, the family system of ancient Israel was radically different.  Marriage was different, often with a polygamous configuration.  The status and role of women bears little resemblance to today.  The level of male dominance and authority was even greater than is typical now.  All three of these differences were not considered sinful then, even though some would be considered to be so today, and some aspects would even be illegal. [1]  

A second complicating factor has to do with the section of Leviticus in which the two verses appear, chapters 17-26 (or sometimes including chapter 27), called The Holiness Code.  It is the section which applies holy living to all the people, not just the priests.  It was a section specifically to instruct the Israelites as to how their behavior was to be different from that of the Egyptians (from whose land they had come) and the Canaanites (into whose land they were entering), see Leviticus 18:1-3.  What makes The Holiness Code complicated is that portions of it are no longer practiced today, even by many Jews (e.g. 18:19, 19:19).  For scholars this raises these questions: (1) Is The Holiness Code timeless or meant only to apply to its original historical setting?  (2) If it has a timeless dimension, but not all of it, which passages do we follow today?  There is no scholarly consensus on either question.

These two complicating factors have led some scholars to dismiss the Levitical verses as not applicable today (in much the same way nearly all scholars no longer include Genesis 19 in the discussion of homosexuality).  In ‘Holy Love’ I took a different approach on two levels.  First, I did not write about the historical factors because the book is a primer-level study.  But second, I did not dismiss the verses because they remain active and influential in the current conversation, and I felt that omitting them would be viewed as sidestepping a key portion of Scripture. 

My choice to include them is based on my general sense of biblical revelation—that even time-bound passages contain a message that can help us live faithfully and well in the present.  If we omit time-bound passages from our study, we reduce the influence of the Bible in our lives. Truth be told, every verse in the Bible is time bound from our vantage point.  The most recent passages are over 1900 years in the past, and the earliest may be nearly 4,000 years away from us.  To dismiss any passage because of its historical distance and difference is a decision that casts a shadow over the entire Bible one way or another.  We see this today in those who view the Bible as irrelevant precisely because it is an “old and outdated book”

In ‘Holy Love’ I have walked another path with respect to Scripture.  I have avoided a straight-line approach that generates a literalist mindset which says, “It’s in the Bible, so I have to practice it now as people did then.”  As I have already shown above, almost no Christians (even very conservative ones) read Scripture that literally.  There are historically-contextualized passages, and we must acknowledge them.  But that does not mean dismissing them.

I believe the two Levitical verses are significantly historically contextualized, so I do not simply  lift out the words and put them on today’s table saying, “The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.”  The Levitical passages (and others in Scripture) are not that “then and now” cut-and-dried.  But neither are they irrelevant or devoid of a message for us with respect to human sexuality.  I take them seriously, and in doing so, two things stand out.

First, the context.  As I noted above, the Holiness Code is a statement about how the Israelites were to behave when they entered Canaan.  In short, the Code was about how they were to prevent Judaism from being amalgamated into Canaanite religion.  The two Levitical texts are culturally/religiously about not connecting Judaism to fertility religion,  a religion that included same-sex acts with temple prostitutes as a way to invoke agricultural prosperity.

In the cultural/religious context, the two verses are violations of the first commandment, “You must have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3).  In that context, the two verses have nothing to do with the person’s sexual orientation.  They are about not being idolatrous.  God was saying, “Do not depend on the Canaanite deities for your agricultural prosperity, depend on me.”

The second thing to take seriously is the text itself, and the phrase “lie with” or “have sexual intercourse with.”  These are English renditions of the Hebrew word shakab. Rather than being a universal prohibition of male homosexuality it is a prohibition against promiscuity.  The word shakab means “roaming”—what we refer to today as “sleeping around.”

The Bible is against promiscuous sex because (as I pointed out in the last post) it violates all four aspects of the Covenant ethic: sacredness, fidelity, permanency, and monogamy.  That is the timeless message.  The verses have nothing directly to say about  male homosexuality itself (as an orientation); in fact, the practice prohibited by Leviticus (as we know from biblical history) was one that males in general were subject to practicing.  The verses prohibit promiscuity, have nothing directly to do with homosexual people, and are silent about whether or not two males (females are not mentioned) could have a lifelong relationship that keeps the Covenant.

There is one more point that we can make early on through the Leviticus texts, a point continued in the Bible; namely that there is no biblical teaching that LGBTQ+ people must be celibate.  That is a view 100% concocted by conservative Christians as a way to build their case for being “welcoming but not affirming”—a view I am personally familiar with because I held it for so long.  It is a conservative way of accepting LGBTQ+ people while denying them the right to marry.  It is a human constraint that puts LGBTQ+ people in a category the Bible itself does not create.  There is no biblical passage to support mandatory celibacy for LGBTQ+ people.  In fact, it is a prohibition that artificially precludes them from the opportunity to live in a Covenant relationship that honors sacred, fidelity, permanency, and monogamy.

Simply put, the Levitical passages send us a message, but it is not the one that many Christians say it is.  The Levitical message is this: promiscuous sexuality is not the will of God.  It is a message for us all, not just LGBTQ+ people. 

So…

(1) Are you willing to look at these passages in a new way?

(2) If not, why?  If so, what have you learned as a result? 


[1] The CEB Study Bible has a good summary of sexuality in relation to the Israelite family system, p. 184 OT.  A much more detailed and scholarly study has been written by David Baile, ‘Eros and the Jews: From Biblical Israel to Contemporary America’ (Basic Books, 1992). 

Video | Posted on by

The Soul of Impeachment

​As the public phase of the impeachment process begins, nothing is more certain than this: it will occur in a whirlwind of confusion, fueled to a great degree by political partisanship that will seek to frame the matter along party lines.  But the fact is, as some are willing to admit, the impeachment process itself is not defined or directed by partisanship—or at least was not originally designed to be so.  Impeachment is an indication of something much larger—a sign not only that laws may have been violated, but that our national character may have been compromised.

It is in this dimension where we see that at its core, impeachment is about the soul of our nation, not merely its laws.  It is about the morality of a President not just his methodology.  Of course, the process moves on the assessment of law and order.  But it is an evaluation of law and order based on a deeper sense of what is good for our country, and whether or not we have the will to hold the President accountable for personifying that goodness. The Presidential oath of office can be subject to legality with respect to a particular President’s fidelity to it, but the oath itself is a statement of character and a President’s promise to uphold it.

Jon Meacham writes about this in the current issue of Time magazine. [1]  But he is not the first to do so.  President Harry Truman, for example, saw the need for the nation to periodically correct itself.  Impeachment operates in that context with respect to the President. It is a process, as Meacham notes, of honoring something in our national life and expecting the President to do so as well.

So, as we watch the impeachment process unfold, let’s keep in mind that while the immediate context is whether the President has committed an impeachable offense, the long-term consideration is, “What kind of nation would we become if we allowed our President to behave this way?”  The impeachment process is ultimately about the trajectory that a President’s behavior sets and the message it sends.  Impeachment is ultimately about what becomes of our national soul. 


[1] John Meacham, “A National Test,” Time magazine, Novembrr 14, 2019, pp. 34-38.

Posted in Editorials

Here and Now: Community

Being reconciled to one another in Christ here and now, we can move to establish community.  It is community based on grace, nothing else.  We do not have to be alike.  We do not have agree.  Our community is not contingent upon any secondary descriptor or pre-requisite.

All the pressure is off!  We can be together because we are together.  All the ways the world (and sadly, the church too) labels us (and then uses the labels to divide us from each other) cease to be factors.  They are stripped of their power to separate us.  We are one in Christ.

In this kind of community we also live beyond ourselves.  Mission thrives because we no longer vote for or against them based on our preferences.  When everything belongs, the only missional question is, “Will this give us the opportunity to draw closer to others and do them good?”  If it does, we are for it!

The overarching term for this “the beloved community”–the community in which the love of God poured into our hearts through the Spirit enables us to manifest the fruit of the Spirit.  When this life together is real, the Kingdom of God is present and active. 

The past five years or so, I have discovered it is much easier to be accepting than judging.  All you have to do to be accepting is to accept.  But to be judging, you have to expend a lot of energy developing your case and defending it.  It is wonderful to be able to enter any situation and all you have to do is say, “My name is Steve.  What’s yours?” This kind of here-and-now simplicity creates community in ways that pre-judging never can.  And in that simplicity, it is amazing who you meet!

Posted in Here and Now

Holy Love: The Passages #1

Introduction

 I have not counted the total number of passages in the Bible that refer to human sexuality in general or sexual behavior in particular.  There are many, hundreds I would assume.  What I do know is that only a few are said to refer to homosexuality.  I use the words “said to refer” because I have come to believe the verses are used to substantiate a view which the Bible itself does not teach.  I write about these passages in chapter three of ‘Holy Love.’  In this post, and the upcoming round of them I will expand upon what I wrote in the book.  This post is an overview/summary.  Upcoming ones  will be about specific passages.

To begin with, it is a complex and tricky thing to read the selected passages using contemporary definitions of sexuality, sexual identity, sexual orientation, etc.  In fact, it is possible that the so-called “clobber passages” have nothing to do with homosexuality as we typically think of it today.  I realize this is a radical statement, but I also believe it is plausible. [1] The history of homosexuality makes a direct link between the present and the past difficult. [2]. No matter where anyone comes down regarding the passages, this complexity must be acknowledged.  Failure to do so is theological obscurantism.

But at the same time, it is true that the oft-cited passages are all negative and prohibitive.  The question is, “What are they negative about?  What kind of sexuality does the Bible prohibit?  Here is a brief summary that I will expand upon in upcoming posts…

     –Leviticus 18;:22, 20:13—sexuality that is promiscuous.

     –1 Corinthians 6:9-10—sexuality that is lustful (malakoi)

     –1Timothy 1:10—sexua!ity that  is abusive (arsenokoitai)

     –Romans 1:18-32—sexuality that is idolatrous

From these passages, we see that sexual sinfulness is about aberrant behavior, not a person’s gender, sexual identity or orientation.  There is not a straight sexuality and a gay sexuality, there is only human sexuality. People of all sexualities can honor it.  Holy sexuality is not limited to heterosexuals.

So, what id the means for establishing sexual morality in Scripture?  It is the Covenant.  As Walter Brueggemann rightly notes, the Covenant is the way God intends for people to relate to God and each other, summed up (as I have already described it) in the word love as expressed in the two great commandments.  With respect to sexuality, the Covenant enjoins behavior that reflects sacredness, fidelity, permanence, and (with the coming of the New Covenant) monogamous.

This is precisely why promiscuous, idolatrous, lustful, and abusive sexuality is forbidden.  These behaviors are contrary to God’s will for sexuality, not because of the identities/orientations of the people, but because they violate Covenant standards.  Conversely, holy sexuality reverences and reflects sacredness, fidelity, permanency, and monogamy—and all people can honor the Covenant in their sexuality, and they do.  The sign of their intent to do so (in both the Old and New Testaments) is marriage.  And that is why all people must be allowed to enter into “the covenant of holy wedlock.”

There is more to be said about the specific passages, and I turn to this in upcoming posts, even while recognizing the limitations of such in both the book and these blogs.  Nevertheless, what we see in this introduction is a Scriptural basis for an inclusive sexuality.  Some Christians will not agree, but the plausibility exists regardless.  [3]

So….

(1) Are you willing to explore biblical passages about sexuality in ways that invite you to consider more than one point of view?

(2) Are you willing to include in your study of Scripture the contributions of tradition, reason, and experience?


[1] The word ‘plausible’ is crucial.  I recognize that serious scholarship has been done on the conservative side of the theological spectrum.  My aim is only to show that a more progressive interpretation is serious and scholarly as well.  So, I use the word ‘plausible’ to state my case and make my claim as a “Bible-believing Christian” just as conservatives do.  It is wrong for conservatives to allege their interpretation is correct and everyone else’s is less so.  I reject that view, and instead advocate a view that has a comparable scholarly foundation underneath it. The diversity of views is not due to differences in belief regarding the inspiration and authority of Scripture, but rather a difference in hermeneutics (interpretation) with respect to the cited passages.

[2] Francis Mondimore’s book, ‘A Natural History of Homosexuality’ shows the complexity of the subject from a historical point of view.  Jerold Greenberg’s book, ‘Exploring Dimensions of Human Sexuality’ reveals the same thing from a scientific perspective.

[3]  Christians have held varying views of human sexuality and sexual ethics across the centuries, and will likely continue to do so.  What is essential, however, is to unmask the false allegation that the conservative view is the only one that can legitimately be drawn from the Bible.  That is simply not true.  Equally devout Christians and credible scholars see things differently.

Video | Posted on by

Here and Now: Reconciliation

​When our life in the present moment brings us to the point of seeing that everything belongs, it also reveals that God has given us a ministry–the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18).  From that moment on, we know why we are on the earth.

We are called to the ministry of reconciliation because even though there is a pervasive inclusion inherent in creation, not everything fits together as it should or as it is meant to be.  There is work to be done.

Living here-and-now cleans the lens, enabling us to see the purpose of God. [1]. That purpose, in the words of St. Paul, is to remove “the dividing wall” between us and to bring together “one new humanity” (Ephesians 2:14-16).

Present-moment living puts us on the lookout for places where reconciliation is needed, and when we see these places, we should consider that God has given us the insight as an invitation to become involved somehow as a minister of reconciliation. This does not mean trying to be all over the map and involved in every good effort [2]  That futile attempt will only wear us out, overwhelm us, and sow seeds of despair.

But it does mean cultivating a general disposition toward reconciliation (through an incorporation of things like the fruit of the Spirit and the prayer of St. Francis), and then finding selective and focused ways to practice it.

Tending our little plot of ground connects with everyone else who is doing the same thing all over the earth.  And in this way, the whole world is under the influence of reconciliation.  We have been singing about this since we were children,

“Clean up, clean up,
Everybody, everywhere.
Clean up, clean up,
Everybody do their share.”

[1] Richard Rohr, ‘Everything Belongs’ (Crossroad, 1999).

[2]  In practicing discernment about this, we include the fact that God is not calling us to be involved everywhere we see the need for reconciliation.  Thomas R. Kelly wrote helpfully about this in his book, ‘A Testament of Devotion’ (Harper & Row, 1941), in the section entitled ” The Eternal Now and Social Concern. “

Posted in Here and Now

Holy Love: Consummation

​When we pray the Lord’s Prayer, we say “thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”  The previous facets  of the hermeneutic of love have helped us see love “on earth.” When we turn to consummation, we see love “as it is in heaven.”  Theologically, we call this eschatology.  But we simply mean, “Where things are headed.”

Unfortunately, we have lived most of our lives under an eschatology that says we are headed for Armageddon.  I was a teenager when Hal Lindsey wrote ‘The Late Great Planet Earth,’ and was joined by a host of radio and television preachers who spoke more about the “lake of fire” (i.e. damnation) than about the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e. deliverance).  The tone was one of fear and anxiety.  A bit later, the ‘Left Behind’ series took the trepidation trajectory to a new level of intensity.  Not going to hell became the prism through which many folks defined (and many still do) the ultimate purpose of the Gospel.  For many, this “turn or burn” narrative was the biblical message. Jesus was seen as the one offering spiritual “fire insurance” more than abundant living. [1]

To the extent this was the focus, the love of God was eclipsed by a view of God who is essentially mad at us and  is looking for ways to punish us—unless we can convince God to do otherwise.  With love in eclipse, grace soon left the (church) building, replaced by a performance-orientation (i.e. works righteousness) by which we hoped to end up in heaven because the plusses of our lives outnumbered the minuses.  This kind of consummation told us we are saved by the skin of our teeth rather than by grace.  It put the emphasis on us more than God.  God was “up there” passively waiting to see if we could do more good things than bad before we die, not actively at work to “forgive us our trespasses and deliver us from evil.” 

 This self-focus fed the ego, creating a self-righteousness that frequently espoused certainty regarding who would end up in heaven and who would not.  And for the purposes of this series suffice it to say that the left-behind list included LGBTQ+ people.

So…how do we get out of this faux gospel and into the Gospel itself?  How do we make consummation a love-defined reality?  We do so in two key ways, both related to Christ, who is the Alpha and Omega—the one who reveals where things came from and where they are heading. [2]

First, through the person of the universal Christ.  The second person of the Holy Trinity is the eternal and pervasive presence of the Godhead. [3]  As the means of creation (e.g. John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16), everyone and everything is a product and reflection of Christ (Colossians 3:11).  This is an ontological oneness that links us in love in ways that nothing can separate (Romans 8:38).  The eternal Christ is the Path on whom we all walk toward the consummation.

Second, through the work of the universal Christ.  Christ establishes the trajectory toward which the consummation moves.  Paul described it generally when he wrote that the eternal plan of God is “to bring all things together in Christ, the things in heaven along with the things on earth” (Ephesians 1:10)—a  plan through which  God “accomplishes everything according to his design” (Ephesians 1:11).  Jesus’ whole ministry (preaching, teaching, and healing) and his entire countenance (inclusive love) were means toward this, and we must see his entire incarnation as advancing the trajectory.  But Paul also notes that the climax/apex of this was Jesus’ atonement in which God  “reconciled all things to himself through him, whether things on earth or in the heavens” (Colossians 1:20).

Taken together, the person and work of the universal Christ enable us to live with confidence and with hope.  We live with confidence that we are participating (in our lives and by our witness) in the cosmic purpose of God.  We are heirs of the promise and co-creators in helping to bring it to pass.  We are confident that we are God’s beloved.

From this confidence, we live with hope.  It is the kind of hope the writer of Hebrews described as “not seen” (2:8-9; 11:1).  This is not a hope rooted in circumstance, but in outcome.  That’s why we call it consummation.  Even though we often see the lack of love in the world, we believe that love will prevail.  We have this hope, and we give ourselves to being instruments of love in the meantime.  Love will be the final word spoken for eternity, for all.  All means all.

So….

(1) How does this cosmic perspective affect your view of things here and now?

(2) How can you be an instrument of this perspective in your life and work?


[1] While many assume this is what the Bible teaches, it is actually what a person named John Nelson Darby taught, and was fashioned by others into what is today called Dispensationalism—a theology that interprets where things are going through the lens of double predestination (hyper Calvinism) that enjoins a strict and unchangeable who’s “in” and who’s “out” view with respect to heaven.

[2] I have been greatly helped in my understanding of consummation by Richard Rohr in his book, ‘The Universal Christ’ (Convergent Books, 2019), particularly in chapter seven, “Going Somewhere Good.”

[3] Language fails to describe this.  It is Mystery, but that does not mean we cannot write ir speak about it, it only means we will never fathom it.

Posted in Holy Love

In-Sight: What a Wonderful World

Jeannie and I have just returned  from a great visit with our family in Kentucky.  The trip included several opportunities to experience the wonder and beauty of nature as fall settles in.  It really is a spectacular season.

Seeing the colors and  feeling the cool breezes reminded me of how blessed Jeannie and I have been to travel in all of the forty-eight continental United  States and five Canadian provinces.  Journeying in her “Little Red Truck” and staying in our pop-up camper, we have frequently been at the right place at the right time to experience the wonder of nature. And thanks to Jeannie’s photographic eye, we have literally thousands of pictures to help us relive many of those moments.

 It is easy to understand why creation has been called “the first Bible” by many Christians, especially those in the Franciscan tradition. Indeed, “heaven is declaring God’s glory; the sky is proclaiming his handiwork” (Psalm 19:1)  But Christianity does not have exclusive claim on that.  Other world religions likewise extol the magnificence of creation.  The verse above comes from Judaism.  Hindus recite Sanskrit mantras daily that revere their rivers, mountains, trees and animals.  Buddhists reverence creation and daily engage in a spiritual practice called “Touching the Earth” that reminds them of their oneness with creation. Taoists believe that when human nature is aligned with the rest of nature, order and harmony are the result.  Muslims define a good life (Hayat Tayebah ) as living lightly on Earth (Zohd) and caring for both people and nature. 

As the seasons change in both of the earth’s hemispheres, now is a good time to spend time outdoors, experiencing the world God has made, of which we are an essential part.  We don’t have to  travel somewhere spectacular; we only have to place ourselves in creation right where we are, and soon we will recognize that “all nature sings.”   

Creation spirituality is not the totality of the spiritual life, but it is the largest context for it, from the smallest particle to the farthest star.  It is the 13.8 billion year revelation which frames our brief but spectacular life on the earth.  It is in creation that we most easily sense our oneness with everyone and everything, and in creation where we come to understand our calling to care for all God has made.

Ilia Delio has helped me see and appreciate the wonders of creation through her combining of her Franciscan spiritual tradition with the scientific insights of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. [1]  It is a cosmic linking of the inner and outer worlds in ways that are transformational.  She describes it this way, “Our main work must now shift to the inner universe, to discover the vast layers of consciousness and the creation of new space. We do not know what a new consciousness might look like or how it will be enacted in the lived experience. But we must begin to take one step at a time, beginning from the inside, and discover the new creature.” [2] This happens as we increasingly interact with nature.

Not long ago, Jeannie and I were having  lunch in our backyard by the pond, a place teeming with life.  As we ate our meal, a Red-Tailed Hawk flew onto a branch only several feet away from us.  Our eyes met, and for a couple of minutes we were in each other’s presence unafraid and grateful.  The silent space between us was holy.  A timelessness in the midst of time.  And we thought to ourselves what a wonderful world.


[1] You can follow her ministry by going online to The Omega Center.

[2] Ilia Delio, “A Hunger for Wholeness,” article on The Omega Center website, March 23, 2018.  Her latest book carries the same title and expands on this idea.

Posted in In-Sight

Here and Now: Inclusion

​When we live in the present moment with the fullness of our true personhood in play, we experience inclusion and offer it to others.  We are included in everything, and everything is included in us.  As Richard Rohr has put it, everything belongs.

Our Buddhist friends understand this better than many Christians do.  They call it interbeing, the sense that we are each part of a fundamental and pervasive oneness.  Another name for it is unitive consciousness. Prior to the Enlightenment, Christianity recognized this along with other philosophies and religions.

With the rise of the Age of Reason, science and mechanics began to see things in pieces and parts.  The Church’s theology followed suit, losing a defining sense of cosmic oneness so that to bring it up today doesn’t even sound like Christian faith–but in the larger sweep of history, it is.  In fact, unitive consciousness has been the milieu of theology more than separateness. [1]

The tree named Pano in northern Utah illustrates the idea.  When you arrive to see it, your first thought is that you are entering a forest–one made up of approximately 46,000 trees.  But the fact is, Pano is one tree (root ball) that has come through the soil with thousands of manifestations.  The expressions are different, but all of them are part of an invisible union.  Everything belongs.

Henri Nouwen wrote beautifully and powerfully about this, “To pray, that is, to listen to the voice of the One who calls us the ‘beloved,’ is to learn that that voice excludes no one. Where I dwell, God dwells with me and where God dwells with me I find all my sisters and brothers. And so intimacy with God and solidarity with all people are two aspects of dwelling in the present moment that can never be separated.” [2]

When we live in the present moment, we are given “eyes to see and ears to hear” (Mark 8:18), and with our spiritual senses we recognize a larger unity than our specific diversity reveals.  Beneath the surface of things we all are the manifestations of a singular Reality.  “In him we live, move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28).

Everything belongs.  Interbeing.  Inclusion.

Once we recognize this, we live differently from then on.

 

[1] In the Christian tradition, the Orthodox Church has represented unitive consciousness more clearly than Roman Catholicism.  The Protestant tradition is a mixture.  The Wesleyan tradition was more unitive (“and”) than separatist (“either/or”) until a segment of it was taken over by a rationalist way of thinking.  Paul Chilcote has written an excellent book about the unitive nature of Wesleyan theology, ‘Recapturing the Wesleys’ Vision’ (InterVarsity Press, 2004).

[2] Henri Nouwen, ‘Bread for the Journey’ (HarperCollins, 1997), November 24th.

Posted in Here and Now

Holy Love: Church

Expanding on the hermeneutic of love in the Church beyond what I write in the book means enlarging the idea of the Church as the Body of Christ.  I write some about it this in the book, but today I add these thoughts.

 First, the hermeneutic of love flows naturally from Christ into the Church through the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:32-23).  The fruit is the meeting place to describe who Jesus was (and the universal Christ is), and who God intends for us to be as we abide in Christ  (John 15) and are  guided by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16).   The definitive word in the list of the fruit of the Spirit is love.  John Wesley called love “the root of all the rest.” [1]. Similarly. E. Stanley Jones wrote, “Love is the first outcome of the Spirit within, and if it is lacking, everything is lacking.” [2]

Simply put, as the Body of Christ, the Church manifests the nature of Christ, which is love—even as he incarnated the nature of God, which is love.  Love is the core DNA of the Church.

Second, the Church manifests the love of Christ in the world.  On the night he was betrayed, Jesus gave the disciples a sign of this love, washing the disciples’ feet and telling them/us to do likewise (John 13:1-20).  And a few minutes later he gave the disciples a new commandment, “Love each other.  Just as I have loved you, you must also love each other.  This is how everyone will know that you are my disciples, when you love each other” (John 13:34).  Through his action and his teaching, Jesus said that the hallmark of our witness is love.

Thomas Merton wrote about this and said, “So the mystery of the Church demands that Christians love one another in a visible and concrete way–and that they love all people.  Christ will not be visible to the world in His Church except in proportion as Christians seek peace and unity with one another and with all.” [3]

When I pause to reflect on all this, it is as if I hear the Risen Christ saying, “Is this clear enough?” And all I can say is, “ Yes Lord, it is.”  All means all.


So….

(1) How does the Church help you to be more loving?

(2) How and where is your church loving inclusively?


[1] John Wesley, ‘Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament’ (1755), his comment on Galatians 5:22.

[2] E. Stanley Jones, ‘Growing Spiritually’ (Pierce and Washbaigh, 1953), subsequently reprinted by Abingdon Press in 1978, Week 18, Monday.

[3] Thomas Merton. ‘Seasons of Celebration’ (Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 1965 ), 216.

Posted in Holy Love

Here and Now: True Personhood

​Living here-and-now makes all of life formative, and it evokes the emergence of our true personhood.  By not being tethered by the past (e.g.”What I should have been or might have been”) and by not being pulled into the future (e.g.”What I ought to be”), we are free to be who we are.  In the present moment, the “I AM” God intersects the “I am” self, and we are never more truly or fully ourselves than when that happens.

Living in the present moment opens the way to experience communion with God without distraction or diminishment.  The spiritual life thrives in the paradox that less is more, and that to be present in the hear-and-now brings more life to us than trying to be “all over the map” in a never-ending round of feverish activity.

In this concentration our true self has the opportunity to emerge, not covered over by the illusion of either the past or the future.  Living here-and-now brings our fulness into the present moment, enabling us to say, “I am here!” and hearing God speak back, “I am too!”

Posted in Here and Now

Holy Love: Christ

​The fourth vantage point for seeing the hermeneutic of holy love is Christ, the one who reveals the creator (“whoever has seen me has seen the Father,” John 14:9), the one who made the creation (“ everything came into being through the Word,” John 1:3), and the one who is the mediator of the covenant (Hebrews 8:6, 9:15, 12:24).  So, everything we have said thus far comes together in Christ, and it does so through love (John 13:1).

One of the things I have heard people say about the relation between Christ and human sexuality is this, “I wish he had made it clear about sexual identities, orientations, same-sex marriage, etc.  I have wished the same.  I have thought, “If only I could spend five minutes with Jesus.”  I have a list of questions.  Human sexuality is one of them.  

Scholars are correct in noting Jesus’ silence about homosexuality.  And they are correct that we cannot use his silence to make a point one way or the other.  Arguments from silence, on any subject, are not regarded as strong ones.  I understand and respect that, but Jesus’ silence does not create a vacuum.  In fact, when we turn to him, he teaches some very important things about human sexuality.

First, Jesus was the incarnation of the pre/post incarnate Christ. [1]. He personified the cosmic reality that Paul described, “Christ is all and in all” (Colossians 3:11).  The first three words lead us to his Lordship, the last three lead us to our sacredness.  “Christ is in all” is a powerful affirmation based on the fact that we are made in the image of God.  All of us.  This comprehensiveness is the existential basis for the sacred worth of all people.  Christ is in all.   All means all.

Second, Jesus bypassed two golden opportunities to denounce same-sex marriage and homosexuality.  With regard to marriage (Matthew 19:5) he could have said, “One man, one woman marriage is the only kind God approves of.”  But he didn’t.  Why?  Because even though one man/one woman marriages wete/are normative, they are not definitive.  Marriage is a covenant bond, not based in gender but rather (as we have seen) in the Covenant principles of sacredness, fidelity, permanency—and later in the New Covenant, monogamy.  His remarks in Matthew were not about marriage per se, but about how divorce regulations had cheapened the union God intended. 

In the same moment, he could have taken the “one flesh” phrase and  limit it to a physical act reserved for heterosexuals, but he didn’t.  Why? Because “one flesh” is not a physical term.  When it is used in the Old Testament (Gen 2:24, Gen 29:14, Judges 9:2,  2 Sam 5:1, 2 Sam 19:12-13, and 1 Chron 11:1), it is a metaphorical phrase describing a deep kinship bond—what we mean today when we refer to people who have a “heart-to-heart” relationship, or who we say are “joined at the hip.”

But the real blockbuster Jesus gave us is in his second missed opportunity to denounce  homosexuality. It came with respect to eunuchs (Matthew 19:12).  People called eunuchs were the biblical way of noting and referring to nonbinary human beings. Today, we have specified the idea in the categories of intersex, transgender, etc.  Jesus could have spoken of those born that way as aberrations, but he didn’t. He could have referred to those who chose to be spiritual eunuchs as living against God’s will, but he didn’t.  Rather, he spoke positively about eunuchs, in keeping with God’s affirmation of them in Isaiah 56:3-5.  This passage is so important that we must explore it further.  It teaches a number of important things about nonbinary people…

          –they are fully human (v 3). Eunuchs must not say they are “dry trees,”—that is, they are not disordered human beings. They are not aberrations of God’s design.  They are nonbinary expressions of it along the spectrum of humanity in the first creation story.

         –they can keep the Covenant, as eunuchs (v 4)—that is, they do not have to sublimate their  sexuality (e.g. through celibacy) or be “normalized” in some way. They have full access to religion.

         –they are honored people (v 5)—that is, they are given a monument in in both the temple (religion) and the city walls (society).

         –they are given a name better than sons and daughters (v 5)—that is, better than the identities of maleness and femaleness (e.g. the Native-American view of two-spirited people).  Perhaps more like Adam before Eve was separated, more like God’s nature which is nonbinary. (This is an amazing idea!)

Jesus’ carrying forward of the substance and spirit of Isaiah’s words through his valuing of eunuchs is his most powerful affirmation of nonbinary sexuality.  It effectively shuts down any notion that non-heterosexual people are aberrations or that they are unable to be fully included in both the Church and the society.

And thirdly, Jesus modeled the Message revealed in Galatians 3:11, by his inclusion of those whom conventional religion either excluded or marginalized.  His radical inclusion is one of the things that got him into trouble with religious leaders.  It was one of his most powerful confirmations to the second great love commandment.

Taken together, these points have produced what some call The Jesus Hermeneutic; that is, he becomes the lens through whom we see the rest of the Bible. [2]  Some of the highlights of his hermeneutic are these,

     –he was not confined to traditional interpretations (Matthew 5:17-48)

     –he was not legalistic: he violated laws in order to show mercy (Luke 4:31-44)

     –he was inclined toward inclusion.  (Matthew 11:28)

     –he put mercy and compassion over the Law.  (Matthew 23:23)

     –he even protected those who were said to deserve death (John 7:53—8:11)

In fact, what we find in Jesus is that his harshest words were spoken to those who  insisted they were not sinners, and from their pedestals of self-righteousness looked down upon the designated less-than “others” with judgmentalism and condemnation. Jesus was negative toward those who claimed to know better than the “others”—the ones who claimed to be correct. [3]

Jesus’ hermeneutic was not a collection of random acts of kindness, it was the outworking of his declared mission on day-one of his ministry.  Choosing Isaiah 61:1-2 as his text, he told his fellow Nazarenes that the Spirit of the Lord was upon him—the Holy Spirit moving him to engage with the poor, with prisoners, the blind, and the oppressed—announcing to them all “the Lord’s favor”(Luke 4:18-19).  Jesus stopped reading from Isaiah right there, but the original text included the phrase, “and to proclaim…a day of vindication for our God”  Jesus made a clean break with retribution, and declared that his ministry would be restorative.  Later he summed it up in one sentence, “I have come that you may have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10).

My conclusion about Christ is that he was by no means silent about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. He was not silent with respect to the overall context in which these things must be viewed.  His model and message was inclusive love, unqualified affirmation, and full access.  He set the pattern and calls us to follow it.  All means all.


So…..

(1) How does Jesus encourage you to love?

(2) How does Jesus challenge you to love?

            


[1] I learned the terms pre-incarnate Christ and post-incarnate Christ from E. Stanley Jones, terms he used to describe the eternal and universal Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity.

[2] Richard Rohr writes about The Jesus Hermeneutic in chapter three of his book, ‘What Do We Do with the Bible?’ (CAC Publishing, 2018).

[3] Years ago, I heard the claim about Jesus’ negativity essentially being expressed on religious leaders and others who self-righteousness, and I was not sure the claim was correct.  So, I read the four gospels, noting every place where Jesus spoke negatively.  And sure enough, the claim is correct!

Posted in Holy Love

Here and Now: Suffering

​There are other positive things we could note about living here and now.  But it would be a mistake to think that the blessings of present-moment living are limited to them.  We must include suffering as a portal for our formation.

Long ago, David spoke of it, “Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I fear no danger” (Psalm 23:4).  Other psalms likewise show life to be a mixture of pleasure and pain.

Such an understanding of life is described in the classic paradigm of consolation/desolation.  Of course, we want to experience consolation (e.g. happiness) in our lives, but God is equally present to bless us in times of desolation.  It is in our suffering where we experience the fullness of the truth that God is with us always.  And that makes every moment a God moment–a moment when grace can come to us in relation to our need.  

God does not wait outside our lives until our sufferings cease and things “brighten up”–God walks into our darkness and is present in our trials.  It is in suffering where we learn one of the great lessons of living here-and-now: we are never alone.

Posted in Here and Now

Holy Love: Covenant

The third vantage point for seeing the hermeneutic of holy love is the Covenant.  When we pray the Lord’s Prayer, we say “thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”  This is the creator/creation congruence we have looked at in the past two posts.  But that congruence raises the question, “How can we tell when the will of God is being done on earth?”  The answer is found in one word: Covenant. [1]

In the book I explore Covenant in various ways.  In this post I want to expand the exploration by using Walter Brueggemann’s phrase “journey to the common good.” [2]  In using this phrase he understands that Covenant manifests itself throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament.  

The metaphor of journey is the context for Covenant.  For one thing the covenant was given during the journey of the Israelites from Egypt to the Promised Land.  Among other things, this means it was given in the midst of day-to-day living.  The covenant is God’s way of saying, “This is what loving me and loving others looks like here and now.”  The historical context for Covenant is important to know, but we must not limit the Message to its original milieu.  To do so locks it in the past and limits it to a life none of us live today.  The Covenant speaks to us today because it speaks a timeless word.

Furthermore, by giving the covenant during Israel’s journey, God is showing how we receive the Message but live into it little-by-little.  For example, the Ten Commandments do not look the same and they are not lived the same every day.  On the day God gave the Ten Commandments to the Israelites, they had only a rudimentary understanding of them—an understanding that would necessarily grow as they applied them day after day.

We too receive and practice them as we journey.  Dawn and high noon are not the same, but the sun’s light provides both.  With respect to human sexuality, Covenant tells us that our belief will begin small and develop over time as we establish relations with LGBTQ+ people.  Nothing appears in full at first. [3]  This is how relationships work—they unfold.  As they do, we nourish them with patience, tenderness, and expectation.  We live into the covenant as we journey.

And then, we discover that Covenant is for the common good.  This is the content of Covenant—life together.  I note in the book that all three iterations of the covenant (Noah, Abraham, and Moses) show it was universal, intended for all people everywhere.  But what exactly was intended?  Two things stand out.

First, the avoidance of exploitation, in whatever form it occurred.  This is one reason why there ended up being 613 commandments.  It was not so that the covenant would micromanage every detail of our lives (which is what a legalistic use of Covenant did…and does), but because holiness applies to every aspect of life.  The covenant called out exploitation because it is the mark that the relational oneness in the Godhead is being ignored and the intended onenes in creation is being violated.  One way to read every commandment is to ask two questions, “What exploitation does this commandment expose?”….and….(2) “What expression of holiness does it invite?”

The second question leads to the second major feature of Covenant, the emancipation of people.  The literal slavery in Egypt was an example, but it was also a sign of God’s pervasive message, “ Let my people go!”  This is why Paul summed it up the purpose of the covenant in his letter to the Galatians, “Christ has set us free for freedom” (5:1)   Charles Wesley described in by writing, “My chains fell off. My heart was free. I rose, went forth, and followed thee.” [4]

The avoidance of exploitation and the experience of emancipation are the simultaneous results of one thing: love—the hesed and agapé we have previoysly noted.  Again this is why Paul describes the new creation by writing, “All these new things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18)

We enter that passage in the phrase, “gave us the ministry of reconciliation.”  We are intended to be a covenant people, offering love to all in ways that protect them from exploitation and in ways that emancipate them.  Legalism does not do this, but Covenant does.  As Paul put it, “what is written kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6). We are God’s covenant people called to share covenant love—to everyone.  All means all.


So…..

(1) Do you accept the two love commandments as the summation of the Covenant?

(2) How are you expressing them, and are you expressing them to everyone?


[1] Notice I did not say Law.  Covenant is a larger concept than Law.  When we look at Leviticus in a future post, I will say more about the Law.

[2] Brueggemann develops this phrase in his book of the same title, ‘Journey to the Common Good’ (Westminster John Knox, 2010).

[3] I have discovered that this happens also when LGBTQ+ people begin to relate to Christians.  They have been so harmed by the Christian community that they don’t accept the overture of love and acceptance quickly or easily.  Every LGBTQ+ person I know has been told by a Christian, “You are loved,” only to later discover it was not so.  The entire Christian/LGBTQ+ relationship develops slowly and in stages.  Affirming Christians must gain the trust of LGBTQ+ people because they have been given waxed fruit rather than the fruit of the Spirit by Christians whose allegation, “We love the gays” turned out to be quite conditional, and in some cases, bogus.

[4] From Wesley’s hymn, “And Can It Be?”

Posted in Holy Love

Here and Now: Gratitude

​David Steindl-Rast introduced me to gratitude as a sign that we are living in the present moment. He wrote, “Our eyes are opened to the surprise character of the world around us the moment we wake up from taking things for granted.” [1]

We have already noted that living here and now is an awakening.  Through Brother David’s writing, I have learned it is the awakening of gratitude–what he names above as not taking things for granted.  When we do not live in the present moment we miss a lot that is going on, and consequently we take those things for granted.  When that becomes a pattern, we lose (or at least diminish) our capacity for gratitude.

The Bible exhorts us to give thanks.  It is a way of pointing out things that are happening, and it is a sign that those things are being received by us.  Gratitude is an outward witness flowing from an inward experience. [2]

Gratitude is an important way of remembering that we live in a grace-saturated world.  Life is coming to us all the time.  Gratitude is our response.  Richard Rohr reminds us that our response to grace is not to earn God’s love, but rather to return it. [3] 

Thich Nhat Hanh has added to my understanding of gratitude through his little books about walking, sitting, eating, etc.  He says it simply, every act is “gratitude to all of life.” [4]  And as we will gratefully, we also live joyfully.

Anne Lamott is bold to say that “thanks” is one of the three best prayers we ever pray.  Prayers of gratefulness shape a pattern in us; they create a disposition of our hearts toward wonder, aliveness, surprise, hope, and love.  Gratitude is an infilling with things that enliven us. [5]

[1] David Steindl-Rast, ‘Gratefulness, the Heart of Prayer’ (Paulist Press, 1984), 9.

[2] Diana Butler-Bass has written an excellent book, ‘Grateful: The Transforming Power of Giving Thanks’ (Harper One, 2018).  Susan Muto’s book, ‘Gratefulness: The Habit of a Grace-filled Life’ (Ave Maria Press, 2018) is another one to note.

[3] Joelle Chase and Judy Traeger, eds., ‘Richard Rohr: Essential Teachings on Love’ (Orbis Books: 2018), 61.

[4] Thich Nhat Hanh, ‘Living Budda, Living Christ’ 10th Anniversary Edition (Riverhead Books, 2007), 26.

[5] Anne Lamott, ‘Help, Thanks, Wow: The Three Essential Prayers’ (Riverhead Books, 2012).

Posted in Here and Now

Holy Love: Creation

Creation is the second vantage point for seeing the hermeneutic of holy love. We live in a God-made world (Genesis 1:1).  It is reasonable to assume that there would be congruence between who God is and what God has made.  Indeed there is, “Heaven is declaring God’s glory; the sky is proclaiming his handiwork” (Psalm 19:1).  And what is that glory, that handiwork?  Among other things, it is diversity.

In the Godhead there is diversity.  We call it the Holy Trinity, a nonbinary relational reality, which ontologically establishes “the law of three”—the law of diversity. [1]  Furthermore,  within the Godhead there is a diversity of names (e.g. Elohim, El Shaddai, El Roi) further communicating diversity.  God is nonbinary in both nature and activity.

So too is the creation.  I point out in the book that the pairings (e.g. heavens/earth) in the first creation story are not doublets.  They are spectrum words.  The same is true for the male/female pairing.  It is unfortunate that we see and affirm the nonbinary nature of creation in the other pairings but do not do the same with humanity.  The Bible is not a science book, but it is a reality book, and one of the first realities in Scripture is the nonbinary nature of the creation.

I have come to see that one of the major failures of a conservative theology of human sexuality is its unwillingness to recognize the nonbinary nature of humanity. That unwillingness , however, is a linchpin in their nonaffirming theology of LGBTQ+ people, so I understand their reluctance to give up a notion of binary creation.  If male/female is a “two” then sexuality diversity is a sin (departure) from the original creation—either as a deliberate choice (rebellion) against human nature, or some deformation (aberation) of human nature—both options arising from the fall in Genesis 3. [2]

But this is not the revelation of Scripture, which portrays a nonbinary cosmos—a portrayal confirmed today by the natural and behavioral sciences.  Here is a second failure of a conservative theology of human sexuality—namely, an unwillingness to incorporate the findings of science into their theology.  In the Wesleyan tradition we would call this a failure to interface Scripture and reason. [3] This failure is skewing the view of many Christians about LGBTQ+ people, and providing an ideological justification for their exclusion and/or limitation in the Church–a  form of doing harm specifically forbidden in the General Rules of the Wesleyan tradition.

I include in the book some resources from the behavioral and natural sciences to show the nonbinary nature of human sexuality, a finding that ascribes sacred worth to people of all gender identities and sexual orientations.  But since I wrote the book, I continue to find ongoing scientific affirmation.  I mention two in this post.

The first is an article in Science magazine, a professional publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest general science membership society.  The article, “Giant Study  Links DNA Variants to Same-Sex Behavior,” by Michael Price (October 20, 2018) chronicles four genetic variations which are the focus of interest among geneticists as they continue refining a more than thirty-year scientific exploration of human sexuality.  The most recent findings, while still in the early stages, are encouraging because they fit into the trajectory of evidence that confirms the nonbinary nature of humanity and the resulting diversity in human sexuality.

The second affirmation is a massive synthesis report (akin to the one above) entitled, “Diversity in Human Sexuality: Implications for Policy in Africa.”  It was conducted by The Academy of Science in South Africa at the request of the government as a means for providing a basis for just legislation concerning LGBTQ+ people. The 93-page report (subsequently endorsed by the Uganda National Academy of Science) was published in May 2015. [4]. Drawing on studies from the fields of genetics, epigenetics, brain morphology, and endocrinology the scientists conclude, “ There is no longer any doubt about the existence of a substantial biological basis to sexual orientation… just as there are many ways to be heterosexual, there are many homosexualities.” [5]

These relatively early findings have opened the door to the realization of diversity in human sexuality.  There is no “gay gene”—the formation of sexual diversity is not that simple.  But it is the result of complex DNA variation.  Another indication of what the Bible tells us elsewhere, that we are sacredly and variously made (Psalm 139:14).

What we see is that the Bible and science tell the same story about human sexuality, and it is the story of diversity. God-made, not sin-produced.  Nonbinary, not binary. Part of  the grand revelation of divine order, not intrinsic disorder.  A sign of original goodness, not original sin. 

 Without hesitation, I exhort theologians not to put forward a theology of human sexuality that fails to incorporate (by accident or intent) the findings of contemporary science. This requires a commitment to lifelong learning and attentiveness to truth outside of the Bible. When we do this, we will find creation as another manifestation of the hermeneutic of God’s holy love for all.  All means all.

So…..

(1) Are you willing to study the biblical revelation of a nonbinary creation?

(2) Are you willing to incorporate the findings of science into your beliefs about human sexuality?


[1] For more on this, read Cynthia Bourgeault’s book, ‘The Holy Trinity and the Law of Three ‘ (Shambala, 2013).

[2] As I point out in the book, the choice/aberration allegations compromise a core conservative resistance to diversity in human sexuality, both based on a binary view of creation.  The deliberate-choice (rebellion) allegation runs throughout conservative theology, ancient and modern.  The aberration (intrinsic disordering) allegation is a more-recent one, but one adopted by conservative evangelicals who recognize genetic variation but interpret it as a sign of the fall.  One of the most pronounced expressions of the binary view is the Nashville Statement, made public by the Coalition for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood on August 29, 2017.  Most of the Articles in the Statement enforce binary (male/female) heteronormativity as intrinsic to the creation, thus requiring a rejection of nonbinary diversity through some view of  deformation by the fall.  This is an unfortunate imposition on Scripture, not one that arises from the text itself.  I will say more about this when I write a future post about the Romans 1 passage.

[3] I believe much of this is due to the fact that many simply do not know what the sciences are discovering.  But there are some who do know, yet choose to ignore the findings, falsely calling them “junk science” and thus perpetuating a bogus and obscurantist theology of binary humanity that erroneously normalizes male/female heterosexuality.

[4] You can easily  download a pdf copy of this report by googling the title.  I urge you to do so.

[5] From the study, p. 32.

Posted in Holy Love

In-Sight: Surprised into Transformatiom

​A writing project I am engaged in has taken me back into the books of E. Stanley Jones.  I have spent large amounts of time re-reading them. I have been reminded why he is the overall major influence in my faith formation.  

Decades ago, when I read E. Stanley Jones’ book, ‘The Christ of the Indian Road,’ for the first time, I was surprised by what I found before I completed the Introduction.[1]  Jones had barely arrived in India to begin his missionary ministry before he faced his most formidable challenge: the Westernization of Christianity, offered to the Indian people in ways that reflected British colonialism more than Christ.

Jones saw that Western values (e.g.  domination, conflict, and racism) were defining Christianity and the Church more than the Gospel. He wrote that very quickly, “It became clear that we were not there to implant Western civilization.” [2]  In fact, Jones had to drop the word ‘Christianity’ from announcements about his public speaking because the word had become so acculturated by British views and values that Indian people either boycotted his meetings or attended with preconceptions that made them indifferent and cold.  

Jones saw that their skepticism did not lie in their resistance to God.  On the contrary, most were warmly religious in their respective faith traditions.  Their resistance was rooted in their sense that Christianity was mostly a religious means of subjugating them to Great Britain as a country and to an Aryanism racial superiority. He observed that “hitherto it has been exceedingly difficult to get non-Christians to come to a Christian address of any kind.” [3]

When Jones shared his discovery with fellow missionaries, he received less than agreement. Other Christians too were perplexed and did what is often done to those who see things differently—they caricatured him, and labeled his as having become a Modernist. [4]  In some cases, he was met with resistance by them.  Some were so wedded to “the system” that any critique of it was suspect. Jones saw that too much of Christianity was under the influence of an institutionalized Jesus rather than the universal Christ—not just in India, but elsewhere in the world. He set out to change that. [5]

All this happened a hundred years ago, but the need to liberate Christ from Christianity and the Church is as great now as it was then.  The public face of North American Christianity (largely a neo-fundamentalism) is once again too Western—or to say it more generally, too acculturated. But to many even mainstream Christianity looks more like a corporation than the Body of Christ.  It’s a rough time for institutionalized Christianity.

Moreover, the person of Jesus looks too much like a citizen and too little like the Christ.  The values of our acculturated Jesus express the values of a capitalist/corporate  America more than they express the ethos of simplicity, equity, compassion,  and generosity.  The Church is too much captured by a “prosperity gospel” (which is not the Gospel) and a mission to try and convince us that “the kingdoms of this world” are the Kingdom of God, when they are not and never have been. We are living in a neo-Constantinian era when religion, economics, politics, and the military-industrial complex are leading us away from God more than toward God.

And just like the people in India saw through the acculturated gospel (“British greatness” imperialized), people today are seeing through an acculturated gospel once again (“American greatness” globalized).  Just as there were nones/dones in Jones’ day, there are nones/dones in ours—in growing numbers.  It is a sad irony that non-Christians often have a keener sense of who Jesus is, what Christianity should be, and what the Church ought to be than those of us who have lived inside institutionalized Christianity for so long that we cannot see any difference between an ecclesial Jesus and the universal Christ.

But God is never without a witness.  E. Stanley Jones is an example of one in the past.  Others today are rising up to do what Jones did—i.e. to unwrap Christ from the burial clothes of acculturated Christianity and offer him to a world in fresh ways that make him be the Lord and giver of Life…..to ALL.  The prophetic task—to call out falsehood by calling forth a new vision of shalom—is incumbent upon us today.  God is always looking for people who will separate the chaff of an acculturated Jesus from the wheat of a universal Christ.  He found such a person in E. Stanley Jones.  Will he find such persons among us?

[1] E. Stanley Jones, The Christ of the Indian Road’ (Abingdon Press, 1925).

[2] Ibid., 17.

[3] Ibid., 29.

[4] E. Stanley Jones, ‘A Song of Ascents: A Spiritual Autobiography’ (Abingdon Press, 1968), 92.  In that day, to be called a Modernist was the harshest judgment that fundamentalist Christians could make against someone, even more judgmental than calling someone liberal.  To be called Modernist was tantamount to being called un-Christian.

[5] I believe this is why his strategy was to begin his message at the widest possible place (the excarnate Christ, the Word) and then move to lift up the incarnate Christ (the Word made flesh) as a universal Savior and Lord.  We see this approach in his books, The Christ of Every Road (1930), Victorious Living (1936), Abundant Living (1942), The Way (1946), and The word Became Flesh (1963).

[6] There is no way to list all those who are rising as prophets in our day.  As always, there are many who have not bowed to Baal.  I list these few only as illustrations of that larger number: Christena Cleveland, Nadia Bolz-Webber, Rachel Held Evans (r.i.p.), Wilda Gaffney, Barbara Brown Taylor, Mirabai Starr, Jen Hatmaker, Joan Chittister, Cynthia Bourgesult, Richard Rohr, William Barber, Liz Theoharis, John Dear, Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, Parker Palmer, and John Pavlovich—to name a few.

Posted in In-Sight

Here and Now: Freedom

​In last week’s post, I wrote about the importance of simplicity in present-moment living.  Such simplicity is the means for another quality of here-and-now living: freedom.

It is the freedom that arises when we are available to life here and now.  Simplicity frees us from being attached to the past and the future, and that leaves us free to experience life in the present moment.  Thich Nhat Hanh writes about freedom in these words, “You make yourself available to life and life becomes available to you.” [1]

We have all had the experience of talking with someone, and in the midst of the conversation we realized we were not paying attention to what the other person was saying.  We were distracted.  And the distraction prevented us to be free in the present moment to concentrate on the person.  In a very real sense, we were “somewhere else.”

Freedom is being here not somewhere else.  Freedom is the fruit of simplification, because we are not distracted by what has happened in the past, or by what might happen in the future.  Jesus spoke of this in two sayings: “don’t put your hand to the plow and look back” (Luke 9:62) and “don’t worry about tomorrow” (Matthew 6:34).  As we do this, all that’s left is living today, living in the present moment.  Living here and now is living with a lightness of being, and that is freedom.

Posted in Here and Now

Holy Love: Creator

​The first vantage point for developing a hermeneutic of holy love is the Creator.  In the previous post we began our look at God through the core attribute of love.  There are multiple words for love in Hebrew and Greek, but in relation to God the words hesed and agapé are central.

Hesed is the Hebrew word.  It is the word used to describe the loving relationship between God and human beings, and between humans.  It tells us that the phrase “God is love” is more than a concept, it is a communion.  It is a relationship which reveals that God is loyal, kind, and merciful.  Hesed is the love between God and the people of God, spelled out in the Covenant, which we will look at in a future post. It is the revelation that God’s love is steadfast, unfailing, and never-ending.

Beyond these indications of God’s nature and relationship, hesed describes the rule of God—one that is loving in its essence, not legal.  Restorative, not retributive.  It is gracious love; that is, God will continue to love us even when we do not love God.  Hesed is love that redeems and renews—the love that inspires wonder in us that leads to worship. [1]

Agapé is the Greek word.  It includes everything just noted about hesed.  It is the word used to describe the core of God’s nature in the Septuagint and in the New Testament.  It is also the love God has shed abroad in our hearts enabling us to love God and others. 

Some of you will know that agapé is one of four Greek words for love. It seems to have been the word chosen to best describe the love of God because agapé is not love for one’s own sake, but rather for the sake of the other.  The other loves (eros, philéo, and storgé) ebb and flow depending on the loveability of the other and the love response we receive from the other.  Agapé does not fluctuate because it is not determined conditionally.  God loves because God is love. God is love itself, and God’s being determines God’s behavior, described in relation to Christ as the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 12:8).  Unchanging.  What the hymnwriter meant by, “O Love, that will not let me go.”

 Agapé is rooted in the will of the lover, which in God’s case is the will to love the world (John 3:16)—which means everyone.  It is universal, sacrificial, gracious, merciful, forgiving, strengthening, outgoing, and redeeming.  It is the atmosphere in which we live, move, and have our being.  And as with hesed,  it is the love which defines our worshipful response and our loving service. [2]

Our theology of human sexuality begins, continues, and end in the words, “God is love”—love as revealed in hesed  and agapé.  God loves everyone.  God loves everyone the same.  There is no “other” (lesser) love because there are no “others” (less thans) to be loved differently.  God loves all. All means all.


So….

(1) How do the words “God is love” enter into you?

(2) How do the words ”God is love” pass out of you to others?


[1] This description of hesed is adapted from William Mounce’s ‘Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words’ (Zondervan, 2006),  426-427.

[2] This description of agapé is adapted from Mounce’s dictionary and from William Barclay’s ‘New Testament Words’ (SCM Press, 1964), 17-30.

Posted in Holy Love

Here and Now: Simplicity

​Nearly forty years ago, Richard Foster introduced me to simplicity as an essential discipline in the spiritual life. [1]  His own witness about simplicity has been exemplary, but he has also pointed me (and so many others) to additional witnesses to the simpke life like Francis and Clare, Teresa of Avila, Francois Fenelon, Brother Lawrence, and A.W. Tozer to name a few.

Coming alongside these influencers, I have been guided by Thomas Moore, best known as the author of ‘The Care of the Soul.’ [2]. In the book he speaks about simplicity, but it was his later coining of a word that made an impact on me.  It is the word ‘complexification’–essentially moving away from simplicity.  Moore called it one of the major contemporary soul damagers.

With Moore’s word, along with what I had already learned about simplicity, I was given eyes to see and ears to hear it, and honestly, substantially in contrast to my own lack of it.  I knew more about complexification than I did about simplicity, and in some ways that is still true.

But I have learned enough to know that simplicity is a means for learning to live in the present moment.  Simplicity creates and sustains an inward disposition that de-quantifies a definition of life where “more is better” is alleged to be the truth, when it is not true.  Simplicity enables us to recognize and celebrate what the saints call ordinary holiness.

Theologically, simplicity is the preference for regular moments, learning to be content with them rather than being obsessed with thinking about only “big things” and “spectacular moments” matter.  Simplicity enables us to see that life is largely made up of little things and routine activities.  It conditions us to find purpose and joy in them.

Practically speaking, simplicity means we do fewer things in a given period of time.  But that very reduction opens the space to go deeper into our lives, paying attention to what we are actually thinking or doing rather than being preoccupied with the past or the future.

Simplification in the present moment is really about relaxing in the moment, putting the past and the future in their places so that what’s going on here and now has a better chance of getting through.

[1] Richard Foster, ‘Celebration of Discipline’ (Harper & Row, 1978), chapter 6.  He followed this with an entire book devoted to the subject, ‘Freedom of Simplicity’ (Harper & Row, 1981).  Both books have been republished in revised editions.

[2] Thomas Moore, ‘The Care of the Soul’ (HarperCollins, 1992).

Posted in Here and Now

Holy Love: A Hermeneutic of Holy Love

​The Bible is simultaneously sixty-six books written over a period of approximately 1600 years, and one Book that communicates a unified revelation.  With respect to a theology of human sexuality, we must begin by discerning the overarching view before looking at specific passages.  As I pointed out in the previous post, many books have not done this.  The failure to begin at the widest point leaves open the misinterpretation of the Bible on any subject, and that includes a misunderstanding of what it says about human sexuality.

But is it possible to discover the overarching hermeneutic for the Bible as-a-whole?  The answer is, “Yes,” and the discovery comes through the common way we talk about the Bible as “the written Word of God.” [1]. The key is in the two words “of God.”  The Bible is God’s revelation, so it is reasonable to assume that it will be congruent with the nature and purpose of God.  In other words, God is the ultimate hermeneutic of Scripture.  The being and activity of God is the unifying element of the Bible. [2]

With respect to the nature of God, the Bible sums it up in one sentence, “God is love” (1 John 4:8).  Dr. Walter Brueggemann sees this core reality revealed in the divine name Yahweh—the name ascribed to God in general (first used in Genesis 2:4) and to Jesus in particular (first used in Luke 2:11).  Brueggemann notes that five attributes are contained in the name: mercy, grace, faithfulness, forgiveness, and steadfast love. [3]  Given this, we see that the Bible is a revelation of who God is.  And the word is love.

With respect to the purpose of God, the Bible sums it up in one word too: holiness.  God is holy and wants to create a people shaped by grace who are holy as well. [4]  To be holy essentially means to be  lovers (individually and collectively) of the world (ie. John 3:16)—which is to say lovers of everyone and everything.  Holiness is summed up in the two great commandments, to love God and to love others as we love ourselves (Matthew 22:36-40).  It is in this respect that we are most like God. 

Taken together, love and holiness reveal the overarching hermeneutic of Scripture.  Directly or indirectly every particular passage tells us something about holy love.  The Bible does this through some key vantage points.  We will look at them one-by-one in upcoming posts.


So….

(1) How does the phrase “holy love” describe what you already believe?

(2) How does the phrase “holy love” challenge you to enrich/expand your beliefs?


[1] Theologically it is necessary to point out that the Bible itself is not the Word  of God, and the Bible tells us this itself.  The Word of God is the logos, understood essentially as the second person of the Trinity, the pre-incarnate, incarnate, and post-incarnate Christ.  The Word of God is person not paper.  

[2] The CEB Study Bible has an excellent article about this, “The Bible’s Unity,” by Dr. Marianne Meye Thompson.  In the article she notes that “the Bible is held together by a single narrative and that the central figure is the Triune God” (p. 533 nt).

[3] Walter Brueggemann, ‘Theology of the Old Testament’ (Fortress Press, 2009).

[4] For more on this, see Dr. Kenneth Collins’ book, ‘The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace (Abingdon Press, 2007).  Dr. Collins and I do not have the same theology of human sexuality, but he rightly captures the essence of Wesleyan theology.  And because my book was intended to link a theology of human sexuality with the Wesleyan tradition, I deliberately chose the title ‘Holy Love.’

Posted in Holy Love