There are six main biblical passages that Christians typically use to condemn homosexuality, and I’d like to address each of the passages. The passages are the creation story of Genesis 1:26-28, Genesis 19:4-5, Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1, I Corinthians 6:9-10, and I Timothy 1:9-10.

As a Christian who takes the Bible seriously, and believes it serves as a guide for faith and practice and is useful for instruction in righteousness, I believe it is necessary for me to take these verses seriously, to understand what they mean, and to change my behavior if I encounter biblical teaching that is contrary to the way I am currently living. I also believe it is necessary for heterosexual Christians to do the same. We are instructed by Paul not to accept any teaching without first trying and testing it. This is, I believe, what I have done with these six scriptures.

The issue hits even a bit closer to home for us, because I am gay, and you are my parents. The three of us are in the middle of this charge of the apostle Paul to test what we have been taught. While others who are not as closely related to the issue at hand may sit back and form an opinion based on what they’ve heard others say and preach, it is our responsibility to delve into these passages, to study the contexts in which they were written, and to discover what the actual Hebrew and Greek words mean. It is not always the case that the English translation is an accurate one with respect to context and the original language.

I have spent hundreds of hours pouring over these passages, in prayer and a process of discernment, willing to change if the Spirit of God brought to light a meaning opposed to my orientation. However, the more I have studied and prayed, the more I have been assured by that same Spirit that the Bible nowhere condemns homosexuality across the board. It is not my intention in writing this to change your mind on the issue, but simply to show you what I have discovered in this process of discernment. All I ask is that you read it, pray about it, and come to your own conclusions.

I will take each passage as introduced above.

Gen 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have

dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and

over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 1:27  And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male

and female created he them.

Gen 1:28  And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

This is the passage I will take least time addressing, because try as I have, the passage cannot be made to condemn homosexuality. What we see in verse 27 is that God created men and women in the image of Himself, blessed them, and gave them charge over the earth. From this passage, we can see that God blesses heterosexual relationships, but not that He condemns homosexual relationships.

I think one of the things that have contributed to this passage being used to condemn homosexuals is intellectual laziness. Westerners are not taught how to properly reason anymore. One of the basic rules of logic is that an argument based on silence is not really an argument at all. If a passage does not teach something, we cannot derive an article of faith or practice from it. This basic rule of logical engagement holds true here.

Genesis 1 (and the creation story at large) simply blesses heterosexuality. The passage is silent on the issue of homosexuality, and really, why should it not be? The creation story was not written as a theological treatise or an early form of “Faith and Practice.” It is a story that tells us that we are God’s creation, that we are blessed, that He created us good. To deduce from this original blessing that God condemns homosexuality is not only mistaken, it is a dishonest use of scripture.

Some have said that the charge from God to “be fruitful and multiply” implicitly condemns homosexuality since homosexuals are unable to have children. The answer to that line of reasoning is a bit laughable in its simplicity. If those who say this are right, does that then mean that heterosexual couples who are unable to have children are also condemned? How about people who feel God has called them to a life of singleness or couples who simply choose not to have children? Jesus himself even commends those who choose to be eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven (see Matthew 19:10-12). The instructions of God to produce offspring are instructions given to Adam and Eve, and could possibly be taken as a generalization for life thereafter. But it is not a necessary universal principle. Again, to make it one is to ignore the context and to be dishonest with scripture.

Gen 19:4  But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed

the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;

Gen 19:5  and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

The story of Sodom is probably one of the most misunderstood, misinterpreted, and abused stories in the entire Bible. There are many issues I want to raise concerning this passage. I will do so numerically and in the form of questions, and then I will elaborate on each point.

1. Was every man in Sodom a homosexual?
2. Why would Lot offer homosexual men his daughters?
3. Are there any cultural peculiarities of the ancient Middle East that would help us understand this passage?
4. Do other passages in the Bible expound on the sin of Sodom? If so, what do they have to say about it?

The passage says that every man, young and old, from every quarter of the city, demanded that Lot give up the two male visitors to be raped. It is amazing to me that someone can read this passage and come away with the idea that committed homosexual relationships are being condemned. I think the only way that such an interpretation can happen is the continual ingraining of perpetual sermons opposed to homosexuality in which this passage is used as the text.

It is simply not possible that the men of any city, then or now, would be completely homosexual. There must have been some heterosexual men. This fact alone should tell us that there is more to the story than meets the eye. There must be some contextual ingredient we are missing, because otherwise, the plot just makes no sense. If the passage said “some of the men of the city” demanded to rape the visitors, an anti-homosexual reading may make more sense. But the fact that the passage states all the men of the city wanted to rape the visitors puts of a warning sign: why would every single man of a city want to have sex with two male visitors? {see cultural context below for an answer}

Another factor directly from the story showing that the passage is not about homosexual men is this: Lot offered his daughters to appease the men. If Lot knew the men of the city were homosexual, what could he have possibly been thinking by doing this? There is no way to understand this part of the story if we do not first look at the cultural background of the ancient Middle East.

Cultural Context

It was common for cities in the ancient Middle East to be wary and outright unwelcoming towards strangers. There was a city, and even more, a way of life to protect. Any unknown person (or group of people) coming into a city was often not welcome. It was also common within the culture to shame a man by forcing him into anal intercourse. Opposed to this culture of unwelcome was the Jewish teaching of hospitality. As you will see shortly, it was this lack of hospitality that was seen as the sin of Sodom, not any kind of sexual act. To the Jewish people, not welcoming the stranger (aka “the alien”) was an abomination. It was expressly forbidden by Yahweh.

It is this sin that the men of Sodom were trying to commit. They were attempting to intimidate and shame the angelic visitors by raping them. The story is not at all one about homosexual relationships, but one primarily about hospitality and a welcoming into the community. Ironically, rather than condemning homosexuality, the true meaning of the Sodom story condemns an unwelcoming stance towards those who are different.

Biblical Expositions of the sin of Sodom

Isa 1:9  Except Jehovah of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as

Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

Isa 1:10  Hear the word of Jehovah, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people

of Gomorrah.

Isa 1:11  What unto me is the multitude of your sacrifices? saith Jehovah: I have had enough of the

burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of

lambs, or of he-goats.

Isa 1:12  When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample my

courts?

Isa 1:13  Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; new moon and sabbath,

the calling of assemblies, – I cannot away with iniquity and the solemn meeting.

Isa 1:14  Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I

am weary of bearing them.

Isa 1:15  And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make

many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

Isa 1:16  Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to

do evil;

Isa 1:17  learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Eze 16:49  Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and prosperous

ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

It is evident from the Genesis 19 story of Sodom itself, and from the expositions of Isaiah and Ezekiel, that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but rather oppression, lack of care for the outcast, and inhospitality. It takes nothing more than reading at face value and a bit of contextual evaluation to discover the true meaning of the story.

Lev 18:22  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

It is absolutely necessary to understand the historical and religious contexts of the Levitical laws before understanding the meaning of the laws. The laws are given in Leviticus for a very specific purpose – to separate the early Hebrews from the pagans surrounding them. Leviticus 18:22 is a ritual, religious code, specifically for the high priests of the Jewish religion. The prohibition found in verse 22 is within the context of commands for Jewish priests not to participate in idolatrous sexuality of any kind (see vss. 21, 24) including the worship of Molech. It was for the express purpose of calling them out as a different people from the tribes around them (vs. 24).

More to the point, the word translated “abomination” is the Hebrew word toevah, meaning “ritually unclean.” The aspect of ritual is necessary for understanding the meaning of the word. It is only related to religious purification, in the sense of being unpolluted by surrounding religious ideologies. It does not imply something that is intrinsically evil. That is why the same word is used for eating pork, shellfish, lobster, meat more than three days old, trimming beards, etc. The main idea is ethnic contamination, not intrinsically immoral activity.

If the authors of Leviticus wanted to condemn homosexuality as an inherently moral evil, there was a perfectly good Hebrew word they could have used: zimah. This is the Hebrew word which means “wrong in itself.” Once we understand the religious context of the Levitical laws and the meaning of the Hebrew word toevah, we see that Leviticus 18:22 is not about homosexuality per se, but about male temple prostitution as practiced by the surrounding pagan religions. See I Kings 14:24 as a cross reference.

Rom 1:25  for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the

creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Rom 1:26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the

natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27  and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.

It is helpful to read the entire first chapter of Romans before coming to any kind of the judgment on the homosexual behaviors mentioned in Romans 1: 26, 27. For sure, the chapter does speak to certain kinds of homosexual sex. When read in context of the entire first chapter, and with Leviticus 18:22 and I Kings 14:24 as cross references, it becomes evident what Paul is actually writing about.

The chapter is set within the framework of idolatry, specifically making reference to sexual prostitution in sacred, pagan temples. What is really interesting to note is that in verses 24 and 25 of Romans chapter 1, Paul seems to be describing immoral heterosexual acts, the degrading of bodies and sexual impurity of heterosexual temple prostitution. Why then, would verses 26 and 27 not also be about temple prostitution?

There is an order that Paul takes when going from verse 18 to verse 32. Paul is talking about people who have seen the hand of God in the created order, but have chosen to worship that creation rather than the One Who created it. It is this act of making idols of the created order that this sexual immorality takes place. How is this possibly related to committed homosexual relationships, specifically Christian ones? Paul’s attention, when writing Romans 1:18-32 is squarely on pagan idolatry. If he wanted to condemn homosexual relationships outright, why do so within an explicit context of pagan idolatry?

1Co 6:9  Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not

deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of

themselves with men,

1Co 6:10  nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

1Ti 1:9  as knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and

unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and

murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

1Ti 1:10  for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;

I will deal with the Corinthians and Timothy passages simultaneously since they utilize the same Greek words, arsenokoitai and malakos. These terms are ambiguous in their meaning (see how various translations differ in their renderings), and the word arsenokoitai seems to have been coined by Paul himself. It is not used before he used it in I Corinthians, and is very rarely used after him by other non-biblical authors. It is probably that Paul coined the word by combining two words from the Greek Septuagint in reference to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 – ­arsen “male” and koite “bed.

It has been translated most often as “sodomites” (though the sin of the Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality), “homosexuals” (a blatant mistranslation), “homosexual offenders,” and “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV). Luther actually translated it as “child abusers,” which if taken to mean pederasts may be closest to the original meaning. None of these translations are completely accurate however.

Whatever the case, arsenokoitai expresses certain homosexual actions, not identity. Had Paul wanted to express homosexuality within a mutual relationship, there were other commonly used Greek words available to him. He coined arsenokoitai for a specific reason.  Just as in Romans 1, Paul takes his idea of homosexual behavior from Leviticus. As we’ve already discussed concerning Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-28, Paul condemned homosexual behavior only as it related to temple prostitution or idolatry.

The other Greek word used in these passages is malakoi. It is typically translated as “effeminate” or “homosexual prostitute.” The literal meaning of the word is “soft.” What is strange about the translation of malakoi as “effeminate” is that in Paul’s day, most men who participated in homosexuality did not have their manhood called into question. In fact, the word malakos can be found used for certain heterosexuals in Greek literature of the same period. The most reasonable translation is “those of moral weakness” or “soft in morality.”

The whole anti-homosexual Christian culture is based on six passages of scripture, three in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament. As I have shown, none of the passages present a blanket condemnation of homosexuality. In two of the New Testament passages, biblical scholars do not even know for certain what Paul was talking about.

It is not blasphemous to question theological and doctrinal positions that have been handed down to us. In fact, it is blasphemous not to question the teaching we receive. The Church had it wrong for so long on the humanity of black people and the humanity of slaves. Might it be possible that it has also been wrong on the question of homosexuality? Let the evidence speak for itself.

Rev. Daniel Payne

Bible of Lilienfeld (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, Yahweh is likened to a mother bird sheltering her babies under her wings, a beautiful image of the Divine compassion Exodus 34 tells us is Yahweh's constant way of relating to us.

Yawheh’s Mother-Love:

An Exegesis of Exodus 34.1-9

Micah Royal

The Lord said to Moses, ‘Cut two tablets of stone like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets, which you broke. Be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning to Mount Sinai and present yourself there to me, on the top of the mountain. No one shall come up with you, and do not let anyone be seen throughout all the mountain; and do not let flocks or herds graze in front of that mountain.’ So Moses cut two tablets of stone like the former ones; and he rose early in the morning and went up on Mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tablets of stone. The Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name, ‘The Lord.’ The Lord passed before him, and proclaimed,
‘The Lord, the Lord,
a God merciful and gracious,
slow to anger,
and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation,
forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,
yet by no means clearing the guilty,
but visiting the iniquity of the parents
upon the children
and the children’s children,
to the third and the fourth generation.’
And Moses quickly bowed his head towards the earth, and worshiped He said, ‘If now I have found favour in your sight, O Lord, I pray, let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance.¹’

Introduction

Exodus 34:1-9 is a pericope that draws one into the heart and soul of the Biblical experience of God. This pericope acts at the turning point in the composite narrative we call “the Pentateuch” in which Yahweh decides how to respond ultimately to Israel’s choice to apostatize through worshiping before the golden calf. This moment in the Pentateuch narrative reveals the heart of the creator God for God’s covenant people and, by extension, for all of the human family. Exodus 34:1-9′s revelation of Yahweh’s heart and character presents a picture of God that is so foundational to the message given throughout the Scriptures that its themes act as an almost brilliant thread woven throughout the tapestry of Hebrew Scriptures, emerging also intricately interwoven into the Christian New Testament.

Contextual Analysis

In its current form, Exodus 34.1-9 falls into the larger framework of its immediate narrative context, the wider context of the Pentateuch in general, and also its place and influence within the canon in general.

Exodus 34.1-9 falls within the larger context of Exodus 32-34². Though some will argue for far more of an inherent unity³, this section is largely understood to be a composite narrative, reflecting a blending of various traditions, but composed largely of the non-priestly narrative⁴. Though composite, the narrative traditions are blended deliberately so as to have clear thematic connections which continue throughout and are expanded upon throughout the narrative⁵. Even the repetitious elements in the narrative are placed deliberately so as to further the themes of Exodus 32-34⁶. Groenwald charts the movement of Exodus 32-34 as actually beginning in Exodus 19 and going through the movements of (1) covenant agreement in Exodus 19-24, (2) the breaking of the covenant through worship before the golden calf (Exodus 32), and (3) the renewal of the covenant narrative in Exodus 33-34⁷. Davis charts out the following key movements in Exodus 32-34: (1) the intercession of Moses which binds all the chapters together, (2) the sections about the ornaments and tent of meeting which appear at first to be randomly placed but in fact continue the themes of repentance and judgment, (3) the covenant renewal of Exodus 34.10-28 which results from Moses’ intercession and expresses the character of Yahweh revealed in our pericope, and (3) the veil tradition which illustrates both Israel’s “restoration to covenant favor” by Yahweh’s grace and also acts as a reminder of “the catastrophe of rebellion”⁸. As Janzen points out, the language and imagery of the Exodus 34.1-9 draws upon and points to these surrounding events especially the apostasy at the beginning of this section of Scripture⁹. Davis draws out the over-arching picture this narrative context gives, writing

The basic progression in Moses’ encounters with Yahweh should be fairly clear. First, total extinction is averted, that and nothing more (32:9ff). Next, forgiveness is sought and refused, though a remote kind of help is promised to fulfill the promise of the land (32:30ff). Then, Yahweh’s previous verdict is reversed, and [Yahweh]‘s full personal presence is again assured (32:12ff); but this is only done because Yahweh regards the mediator graciously and not for any merit on the part of the people (v 17). Finally, the forgiveness for which Israel hangs in the balance is offered and declared (34:6ff).¹⁰

This immediate context of Exodus 32-34 is surrounded by the larger context of Exodus and of the Pentateuch as a whole. This context places Exodus 34.1-9 within the framework of the story of God’s dealings with the covenant people, Israel. Janzen sees Yahweh’s characteristic of rahmim or compassion, mercy, as linked to Yahweh’s earlier promises of progeny evidenced in Yahweh’s protection of Israel’s male babies in Exodus 1-3¹¹. Hamilton points out that the following parallels exist between Exodus 34.6-8a and the Decalogue, particularly Exodus 20.5-6¹²: (1) Both speak of the fate of future generations in terms of positive or negative consequences of their ancestors’ decisions; (2) Both have a different emphasis and reflect a different theological movement: IE, Exodus 20 moves from jealousy to love, while Exodus 34 begins with love, mercy, and grace and only moves to language of judgment as the credo ends; and (3) Exodus 34 places judgment in the context of faithfulness, love, and mercy and avoids the language of jealousy, while Exodus 20 uses jealousy and wrath as the framework for the generational consequences for human failings¹³. Hamilton also draws parallels between language in Exodus 19 and Exodus 34, arguing that intentional parallels are being made in the text between the initial covenant in Exodus 19-20 and the covenant renewal in Exodus 34¹⁴. Durham sees Exodus 34.1-9 actually echoing the call of Moses and the revelation of the Divine name Yahweh¹⁵. In Exodus 3 Yahweh reveals Yahweh’s self to Moses as “the One Who Always Is” saying “I really AM” before proceeding to prove this by doing might acts of deliverance¹⁶. In Exodus 34 Yahweh again declares Yahweh’s self by name, but now defines more fully what Yahweh means by revealing how Yahweh exists in the world¹⁷.

Perhaps most significant for the message of the text – with its language of familial legacy – is that wider context of the Pentateuchal narrative as taken as a whole, which places this pericope in the context of delicate network of family relationships: first the family of Abraham, but ultimately the wider network of relationships we call the human family of which Abraham’s family is but a part. Janzen hints at this by pointing out familial and maternal overtones to rahamin or “compassion”¹⁸, which we will explore later in this paper. This characteristic of God is connected by Janzen with El Shaddai‘s “blessing of the breast and the womb” to the ancestors of the family of Israel in Genesis 49.25¹⁹. At heart, what are these but blessings of family, upon the family of Abraham? Ultimately the genealogies in the Pentateuch, such as Genesis 5-6 serve the narrative function of picturing not just the Abrahamic families of the Ishmaelites and Israelites as one family, but ultimately all of humanity as having a familial relationship going back to our first ancestors, Adam and Eve. These genealogies symbolically express the unity of the human family, placing Israel’s family and our own families in the midst. This points toward the themes of the Exodus 34 credo as being applicable both within the family of Israel, but also beyond it to all the families of the earth. Groenwald beautifully depicts the role that this pericope takes when read in this larger context of the Pentateuch:

[Yahweh] has decided in favour of Israel; [Yahweh] has promised life, care, alleviation of distress, and preservation – indeed, [Yahweh] has filled the whole earth with [Yahweh's] kindness. [Yahweh] has thus granted fellowship to [Yahweh's] people, to all [hu]mankind, to the whole world. And this act, like the promise and assurance of future help and fellowship, is characterized by permanence, constancy, and reliability. This is what Israel and the individual Israelite hear through Yahweh’s word.²⁰

Beyond the context of the Pentateuch, this foundational text – especially its central credo in verses 6-8 – is one that influences and impacts the larger canon of Scripture, first in the Hebrew Scriptures themselves and then later in the Christian New Testament. This credo’s themes are extant throughout the whole Hebrew Scriptures, but its words are specifically repeated eight times in the Hebrew Scriptures: Numbers 14.18; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalms 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; and Nahum 1:3²¹. In all but two of these verses – Numbers 14:18 and Nahum 1:3 — the description of judgment about further generations is left out, while keeping the language of mercy and steadfast love²². Finally select sections of the credo are quoted in Deuteronomy 4:31; 2 Chronicles 30:9; Nehemiah 9:31; Psalms 78.38; 86:5; 111:4; 112:4; and 116:5²³.

The themes of Exodus 34′s credo continue within the Christian New Testament. Groenewald draws connects between the covenant promises and the climax of the Abrahamic covenant promises in the person of Jesus Christ, pointing out specifically that Exodus 34′s hesed is rendered eleos repeatedly in the Septuagint, the same word used repeatedly for the work of Jesus Christ²⁴. In addition to these general examples, I would add the “grace” and “truth” language used in the prologue to the Gospel of John, which emphasizes the inter-related of grace or covenant fidelity and truth which includes revelation of both love and also one’s sinfulness; 1 John’s emphasis on God as love; and the themes of grace, judgment, and Christ’s faithfulness found in Romans all as being influenced by the vision of Divine character given in the Exodus 34 credo. All of these varied texts express the way in which the steadfast love and mercy of Yahweh expressed in Exodus 34:1-9 finds fulfillment in “the breaking in of the divine mercy into the reality of human misery which took place in the person of Jesus of Nazareth with his work of freeing and healing which demonstrated … the covenant loyalty of God, as promised in the Old Testament and shown in action in the history of Israel,” reaching “its climax in the gracious self-humiliation of God”²⁵.

Formal Analysis

Exodus 34.1-9 is a part of the Pentateuch. Though the Pentateuch’s authors are unknown but scholars largely agree that the Pentateuch is be a compilation of writings taken from four major sources – the Yahwistic source (J), the Priestly source (P), the Deuteronomistic source (D), and the Elohistic Source²⁶. This pericope is a continuation of the non-priestly composite narrative of Exodus 32-34²⁷. The general consensus is that although including some elements from various sources, this pericope is primarily of Yahwistic origin²⁸. The larger Yahwistic narrative is generally understood to originate the southern kingdom, around the 9^th Century BCE²⁹. The current canonical form of this pericope is considered post-exilic and includes a creedal style confession of faith (vv6-7) inserted in the middle of the largely Yahwistic narrative³⁰.

Though largely Yahwhistic, this section remains a composition of a number of sources. The oldest section of the pericope is Exodus 34.6-7³¹. Though Wellhausen calls this the Yahwistic Decalogue, there is general consensus that verses 6-7 are a credo designed for liturgical use in Israel’s Yahwistic cult³². This credo was probably in use from the earliest days of Israel’s Yahwhistic religion³³. We see similar creedal forms in the Hebrew Scriptures in Deuteronomy 26.5b-9; Deuteronomy 6.21-24; and Joshua 24.2b-13³⁴. As noted previously, evidence for the popularity and centrality of this credo in Yahwhism is its repetition throughout the Hebrew canon both explicitly and implicitly, both in part and in full. In its original form, the credo provided the worshiper of Yahweh with language to confess their faith in Yahweh³⁵. There is some evidence that the current form of the credo may have also undergone editing, as many scholars feel that its addition of language of punishment was added later to counterbalance the language of overabundant grace, mercy, and forgiveness³⁶. Others feel the balance of the judgment and grace included in the credo dates back to the earliest form of the credo³⁷. In either case, the credo shows the balancing of Yahweh’s commitment to punish sin with Yahweh’s overarching position of grace, love, and fidelity to those in covenant with Yahweh³⁸. The language of balance in reference to these two qualities of Yahweh is deceptive however. Though some authors do use language of balance to describe how the credo deals with steadfast love and divine anger or punishment, there really is no real balance here – even in its final form, the credo pictures grace continuing to flow down to the thousandth generation, which divine judgment and punishment only prevails to the third and fourth generation³⁹. Also the credo not only has echoes of the larger themes of the Yahwistic author but even some echoes of themes in Israelite Wisdom texts⁴⁰.

The credo is placed within the context of the Pentateuch’s composite non-priestly account of Israel’s exodus and pilgrimage through the wilderness⁴¹. Placed in this context, the credo comes as a response to a number of events in Israel’s journey: the breaking of the covenant by Israel in their making of a golden calf, the shattering of the original covenant tablets by Moses, Yahweh’s threat of destruction to Israel, and Moses’ intercession on behalf of Israel to Yahweh⁴². Exodus 34 describes God choosing to renew the covenant with Israel in response to Moses’ intercession⁴³. As such, it includes intentional parallels to the language of the original covenant with Israel in Exodus 19-20, as well as language connected with Yahweh’s revelation of the Divine name to Moses in Exodus 3⁴⁴.

There is a mixing of priestly and Yahwistic language in the narrative surrounding the credo, suggesting some blending of both sources, while remaining clearly largely Yahwhistic⁴⁵. As the credo is placed within the narrative, the credo is transformed from a personal or communal proclamation of faith in Yahweh to a revelation of the divine name and an unpacking of the character of Yahweh⁴⁶. The literary context of Israel’s rebellion and Yahweh’s threat of destruction to Israel adds poignancy to the language of forgiveness and grace⁴⁷. The framing of the credo between these events and Moses’ words of repentance, prayer, and intercession following the credo heighten the dramatic tension the credo expresses, as well as highlighting the themes of forgiveness, mercy, and restoration⁴⁸. Although the credo itself can stand alone as a confession of worship, the context that follows it is particularly fitting to its themes: in the chapters that follow, Yahweh directly addresses the use of metal idols (like the golden calf) in worship, the appropriate festivals to use in worship of Yahweh (as opposed to the one Aaron creates in his apostasy), and Yahweh re-instates Aaron to a priestly role, a sign of Yahweh’s forgiveness of the people for the apostasy which Aaron organized⁴⁹.

Finally the larger historical context of the time of the final redaction of this narrative seems one to which Exodus 34:1-9 uniquely can speak. The final redacted form of the Pentateuch stems from the time following the exile of Judah and Israel, when the Jewish people have begun to rebuild and reconstruct their community and faith⁵⁰. Like the characters in Exodus 32-34, they have seen the destruction a broken covenant produced, destruction that they saw as being rooted in idolatry similar to that initiated by Aaron. One has to wonder, how much these post-exilic believers saw themselves in this story of repentance, revelation of Divine mercy, and renewal of covenant which reaches its climax in our pericope. In this context the themes of forgiveness, reconciliation, renewal of covenant, and reconstruction following disastrous consequence of sin and idolatry become even more pronounced. How poignant the story of the renewal of the covenant must have been for them and the picture of divine grace described in the Exodus 34 credo.

Detailed Analysis

Exodus 34.1-9 begins with Yahweh’s response to Moses in verses 1-3. As Dozeman points out these verses are a response of Yahweh to the successful mediation of Moses on behalf of the people who had chosen to apostatize themselves through idolatry⁵¹. All that follows can be seen as the creator God’s response to Moses, fulfilling Yawheh’s promise to Moses in Exodus 32:32 and 33:19 that “my angel shall go in front of you” to be proven when Yahweh fulfills Yahweh’s promise to “make all” Yahweh’s “goodness pass before” Moses “and … proclaim before” Moses “the name, ‘the Lord’” being “gracious to whom I will be gracious, and” showing “mercy on whom I shall show mercy”⁵².

Yawheh’s initial response to Moses in a series of commands in verses 1-3, is brimming with hope even in the face of the clear danger Moses and Israel face. The hope can be seen in the the language Yahweh uses to command the cutting of the new covenant stones. As Janzen points out, the fact these stones are “like the former ones” suggests the hopeful possibility that even in the face of Israel’s apostasy before the golden calf, God extends grace, for “Israel was not left with God’s second best but was given a chance to start over again”⁵³. Janzen likens the process which begins here as being similar for Yahweh and Israel to the act of renewing their vows for a married couple reconciling from divorce, pointing out that it becomes a pattern for Yahweh continuing to offer reconciliation and new beginnings with the covenant people in the face of later failings in the prophets and even into the Christian New Testament⁵⁴. An important shift in how the covenant is cut, however, goes on between the previous covenant cutting and the covenant cutting of Exodus 34: In the accounts of the initial covenant-making, the language strongly implies that is Yahweh who both carves and writes on the first tablets (see Exodus 24:12; 32:16) while in this renewal of the covenant in Exodus 34 Moses must cut the covenant for himself on behalf of Israel, while Yahweh responds by inscribing the words of the covenant on the stones⁵⁵. This change in process places more responsibility upon Moses, a responsibility that signifies the need for increased commitment, responsibility, and investment from Israel. Things cannot keep going like they have been going between Israel and Yahweh. Even when grace is offered, there is still an important aspect of human responsibility involved. I think the language used to describe the breaking of the tablets which symbolize the breaking of covenant, points toward this: the Piel stem is used instead of the Qal stem to describe the breaking of the stones, a literary choice that does not convey simply breaking of stones but the smashing, shattering, or snapping of the stones, i.e. a break of maximum force and effect⁵⁶. The covenant, like the stones, was not simply broken but shattered asunder by the actions of Aaron and Israel, so aside from a gracious act of new creation by Yahweh, it would lie in ruins. Knowledge of the depth of Yahweh’s grace to create a new covenant and new relationship out of the shattered pieces of the old ought to impel the believer to a deeper investment from their side of the Divine-human covenant.

The dramatic tension and sense of danger for Israel which refusing Yahweh’s invitation to new creation brings is heightened by the commands for Moses and Israel regarding the preparations required for meeting Yahweh. As Dozeman points out, after the command to cut the stones, Yahweh warns of danger of one not approaching the divine presence on the holy mountain appropriately, a key theme in the priestly writings, especially in the priestly descriptions of the initial cutting of the covenant⁵⁷. These parallels, including warnings to keep uninvited guests away from the mountain, as well as the name used for the mountain, echo previous events in the Exodus narrative in ways that heighten the sense that worship for Yahweh must be respected instead of trivialized as it was in the golden calf incident (or the pre-exilic idolatry that is a recent memory of the redactor’s audience) lest the danger Israel faces without Divine grace break out if Israel rejects this offer of grace and refuses to learn the lessons of its idolatrous past⁵⁸. This sense of potential danger is heightened by the fact that in the previous chapter, Yahweh warns Moses that Moses can only see Yahweh from behind a rock-face with Yahweh hiding part of Yahweh’s form from Moses, lest the fullness of Yahweh’s glory destroy Moses⁵⁹.

This sense of potential danger one faces without grace is further underscored by the fact that the blending of the Yahwhistic and priestly accounts of this story creates a doublet, which Durham suggests is included to show create another level of dramatic buildup⁶⁰. Hamilton points out that the command to clear away the sheep and cattle also furthers the sense that creatures can only stand in Yahweh’s presence by Yawheh’s grace, as even non-human creatures cannot survive the unmediated presence of the Creator God on their own merits⁶¹.

The language used for Moses’ obedient cutting of the stones in Exodus 34:4 draws parallels which point back to the events of the golden calf and, in their final redaction, point its post-exilic audience to the pre-exilic idolatry which they have learned to see through the eyes of faith as the cause for their fall to Babylon Particularly, the word pasal used for chisel or carve here is a root word for pesel, a Hebrew word for idol⁶². By intentionally using a word for the cutting of the stone tablets that draws connections with idolatry, the authors and redactors of the text are making clear that the written Word of Scripture alone is to be the central icon of Yahweh for Israel, not any other carved image such as golden calves used by Aaron or the other idols later used in the events which led to the exile⁶³. Moses’ actions of cutting the stones of the covenant is not just a private act; rather, he acts as mediator on behalf of Israel, signifying their participation in and investment in the covenant which Yahweh is renewing⁶⁴, through acts such as abandoning the idolatry and apostasy which has made this covenant renewal necessary.

Beginning in verse 5 we see the descent of Yahweh and the proclamation of the divine name. Dozeman suggests that the language to describe Yahweh’s descent draws on previous imagery common to the non-priestly accounts in the Pentateuch, particularly Exodus 19:9⁶⁵. Durham points out that the cloud of divine presence that accompanies Yahweh’s theophany both hid Yahweh’s presence and acted as a symbol of it, furthering the theme that Yahweh both draws people into a place of revelation while also setting boundaries to protect the ones experiencing revelation from the full glory of Yahweh that created beings cannot experience while remaining in the land of the living⁶⁶. This furthers the dramatic tension leading up the divine revelation of verse 6-8, as well as highlighting the necessity of divine grace.

This dual nature of hiddeness and revelation does not, however, convey a sense that somehow God is hiding one’s self to avoid relationship. On the contrary the imagery used points to the fact that what occurs is God-initiated, an act by which the relationship of Israel and Yahweh is restored from the side of the one party who is fit to restore it, Yahweh⁶⁷. Even though Moses is the only Israelite permitted to scale the mountain and experience this theophany, it is not simply a private epiphany but rather a Divinely driven renewal of the original covenant with Israel, including a deeper revelation of Yahweh as the forgiving, merciful initiator of the covenant-partnership, a concept which becomes foundational to later Israelite and Biblical theology⁶⁸. Moses’ role in this interchange becomes one of mediation, a continuation of his role in the previous chapter as intercessor to God on behalf of Israel⁶⁹.

As in the previous theophany in Exodus 19, a key element of this Exodus 34 theophany is an auditory element, i.e. Yahweh speaking in verses 5-7⁷⁰. Though the language used in Hebrew is unclear as to whether the speaker of this section is Yahweh when taken in isolation, there is broad scholarly consensus based on literary context that what follows in these passages is Yahweh’s own speech to Moses, including the text of the credo⁷¹. Though the bulk of the words Yahweh is described as uttering originally were a liturgical piece used as a confession of faith by the people of Israel in worship, its insertion into this narrative by the redactors of the narrative makes it a stunning self-revelation of Yahweh to Moses and, through Moses, to Israel and, through Israel, to the whole human family⁷². Yahweh’s speech specifically unpacks the meaning of the name Yahweh, a symbol for the character of Yahweh⁷³. The revelation of the Divine that follows here is a sign of the continued presence of Yahweh which Moses asked for in prayer in the preceding chapter and “would indicate that Yahweh is the Present One, the One who is there with [Yahweh's] own to act in their behalf as they have need”⁷⁴. The revelation of the Yahweh’s character is Yahweh’s un-packing of the meaning of that name in answer to Moses’s prayer. As Durham suggests, “To Moses’ request for a look at” Yahweh’s “presence, Yahweh replied, ‘I will reveal to you what I am, not how I look”⁷⁵.

Yahweh begins by doubling the divine name Yahweh, likely to emphasize its significance This name has the sense of meaning “the One Who Always Is”⁷⁶ and continues with a description of God’s mercy and grace. This phrase, which Hamilton renders “compassionate and gracious” is rahum wehannum, an example of Hebrew of assonance and a common descriptor for God in the Hebrew Scriptures⁷⁷. Despite some debate about the significance of the etymology, there are clear etymological connections between the word used here for compassion, rahum, and the Hebrew word for womb, rehem⁷⁸. Dozeman sees this word’s etymological link to womb as pointing toward compassion being a feeling of emotion for someone with almost physical overtones, similar to the feeling a mother would have for those she has born ⁷⁹. Janzen describes this compassion as “the feeling a mother has for the children whom she carries and feels in her womb, then carries in her arms and nurses at her breast, and afterwards continues in faithful compassion toward”⁸⁰. In human relationships, this type of motherly compassion is needed to make life possible; without motherly nurture, provision for physical and emotional needs, modeling of relationships, one would not just not fail learn the morality and empathy that makes justice possible but one would also have great difficulty surviving⁸¹. Janzen describes this motherly compassion which Yahweh feels for us as illustrated in Judges 13:7 and Psalm 13:7; one might also consider Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1, and the birth narratives of John the Baptizer and Jesus in the Gospel of Luke as further example of this maternal compassion of Yahweh⁸².

Janzen further argues that this word is connected with familial and kinship connections in the Pentateuch, providing a relational context for the election of Israel, the exodus, the covenant, and the overarching justice-centered morality found in much of the covenant. Janzen suggests a literary connection between this compassion and El Shaddai, a name for God that recurs in the accounts of Israel’s ancestors when being promised the “blessing of the breast and the womb” (Genesis 49:25), including blessings “field and flock, of breast and womb, of steadfast love and faithfulness”⁸³. The use of this description of compassion or womb-love for Yahweh had the added significance of demonstrating to Israel that the Yahweh with whom they are in covenant is the same God whom their ancestors had known as El Shaddai, who blesses the womb and the earth with fertility⁸⁴.

The sound-alike word of “compassion” or hanum is rooted in a verb meaning to “yearn for, long for, be merciful, compassionate, favorably inclined toward”; an adverb meanly “freely, without cause, undeservedly”; and a noun meaning “favor, grace” which is commonly used to say one will “find favor in someone’s eyes”⁸⁵. Dentan explains that this language of divine compassion or grace is less common in the Pentateuch which tends to have a greater emphasis on divine anger then in other parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, but is commonly used in Wisdom literature such as the Psalms to convey the sense of being bestowed favor or being looked at with favor⁸⁶. Drawing on how the theme of anger and jealousy tends to be more strongly emphasized in the Pentateuch than compassion, Dozeman argues that Exodus 34 introduces a new concept of God, a changed picture of Yahweh, into the Pentateuch:

Yahweh the jealous God now becomes Yahweh… the merciful and gracious God… The revelation of grace means that Yahweh will not act immediately and automatically with the emotional rage of an offended lover, often indicated as hot breath, especially through one’s nostrils, as in the case of the divine response to the golden calf … [which] made God’s nose hot⁸⁷.

Taken together these adjectives “disclose the parental heart of God toward the covenant people, even in the face of the most grievous behaviors”, a heart like a mother’s, who would love and look favorably on her child simply because it is her child, having nothing but potential, not yet having opportunity to do anything to earn or lose one’s favor by its actions⁸⁸.

This shifting of Yahweh’s way of relating to Israel is illustrated in the Pentateuch itself. Earlier in the Pentateuchal narrative, Yahweh’s jealousy takes center stage, with the punishments to be inflicted on individuals and future generations for apostasy being listed first, and blessings seemingly an afterthought. In the presentation here, God’s favorable disposition is the first word and the judgment for apostasy such a seeming afterthought that some wonder if it is a later edition to the text itself⁸⁹. Yahweh in fact is slow to anger and judgment, language that literally means “long of nose”, a term similar to our modern phrase of “not having a short fuse”⁹⁰

The language used evokes the idea of God initiating, keeping, and preserving God’s relationship with the covenant people. Yahweh does not just love, but abounds in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love not to just the third or fourth generation within which the penalties of wrong-doing will be felt but down even as far as to the thousandth generation. Yahweh does this through keeping steadfast love and forgiving. “Keeping” is rendered as prolongs by Hamilton and has the sense in Wisdom literature of the act of guarding, tending, and keeping akin to what a watchman or guard would do⁹¹. Janzen defines “steadfast love” or hesed as the tie that binds kin together in mutual loyalty and help, a help fit to the specific need of a given situation⁹² Dentan suggests that hesed has to do with loyalty, loving-kindness, love, steadfast love, but that such love is only sometimes connected with the idea of covenant, nor necessarily dependent on one’s performance in a covenant⁹³. Janzen suggests that “faithfulness”, or ‘emet, has the sense of that which is enduring and reliable, and paired together the two words suggests a loyalty that is “enduring and reliable”⁹⁴. This language suggests that “Yahweh‘s mercy toward Israel is independent of their responding in the right way. Even when Israel is disobedient is is still the recipient of the divine goodness”⁹⁵. Yahweh then is the initiator, the sustainer, the guardian of Israel’s relationship with Yahweh.

Yahweh’s role as initiator, keepr, and sustainer of the covenant relationship brings us to the language of forgiveness. Hamilton suggests that the Hebrew word translated forgive here means to become the party who takes on responsibility for, or bears the burden of the iniquity⁹⁶. Janzen says that to forgive here means to bear, in the sense of bearing with and putting up with, an action that includes a cost of pain and sorrow for Yahweh, made necessary since bearing that pain and sorrow is the only way Yahweh can forgive sin and remain in relationship with the offending party⁹⁷. This divine forgiveness is totally exhaustive, for “[w]hen speaking of God’s forgiveness, [this text] seems to search the Hebrew lexicon exhaustively to make sure to miss not ‘sin’ family world – ‘who forgives iniquities and rebellion and sin”⁹⁸.

The language about Yahweh visiting the consequences of sin to the third and fourth generation is actually based on the earlier prohibition against idolatry in Exodus 20:4-6 which is restated in similar terms in Deuteronomy 5:8-10 ⁹⁹. Exodus 24 is no simple re-statement of the same description of divine anger and justice, but rather a tempering of anger and justice by the Divine compassion, forgiveness, and commitment to steadfast love and fidelity ¹⁰⁰. The earlier statement of retribution for apostasy is re-framed so that God’s justice is no longer held in antipathy to mercy, but instead becomes what Janzen calls “a component in” God’s mercy and grace ¹⁰¹. The context for this shift is that now that God is presented as the one wronged in our harming others, God must act not just for the sake of the one wronged, an acting against a sin that is also for sake of the one doing wrong who is warping their character and not living up the image of God ¹⁰². As Janzen puts it, “God’s compassion and grace keeps justice from becoming harsh and unyielding. God’s justice keeps compassion and grace from becoming harsh and unyielding. God’s justice keeps compassion and grace from becoming the kind of softness that indulges children in their peccadilloes until they become self-centered tyrants responsive to nothing but their own whims and appetites”¹⁰³.

Moses’ response is the only appropriate response to such an overwhelming vision of divine love: he bows in worship and repentance on behalf of Israel¹⁰⁴ .

Synthesis

The themes of the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures come to bear in this narrative and credo, themes which are continued even into the Christian New Testament.

In particular, we see the importance of prayer and intercession. To use a common evangelical turn of phrase, Moses does not just look out for his own interests, but stands in the gap for Israel. As the witness of the Psalms reflect, this call to be a person of prayer is central to the call of Israel, and prayer is not just for the individual, but also for the community and the world.

The mediation of Moses in this passage becomes an archetype both for the ministry of the priests and of the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures. It seems to even inspire reformers like Ezra and Nehemiah as they stand in the gap for their people in times of covenant renewal. In the New Testament, the significance of mediation continues in the references to Christ fulfilling Moses’ priestly role of mediator in Hebrews, the Christian’s call to pray in 1 Timothy, and the New Testament description of the believing community as a community of priests in 1 Peter that is the foundation of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.

The image of Yahweh as One who is full of mother-love, full of compassion, grace, and mercy, yet also calling us to accountability for our actions is a constant theme in the Scriptures. This theme is applied in slightly different ways in the extended Deuteronomistic history beyond the Pentateuch, reoccurs in the prophetic writings, and is set to song in the Psalms. We see themes of Divine compassion and grace extending beyond the Hebrew Scriptures as they find expression in the Sermon on the Mount’s image of a Father God who pours out grace and mercy on the good and the wicked alike (Matthew 5-7); in Jesus’ table fellowship with those deemed as sinners and outcasts by the religious of his day, which Jesus explains with a parable of a loving father (see Luke 15); in the language of grace and truth in the description of the revelation Jesus brings in John 1; with these themes of God’s love conquering the consequences of sin which is placed as the centerpiece of the Pauline theology expressed in books like Romans and Galatians; and in 1 John where we learn that there is no fear of judgment for the Christian believer since the God revealed in Jesus Christ is love.

Seeing justice as an outgrowth of love may seem strange to some contemporary Christians who picture a God who on the one hand loves us infinitely, but on the other is quick to throw us into everlasting torment in hell. Yet Christian tradition at its best consistently includes images like that of Julian of Norwich who depicted a loving maternal image of God who promised a time when all would be well because God’s love triumphs over evil, drawing all God’s children out of the grips of evil¹⁰⁵. Likewise as renowned a voice as Martin Luther King pictures justice as being able to be an instrument of divine love and an expression of it, when he proclaims:

Now, we got to get this thing right. What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive, and that love without power is sentimental and anemic… Power at its best… is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands in the way of love¹⁰⁶.

Finally the language of family sets this theme of grace overcoming the consequences of our failings in the most poignant of contexts, the family system. First, this credo is placed in the context of the family descended from the 12 sons of Israel. Then it sets it through the story of Abraham in the context of the Abrahamic families including not just Israel, but also Edom and the Ishmaelites. The genealogies set these families in the context of the wider Semite families including the Moabites and Ammonites, and even when traced through Noah all the families of the earth. Genesis depicts all of us as one human family going back as far as Noah, and through Noah to the first ancestors who are symbolized by Adam and Eve.

This suggests the promise of grace is not just an individualistic promise but also a promise to families of grace and accountability from the Creator God, with the promise that accountability will be an out-flowing of grace – not just the family of Israel, but to all the families who are joined with Israel in the human family in the Pentateuchal genealogies This promise brings hope, letting us know that though there are consequences God has decreed within our families for our failings, Yahweh pledges a fidelity, grace, and mercy that is stronger than any patterns of human brokenness and human failing, however strong and damaging.

Reflection

The points for application of Exodus 34.1-9 are manifold, as varied as life itself. Yet for the purpose of this paper, let us look at the practical applications of just the three themes we have just described.

First, the theme of mediation calls us to examine our life of prayer. Do we recognize as believers that our Mediator is Christ, a high priest who can identify fully with our predicament? Do we come with confidence to Christ, knowing our prayers to God will be answered through Christ’s loving mediation for us? Or do we live in fear and uncertainty as to where we stand with God and whether prayer is effective for us?

Also do we recognize that our baptism seals us priests of God, so that all who have trust in the God revealed in Jesus Christ are called to join in intercession and mediation for others, expressing their faith in a way that has concern for those hurting around us, especially those who may not know how to approach God or are not ready to make those steps themselves? We need to recognize that the grace extended to us by God is not just for our benefit. It also has communal dimensions and calls us to become like Moses, vessels of divine grace who do not just receive grace and assurance from God, but also shared it in our families, our communities, and in the world as a whole.

We need to examine our views of God. Too often we envision God as relating to us as King Saul is portrayed as relating to David in the later years of his reign – in erratic, unstable ways, where Saul was unable to decide whether to accept and embrace David or fling a spear at him and was ready to turn on David without even a moment’s warning. Is this how, in our heart of hearts, we view God? Many of us depict God as no more sane than Saul is pictured, envisioning a God who in one breath speaks love to us, yet at the same moment is waiting for the next shoe to drop, always ready to curse us in this life and damn us forever in an unending torture chamber in the next. This is not the God who reveals God’s self to Moses as abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, slow to anger, quick to forgive, with loving-kindness that lasts a thousandfold times longer than the results of our failings. Is our God a God whose word to us is not both “yes” and “no” but forever “yes” in Jesus Christ? Does our God embody the New Testament fulfillment of this vision of Yahweh we find in Romans 8, a love that cannot be conquered by any force or do we envision God based on some other image of God we have collected over the years?

I think too we need to deal squarely with the elephant in the room in our Christian theology: How can a God who tortures anyone for all eternity without end based on short-lived sins committed in passing human existence truly be the God who pours out God’s love, forgiveness, grace a thousandfold in comparison to dealing out comparingly short-lived punishment? Could other understandings of the imagery of final judgment and hell be more in line with a message of restorative justice that is an outworking of divine love which is a natural result of this Exodus 34 credo? Could we be projecting into our images of God, judgment, and hell our own fears, anxieties, hatreds, and desire for vengeance instead of truly seeing these things in light of how God is revealed in Jesus Christ?

In our families, we need to hear the hope of this credo that the patterns of brokenness which often end up trapping us in cycles of codependency, abuse, alcoholism, and the like need not be the prisons they have become for us our whole life long. Instead the power of the loving-kindness, mercy, and fidelity of the Creator God revealed as Yahweh to Moses and as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to us in Jesus Christ has a grace that is greater than these prisons. This God of the Exodus and of Easter can step into our exiles and captivities and break us free from them, setting us and our families in promised lands of freedom.

We can also have hope based on the Exodus 24 credo whenever we face the crises in the larger human family of which we are all a member, realizing our history of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, religious wars, lack of care for the poor, are all simply those same patterns of brokenness we see in our individual families writ large. We can find along with individuals like Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, and Troy Perry in Jesus a pattern for how to confront these powers that be. We can have hope knowing that the love of God can bring transformation to the thousandth generation these cycles of brokenness in the human family. We can know the pain, heartache, and damage that wreaks our world and our lives is not the last word but, as we work together with God, we can become agents of transformation and change for our communities, our society, our world.

Bibliography

Bass, Diana Butler. A People’s History of Christianity. (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2009)

Davis, Dale Ralph. Rebellion, Presence, and Covenant: A Study in Exodus 32-34. Westminster

Theological Journal 44 (1982) 71-87. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OteSour

ces/02-Exodus/Text/Articles/Davis-Ex32-Rebellion-WTJ.htm (accessed March 16, 2012).

Dentan, Robert C. Literary affinities of Exodus 34:6f. 1963. Vetus testamentum 13, no. 1

(January 1963): 34-51.

Dozeman, Thomas B. Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary, edited by David Noel Freedman et al. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2009.

Durham, John I. Exodus. World Biblical Commentary 3, edited by David A. Hubbard, et al. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987.

Groenewald, Alphonso. Exodus, Psalms and Hebrews: A God abounding in steadfast love (Ex

34:6). Hervormde Teologiese Studies 64, no. 3 (2009): 1365-1378. http://www.doaj.org/doaj?

func=openurl&genre=journal&issn=02599422&volume=64&issue=3&date=2009&uiLanguage

=en (accessed March 16, 2012).

Hamilton, Victor P. Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic,

2011.

Janzen, Gerald J. Exodus. Westminster Bible Companion. Patrick D. Miller et al.

Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997.

King, Martin Luther. “Where Do We Go From Here?” King Papers Project Website. Http://mlk-

kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/kingpapers/article/where_do_we_go_from_here/ (Accessed April 23, 2012).

In this presentation, we will be examining the association in which I minister, the Progressive Christian Alliance. First, we will examine what the Progressive Christian Alliance is: its mission, organizational structure, ministries, and history. Then we will examine the larger Christian movement it is a part of, to help understand how the Progressive Christian Alliance fits into the larger Body of Christ.

History

Laying the foundations

The Progressive Christian Alliance began in the Spring of 2008, as a joint effort of the Reverends Roger Mclellan, Terry McGuire, Jarrod Cochran, and Melissa Mclellan¹. In addition to these clergy leader involved in the founding of the Progressive Christian Alliance, from its outset the Progressive Christian Alliance has included lay Christians in leadership. Anna Hall, a lay leader at Virginia-Highland Church currently in doctoral studies, as well as Erin Cochran and Bill Russo, Sr (both spouses of Rev. Jarrod Cochran and Rev. Terry McGuire respectively), all were very involved in the work of laying the foundations for the Progressive Christian Alliance and were early lay representatives on the Leadership Council of the Progressive Christian Alliance². Roger Mclellan describes the beginning of the Progressive Christian Alliance:

PCA was actually born in March of 2008 in Anniston, AL and Largo, FL- a short time later, we met Jarrod Cochran and Anna Hall and the Progressive Christian Movement, who had a nearly identical vision born in Atlanta a little while before PCA.
Within a few weeks we had agreed to merge under the Progressive Christian Alliance name. It is that merger date of May 20 2008 that we consider our birthday; as the young organizations joined forces and began to attract other crazy folks … PCM was born in late 2007³”.

The previous Progressive Christian Movement had begun in the Atlanta, GA, area and had focused on providing networking for progressively-minded Christians of all denominational backgrounds (as well as who worked independently of denominations), providing content-rich web and print publications, providing annual get-togethers and revivals for progressive Christians, and also providing an association that can provide ordination and ministerial support for those feeling called to Christian ministry yet whose progressive theological and social justice stances make their ministries out of step with more traditional denominations⁴. Since the Progressive Christian Movement and Progressive Christian Alliance shared an almost identical mission and vision, upon becoming aware of each other’s ministries, the two ministries entered talks to combine their efforts which quickly developed into a merger which is now the current Progressive Christian Alliance which shares in these same original goals⁵.

In those early meetings that led to the formation, the value for theological diversity which has become a hallmark of the Progressive Christian Alliance was paramount⁶. Such diversity led to careful consideration of how to structure the organization, as Anna Hall notes:

The primary challenges [faced in our beginning] were identity work and deciding how processes would work in terms of ordination, etc, because of our diversity of backgrounds and ecclesiology (ranging from anarchist and baptist on the low end to progressive catholic on the high end). Questions like “do we need bishops?” and “who authorizes the ordained?” were tricky but we got through most of them admirably I think, thanks in great part to the hard work of Roger leading the development of our policies.⁷

Founding Members

One helpful way to understand where the Progressive Christian Alliance came from and where it is going, is by examining the theological and spiritual background of the founding members. This slide shows pictures of four key individuals connected with the beginning of the Progressive Christian Alliance – Rev. Melissa Mclellan, Rev. Roger Mclellan, Rev. Terry McGuire, and Rev. Jarrod Cochran. (Unfortunately the Progressive Christian Alliance’s documents lack pictures of the lay leaders involved with its founding). Underneath their pictures I have placed an icon of the Holy Trinity developed by a progressive Christian artist, to picture that in the prayers, discussions, and interactions ultimately these founding members were seeking to encounter and work together with God in all God does.

These founding members came from a diverse set of backgrounds. Rev. Melissa McClellan grew up in a family that took part in a conservative evangelically oriented Baptist church, later in a Presbyterian church, Methodist church, and an LDS church⁸. These backgrounds exposed Rev. Mclellan both to a sense of God’s love, but also to aspects of legalism, misogyny, and anti-intellectualism which led to skepticism about many traditional aspects of Christian faith as it was expressed in her home state of Alabama⁹. She describes feeling a sense of spiritual home-coming and sensing a calling to ministry among churches in the Episcopal tradition¹⁰. She was ordained in an independent Anglican church but felt a calling to a more liberal progressive form of ministry¹¹. She describes her desire as a desire to “ truly have a church truly that welcomes all” and shares that this vision is at the heart and core of what she began working to accomplish through helping found the Progressive Christian Alliance¹².

Rev. Terry McGuire comes from a more evangelical background reflected by descriptions of his experiences of God in terms of “being saved” and “baptized” through a Baptist church when he writes about his role in the founding of the Progressive Christian Alliance¹³. Rev. McGuire describes himself as sensing a call to ministry while worshiping at Good Samaritan Church and also King of Peace Metropolitan Community Church¹⁴. (King of Peace MCC is a congregation of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches.  The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches is a Protestant denomination founded by an openly gay Pentecostal preacher, Troy Perry, as an outreach to same-gender couples proclaiming God’s acceptance of them through the blood of Christ.  All of its churches have a special outreach to members of that community)¹⁵. Unlike other founding members of the Progressive Christian Alliance, Rev. McGuire does not have a higher degree from a seminary or Divinity degree, but was self-educated in theology with the help of mentors and, like Rev. Perry of the UFMCC, simply answer a felt call of the Spirit to begin a church-planting work¹⁶. At the beginning of the Progressive Christian Alliance, Rev. McGuire was engaged in church-planting work in Largo, FL that birthed the Progressive Christian Alliance congregation LivingStones at Lincolnshire which is now co-pastored by Rev. Dave Coyle and Rev. Linda Fessenden¹⁷. Currently Rev. McGuire is engaged in further church-planting for a denomination which partners with the Progressive Christian Alliance and continues to act as a mentor to other pastors and church-planters, as well as continuing to serve on the Progressive Christian Alliance Leadership Council¹⁸. Rev. McGuire recounts some of the reasons for his passion for the Progressive Christian Alliance is its historic commitment to help provide means of supporting those who are called to pastoral ministry for whom the traditional venues for ministry training are not an option, as well as their acceptance of individuals who are in the GLBT community and who have HIV as equally loved by God and useful in Christian service¹⁹. Before his role as a church-planter, Rev. McGuire served with an HIV support organization in the FL area and where he met his long-term spouse and domestic partner, Bill Russo, Sr²⁰.

Rev. Jarrod Cochran, as noted earlier, became involved with the Progressive Christian Alliance after organizing the Progressive Christian Movement with Anna Hall. Rev. Cochran began ministry falling in the footsteps of his father, an evangelical pastor near Atlanta²¹. Rev. Cochran’s ministry began in the evangelical world, serving as an interim pastor at the evangelical church his father had pastored²². Influenced by authors such as Delwin Brown, Cochran felt a need to call his evangelical congregation in a more inclusive, social-justice oriented direction²³. Cochran

began preaching about how Jesus calls his followers to peacemaking as a way of life (during the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), that God loves the homosexual just as much as he loves the heterosexual, and suggesting that there is more to being a Christian than opposing abortion, gay marriage, and voting for conservative leaders²⁴.

Cochran’s stances on these issues, which he later recorded in his book Finding Jesus Outside the Box, ultimately laid the groundwork for that congregation letting him go²⁵. Cochran’s book, which we will discuss shortly, in many ways acted as a manifesto for many in the Progressive Christian Alliance and the progressive Christian movement²⁶. Cochran continues to serve through writing, speaking, doing activism for civil rights issues and the cause of peace, and also serving in chaplaincy²⁷.

Rev. Roger Mclellan in many ways has been the uniting force behind the Progressive Christian Alliance, laying much of the groundwork in those early days which preserved its unity and pointed its direction forward²⁸. Roger grew up in a family that attended a Southern Baptist church in Anniston, AL, where he was confessed faith and was baptized at age 11, and also where he was deeply involved in the many programs of the church²⁹. Yet in the face of family problems and personal crises, the easy pat answers brought little consolation, as did the image of an angry judging God “that kept score of all the times I messed up and sought to … shove a lightning bolt up my (backside) whenever I made a mistake”³⁰. This led Roger to a time of a dark night of his soul, where Roger avoided the subject of God and faith, due to the hurt and pain the easy answers and intolerant portrayal of God had produced³¹. While in the military Roger both met his wife Melissa and also found faith again, beginning in his own experience to get glimpses of a God of love, a God of understanding and compassion³². Roger’s experience of a God of love crystallized for him when he and Melissa began to attend the Episcopal church, which provided grace and a sense that their questions were respected³³. While at the Episcopal Church Roger felt a call to ministry and pursued ordination through an independent Anglican congregation³⁴. Roger eventually, following ordination, felt called to a more inclusive ministry focused on “the needs of those ‘Lost, Least and Left Behind’”³⁵. This desire led Roger and Melissa to plant Prince of Peace church and begin the process of organizing the Progressive Christian Alliance³⁶.

As I mentioned before, I think we would be remiss to not look at the backgrounds of the lay leaders involved with the founding of the Progressive Christian Alliance. Each too brought unique emphases. Anna Hall, a lay leader at Virginia-Highland Church, has been involved in ecumenical work and multiple progressive causes, while studying progressive theology at Candler School of Theology, and acted as an initial lay member of the leadership council³⁷. Erin Beavers Cochran is the wife of Rev. Jarrod Cochran but an act Christian lay leader herself. Her personal ministry has focused on bridging the gap between the GLBT community and the church, as well as advocating for those in the Native American community, of which she is a part³⁸. Finally, William “Bill” Russo Jr., grew up Roman Catholic and is a father and grandfather³⁹. As a young man he had considered the Roman Catholic priesthood but chose marriage and children instead⁴⁰. His entrance into the progressive community came about after Bill came out as a same-gender loving person⁴¹. He became involved in HIV advocacy when his late partner passed from HIV⁴². After moving to FL where he met his partner of over a decade, Rev. Terry McGuire, Bill became involved with Good Samaritan Presbyterian church where he became the first openly gay elder in the congregation⁴³. In that position, Bill became involved in disaster relief efforts for his church’s denomination before joining his partner Terry in his church-planting work⁴⁴. Bill describes his choice to be involved in the Progressive Christian Alliance’s founding as being because of the way in which it is opening up a place for those who may not find a place in traditional mainline congregations⁴⁵.

These examples demonstrate the diversity of the Progressive Christian Alliance in terms of theological perspective, religious tradition, as well as cultural background and sexuality. From its founding the Progressive Christian Alliance has tried to emphasize this diversity as an asset, not a hindrance, to doing the work of Jesus Christ.

Who Is the Progressive Christian Alliance?

On this slide, I have the question “Who is the Progressive Christian Alliance?” and included two pictures – one of clergy involved in a Progressive Christian Alliance gathering in Largo, FL in the fall of 2011, including a few new ordinands. Underneath it I have placed a photograph of the diverse mix of worshipers involved in our local Progressive Christian Alliance congregation, Diversity in Faith: A Christian Church for All People. My hope is that seeing these faces gives you a sense of who the Progressive Christian Alliance is – ultimately a diverse family of churches, ministries, and faith communities including individuals from every cultural background, of all sexualities and gender identities, and of very diverse theologies. In my own congregation, we have people of all ethnic backgrounds, of various political persuasions, straight and gay couples, activists for disability rights who happen to have disabilities themselves, charismatics, evangelicals, very liberal Christians, Quaker pacifists involved in opposing all militarism through the local Quaker House, and soldiers striving to be a warrior for God like King David was. This diversity reflects the stated vision the Progressive Christian Alliance lists as its founding principle:

From the inception of the Progressive Christian Alliance, we have had a vision for reaching out to “the least, the lost, the left behind, and those for whom religion has become irrelevant… We see this position to be very much in line with the teachings of Jesus, teachings that have sadly fallen into neglect. The Church has often become such an institution that it spends more time and resources maintaining itself than reaching into the world beyond itself. As a result we have seen more and more people pushed to the margins and even outside the doors of the church… We embrace those on the margins or outside the margins … We affirm the dignity of all of God’s children and welcome all to take their rightful place at God’s table.

We recognize that in Christ there is no gender, no orientation, no nation or race… We are all heirs to the kingdom. We readily and heartily welcome all to their rightful place at the table that God has prepared…⁴⁶

Following the path paved by other post-modern and emergent faith communities such as Calvary Chapel and The Vineyard Association of Churches, the Progressive Christian Alliance has shied away from the “denomination” moniker, arguing that progressive Christian approaches to spirituality and community offer alternatives to such approaches⁴⁷. The Progressive Christian Alliance functions with what Phyllis Tickle has called the emergent concept of “networked authority” acting more as a network than a traditional denomination⁴⁸. Thus the Progressive Christian Alliance both “actively” seeks “to build bridges between clergy and laity of existing churches and ministries regardless of denominational affiliation” and includes clergy and laity from existing denominations desiring to work together with others on faith-based progressive causes among its members⁴⁹ . Progressive Christian Alliance lists members of the following denominational traditions among its members: the United Church of Christ, Anglican, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Free Catholic, Independent, Interdenominational, House, and the Alliance of Baptists⁵⁰. In addition to these backgrounds, two vocal members of the Alliance who serve in already existing denominations are United Methodist clergy: namely Roger Wolsey of Kissing Fish: Christianity for People Who Don’t Like Christianity and Kevin Higgs of Hospitality to Strangers: Theology and Homosexuality⁵¹.

In addition to helping ministers in pre-existing denominations network with other progressive clergy and laity on issues of concern, the Progressive Christian Alliance also acts as an association or conference that acts “to, as a community, affirm God’s calling on the lives of God’s children and train new leaders and establish new ministries”⁵². By combining creating a place for Christian clergy and laity of existing denominations to network, partner, and offer support for progressive faith-based causes with also creating an association/conference for newly emerging progressive Christian ministries which can provide them ordination, “educational support, guidance, training, collegiality and pastoral support”⁵³ in many ways the Progressive Christian Alliance is making a reality the dream Cochran and Hall had envisioned previously in the Progressive Christian Movement.

This combination network/association of churches, clergy, and ministries does have an ecclesiastical structure of sorts. As Hall noted above, attempted to meld theological visions from such diverse theological standpoints as are included under the Progressive Christian Alliance umbrella has led to some unique approaches to organizing this ministry. Central to the organization of the Progressive Christian Alliance is a commitment to egalitarianism, full gender-equality among ministers, full welcome of and inclusion of same-gender couples and transgendered individuals, and the autonomy of the local church & of member para-church ministries⁵⁴. While the autonomy of the local church is affirmed and protected within its association, the Progressive Christian Alliance does have a Leadership Council that runs the day-to-day operations of the Alliance, including settling disputes between and within congregations as well as ordaining clergy⁵⁵. This Council has a mix of elected and non-elected positions; the non-elected positions are of filled by founding members of the Leadership Council and will be phased out as they retire from their positions, being then replaced by elected positions⁵⁶. According to the canons of the Progressive Christian Alliance, the Progressive Christian Alliance is vested in its members and all member churches & ministries remain their autonomy and control of their own funds and resources⁵⁷ .

Turning toward the beliefs or doctrine of the Progressive Christian Alliance, the central guiding principle is a respect for theological diversity. Because of this, the Progressive Christian Alliance tends toward a less dogmatic approach to doctrinal questions, trying to avoid a heretical-v.-orthodox litmus test on issues of doctrine. As one Progressive Christian Alliance document states

Theologically, there is much diversity within the group; as some hold to a traditional and creedal faith, while others’ thoughts are more in line with the thoughts of Marcus Borg, John Shelby Spong and others associated with Progressive Christian theology, but the group tends to place orthopraxy ahead of orthodoxy:  “We believe that following the teachings of Jesus means we need to support rights for GLBT people, rights for women, and be inclusive of all. We believe Jesus was for all people, not just coming for one elite group. For us, to be Christian is to embrace all God’s children and to speak up for the oppressed.”   The PCA  stresses the inclusive character of the Gospel, and teaches radical hospitality for those sometimes excluded from the life of the church; the disabled, GLBT persons and without regard to social status. Holy orders are open to all,  without regard to race, social status, disability or orientation.. .

As a non-creedal alliance of churches and ministries committed to theological diversity, the closest equivalents to a creed are its Scriptural foundations, its statement of faith, and its guiding principles.

The Progressive Christian Alliance’s Scriptural foundations act as the inspiration for its guiding principles⁵⁸. These Scriptural foundations include Matthew 22.34-40; Matthew 25.31-40; Micah 6.8; Romans 8.31-39 ; James 3.17; John 3.16-17; John 14.1-4; Zechariah 7:9-10⁵⁹. These Scriptures emphasize the unconditional and irrevocable love of God for all creation and all people; the need to not allow religious tradition to get in the way of human compassion; and the call to social justice for the poor, oppressed, and marginalized.

The Progressive Christian Alliance includes a statement of faith within its constitutions and canons, after clearly explaining that there is no requirement for adherence to a set creed for welcome into its ministry⁶⁰. This statement of faith is included below and attempts to use big tent language which can embrace a diversity of theological perspectives, drawing together those diverse individuals and communities on shared progressive Christian values⁶¹:

We believe in God,
whose love is the source of all life
and the desire of our lives
whose love was given a human face in Jesus of Nazareth
whose love was crucified by the evil that waits to enslave us all
and whose love, defeating even death,
is our glorious promise of freedom.
Therefore, though we are sometimes fearful and full of doubt,
we trust in that love: and in the name of Jesus Christ,
we commit ourselves, in the service of others,
to seek justice and to live in peace, to care for the earth
and to share the commonwealth of God’s goodness,
to live in the freedom of forgiveness
and in the power of the Spirit of love,
and in the company of all the faithful
past, present, and yet to come,
so to be the Church, for the glory of God.  Amen.

I would note again the key themes of the Scriptural foundations present in this statement of faith – God’s relentless love for all; the call to social justice; and the recognition of the place of doubts and questions in the life of faith.

These same values are picked up in the guiding principles of the Progressive Christian Alliance, which are: 1. We consider ourselves Christian, 2. The Progressive Christian Alliance maintains a focus on Social Justice, 3. We respect theological diversity, and 4. We affirm the dignity of all of God’s children and welcome all to take their rightful place at God’s table⁶². Also falling under these principles are the distinctive stances of a respect for the religious experiences and traditions of people of faith who are not Christians, as well as full inclusion of and support for same-gender relationships⁶³.

What Is Progressive Christianity?

In Why God is Like a Wet Bar of Soap, Chuck Faker, a Quaker theologian and activist, explains how difficult it is to “pin down” liberal Quakers regarding what their actual doctrines or beliefs are about God, saying getting a concrete explanation from them of “who God is” is like trying to grab a wet bar of soap⁶⁴. A similar critique can be made about progressive Christian belief and practice, and has been by both its critics and proponents⁶⁵.

Despite the difficulty in pinning down progressive Christianity on certain specifics, to understand the Progressive Christian Alliance, it is important to understand progressive Christianity’s history, theology, and practice. In a very real way the wider progressive Christian movement is the “womb” that the Holy Spirit used to birth this burgeoning little alliance of believers.

As Epperly points out in his “Is Progressive Christianity a Theological Movement?” there are definitely theological underpinnings to the larger progressive Christian movement, and common themes being echoed throughout the movement⁶⁶.

 I find the two themes of progressive Christianity well illustrated by two hymns of Sydney Carter, one which pictures negatively what progressive Christianity is trying not to be, and another representing for what progressive Christianity positively stands.

First, lets see the clip of “The Devil Wore a Crucifix”⁶⁷.

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

This music video graphically pictures the power of the religious faith, when paired with extremism, to wreak havoc and pain upon others. This history of the Christianity sadly is littered with the broken lives and dead bodies of those injured by the pairing of Christianity with extremism. As Diana Butler-Bass writes in her A People’s History of Christianity: The Other Side of the Story,

‘Jesus?’ she questioned. ‘I don’t have any trouble with Jesus. It’s all the stuff that happened after Jesus that makes me mad…’

What happened after Jesus – oppression, heresy trials, schisms, inquisitions, witch hunts, pogroms, and religious wars – witnesses to much human ambition and cruelty The things people do in Jesus’ name often contradict his teachings … ‘after Jesus’ can be remarkably depressing for sensitive souls. This dismal historical record surely was not what Jesus intended as he preached a merciful kingdom based on the transformative power of God’s love.⁶⁸.

This recounting of the abuse and misuse of the religion founded on Jesus’ message is key to what Carter wrote about in his “the Devil Wears a Crucifix”. This abuse and misuse of Christian Scripture and tradition as a tool of oppression is also something key to what the progressive Christian movement is trying to change. As Progressive Christian Alliance member and United Methodist pastor Roger Wolsey argues in his Kissing Fish: Christianity for People who Don’t Like Christianity, ultimately progressive Christianity is about rejecting the judgmental, oppressive approaches to the Christian faith which often lead to the exclusion of minorities, thoughtless agreement with the state and promotion of militarism, and lack of care for the earth as distortions of the message of Jesus⁶⁹.

In his The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart, the late Baptist preacher and theologian Peter J. Gomes masterfully describes how even Scripture itself has been used both to promote liberty, equal rights, and respect for all people but also to oppress women, enslave and later marginalize people of color, treat same-gender loving people as diseased and criminal, and to justify genocide against the Jewish people⁷⁰. Gomes argues in this work that there is a need to re-examine our approach to Scripture to work toward transforming our interpretive approach into one that avoids interpretative methods that end in oppression of others. The progressive Christian movement’s aim is to do just what Gomes suggests in his book: to re-examine the Christian faith, including the Christian approach to Scripture, in order to transform the ways Christians approach these traditions in ways that promote liberation, healing, and respect for human dignity as opposed to treating Scripture and tradition as tools for marginalizing, oppressing, and dehumanizing other human beings.

Another song which beautifully portrays the positive focus of the progressive Christian movement is Sydney Carter’s “Lord of the Dance”⁷¹.

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

Carter’s hymn beautifully pictures Christianity as at heart a joyful life-affirming celebration, a dance at the center of creation, a dance we have been invited to join. This “dance” image is metaphoric of a more life-affirming, creation-celebrating approach to the Christian faith. As C. Baxter Kruger describes:

The life that God lives as Father, Son, and Spirit is not boring and sad and lonely. There is no emptiness in this circle, no depression or fear or angst. The Trinitarian life is a life of unchained fellowship and intimacy, fired by passionate self-giving love and mutual delight. Such love, giving rise to such togetherness and fellowship, overflows into unbounded joy, in infinite creativity and unimaginable goodness. . . Before time dawned and space was called to be, before the heavens were stretched out and filled with a sea of stars, before the earth was summoned and filled with people and life and endless beauty, before there was anything, there was the Father, Son, and Spirit and the great dance of the Trinitarian life. The amazing truth is that this Triune God, in staggering and lavish love, determined to open the circle and share the Trinitarian life with others. This is the one, eternal, and abiding reason for the existence of the universe and human life within it… From the beginning, … God… Father, Son, and Spirit… has determined not to exist without us⁷².

Though not always expressed in Trinitarian terms, this life-affirming, creation-embracing approach to the Christian faith is very much at the heart of what progressive Christianity is about. Faith is finding our steps in the dance that gets us in harmony with the movement of all of creation.

Various explicitly progressive authors suggest several positive affirmations of what progressive Christianity is⁷³. Let’s look at a few of these authors.

First in his “Is Progressive Christianity a Theological Movement?” Bruce Epperly lists the following key principles as common themes in progressive theology, which the image of God inviting us to join the dance God dances in all of creation:

1. God is present in all things as the source of energy and vision.
2. God seeks abundant life for all creation.
3. God’s revelation is generous and diverse, and is found in every person and religious tradition.
4. God seeks to maximize freedom and creativity in the creaturely world.
5. God is constantly doing new things, calling and responding to the world as it is in terms of what it can become.
6. God invites us to be companions in healing the earth.
7. The God revealed in all things is uniquely and dynamically revealed in certain persons and moments. Jesus of Nazareth, in his freedom, creativity, and experience of being “chosen” by God, reveals God’s vision of human life and empowers us to be God’s companions in healing the world.
8. We are all children of God, reflecting divine wisdom and creativity. We have power and energy beyond our imagination to bring forth healing and beauty.
9. Prayer, meditation, touch, love, and hospitality can transform and heal minds, bodies, relationships, and spirits.
10. The future is open for both God and us. This means that our actions and commitment can be “tipping points” in the realization of God’s dream of Shalom.
11. This world is a place of beauty to be cherished and affirmed. The afterlife is not a “better” place but a continuing adventure in companionship with a living and creative God⁷⁴.

Epperly further lists the following elements of application or praxis to this theology:

1. What we do in this world matters.
2. We have the freedom to be God’s partners in healing the world
3. All humans, and perhaps, beyond humankind, reflect divine wisdom and deserve to be treated with honor and care
4. Since the future is open, we can be partners in bringing something beautiful to earth.
5. Our calling is to seek abundant life for humankind, and all creation.
6. We are to practice prophetic hospitality, seeking justice and liberation, while treating those with differing opinions with the same care as those for whom we are advocating⁷⁵.

Two other documents that are treated as a consensus on progressive Christianity are the Phoenix declaration and the 8 Points of Progressive Christianity, which make similar points but add additional emphasis upon the equality of GLBT persons to straight persons in God’s sight, openness to insights from science, and respect for other faiths as also sources of truth⁷⁶.

In Delwin Brown’s classic What Does a Progressive Christian Believe?: A Guide for the Searching, the Open, and the Curious, Brown presents a number of very positive statements regarding what progressive Christianity is. His book acts as almost a reader’s digest systematic theology of the progressive Christian movement. He summarizes its context by saying:

1. Progressive Christians are people formed by the tradition grounded in Jesus Christ … The assertion of absolute truth for this tradition, or any interpretation of it, is contrary to Christianity’s own best insights, as well as to the demonstrable fallibility of all human claims to truth. But we believe Christianity’s historic resources offer vital criticisms, values, and visions that can provide insight, hope, and transformation to the human family.
2. The Bible is our foundational resource. Its varied interpretations of Jesus Christ and the gospel “author” our identity as Christians. The diversity of these interpretations compel us to honor differences among Christians today. Their engagement with each other inspires us to engage our own differences, candidly but respectfully. The manifold voices within our scriptural foundation invite us into their dialog, criticize our limited understandings, teach us to think faithfully for ourselves, and empower us to come to views of our own about the meaning of Christian responsibility in today’s world.
3. Jesus Christ discloses to us the oneness of God with the world and the manner of God’s working in it. We share St. Paul’s conviction that God seeks the salvation of the entire created order, and we share the conviction of the ancient Church that salvation is possible by the power of God’s presence… Believing in Christ means believing that God is at home in the world, works through its processes, and committed without reserve to its fulfillment
4. The God revealed in Jesus Christ is the creative power for good at work in all of creation. God judges, heals, and transforms through persuasive love, not absolute power. Just as God makes a difference in the world, so we make a difference in the divine experience. God rejoices in our joys and suffers in our sorrows. We may experience the incarnate God as guide, presence, and mystery, but we can never capture God in our understanding. To claim absolute truth for any concept of God is a corruption of the religious standpoint, an expression of fear and a denial of faith.
5. Humanity is called to work with God in the service of the entire creation. Our responsibility is to use the resources given us to create physical and social orders that enrich life on all levels…
6. Sin is thinking of ourselves – individually or collectively – more highly, or less highly, than we ought to think. Sin is the excess valuing or devaluing of any element, group, or portion of the creation in relationship to the rest… Our failure to love properly and our self-deception about this failure create structures of inhumanity that continue from generation to generation. These structures… abide as the environments in which we are formed from birth, and from which we must be set free.
7. Salvation is the activity of God incarnate, working through all of the processes of creation to bring it to the fullness and health made possible by love. It is a promise for all dimensions of life – personal and social, physical and spiritual, human and non-human… The principle metaphors [of salvation are]… – the “reign of God” – a vision of this world transformed by justice and love, and “eternal life” – a vision of God incarnate and the world to whose reality our efforts and our lives might somehow contribute everlastingly…
8. The Church is … [necessary because:] Beliefs and values are sustained most effectively in community practices… The Church is the community of those who seek to serve God’s healing work in the world… ⁷⁷.

Another systemic presentation of Progressive Christian thought of particular importance to understanding the Progressive Christian Alliance is Jarrod Cochran’s Finding Jesus Outside the Box. In this work, Cochran outlines the following key emphases of progressive Christianity: a re-emphasis on the life of Christ as central, a prophetic stance to the excesses of nationalism and capitalism, a focus on peace-making and non-violence, an emphasis on the radical inclusiveness of God’s love including the welcome of GLBT people as equal members of God’s family, a renewed emphasis on care for nature and creation, a commitment to the poor and oppressed, and an openness to learning truths of God through science and other faith traditions replacing the antipathy toward those sources of wisdom⁷⁸. Cochran further expands on these same themes in other writings, such as his Patheos interview⁷⁹.

Marcus Borg summarizes the progressive vision of the Christian life by saying it “sees the Christian life as a life of relationship and transformation. Being Christian is not about meeting requirements for a future reward in the afterlife, and not very much about believing. Rather, the Christian life is about a relationship with God that transforms life in the present.”⁸⁰

Progressive Saints: A History of the Progressive Christian Movement

Progressive Christian theologians point to a variety of trail-blazers in Christian history who are viewed as an inspiration to the movement because their theological vision or radical commitment to counter-cultural living out of the life of Jesus modeled the elements of the Christian faith which are key to progressive Christianity.

In the ancient church, a few examples of these inspirations are: Irenaeus, who celebrated the way in which God had wedded God’s self to creation in the Incarnation committing God’s self to this world and proclaimed that the glory of God is in human beings fully alive; Origen, an early church father who rejected crudely literal interpretations of Scripture, encouraging his students to understand much of Scripture especially the Hebrew Scriptures are intended to be applied metaphorically not literal-historically; sisters Julian of Norwich and Hildegard of Bingen, both of whom experienced revelations of God having a universal love for all humanity, God revealing God’s self in feminine terms, and finally Hildegard particularly seeing God at work on the side of the oppressed working justice⁸¹.

It is in the Protestant era, particularly the Holiness preaching of John Wesley and other evangelicals such as George Whitfield and John Newton that the seeds of progressive Christianity were originally sown⁸². The way in which these early evangelicals pave the way for the progressives is that they link personal conversion with a call to social action, the call to fight for social justice such as fighting for abolition, for women’s suffrage, for children’s rights and education ⁸³. Such ministry ends up being the inspiration for such reformers as William Wilberforce, Charles Finney, and Walter Rauschenbusch in their fight for social justice in their communities ⁸⁴. Rauschenbusch’s emphasis on Social Gospel and openness to higher critical questions about Scripture as well as the use of social sciences to inform his ministry is a marked change from more traditional forms of evangelical ministry⁸⁵. This begins the Christian progressive movement which is the foundation for the contemporary liberal Christianity, the civil rights movement led by figures such as Dr. Martin Luther King, and eventually the liberation theology movement⁸⁶. These movements together with insights from historical study of the Gospels and Scripture, as well as the neo-orthodox movement, develop the theological concepts and questions which are at the heart of the contemporary progressive Christian movement⁸⁷.

Engaging in Progressive Christian Ministry

In closing I would like to present a picture of what progressive Christian ministry is like. In her book The Practice of Pastoral Care: A Postmodern Approach, Carrie Doehring presents pastoral ministry that bears in mind the post-modern influences which have shaped progressive Christianity as straying from the strict literalism of fundamentalism or the practice detached from tradition found in classical liberalism⁸⁸. Instead it uses the best of pre-modern, modernist, and post-modernist lens, as a tri-fold lens to shape responses to contemporary situations. Progressive clergy use pre-modern aspects of Christian experience such as Biblical myth, symbolism, prayer, and traditional Christian ritual to help individuals connect with the mystical side of life and spirituality⁸⁹. They draw on modernist techniques of scientific, psychological, & social science approaches to pressing questions of the day where the pre-modern mystical approaches do not provide help. Also they draw on the post-modern critical approaches that expose the systems of injustice in which people find themselves and others, guiding those to whom they minister in a path of personal and community liberation⁹⁰.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“8 Points of Progressive Christianity” The Center for Progressive Christianity website.

http://www.tcpc.org/about/8points.cfm (Accessed February 3, 2012).

Bass, Diana Butler Bass. A People’s History of Christianity: The Other Side of the Story. (New York,

NY: HarperOne, 2009)

Borg, Marcus. The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering the Life of Faith. (San Fransisco, CA:

HarperSanFransisco, 2003).

Brown, Delwin. Authored by the Book. Pacific School of Religion.

www.psr.edu/files_psr/Brown_AuthoredbytheBook.pdf(Accessed February 27, 2012).

Brown, Delwin. “Rediscovering Our Progressive Christian Heritage”. Pacific School of Religion

website. http://www.psr.edu/files_psr/Expl_BrownRediscoveringPCH.pdf (Accessed February

3, 2012).

Brown, Delwin. Understanding Biblical Authority. Pacific School of Religion Website.

www.psr.edu/understanding-biblical-authority(Accessed February 27, 2012).

Brown, Delwin. What Does a Progressive Christian Believe?: A Guide for the Searching, the Open,

and the Curious. (New York, NY: Seabury Books, 2008).

Cochran, Jarrod. Finding Jesus Outside the Box. (Atlanta, GA: Progressive Christian Alliance Press,

2008).

Cochran, Jarrod. Personal Interview with Author, February 20, 2012.

Cochran, Jarrod, “Theological and Political: An Interview with Jarrod Cochran”. Patheos Website. http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Theological-and-Political-Interview-

with-Jarrod-Cochran-06-21-2011.html (Accessed February 29, 2012).

Doehring, Carrie. The Practice of Pastoral Care: A Postmodern Approach. (Louisville, KY:

Westminster John Knox Press, 2006)

Dorrien, Gary. The Making of American Liberal Theology. Vol 3. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John

Knox Press, 2001).

Epperly, Bruce. “Is Progressive Christianity a Theological Movement?”. Patheos Website. http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Progressive-Christianity-a-

Theological-Movement-Bruce-Epperly-06-13-2011.html (Accessed February 13, 2012).

Evans, Christopher H. The Kingdom is Always but Coming: A Life of Walter Rauschenbusch. (William

B. Eerdmans Publishing, Kindle edition: Grand Rapids, MI, 2004).

Fager, Chuck. Why God is Like a Wet Bar of Soap. (Fayetteville, NC : Kimo Press, 2003).

Gomes, Peter J. The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart. (New York, NY: William

Morrow and Company, 1996).

Hall, Anna. Online correspondence with author, April 5, 2012.

Higgs, Kevin Thomas. Hospitality to Strangers: Theology and Homosexuality. (Birmingham, AL:

Createspace, 2011).

Kruger, C. Baxter. Jesus and the Undoing of Adam. (Jackson, MS: Perichoresis Press, 2003).

McGuire, Terry. Interview by Author, February 21, 2012.

Mclellan, Roger. Correspondence with author, April 5, 2012

Metataxas, Eric. Amazing Grace. (HarperCollins e-books, Kindle Edition).

Reyes, Bruce. “You Might be a Progressive Christian if …”. Patheos Website.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/breyeschow/2011/06/16/you-might-be-progressive-christian-if/ (Accessed February 13, 2012).

“The Phoenix Affirmations”. The Center for Progressive Christianity website. https://www396.ssldomain.com/tcpc/doc/The%20Phoenix%20Affirmations-%20full

%20version.pdf (Accessed February 3, 2012).

The Progressive Christian Alliance. “About Us”. http://www.progressivechristianalliance.org

/Blog/mission/about-us/ (Accessed February 2, 2012).

The Progressive Christian Alliance. “Anna Hall”. Progressive Christian Alliance Website. http://www.progressivechristianalliance.org/Blog/uncategorized/ms-anna-hall/ (Accessed March 27, 2012).

The Progressive Christian Alliance. “Constitution and Canons of the Progressive Christian Alliance”. The Progressive Christian Alliance Website. http://www.progressivechristianalliance.org/Blog/mission/constitution-cannons/ (Accessed March 1, 2012).

The Progressive Christian Alliance. “Erin Beaver Cochran”. The Progressive Christian Alliance Website. http://www.progressivechristianalliance.org/Blog/uncategorized/mrs-erin-beavers-

cochran/ (Accessed March 27, 2012).

The Progressive Christian Alliance. “Our History”. Progressive Christian Alliance Website. http://www.progressivechristianalliance.org/Blog/mission/our-history/ (Accessed February 2, 2012).

The Progressive Christian Alliance. “Staff”. Progressive Christian Alliance Website. http://www.progressivechristianalliance.org/Blog/staff/ (Accessed March 27^th, 2012).

The Progressive Christian Alliance. “Rev. Jarrod Cochran”. Progressive Christian Alliance website. http://www.progressivechristianalliance.org/Blog/uncategorized/rev-jarrod-cochran/ (Accessed April 1, 2012)

The Progressive Christian Alliance. “Scriptural Foundations”. The Progressive Christian Alliance Website. http://www.progressivechristianalliance.org/Blog/mission/scriptural-foundations (Accessed March 1, 2012).

The Progressive Christian Alliance. “Our History”. Progressive Christian Alliance Website. http://www.progressivechristianalliance.org/Blog/mission/our-history/ (Accessed February 2, 2012).

The Progressive Christian Alliance. “Rev. Melissa Mclellan”. The Progressive Christian Alliance website. http://www.progressivechristianalliance.org/Blog/uncategorized/melissa-mcclellan/ (Accessed March 27, 2012)

The Progressive Christian Alliance. “Rev. Roger Mclellan”. Progressive Christian Alliance website.

http://www.progressivechristianalliance.org/Blog/uncategorized/rev-roger-mcclellan/ (Accessed April 1, 2012).

The Progressive Christian Alliance. “The Progressive Christian Alliance: Embracing the Margins,” The Progressive Christian Alliance Website. http://www.progressivechristianalliance.org/Blog

/mission/a-church-at-the-margins/ (Accessed March 22, 2012).

The Progressive Christian Alliance. “What We Are: Defining a Movement that Refuses to be Labeled,” The Progressive Christian Alliance Website. http://www.progressivechristianalliance.org/Blog/mission/

what-are-we-defining-a-movement-that-refuses-to-be-labeled/ (Accessed March 22, 2012).

The Progressive Christian Alliance. “William ‘Bill’ Russo, Sr.” The Progressive Christian Alliance Website. http://www.progressivechristianalliance.org/Blog/uncategorized/william-p-russo-sr-

%E2%80%9Cbill%E2%80%9D/ (Accessed March 27, 2012).

Tickle, Phyllis. The Great Emergence. (Grand Rapids, MI: BakerBooks, 2008).

“Why I Am Not a Progressive Christian”. Nouspique website. http://nouspique.com/2010/04/why-i-

am-not-a-progressive-christian/ (Accessed March 1, 2012).

Wink, Walter. The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millenium. (New York, NY: Galilee Doubleday, 1998).

Wolsey, Roger. Kissing Fish: Christianity For People Who Don’t Like Christianity. (Xlibris, 2011)

“R-E-S-P-E-C-T!” by The Rev. Robert Coats

The Forth Sunday of Lent

Revised Common Lectionary Reading: John 3:14-21 (Inclusive Bible)

“As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness in the desert, so too the Chosen One must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in the Chosen One might have life. Yes, God so loved the world as to give the Only Begotten One, so that whoever believes may not die, but have eternal life. God sent the Begotten One into the world not to condemn the world, but that through the Only Begotten the world might be saved. Whoever believes in the Only Begotten avoids judgment, but whoever doesn’t believe is judged already for not believing in the name of the Only Begotten of God. On these grounds is sentence pronounced: That though the light came into the world, people showed that they preferred darkness to the light because their deeds were evil. Indeed, people who do wrong hate the light and avoid it, for fear their actions will be exposed; but people who live by the truth come out into the light, so that it may be plainly seen that what they do is done in God.”

I seriously did not want to write on this passage. The Catholic church uses a different Lectionary separate from the Revised Common Lectionary. On some occasions, the readings for a particular Sunday in the Catholic Lectionary differ from those of the Revised Common Lectionary. This, at times, is also true for the readings used by Anglicans (Episcopalians). Today is one of those days. One of the non-Revised Common Lectionary Readings for today is John 6:4-15. I so wanted to write on John 6:4-15! Jesus feeds people! It’s such a good one! John 6:4-15 is so easy on which to opine! Although I know for many, so too is today’s passage from John 3:14-21. After all its got the ever popular John 3:16 verse! You know – the one that people put on signs and hold up at football games. It’s the one that every Evangelical and Fundamentalist commits to memory for witnessing purposes. You quote it to people (sinners) who aren’t saved and it magically makes them want to ask Jesus into their hearts. Have you ever been handed the little religious booklets (tracts)? Sometimes people leave them in public restrooms, or even better, one really good one is to go into public libraries and randomly place them between the pages of library books! Unsuspecting sinners borrow the book from the library, and while they are reading the book – surprise!- they turn a page and find the hidden religious tract. They read it, fall to their knees overcome with the weight of guilt at being a sinner and they say the printed prayer at the end of the tract and instantly they become saved! An instantaneous salvation ticket out of hell! Anyway, those little religious tracts always have John 3:16 printed between their pages.

The reason why I didn’t want to write on this passage is because this passage has become the de facto property of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists and I just wasn’t feeling up to receiving the email lashing which accompanies any deviation from the Evangelical and Fundamentalist theological interpretations of this passage. This is one of the “it means what it says and it says what it means” passages. One of the passages which, supposedly, can only be read literally. Although, in actuality, only parts are be taken literally. The condemnation parts: i.e. the “come to Jesus and be saved because Jesus is the only way to get into heaven and not go to hell,” parts. The part, however, nearly universally ignored is the verse AFTER the famous (or infamous, depending on if you are on the giving end or receiving end of the verse) John 3:16, John 3:17:

“God sent the Begotten One into the world not to condemn the world, but that through the Only Begotten the world might be saved.”

Although it’s not really the whole of the verse which is ignored. The last part is good: “but that through the Only Begotten the world might be saved.” In point of fact, it’s the first part of John 3:17 which is ignored: “God sent the Begotten One into the world not to condemn the world.” A Jesus who does not condemn the world just isn’t a good Jesus! Haven’t you read of the Left Behind books? Jesus is all about condemning the world! In those books, Jesus comes back to take to heaven for an eternal banquet where everyone eats all they want and never gains weight (and they also get jewelry – crowns – and we do all love shiny, sparkly things) all the people who have asked Jesus into their hearts. Jesus “raptures” or removes them away from the earth just before all of God’s condemnation is literally poured out onto the rest of humanity who didn’t ask Jesus into their hearts. See, in this theological interpretation God so loved the people who ask Jesus into their hearts that he sends his son, Jesus, to remove them from plagues, natural disasters, starvation, and the Devil (who, after Jesus rescues everyone who has asked him into their hearts and has become born again, sets himself up as the King of the World). Then at the end of seven years of the most cruel hardship ever faced by humanity, Jesus comes back one more time riding on a white horse and wielding a sword! He then sends to hell everyone who was left behind and who may have somehow survived seven years of starvation, plagues, natural disaster and the Devil (because seven years of severe torture and starvation isn’t enough punishment, they now get to suffer for all of eternity in the fiery pits of hell). That’s the good, condemning Jesus so loved and embraced by many, and very vocal, expressions of Christianity.

The passage has become the de facto property of the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, in part, because it’s been surrendered to them by those of us who refer to ourselves as Progressives. Actually, those of us who are theologically liberals (although we don’t use the “L” word because that word has been hijacked and is used as a theological and political weapon of condemnation). Everyone knows that all of the “L” people are universally unsaved and are all going to hell – that is after we all are “left behind” and suffer the punishment we deserve for being l-i-b-e-r-a-l-s. We have surrendered the passage because, well, it is just too literal and so, for the most part, we kind of ignore it. Additionally, we’ve been beaten up by its use against us so much that we tend to remove its use from our theological frame of reference. In surrendering the verse, sadly, we have failed in that we who also name the name of Christ, have given up something which is also ours. We have failed because we have not redeemed the passage as our own. We have failed in redeeming what it means to be saved, what it means to be born again.

Passages such as these are not really that difficult to redeem. As my Quaker ancestors taught: Interpreting Scripture must be done in light of the totality of the Scripture not in a verse by verse application of meaning. In taking the message of Christ as a whole and not as defined by one verse or one section of Scripture, what then does it mean to be “saved?” At the beginning of Christ’s ministry, Jesus enters a Synagogue, picks up the scroll of the Prophet Isaiah and reads a passage:

“The Spirit of our God is upon me: because the Most High has anointed me to bring Good News to those who are poor! God has sent me to proclaim liberty to those held captive, recovery of sight to those who are blind, and release from prison – to proclaim the year of our God’s favor!”

In light of this declaration by Jesus, what then constitutes salvation? When the poor are economically redeemed? When freedom is extended to those who are held in captivity? When those who are not sighted receive health care and their vision is returned? When prisoners are released from prison? If you can only see these references in terms of a spiritual application and not also in terms of an actual incarnate – a living, human, in the flesh – application, then you are a very fortunate individual! Yes, there are those who are spiritually poor, spiritually blind, spiritually captive, spiritual imprisoned. There are also those for whom these are very real, fleshed out, circumstances. What does it mean to someone’s soul when they are saved from economic deprivation? What does it mean for someone without health insurance to be saved from blindness? What happens to the soul of someone who is held in prison and is saved from its torture? Does not saving people from incarnate circumstances enliven their souls!? Do they not become born again human beings!? If you have been the person in prison and gained your freedom, if you have been saved from severe economic hardship, then you know that the answer is yes, indeed you are a born again human being when freedom (salvation) occurs.

In some of my past reflections I’ve related how at 12 years old I had my own salvation experience. Over many ensuing years, however, I spiritually and psychologically burdened myself with overwhelming self hatred, self imposed guilt and self imposed shame because I was told that I could not have had a genuine salvation experience and also be a same gender loving individual. I was told, and believed, that Jesus condemns all same gender loving people to hell. I was told, and believed, that I had “lost” my salvation for having feelings and attractions towards persons of my same gender. I was held spiritually captive to a belief system which enslaved me with guilt. I was spiritually imprisoned and spiritually tortured because I allowed myself to be judged, not by God, but by a humanity created theology. It is now, in retrospect, that I am able to redeem my salvation experience. Yes, I did have a genuine salvation experience when I was 12 years old, however, for me, it was not the end of my becoming saved but only the beginning. It was my first step towards the Divine. My “asking Jesus to come into my heart” at 12 years old began for me a spiritual journey to knowing what it means to be released from a spiritual theological prison. Jesus did not come into the world to condemn me, Jesus came into the world to introduce me to a path towards God which, along the way, encompasses literally and spiritually helping the blind find sight, both literally and spiritually freeing those in prison, and both literally and spiritually helping others to find freedom from economic captivity.

My prayer for all of us today – this Forth Sunday of Lent – is that we may all find the ability to be respectful of the unique faith journeys of every person. May we, for our Lenten experience, give up the idea that any one person or any one theology owns the definition of salvation. May we all work towards redeeming the definition of what it means for an individual to be saved and may we all, in the process, find our own pathway to salvation.

Blessed be!

The Rev. Robert Coats is a PCA minister with an educational background in Queer Theology and Pastoral Counseling. His weekly reflections based on the Revised Common Lectionary Readings are posted at his blog A Prophet In Pink Sneakers

“Burning Down the House!” by The Rev. Robert Coats

The Third Sunday of Lent

Revised Common Lectionary Reading: John 2:13-22 (The Inclusive Bible)

“Since it was almost the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the Temple, he found people selling cattle, sheep and pigeons, while money changers sat at their counters. Making a whip out of cords, Jesus drove them all out of the Temple – even the cattle and sheep – and overturned the tables of the money changers, scattering their coins. Then he faced the pigeon sellers: ‘Take all of this out of here! Stop turning God’s house into a market!’ The disciples remembered the words of Scripture: ‘Zeal for your house consumes me.’ The Temple authorities intervened and said, ‘What sign can you show us to justify what you’ve done?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days time I will raise it up again.’ They retorted, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this Temple, and you’re going to raise it up in three days?’ But the Temple Jesus was speaking of was his body. It was only after Jesus had been raised from the dead that the disciples remembered this statement and believed the Scriptures – and the words Jesus had spoken. While Jesus was in Jerusalem for the Passover festival, many people believed in him, for they could see the signs he was performing. But Jesus knew all people, and didn’t entrust himself to them. Jesus never needed evidence about people’s motives; he was well aware of what was in everyone’s heart.”

Our dear friend John does like to confound us! As nearly always our John has placed this story of Jesus, and what is referred to as “The Cleansing of the Temple,” out of sync with the other three Gospel narratives of the event. Matthew, Mark and Luke place the event at the end of Jesus’ ministry, whereas our dear friend John, has placed the event at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. There’s great theological debate regarding which versions are the more accurate. Some side with numbers saying that the versions of Matthew, Mark and Luke placing the event at the end of Jesus’ ministry is the more accurate time line. Others vehemently disagree and defend John’s placement at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry as being the appropriate time line. There are a handful of other theologians who say that there were actually two Temple Cleansing events enacted by Jesus and that John writes of the first event occurring at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and that the other three Gospel narratives are referring to the second Temple Cleansing event which occurred at the end of Jesus’ ministry. Yeah, I kind of have a problem with that one: Jesus might have done this one time, but he would have never done it a second time! I also think that the event, in all likelihood, occurred at the end of Jesus’ ministry not at the beginning. I don’t hold this opinion based on grand theological evidence. Instead I hold this opinion based on John’s literary style. John’s Gospel is so different from the other three Gospels because, in my opinion, John was a story teller first and a theologian second. John wanted to tell a good story and as every good story teller knows, you take “literary license” in telling your version of the story because you want to tell a really entertaining story! You want to capture your audience’s interest from the very beginning of your tale and I hold the opinion that is what John does with his version of events. This really isn’t all that unusual. Especially for a writer of John’s time. Scholars of every area of study know to take the recorded events of antiquity, even those from the most noted authors, with a grain of salt. The historian Josephus is a case in point. He was a contemporary of the author of the Gospel of John and although he is known as being a historian, he does what every author of this time does: re-arranges the information to suit his story line. Even in modernity this is a standard practice. Think of the movie epic The Ten Commandments. Hollywood did NOT use the Hebrew Scripture time line in the making of their movie. The events are in many instances out of sequence for the sake of making a better movie. That’s why Hollywood adds a disclaimer to their movies saying “Based on actual events.” John’s narrative of the events of Jesus’ life should carry the same notation: “Based on actual events.” I know this knowledge is disturbing to Scripture purists and literalists. There are many who like to think that the Bible (and especially the Gospels) where written by the men named as the authors and that they picked up a feathered, quill pen and God Divinely took control of their hands and guided the writing of their words across the parchment. Unfortunately, no matter your view of the creation of the Bible, reality to some degree steps in. As in this instance, there are discrepancies between all of the Gospel narratives. Sometimes they are small discrepancies, sometimes large, however, they do exist so we must address them. I don’t believe that the discrepancies are all that big of a problem. I think that as with all Scripture, these are stories meant to inspire the faithful not proof texts of events. With all due respect to Thomas, I am not a “Doubting Thomas.” I don’t need to put my hand into Jesus’ side nor do I need to put my finger into Jesus’ nail wounds in order to believe. It is from the teachings and life events of Jesus which I find inspiration and from which I draw spiritual strength, not the definitive answer regarding which time line of events is the more accurate. So, for me, it is the question “Why did this event occur and what significance and application can I draw from it to apply to my life” which holds importance.

It is in the process of answering this question that I base my belief that the event occurred at the end of Jesus’ ministry as opposed to the beginning. This was an event of grand – monumental – importance. The actions of Jesus in the Temple were not a flippant occurrence. This event, when placed at the end of Jesus’ ministry, holds such great importance because it becomes the legal basis for the arrest of Jesus and his eventual trial, torture, and execution by the state. With this event, Jesus violates the “Prime Directive” of the Roman Empire. He breaks the Pax Romana: The Peace of Rome. For a time period covering approximately 207 years, the Roman Empire justified its presence in the countries it occupied based on its propaganda that Rome, and Rome alone, maintained the peace of the world. If Rome was not capable of keeping the peace, there was not any legitimate reason for their occupation. That is why insurrections where so violently put down. The insurrectionists where not given a second chance. To be guilty of breaking the Peace of Rome carried a death sentence. Peace at the point of a sword. Or in the case of Jesus, peace by crucifixion execution. That’s why I am more prone to accepting the event time line of the other three Gospel narratives as opposed to John’s time line, because John’s time line just don’t fit with historical reality. That’s also why I don’t think that there were two such instances. Jesus broke the Pax Romana once, but it did not happen a second time. Jesus was fully aware of the possible consequences of his actions. I don’t believe that Jesus wanted to die (the Gospel narratives attest to this given the words of his prayer prior to his execution wherein he asked of God that “this cup be removed from me”), however, there is no doubt from the Gospel narratives that Jesus was determined in his actions. The Gospels record that “Jesus set his face towards Jerusalem.” He could not be dissuaded from his course of action. He purposely chose the time and place which carried the most impact on his expression of condemning injustice in all its forms, including imperial and religious injustice.

Although the traditional renderings of this passage are in regard to framing it as being a denunciation of Jesus in regard to business practices, I’m not convinced that is the case. I think there are multiple things occurring in regard to this passage. As referenced earlier, the Roman garrison in Jerusalem was ever ready to keep the Pax Romana at any cost. They were especially bristling for confrontation at the yearly time of Passover. This had historically proven to be the time of the year chosen by the discontent to give voice to their grievances against Rome and all that Rome represented. Such was the case that the higher governing authority for the region, who was answerable directly to Caesar himself, and who had his headquarters in the area north of Palestine in the region of Syria, would yearly send additional Roman troops to Jerusalem in order for the Roman presence to be more strongly represented during the season of Passover. In addition, because of the historical occurrence of disturbances during the Passover season, the Roman troops would daily march forth through the streets of Jerusalem in a show of Imperial might. This was not a simple parade. The Roman troops would march out from their garrison in full military regalia and their presence would cover the entire street from building to building leaving no room for anyone to pass by. If people did not get out of the path way of the marching phalanx of troops, the troops did not stop. The troops – en masse – would march over the unfortunate individuals who were not able to get out of the path way of the soldiers. This in itself was meant to send a visual message: Anyone who is in the way of Rome will be crushed by the military might of Rome.

Occurring simultaneously, are the acts of religious injustice taking place within the Temple confines. Contrary to popular belief, I’m not entirely convinced that the actions of Jesus in the “Cleansing of the Temple” are in regard to a blanket condemnation of all business affairs. Instead, I hold the opinion that the actions of Jesus (in light of his overall framing of his ministry as being one of addressing injustice in all its forms) are a direct confrontation with the unjust practices occurring as the Temple authorities have joined in partnership with the merchants who were plying their trade in the Temple area. This was a money making system for everyone involved – everyone that is excepting for the faithful and especially the faithful poor person. When an individual came to the Temple to offer a sacrifice, the individual was to bring an offering for sacrifice, in most instances this was an animal sacrifice although for certain occasions the sacrifices were grain offerings. The animals presented for sacrifice were required by religious law to be perfect in presentation. Think something along the lines of the winning animal at a country fair. The faithful could not present an animal for sacrifice which had any physical deformity. The animal had to literally be “without spot or blemish.” The sacrificial system at the time of Jesus, however, was ensconced to take advantage of this religious legal loophole. In most instances, no matter how perfect in presentation was the animal brought to the Temple by the faithful, it was going to be rejected. This wasn’t something up for appeal. The word of the Temple authority was final. The only alternative for the faithful was to purchase (at an exorbitant cost) an animal pre-approved for sacrifice which was ever so conveniently for sale within the Temple confines. The act of purchasing this pre-approved animal at the Temple gift shop, was not so simple a transaction. The transaction had to occur with only Temple approved coins. The Temple would not accept coins bearing any “graven image” and all Roman coins, as well as all coins from other localities, carried images of Caesar as well as images of other deities. So, before you could purchase your perfect animal, you first had to exchange your coins for the pre-approved Temple coins. Unfortunately for you, however, most especially if you were poor, this system was set up for everyone to make a tidy profit. The money changes did not ply their trade for free. There was a fee attached to their exchanging your coins for Temple approved coins. In addition, the Temple got a cut from the money changers. By the time your coins were exchanged, minus the money changers fee and the Temple’s fee, what the faithful were left with was a deficit of the true value of their original coins. The faithful had less money to buy the more highly priced, yet Temple pre-approved, sacrificial animal. Everybody made money on this system, excepting of course, the poor faithful who went home all the poorer for being faithful.

In this instance all the elements of “The Perfect Storm” become joined: 1) Jesus has “set his face towards Jerusalem” in a determined “Occupy the Temple” moment. 2) The Pax Romana – the Peace of Rome – has been violated. 3) Religious injustice has been, in a way which cannot be ignored, given a very public thumping. The Empire, the Temple and Jesus. Someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. From this moment on, this storm hurdles towards what seemingly is finality in the execution of Jesus. We, however, as Paul Harvey would always say in his radio broadcasts, know “the rest of the story.” It is not injustice which comes out the winner. The Resurrection is coming!

Think on these things during your Lenten season. There comes a time for all of us when we are faced with the opportunity of standing against injustice. Sometimes it’s something simple like the ballot box. Sometimes it’s much more difficult and we, as did Jesus, pray that “this cup pass from me,” yet still make the arduous decision to confront the powers of injustice.

My prayer for us all is that we not lose hope! The Resurrection is coming!

Blessed Be

The Rev. Robert Coats is a PCA minister with an educational background in Queer Theology and Pastoral Counseling. His weekly reflections based on the Revised Common Lectionary Readings are posted at his blog A Prophet In Pink Sneakers

We progressive Christians on the other hand, armed with our “higher scholarship” or our immersion in emerging theologies are often guilty of looking down on our conservative  brothers and sisters as simplistic or even hateful for their lack of understanding and their sometimes exclusionary actions.

I suspect that my post today will surprise some and offend still more; but I am writing today to provide a little insight and even defense of those conservative Christians.   In doing so, I will present some generalizations that may even offend some of those I seek to defend; as my insights come from my own background and are therefore not representative of the whole.

The thing I would most like for Progressive Christians to know about conservative Christians is that they truly love God, strive to follow Jesus and love their neighbors.  It’s true.  I know that sometimes it does not appear that is the case, with the vilification of peoples of other faiths and sexual minorities, for example, but the simple fact of the matter is that even these things are born out of a desire to follow God’s teachings as they understand them.

Sadly, however, many of those have been taught the rules of the game of life that are wrapped around personal salvation and the expectation of eternal reward or punishment  based entirely upon how one responds to the challenges of this life on Earth.  Let me pose a few examples of how this teaching manifests itself:

“I just learned that my son is gay.   I still love him dearly, but Pastor has taught me what the bible says about homosexuality, and I know that if he does not turn away from this sinful lifestyle he will go to hell.   I don’t want my son to go to hell; so maybe if I disown him he will recognize the error of his ways and turn back to God and a healthy, biblical lifestyle.”

“My neighbor is a Muslim.  He is a really nice man.   I don’t want him to burn in hell while I languish in heaven.  Maybe if I can convince him that his faith is wrong, he will accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior and he too can go to heaven.”

And an even more personal insight from my recent family troubles:   “My son is a progressive Christian.  There are so many things he believes that are unbiblical.  He claims to love Jesus, but some of this stuff he talks about goes against what I have always been taught.  While he raises some good points at times, I have always been taught that to doubt means your faith is not strong enough.  I told him I don’t even want to talk about religion anymore, because it makes me wonder.  What if I am having doubts when I die?   Does this mean that I am not really a Christian?   If God calls me in a moment of doubt, maybe I will go to Hell….”

You see, the sad thing is that these teachings have been perpetuated by the church for many years.  Some more conservative traditions teach plainly and loudly that to go against the teachings of the church (i.e. those teachings that the particular church chooses to emphasize) puts one at risk of God’s judgment.   Whether the intent of such teachings is as simple as piety or as complex as maintaining institutional control is another question.

When it comes to our dealings with our brothers and sisters “across the aisle” let us always take pains to remember that they, like us, love Jesus.   Like us, they strive to love their neighbors.   Like us, they strive to follow.
Don’t hate the playa(s).   Hate the game.

The Christian life is performative in that every identity is performative. There are no concretized identities, and no identities that are solely the results of innate tendencies. We, as humans, are moved toward and away from certain identifications by the discourses in which we live and by the forces/powers under which we are in subjection. For the Christian, this life is not only rooted in Christ, but is, in my view, actually found in Christ and nowhere else. It is ontologically Christo-derivative. It appears more or less that way depending on the freedom we find in slavery to Christ[1] through the work of the Holy Spirit. So then, for me the “normative” Christian life is that life which continues to be formed/performed in the life of Christ (and I would extend this life to the life of the Trinity).[2]

Now, back to ministry. What if we were to think of ministry, of the ordained office, only as an extension of the Christian life? What would such a ministry look like? What would its primary characteristics be? What would its responsibilities be? I wish to briefly argue in the following pages that all of these answers will be found in digging deep into the two characteristics of the “normative” Christian life as described above.

First, ministry is performative. What do I mean by this? The act of ministry is a performance just like the Christian life (and all other lives) is a performance. Performativity should not be understood as play-acting, as something that is fake or less than real. All I mean by “performativity” is what Judith Butler means by it when she writes, “…performativity is not a singular act, but a repetition and a ritual, which achieves its effects through its naturalization in the context of a body, understood, in part, as a culturally sustained temporal duration.”[3]

Here we see that the performed identity is an assumed identity and an identity that can be solidified, but one which is not naturally the case. The performance of the Christian life is a performance of ritual, or repeating over and over again those actions that Christ works through us.[4] Similarly, the performance of ministry is at once an extension of this performance, and the solidification of a performance of a different, yet similar, identity. One of the more difficult things for feminist or queer theologians to accept is that there does seem to be a hierarchy within Trinitarian relations and, therefore, within certain Church relations (not to speak of personal, romantic relations). It is possible that queer theory at least helps us recognize the givenness of such hierarchy in relationships.

Let me explicate this hierarchical reality further. The aspect of subjection that is part of the Christian life is a subjection to God. Scripture is replete with imagery of God’s followers as God’s servants/slaves. This is not, of course, the only imagery because we, as Christians, are not participating in the usual kind of slavery. We are subjecting ourselves in love, and are gaining immense pleasure and joy from this self-subjection. I have highlighted the masochistic character of this subjection elsewhere. Suffice it to say, from my point of view, it is a freeing, loving masochism by which we are brought into the knowledge that we are with Christ in the “bosom of the Father.” If the subjection is located in Christ, it is also a subjection that leads to exaltation and glorification.

If this is an appropriate picture of life in Christ, then it is in my opinion also an appropriate picture of life in ministry. The only differences are in degree and responsibility. The minister, as visionary and congregational leader, must, if anything, be more subjected. There is a reversal of power that occurs in the Christian life and ministry. We read of Jesus Christ taking on the form of a slave in Philippians 2 – this is what I mean for the minister to become more subjected. If Christ, as head of the church, becomes a slave, then ministers, as representatives and leaders of a congregation should become slaves to the congregation and the larger Church. This is probably not a popular view, but one I think is rooted in scripture and the example of Christ. If the congregation also understands life in Christ as a life of performed loving subjection, one to another and to the minister, this mutual subjection will allow for a ministry of continuous witness to the power of the love of Christ. It will be a witness primarily because the strangeness of such an upside-down way of thinking actually working acts like a magnet. It is its strangeness – its abnormality – which is its greatest witness.

Butler also writes, “…my theory sometimes waffles between understanding performativity as linguistic and casting it as theatrical. I have come to think that the two are invariably related, chiasmically so, and that a reconsideration of the speech act as an instance of power invariably draws attention to both its theatrical and linguistic dimensions.”[5] Our performances as Christians and ministers are not only in what we say, but in how we act. In effect, our speech is action, and how we act speaks to who we claim to be. Of course, it is not as neat and tidy as this. There is not a one-to-one balance connecting how we speak to how we perform and vice versa. What I think Butler is trying to say here is that our discourse, the discourse in which we locate ourselves, “speak” us into being, and we attempt to perform according to that discourse (or those discourses). This is precisely why the Christian life and ministry are not so neat and tidy. There is no clear, ideal path to the Christian life or Christian ministry. It is new and surprising for every person entering into it, and the work of the Holy Spirit is a work of contextual creativity. There are, however, markers that can be discerned in the performances of those calling themselves Christian because their identity is located in the ontologically Real Christ.

The Christian lay person and the Christian minister are actors on a stage, operating under a particular discourse, and there is a power being exerted on them from the outside. I do not wish to go so far as to say that a grand Puppeteer is orchestrating the lives of Christians. It is a power than influences, for sure, and one which forms us if we freely choose to submit to it. But we are in interaction with it, and it defines us only in our relationship to it: in degrees of acquiescence or struggle. Many times, the way this Power acts on us is in our own expectation of how it acts or will act. As Butler writes,

I originally took my clue on how to read the performativity of gender from Jacques Derrida’s reading of Kafka’s ‘Before the Law.’ There, the one who waits for the law, sits before the door of the law, attributes a certain force to the law for which one waits. The anticipation of an authoritative disclosure of meaning is the means by which that authority is attributed and installed: the anticipation conjures its object.[6]

It is easy to find examples of this anticipation in scripture, particularly in the book of Job, the Psalms and the prophets, and it is typically found in the asking of questions. Even Jesus on the cross exhibits his own anticipation of what should or should not be according to “the Law” when he cries out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Is forsaking something God does not do? Apparently not according to this passage, so the object (here, Jesus) is formed as an identified subject in expectation of the authoritative discourse.

Those in ministry certainly have expectations placed on them, and for the purposes of this paper, it is not important what those expectations are. It is only important to recognize that these expectations, these “pronouncements of authority” – whether denominational, congregational or even personally subconscious – shape the minister in their performativity and identity. My own personal hope is that these authoritative expectations are rooted in the grace of God and in the identity of Christ, but all too often they are not.

There is judgment to be found in scripture against authoritative discourses that are not rooted in God’s grace. Let’s take Acts 11:5-10 and Amos 5:21-24 as brief examples.

⁵ “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. ⁶ I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles and birds. ⁷ Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’ ⁸ “I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ ⁹ “The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ ¹⁰ This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.

and

²¹ “I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me.
²² Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them.
²³ Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps.
²⁴ But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream![7]

The context of the Acts passage is an argument that Peter is making for the inclusion of the Gentiles into the early Church. One faction was convinced that circumcision was necessary for such inclusion, but Peter (though sometimes wavering in his conviction) was sure he had received an authoritative vision from the Lord, a new word, which would change the entire discourse, and therefore the expectations, of the new Church. So the new Law, that which would become formative in the early increasingly Gentile Christian Church, was one of inclusion. This new discourse formed objects of inclusivity. Such discourses are typically overcome by the old power structures, the old discourses, sooner or later, and that very thing happened to the 1^st century Church.

In Amos, we read “an authoritative disclosure” from the Lord which prompts an expectation of justice as a central theme of the God-filled life. In fact, the performances of worshipers are said to be distasteful to the Lord as they are. They are performances acted outside the authority of the Lord. They are not submissive to the Lord’s expectation of justice. Here, it is evident that performance is a central aspect of worship, and some performances are acceptable while others are detestable. The identity of the object is formed in expectation of an authoritative discourse or authoritative discourses. Butler continues,

…acts, gestures, and desire produce the effect of an internal core or substance, but produce this on the surface of the body, through the play of signifying absences that suggest, but never reveal, the organizing principle of identity as a cause. Such acts, gestures, enactments, generally construed, are performative in the sense that the essence or identity that they otherwise purport to express are fabrications manufactured and sustained through corporeal signs and other discursive means.”[8]

It is important to take a moment to defend the notion of performativity as it relates to Christian living and/or Christian ministry. To perform actions that then lead to self-identification as one thing or another is not a bad thing. The common judgment of “you’re just acting like that” is, in my opinion, a judgment we are all “guilty” of. We are all just acting one way or another because life itself is a series of actions taking place in the context of a series of discourses. I think Butler is defending the notion that it is precisely our acts, gestures and desires that produce our identities. There is no reason to think this is less true in the living of Christian life and work of ministry than in any other area of life. There is no underlying identity in the human realm that produces Christian acts, but rather the other way around: Christian acts (and the performance of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer) produce a formed identity. If anything, the identity of the One who influences us as Christians – Jesus Christ – is the Discourse itself which shapes us.[9]

On the notion of Christian “identity,” I begin to disagree from a Barthian standpoint with Butler’s understanding that there is no “being” behind doing, though I would agree with her that there is no inherent human being behind the doing of Christianity. She writes,

The challenge for rethinking gender categories outside of the metaphysics of substance will have to consider the relevance of Nietzsche’s claim in On the Genealogy of Morals that ‘there is no being behind doing, effecting, becoming: the doer is merely a fiction added to the deed – the deed is everything.’[10] In an application that Nietzsche himself would not have anticipated or condoned, we might state as a corollary: There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; that identity is performatively constituted by the very “expressions” that are said to be its results.”[11]

My disagreement with her (or perhaps more correctly with Nietzsche) is that there is, in fact, a Being (I would be more comfortable with the term Reality) behind the doing of Christian performance, only that this Being is supra-human. In my estimation, as humans we are completely the sum total of our deeds, but for some of us, our deeds include submission to the divine discourse that is the working of the Holy Spirit. In this performance of submission, a separate Reality becomes us, living in and through us, acting out that Reality in our lives. Our old lives become the fiction – they are dead, according the traditional baptismal formulas. Our new lives in Christ are lives defined and identified by the performance of submission to the influence (discourse) of the Spirit.[12] We have become dead to our sins and are raised in new life. We were once slaves to sin, but have become slaves of Christ.

In conclusion, there is a radically different way of contemplating the categories of Christian identity and Christian ministry. If we accept Butler’s assessment that performativity within discourse(s) is a fundamental way of understanding identity creation, it may make sense to extend this understanding from gender to Christianity and ministry. Perhaps we are all actors on the Christian stage, and while hoping to steer clear of a Puppeteer picture of God’s actions on us, such a view may not be too far off the mark as long as the crucial safeguard of creaturely submission is added. Christian identity and ministry are, like all other areas of life, performed. Identities may become more solidified over time and repeated actions, but they are only ever concretized in the Person who was true human and true God – Jesus Christ. In our own temporal existences, concretization never fully occurs.

Bibliography

Bridges, Jerry. The Gospel for Real Life: Turn to the Liberating Power of the Cross Every Day. NavPress, 2003.

Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 2007.

New International Version of the Holy Bible. 2011.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals. New York: Vintage, 1969.

Schillebeeckx, Edward. Church With a Human Face: a New and Expanded Theology of Ministry. Crossroad Publishing Company, 1987.

Stone, Dan. The Rest of the Gospel: When the Partial Gospel Has Worn You Out. One Press, 2000.

“Transformative Liturgy.” National Liturgical Conference. Oxford, 2005.

“Walking on Sunshine!” by The Rev. Robert Coats

Ash Wednesday

Mark 2:1-12 (Inclusive Bible)

Jesus came back to Capernaum after several days, and word spread that he was home. People began to gather in such great numbers that there was no longer any room for them, even around the door. While Jesus was delivering God’s word to them, some people arrived bringing a paralyzed person. The four who carried the invalid were unable to reach Jesus because of the crowd, so they began to open up the roof directly above Jesus. When they had made a hole, they lowered the mat on which the paralyzed one was lying. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the sufferer, “My child, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the religious scholars were sitting there asking themselves, “Why does Jesus talk in that way? He commits blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Jesus immediately perceived in his spirit that they reasoned this way among themselves and said to them, “Why do you harbor such thoughts? Which is easier, to say to this paralyzed person, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’ or to say, ‘Stand up, pick up you mat and walk?’ But so you all may know that the Promised One has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Jesus then turned to the paralyzed person…”I tell you, stand up! Pick up your mat and go home!” The paralyzed person stood up, picked up the mat and walked outside in the sight of everyone. They were awestruck, and they all gave praise to God and said, “We have never seen anything like this!”

Very nearly every theological treatise I have read regarding this section of the Gospel narrative places the focus of the story on faith, most particularly on the faith of the four friends of the paralyzed individual. However, as I read this passage it was not faith which was the paramount theme of the narrative. As I read this story, one sentence in particular stood out and became, for me, the focus of this story:

“Now some of the religious scholars were sitting there…”

As I wrote about in an earlier reflection (“I Put A Spell On You!”), Jesus had made Capernaum the base of his ministry. Jesus had left Capernaum to minister in neighboring towns and villages and as this scene opens, Jesus has returned to Capernaum. In his absence, word regarding the uniqueness of his ministry has filtered back to Capernaum and the people of the town are clamoring to see him. He has entered a private home where he is speaking to the throng of people when, suddenly and unexpectedly, a hole opens in the roof and a paralyzed individual, lying on a sleeping mat, is lowered through the roof opening into the midst of this crowd. Word of Jesus’ ability to heal sickness had reached Capernaum and the four friends of the paralyzed individual seize the opportunity of placing their friend in front of Jesus in the hope of Jesus being able to offer physical healing to the paralyzed person.

What perturbs me about this story is WHY the four friends had to go to such extreme measures for their paralyzed companion: Their way was blocked because “…the religious scholars were sitting there.” As a member of the clergy, it angers me to read these words in the gospel narrative. It angers me because, sadly, in so many instances, access to the Divine is blocked by the members of the religious-ocracy. Television evangelists who billow their own definition of sin from their electronic pulpits, all the while practicing the opposite in their off screen lives. Buying jet airplanes which they use to transport diamonds from Africa to the United States, conveniently not declaring them to either customs or the IRS. Preaching extreme hatred of same gender loving people while hiring same gender sex workers for personal gratification. Soundly proclaiming that “those who don’t work, don’t eat” while at the same time taking the Social Security money from widows. Teaching a false theology of prosperity based upon the taking of specific Scripture passages out of context, all the while building empires to themselves. While the world revolves carrying hurting, dejected, demoralized souls into deeper hurt and desperation; shamelessly, those who should be the ones helping them to find justice – whether that justice is physical, medical, financial, legal or spiritual – are, instead, “sitting there” blocking the path way to justice.

My theory, from the nuances of the Gospel narrative, combined with the historical theological view held prevalent in the particular day and time, suggests that the paralyzed individual could possibly have been suffering in a severe mental state which manifested itself physically, thus, contributing to the individual’s paralysis. The theological dictate of the day (and one which in all likelihood was applied to the individual in the story from the same religious scholars who where blocking his path to healing justice) was that an individual’s illness was a result of the individual having sinned. The person had violated religious laws thus allowing an evil spirit access to the individual and the result was physical illness. This theology is mentioned several times within the Gospels. At one point Jesus is pointedly asked, regarding the blindness of an individual, “who sinned that this man was born blind? Was it him or his parents?” The paralyzed person in the story was known in Capernaum. In a town of approximately 1,500 persons, the individual was someone who would have been known to most people. The person was also known to the religious scholars. One aspect of their jobs was to also act in a quasi-medical capacity. Again, this is also alluded to several times in the Gospels as Jesus occasionally instructs some individuals whom have been healed of physical problems to “go and show yourself to the priests.” This is why the religious scholars are so incredulous when Jesus tells the paralyzed individual, “My child, your sins are forgiven.” What the religious scholars did not understand is that their theology could have contributed to the individual’s paralysis. Guilt is a heavy burden which can become debilitating. Self blame and self hatred are monumental obstacles for anyone to overcome. I think that Jesus realized this and this is why instead of telling the individual, “You’re healed,” he tells the person that their sins are forgiven. Jesus gives the person the justice which they needed most. He releases the person from the bondage of religious oppression. The person had become what they had been told they were: a sinner who was paralyzed because of their sin. Jesus gives the person release from this mental slavery which had entrapped the person’s body.

Today is Ash Wednesday, the first day of the Lenten season. There will be many of us today who make decisions considering those things which we should abandon in order to help us on our spiritual journeys towards Resurrection. Perhaps instead of giving up chocolate for Lent, we should give up apathy and begin to stand up to religious oppression. Instead of giving up our favorite food or drink for Lent, maybe it’s better that we give up prejudice, or bigotry. Maybe it’s better for us to give up homophobia then to give up eating meat. If you want to make a Lenten vow, then may your vow to be to give up a life of ease. Give up being the person who is sitting – blocking access to Divine justice – and become the person who opens the whole in the roof of society so that those who cannot find justice on their own have your support in finding Divine justice.

My prayer for your Lenten observance is that you may find yourself becoming more spiritually attuned as you give of yourself in helping to meet the needs of others.

Blessed Be!

The Rev. Robert Coats is a PCA minister with an educational background in Queer Theology and Pastoral Counseling. His weekly reflections based on the Revised Common Lectionary Readings are posted at his blog A Prophet In Pink Sneakers

This is the third part in an ongoing series of retellings of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Read Part 1: The God Samaritan and Part 2: The Wrong Samaritan.

The preacher had chosen a rather appropriate text this morning, the lawmaker thought, seeing how fruits and vegetables growing on farms across the state were rotting in the fields rather than being picked.

“The harvest is plentiful, but the farmworkers are few; therefore, ask the Lord of the harvest to send out farmworkers into his harvest.”

To be honest, it worried the lawmaker. This was a beloved teacher — his favorite really. He had been looking forward to his biannual message here at the Baptist church. Usually they stirred the congregation to renew their faith and the church — the lawmaker included — would find their souls warmed just in hearing his voice, as lost sheep might a shepherd’s call.

But this message struck a bit too close to the bone, and the lawmaker wondered whether this sermon was meant as a direct criticism of his most recent accomplishment, a work that he had authored and pushed for. And he knew everyone in that huge sanctuary was wondering the same thing, wondering whether all that congratulating they had offered him on his success was now being called into question.

Finally, the lawmaker could not stand it any longer and interrupted the sermon, hoping to get the preacher back on more comfortable ground, more faithful ground really than this bleeding-heart mess about empty fields and lost workers.

“Teacher, excuse me for interrupting,” the lawmaker said. “But this isn’t the kind of message I’m accustomed to hearing from you, and I have my doubts about whether it’s really biblical. So let’s get back to the basics. What must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“Ah yes. Is that you, senator? Yes, well good morning, senator, you’ve been busy lately, I see,” the preacher replied. “You are a learned man, so why don’t you tell us. What is written in the Bible? What do you read there.”

The senator answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.

“Exactly,” the preacher said. “Do this and you will live.”

But wanting to justify himself, the lawmaker pressed the preacher for clarification, “And just who exactly is my neighbor?”

The preacher smiled broadly. “I’m so glad you asked,” he said. “I’d like to tell you a story to answer your question and see if that makes things a bit clearer.

“You see, there was once an important lawmaker and he was going down to Montgomery from Gardendale to argue for an important bill he had sponsored because a vote on it was imminent. But on his way, he fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now, by chance, another lawmaker was heading to Montgomery along the same route. But, when he saw the beaten man, he cringed at the condition of him and continued on, so as not to be late for the vote. He didn’t even recognize his colleague whose bill he was going to vote on. Next, a pastor came upon him. He, too, was traveling to Montgomery, where he had been given the honor of offering the invocation to bless the senators’ deliberations and decisions there. The pastor approached the wounded man, offered his condolences and promised to pray for him at the session. His thoughts had turned so heavenward that the pastor failed to see that the wounded man was an important senator who had authored the bill up for debate.

But then a Latino man, hands, brow and clothes filthy from a day picking in the fields, approached the senator. When he saw the beaten man, the farmworker was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged the man’s wounds. Then he carried him to his old Ford pick-up truck and took him to a hospital. “Take care of him,” the farmworker told a nurse, handing her his information. “This is where you can find me if he needs anything at all. And when I come back, I will repay you whatever more his care costs.”

“You are coming back to pay his medical bills? But don’t you know who this man is, señor?” the nurse replied.

“I know him,” the farmworker said. “Of course, I know him.”

The teacher turned to the lawmaker and asked him, “Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?”

The senator replied with confidence, “The one who showed him mercy.”

“Exactly so,” the preacher said.

The senator sat down, satisfied.

“But my story is not over,” the preacher continued turning to the congregation.

“While the senator was recuperating, his bill passed and was signed into law. After several weeks passed, the farmworker returned to the hospital with his entire savings. It was money he had put away in hopes of bringing his family — his wife and three children — to America from Mexico. He used every last penny, but paid the senator’s medical bills. When he had finished, and his receipt had been printed, the farmworker turned to walk out of the hospital.

“But when he exited the building, he saw two police officers waiting for him. Under the authority of a new law, he was questioned, detained, and taken into custody for being in the country illegally. Three stories above, from the window of his hospital room, the senator watched, satisfied that justice was done and that he had made it happen. Within a few weeks, the farmworker had been deported to Mexico, penniless.

“So, we see,” the teacher concluded, “that indeed the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few.”

I recently stayed awake all night pondering Jesus’ farewell address, esp. his prayer to God on behalf of the rest of humanity, in John chapter 17. I’ve been reading it with fresh eyes and

my. mind. has. blown. 

…“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

    6 “I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. …
   13 “I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

    20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
   24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

   25 “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”

 

In that prayer, past, present, and future are melded together, and so are life, death, and resurrection,

– and so are Jesus, God, and the rest of us.

I’ve come close to grasping this before (I’ve even mouthed the words), but never so fully.

Others have “gotten” this before me.

Interdependence is and ought to be as much the ideal of man as self-sufficiency. Man is a social being. Without interrelation with society he cannot realize his oneness with the universe or suppress his egotism. His social interdependence enables him to test his faith and to prove himself on the touchstone of reality. Mahatma Gandhi, Young India, 1929

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe. John Muir, My First Summer in the Sierra, 1911

..for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. Martin Luther King Jr., I have a dream, 1963

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds. Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail

Independent thinking alone is not suited to interdependent reality. Independent people who do not have the maturity to think and act interdependently may be good individual producers, but they won’t be good leaders or team players. They’re not coming from the paradigm of interdependence necessary to succeed in marriage, family, or organizational reality. Stephen Covey, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People

So I see now that when the Beatles sang

“I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together…
..Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come.
Corporation tee-shirt, stupid bloody Tuesday.
Man, you been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g’joob.”

they really meant it!

We are literally – One.

God is in us and we are in God. And this is true for all that is… including cornflakes, t-shirts, blood, Tuesdays, faces, eggs, eggmen, walruses, sense, and nonsense.

At our most basic, literally essential selves, we, the world, everything – kosmos – are “star-stuff” (bless you you utterly theistic atheist Mr. Carl Sagan). We are simultaneously atman and brahman, we are a grand unified string field and ocean of cosmic intelligence. The One “in Whom we live, move and have our being,” (Acts 17:28) lives in us … is us. As Paul put it, “it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Galatians 2:20). Jesus prayed that we would all enjoy and know the same intimacy and union that he and God enjoyed.

We access it through love — and God is love — by loving, being loved, making love, and being love.

This is true religion (from the Latin religare meaning “to bind together”), this is pure yoga (from the Sanskrit meaning “to yolk/attain union”).

Let’s awaken into our true divine walrus selves.

May this be so. Amen. Blessed be.

Namaste (that which is most essential and divine in me greets & honors that which is most essential and divine in you) y’all.

Roger Wolsey

(walrus, i mean Jesus, i mean us, in cobra pose)

p.s. If this is true, and I think it is,  this has implications for how we live — including our relationships toward ourselves, others, God, animals, our buying habits, and the environment.

So in everything, do unto others what you would have them do unto you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Jesus, Matthew 7:12

Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers[sisters] of mine, you did unto me. Matthew 25:40

Love each other as I have loved you. John 15:12

—

Roger Wolsey is an ordained United Methodist minister and the author of Kissing Fish: christianty for people who don’t like christianity. He blogs for Elephant Journal, Patheos, and Huffington Post.