Hidden Transcripts in the Bible

This post has been inspired by my Romans professor Dr. Douglass Campbell.  I am sharing his insights on the Romans text I am analyzing, and I am making these connections with I Peter.

When we approach Scripture, when we sit to read the Bible, we must understand a few points that are essential to healthy reading:
1. We cannot remove anything from the Scriptures.  They contain 66 different 'books', some of which are truly books and others which are letters, poems, etc.  All of Scripture is Christian Scripture and must be understood as such for a healthy reading.
2. Areas of problem within Scripture, specifically paradoxes, are areas of particular opportunity!  When we see something that doesn't add up, we are forced to dig deeper within to find God's wisdom, which means we are close!
3. We must not assume that we can interpret Scripture fully on our own.  We must read Scripture in community with other Christians--theologians and scholars, pastors and deacons, along with people of different races, backgrounds and social class.  No one person will see everything correctly; all of us together will see something much more profound than any one of us.
4. We affirm the high value of Scripture as "God-inspired".  This does not, however, mean that Scripture is "inerrant" as is defined by fundamentalism.  But liberal Protestantism, fundamentalism's opposite, also employs some poor methods--Scripture is not merely a reflection of human thought and universal morals.  We cannot say Scripture is "inerrant" because doing so we destroy its context and assume that we know what it means; we cannot say Scripture is merely a reflection of humanity because we affirm the divine inspiration of its contents.  Therefore, we approach the Bible in a "moderate" fashion, as most Christians through most of history.
5. Scripture must be read in context.  No two texts should be approached in exactly the same way because each is unique and is in a unique context.  The words, paragraphs and expositions are in a particular order for a reason, to communicate a particular message.  All of Scripture is in conversation with all other parts of Scripture; this means that all Scripture is in context with all other Scripture in diverse and varying ways.
6. There are multiple interpretations in different Scriptures, some of which are good, and others which are less good.  Good Christians of all types interpret Scripture in many ways, and we need to accept that we are never perfect with our interpretation nor are those with whom we disagree "evil" or "lacking" in faith.

Romans 13:1-7 is an excellent example of a problem text for Christians.  This text tells us to obey earthly authorities as if instituted by God.  Taken on the surface only, we would assume that this Scripture wants us to revere earthly authorities as if God.  But something smells fishy here...let's read further.

If we read Romans 12:9-21, we see Paul making a transition.  In 12:9-13, we have a short list of items that Paul exhorts us to undertake--"let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good, love one another with mutual affection", etc.  Then in 12:14-21 we see a change of vocabulary.  In each sentence, Paul is urging us to "repay" evil with good.  He lists those who might rise against us: those who "persecute", those who would make us want to "avenge" ourselves, and "enemies".  Paul is drawing division between two types of people: "we" who do good and "they" who do evil to us.  But who are "they"?  Who are these people upon whose heads we are called to heap burning coals?!  "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."  What is the "evil" we are to overcome?

Then Paul immediately shifts gears, suddenly and surprisingly.  He begins: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."  Paul is using language of "them" vs. "we", but now "we" have switched places with "them", and we are now the targets of judgment, should we resist authority!  Something strange is going on here--verse 4 says "If you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain!"  Wait, isn't this the same God that brought the Messiah who was to beat swords into plowshares?!  Why all of a sudden has God changed his mind about so much, acting against his people with a swift and mighty sword at the hand of Caesar?!

Dr. Campbell claims that what Paul is writing in this section is a strategy in his letter-writing against the authorities he claims to uphold.  Paul, who is creating upset in the Mediterranean and is soon to be imprisoned for his strange new gospel, is seeking to ensure that the authorities who censor the mail for the empire are not suspicious of his work.  Much like people writing from jails today, or like those whom the government deems dangerous, his letter would possibly have been intercepted, which would have put himself and the congregation at Rome in jeopardy.  This is especially true given that the city of Rome was the heart of the empire.  This paragraph, Dr. Campbell proposes, was inserted in order to divert the attention of authorities, while functioning as a subtle, underlying resistance to the same authorities.

Think about people of the lower class in any society and the ways they speak their language.  Often, people of the lower and/or servant classes speak very differently than those who are wealthy, educated and powerful.  This was true in Victorian England (Downtown Abby anyone?!), this was true among African-American slaves, and the same is true today among modern-day gang members and drug traffickers.  These people develop a subtle "subtext" with their language in order to divert the attention of the ruling class, especially by making them believe that they are supportive of the current order.

So when Paul is telling the Romans to be subject to the governing authorities, they would have understood that this is not in his character, and he does not actually want them to act in this way; rather, as early Christians who were primarily of lower-class and servant-class people, they would have understood that this insertion of text was functioning both to protect them against the government and acting as a mini-resistance to the authority.  Dr. Campbell's theory can easily be supported by a closer look at the evidence.

The last part of 13:4 reads: "It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer."  But out of the entire Old Testament, Paul cites this particular verse back in 12:19: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'"  Here Paul is citing Deuteronomy 32:35.  Now, if you were a Roman Christian receiving this letter, you might be clever to go back to your Bible (which was still only the Old Testament) and look up the context of that verse.  Here is a selection of the passage from verse 28 through 38:

28 They are a nation void of sense;
    there is no understanding in them.
29 If they were wise, they would understand this;
    they would discern what the end would be.
30 How could one have routed a thousand,
    and two put a myriad to flight,
unless their Rock had sold them,
    the Lord had given them up?
31 Indeed their rock is not like our Rock;
    our enemies are fools.[k]
32 Their vine comes from the vinestock of Sodom,
    from the vineyards of Gomorrah;
their grapes are grapes of poison,
    their clusters are bitter;
33 their wine is the poison of serpents,
    the cruel venom of asps.

34 Is not this laid up in store with me,
    sealed up in my treasuries?
35 Vengeance is mine, and recompense,
    for the time when their foot shall slip;
because the day of their calamity is at hand,
    their doom comes swiftly.

36 Indeed the Lord will vindicate his people,
    have compassion on his servants,
when he sees that their power is gone,
    neither bond nor free remaining.
37 Then he will say: Where are their gods,
    the rock in which they took refuge,
38 who ate the fat of their sacrifices,
    and drank the wine of their libations?
Let them rise up and help you,
    let them be your protection!

Fascinating!  "They" are a nation void of sense, and the LORD alone will vindicate his people.  God is not apt to use Sodom and Gomorrah as his source of judgment upon his own people, as the Lord vindicates, not Rome.  This connection of texts is critical for understanding the background, underlying current which Paul is subtly conveying to the Christians in Rome.

Romans 13:7 and 13:8 are possibly the most convincing pair of verses, however, for us to examine and compare with this claim.  Read them together, without the paragraph break found in most Bibles: "Pay to all what is due them--taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.  Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law."  Either Paul has a multiple-personality disorder, or is using his language to subtly communicate his gospel which rejects authority of Caesar in favor of God's singular authority.  Suddenly, Paul returns in verse 8 to the "they" vs. "we" language, with "they" being sources of evil or wrongdoers.

The key message here is how Paul uses his words not to merely advise or convince the Roman Christians to act in a certain way; rather, his language is powerful through its subtleties and its hidden transcript.  The language he is using would be foreign to those outside of the Jewish/Christian world, those who did not possess the Scriptures and therefore had no context to base his letters from.  You see, lacking in context when reading Scripture is very misleading indeed!  But to the Christians at Rome, this small paragraph would have been a red flag for this secret way of speaking that would have been common among them before authorities.

Now let's look at the Book of I Peter.  This is another epistle, attributed to the apostle Peter, (probably) written after Romans to churches in another part of the Roman world.  In I Peter we find more troublesome texts with similar issues to the text we found in Romans.  However, this language use will be much more subtle and complicated!  We are lucky indeed to be studying such a complicated and rich set of texts.

First, read I Peter 2:1-12.  We see typical language of an epistle, addressing the Christians that they might act in new ways now that they are in Christ.  The language of comparison between "they" and "we" returns in a dichotomy.  "But you" (not them) "are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness" (like "they" are in) "into his marvelous light."  But now look at verse 13 and forward: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme..."  Wait, Peter--is this the same God who gave the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"?!  How is it possible to consider the emperor as supreme is God is supreme, and we cannot serve more than one master?!  He continues: "...or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."  Like in Romans, we have language here of submission to authorities, who are apparently given the authority to enact God's will upon others.  And just like in Romans, Peter is using subtle language which would raise a red flag for the reader, indicating that he is subverting his own text with a deeper message.

But Peter's use is a bit different from Paul's language.  Peter doesn't just insert a simple paragraph of clear falsehood: he interweaves the subversive text naturally with the truth, and the reader would be expected (reasonably!) to differentiate.  Verse 16: "As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil."  A Roman authority might interpret "evil" to be that against the Roman emperor; a Christian would likely understand the phrase "live as free people" to mean that Roman authority is nothing before God.

But Peter is not stopping with governmental authority; his gospel is going to target social structures that are a foundation for the Roman empire.  In verse 18, he writes: "Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference"!  But Peter just said to "live as free people"!  This, to a people who claim the story of the Exodus as God's word and Scripture!  Our God is a God of liberation, a God of freedom, a God who frees slaves from the grip of slave masters, a God who hears!  This text was never meant to imply that slavery was a righteous institution; this text radically proclaims its absurdity before our God.  The Scripture Peter quotes in verse 22 is from Isaiah 53, which is a prophetic text, proclaiming the coming of the Messiah; it speaks about how the Messiah will suffer for us, and Isaiah 54 speaks about how God will not bring his wrath against us!!  If Christ suffered for us, then why would Peter insist that we must suffer for Christ as he does in 21?  Christ does not suffer so that we suffer in his footsteps; he suffered out of his undying love for us, as a God who will go to any length to save and rescue us, and our suffering, although something we can count on in this life, is not necessary as a condition of our covenant with God.

I Peter 3:1a reads: "Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of your husbands"!  "In the same way" is clearly speaking in relation to the preceding verses which talk about slavery!!!  This section deals with the similarities between slavery and wifehood!  So if we have thoroughly understood slavery to be evil, and Peter's use of language to be clever and a deceptive subtext for the truth, then we understand him to be using the same types of language about wives.  Without going into great detail, I like to go to verse 6: "Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord."  If there was any doubt, then the Christians who received this letter might flip through their Old Testament Scripture to Genesis, to find.....that there is no instance where Sarah calls Abraham her lord!  In fact, Sarah appears to wear the pants in the relationship!  Why on earth would Peter cite Sarah as an example of female submission, given that just about any other woman in the Bible would have been more appropriate for the example?  Because Peter is drawing from this irony to make the point that such relationship dynamics are absurd.

The Roman Empire thrived for hundreds of years due to an incredible detail of bureaucracy, social stability and eliminating all enemies of the state.  The Roman pantheon of gods was critical in the social stability of the empire, as was the institution of slavery, as was the patriarchal society in which men were considered fully superior to women.  Peter's problem is that his teachings are in direct contrast with this society.  Again, as his mail would possibly have been intercepted, either upon first delivery or as it was circulated throughout the Christian world, he needed to ensure that those intercepting his mail would read it and be assured that Christians are nothing to fear.  This deception is not a form of wickedness; it is a mechanism for survival, not so much for Christians' sake, but for the sake of the gospel!

I Peter 3:8 appears to revert to a "typical" language, language and assertion which does not contradict Roman values directly and therefore poses no threat to Roman stability.

What we see in these two examples is the harm of losing context in reading Scripture and the importance of reading all of Scripture in conversation with all other Scripture.  It does indeed appear that in these two texts we have a problem reconciling Paul and Peter with other Scripture; but deeper within, we see a much more powerful subversion of the society at large which seeks to harm God's people and God's creation.  Social justice was not invented by liberal Christians, and social holiness was not invented by John Wesley; all of this is built into Scripture directly!  How cool is that?!

I love and covet your comments and questions.

The Wisdom of God's Kingdom

The Book of Proverbs speaks volumes on the nature of the wisdom of God.  Translated into today's language, "wisdom" is typically something we think about as a mental activity.  Someone who is "wise" is defined as capable of navigating difficult or ethically tricky situations in life, often capable of serving others with this ability.  While there is nothing wrong with the English definition of the word "wise", it perhaps is not the best definition when we consider the Old Testament use of the word "haham" (חכמ).  When we think about the wisdom of God's kingdom, we see that the use of this word has a much larger range of meaning than mental capacity, such as in the story of Solomon in II Chronicles.  Let's examine the use of this Hebrew word and take a look into the depth of the wisdom of God's kingdom.

In the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the word "haham" appears in greatest concentration towards the end of the Book of Exodus, centered on the construction of the tabernacle.  Here are the places where this root appears, translations mine:

Exodus 28:3  "And you shall speak to all who have ability, whom I have endowed with the spirit of 'haham', that they make Aaron's vestments to consecrate him for my priesthood."

Exodus 31:3  "I have filled [Bezalel] with the spirit of God, 'haham', intelligence and knowledge of every kind of craft."

Exodus 31:6  "And in the hearts of all those 'haham' in heart I have given them 'haham', that they may make all that I have commanded you."

Exodus 35:10  "And every one 'haham' of heart among you shall come and make all that the LORD has commanded you."

Exodus 35:25a  "And all the women who are 'haham' of heart in their hands spun and brought..."

Exodus 35:26  "And all the women who were stirred in their hearts with 'haham' spun goat hair."

Exodus 35:31  "[God] has filled [Bezalel] with the spirit of God, 'haham', in understanding and in knowledge in every kind of craft."

Exodus 35:35a  "[God] has filled them with 'haham' of heart to do all manners of work..."

Exodus 36:1  "Bezalel and Oholiab and all men 'haham' of heart to whom the LORD has given skill and understanding to know how to do any work in the construction of the sanctuary shall work in accordance with all that the LORD has commanded."

Exodus 36:2  "Then Moses called Bezalel and Oholiab and all men 'haham' of heart and whom the LORD had put 'haham' in heart..."

Exodus 36:4  "And all those 'haham' came who worked all the work of the sanctuary..."

Exodus 36:8  "And all who were 'haham' in heart and in doing the work of the tabernacle made ten curtains..."

Exodus 36:10-38:20  [Details of the construction of the tabernacle, under supervision of Bezalel, confirmed in 38:22]

So, why is this word 'haham' not translated as "wisdom" in your Bible, you ask?  Because the full meaning of the word 'haham' includes several ideas for which we have a variety of words in English.  The full range of significance of the word 'haham' includes "skillfulness", "wisdom", and even "dexterity".  Let's explore further by using the examples above.

1. "Haham" is a gift directly from God, connected to a spirit of God, intelligence and knowledge.  Exodus 31:3 in the example above is our best example of this claim, but we can see it is very consistent throughout all of the examples.  "Haham" is something which is bestowed by God, by the LORD, and is listed here as part of a series of gifts that include a spirit of God, intelligence and knowledge.  What it interesting is that because these other three gifts are included separately, they show that 'haham' cannot be reduced to be merely synonymous with any of them.  If 'haham' were limited to "intelligence", then this phrase would be redundant.  Rather, we see that these four items are inherently connected, with at least two facts in common: they are a gift of the LORD and they are needed for construction of the tabernacle.

2. The primary location of "haham" in the human being is the heart, not the head.  The phrase "haham of heart" is translated into English as "skillful", which is not false, but again it does not give us the fuller, more complex meaning of the words.  In many of the examples above, we see that the 'haham' that God is bestowing upon his people is located squarely within the heart of the individual.  In fact, it "stirs" within the heart in Exodus 35:26.  I do not suggest that 'haham' is limited to the heart; but the Scripture is clear in that its location within the human being is in the heart rather than in the brain.  I do not have the time to go into detail here about the biological understandings of the head vs. the heart of ancient Israel, but throughout Scripture the heart is consistently an epicenter of passion and spiritual inclination, whether for better or worse, which is not dissimilar from our modern symbolic imagination.

3. "Haham" manifests through the individual's hands.  So while we see that 'haham' is placed into a person's heart, its fruit is borne through skillful labor of the hands.  Exodus 35:25 gives us an explicit example of this, claiming that the 'haham' of heart is in the women's hands.  However, reading through the other examples, such as Exodus 35:35, we see that the 'haham' is the primary agent of enabling the Israelites to perform the duties necessary to fabricate the materials and construct the tabernacle.  'Haham' is not merely a mental state, nor is it merely adjectival; it manifests through the labor of one's hands, leading them into action.

What does this mean for us?  If we are to consider the Old Testament as Christian Scripture to be read in unison with the New Testament, then we can see a variety of parallels with the life and witness of Jesus Christ.  To be sure, Jesus speaks volumes and gives a lot of parables; but even more often, Jesus simply shows us what we are to learn, and the wisdom is proclaimed by his actions.  John 13 is one of many examples, where Jesus washes the feet of his disciples.  John 13:3 specifically verifies that the Father "had given all things into his hands", which is interesting because the next thing he does is put his disciples' sweaty, dirty feet into them and washes them with his hands.  Since the evangelist in the Book of John tends to explain Jesus' actions more than in the other gospels, we are given some explanation to his actions in verse fourteen: "So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet."  With his hands, he shows the very wisdom that he has been given by his Father.  The idea of wisdom from the Old Testament perspective of 'haham' transforms the way we read the New Testament, for we are better equipped to explore and recognize Christ's wisdom and teachings: not only was Christ capable in good decision-making, but he was given the skill and ability to work with his hands in powerful ways!

Perhaps you still are not convinced that the vision of the Book of Exodus and wisdom, 'haham', is not viable and in sync with the remainder of the Old Testament.  Perhaps you recall the verses from I Kings 4:29-31: "God gave Solomon very great wisdom, discernment, and breadth of understanding as vast as the sand on the seashore, so that Solomon’s wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt.  He was wiser than anyone else, wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, Calcol, and Darda, children of Mahol; his fame spread throughout all the surrounding nations."  This Scripture is often used to claim that Solomon was the wisest man of the Bible, but this Scripture merely claims that he was wiser than anyone else, listing only contemporaries, leading us to consider the possibility that he was not declared the wisest man to have ever lived, but rather the wisest person in his own lifetime.  The truth is that Bezalel, the humble builder of Exodus 28-36, is actually described as 'haham' more times directly by God than Solomon!

This is not a debate over who is wisest, Bezalel or Solomon.  The point of this matter is that both of these men are declared to be very wise, gifted directly by God.  However, as we have already discussed, it appears that Bezalel's 'haham' stems primarily from his skill with his hands and his artisanal capacities.  Meanwhile, if we read the stories of King Solomon, his wisdom appears to conform much more in our traditional sense of the word "wisdom", that is, the capacity to reason, understand and make ethical decisions on behalf of himself and others.  At this point, we might think that I have simply misunderstood the word 'haham' for there is no connection between Bezalel and Solomon's wisdom in Scripture.

...or is there?  Is it possible that the Scripture connects these two men intentionally together, recognizing the importance of 'haham' as manifesting in various yet interconnected ways?  It appears so.  If we turn to II Chronicles 1, we see the scene unfolds with Solomon going up to the tabernacle to meet God in front of it.  There he gives an offering.  God asks Solomon what he desires, and in verse ten, he replies that he wants 'haham' and knowledge.  God grants his request, seeing that this request "was in his heart".

But verses five and six establish the connection between the wisdom of Bezalel and the wisdom of Solomon.  After Solomon has gone up to the high place, verse five reads: "Also the altar of bronze that Bezalel, son of Uri, son of Hur had made, was there in front of the tabernacle of the LORD.  And Solomon and the assembly inquired at it.  Solomon went up there to the bronze altar before the LORD, which was at the tent of meeting, and offered a thousand burnt offerings on it."  Here the chronicler has juxtaposed the two wisest men of the Bible together through the altar of the LORD.  This might appear to simply be a needless detail, but the Hebrew text does not have room for excess; the reductionist nature of Hebrew Scripture is well-documented, and every word counts.  Why would the chronicler mention the man who was responsible for the construction of this altar be mentioned if it were of no significance to the story?

It appears that Solomon's offering was very generous indeed, a thousand burnt offerings!  This meant that the meat of the sacrificed animals was not consumed, but was fully burned by flame, representing one of the more demanding offerings of the Israelites' sacrificial buffet.  Three elements have come together in one time and place: Bezalel's 'haham' which generated the altar; one thousand offerings; and Solomon, whose heart of sacrifice to God appears unparalleled.  Again, we see that Solomon's wisdom originates from his heart of sacrifice and manifests through his actions and deeds.  God gave Solomon incredible wisdom after his conversation, but Solomon does not appear to the LORD an idiot; he demonstrates that his heart is ready for even more wisdom, as he has been skillful and wise in his actions, in his offerings.  It's no wonder that God bestows upon Solomon unparalleled riches--he has already demonstrated amazing stewardship through offering sacrificially to God through his hands, stemming from his heart, which God identifies specifically in verse eleven.

The wisdom of God's kingdom is not merely a set of anecdotes or soundbites that fit on a meme, posted on Facebook for our friends to see.  God's wisdom is something much deeper than knowledge and understanding; it penetrates our hearts and our spirit, and manifests in our entire way of life.  Wisdom is constructive and fruitful.  Wisdom calls us into action as God's people on earth.  Wisdom does not allow us to confine our search for God through our brain, but challenges us to seek the LORD through our hearts and our labors.  Sunday services with great preaching, and Sunday school with great teaching, these are key portions of the life of today's Christian.  But they are not enough; we are called into being a people of God's wisdom, and until we think of wisdom as a verb rather than a noun, we will not experience the true wisdom of God's kingdom.  

The (poor) question of homosexuality

The issue of homosexuality in the church has ignited more passion and division than any other issue since slavery in the antebellum period.  Whether or not the church may bless or marry same-sex couples, and whether or not the church may allow "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" to pursue ordination are the two more specific issues rocking the United Methodist world.  In fact, there are pastors (albeit a small number) who feel that leaving the UMC is the only solution, given that many American members of the UMC are in favor of reversing the status quo.  Currently, the UMC does not allow blessing same-sex unions of any kind and does not allow "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" to pursue ordination as pastors or deacons, and does not allow them to practice as local pastors with a license.  This issue has torn apart the Anglican communion, and we are in jeopardy as well of a great schism.  What is the problem at hand?  How can millions of Christians on both sides be wrong?  I propose that the problem is not the answer we are arriving at; it is the question.

I will get into some deeper discussion of Christian ethics, but please continue reading, as I try to put this into plain language.  When we discuss ethics, we are discussing decisions for the way the church lives out our mission in the world.  The category of "ethics" is fairly broad; some topics might include ecological ethics, or economic ethics.  Ethics deals with social issues in the wider world as well as issues pertinent only to the church, such as virtue ethics of the Bible.  Whenever we discuss how we should live in community with one another, we are talking about ethics.

All ethical discussions use a particular method of discourse in posing the question.  One method is known as "teleological ethics" which emphasizes the end result of a particular course of action.  In other words, these ethical decisions are made based on asking ourselves, "what is the likely outcome of our decision?"  If you use teleological ethics, then you might favor someone like Robin Hood, who steals from the rich because the end result is favorable.  The course of action is understood to be good, or in our case, "righteous", based solely on the ending result.

Another method for ethics is known as "deontological ethics" which emphasizes whether the decision is "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad", "lawful" or "unlawful".  In a nutshell, this method asks whether the action in question is permissible.  If you favor deontological ethics, you would not favor someone like Robin Hood because his method of stealing is inherently "wrong" or "unlawful".  You would much rather ensure that all decisions and actions in a particular course are lawful based on what you consider "law".  In Christian discourse, we will assume Scripture as our primary source of determining what is "lawful".  

A third proposal for Christian ethics, proposed by R. Niebur and accepted by ethicist Stanley Hauerwas, is known as "character ethics" which emphasizes the character of the Christian as becoming holy during a lifetime through Jesus Christ.  This particular proposal is a unique solution for the Christian community, although it could perhaps be used by people of other backgrounds.  In a nutshell, rather than asking ourselves what is the desired outcome, or what is the most lawful course of action permissible, decisions are based on who we are becoming in Christ Jesus.  Instead of responding to the ethical dilemma, we instead ask ourselves, "who are we?" and seek to arrive at a result which is fitting for our character and our identity as Christians.

With this in mind, we turn to our discussion of homosexuality.  First, I recognize that as I am not a homosexual, I am limited on how I can speak to this issue; just as I cannot speak for women or for people of a particular race/nationality other than my own, I cannot give certain answers as to how the homosexual community has experienced this discussion, although I imagine it has been painful at best for millions of Americans to be so passionate about their very personal decisions.  I continue with the prayer that homosexuals reading this will understand that I am not attempting to put words in their mouth; I am merely adding my voice to the conversation as one of many.

I propose that one of our biggest stumbling blocks in the homosexuality debate is how we have launched our ideological campaigns based almost entirely upon deontological ethics, our second option found above.  It is interesting because in most situations, teleological ethics are used in America today, both by liberals and conservatives.  One example is the war in Iraq which was launched eleven years ago.  Those in support of the war, largely conservatives, argued that bringing peace and stability to the country and removing Saddam Hussein from power would benefit the people by improving human rights and quality of life.  Furthermore, a democracy in a Muslim country would have been a model for other countries to follow.  Those against the war, largely liberals and some libertarians, argued that a war would result in loss of life of coalition forces, cost trillions, and would not bring about peace or stability in the region.  What is fascinating is that very few people argued for or against the war based on the very principle of war--is war permissible to bring peace?  Deontological ethics were for the most part thrown out the door in favor of considering the end result.

Now church politics are much different than national politics; this is merely an example of a situation that you most likely recall clearly.  Church politics are similar in the fact that we rarely look to deontological ethics for regular decision-making.  Why is this true?  Probably because very few things in God's creation are black and white, cut and dry.  When we as God's people use the Law in such a way where everything is clear and absolute, then we are guilty of legalism no differently than the Pharisees of Scripture.  But that doesn't give us an excuse to throw out the possibility of ethical decision-making.  In other words, we can't simply allow an ethical free-for-all either.  

The question of homosexuality has been debated as a deontological question, because nearly everybody has the deontological question in mind: "is homosexuality permissible?"  Whether you say "yes" or "no", this is your implied question, and this is true for nearly the entirety of our American society and the whole of the Methodist world.  Lord help us, for we know not what we do.  

Our current debate about homosexuality is going nowhere because we have selected the wrong question, as an entire society, to ask ourselves.  We need a new question, and we need to let go of our old ways of thinking and debating the issue.  We need a mass repentence from this debacle, and it will take quite a while to do this.  However, it is possible through Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom all good things are possible.  Rather than deontological ethics, which have grievously failed us in this debate, we need to consider character ethics as the Christian alternative.

Character ethics asks us this question: "who are we becoming in Christ Jesus?"  It may not at first appear to be the question we need to ask ourselves in association with the homosexuality debate, but without answering this question we are doomed to repeating ourselves until we are completely irrelevant.  What kind of church are we becoming?  If we are repenting of our sins, and we are moving towards deeper sanctification, and we are moving onward to Christian perfection, what course(s) of action would we take on this issue?  What course(s) of action might we not take?

If you are reading this post looking for my silver bullet to the debate, then I apologize as I do not have it.  Rather than focusing on what courses of action we ought to take, I would like to list some courses of action I recommend we not take as the United Methodist Chuch, and as individual members thereof:

1. We must no longer accept the dangerous view that homosexuality has one "right" answer in any direction.  Scripture is complicated, and the church is a testimony to the nature of ethics as messy and diverse.  Currently in 2014, among mainstream Christianity, many people affirm very different ethical views.  Many denominations ordain women into ministry, while some do not.  Most Christians are perfectly fine with divorce, even though it is not permissible except in a few situations in Scripture.  And we have no problem as a church fighting wars to bring peace, which is condemned throughout the Scripture in both circumstance and Christ's ministry.  These are all messy debates, and homosexuality is one of those.  Anyone who can come up with a solid, black-and-white answer is not using responsible ethics.  Of course, I am not damning these people; all of us are in this boat together, and none of us is specifically to blame.  We have stumbled into this false debate unintentionally, and it's simply time for us to repent, turn away from our old ways, and be made anew in Christ Jesus.

2. We must no longer consider our stance on homosexuality as a litmus test for one's faith and adherence to Scripture.  Time and time again, online and in person, those on both sides of the debate claim to have the answer to interpreting Scripture correctly to the exclusion of the other side.  The fact is that both liberal Protestants and fundamentalists are probably not using Scripture the way John Wesley used Scripture, and certainly not the way the early church used Scripture.  However you interpret Scripture, you do not hold the only keys to the heart of God.  We believe in a God who loves all of God's children on earth, and seeks a deeper relationship with them.  To say that someone who feels one way or another on the issue of homosexuality is a heretic is rather judgmental and is certainly not in the character of moving towards sanctification.  Yes, we are using the same Bible to reach different conclusions.  Rather than hate one another, we ought to thank God for making Scripture so rich and full of wisdom, truth and direction, and work together to find answers to our challenging questions.

3. We must not allow the possibility of schism to enter into our hearts, especially in response to the homosexuality debate.  If we are to ask ourselves, "who are we becoming in Christ Jesus?" then "a divided church" is certainly not the correct answer.  We must accept the tension that stirs in a church of faithful believers who stick together as a family, as the Body of Christ, despite differing views.  In the American Protestant churches, schism, division, and splitting has been the answer for far too long.  Christ instructed his followers to be "like-minded" in all things, not necessarily "same-minded", but alike as a healthy family is like-minded.  We are a community together, and in the UMC, we are connected to one another deeply.  Anyone who seriously walks down the path of schism ought to be reprimanded at the very least, and ought to repent publically and decisively.  However we interpret Scripture, schism appears to be a far worse fate for the church than any decision surrounding human sexuality.  No, the entire world and heaven are not at stake in the discussion of homosexuality; the world will continue to spin and God will continue to be God no matter what decisions are made.

4. We must never forget that all homosexual people are people, and homosexual Christians are just as worthy to have a seat at the discussion as non-homosexuals.  This may sound like I'm targeting those who are against homosexuality in the church, but it's a key point for our discussion.  If God loves all of his people and Christ is capable of forgiving all sins and all sinners, then why should we ever consider discussing homosexuality without "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" at the table?  The grim truth is that far too often homosexuals are not even consulted through these debates. The result is that homosexuals are even more marginalized, which is silly because they are the focus of the conversation.  They are not the "naughty children" at the dinner table--they are Christians!!  And it's very possible that they hold the best answer to the debate, and certainly they can add much to the conversation.  But we aren't listening to them, and that is the problem.  We need to listen to one another, regardless of how different we believe or interpret Scripture.  We need to remember that the purpose of listening is to understand someone else, not to better be able to attack them soon after.

I urge us all to pray unceasingly for this issue, because it will not simply go away.  We need more than ever a single voice of peace and love to the world, even if that voice responds in millions of different ways to the issues that we deal with.  Jesus Christ has called us to be his disciples, his people of earth, that the gospel might resound in all nations and among all peoples.  We have so much more to do, and the time we spend on this issue has already diverted much of our energy and witness.  We must remain united and "like-minded", we must repent of our past, and embrace the future which is God's kingdom here on earth.  May God grant us the courage and wisdom to swallow our pride and allow conversation where difficult and two-sided, black-and-white, cut-and-dry debates have left us hollow and starving for Jesus.

Palm Sunday--the witness to the Kingdom

Palm Sunday is the last Sunday before Easter, when the church recognizes and reflects on Jesus' "triumphant entry" into Jerusalem.  This story is told in all four Gospels: Matthew 21, Mark 11, Luke 19 and John 12.  As is typical, each Gospel author tells the story with slightly different emphases, which helps our work as we interpret Jesus' actions on that fateful day as he last entered the city of Jerusalem.  According to the story, Jesus instructs his disciples to enter the next village (presumably a village on the way to Jerusalem, such as a "suburb" for us today) and find him a colt tied up with his mother donkey, and bring it to him to use.  This colt, as Mark and Luke point out, must be a colt that "has never been ridden" (NRSV).  Then, upon this colt Jesus rides into Jerusalem, as people in the city place cloaks and tree branches over the road (palm branches are mentioned specifically in John), crying "Hosanna!".  In Matthew the evangelist informs us that Jesus' entry into Jerusalem on the back of a colt, the foal of a donkey, is tied to Zechariah 9:9, a prophecy about the arrival of the Messiah.  

Let's look more closely at Zechariah.  This is one of the minor prophets of the Old Testament, located at the end of the Old Testament according to traditional Christian canon.  Sure enough, in verse 9 we see the following prophecy: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion!  Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem!  Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey."  The second half of this verse is cited in Matthew 21, but what caught my attention was that in Mark and Luke, we are told that this colt must be one which "has never been ridden", although the prophecy doesn't mention anything about this.  Why must this colt never be ridden?  What is Jesus trying to say or do here?  Just as with much of Scripture, we need to be attune to the subtler details of the Word in order to grasp its fuller depths and its message for us today.

Now Jesus' fulfillment of prophecy in Zechariah is certainly important; but perhaps what would have been more striking and relevant to the Jews who watched as Jesus entered would be the fact that he was riding upon a donkey.  Why would this matter?  Think back to that one Sunday school class where your instructor left you bored out of your mind discussing the laws of the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and you discussed the principle of "clean" and "unclean" in Jewish law.  The Book of Leviticus is extremely helpful, and Leviticus 11 gives us exactly what we need.  I recommend you read the entire chapter for its context, but in summary, let us consider Leviticus 11:26 to guide our understanding: "Every animal that has divided hoofs but is not cleft-footed or does not chew the cud is unclean for you; everyone who touches one of them shall be unclean."  In case you are like me and you have no idea if donkeys chew cud, if you look up the answer online, the answer is no!  Donkeys are in the category in Jewish law of "unclean" animals, which has serious bearing on our story for Jesus' triumphant entry.

Now whether or not Jews typically thought of merely riding donkeys as "unclean" is not within the boundaries of our discussion today; the fact is that the promised Messiah is riding in on an animal whose flesh is considered "unclean"!  To those who did not take Zechariah seriously, or were not aware of his prophecy, would likely have found it unusual for any kind of leader to be riding a colt around town.  Imagine if the President of the US or any other country were to show up to Inaugeration Day on a young donkey!  You get the idea.

But a colt wasn't all that Christ asked for--it had to be a colt that had never been ridden before.  Some commentators suggest that the donkey had to be "new" or "clean" for Christ to ride, as he was the Son of God, but not only does that not fit the picture of Jesus we know through Scripture, it's simply not possible for an "unclean" animal to be redeemed of its condition!  Leviticus has a series of laws for cleanliness in human beings, for people with skin lesions or other biological issues, which makes one "unclean", to undergo specific rituals and cleanings to be declared "clean" once again.  But there is no such possibility for animals--once unclean, always unclean.  They cannot escape their uncleanliness, no matter how "new" or "fresh" they may be.

That sounds a lot like Paul's description of sin in Romans 7.  If you read this epistle closely, you will find, especially in 7:14-25, that Paul describes sin as a situation of "slavery".  Sin is not something which we can escape on our own, nor is it something we have power over.  In fact, verse 19 suggests that sin is virtually autonomous within us, a separate agent or force which acts despite our knowledge of right and wrong: "For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do."  Even more important for our discussion today is how Paul describes, in verse 18, the connection between this sin and the body: "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh."  The word choice of "flesh" here is probably very intentional, for Paul was a Pharisee, highly skilled and knowledgeable in the Law.  And this is the word used in Leviticus 11:8 to directly describe the connection between flesh and uncleanliness we have already described: "Of their [unclean animals] flesh you shall not touch; they are unclean for you."

The problem with the colt is deep within his members--it's within his very flesh.  The flesh of this creature is unclean, and this is not something that can easily be wiped away.  A cloak on his back surely does not cover his uncleanliness, nor does it do away with the scandal of Jesus Christ's "triumphant" entry into Jerusalem on the back of this second-rate beast of burden.  But Christ still calls this foal out to be his ride, to carry his burden into town.  Christ, in asking for this particular colt, calls attention to his desire for this colt to have carried no other burden or yoke apart from Jesus.  And upon this colt, this unclean creature, Christ will enter into Jerusalem, making a profound statement, confounding all who witnessed.

This story is not about waving palm branches to mark Jesus' emminent victory.  Like much of Jesus' ministry, this story is a parable, not one that he spoke with his words, but one he enacted through his life and ministry.  In this parable, like in any other, we find ourselves wondering where we fit into the story, as Christ's parables function in a manner that allows us to be part of the action, even though it was so far in the past.  Typically, we find ourselves on the sidelines waving Christ into town, crying "Hosanna!"  But we are not Jews; we are gentiles, at least most of us are.  Sometimes we fancy ourselves to be Jesus' disciples in such stories, but again, we are not among his people; we are gentiles, unclean people, who have been invited into the story only after we made any sense of it.  No, in this story, we are not waving palm branches, and we are not his disciples--we are the donkey.

In Matthew 11:28-30, Jesus, who is proclaiming truth in the cities, declares to all: "Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."  Even though the colt is unclean and cannot escape the flesh that he bears which makes him unclean, Jesus chooses this colt, aware of his presence even before arriving to his village.  He calls that colt out and chooses this colt to bear his yoke as he processes into town.  And it will be on the back of this animal--not by himself--that Jesus will enter Jerusalem and begin the final week of his mission on earth.  Jesus does not choose a clean animal, but he does emphasize the importance that this animal bear Jesus' yoke, and his yoke alone.  

Likewise, we are called out by Jesus as gentiles to bear his yoke, which is light and easy, rather than bearing the heavy yoke of our sins.  Even though we are unclean, Jesus is not afraid to touch us--he is not afraid of being close to us--he is not even afraid of what his Jewish brothers and sisters will make of it.  He insists that we, even in our sinful flesh, will be the ones who bear the weight of Christ into Jerusalem, the epicenter of his own culture and faith.  And we are the ones who will march around the city streets for all to see that Christ Jesus has arrived to set the people free.  It is on the back of sinners that Christ has chosen to be made visible in this world; he does not choose to be made visible without their presence.

While the original Holy Week is long gone, we continue to live out Christ's ministry and witness on earth, every day.  It is essential that we understand our role in proclaiming Jesus Christ to others.  To be sure, Christ is fully God while he came "in the likeness of the flesh"; I suppose if he desired, he would be able to reveal himself wherever he pleased at any time.  But Christ chooses for us to witness to his message rather than go above our heads and do it without us.  Think about it--God loved the world so much that he sent Jesus Christ to be alongside us, not apart from us, to commune with us, and to lift our burdens from us in solidarity with those who had the least to hope for.  What part of Christ's witness leads us to believe that he wants anything but a full and robust relationship with each and every one of us?

As we continue our lives day by day, it is essential that we put Christ on display, front and center stage, in all that we do, everywhere we go.  Sure, we may think that everyone in America knows Christ, but all too often, they know about a very different Jesus, one who is oppressive, one who hates people who are poor or poor in spirit, one who only selects a few righteous people to be around him.  This is not the Christ of Scripture, it is not the Christ that we know, and it is not the Christ who wants to be in community with all of his brothers and sisters on earth.  Now perhaps more than ever, as God's people we need to make clear the yoke that we carry, for it is one which is delightful, easy and light!  And Palm Sunday is an excellent time to open up this conversation, and emphasize the radical, scandalous love that God has for you, and everyone else.  

This Palm Sunday, let us consider what it means for us to be the donkey in this scenario.  How might we change our Holy Week activities with this newfound understanding?  How might we have our ideas of witness and mission transformed by this new perspective?  What does it tell us about God's love, or how we are supposed to love those in our community who are "unclean" by American standards?  I hope that by considering Jesus' parable in the story of his triumphant entry that you are inspired to pray deeply and discern how God is calling you into a different kind of lifestyle.  Change is hard to do, and takes time, effort and discernment.  But don't worry about making an ass of yourself--if you get out there, bearing the yoke of Christ Jesus, parading his truth for all to see in the streets, you will likely be called a fool by many.  But just maybe, you'll find those who are willing to throw you a few palm branches as well, making your path smoother, easier and to help guide you on your journey to the cross.