What makes traditional marriage traditional?

I've been thinking about the phrase "traditional marriage", and wondering how the concept of "traditional" is being applied. I concluded that it must be related to time; the length of a practice and its repetition renders something a tradition.

And so I decided to look at the "one man, one woman" argument, commonly known as "traditional marriage" from the perspective of time.

Turns out polygany (one man, more than one woman) was alive and well in Christianity until relatively recently.

• Paul counseled that church leaders have only one wife, which makes it pretty clear that it wasn't a requirement for regular Christians.
• Augustine and St. Basil of Caesarea both wrote about it in the 4th century. Socrates of Constantinople addressed it in the 5th century.
• Even Reformation hero Martin Luther thought it was permissible under some circumstances, saying:

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." 

• In simultaneous contrast, the Council of Trent took a firm stance on the issue however in 1563, finally declaring polygany and concubinage anathema.

So. Let's ignore the polygany that continues to occur in Mormon circles etc., and call 1563 the beginning of "one man, one woman." That means that what people are calling "traditional marriage" has been the standard for 452 years as of the date of this writing.

I think Abraham is the first biblical example of polygany, and he walked the earth around 2,000BCE. If I do the math, that means that for at least 3,563 years, marriage between one man and more than one woman was occurring among the faithful.

That's 3,563 years of polygany compared to 452 years of "one man, one woman".

Which, then, is more "traditional"?

On Romans 1 and 2

Someone in an online discussion about same sex marriage asked me how I filtered Romans 1 and 2 through the lens of Christ.

First let's do what Jesus does and consider the individual person and situation. Just as each of the gospels is written by a different individual having different gifts and backgrounds and speaking to different audiences, so do the epistles. In this case we are talking about Paul. A Pharisee, someone who never spent time with Jesus or observed him in action. Called by God to make use of his education, skill, and passion to make up for the persecution of those who walked in The Way.

The audience is the nascent church in Rome. The gentile population in Rome was exposed to the worship of multiple gods. (I've stood within the Pantheon that is still located there which points out that reality.) Paul speaks to the young Christians and acknowledges that even the pagans had an understanding of "God" in their hearts, despite not having grown up with the Jewish understanding. And he warns this group to be careful that now that they have been informed about Jesus, they should not mingle their theology with the old ways. He mentions making idols that look like birds and animals etc. And those old ways of worshiping lower case gods were characterized by many negative characteristics, including debased sexual practices.

Paul pulls out his extensive understanding of scripture to try to convince the population that bad things will happen if they try to mix gods and God. Just as it was bad for the band that had been freed from Egypt.

He talks about lusts. Lusting is bad. It's often coupled with coveting, fornication, and adultery. And that goes for all humans, regardless of orientation. In verse 24 he talks about dishonering of their bodies, perhaps in reference to masturbation (an action clearly not limited to homosexuals.) In verse 27 he talks about being "consumed with passion". God does not want us to be consumed with anything but him. He wants all of our being to focus on him, and our sexuality to be channeled through that relationship.

But it is interesting that there is such a focus on just the sexual statements, when the list of bad stuff is long. And many of those bad behaviors run just as rampant in Christian circles as in pagan.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. ... 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

I wish that I could say this list of crappy behaviors is not found among Christians. But sadly that would be a lie. In recent online discussions about the same sex marriage ruling by the Supreme Court, I have seen countless examples of Christian malice, slander, insolence, haughtiness, boastfulness, and heartlessness. The passage above says that the wrath of God is against ALL the ungodliness and unrighteousness included in that list. But unlike those very Christians who act in these ways, I will not proclaim, as if carrying God's holy hammer of justice, that they will burn in hell.

For God himself knows more than all of us. And he sent Jesus Christ so that we could be saved by grace, through faith. And Romans warns us that reliance on law makes us subject to the law.

As for me, I accept Jesus' offer which Paul describes. I return to the covenant of Abraham; a relationship that took place prior to Moses and his thousands of rules.

Our bigender God

My wife and I have been thinking a lot about gender lately.

An article my daughter posted pointed out the layers of complexity of the issue which Caitlyn Jenner brought to America's door step. Women have been working for generations to not be labeled as simply soft, vulnerable, lipstick-slathered corset wearers. For over a century we've been trying to get society to accept that having the equipment necessary to grow babies doesn't mean women should be prevented from voting, or get paid less, or be kept out of scientific circles because of our emotional mushiness and our distracting sexiness.

Meanwhile, here comes Caitlyn, posing in undergarments and talking about being glad she can wear fingernail polish long enough for it to chip. Bruce fought for the chance to transform into Caitlyn and now talks about the relief of being able to chat with a group of women about what dress to wear to dinner. The excitement about her new ability to "act like a girl" is palpable.

It's all very confusing.

But reading through some of Caitlyn's interviews raised an interesting point. She mentions having been given the soul of a woman.

Here's what the scriptures say about the creation of humans.

Gen. 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

I'd not really thought about the fullness of what this means until recently. I'd always focused on the binary statement of what He made: male OR female. But what this statement says is so much more profound than that, because it speaks not only about us as human beings, but about who God is. And that's a biggie.

Apparently the image of God is male AND female. (Not neither male nor female. BOTH male and female.)

I've always believed in traditional concepts of femininity and masculinity (vive la différence!), and have associated each with particular body types. I've also believed that this gender assignment remains beyond those bodies, traveling with us into eternity.

But lately I've been thinking more deeply about this question. When we are no longer equipped with genitalia, Adam's apples, or bone structure, what will our gender resemble? Will our presences in the mystical state known as heaven be intensified versions of binary genders, or will our spirits broaden to be even more like God. More fully both, just as He is?

Paul seems to think it's the latter:

Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

And since this is the case, aren't people who are gender fluid actually more God-like than those of us who binarily gender identify?

In reading these scriptures, I think the answer has to be yes.

If the scriptures are unchanging then they are dead

Hebrews 4:12

Evangelical Christians often proclaim that the scriptures are alive and yet unchanging and unchangeable. But let's look at what it means to have life. Here's a definition from www.dictionary.com.

 LIFE: The condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. 

If the scriptures are alive, then they can't be unchanging. The only things that don't change are those that are already dead, or those that never contained life in the first place.

The act of living is a process of transformation and change on all sorts of levels. In the case of a plant, water permeates a seed and swells the cells until they burst forth as a shoot and push out into the air. Then air and water and light are transformed into energy and growth occurs. Eventually flowers come and more seeds are produced and then the plant dies and decomposes and the process of change moves on to some other life form.

The process is similar for pretty much all life forms: insemination, birth, growth, response to stimuli, death.

So listen up, conservative Evangelical Christians. You have to choose:

Either the scriptures are unchanging, and therefore dead. Or they are living, and therefore equipped for change and adaptation.

Forgive me, my sweet, atheistic prophet

After reading Jesus' excoriation of the pharisees in Matthew chapter 23, I've been thinking about the prophets. Here's why:

³³ “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? ³⁴ Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.

The passage came up while I was writing this post: Jesus was talking to us when He spoke back then. Except for this one part. I've been thinking about it ever since, and contemplating what it means to be a prophet.

The traditional Christian view of prophets comes from the Hebrew scriptures, with John the Baptist bringing up the tail end. (I've even heard him called the last of the prophets.) This crowd of greats preached repentance and a turning away from other gods: "Turn back, oh man, or be consumed by fires and floods and pestilence."

But here we have Jesus telling us that He will send prophets, sages, and teachers. So who are these modern day speakers of God's truths to the religious who refuse to listen?

Turns out my daughter was one. For years she tried to open my Pharisaical heart to truths that I could not allow myself to embrace. She tried to explain that my views on gender were narrow minded and culturally inflicted. She told me stories of the good people she knew who were transgender. She debated with me about the causes and social ramifications of homosexuality. And she did all this gently, and for the most part, very patiently. She knew I was like those Pharisees that Jesus disdains, and I think she also knew that she would not be able to persuade me of the truth of her words.

And so I say now, on the record and officially, that I'm sorry, my brilliant and beautiful atheist. You were right. I couldn't hear it, and I was like the pre-Paul Saul, on fire with my own inaccurate idea of who God was.

I hope I can be as brave and truthful a prophet as you some day.

Jesus was talking to us when He spoke back then. Except for this one part.

A week or so ago I was called "a special kind of stupid" for sharing this in response to a conservative evangelical Christian's post about the Caitlyn Jenner hype:

In the same thread, another person said I was preaching "the Gospel according to Suzanne" because I suggested that when the Bible doesn't speak of an issue (in this case, transgender individuals), we must always approach it with love.

Over the same timeframe, my children's picture book, Rumplepimple was launched. This tore open the wound my relationship with my wife Diane has created with her beloved sister. Rumplepimple is a dog who's family structure mirrors ours; he has a sister cat and two moms. Diane's heart has been sick over her sister's unwillingness to engage in conversation about God's view of same sex relationships. Having come from the same background, she understands the conservative evangelical view because she held it. Given my Catholic background, I also get it. But our attempts to explore the scriptures about the issue with her sister have been met with slammed conversational doors at best, and claims of religious persecution at worst.

So I've been pondering. And as part of these ponderings, I thought about Jesus who was harsh to only two groups: those who turned His father's house into a marketplace, and the pharisees, who blocked the way to the kingdom and bore their religiosity like a golden hammer.

Evangelical Christians tend toward a Bible-alone theology, and tend to believe that the scriptures are evergreen in their entirety. The approach generally seems to be that all the rules presented then still apply. (Except in the case of things like hair cuts, fabric composition, stonings, and dozens of others dismissively lumped into "Old Covenant". I've dealt with this inconsistency in previous posts, so I'm brushing over all of that now.) What struck me today was a new kind of hypocrisy.

It seems as if this particular brand of modern Christians dismisses the entirety of Matthew 23, apparently deeming it as merely historical. Perhaps snickering at those persnickety Pharisees, who counted cumin seeds and nagged about unclean creatures in the meager wine cups of the poor. These moderns seem to feel good about what they believe is a simpler relationship, based on faith alone, and if Jesus' woes apply to anyone, it's to the Roman Catholics.

But this is exactly the kind of viperish hypocrisy which Jesus condemned. Out of one side of the pulpit we hear that all of the scriptures continue to apply to Christians today: all the parables, all Paul's warnings about sin, and most especially those meager mentions of same sex relations.

But that same pulpit doesn't seem to think Jesus' woes should be viewed as a warning to God's people today. And that seems exceedingly odd, given the unprecedented harshness of Jesus' stance, and the sheer force of His derisive disapproval.

Jesus never speaks to anyone in the scriptures that way again. It's to this group of rule-wielding God defenders alone that He unleashes the full force of His verbal condemnation. And remember, conservative evangelicals, this warning is evergreen. He's still unleashing His disapproval on those of you who continue to do it today:

Matt 23:13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces." 35 "And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth"

Christian witness as a Holy Hammer

I decided to cut and paste some snippets from a discussion I recently had on the Manhattan Declaration Facebook page, in response to the recent Supreme Court ruling about same sex marriage. I'm posting them here so that I can respond with a link the next time someone tells me they don't understand why Christians get a bad rap when it comes to the issue.

Here's why.

Enjoy some examples of the condescension, judgement, and arrogance people like me face when attempting to discuss the scriptures.

<START QUOTE>No listen I get it...you claim legitimacy for one person in the Bible while ascribing illegitimacy to the other people in the Bible. It's an obviously illogical tale that is as old as time. Not that deep intellectually. But to the childish and especially rebellious I can see how it holds a certain appeal. Regardless, yours is indeed a whole cloth cherry-picking of the Jesus traits you approve of and an adolescent dismissal of those you do not. Again, not really that deep. I'll forgo addressing the silliness of your last entry/vain attempt at changing the subject. However as to your second, I would point out the error in understanding that you, most other novices and manipulators of the Truth have regarding what can and cannot be 'judged'. The only thing I am prohibited from doing is pronouncing a final "condemnation" to hell against an individual who like me, still has access to God's grace and kindness. That obviously belongs to God and no Christian in their right mind would even desire that kind of responsibility. Nevertheless, all else belongs to man. I could of course post many supporting scriptures but I suspect you are aware of them (along with God's teaching regarding perverse sexual behavior) and simply ignore them as well when it is convenient for you to do so. wink emoticon
<END QUOTE>

<START QUOTE>Oh bless your heart. You're eager to learn. That is good. Once you've gotten a real understanding of the reality of the scriptures referencing perverse sexual behavior and their absolute legitimacy, sure! We can then discuss anything you'd like. But as the case may be, this whole discussion is based on perverse sexual behavior. Therefore let us begin there and then we can move on to actual legitimate matters. However, just to clear up a fundamental flaw in your perspective, Suzanne, Jesus is the Word of God. All of it. That is explained in the first chapter of John. Attempting to highlight only gospel narratives about Him while dismissing the entirety of the rest of the book (that is Him) is error. Its just the result of your being a common novice and lacking real understanding. You still need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk right now, not solid food. And we will have plenty of time for that. wink emoticon
<END QUOTE>

<START QUOTE>Interesting that you would perceive fear in order. And I apologize if you concluded my words were sarcastic. Forgive me, perhaps it is an instinctive and unrealized way that an expert speaks to an incorrect person. Let me assure you that I speak the Truth in agape love. I am glad you agree that Jesus is the entire Word of God. And that you and I as Christians are right to reference any part of the Word as Jesus Himself.<END QUOTE>

<START QUOTE>I see your attempt at translating Greek. That is cute. But the Greek word(s) are malakoi (soft individuals) followed immediately by Arsenokoitai (Sodomites). So if it is easier for you to fully comprehend, it is directly translated as effeminate homosexuals.<END QUOTE>

<START QUOTE>I did not reference this scripture. Nor the others you brought up. Therefore I shall not read nor address them here. I’m sorry you did so much work in typing them but try to stay focused on the task at hand. Let’s get your understanding of the scriptures that I actually referenced down first before we go on to risk you misunderstanding anymore, ok? For quick review, Romans declares that homosexual behavior is dishonorable, contrary, shameless and worthy of penalty. Titus explains the characteristics of individuals attempting to foster unrighteous doctrines and how those who follow Jesus are to respond. And Revelation makes clear that that no group of people in defilement or behaving abominably will be accepted. Again, all of these are being referenced in response to the subject of homosexual behavior. If you are prepared to acknowledge that homosexual behavior is in fact being addressed by these scriptures, we can then move on from these basics. smile emoticon<END QUOTE>

<START QUOTE>My response: Oh no, not more confusion on your part. Is English a primary language for you? Discussing things with you almost feels like when I call Verizon FiOs customer support and I get someone from the Philippines on the line. They never really seem to comprehend the problem at hand. That may well be the case with you too. Are you from Malaysia, or Pakistan or some other East Asian nation? Anyway, for my part I find prefabricated answers to questions not yet asked when the prefabricated answers were created to be of little to no use when having a real discussion. But you can feel free to quote the other things if you’d like. Just remember, try to keep it in the context of perverse homosexual behavior. Thanks! smile emoticon<END QUOTE>

<START QUOTE>Uh oh...now Suzanne, are we back to that mishigas? As I stated earlier I don't doubt you've slowly created an imaginary Jesus in your mind that you circumstantially adhere to when it suits you emotionally. But don't compound your errors in understanding by attempting to project them onto me. No hon, I am a true disciple. I believe, receive and humble myself to all of His word. I do not cherry-pick the parts that fit in with my vile & inordinate affections. smile emoticon<END QUOTE>

<START QUOTE>Oh Suzanne, in both pride & rebellion you insist on continuing in error, don't you (rhetorical)? That is unfortunate; however it is proper for you to say that you could never confuse me with 'your' idol.

Alas, it is now clear you're precisely the type of individual Titus spoke of. You're an inconsequential, unruly and empty deceiver, nothing more. Your mind and in many respects worse, conscience is defiled. You continue to insist that you have a relationship with God, but your behavior....perverse, abominable, homosexual behavior....provoked by vile and inordinate affections actually deny Him. As I stated at the beginning, your words and deeds are against Jesus Christ, the Lord, and they defy who He is. Your insolence towards God testifies against you; in haughty pride you parade your sin just like they did in Sodom; and you do not even attempt to hide it. That is how deceived you have become. Woe to and for you. You've willfully brought disaster upon yourself. But for those who honor, obey and love Jesus it will be well. We will enjoy the lasting fruit of our behavior....we understand that attempting to continue in sin while pretending Jesus will magically confer legitimacy on it is a doctrine of the devil. Therefore with heavy hearts we accept that you will (if you do not turn away from your sin) reap the eternal penalty prescribed for yours.

My heart wants to assist you in reverse engineering your error to its more than likely emotional genesis but it is quite clear that you’re not in a position to be cooperative and completely transparent. So, I will defer. However, I take comfort in knowing that through highlighting your fairly basic errors, I have enabled you and others to begin to break free from the demonically provoked cognitive distortion that you're currently in bondage to. The Bible does say that His (unmolested) word does not return void but it accomplishes the things it is supposed to in the place where it was sent...hopefully I have not cast pearls before swine. wink emoticon

Other than the quintessential 2nd Timothy prayer asking God to grant you repentance to acknowledge the reality, I seek no further excuse to provoke you to repentance. I would however bid you good day…

…but the Bible actually tells me not to. So just dang. wink emoticon<END QUOTE>

So, all you Christians who claim not to understand, now maybe you've got an idea. And maybe part of your mission here on earth is to ask other Christians not to act like condescending jerks in God's name.

The Jesus I Saw Yesterday

Yesterday was Palm Sunday, the first day of the most powerful and important week in the church year. In liturgical traditions, the service opens with joyful singing and the waving of palms, and progresses into a reading of the Passion.

Mark's account begins with a woman from Bethany lavishing Jesus with love and costly nard, but then takes an ugly turn to Judas' betrayal, the disciples falling asleep in the garden, Peter's denial, and finally humiliation, brutality, and death. The scenes are intense, and the reading of the narrative is tricky. In my old, conservative church, men on the rector's council were the only people participating in the reading, with Jesus played by the priest himself. The priest was a close friend, and a wonderful orator and teacher, but a horrible reader. His pacing was bad, and the emotion he attempted to introduce just didn't carry. His Australian accent sounded inexplicably cheerful throughout, which furthered listener confusion. Other participants had varying levels of success in executing their own parts, and the annual event ended up being torturous rather than powerful. But since the readers had body parts that matched the scriptural characters', all was theoretically right with the world.

In 2012 I attended my first service in which roles were played by women. Since then I've listened as women have read Peter, the high priest, and even Christ himself. I've grown accustomed to the practice, but I've never felt completely at peace with it.

Until yesterday, when my lovely bride was asked to read the part of Jesus.

She wasn't particularly comfortable with the role. She balked in fact, knowing that she wouldn't be able to stand up during the whole thing, and not wanting to draw attention. Feeling embarrassed about having to use a chair. Feeling awkward and uncomfortable at having to go forward on crutches.

But it was beautiful.

A Christian man castigated me online yesterday, calling me a "dirty, perverted, immoral sinner", and warning that unless I repent of my sins I will burn in a lake of fire. While he was off in his dark corner of the world, typing those words and many more, I watched Dolce sitting before the altar, reading the words of Jesus.

There she was, a woman. But not just a woman, a woman in a same sex marriage. A woman who's hip has dissolved to such a degree that she can't walk unaided. A woman who has been persecuted, and who was in extreme pain, and who felt unworthy, exposed, and vulnerable, sitting before the crowd and humbly undertaking the role of he who was persecuted, in pain, exposed, and humiliated.

Despite not looking anything like the smiling, bearded, postcard Jesus, Diane was the closest representative to that man on the cross that I've ever seen.

I can hardly wait to see what else this holiest of weeks will bring.

Sexual reaction rather than revolution

This article offers wonderful insight into the cultural context for the epistle commentary on sexuality. An excellent read.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/inebriateme/2015/02/the-sexual-reaction/