Silence

I wrote these fourteen sonnets in 1966 when I was 20 years old and rediscovered them cleaning out my home office in 2015. At 68 years old, I am both amused and amazed at what I wrote. I have typed them here exactly as I wrote them 49 years ago, realizing they include a number of things I wouldn’t do today, such as using “man” to refer to humankind of both genders. I know some folk fuss about “political correctness,” but I would contend this reflects a real shift in how language is used in the past half-century. These sonnets were also accompanied by prints of my own wilderness photos. Though printed from 35mm slides by a commercial photo lab, the dyes have faded considerably. I readily acknowledge being inspired by the Sierra Club wilderness books (I still have and enjoy This is the American Earth) featuring the photography of Ansel Adams and others. Though I have no illusions of even crudely approximating those works of art, I do recognize themes that continued to unfold in my writing and preaching in subsequent years.

To the glory of God,

The preservation of

His wilderness,

And the renewal

Of some soul.

                               I.            Dawn

                            II.            Small Man

                         III.            Worship

                         IV.            Symphony

                            V.            Summer

                         VI.            Autumn

                      VII.            Winter

                   VIII.            Spring

                         IX.            Diversity

                            X.            Joy

                         XI.            Fantasy

                      XII.            Promise

                   XIII.            Struggle

                   XIV.            Heaven’s Gate

Dawn

How early was a dawn to come in time

That we could not have heard or see its first

Approaching, or have felt its falling fine

And light upon a darkened earth, and burst

In regal righteousness through clouded sky

To smile down on a new created life-

Wondrous watching to see it live and die,

How long before man brought to earth his strife?

Before a minute mar was made on earth

The striking sound of dawn had long been heard

To tiptoe o’r the hilltops telling all

The great creation that a new day’s birth

Had come, and then without a wicked word

Proclaim a silence which wrought miracle.

  

Small Man

And then we entered Eden, you and I,

In the midst of morning’s perfect stillness

We felt quite feeble underneath the sky

Which spread above our heads as an endless

Holy canopy, and we dared disturb

The water’s, hence unwrinkled, sacred face

With ripples which the wind n’er moved, perturb

The silence and bring on ourselves disgrace.

But our light trespass didn’t stop the smile

Of aged awkward trees, nor in anger

Did the colossal sky collapse to venge

Defacing of the deep, and all the while

Nearly nonexistent winds would whisper,

Small man, live lightly or face revenge.

Worship

Yet where we never trod there still is found

The same perfection that in Eden dwelt

Before we stepped, and scared the once unbound

Wilderness which before our time was built

From the building block of nothing on the

Cornerstone of Passion’s peaceful purpose,

To provide a sanctuary for the

Renewal of a searching soul in loss.

And now we’re called to a simple worship

Which demands a rare purity of soul,

Discerning to worship the creator

In his tabernacle, and not worship

The temple for itself, but seek the goal

Of finding peace, alone with Creator.

  

Symphony

No greater symphony has come from pen

Moved by the daring dreams of enchanted

And much moved souls and minds of mighty men-

Than the age old song the wind has chanted,

Composing it anew each day, blending

With the caprice of the clouds eternal

Touching tunes that are forever playing

On the organ of the immortal hill.

In stillness let us sense the strains that sing

From off the mountain sides and cross the sands

To touch our tender ear with tunes of life,

So rest and hear the message that they bring

Of beauty of the willing work of hands

That moved and molded, touched, and made a life.

Summer

And standing softly, taking in the sun,

A single hearty flower will on dry

Scorchéd desert bloom, and it will come

To fruit and seed, and summer’s majesty

Has made this flower king and calléd him

For sun – the flower follows then the path

His namesake sets and in the twist of stem

Will turn in thanks for the light life he hath.

The perfect primitive sun hast burst

In glory from the grass to grow in light,

To be both shrine and subject of the Sun

And striving seldom, satisfy the thirst

For streaming strength that flows from the sun’s might,

And live in freedom even as his run.

  

Autumn

Aflame in power and in beauty all

Its own, the autumn frost bursts stem and leaf

In unison of hue which shall enthrall

An easy, sleepy, unencumbered earth

As never blossom could have hoped to do,

For now each leaf has felt the spell and touch

Transforming it to rival and outdo

The finest work yet fallen from a brush.

In the autumn chapel now let us bow

And burn to bring our praise to Holy One,

Who has with but a tiny bit of breath

A giant icon hung and will allow

Us humbly to approach and reverent come,

And so renew a soul with holy strength.

Winter

And even through the seeming endless dark

And cloud of winter, rays of sun will shine

But just enough to kindle and to spark

A glowing that is glorious in its time,

And stud the leaves, the twigs, the sky, with stars

Of light, and sacred, holy, mystic gems

Will glow to grant our true desires

And needs, and shall accompany our hymns.

When in the midst of darkness of a cloud

A ray of light will seem to seek us out-

To stimulate, intensify – the part of man

That loves the holy life of earth is bowed

To worship at this shrine and not to doubt

That even winter’s silence betters man.

  

Spring

In silence spring seeps cross the sleepy hills –

Without so much as a little fanfare

The opening opera of creation fills,

And swirling swells the all attentive air

With songs and stories that the players

Forever sing and tell, in the humble

Playing of a part which the creator,

In anxious expectation, sees them fill.

And where unmarred by man’s great greedy hand,

Catastrophe is covered, and barren

Burnéd land is refreshed and soon renewed

By advent of spring’s spirit in the land –

Forever, and much more, will creation

Continue if spring can still be renewed.

Diversity

Even rocks themselves have now been painted

In vibrant color and in changeless hue,

Now they stand as monuments erected,

Even lifeless, to remind us who blew

The breath of life and many unique souls

Upon the earth to learn to live, to love

The varied creation, when even soils

Are as diverse as skill of him above.

No movement to be seen, no sound to hear,

And yet the holy rocks in stillness move,

And now in sacred silence seem to sing

Of multitudes of variation here

Now found in simple sands with serve to prove

Creator’s care for even this small thing.

Joy

A child has found true satisfaction in

The simple blowing of a milkweed puff,

And he has known great joy away from din

Of the tense grownup world, and a huff

Of primitive delight has spread the seed –

By the holy instinct he always knew,

He holds nature’s hand will surely heed

Her call to loft the seed to wind which blew.

Then let us all return to our childhood

And the simple joys which had been stunted

As we thought that we have been growing up,

Let us find again the instinct which good

Great God at our first creation planted

In us, which we forsook on growing up.

Fantasy

There’s a magic in the shaded quiet

Of tumbling streams that casts a sacred spell

On the spirit of man, if a moment

Will he give to let holy water tell

The mystic sounds too powerful for word –

Nothing short of the supernatural

Could ever hope that when its voice was heart

It could capture as wilderness enthrall.

Reject the right and wisdom that had made

Discord in the earth and in fervent fear

Flee the trappings of tragedy and cling

In awe to the fantasy that is made

In real reality where one may rear

A child to know the spirit of living.

  

Promise

Has insignificant, audacious man,

A single species placed upon the earth,

By some unwitting, foolish act or ban

Doomed this holy habitation of earth

From which a creation cannot escape,

But each kind is kept at the mad mercy

Of so few men – How great does this grave gape

Before the eyes of man who claims to see?

But blazon in the sky a bold banner

Proclaims that there is found hope, a promise

That the wisdom that created Eden

At the first, will not permit men to mar

In finality, but will surely stop us

And purge in time to build a new Eden.

Struggle

How then can this small man begin to know

The overwhelming power of universe,

Or be enchanted by the blissful blow

Of wind upon its wondrous wide traverse

Of mountain peak and sacred valley floor;

How shall this easeful creature ever find

A spell to lose it apathetic core

That stops the soul as it subdues the mind?

An understanding of an holy earth

Is only gained by blood and sweat and toil,

Since in the struggle nature takes one in

And teaches reverent love for birth and growth

And death, to be in tune with sea and soil;

Exulted, struggle light and few to win.

Heaven’s Gate

If we have struggled in our pilgrimage

To come to worship in the wilderness,

If then in our time we have sought to gauge

Our lives, our loves by standards nothing less

That those our blood and sweat and toil demand,

If in humility we can employ

The simple constancy nature commands

For the survivor’s soul, then shall be joy.

The wilderness shall lift us light and free

To a reality past our ideal,

Losing mortal limitations, though late

We shall enter Eden, and we will be

Standing with sacred supernatural

At skyway door – in Heaven’s very Gate.

Updating My Personal Exploration of Same-Sex Relationships in the Community of Disciples - Norman Stolpe - July 2, 2015

When people have asked me about my “position” on homosexuality, I have reluctantly responded that it is too nuanced and too much in flux to satisfy those who are convinced of their settled opinions. For many who have adopted activist stances, this seems to be an evasion of pastoral responsibility. Having come through painful conflicts around these issues with two congregations (admittedly, not too successfully) and with interaction with homosexual folk, especially in six congregations I have served, I would readily acknowledge I am still in process. The US Supreme Court’s ruling June 26, 2015 making same-sex marriage legal throughout the US has brought this into very public discussion, which has had its own impact on my thinking. I do not know if, how, when or with whom I may or may not share this, but I am writing to clarify my own thinking and not to convince anyone of anything.

Though the public discussion has been more metaphysical, the actual Supreme Court decision is not about theology, religion or spirituality but about money and civil law. It addresses issues of taxation, inheritance, common property, medical insurance and pension benefits, medical power of attorney and visitation. 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 that, but my interest is in the integrity of discipleship for those who follow Jesus and their church communities.

Some of the reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision from religious perspectives rests on a tacit presumption that the US is or should be a “Christian nation” or is historically based on “Christian” principles. Various quotes from people of historic significance to the US both for and against this notion have been hurled around during these discussions. While the US Constitution, which makes no mention of God, would seem to preclude the possibility of any religious designation for the US, I am more concerned about the spiritual vigor and authenticity of the Church, which I believe is stronger when not propped up by law and social convention.

The idea of a “Christian nation” arises from an extension of the concept of “Christendom” that came to characterize Europe as “The Holy Roman Empire” after the Emperor Constantine made his own rather distorted, diluted version of “Christianity” the official religion of the Roman Empire. Within a generation of Constantine’s 346 CE edict, the spiritual caliber of the Church plummeted precipitously. Though any number of renewal and revival movements have brought seasons of spiritual vitality, the Church in Europe and the New World has never recovered its pre-Constantinian vigor.

For those who grieve the loss of a generic Judeo-Christian social consensus in the US, I suggest the time has come to learn to “sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land” (Psalm 137:4) as the people of Judah struggled to do during their exile in Babylon. We need to heed the instruction Jeremiah gave to the people of Judah when they were in exile in Babylon to “seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” (29:7) Those prayers and that welfare had no illusion of Babylon as a society turning to the God of Israel. It would continue to be a pagan monarchy, and the people of Judah would continue to be marginalized and persecuted outsiders. I further suggest, that Christians would do better to devote their energy to encouraging authentic discipleship among ourselves and bring Christ’s redemptive healing to the wounded and wandering in our secular society, rather than trying to promote some legal or social mandate for a watered down version of “Christianity” that dilutes authentic Christian discipleship.

How the Supreme Court’s decision might figure into seeking the welfare of the city in which we are in exile is a worthy but different direction than my concern for those who intend to be serious disciples faithfully following Jesus. I do think those are two quite different issues. A generalized belief in God under a cultural Christian label is a far cry from being a serious disciple faithfully following Jesus. Why would we expect those who do not trust Jesus to shape their lives to follow him? To be sure, sexual promiscuity is harmful to its participants and their society, whether heterosexual or homosexual. The Supreme Court’s decision could have the effect of some reduction in same-sex promiscuity.

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 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 certainly points to one-man-one-woman (more on that later). The qualifications for church leaders (elder, bishop, overseer) in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 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 and remarried. Much of the church has construed this as calling for marital fidelity and not speaking to the gender or marital history of the leaders. In social context, this has often been understood to exclude polygamous persons from church leadership, those in some pioneer mission situations this has been recast to mean not taking on any new wives. I’m not suggesting that it is meaningless but that careful exegesis is important.

I think this tension between the one-man-one-woman principle and the wide variation in marriage practices recorded in the Bible reflects two faulty understandings of the nature of the Bible. On the one hand are those who see the Bible as God’s dictated rules for living. Such a view is more akin to how orthodox Islam understands the Quran than the way the Bible presents itself. The other faulty view is that the Bible is a human document that grew out of the development of Judeo-Christian religion. Make no mistake, I fully accept the Bible as divinely inspired, reliable and authoritative. 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 Ceremonial Law, Christians and even Jews regard as having been relevant to specific cultural and historical situations but are no longer relevant today. 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 certainly presumes one-man-one-woman and includes such wide and often unhealthy variations in practice.

I will not attempt to comment on previous generations of Christians, among whom I know there were both shining examples of wonderful marriages and shameful examples of abuse and brutality. I will limit my comments to my own generation and my own circle of fellow Christians. Many of those with a “God’s dictated rules” view of the Bible tended to look at sex and marriage as a rather rigid “no-yes” proposition. Sex before and outside of marriage was always “no,” though even in the most rigid Christian communities, there were plenty of exceptions to both. Sometimes they 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. This “no-yes” approach also gave tacit approval to considerable oppression and abuse of women by their husbands, who not only demanded sex in both frequency and form from their wives without consideration of the wives’ wishes, but also promoted oppressive and abusive forms of submission.

Drawing on a view of the Bible as God’s conversations with people through many generations, in different times and cultures, my interpretation of a biblical understanding is at once more demanding and more exhilarating than the “no-yes” approach. For the sake of simplicity I refer to it with the shorthand “sacramental covenant” marriage. It is rooted in the creation order, not just of Genesis 2:24 but also Genesis 1:27 that affirms that humankind, female and male, is created in the image of God.

I think I should include a brief excurses to explain what I mean by sacramental, which I know may not be understood or accepted by those whose entire church experience has been non-sacramental (if not anti-sacramental in 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. 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 “ordinance” either. Sacrament comes from sacred simply meaning holy. Something ordinary is set aside for holy use.

On the basis of that definition of sacrament, the Reformed Tradition and most Protestants do not accept the five other sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. That is a topic for a different discussion. However, 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. 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) as conveying 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. Ezekiel 23 addresses Judah and Israel of the divided kingdom as sisters, perhaps reflecting Jacob’s polygamous marriage to Leah and Rachel, but here as unfaithful wives to God. 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. Ephesians 5:22-33 has provoked much debate because 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 of the age as 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.

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.

In 40 years of pastoral ministry and 46 years of marriage, I can tell you I have observed and experienced this aspiration. At time it is glorious. But I also know that Candy and I have not achieved the pinnacle of that aspiration, nor do I know anyone who would claim that. 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.

All of this brings me to the fulcrum of updating my personal exploration of same sex relationships in the community of disciples. I have not reached what I could call a settled conclusion, and I know that those who have and believe their conclusion is solidly biblical are likely to think I am copping out or have lost my way. 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 for the society as a whole, as I believe following Jesus is independent of where culture goes.

I know that some of my Christian colleagues who have argued biblically and advocated for the justice of marriage equality will at least cringe 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 (icon in the Eastern Orthodox sense, not of a picture to look at, but a window to look through to see spiritual reality) of God’s covenant relationship with the community of faith.

Having said that and acknowledging that none of us have achieved that aspiration, 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 that, but I do believe it is not chosen and is not a willful rebellion against God. Here I know my Christian colleagues who are fully convinced that same-sex relationships are sinful and marriage impossible with cringe if not condemn for pondering even the possibility of pastorally calling 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.

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 do not want to consider those who disagree with them to be legitimate Christians and do not consider 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 felt 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.

I have written and said this before, and reaffirm it here in light of the previous paragraph. 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). Conversely, I believe that these 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.

One other final excurses of 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.

Cases have been mentioned of businesses who 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? 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, they should bake them two. A bit tongue in cheek, but worth pondering. 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.