faithasawayoflife

One Step Closer Study Guide (Beta version) available

Finally, much overdue and still needing work, here is the study guide for my 2006 book One Step Closer on the fabulous and faithful band U2.Download One Step Closer Study Guide  Love them or hate them (and I love them), they are huge and hugely important from a faith and culture perspective.  I hope if you have a chance to use this, you'll recommend ideas for improving it.  Jeni Falkman Grangaard who worked with me this past year on my Broken Hallelujah manuscript (still in the writing phase) took some time out from that project to prepare this study guide. She's awesome and did a great job.  She's off on a year-long post-seminary preaching fellowship taking her and hubby Colin to Jerusalem and Nairobi.   Enjoy!
Peace,
Chris

Leaving Holden

Photo share from the Lucerne boat landing looking up Lake Chelan (Isaiah on the log) on the day we left Holden Village. Stunning view, eh?

W/ Rob Bell at Poets, Prophets, and Preachers

I'm in Grand Rapids listening to Rob Bell at a preaching conference called Poets, Prophets and Preachers. One of the obvious but profound insights he shared on the first night was about the way a shared history of pastor and people is in the room each Sunday-- who you were and who they were and all you've done together are in a sense another actor who plays a role in how things unfold. Thinking through the ways this happens would be VERY intersting.
Anon and peace,
Chris

photo share from Holden Village

This picture is about four miles up Railroad Creek Valley from Holden Village,

just as the trail peaks the rise before coming down into Heart Lake. Lovely Indian Paintbrush lines the rocky trail, my favorite wildflower.  Behind you can see the huge waterfall coming down from

Lyman Lake another five miles or so up the valley.
Peace,
Chris

Blog vacation: going to Holden Village

I'll be off for a couple weeks in non-tech land--Holden Village, WA--for the board of directors meeting.  I'll also be teaching (on torture and Christianity, as well as sexuality debates in the ELCA) as well as hiking.  Holden is an amazing place and if you haven't been, or not recently, make your plans soon! (Photo: Heart Lake, up the Railroad Creek valley from Holden).
See you in July.
Peace,
Chris

God Loves Gay Marriage: On Lutheran Debates, part four

 Here are the posts in this series so far, if you've missed them.
God Loves Gays: On Lutheran Debates, part one
God Loves Gays Gay: On Lutheran Debates, part two
God Loves Gay Desire: On Lutheran Debates, part three

Photo above: Oby Ballinger and Javen Swanson, Marriage in Marquand Chapel, Yale Divinity School, May 22, 2009 Photo by Johanna Johnson

I've just returned from the Montana Synod Assembly where (as might be expected)  resolutions were brought forward to memorialize the Churchwide Assembly in August to adopt policy changes that would 1) recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships and 2) to find a way for people in such publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders of this church. The resolution passed by a vote of 168-130 or something like that.  One of the most thoughtful speeches was by a man who recounted the fact that we already as a church welcome gays, call them to ministry, ordain them and yet, when they fall in love and seek to give themselves to another in marriage, we say, "no."  He noted that as we began the synod assembly we sang the lovely Marty Haugen hymn All Are Welcome, and he noted that for now that welcome has an asterisk on it, one that he hopes we can erase.   That trajectory, despite our sometimes self-congratulatory proclamations about our welcoming all,  is in fact based on a root claim that God did not create Gays good, that their desire is fundamentally disordered, and their love a result of sin.  So in fact we currently welcome, call and ordain gays in a qualified way, with the (usually) covert conviction that they are defective and must, for the sake of our 'Vision and Expectations" for ordained ministers in the ELCA, remain celibate. 

While I've written quite a bit on this issue, including my book Married in the Sight of God, here I want to highlight a strand of argument from my article last summer responding to the draft social statement on human sexuality wondering out loud what it might say were it to more robustly argue for the possibility of gay marriage.  Here's what I said:

"It is an act of grace that so many queer Christians have remained with the ELCA for so long despite our inability as a church to say a full, rather than qualified, yes to them.

What if the statement went on to offer a way to think about what could move us to that place of a full yes?  (Note: I’m not calling for an unqualified yes—we all come as sinners in the fundamental sense, as beggars to receive the undeserved gift of a yes from God).  To offer such a way, even tentatively, would require us to face squarely what I noted above as the core issue: whether we understand queer identities as 1) variation in or 2) disordering of God’s creative work.   The Church needs more substantial work and discussion on this core issue, drawing on Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, as well as the experiences of people’s lives and the findings of science.

To take a couple of steps in addressing this core issue of queer identities as part of God’s good creation, I want to point to one incisive argument from Scripture: the 1994 article “A New Word on Homosexuality?  Isaiah 56:1-8 as Case Study” by Fred Gaiser.   In his article, Gaiser begins by raising the tension between our need to speak in a world about which the authors of Scripture knew nothing, while honoring the Scriptures as the source and norm of our life together.  But as he reviews the question of homosexuality in contemporary debates, he posits, “We will probably not resolve the present dilemma by creative exegesis.”  The texts, whatever they say, do not give us a clear positive word on homoerotic relationships.  So, he asks, “Is it then impossible for the church to speak a new word on this difficult issue?” 

Here, Gaiser argues, Scripture helps.  He examines the exclusion of eunuchs from the assembly of the Lord (Lev. 21:16-23, Deut. 23:1) and the reversal of this exclusion in Is. 56.  This radical inclusion ends with the phrase Jesus himself repeats: “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples” (Is. 56:7).  Gaiser points to other examples in Scripture where such abrogation of the law is found: Matt 5, Acts 10, Gal 3.  In thinking about the possibility of a new word in our day, Gaiser thinks the Lutheran approach to Scripture helps: we confess Christ as a living Word, not a dead letter.  He finds in Luther “the possibility of speaking an entirely new word, even against Scripture, in the spirit of Christ.”  

Gaiser then tackles the hard question of what such a new word would look like.  His four points offer helpful guideposts for debate about how the draft study might go here.  First, Gaiser argues, the new word would speak from an eschatological perspective and not from cultural mores or arguments from creation. 

Second, the eschatological welcome into “a house of prayer for all peoples” comes as gift, and not as a right.  Of course rights apply to civil order but in this case, access to the assembly and to reconciliation with God comes by an open hand, not a raised fist. 

Third, such a new word would need to speak of the contours of the “new life in Christ.”  Here, the DS already has gone quite far in part because of its theology of trust in divine and human relationships.  It is specious to say that this leads to baptizing a sinful lifestyle or could lead to all manner of immorality.  Rather, this lifts up covenantal fidelity between humanity and God as the model for human relationships, and especially for marriage, the life-long commitment of fidelity between two consenting adults, for better or worse, in sickness and health. 

Lastly, Gaiser argues, the new word would welcome queer Christians to a community of outcasts God has gathered through Christ for the sake of the world.  Neither liberals nor conservatives win in this case; God wins, drawing us all into the foolish life modeled on the cross of Christ, a life of self-emptying for the neighbor in need.  Such a mission is shared by conservatives/traditionalists and liberal/progressives alike.

We could ask, with Gaiser, whether such a new word should be spoken.  He argues that the process of hearing the new word about eunuchs took time and had to be tested, lived into.  Similarly the new word regarding the Gentiles reported in Acts took time to be heard in the early church.  The draft study could reasonably state that we are in such a time.  A new word has been spoken, heard, and is being lived.  The church is called to test it prayerfully, to discern together whether we do or do not find ourselves addressed by a Word of the Lord in this matter.  In laying out such a pattern before the Church, the theological frame of the draft study could breathe a new spirit into this contentious topic rather than awkwardly assert wooden traditional claims."

The hymn All Are Welcome that I mention above has in it this line (vs. 5): "Let us build a house where all are named, their songs and visions heard and loved and treasured, taught and claimed as words within the Word" and it reminded me of Isaiah 56:

 ⁴ For this is what the LORD says:
       "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
       who choose what pleases me
       and hold fast to my covenant-

 ⁵ to them I will give within my temple and its walls
       a memorial and a name
       better than sons and daughters;
       I will give them an everlasting name
       that will not be cut off.

May it be so with us.

Anon and peace,

Chris

A mermaid in a bar? On visiting the Sip-n-Dip

So a bunch of Montana pastors took me out while I was at the Synod Assembly in Great Falls, MT. We went to the Sip-n-Dip bar in the O'Haire Motor Inn and wow, I can't say I've ever had such a unbelievable experience in a bar. The theme is 'Tiki Bar" and the place has the typical fake tropical look, but then there's Pat Spoonheim on the organ singing from 9:30 to 1:30 every night.  And she's quite a trip, still belting'm out at 80 or whatever age she is.  But then, the really unbelievable thing is the glass wall behind the bar that looks into the mermaid tank where, you guessed it, a scantily-clad woman dressed as a mermaid is swimming around, tip jar just our side of the glass.  Hmm. If you are ever in Great Falls, you've just got to.  Really.
Peace,
Chris

Progressive AND BIBLICAL--a rant

I'm so tired of 'traditionalists' claiming that they are 'faithful' to the Scriptures while 'progressives' supposedly go off embracing some pottage of emotion and cultural drift.  Enough!  The latest frustration on this count comes from the trick email sent to Luther students who've signed the ELCA Seminarians statement in support of the ELCA policy recommendations (see here for more on the recommendations if you are not in the L'ran loop).  The emailer posed as a entering gay student asking for advice about coming to Luther.  Numerous students responded, and then their responses were used in an online article critical of the liberal leaning of future pastors being trained at Luther.  The author, Rev. CJ Conner writes this in another post critical of the ELCA, going on to make the case that the decline in membership in the ELCA is tied to its abandonment of the Scritures:

Bethlehem Lutheran Church in Saint Paul, Minnesota is a congregation of the more conservative Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.  It is not unusual these days to find families leaving the ELCA to join the church.   However, a new member’s class at Bethlehem Lutheran is an unusual place to find young men from the ELCA’s Luther Seminary in Saint Paul.  The Pastor of the Church says that he sees more ELCA students coming to his traditional and liturgical congregation.  “They all have expressed a disappointment in the direction the ELCA is going, and its general disregard for the Bible as the Word of God.”

The website at Bethlehem Lutheran states that "Worship at Bethlehem Lutheran Church is founded on the verbally inspired inerrant Word of God. " Okay, but long ago fights over Scripture split Missouri and the ELCA has never held such a view of Scripture.  Inspired, yes; inerrant, no. So, truthfully, we only disregard your particular way of understanding the Bible as the Word of God.  We have another way:

The ELCA Confession of Faith:
2.01.    This church confesses the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
2.02.     This church confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior andthe Gospel as the power of  God for the salvation of all who believe.
    a. Jesus Christ is the Word of God incarnate, through whom everything was made and through whose life, death and resurrection God fasions a new creation.
    b. The proclamation of God's message to us as both Law and Gospel is the Word of God, revealing judgment and mercy through word and deed, beginnning with the Word in creation, continuing in the history of Israel, and centering in all its fullness in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
    c. The cannonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the written Word of God.  Inspired by God's Spirit speaking through their authors, they record and announcing God's revelation centering in Jesus Christ.  Through them God's Spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian faith and fellowship for service in the world.

I believe this articulation of our faith in God and God's Word, have vowed to live my life and ministry according to it, and yet this articulation is not the only one Christians live by.   The ELCA has a particular and vital understanding of the Word of God, and it is first of all a Living Word, Jesus Christ, to whom we seek to be faithful.  The literal text of Scripture is not, I repeat, not the primary thing. It is Christ and his Gospel which the Scriptures bear to us that is primary.  Thus the order of a, b and c. 

One can be devoted to the bible as the Word of God AND make a case for the faithful acceptance of gays as beloved by God, fully, as gay, without the need to repent and change their sexual orientation.  It is not just such deeply thoughtful and faithful scholars that I'm blessed to have here at Luther who say so.  Many, many theologians and faithful Christians who love and live as best they can in response to the call of Christ in their lives say so, too.  Let it be so for you, too, who read this and feel discouraged by these 'traditionalist' claims to speak for Scripture and the Confessions.  We, too, have ground to claim there, and do, and will in Christ's name.

Anon and peace,
Chris

On thinking biblically about sexuality

As I've worked on the chapter on Leonard Cohen in my forthcoming book, Broken Hallelujah, I've been trying to get at the deep biblical grounding of his work, and his sense of God, in particular. In Hallelujah, he says this: "You say I took the name in vain / I don't even know the name / But if I did, well really, what's it to you? / There's a blaze of light / In every word / It doesn't matter which you heard / The holy or the broken Hallelujah."  So I've been looking into the phrase 'the name' which refers to the foundational Jewish and Christian text from Exodus 3:14 where Moses says to God, who shall I tell them sent me, and God tells Moses 'I am who I am' (one translation). 

Anyhow, I digress. I got a great recommendation to help me think about this text.  In Thinking Biblically: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Studies, Andre LaCocque and Paul Ricoeur engage in reading a set of "First Testament" (as they call it) texts, reading them together through their biblical and philosophical scholarly eyes, respectively.  The preface, on how they read Scripture, is incredibly illuminating and speaks in very helpful ways to my struggles to say why I don't buy what my critics on the issue of homosexuality say, namely, that not reading key texts their way means I've abandoned faithfulness to the Scriptures, and perhaps the Christian faith for another faith of my own designs.  Here's how I put it in a post a few weeks ago:

Despite the admission that Scripture says nothing positive about same-sex sexual relations, I chafe at claims that faithfulness to Scripture requires giving over primary authority on these questions to two texts,  Genesis 1:26-28 and Mark 10:2-12.  These two texts, our critics say, prove God's intention in creation for marriage as a "life-long promise of fidelity between a man and a woman" as the ELCA draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality puts it. Why chafe at this claim? I've been married to Sonja now 18 years, faithfully and with joy. I do take these texts to be important in setting a scriptural context for discussion of marriage.  It is just that I think these texts say more than "marriage is a life-long promise of fidelity between a man and a woman"

So, if these texts don't just mean ONE thing, how to make the case?  Well, partly I know that the issue is how one interprets Scripture, but it is not just how one interprets particular texts, but the overall view of what one thinks Scripture is at all.  The new teaching resource from the ELCA titled Opening The Book of Faith has a clear and accessible introduction to a Lutheran hermeneutic (things like: the word of God is Jesus and the good news about the meaning of his life, death and resurrection, and the Scriptures bear this word, without being reducible to it.  So, Martin Luther would say, the bible holds the good news like the manger and straw held Jesus.  The take-away is that every word of Scripture is not equal; we don't worship the bible but Christ whom it shows. So if some ugly passage encourages genocidal fury or stoning your teenager, hold that up against Christ who says, "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." 

I find the Lutheran hermeneutic hugely freeing and smart, and of great help in making sense of Scripture.  But I found something fresh in LaCocque and Ricoeur, which is complicated but let me take a shot at it briefly.  Most of this is either quotation or direct summary from their book, so don't quote me on it--quote LaCocque and Ricoeur!

The first factor: That the biblical corpus was written means that we read it, and that reading confers an autonomy, an independent existence on the text.  A corollary follows.  The autonomy of the text asks us to abandon concern to recover the author's intentions and to set them up as governing all interpretation.  Historical studies are key, but the authors argue, the meaning of the text is an event emerging at the intersection of the constraints the text bears within itself and the different expectations communities of reading and interpretation that the presumed authors of the text could not have anticipated. 

The second factor:  The formulation and accumulation of different traditional readings of a text within the canon of Scripture, and that form a kind of trajectory of interpretation rooted in the the text but that distances us somewhat further from the author's presumed intention. 

The third factor: The living word 'spoken' by the reading of the text in contemporary communities has its own authority not reducible to the written text.  The Jewish tradition speaks of a 'written Torah' and an 'orally transmitted Torah' to cope with this distinction. The authors, interestingly, give the 16th century reformers and their principle of sola scriptura tore apart these two, creating the possibility of a text as a cadaver to be historically dissected and dismissed, a la Bart Ehrman 500 years later.  The oral texts projected a future, and writing down the text need not consign them to history; the text exists thanks to the community, for the use and to give shape to, the community and its living into God's promised future.

This includes the way the First Testament follows a trajectory beyond the first corpus and inside a second corpus, not abolishing the first, but reinterpreting and, in a sense, fulfilling the first, in the sense that fulfillment presupposes consistency of a tradition.  Christian reading is not taken as a substitute for Jewish reading, but as an alternative to the traditional Jewish reading.

The final factor, and the key one for me, but that can't be gotten to without the other three: The hermeneutics that places the principle accent on authorial intention and historical context tends to claim a univocal status for the meaning of the text.  What the authors are offering is a hermeneutics that is attentive to the history of reception, respectful of the irreducible plurivocity of the text.  The text is not something unilinear, not something given finality instituted by the presumed intention of the author, but multidimensional.  Just as a work of art solicits several interpretations whose cumulative effects are meant to do justice to the work and contribute to its subsequent life, the way the interpreting community proposes a historical reading and interpretation contributes to the pluridimentionality of the text. 

If this all has any value, and I think it does have, then it at the very least exposes some of our opponents as seeking to create doctrinal-historical straight jackets for some scripture texts that seem very self-serving.  I want to wonder with them if their readings are the only ones, and if they are the only possible ones, both in Scripture and in subsequent communities of interpretation.  Of course this is not an argument for any reading at all having value or authority within a community, but it does raise the question best epitomized by the parable Peter Rollins loves to tell.  Here it is, in his own words:

There is an ancient Jewish parable which illustrates this, in which two rabbis are arguing over a verse in the Torah, an argument that has gone on for over twenty years. In the parable God gets so annoyed by the endless discussion that he comes down and he tells them that he will reveal what it really means. However, right at this moment they respond by saying, "What right do you have to tell us what it means? You gave us the words, now leave us in peace to wrestle with them.

Soon: God Loves Gay Marriage: On Lutheran Debates, part four, with notes on this idea of a trajectory of Scripture interpretation and its pluridimentionality (what a word!).

Anon and Peace,
Chris

Tony asks: Should Christian leaders be outed on their view of gay marriage?

Tony asks an uncomfortable question about the consequences for Christian public leaders who come out in favor of gay marriage and all that implies. They risk, esp. in the Evangelical world, losing speaking and publishing opportunities, and even jobs.  Many have private thoughts but waffle or keep silent in public. Tony asks if this lacks integrity.  I admit that I kept relatively quite in this blog about my views during the years I was at Yale as a result of concerns my boss had about delicate donor relations.  Making my views too public might cost us, literally.  So I agreed. While I think such self-silencing does lack integrity, as a Lutheran believer who understands the reality of our lives as sinner-saints, I think everything I do lacks integrity in the sense that I can't resolve the sinful motivations within me for whatever I do.  What integrity I do have comes, to put it in pious but theologically accurate terms, from 'Christ who lives in me'.  So I consider my views on sexuality, too, not something to be held on to but out of love and concern for those who suffer the indignity of rejection and condemnation, I need to be conformed to Christ, breaking open what I have learned in my study and reflection, giving it to those who need that food for thought.  Now at Luther Seminary, I feel more free to speak, and also more responsibility to do so as a theologian of the church teaching at one of its seminaries at a time when the discussion is so central in church and nation.  Too many good people don't take up the work of articulating our reasons for supporting gay marriage, and then it seems as if we don't have them.  We do have them, and we need to say it for the sake of those who might otherwise have reason to despair.
Anon, and peace,
Chris