Progressive Revelation and Homosexual Marriage

In the past few weeks (and let's be honest, years) I've heard various differing positions on homosexuals, their relationships with each other, and positions on their marital rights. Doug Hankins offered his take on what he understands to be the three primary reactions on this particular topic, and I definitely think he's on to something. To be in calm and rational discussion is certainly better with controversial issues than to pursue an aggressive attitude which can shut any communication down among differing opinions.

However, there is one reaction I have yet to read anywhere, which is in some ways more concerned with the progress of theology than what the Bible claims in terms of sexual relationships. There is a concept called "progressive revelation" which roughly claims that later books of the Bible contain a fuller revelation from God. While I have a few issues with this (it can most certainly be misused), I think a nuanced version of progressive revelation can be helpful for the discussion.

Does the view of God change throughout the Bible? Most certainly. With each new generation, the authors of the day brought pen to paper so that they could more fully understand God's character. God in Genesis (or perhaps that book's perception of God) is not quite the same as God in Isaiah, nor is Jesus identical from gospel to gospel. If Hebrews was written later rather than earlier, does a progressive revelatory view dictate that Jesus is indeed of the order of Melchizedek? Most likely, despite the lack of any other evidence for understanding Jesus in such a light. Earlier books have no conception of a physical resurrection or of much of an afterlife at all, or of a Son of God, or many other things which are now taken for granted. Does this mean that the earliest followers of Yahweh did not go to some form of heaven? There are a great many questions to consider.

My question for this discussion is this: If theology in the Bible can evolve over time, why do we tend to assume that it stopped progressing after the Bible's "official" canonization? If we're honest and know just a little of the past, we can admit that the understanding of God has changed continually throughout Jewish-Christian history. The additional understanding of God as Trinity, christological readings of OT texts, and any number of scientific discoveries that we hold as normative which do not agree with biblical evidence (heliocentrism vs. geocentrism; the moon as a source of light vs. as a reflector of light; etc.) are a history of our changing understanding of God.

So if our understanding of God can and has changed throughout the span of history, is it still open to change? Some things haven't changed, because people have almost always held them to be true. The name of God in Exodus 34.5-7 has provided a lens through which other later texts can be understood (which in some ways reverses the position of progressive revelation), but has he ever ceased being the one who keeps "steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and sin"? I would hope not. But as our understanding of God continues to grow, to evolve, we must do the same. It was not too long ago that racial segregation and slavery were met with scriptural support, but such an understanding of scripture was done away with for good reason. It seems a great portion of the world has condemned slavery because it was not justifiable. If we feel the same kind of oppression in whatever days lie ahead, will we allow our understanding of God to grow, or will we attempt to ensure he remains contained and safe? If we seek first the kingdom, will we use it to oppress or to liberate? If NT texts made no mention of homosexuality, would we continue to use the OT texts for our convenience, or would we share in Peter's vision where a voice says, "What God has made clean, you must not call unclean"?

The Prophetic Possibility of Eph. 5.25-26

Most mornings, my wife and I read a couple's devotion together. Every once in a while, the snobby scholar-wannabe inside me reads the devotional thought for the day and screams, "How did you possibly read that into today's text?!?" However, on occasion, it provides an excellent point for conversation. Today was one of those days. As the due date for my comps exams looms over me (tomorrow, by the way), I am not currently in the habit of thinking about what God is doing, but what I am writing for these exams.

This morning, the text was Ephesians 5.25-26. The premise of the day's thought was that the husband and wife should mutually cleanse and build each other up through "words taken directly from Scripture." Washing through encouragement from biblical texts is an interesting thought, which I'll get to in a moment. In the little discussion question at the end, it asked us, "What scriptures can you use to encourage your spouse today?" My mind went to Joshua 1:9 (and pulled it out of context to apply it to my wife who is a middle-school teacher; I thought it humorously appropriate) and the Shema' passage in Deuteronomy 6:4-9. Her thoughts drifted toward Paul's letters and his encouraging statements, though none specifically came to mind.

After I played by the rules of the authors of the devotional, I decided to play by a different set of rules and point out a few things. First, I wondered whether in Eph. 5:26 "word" constitutes what we call "The Bible." I more or less figure it doesn't. At the most, if "word" there refers to scriptures, it probably only means the Old Testament (at the time Ephesians was written, there was no such thing as a New Testament anyway). Let's imagine, for a moment, that "word" in that text does not refer to any particular scripture or set of scriptures. How else is "word" used? For John's Gospel, it is a philosophical term for Jesus. Jesus is the Logos that existed before God made all other things. But this passage in Ephesians doesn't use logos; it uses a different term. 

Another frequent use of "word" is in the phrase "the word of the Lord" in the Old Testament. This designated either the Torah (first 5 books of the OT) or prophecy, when God would speak through a person to another person or to a group (often all of Israel). A "word of the Lord" is often how Jeremiah depicts God coming to bring words to his people (here are just a few examples).

In this sense, what if the "cleansing by washing with water through the word" is less about scripture than it is about prophecy? As I considered this, it occurred to me just how many times my wife has spoken to me "A word from the Lord," words which are not in scripture, but are nonetheless from God!  How can we encourage each other by speaking directly into situations not encountered in our Bible? By speaking "a word from the Lord." Are we open to speaking the word of God outside the Word of God? We must be if God is to speak into the world now, into a time of iPhones and Facebook, of internet and airplanes. We must be open to speaking and hearing prophecy into the present age. What word from the Lord have you been given to speak to others?

The Complicated and Simple Bible

On her birthday, I asked my wife what she misses about being younger. My initial example was, "I miss being less concerned with money. The Food Fairy just ensured our fridge was stocked back then." She listed a couple things: "I miss playing outside with my friends in the park," and, "I miss being in choir as a singer. I miss performing a lot." We discussed our childhoods a bit, and I remarked, "I miss thinking the Bible was simple."

I have a nasty habit of overcomplicating things. My mother says, "If there's a hard way to do it, the Hamils will find it." And boy is she right! I can't just wash the dishes; I have to rinse and scrub them all first to keep the soapy water from getting gross. But there seems to be a certain dichotomy among Christians that the Bible is either über complex and is in dire need of people to tell you what it says or it's so simple a caveman could do it. Well, which is it?

"I miss thinking the Bible was simple." My wife pursued the question with the thought that we do tend to overcomplicate things. My response was something of a defense. I differentiated between the Bible and the Bible's message. The message of the Bible is, to most, quite simple. But the Bible, as a historical and literary entity, has a convoluted past. The writing, collecting, and editing of the texts, their inclusion in the Hebrew and Christian scripture canons, the reliability of recorded events and details, the purpose(s) of the author(s)... These are complex questions. What is not complicated is, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice," the God who keeps "steadfast love to the thousandth generation," "Love your neighbor," and many other things.

I miss thinking the Bible was simple. I'm glad I realize it isn't, but maybe God is reminding me of the simple things.

A Short Break While I Lose My Mind

I haven't posted in a while. So, here's a post explaining a past and future lack of posts with some pictures of a posts.

I'm doing my comprehensive exams to graduate from my current master's program. It's a little crazy right now. But I thought I'd take a moment to explain to the three people who read this stuff where I've been and where I'll be for the next few weeks.

Don't get me wrong: there are all sorts of things I want to be blogging about. However, I need to at least act like a grown-up and prioritize a bit.

So for now, adieu, and I'll probably see you guys around the end of March. Toodles!

Self(-ish/-less) Prayer

I'm job hunting. I wish I had a clever pun to relate the title to the book of Job, but I don't. In fact, my clever pun to job hunting desire ratio is 1:1. I don't like job hunting. I don't know anyone who does. But today I had an interview. I feel it went pretty well (I've got about a 50% chance of getting it, as they're only interviewing one other person for the position). I made this obvious on Facebook, and told people to keep their fingers crossed.

[Drastic Subject Change!!]

Over the summer I did a little research on Hebrew/Jewish lament, and I came across a few interesting things in my readings on prayer. There were bits on how Jews used to lament (which was my primary focus), but I discovered one thing I had never heard before: for Jews it is not right to pray for oneself in a way that would negatively affect someone else.

I tried taking this to heart. In a strange way, it has caused me to think more about people I don't know. When I told people on Facebook today to keep their fingers crossed, it was intentional. I meant to avoid asking people to pray for me to get the job. Why? Because it's as if they're praying for the other person not to get the job.

There are things I can pray for myself that have beneficial or neutral effects on others. If I pray for safe travel, it should be as much for myself as everyone else on the road or airport. If I pray for God to help me academically, my good grades would not cost someone else their own. If I pray for a good relationship with my wife, it does not mean I hope for other husbands to not love their own wives.

Some prayers, however, are more tricky. Can I pray for my church to grow? Would doing so be positive (nonbelievers coming to know Christ) or negative (believers leaving their own congregation for my own)? If I pray for good health, does that come at someone else's cost (as in the case of organ transplants)? Should everyone pray for a future spouse? For many Christians, but not all, there is the assumption that a limited number of people will be saved. If those in this mindset pray for a certain person to be saved, does this result in someone else being condemned?

I must confess: this business of prayer is becoming rather complicated. There's more to it than I would ever have imagined. But maybe that's the point. To a certain degree, it's simple: Pray, and pray often. God wants to hear from you. Praying for blessings is not bad, because supply and demand are not an issue.

Here's the point: Think about what you pray for. If difficult questions come up, don't shy away from them; difficult questions help us figure out who we are, even if we never find answers. Pray for yourself, but do not do so at the expense of the rest of God's creation.

Marketing Jesus

I have yet to hear an argument against the claim that we ('Murica, that is) are a consumer society. There's probably a good reason for this: there is no evidence to the contrary. We live in an age when everything is up for sale, and anyone can be sued for it. Even ideas are bought and sold. But what does it cost to convince people that what you're selling is worth buying? This is the realm of marketing. I don't have a whole lot of experience in the area, but I like to think I can convince people to listen to me. It could be my dashing good looks, my charming demeanor, my excellent sense of style, or my quick wit. It's likely a combination of all the fantastic elements that make up, well, me. (This is why I wish there were a specific font for sarcasm.)

But what happens when someone attempts to sell something that cannot be bought? There aren't many objects on display for which there is no price. Even Christian bookstores make a killing off of selling Bibles. People even joke that it's been the bestselling book for 2000 years (but let's be honest: it's probably only been 1600 or 1700 years). How have we been marketing Jesus?

Jesus cannot be bought or paid for (or off), nor is he an idea to be sold on the ideational market. But in the midst of a consumer society, has the church tried to sell Jesus? I think we have. In an epoch when the market is the most lively place around, we don't know how not to sell stuff. We're drowning in ads from a myriad of sources, and we feel that the only way to get people to consider Jesus is to sell him. In many places, prostitution is illegal, yet we have tried to sell Jesus. This might be a problem.

What happens, though, if we stop selling? How can a church possibly grow if it doesn't advertise? Where would we be without our "Salvation Sold Here" signs? If the purpose of the church is not to sell a product, then what is it we're (supposed to be) doing? Can we avoid treating the church as a marketplace? Is our place of worship the very area into which Jesus would walk with a whip in hand and drive us out because of our sales work?

I'm afraid I have no answers right now. I'm a bit stuck, actually. I cannot answer the questions I have posed.

But I can imagine a community.

I can imagine a community where people do theology together.

I can imagine a community where prophecy stirs in the hearts of the many rather than relying on the education of the few.

I can imagine a community where grace is not bought, or sold, or traded, or marketed, but given.

I can imagine a community where this grace is transformative, where it does not leave a person unscathed.

I can imagine a community where salvation is less important than justice and mercy.

I don't know what would happen if we stopped marketing Jesus. But I am inclined to think it has the potential to be beautiful.

What do you imagine?

Secret Rooms

This morning my wife and I got on the topic of architecture. Not that either of us has any experience with such, but she started imagining how our apartment could be different (moving the living room closet to the hall, for example). So I began thinking about building a house. I don't know the first thing about building a house, but I wondered about secret rooms and hidden passages. Maybe I'm creating more of a castle in my head than a house, but I can dream, right?

She and I talked about such secret rooms, and she thought it was a bad idea. I replied, "How cool would it be to move into a house and, after living there a while, to find a secret room, especially one that didn't have any dead bodies in it?" The lack of corpses is very appealing to me. So I wondered about what I would do to such a room if I had (a) built it, (b) sold the house and moved on, and (c) expected someone else to find that room eventually. Here's what I've come up with:

1. Create a "Narnia Space" – Make the room look like you've gone to another world entirely.
2. Creepy Halloween Room – Scare the bejeebers out of the poor soul who stumbles upon this room. I'd rather not reveal how morbid my sense of imagination is here, so I'll leave this one up to your minds.
3. Secret Agent/Superhero – Make it look like James Bond, Tony Stark, or Ezio Auditore da Firenze hid their cool stuff there.
4. Beanbags – Beanbags everywhere. That's it.
5. Time Machine – Collect (or recreate) artifacts from history and make myself look like a time-traveller. This could also be considered a variant of Narnia Space, but within Earth's history rather than Narnia's.
6. Hidden Library – Stacks of books from floor to ceiling, most of which would really just be worthless, but enough so that the next person would think they'd found Alexandria.
7. Alchemy Lab – Produce ruined attempts to turn other metals into gold. Maybe one success. Include journals detailing the history of attempts and processes used.
8. Toy House of Horror – A room of terrifying toys, like Furbies or Elf on a Shelf. The things that creep me out are those dolls whose eyelids were weighted and they opened and closed based on their body angle. *shiver*
9. Massive Aquarium – Imagine it: you walk into a room you didn't know was there, and the first thing you see is a shark behind (what you hope is) bullet-proof glass. Awesomeness.
10. Nothing – They walk in, and either think, "Hey, a secret room. Neat-o," or "Why is this here? Why is this here?!?" (This is where you imagine me doing an evil villain laugh.)

What would you do with a secret room that you had to leave behind? An elaborate prank, or an awesome gift? Let me know in the comments!