Insights Invited on Rudiments vs Elemental Spirits

NRSV uses the translation “elemental spirits” in Galatians 4:3 but has a footnote offering “rudiments” as an alternative. As I have been mediating on Galatians 3:23-4:7 (the lectionary Epistle for the first Sunday of Christmastide this year), it struck me that “rudiments” might fit better with the idea of the Law as disciplinarian or guardian in the rest of the passage. “Rudiments” suggests the need to learn the basics on the way to mature freedom. However, the “elemental spirits” translation points to an interpretation that this refers to diabolical evil spirits to which the Galatians (and all outside of faith) are imprisoned. The reference in 4:8 to “beings that are by nature not gods” does seem to fit this interpretation of demonic beings. But 4:9 again used “elemental spirits” with the footnote alternative “rudiments.” If “rudiments” is a better translation, it fits with the theme of maturing into faith rather than being captive of moral evil, which seems consistent with the modern work on moral development by the likes of Kohlberg and Fowler, moving from external to internal value structures.

Interestingly, in the Gospel reading for this week from John 1:1-18, v. 17 speaks of the Law coming by Moses and grace and truth by Christ. When juxtaposed with the Galatians passage, this makes for some fruitful meditation on the function of Law and grace in God’s economy.

I did some brief internet research on the background and various translations to see if a preference for the “rudiments” or “elemental spirits” was clearer. From what I found, it would seem to be able to go either way. Some suggested that the “elemental spirits” were not diabolical but human philosophy. I’d be interested in any insights from others who may have a better grip on Greek than I do. 

Scoresheet for Leaders

Lines from Psalm 10 for all in positions of leadership and power whether in politics, business, non-profits. Read the whole Psalm for full impact of the plea for God to intervene in a time of trouble and hold those who misuse their power and position for themselves at the expense of the weak.

In arrogance the wicked persecute the poor.

They sit in ambush in the villages; in hiding places they murder the innocent. Their eyes stealthily watch for the helpless.

They lurk in secret like a lion in its covert; they lurk that they may seize the poor; they seize the poor and drag them off in their net. They stoop, they crouch, and the helpless fall by their might.

O Lord, you will hear the desire of the meek; you will strengthen their heart, you will incline your ear to do justice for the orphan and the oppressed, so that those from earth may strike terror no more.

Daring Preaching

The Gospel reading from the Revised Common Lectionary for this coming Third Sunday of Advent (December 13, 2015) reports the preaching of John the Baptist, which was received by the people as Good News but angered the politicians, specifically King Herod because of all the evil things he had done.  As I meditated on these 2,000 year old words, I heard them in the context of the current escalatingly inflammatory US political season. Listen to John today!

“You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits worthy of repentance. Do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” … The one coming after me “will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” 

No Such Thing as a Foreigner

Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain
Brady - Handy

A good friend recently suggested I read Michael Shaara’s The Killer Angels (2003). In novel form it tells the story of the Civil War Battle of Gettysburg through the eyes of the military officers on both sides. I am not that far into it, but this passage jumped out at me in light of the intensity of reactions to refugees fleeing the violence in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere in the region that seems to be spreading. Calls to protect people who are most like us at the expense of those who seem least like us are loud. This passage (p. 27) attributes dramatically different attitudes to Union Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. I do not post this specifically to vindicate the Union or vilify the Confederacy, nor to suggest they were widespread in the North and absent in the South, but only as a mirror by which we can examine our own times.

He had a complicated brain and there were things going on back there from time to time that he only dimly understood, so he relied on his instincts, but he was learning all the time. The faith was simple: he believed in the dignity of man. His ancestors were Huguenots, refugees of a chained and bloody Europe. He had learned their stories in the cradle. He had grown up believing in America and the individual and it was a stronger faith than his faith in God. This was the land where no man has to bow. In this place at last a man could stand up free of the past, free of tradition and blood ties and the curse of royalty and become what he wished to become. This was the first place on earth where the man mattered more than the state. True freedom had begun here and it would spread eventually over all the earth. But it had begun here. The fact of slavery upon this incredibly beautiful new clean earth was appalling, but more even than that was the horror of old Europe, the curse of nobility, which the South was transplanting to new soil. They were forming a new aristocracy, a new breed of glittering men, and Chamberlain had come to crush it. But he was fighting for the dignity of man and in that way he was fighting for himself. If men were equal in America, all these former Poles and English and Czechs and blacks, then they were equal everywhere, and there was really no such thing as a foreigner; there were only free men and slaves. And so it was not even patriotism but a new faith. The Frenchman may fight for France, but the American fights for mankind, for freedom; for the people, not the land.

Anger Connects Mental Health and Violence (Gun and Other)

As the discussion of mental health care and violence (gun and other) and been unfolding, more and more professionals are correctly observing that most people with mental health concerns are not dangerous. While mental illness is certainly a factor, a more specific common thread in what we call "senseless" violence is anger. 
An article in the Dallas Morning News today reported the admission of a young man to a random, hacking murder of a jogger was precipitated by his anger at his own life.
I have long passed on the psychological principle I was taught that anger is a "secondary emotion," that is it is preceded or precipitated by another emotion, which may be fleeting or overwhelmed by the intensity of the anger. In counseling, when people express anger the counselor seeks to uncover the preceding emotion to effectively address the anger.If we extended that idea to the realization that "senseless" violence (gun or other) expresses anger, I suggest that trying to figure out what emotions precede or precipitate it might be more effective than a blanket blaming of mental illness.
Having said that, as I listen to the public rhetoric of our time (certainly political but not limited to political), I detect widespread and virulent anger. I can not say for sure, but as I listen I suspect that fear of loss of privilege precedes these expressions of anger. Those who complain about the entitlement mentality of others are afraid they will lose their own entitlements.
More deeply, I wonder if the social acceptability of anger in public discourse does not fuel and give permission for personal anger that comes out in often deadly violence. I'm not for a minute excusing those who act violently, but only suggesting that nothing happens in a vacuum and that there is a social dimension to the violence we are witnessing.
Here is the link to the DMN article I referenced.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20151012-former-aggie-football-star-killed-jogger-at-random-on-white-rock-creek-trail-police-say.ece

I May Make You Angry. I Hope to Make You Think.

Whether you think of yourself as a gun rights person or a gun control person, if your response to yet another mass shooting is to articulate your position and denigrate other positions, you are contributing to the intransigence that is costing people their lives. Anything you do to preclude or prevent analysis and critique of your position adds to deadlocking the dialog needed to work together to save people’s lives. Citing selective statistics to stifle conversation has fatal consequences. Deflecting culpability from your position by saying “gun (rights or controls) are not the problem, but the problem is mental health, drugs, political or religious extremism, not enforcing existing laws (or even removing prayer and the Ten Commandments from school, for those who connect that sort of thing) prevents taking practical steps to save lives. Indeed mental health, drugs, extremism and law enforcement are all part of the problem, but guns are absolutely in the middle of this mix. Refusing to address all of this simultaneously is killing people. But these things only begin to scratch the surface of comprehensively addressing mass killings. Notice I did not say shootings. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer and fuel oil.

Seeking simplistic single solutions that distance ourselves from culpability perpetuates the environment in which deadly violence flourishes. In 1624 John Donne wrote in his poem No Man Is An Island, “Any man's death diminishes me,/ Because I am involved in mankind,/ And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;/ It tolls for thee.” Walt Kelly’s (1913-1973) comic strip character Pogo frequently said, “We have me the enemy, and he is us.” Addressing mass killings must begin by acknowledging that each one of us participates in a culture that glorifies violence for excitement, entertainment and assumes it is suitable for problem solving. Though it cuts across the grain of our American hyper-individualism, all who have any respect for Judeo-Christian Scripture and faith should seriously consider Daniel’s prayer of confession (Daniel 9:4-19) and note that Daniel confessed as though he was personally responsible for the sins of Judah in which he did not himself participate. Psalm 106:6 confesses, “Both we and our ancestors have sinned.”

Chris Mintz has, rightly I believe, been hailed as a hero in the recent shooting in Oregon. Though his military background may have helped him respond rapidly and effectively, he was not a “good guy with a gun” who shot the “bad guy with a gun.” He relinquished self-protection and intervened for the good of others. Yes, he took several bullets and might well have been killed, but he effectively saved lives. Imagine if he had tried the “good guy with a gun” strategy and shot at the shooter. Other such “good guys with guns” might easily have mistaken him for a second gunman and shot at him, arousing other “good guys with guns” to shoot at them. The prospect for geometric escalation is real. Only a split second hesitation prevented a “good guy with a gun” in the parking lot where Gabby Giffords was shot from shooting the man who intervened to disable that shooter. I am convinced that such self-surrender is the most effective and moral form of heroism in such cases.

I feel compelled to add a theological excurses on the US Constitution. While I have a great deal of respect for the US Constitution (what other country has had the same foundational document for over two and a quarter centuries?), but the framers knew it was a fallible, human document, so they built in a realistic but arduous amendment process. They knew, and I vigorously affirm, that for all its merits (even allowing for God’s sovereign supervision of its framing, though God is not mentioned in it), the US Constitution is not divinely inspired, reliable and authoritative Scripture, as I consider the Bible to be.

More than once I have heard the Second Amendment cited as supporting “my God-given rights to keep and bear arms.” God did not give the right to keep and bear arms. That was a human, political decision. I was taught in high school (’64) and college (’69) that it addressed state militias to a support a citizen army, and in part for the pursuit, capture and return of runaway slaves. Only recently have the courts extended the right to keep and bear arms to individuals. I wouldn’t presume to imagine what the founders would think of modern firearms technology, but it is certainly a far cry from the late Eighteenth Century when a rifle was an essential agricultural tool.

I am not suggesting a constitutional debate or revision. I am pleading for life saving action. In grief I have written from a deep yearning that people in this country, especially those of us who consider ourselves to be serious disciples of Jesus Christ, refuse to participate in the stalemated gun debate and begin to explore how to reduce lethal violence in our society without preconditions or preconceptions. Recognizing the political polarization and gridlock of our country, I still have hope and believe that if we will listen to learn from each other and work together rather than try to convince each other and win debate points, we can change the deadly trap we have built for ourselves and save the lives of many people.

I Remember Ebby

           

Not too long after I came to be the pastor of Central Christian Church of Dallas, TX in 2000, Ebby Halliday Acers celebrated her 90^th birthday. A little while later the church had a dinner to honor a dozen or so nonagenarians in the congregation. They were an enchanting, engaged and energetic group. Ebby was the last one of that group to leave us for the glorious company of the saints in light.

During my eleven years with Central Christian Church, Ebby was a faithful worshipper. She had her own special place not too far back on the pulpit side where she had sat with her beloved husband Maurice Acers for many years. I did not get to know Maurice who had departed to that heavenly company before I came to Dallas. But Ebby continued to hold him in a dear place in her heart. She took great joy in listening to the glorious pipe organ she and Maurice had given to the church, to which she gave periodic additions.

Eventually Ebby’s brother Paul Hanson came to sit with Ebby in her pew as they worshipped together. When Paul had trouble hearing in that service, Ebby went with him to the early service in the chapel where he could hear better. Being with her beloved brother was more important than listening to the great organ.

Ebby was an Elder Emeritus whose wisdom was especially valued on the occasions when the congregation faced some challenging decisions. Ebby was remarkably generous in ways that supported the church’s ministry without controlling or creating dependency. She was an anchor and center of gravity for the Shank Adult Sunday School Class, not only in their learning but also in their vigorous social life.

Ebby was honored for her contributions to the Dallas community by many organizations between her 90^th and 100^th birthdays. She frequently asked them to invite me, as her pastor, to offer an invocation prayer. Thanks to Ebby, I had the opportunity to meet many significant people, for which I am thankful. But most of all, these experiences increased my appreciation for the ways Ebby shaped not only Central Christian Church but the whole Dallas community by putting her faith into action in the public arena.

ThanksGiving Square was one of the organizations Ebby believed in and supported. She included me in a number of their events and eventually suggested I serve on their Interfaith Council. Thanks to Ebby I have been enriched by getting to know a wide variety of people from many backgrounds I worked with there.

With her own “hardscrabble” upbringing and breaking into the business world as a woman at a time when that was exceptional, Ebby has always invested herself in aspiring young women, especially those from difficult backgrounds. The Ebby House at Juliette Fowler Homes for young women aging out of foster care put her passion into practical action. How appropriate that she was able to live and be cared for in her final days at Juliette Fowler Homes.

Ebby celebrated her 100^th birthday shortly before I wrapped up my pastorate with Central Christian Church in 2011. At that time I frequently heard her answer those who asked for her secret of longevity, “I don’t drink; I don’t smoke; and I don’t retire.” So I learned from Ebby not to say I was retiring as the pastor of Central Christian Church but making a transition to ministry as an interim pastor.

To be sure, the people of Central Christian Church and I will miss Ebby, but she left a mark on all of us that will bear fruit for many more years. Thank you, Ebby!

Simultaneous Suffering and Security

    Doug Skinner has been preaching for Northway Christian Church in Dallas, Texas on the ten most searched for Bible verses in the Bible Gateway internet site. On Sunday, September 13, 2015 he came to #3: Romans 8:28. “We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.”

I thought Doug’s sermon was honest, insightful and gutsy. Romans 8:26-31 was read in worship, and as I listened the context, before and after verse 28, prompted fresh insights that culminated in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper after the sermon.

Doug’s premise was that this verse and the confidence it gives in a world of tragedy and violence and cruelty can only be understood in light of God’s incarnation in Jesus, by which he entered fully into all human suffering, culminating at the cross. It was an accessible and compact presentation of Jürgen Moltmann’s concept of Jesus as the suffering God. Doug did not mention Moltmann, and I’m not suggesting Doug embraces all of Moltmann’s theology, only that I made this connection.

People do not often quote Romans 8:26-27 when they invoke v. 28 as a shallow, superficial panacea for personal or global troubles.  Yet this introduction is essential to understanding God’s assurance for inexplicable crises. In verses 18-25 Paul had already been contrasting the present suffering with the glory to be revealed.  He was building a case for having hope when all seems hopeless and acknowledged we do not know how to pray as we ought.

I have long contended that a lot of prayer (public and private) suggests we think God is ignorant of what we want and need and must be informed and instructed to know what to do. By way of contrast, I have also contended that the reverse is more to the point of prayer. When we are baffled and overwhelmed, our praying becomes a pleading with God to see what God sees and how God sees and how God addresses the realities beyond our limited vision.

When we know that we do not know how to pray as we ought, we are promised that the Spirit intercedes with groans too deep for words. The Jesus Prayer is appropriate at such times. “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me (us) a sinner (us sinners).” In that prayer, based on Luke 18:13, we give up putting into words what we see and want and cry out for Christ mercy on us who are broken human beings.

The Spirit’s intercession in groans too deep for words is my understanding and interpretation of my own praying in tongues. I’m not suggesting that my utterances are a heavenly language or even the sounds of the Holy Spirit, but of my spirit groaning along with the Spirit who is doing the real interceding and praying. I will not attempt to explain prayers, intercessions, communication between the persons of the Trinity but simply accept this as also a mystery beyond human language and logic, as Paul seemed to.

Setting this up against what Doug (and others) said about the incarnation being God’s full participation in all human suffering, I think the “groans too deep for words” may be understood as God’s grief and pain at human suffering, especially the violence and cruelty people inflict on each other. So as the Sprit intercedes, not just for my personal concerns but for all the pain of all humanity, it is according to the will of God, knowing God’s heart. With our limited human logic and language we see a contradiction between God’s will for good for all people and God’s grief over human suffering.

However, I see this passage as suggesting that in the Trinitarian mystery of the Godhead – the Spirit interceding for suffering people and the Father willing good for all people – converge in Jesus, the incarnate Son of God who expresses and embodies both the infinite love, compassion and mercy of God as well as experiencing the fullness and totality of human suffering.

As I reflect on “sighs too deep for words,” I am drawn to Psalm 130:1 which says, “Out of the depths I cry to you, O Lord. Lord hear my voice! Let you ear be attentive to my supplications!” This is an appeal too deep for words. The Psalmist is not instructing or informing God, but crying from somewhere so deep that it cannot be framed in words.

The appeal is not for a specific remedy for a crisis but for God to release mercy into the Psalmist’s unspeakable anguish. The appeal is not based on the Psalmist’s need but on the expansiveness of God’s mercy (v. 4). In fact, the Psalmist relinquishes any claim on deserving God’s mercy, for without it no one could stand (v. 3). No point in saying I don’t deserve this suffering, but only throwing one’s self, indeed all suffering humanity, on God’s mercy. Only then can the Psalmist wait on the redeeming love of the Lord (vv. 5-8).

As we celebrated the Lord’s Supper after the sermon, I thought about the variety of moods and directions the Lord’s Supper can take: joy, unity, fellowship, gratitude and also penitence, redemption, mortality and hope of resurrection. Sunday, as I looked at the torn shred of bread and cup in my hand, I realized these elements of broken body and shed blood were the signs conveying all human suffering, especially the suffering people inflict on each other. By eating and drinking, I was personally participating as both victim and perpetrator. But also by eating and drinking, I was receiving both Jesus’ (and thus God’s) full identification with human suffering and it redemptive remedy.

Doug mentioned in his sermon how reluctance to teach and meditate on Jesus’ return – particularly among mainline churches – deprives us of a full picture of the redemption in which God does set all to rights again and the loving good intentions of God will be fully realized. This is not “pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by” but the tension of the already and not yet of the Reign of God that fully engages human suffering in the here and now with a confidence that this is not all there is.

Though this paragraph is a tangent, I do suspect (speaking only for myself and my perceptions) that some of this reluctance to embrace the return of Jesus is due to the distortion, misuse and manipulation of the eschatological teaching of Scripture to monger fear, suspicion and even hate for specific political and social agendas, rather than the faith, hope and love it should engender.

Yet, as I looked at the bread and cup in my hand on Sunday, and saw Christ’s full participation in human suffering, I saw how much the cross is the touchstone and fulcrum point of the Gospel. For a long time (many years) I have frequently crossed myself after eating and drinking when receiving the Lord’s Supper. This is not at all a hollow or holy habit, but is a tangible way of identifying myself with Jesus in his death (Philippians 3:10).

For some reason (could it have been the prompting of the Holy Spirit?), I thought about the voice Constantine said he heard from heaven, “In this sign conquer!” Traditions vary on whether he saw a cross or a chi-rho () in the sky. I rather prefer to think in terms of a cross for the way it captures the culmination of Jesus’ receiving the fullness of human suffering, but I don’t know if chi-rho is any less significant in that regard. The chi (X) is usually understood to be a cross.

But in light of my reflections on Romans 8:26-30, I had an insight into Constantine’s experience, or at least it historic or legendary account. I have usually dismissed the claim of Constantine’s voice and vision as quite likely a fraudulent invention to co-opt a Christianity he didn’t understand, which he feared threatened his power. His remedy was to distort it and deploy it for his own military and political ambitions, which came at great cost to the true Gospel.

However, as a meditated during worship on Sunday, I had an insight into a possible alternate interpretation and explanation of Constantine’s voice and vision that he used to establish his own distorted and diminished version of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. From that rose the Holy Roman Empire (unholy though it certainly was), and Christendom, and the illusions of Christian civilization and Christian nations, which persists in our time.

If I accept the premise that Constantine did see a sign in the sky (cross or chi-rho) and hear a voice from heaven say, “In this sign conquer,” and accept that these indeed came from God (which I had previously considered preposterous based on what Constantine did with them), I am exploring the possibility for consideration that Constantine misunderstood and misapplied the message God was sending him.

Constantine had been conquering with the Roman sword and the power symbolized by the Roman eagle. Now God says, “conquer in the sign of the cross.” I would suggest that if this came from God, God was saying to Constantine, “Give up conquering with power, force and violence. Instead, take a whole new approach, the approach I (God) took with Jesus on the cross. Don’t put the cross on you battle banners, but put yourself on the cross, as it were, identifying with suffering people. Deploy all of your resources for the benefit of people in pain. Reverse your whole idea of conquest. Conquer by relinquishing, by letting go, by becoming like Jesus – sacrificing yourself for others.

As I reflected on this, my contemplations were to Romans 8:29-30, which are often avoided to keep from trying to explain predestination. Once again, I’m going to leave those theological conundrums to others, for I think they miss the point when seen in the full context of this passage, which is being conformed to the image of God’s Son, Jesus. This same principle is in Philippians 3:10 where Paul wrote of his intention to be like Christ in his death and suffering as the necessary path to resurrection.

Understanding Jesus as God incarnate entering fully into all human suffering, culminating on the cross, then for us to be conformed to the image of God Son, means we also must identify with human suffering and the cross so that our prayers harmonize with the Holy Spirit’s groans too deep for words. This is the path to which we as disciple of Jesus are called and predestined, for which we have been justified, which alone leads to glory!

These reflections prompted me to ponder my present place on my pilgrimage. I am waiting for one more interim pastorate and feeling some anxiety about scheduling an interview and getting a call and a starting time while managing our finances and some of our practical matters about the house and our cars. I ponder my craving for moving into a more relaxed pace on this transitional stage of our journey and a jubilee experience of freedom from debt and living in simplicity. Then I hold this up to what God says so clearly, that Jesus lived so fully into identification with suffering people. This can’t just be an abstraction but necessitates being with and present to people in their pain.

For all my anxiety about this transition in my journey, we have been remarkably comfortable: we have not missed any meals, all our bills are paid, out debts are almost eliminated, our health is pretty good (especially at our age), our children are going well (even Erik is doing better). So how dare I talk about human suffering? How dare I be anxious?

Good Kings of Ancient Judah and Today’s Realities

The world is, rightly I believe, horrified at the destruction of antiquities by the Islamic State and other radical Islamists. In order to address this with any hope of effectiveness, the West must understand that they see these things as snares of idolatry. They do not see themselves as destroying culture but as cleaning culture of pagan evil. I can’t help but remember being taught in Sunday school as a child about the “good kings of Judah” in the Old Testament who we saw as God’s heroes who destroyed the high places and idols. I am not suggesting an explanation, only inviting pondering. Here are some starter scriptures for exploration. I am not ready to write off ancient Israel nor to approve the destruction of antiquities today, but am listening for the voice of God in the uncomfortable spaces between these scriptures and today’s experiences.

Numbers 33.52: you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their figured stones, destroy all their cast images, and demolish all their high places.

2 Kings 12.3: Nevertheless the high places were not taken away; the people continued to sacrifice and make offerings on the high places.

2 Kings 14.4: But the high places were not removed; the people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places.

2 Kings 15.4: Nevertheless the high places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places.

2 Kings 15.35: Nevertheless the high places were not removed; the people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places. 

2 Kings 18.4: He removed the high places, broke down the pillars, and cut down the sacred pole. He broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it; it was called Nehushtan.

2 Kings 23.8: He brought all the priests out of the towns of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had made offerings, from Geba to Beer-sheba; he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on the left at the gate of the city.

2 Kings 23.13: The king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem, to the south of the Mount of Destruction, which King Solomon of Israel had built for Astarte the abomination of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.

2 Kings 23.19: Moreover, Josiah removed all the shrines of the high places that were in the towns of Samaria, which kings of Israel had made, provoking the Lordto anger; he did to them just as he had done at Bethel.

2 Chronicles 14.3: He took away the foreign altars and the high places, broke down the pillars, hewed down the sacred poles,

2 Chronicles 14.5: He also removed from all the cities of Judah the high places and the incense altars. And the kingdom had rest under him.

2 Chronicles 17.6: His heart was courageous in the ways of the Lord; and furthermore he removed the high places and the sacred poles from Judah.

2 Chronicles 31.1: Now when all this was finished, all Israel who were present went out to the cities of Judah and broke down the pillars, hewed down the sacred poles, and pulled down the high places and the altars throughout all Judah and Benjamin, and in Ephraim and Manasseh, until they had destroyed them all. Then all the people of Israel returned to their cities, all to their individual properties.

2 Chronicles 34.3: For in the eighth year of his reign, while he was still a boy, he began to seek the God of his ancestor David, and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem of the high places, the sacred poles, and the carved and the cast images.

Public Service and Christian Conscience

At her contempt of court hearing, when Kentucky’s Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis told U.S. District Judge David Bunning, “God’s moral law conflicts with my job duties,” she expressed a far more profound and radical reality than she herself probably realized. Drawing on the Church’s first three centuries (before Constantine made his own distorted version of “Christianity” the official religion of the Roman Empire for the purpose of military and political conquest), Anabaptists have consistently told the rest of the Church that working for any government, whether paid or not, inevitably conflicts with the righteousness of Jesus. For this reason some Anabaptists recuse themselves from participating in public life as much as possible, obeying laws that do not violate Christian conscience but avoiding being complicit with compromise.

In the Christendom culture that grew out of the Holy Roman Empire and informed the illusion of “Christian nations,” devout Christians did (and still do) public service in the arena of political and practical compromise in a sincere effort to be “salt and light” in a corrupt and dark world. Christians in non-Christendom cultures also take public service roles in this way, sometimes at great risk to themselves and their families. Either way, they do that in the knowledge that they are outsiders attempting to influence huge processes with minute doses of Jesus’ righteousness. These efforts are always clouded and the Reign of God remains largely hidden, awaiting the Parousia.

Martyrdom and civil disobedience has deep roots going all the way back to the Hebrew Prophets and the New Testament Apostles. We admire (at least in history) those who stand against compromising faith and righteousness at the cost of their own lives. But from the time of the Donatist Controversy at the end of the 3^rd  century, the Church has struggled with what compromises were trivial and how to respond to the compromisers who wanted to return to full Church fellowship. Was burning a pinch of incense to the Emperor a mere act of civic duty (akin to saying the Pledge of Allegiance) or a renunciation of the faith? The issue is starkly with us in our time in areas under control by radical Islamists, and Christians are honestly debating if reciting a bit of the Koran to spare one’s life is justified.

Kim Davis’ case poses this question in realms much less dramatic that reach well beyond one’s religious convictions about same-sex marriage. Many Christians have legitimately objected to legalized and state sponsored gambling. At a personal level it compromises faith in God and good stewardship of God’s resources entrusted to us. As a justice issue, gambling preys on the elderly, poor and other vulnerable people with a false hope of escaping their conditions. Since casinos are often connected with hospitality and food services that the state regulates for the common good, can a Christian code inspector who objects to gambling on religious grounds refuse to inspect their facilities to insure they comply with public health and safety standards? The examples are boundless. Discerning these boundaries and determining which compromises are legitimate is not easy.

As one with generally Anabaptist social justice perspectives, I am inclined to say that Christians in public service whose role (whether or not a paid job) requires them to compromise their own standards of righteousness for themselves, simply need to resign or withdraw from such public service. More complex is when the role of Christians in public service facilitates in some way others in practices of which the Christians do not approve. Often they would not have a way of knowing this. For example, a clerk in the motor vehicles office doesn’t know that a particular car has been purchased for the purpose of transporting illegal drugs. In many cases, such as the code inspector, the good of protecting the public outweighs the negative of some of the businesses inspected.

From the days of the New Testament, the Church has struggled with Christians participating in the military and war. The classic Just War Ethic asserts that some wars are just and some are not, and individual Christians are responsible to discern the difference and refuse service in unjust wars. However, no government has ever allowed selective objection (nor will they). In U.S. law, if you are drafted or already enlisted and choose not to serve in the military, you must object to all war. Though the Nuremberg Trials after World War II held that individuals were morally responsible for their actions and are accountable to disobey unjust orders. The point here is not pacifism vs. just war ethics but that the complexities of individual discernment in public service leave only the options of opting out entirely or living with the ambiguities of what is and is not legitimate compromise.

Particularly since the Supreme Court marriage equality decision was a 5-4 margin, opponents of same-sex marriage see an opportunity for this to be reversed by constitutional amendment or a change in the composition of the court or by carefully (cleverly) devised laws to make same-sex marriage difficult or unavailable without actually outlawing it. Whether one agrees with the court or not, I do believe it is the legal reality that is going to prevail, and public servants who object will either have resign or accept it as the give and take reality in which they live.

The business realm (corporate and private enterprise) presents a somewhat different issue than public service. Cases have been mentioned of businesses that provide wedding related services being sued for refusing to provide them for same sex couples. While I do want Christian business people to live out their faith in the marketplace, I fail to see how florists, bakers, photographers, formal wear shops, etc. can offer their services to the public and not serve all customers. Would one who would want to refuse to serve a same-sex wedding also refuse where there has been divorce or adultery, domestic abuse, criminal convictions, religious or racial intermarriage, non-Christian or non-religious couples, or other religious impediments? Would not a same-sex couple prefer a sympathetic vendor to serve their wedding? Perhaps after the political posturing on both sides passes, that pragmatic principle will prevail. Based on Mathew 5:40-41, one friend of mine suggested that if same-sex couples want wedding cakes from Christian bakers who don’t affirm same-sex marriage, the bakers should bake them two. A bit tongue in cheek, but worth pondering how our Christian posture is perceived. Legally, the public accommodations principle from the civil rights movement would suggest that if you offer your services to the public, you must serve whoever in the public comes to you. Perhaps a bit less clear is the case of the wedding chapel that is a for-profit business, albeit run by an ordained minister, offering services to the public without religious specification. The courts have decided, rightly I think, that this is a business and not a religious institution and must comply with the public accommodations principle.

One other final excurses on the fear mongering about religious liberty. I find the proposed laws to protect pastors from being sued for refusing to perform same-sex wedding to be silly political posturing. We pastors are not required to perform weddings for every couple who asks. We have always been free to use our judgment to tell a couple (yes, a heterosexual couple), that they are not ready or a good match or the pastor finds some other impediment to preforming their wedding. I have had couples decide to call off their weddings because of insights from the marriage preparation sessions I do with them, without me even needed to tell them that.

Lastly, I want to point out that this essay says nothing one way or another about my opinion on same-sex marriage, and I hope no one will try to extrapolate one from it (though I have written about that elsewhere). While some of the rhetoric may sound like this is a debate between the Church and the world, I personally know very well that marriage equality and other related issues are being vigorously explored and, yes, debated among devout, theologically responsible Christians. This happens to be the fulcrum in which the Church in the West (largely Europe and the Americas) is learning how “to sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land.” (Psalm 137:4) Depending on the social consensus of Christendom has made the Church spiritually weak with a pseudo, generic, diluted and distorted form of Christianity (compare with the 4^th century and the awakening spiritual decay prompted the Desert Fathers and Mothers to pursue). The challenges of secular materialism and growth of Islam (neither limited to nor excluding radical Islam) are an opportunity for a spiritual awakening and invigorating renewal of Christian discipleship.

Have you, someone you know or know of been on Ashley Madison?

While I have no statistical verification, I am fairly confident that most Ashley Madison clients are not Christian leaders. I am also fairly confident that most Christian leaders are not Ashley Madison clients. Having said that, we should not be surprised that some Christian leaders, even prominent ones, have been Ashley Madison clients. Being a leader does not exempt anyone from human vulnerability. Nevertheless, we are rightly disappointed when someone who has been in a trusted position of spiritual leadership is caught in moral compromise. The damage reverberates in broken reputations, careers, marriages, families, ministries, churches and lost trust among followers.

We ought not to gloat at the moral fall of someone of whom we were already suspicious. No ideology has a monopoly on sin, and we must not misuse an individual’s failure to discredit a whole movement. When “liberals” fall, “conservatives” cluck about the consequences of relaxing standards. When “conservatives” fall, “liberals” cluck about the dangers of self-righteous judgmentalism. Moral collapse does not necessarily invalidate the ideas someone taught. It may only indicate how hard it is for all of us to live up to our principles. Ideas must be addressed on their own merits, not on the ability of their advocates to practice them.

Yet, ideas have consequences. We human beings are expert at rationalizing our own behaviors and at condescending judgment of others. Arrogance and self-righteousness are joint guides on the path of moral failure. We all do well to heed the Apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 10:12. “If you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall.” Especially in my role as a pastor, I desperately need the prayer of Psalm 69:6. “Do not let those who hope in you be put to shame because of me, O Lord God of hosts; do not let those who seek you be dishonored because of me, O God of Israel.”

Marriage Renewal - A Word for and from the Church In the Context of Legal Same-Sex Marriage

In his sermon for worship of Northway Christian Church in Dallas, Texas on August 23, 2015, Dr. Doug Skinner observed the irony that as the institution of heterosexual marriage flounders in Western culture with increasing numbers of couples choosing cohabitation and other alternatives to “traditional” marriage, same-sex couples are saying vigorously, “We want to be included in the institution of marriage.” Doug went on to speculate that this might have the potential of stimulating a marriage renewal if the Church can speak a word where Scripture and culture intersect. I had already been giving some thought to what such a word might be like and am prompted to explore my thinking by setting it in writing. I hope this can be part of a constructive conversation rather than a debate.

I am convinced that for any word from the Church to get a hearing it must go well beyond such things as “those are the rules in the Bible” or “society will collapse if the foundations of marriage and nuclear family are undermined.” Those come off as shallow, repressive, legalistic and obsolete. I urge the Church to speak a word that is compelling, exhilarating and uplifting. I do not believe this can be done with slogans and catch phrases. The conversation needs to be expansive, nuanced, probing and dynamic. Having said that, I suggest one starting place might be what I call a “sacramental covenant” view of marriage. Please do not reduce that to a mere motto but engage with it as convenient shorthand for divergent thinking.

The beginning point for exploring marriage as a sacramental covenant is to think of the relationship between spouses as a participation in God’s covenant relationship with the community of faith. In the Hebrew Scriptures, God is often viewed as Israel’s husband. In the New Testament, the Church is viewed as the bride of Christ. These images are rooted in the creation order of Genesis 1:27; 2:24 that affirm humankind, female and male, created in the image of God which is lived out in intimate relationships. Though I have certainly grown in my thinking, I have consistently taught this sacramental covenant understanding of marriage and sex for forty-plus years in youth ministry, marriage preparation for weddings and pastoral guidance. It is not a reaction or even a response to the current debates in Church and society.

While the creation order is clear that marriage is for all humankind, not just those who trust and follow Jesus, I contend that those of us who aspire to live as Jesus’ disciples, the model of marriage as a sacramental covenant is powerful guidance and inspiration for our lives and a word we speak and live out as an attractive approach in a society in which people are hungry for relational and sexual significance. Admittedly, it is distinctly Judeo-Christian and thus not intended or appropriate for legal status as defined by the US Constitution that prohibits state established religion. I sincerely believe keeping a biblical definition of marriage out of the legal and social consensus of our culture positively protects the power of a Christian approach to marriage as a sacramental covenant, both as we practice it ourselves and as we invite others into its joys.

Explaining what I mean by sacramental is essential to this conversation, which I know may not be understood or accepted by those whose entire Church experience has been non-sacramental traditions (if not anti-sacramental reaction to Roman Catholic theology). The classic Reformed definition of sacrament is something given by Jesus to the Church in which something ordinary and physical conveys a sacred (holy) spiritual reality. Thus the water of baptism conveys washing away of sin and burial and resurrection with Christ. And the bread and cup of communion convey the broken body and shed blood of Christ and our spiritual nourishment by Christ’s presence within and among us. Together these reenact and make real to us our redemption in Jesus. Traditions that avoid (or reject) the word “sacrament” as not being in the New Testament, usually call them ordinances, from the idea they were ordained by Jesus, though the New Testament does not use the word “ordinance” either. Sacrament comes from the word sacred simply meaning holy, something ordinary set aside for holy use, which I believe is wholly appropriate theological and spiritual language.

On the basis of that definition of sacrament, the Reformed Tradition and most Protestants do not accept as sacraments the five others of the Roman Catholic Church, which doesn’t make them illegitimate, just not identified as sacraments. That is a topic for a different discussion. Protestants have not considered marriage to be a sacrament because it was instituted as part of the creation order and not by Jesus. Also, it is not specifically for Christians but for all humans, even if they do not understand it in biblical terms. Nevertheless, I contend that the Bible treats marriage as sacramental in the sense that something ordinary and physical (daily life as a couple and sexual union) conveys a sacred, holy, spiritual reality (God’s covenant relationship with the community of faith).

The Hebrew prophets frequently refer to God as the husband of Israel and Judah: Isaiah 54:5; Jeremiah 3:20; 31:32; Ezekiel 16; Hosea. Judah and Israel of the divided kingdom are addressed as sister wives in Ezekiel 23, perhaps reflecting Jacob’s polygamous marriage to Leah and Rachel, but here as unfaithful to God by whoring after idols.

In the New Testament, Jesus described himself as the bridegroom in Matthew 9:15; 25:1,5,6,10; Mark 2:19-20; Luke 5:34-35. Much debate has been provoked by Ephesians 5:22-33 because of its reference to wives submitting to their husbands, but it clearly presents the Church as the bride of Christ and roots this in Genesis 2:24. All of this anticipates the vision of the consummation (an intentionally sexual and marital use of language) of the age at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb in Revelation 19:7-9; 21:2-9; 22:17. Jesus seems to have pointed ahead to this in his parable of the wedding banquet in Matthew 22:1-14. This is obviously metaphorical language which ought not to be made rigidly literal, but it is deeper than superficial symbols, thus I suggest sacramental.

The previous paragraph certainly does not exhaust this profound theme that runs through Scripture from Genesis to Revelation – including the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels, the Epistles and the Apocalypse. But I take from it that God intends human marriage and sexual union to convey the reality of God’s relationship with the community of faith. In the Hebrew Scriptures Israel is the wife of God, and in the New Testament the Church is the bride of Christ. This is not only a model to which married disciples of Jesus aspire, it is also a reality in which they participate. In a certain sense, I see the Lord’s Supper as sort of appetizers anticipating the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Similarly, I see the daily love and communion between spouses as receiving a bit of the love of God for us on our daily journeys, and sexual union as an anticipation of the consummation of the age in the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

Not only is this understanding of marriage not appropriate for legal consideration in the US, it is specifically and intentionally distinct from how marriage is viewed in the general culture. That is exactly its power and appeal. I believe it is a word the Church can speak to the culture that offers hope for those who are struggling with marriage and opportunity for those who aspire for more from marriage.

In public discourse and even in the Church, the Bible is often argued for or against as “God’s dictated rules” with sex and marriage as a rather rigid “no-yes” proposition. (an understanding of divine inspiration more akin to the Muslim view of the Koran than Hebrew and Christian understandings of how God inspired the Bible and how its message is encapsulated in the dynamic relationship between God and people) This “God’s dictated rules” approach says sex before and outside of marriage is always “no,” and sex within marriage is “yes.”

Even in the most rigid Christian communities, there have been plenty of exceptions to both. Sometimes violations were hushed up and covered up, and other times they prompted public shame and shunning. Though in a previous generation, Nathanael Hawthorne explored this in his novel The Scarlet Letter, which is eerily evocative of contemporary clergy sexual misconduct scandals. The “yes” within marriage is seldom explored with care and has too often given tacit approval to considerable oppression and abuse of women by their husbands, who not only demanded sex from their wives in both frequency and form without consideration of the wives’ wishes, but also promoted oppressive and abusive forms of submission. I would like to hope that by moving beyond a simplistic “no-yes” approach to sex and marriage to a fuller picture of sacramental covenant, the Church can speak a word to the society and its own people that is positive, healing, compelling, and magnetic – a word that can draw people to Jesus.

The recent Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in the US has provoked considerable metaphysical discussion both in the public arena and in the Church. However, the actual Supreme Court decision is not about theology, religion or spirituality, nor should it be. It is about money and civil law. It addresses issues of taxation, inheritance, common property, medical insurance and pension benefits, medical power of attorney and visitation rights. Certainly government has an interest in such things and in the stability of relationships that involve them. I neither expect nor want the Supreme Court or any other government entity to be involved in theological, religious or spiritual matters. Of course, the US Constitution prohibits religiously based laws, but my interest is in the integrity of discipleship for those who follow Jesus and their church communities. (Why I believe the “Christian nation” concept that rises out of the residue of European Christendom is harmful and perhaps even dangerous to Christian discipleship is the subject for another discussion, though of some relevance here.)  The word spoken by the Church about sex and marriage can only get a hearing when it is distinct from the cacophony of voices in society.

In the public area, many who object to the Supreme Court’s decision have cited the Bible as specifying marriage as between one man and one woman. This is a distinctly religious argument that the US Constitution would preclude from the Supreme Court’s consideration. There has been some blowback citing considerable variation in marriage practices that are recorded in the Bible without moral comment, notably polygamy, concubinage, the taking of wives as the spoils of war and their exchange as commodities between men. While not prohibiting polygamy, the Hebrew Scriptures do often show its dysfunctional pain and jealousy, such as Jacob’s two wives and two concubines in Genesis 29ff.

To be sure, the Bible records no clear same-sex relationships with approval. To suggest such a relationship between David and Jonathan based on 2 Samuel 1:26 is a stretch. Yes, the creation order in Genesis 2:24 points to one-man-one-woman (more on that later). The qualifications for church leaders (elder, bishop, overseer) in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 have been read to suggest one-man-one-woman. That passage has been variously interpreted sometimes to mean that such leaders must be married men who have never been widowed or divorced or those remarried after being widowed or divorced. By way of contrast, much of the church has construed this as calling for marital fidelity and not speaking to the gender or marital history or status of the leaders. In global context, this has often been understood to exclude polygamous persons from church leadership. Those in some pioneer mission situations have sometime recast it to mean not taking on any new wives. I’m not suggesting that it is meaningless but that careful exegesis is important.

Make no mistake, I fully accept the Bible as divinely inspired, reliable and authoritative for our salvation and discipleship. I also acknowledge that a small proportion of it is in the form of laws and rules coming directly from God. Much of that material, such as the Levitical Holiness Code and the Ceremonial Law, Christians and even Jews regard as having been relevant to specific cultural and historical situations but are no longer in force today. That doesn’t make them meaningless but that they must be understood in historical and cultural context. Considerable exegetical work from many perspectives is being done on the whole range of Scriptures relevant to homosexuality. I encourage such study, but cannot replicate it here.

The pivotal point on this is recorded in Acts 15 where the Jerusalem Council let go of a lot of those rules and laws as the Holy Spirit guided them to welcome Gentiles into the Church. This doesn’t mean anything goes as long as we claim the leading of the Holy Spirit, nor does it mean the Bible does not teach enduring principles of righteousness. But the very nature of the Bible (which means library) is that it is a collection of writings from many different people in many different historical and cultural situations. These writings record God’s interaction with broken people who vacillate between righteousness and waywardness. I think explains how the Bible can include both the creation order of Genesis 2:24 which presumes one-man-one-woman and includes such wide and often unhealthy variations in practice.

I think this tension between the one-man-one-woman principle and the wide variation in marriage practices recorded in the Bible reflects our human inability to live up to the creation order of Genesis 1:27; 2:24. In 40 years of pastoral ministry and 46 years of marriage, I can tell you I have observed and experienced the aspiration to fully engage in marriage as sacramental covenant. At times it is glorious and at times disastrous. I also know that my wife Candy and I have not achieved the pinnacle of that aspiration, though we have tasted enough of the glory to hunger for more. Neither do I know anyone who would claim they have reached 100% sacramental covenant ecstasy in their marriages. I have also seen and walked with folk I have loved and respected through the tragic shipwreck of marriage, family, church, ministry and faith when these aspirations have been discarded and violated. Recognizing that our actualities are at best approximations of our aspirations for marriage as sacramental covenant does not mean discarding those aspirations, but together we appropriate God’s grace for both the fleeting moments of glory and the recurrent disappointments. Also, our expectations of each other as disciples of Jesus, in this and every area of life, must incorporate both a profound call to and joy of righteousness as well as compassion and grace when we do not live out the fullness of righteousness.

As I hope has been clear throughout, I have a pastoral concern to speak to Christians who are serious about following Jesus as his disciples. I am not addressing the political ramifications of legal marriage standards for the society as a whole, as I believe following Jesus is independent of where culture goes.

I know that some of my colleagues who have argued and advocated biblically for the justice of marriage equality have at least cringed as they have read that I think sacramental covenant marriage best reflects God’s relationship to the community of faith when it consists of one man and one woman. This is not just because of the reference to man and woman in Genesis 2:24 but more so because of both female and male being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and essential to being a portrait of God’s covenant relationship with the community of faith (icon in the Eastern Orthodox sense, not of a picture to look at, but a window to look through to see spiritual reality).

I am also aware that others of my colleagues who view the same-sex marriage issue through the one-man-one-woman lens of the creation order and are fully convinced that same-sex relationships are sinful and marriage impossible will at least cringe if not write me off as having lost my moorings when I explore if and how sacramental covenant might apply to same-sex marriages.

In this space between seemingly irreconcilable poles, I am asking myself what pastoral guidance to give to serious disciples of Jesus who live with same sex attraction and have a loving relationship with a similar partner. I will not speculate on the causes for same-sex attraction, but I do believe it is not chosen and is not a willful rebellion against God. Pastorally, can I call Christian same-sex couples to aspire to represent a sacramental covenant marriage the best they can, recognizing that heterosexual don’t get there 100% either? Can I imagine that a Christian same-sex couple intending their marriage to be the best approximation of sacramental covenant possible might inspire heterosexual couples to also aspire to sacramental covenant in their marriages? Even if this is in the form of jealousy (Romans 11:11-14) or reaction. Could a vigorous discussion of marriage as sacramental covenant in the Church prompt an awakening of marriage renewal among Christians? Might such a renewal attract those outside of the Church to Jesus more effectively than cranky condemnations?

Writing about the disputable issues of that time (dietary and worship principles), Paul wrote in Romans 14:5, “Let all be convinced in their own minds,” while “welcoming those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions.” (Romans 14:1) Same-sex relationships is certainly an issue of debate among Christians in our time. Many on both ends of the spectrum seem not to want to consider those who disagree with them to be legitimate Christians (or at least label them as weak in faith, to whom Paul’s principle would suggest extending a welcome). Those who are fully convinced have a hard time considering this to be a legitimately disputable issue. Here is a real challenge, to be fully convinced in one’s own mind and still welcome as brothers and sisters in Christ those who disagree.

My pastoral perspective on such things is to suggest that we engage in vigorous discussion, but not to convince each other, but to learn from each other. I have often puzzled why something that seems clear to me is not clear to someone else. When I try to understand why, that can even help me clarify why I think the way I do. And I find that when I make a sincere effort to understand why what seems incomprehensible and even reprehensible to me seems obviously reasonable to someone else, they are more open to understand the basis of my thinking.

I believe those who are sincerely seeking to understand how Scripture speaks to our time and hold to one-man-one-woman ought not to be accused of hate or fear (though I know the arguments do get used that way all too often). Conversely, I believe that those who are sincerely seeking to understand how Scripture speaks to our time and advocate for the justice of marriage equality in the Church (along with responsible exegesis of relevant biblical material) ought not to be accused of being heretics or apostates who don’t believe the Bible.

A public discussion among Christians about same-sex marriage is inevitable and has been underway for some time. The potential for acrimonious division that sends a negative message about the Church and the Gospel to the larger society is great. People are turned away from Jesus when they observe his followers bashing each other. I resonate with Doug Skinner’s hope that a conversation about same-sex marriage might stimulate a movement toward marriage renewal. I do not want us to shy away from discussing difficult issues, but I urge all of us to frame our words in such a way that they encourage marriage renewal and point people to Jesus rather than attack our fellow disciples.

I urge my clergy colleagues who do and will conduct weddings for same-sex couples to move beyond being a civil functionary and invite and encourage these couples to pursue the vision of marriage as a sacramental covenant. I also encourage you to engage pastorally with the people whose weddings you perform and not let what should be a sacred experience degenerate into a political statement.

I urge my clergy colleagues who do not conduct wedding for same-sex couples to do everything you can to teach and nourish the aspiration for the couples you do marry to pursue marriage as a sacramental covenant. Please do not fall victim to complaining that the Supreme Court’s decision impinges on your religious freedom. Nothing they said limits the pastoral discretion we have always had to decide which couples are good candidates for marriage and which ones we defer.

The last four years of my forty years of pastoral ministry have been as an interim pastor. I hope to do one more interim pastorate before shifting gears into the next stage of my journey. Interim pastors typically conduct funerals but seldom weddings. Pastoral ethics preclude performing weddings (or providing other pastoral services) for members of congregations I have previously served. If one of my grandchildren asked me to perform their wedding, I’d be honored but suggest their own pastor (or the pastor of their intended) should do it and ask me to read Scripture or pray but not be the officiant. Since I am just about out of the wedding business, you might ask why I would bother to enter this contentious fray. I hope I can make a positive contribution to the conversation without needing to be a partisan to a cause.

I certainly have more questions than answers. I hope that by posing a few of the practical ones, I can help others prayerfully explore their own thinking. I hope to contribute something worthwhile to the conversations that are going on from all sorts of directions in congregations today. I hope to stimulate and nourish joy filled wonder and awe for, yes, Christian heterosexual married couples. I hope to stimulate a winsome word from the Church to the people of our world who are hungry for an alternative to narrow rules or spiritual anarchy. I believe that eventually and inevitably these questions will confront every pastor and every congregation regardless of theological tradition. People with open and hidden same-sex attraction and relationships are (and have been and will be) in all of our congregations.

1.      How will I communicate, encourage and nurture inspiration for marriage as sacramental covenant?

a.       For people related to the church?

b.      For people outside of the church?

c.       For heterosexual couples?

d.      For same-sex couples?

2.      Will I, should I, encourage cohabiting couples to marry or separate and be celibate?

a.       Those related to the church? If they don’t are they limited or excluded from congregational activities?

b.      Those in the wider society?

c.       Heterosexual couples?

d.      Same-sex couples?

3.      How do I balance 1 Corinthians 7:15 ff about the believer not abandoning the unbelieving spouse with 2 Corinthians 6:14 about not being mismatched with unbelievers when one partner is much more spiritually engaged than the other? If only one expresses Christian faith?

a.       How do I address this in marriage preparation before a wedding?

b.      How do I address this with people who are already married?

c.       What would be similar or different between heterosexual and same-sex couples?

4.      What do I say to a legally married, same-sex Christian couples who start attending or want to join a congregation I serve?

a.       You’re not welcome here?

b.      You’re welcome here, but you can’t become a member?

c.       You can become a member with service restrictions?

d.      You are welcome like everyone else?

5.      What do I say to the young people (or mature adults for that matter) who grew up or are established in the congregation I serve (who may be children of established members) who identify themselves as homosexual or bring a same-sex relationship into the congregation?

6.      On what basis do I accept or decline a couple’s request to perform their wedding?

a.       How does my position mesh with congregational policy?

b.      How do I communicate my decision to them?

c.       How do I customize the marriage preparation process for each couple? Heterosexual or same-sex?

d.      How do I adapt the wedding ceremony and vows to each couple? Heterosexual or a same-sex?

7.      What do I teach about singleness and celibacy as a calling for heterosexual or homosexual Christians? (Despite turmoil in the institution of marriage in our culture, the social pressure to couple, if not marry, is very strong.)

a.       1 Corinthians 7:17-38 (and a few shorter passages) suggest the high and normative dignity of celibate singleness for the purpose of dedicated Christian service. How have I lifted this up in the face of social pressure to marry?

b.      By extension, is being able to serve better together than individually the only legitimate rationale for Christians to marry? How do I teach about the calling to celibate singleness to heterosexual and homosexual people in the congregation I serve?

Abortion: A Pastoral Response

As a pastor I don’t encounter abortion as a political, legal or social issue. My encounters with abortion come through the deep anguish of women, couples, parents and families. They do not come with cavalier attitudes of throwing away an inconvenience to move on as quickly as possible. They come in the pain of a teen pregnancy, a rape, incest, an affair, seriously defective child, or threat to mother’s life and long-term health. “Just don’t do it” and “it’s your choice” are woefully inadequate pastoral responses.

I do not like the labels “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice,” as they imply crusading for causes rather than engaging with people in their pain. Make no mistake. I do not consider abortion a good thing. I do consider choice a good thing, but not in the sense of democratic, personal freedom, rather as an essential expression of Christian discipleship. We have decided to follow Jesus, as the song goes. In many areas I find that the legal status of something is almost irrelevant to Christian discipleship. In our secular, pluralistic society we who follow Jesus must learn “to sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land.” (Psalm 137: 4) Since the time of Jesus, it has ever been so. The residual trappings of Christendom in culture do not nourish discipleship and may even be counterproductive to it.

I do care about the role of government in our lives as a nation and as a community of faith. However, I do not see the government’s role as enforcing, regulating or even encouraging decisions and behaviors that grow out of Christian discipleship. Rather taking my cue from Psalm 72 and Deuteronomy 17:14-21, I see the biblical role of government as to provide protection, justice and prosperity in which all share, especially the weakest, poorest, outcast, vulnerable: widows, orphans, lame, blind, aliens, foreigners. On that theological basis, I believe government has a legitimate role in protecting unborn children who are utterly defenseless. Our debates over the human status of the fertilized ovum, zygote, embryo, fetus that arise from modern science and political presuppositions were unknown to the writers of the Bible. That doesn’t make them irrelevant. Psalm 139:13-15 speaks eloquently to the wonder of our formation in the womb. But when women seek my pastoral guidance about a crisis pregnancy, they are not thinking about biology. They are seeking a way forward in their pain. I would contend that God’s compassion for the weak expressed in the Bible extends not only to her unborn child but also to a pregnant woman in crisis and to her family.

Sometimes the crisis pregnancy is the result of irresponsible even sinful behavior. Sometimes it is the result of being abused or sinned against in some way. Sometimes it comes in the course of life as broken human beings through no fault of our own. But a crisis pregnancy is almost always accompanied by shame, guilt and regret. People (not just the woman but her family and sometimes her relational network) do not need scolding and condemnation. They are already heaping that on themselves and each other. What they need is Christ’s grace and faith to appropriate it when none of the options seem satisfactory.

As a pastor, for me to tell them what they must do or can’t do is often counterproductive. They may just resist and write off not only my relationship but also God’s grace and compassion. Also, sometimes they want the pastor to tell them what to do, and when it gets difficult or catastrophic, they blame the pastor. Much better, I think, to elicit from them their competing internal voices and help them sort out which ones come from the Holy Spirit. Those who are not particularly biblically literate may need some guidance on Scriptures to consider. As the conversations unfold, I try to guide them to ask, “What course forward best helps you live in Christ’s grace? What course forward best rises out of faith in God and God’s love for you?” I have followed this pattern in any number of personal crisis situations, not just pregnancies.

As I said at the beginning, I am concerned with Christian discipleship, not just in helping people in times of crisis but all along life’s journey. Certainly some women face crisis pregnancies because they or someone else has strayed from the path of Christian discipleship. I certainly do not want to say or even imply that having detoured they can never return to their journey with Jesus. In fact, my pastoral goal is to encourage, guide and accompany them on the return to this journey. Sometimes even those who have been seriously intentional about following Jesus get side tracked. I want to give them hope that Jesus welcomes them back by his side. Sometimes those who have never known, trusted or followed Jesus seek pastoral guidance in a time of crisis. I hope I can extend Jesus’ invitation to walk with him. One of the amazing things about grace (if that’s not too cliché) is that the wounds and scars, burdens and regrets of the past are transformed into private and public signs of grace. By accompanying people for the long-haul of their journeys, I sometimes get to help them recognize this a long time later (sometimes years).

Yes, sometimes people do not choose as I hope they would, but I do not abandon them but do everything I can to sustain a positive pastoral relationship. Sometimes they want to come back and work through the regrets of the decisions they have made and actions they have taken. This approach doesn’t mean I don’t express my own convictions, but I do that as input for their consideration rather than directives to follow. I know some of my friends and colleagues will say that I should use my pastoral authority to proclaim “thus saith the Lord.” Perhaps if I believed prophecy was one of my spiritual gifts I would do that, but I believe my approach grows out of my spiritual gifts as a pastor-teacher.

I do not write as an expert in this field nor as one who has had an abundance of experience, but I have had some. The recent political upheaval over the tapes of Planned Parenthood conversations on the use of “fetal tissue” has put this issue front and center on the political stage, which was already quite volatile. I am specifically not addressing that. Nor am I suggesting a way around it. Neither am I intending to instruct others in their pastoral practices. Rather, I find that writing and letting others see what I have written helps me clarify my own thinking and hopefully improve my pastoral ministry.