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/

Jackhammers for Jesus

One of this week's readings includes a conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees:

Luke 16:16 “The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped."

This reminds me of the way that modern day Pharisees try to convince me that I can't be Christian. They use Jesus as a battling ram, as if they can "rescue" me by force, pushing me into the kingdom through the repetition of their claims. They apply the pneumatic hammer of scripture.

In this passage Jesus tells us that something new happened when John came. He points out that as Messiah, his mission was to fulfill the law; to make it complete. As he said on the cross "It is finished/culminated/consumated."  And so I pat myself on the back, and think about making up a bunch of tee shirts reading "Jackhammers for Jesus" to pass out to the gaggle of Pharisees who swarm near, waving their favorite, most damning passages of scripture.

But then verse 17 urges me to patience and mercy for these same people who drive me nearly mad with their death-grip on cudgels of law despite all the instruction to the contrary offered in the gospels and  epistles. In 17 Jesus reminds me that it is no easy thing for those raised under the law, those who define themselves by it, to let it pass away.

And that is sad. And worthy of compassion.

When odor becomes fragrance

At the end of Paul's letter to the Philippians, he praises the church, and says that their financial gifts to him are a fragrant offering:

I have been paid in full and have more than enough; I am fully satisfied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God. (Phil 4:8)

Old Testament cross references to the phrase point to the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. The typical phrase used in these references is "a pleasing odor". This concept causes cognitive dissonance given that the scent of burning feathers, fur, and bone is generally recognized as disgusting.

Odor indeed.

So what a lovely way it is for Paul to turn this all on its head, while confirming the words of Jesus who said:

“But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice." (Matt 9:13)  

Paul praised the church for being actors in the new covenant, where generosity and consideration for suffering is what God desires, rather than the death-driven sacrificial system of the old.

The Vanity of Name Taking

I am in a Facebook conversation with a young woman who has chosen "Cisse Masiix" as her nom de guerre, which means Jesus Christ in Somali. She is a Christian fundamentalist extremist who picks and chooses the scriptures she wants to follow and which others to use as whips on those with whom she disagrees.

I picture her wearing a button reading "WWJD?" But given the style with which she engages in discussion about homosexuality, it's pretty clear she ignores that essential question. 

Because here's what Jesus did.

• He spent time with sinners.
• He stopped injustice to the marginalized.
• He healed.
• He taught gently, through stories and parables.
• He broke down barriers between those of opposing social positions, cultures, and ideals.
• He excoriated two groups only: the money changers who extorted the faithful, and the scribes and pharisees who twisted God's instructions and kept people from the love of God. And this latter group gets more gospel attention than anything else.
• He died rather than fight.
• He beseeched God for oneness among his followers.

What he didn't do was use scripture as a cudgel, rather, he proclaimed woe to those who did.

A number of Old Testament passages teach us that his holy name is profaned by hypocritical behavior and false representation of God's words or character.

I worry a bit about what he thinks, this true Jesus Christ, when he watches people take on his name and then preach a message so in conflict with his own.

So if you are reading this, please pray for her, this fervent spitfire. May God open her eyes to the light of Christ.

Question of the day: Paul's view of the physical

Here's a question from Facebook:

I'm a bit confused... I thought the early Church took it's lead from St Paul, and i can't see him agreeing with gay anything - let alone marriage. He didn't even seem to think much about straight marriage come to that. I admit I have an issue with Paul - he always seemed so utterly down on any kind of physical love, and i find it hard to reconcile his teachings with those of Jesus.

The church was built on Peter, the Rock, the fisherman. Rural, uneducated Peter. Paul was erudite and voluble. Because we have so many of his (and his followers) letters it -might- give a false impression of his actual role.

Paul wrote to cities that were in horrendous idolatrous sinfulness. The homosexuality he mentions is in the context of those idolatrous behaviors. Because of that, we really don't know what he thought about the concept of committed, monogamous same-sex relationships. He didn't discuss them.

But Paul's instructions on marriage are a wonderful example of how we have to take the scriptures in their entirety, rather than pulling out snippets to prove our point. I could quote Paul and "prove" that Christians aren't supposed to marry at all. I wouldn't be adding anything to his words, simply restating them. But the common Christian understanding is that marriage is a good thing, despite Paul's telling us that marriage pulls us away from Christ, and that we should only marry if we are weak.

So take Paul in context. He was a bit of a fire brand and self appointed micro-pharisee (it's hard to break old habits), trying to keep the young church as clean as possible. Trying to make followers who strove for holiness. Trying to make up for his past hate crimes against Christians.

The Holy Spirit inspired Paul's words. But they were -Paul's- words, spoken to a time and place, for that time and place. The Spirit still speaks, and it sounds to me like He is whispering to you.