I love scary stories, including scary movies. I enjoy the catharsis that comes from fear that has a bottom--that is, fear I can lose myself in to the degree I choose because I know that through it all I am safe and that the things that scare me are fictional. Fear of this kind is so much better than the fear created around world events in the news, and I am certain it is healthier. Practicing fear can even empower us by teaching us how to control our fear. For fear, like worry, is merely something within us that we ultimately create from within.
Halloween is a time when we can openly play at fear to practice facing and overcoming it. And that is why one of my favorite holy days is Halloween.
But Halloween is only safe, the things that scare us are rendered toothless only because of the day that follows: All Saint's Day.
"Though hordes of devils fill the land
and threaten to devour us,
we tremble not, we trust God's will:
they cannot overpow'r us.
Though Satan rant and rage,
in fiercest war engage,
this tyrant's doomed to fail;
God's judgment must prevail!
One little word shall triumph."
- A Mighty Fortress, Verse 3
All Saint's Eve was a night on which it was thought that hordes of devils filled the land. People began donning scary costumes as protection. If you were dressed as a demon you could move around the world incognito. You wouldn't be possessed or abducted by a demon because you were one of them. Through this trickery, people protected themselves from evil spirits.
But why were demons thought to be so active on All Saint's Eve--on All Hallow's Eve or Halloween? Because of the day after. You see, when the sun comes up on November 1st, the light of all the saints breaks into the world of darkness and fear. On the day of saints, no evil can survive. It was thought that the demons knew--could feel--what was coming, that they were doomed. And so in a last-ditch effort, they would become hyperactive while the darkness lasted. To no avail.
All Saint's Day commemorates just that: all the saints. Before the Reformation, that meant only those of the faithful who were beatified and canonized as "Saint." After the Reformation, the Church began to understand that the category "saint" was a bit more expansive. Luther said that all the faithful are saints (and at the same time sinners, lest we forget). Today in the Church, we particularly consider those who have died to be saints. And according to the book of Hebrews, the saints who have died are a "great cloud of witnesses" to Jesus, who surround us always. On All Saint's Day, the power of that communion is overwhelming.
On the Day of All Saints, many churches remember, and speak the names of, those who have died in the past year. This morning, I have been reflecting on those who have died in my life. Friends, those of the Beloved Community here in Toluca and back home, and countless Beloved Strangers around the world. And even as I remember them, each one, and I grieve, that sorrow gives way to joy. Why? Many imagine death to be cold and dark. This is why it is so comforting to hear stories of near-death experiences in which people see a bright light. Remembering the saints, we remember the good news--that death is actually warm and bright. How is cold, dark death changed into the warmth of day, into the brightness of a new morning?
"But now a champion comes to fight,
whom God himself elected.
You ask who this may be?
Christ Jesus, it is he,
the Lord of hosts by name,
No other God we claim!
He holds the field victorious."
- A Mighty Fortress, Verse 2
Jesus.
Just as in the stories of vampires and exorcisms, the Cross of Christ is our most powerful weapon against all that we fear. The cross was a turning point, the turning point from night to day. The field Jesus held was the hill at Calvary. And on that field, at the foot of the Cross, sin is turned to righteousness, despair is turned to faith, suffering is turned to comfort, sorrow is turned to joy, crying is turned to dancing, and death is turned to life. Yes, all of that--and more. The Cross is our ending and our beginning. The Cross is Jesus' defeat and Christ's victory. The Cross makes the communion of saints possible. More precisely, the One who breaks the darkness is the one who vanquishes the hordes of devils and establishes the great cloud of witnesses.
We find God and his Christ in suffering and death. Not causing these things, but striving against them. "[F]or God himself fights by our side" (A Mighty Fortress, Verse 4). And so all those devils cavorting on Halloween, trying to get in their last bit of mischief and evil, are sorely mistaken. They are not left to their own devices on the Eve of All Saint's. Evil is not its most powerful on Halloween, as the pagans would like to believe. No. Just as Jesus was most present and active on the Cross--in suffering and death, so Jesus is most present and active in the darkest night, in the midst of the most dreadful evil. The dread of Halloween can only give way to the new, bright Day of Saints because of Jesus. Therefore, Jesus works hardest and his presence is most evident in the night of Halloween. The same is true in your life. When you endure hardship or sorrow or suffering or evil of any kind, that is precisely when Jesus is the strongest within and around you.
And so, as the man said, "Do not be afraid."
"Were they to take our house,
goods, honor, child or spouse,
though life be wrenched away,
they cannot win the day.
The Kingdom's ours forever!"
- A Mighty Fortress, Verse 4
Jesus makes this true.
Thanks be to God for that. Amen.
Saturday, November 1, 2014
Friday, October 10, 2014
Walking Dead: Community
A couple years ago, I got into the show The Walking Dead. It is an AMC show I found on Netflix, and recently the newest season became available on that site. I am a sucker for supernatural horror and post-apocalyptic stories--especially ones with zombies. George Romero's entire series of zombie movies were not only genre-creating, but also dealt with a lot of existential issues. The Walking Dead is no less profound...and entertaining.
The Walking Dead, based on a series of graphic novels of the same name, chronicles the experiences of a band of humans striving to survive after an unknown event causes masses of people to turn into flesh-eating, reanimated corpses. If a "walker" bites you, you turn into one yourself. When you die, however you die, you turn into a walker--there is no escape. Walkers are only subdued by fatally injuring the brain. But walkers are not the only threat in this fallen society. Other humans, also trying to survive, are also as easily the enemy as the walkers are. You don't know if someone you meet will steal your food, water or shelter, or if they will leave you alone, or if they will work with you to survive.
The premise of the show, as well as the "rules" of the world to which it transports us, are not very different from those of Romero's ground-breaking movies. What makes The Walking Dead unique and enthralling is that it is an extended immersion into the post-apocalyptic world of zombies. One common major theme of both, which I would like to explore a bit here, is the theme of unity.
In the show, no one can survive alone. People need each other. Survival requires working together toward common goals--acquiring food & water, protection, etc. Community is the key, cooperation.
And yet, in the show we find two different types of unity. The good, life-saving and life-giving community created by our heroes is held in sharp relief by the ever-present background of the mindless zombie mob. Yes, the zombies symbolize community as well, a unity of a very different, and horrifying kind.
Now, the zombies don't have a social structure, and they do not cooperate, per se. However, just as with human survivors, the zombies' strength is in numbers. When a walker is caught alone, it is easily dispatched, relatively speaking. Meanwhile, when they are in groups, particularly large groups, as they often are found, then they are an unstoppable force. The press of the undead overwhelms all defenses, intrudes upon all sanctuaries, renders ineffectual all attempted offenses. When alone, the zombie's sole motivation is to consume--consume you! And when a group of zombies gather, they are united in that one, selfish goal--to consume. Therein lies their community. One unifying goal. True, each individual zombie is motivated only to feed itself, yet that one goal unites them. Mindless and accidental as it may be, this behavior does constitute a community of sorts.
At our worst, we are a zombie culture.
We are consumers in a consumer society. The average American (one person) produces 4.4 pounds of garbage a day, according to the EPA. This does not include the industrial and commercial waste created to create the stuff we buy, or the waste produced by the efforts to get that stuff from the industrial site to our homes. On black Friday, our culture's high holy festival, which boasts the highest worship attendance of any other single day of the year, is marked by mobs pressing against merchant doors, flooding into every nook and cranny of commercial space. In 2013, Black Friday sales averaged $13,293,981 per minute...over 13 million dollars PER MINUTE. Our mediums of communication, art, and entertainment cannot exist apart from commercials. When we face economic hardship as a nation, we are exhorted to buy more in order to solve the problem...and that probably is the only solution because it is a consumer culture. We are attracted to the motion of a new product, like the next smartphone, and we drop everything to pursue that new brain we sense. I am not immune to this, no one is.
We are a culture of individualism. Our quest is for the self. We look to our own interests. Our laws are based upon property rights--ownership. I protect what is mine. What is mine cannot be claimed by another. Yet, just as with zombies, we cannot break away from interdependence. At some level, we realize that my interests are furthered by having others around me. We do not look after our neighbors' interests, but we do not go off and live lives of solitude, either. We keep them around because their presence makes it more likely that I will succeed in fulfilling my own desires. Just so, zombies are not repulsed by other zombies, do not choose the solitary life, but will remain in groups and travel together. If proximity to other zombies decreased their chances of feeding, then they would not remain together. We remain together, tolerating each other, because we realize the benefit to the self. Community is for the individual, a tool for the fulfillment of self. Nearness to others is not about communication, but gratification.
We are a culture of mindlessness. A study was recently done, in which an actor outside of a pharmacy pretended to have a leg injury. The actor asked one set of passersby to go and ask the pharmacist for an ace bandage to wrap the injury. Another set of passersby were asked to go ask the pharmacist for something--anything--that would be helpful. The pharmacist was instructed to tell the ace bandage Good Samaritans that they were out of bandages. None of the passersby with the specific ace bandage request asked the pharmacist for some other option, they simply went back to the actor and told them there were no ace bandages to be had. Not one person thought outside of the specific request, not one person made the short, common sense leap to ask for pain medication or some other remedy. Those with the more general request, however, brought something helpful back to the actor. We live our lives mindlessly in this way. We are very task oriented, and our viewpoint about the world can easily become narrow, even myopic. In the same way, zombies do not consider anything beyond their immediate task...eating your brain.
Paul calls the Christian away from this type of society and culture. "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God--what is good and acceptable and perfect." (Romans 12:2). Faith calls us to be mindful of the whole creation as it unfolds around us, at least as mindful as we can bear to stretch ourselves. Faith calls us to be concerned with the needs of others, as much as or more than we are concerned for our own needs. Faith reminds us that we are stewards of the earth and its resources, and not merely consumers, that it is both our responsibility and ability to preserve and conserve according to the amount we consume.
To the Christian, conformation to this world is death. If we simply conform, we might as well be zombies, the dead walking. But in Christ, we are transformed. Our minds are renewed, and we can see more options--a more beautiful world and way--than what is right in front of our nose.
Christian unity does not destroy individuality; neither is our unity just a mob of individuals; our community is a tension between the two. By the power of the Holy Spirit, we receive the mind of Christ. The Spirit empowers us and gathers us. And it is through the practice of spiritual disciplines, under the guidance and support of the church, that we are able to renew our minds. We must practice mindfulness through prayer, meditation, study, devotions and praise. We must practice loving-kindess, focusing on the needs of others through mission. We must practice stewardship through the act of giving generously and receiving gratefully. It is impossible to do these things by oneself. And so the Spirit gathers us.
Shall we be pilgrims, or just walkers?
Shall we be the beloved community, or the mindless mob?
Shall we be transformed, or merely conform?
Don't eat brains. Renew your mind.
The Walking Dead, based on a series of graphic novels of the same name, chronicles the experiences of a band of humans striving to survive after an unknown event causes masses of people to turn into flesh-eating, reanimated corpses. If a "walker" bites you, you turn into one yourself. When you die, however you die, you turn into a walker--there is no escape. Walkers are only subdued by fatally injuring the brain. But walkers are not the only threat in this fallen society. Other humans, also trying to survive, are also as easily the enemy as the walkers are. You don't know if someone you meet will steal your food, water or shelter, or if they will leave you alone, or if they will work with you to survive.
The premise of the show, as well as the "rules" of the world to which it transports us, are not very different from those of Romero's ground-breaking movies. What makes The Walking Dead unique and enthralling is that it is an extended immersion into the post-apocalyptic world of zombies. One common major theme of both, which I would like to explore a bit here, is the theme of unity.
In the show, no one can survive alone. People need each other. Survival requires working together toward common goals--acquiring food & water, protection, etc. Community is the key, cooperation.
And yet, in the show we find two different types of unity. The good, life-saving and life-giving community created by our heroes is held in sharp relief by the ever-present background of the mindless zombie mob. Yes, the zombies symbolize community as well, a unity of a very different, and horrifying kind.
Now, the zombies don't have a social structure, and they do not cooperate, per se. However, just as with human survivors, the zombies' strength is in numbers. When a walker is caught alone, it is easily dispatched, relatively speaking. Meanwhile, when they are in groups, particularly large groups, as they often are found, then they are an unstoppable force. The press of the undead overwhelms all defenses, intrudes upon all sanctuaries, renders ineffectual all attempted offenses. When alone, the zombie's sole motivation is to consume--consume you! And when a group of zombies gather, they are united in that one, selfish goal--to consume. Therein lies their community. One unifying goal. True, each individual zombie is motivated only to feed itself, yet that one goal unites them. Mindless and accidental as it may be, this behavior does constitute a community of sorts.
At our worst, we are a zombie culture.
We are consumers in a consumer society. The average American (one person) produces 4.4 pounds of garbage a day, according to the EPA. This does not include the industrial and commercial waste created to create the stuff we buy, or the waste produced by the efforts to get that stuff from the industrial site to our homes. On black Friday, our culture's high holy festival, which boasts the highest worship attendance of any other single day of the year, is marked by mobs pressing against merchant doors, flooding into every nook and cranny of commercial space. In 2013, Black Friday sales averaged $13,293,981 per minute...over 13 million dollars PER MINUTE. Our mediums of communication, art, and entertainment cannot exist apart from commercials. When we face economic hardship as a nation, we are exhorted to buy more in order to solve the problem...and that probably is the only solution because it is a consumer culture. We are attracted to the motion of a new product, like the next smartphone, and we drop everything to pursue that new brain we sense. I am not immune to this, no one is.
We are a culture of individualism. Our quest is for the self. We look to our own interests. Our laws are based upon property rights--ownership. I protect what is mine. What is mine cannot be claimed by another. Yet, just as with zombies, we cannot break away from interdependence. At some level, we realize that my interests are furthered by having others around me. We do not look after our neighbors' interests, but we do not go off and live lives of solitude, either. We keep them around because their presence makes it more likely that I will succeed in fulfilling my own desires. Just so, zombies are not repulsed by other zombies, do not choose the solitary life, but will remain in groups and travel together. If proximity to other zombies decreased their chances of feeding, then they would not remain together. We remain together, tolerating each other, because we realize the benefit to the self. Community is for the individual, a tool for the fulfillment of self. Nearness to others is not about communication, but gratification.
We are a culture of mindlessness. A study was recently done, in which an actor outside of a pharmacy pretended to have a leg injury. The actor asked one set of passersby to go and ask the pharmacist for an ace bandage to wrap the injury. Another set of passersby were asked to go ask the pharmacist for something--anything--that would be helpful. The pharmacist was instructed to tell the ace bandage Good Samaritans that they were out of bandages. None of the passersby with the specific ace bandage request asked the pharmacist for some other option, they simply went back to the actor and told them there were no ace bandages to be had. Not one person thought outside of the specific request, not one person made the short, common sense leap to ask for pain medication or some other remedy. Those with the more general request, however, brought something helpful back to the actor. We live our lives mindlessly in this way. We are very task oriented, and our viewpoint about the world can easily become narrow, even myopic. In the same way, zombies do not consider anything beyond their immediate task...eating your brain.
Paul calls the Christian away from this type of society and culture. "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God--what is good and acceptable and perfect." (Romans 12:2). Faith calls us to be mindful of the whole creation as it unfolds around us, at least as mindful as we can bear to stretch ourselves. Faith calls us to be concerned with the needs of others, as much as or more than we are concerned for our own needs. Faith reminds us that we are stewards of the earth and its resources, and not merely consumers, that it is both our responsibility and ability to preserve and conserve according to the amount we consume.
To the Christian, conformation to this world is death. If we simply conform, we might as well be zombies, the dead walking. But in Christ, we are transformed. Our minds are renewed, and we can see more options--a more beautiful world and way--than what is right in front of our nose.
Christian unity does not destroy individuality; neither is our unity just a mob of individuals; our community is a tension between the two. By the power of the Holy Spirit, we receive the mind of Christ. The Spirit empowers us and gathers us. And it is through the practice of spiritual disciplines, under the guidance and support of the church, that we are able to renew our minds. We must practice mindfulness through prayer, meditation, study, devotions and praise. We must practice loving-kindess, focusing on the needs of others through mission. We must practice stewardship through the act of giving generously and receiving gratefully. It is impossible to do these things by oneself. And so the Spirit gathers us.
Shall we be pilgrims, or just walkers?
Shall we be the beloved community, or the mindless mob?
Shall we be transformed, or merely conform?
Don't eat brains. Renew your mind.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Reclaiming Good
While in the middle of creating, God looked upon what was unfinished and saw that it was good.
Words matter. Both the words we use with others, and the words we use with ourselves matter a great deal. Words frame and build the story of who we are...of who I am. We must be mindful of the words we use, therefore. Recently, I have been startled with the use of the word "good" in our culture today.
A couple of weeks ago, I was talking to a fellow clergyman, a colleague and friend. He was sharing his struggle to find the energy to keep up ministry in the church. He is nearing retirement age, he mused. And he just didn't have the stamina and endurance he had when he was young. His fear was was not doing an adequate job in his role as pastor. This is not how he phrased it to himself, though. He said, "I just want to be sure that I am doing an exceptional job, especially for these people at my congregation." And in the very next breath he reiterated, "I don't want to be a piss-poor leader." I understood exactly what he meant. Right away, in my mind, I agreed with him. I thought to myself, 'What a noble desire resides in the heart of this man, my friend!' At first, I thought that that attitude was the one to have. After all, we want to avoid laziness and mediocrity. Then I thought again.
I noticed the words he used: "exceptional" and "piss-poor."
Then I noticed the words he didn't use.
The way he talked, it was clear to me that my friend saw nothing--no oasis or rest stop or ledge to fall on--between exceptional and piss-poor. If you were not the former, you were the latter, just like that.
I shared with my friend the chasm I noticed between the words he used to describe himself and his work. I pointed out that there are points between exceptional and piss-poor, and not all of those points are bad. I said, "What's wrong with being good?"
Last week, in confirmation class with seven 7th-graders, we were hearing again the story of creation found in Genesis 1. We talked about how, again and again while God was creating, God paused and remarked, "And it was good." I asked the class: "What does 'good' mean? If a teacher or a coach tells you that what you did was good, how would you feel?" Here were the answers:
"Good means you did your very best, but you could have done better."
"Good means you didn't do it perfect."
"Good means you tried."
"Good means you should do better next time."
All of the responses were like this. And my heart broke.
Then, I got angry at the injustice we have perpetrated upon our young people by teaching them a distorted and evil conception of the good.
In our culture, good is not good enough. We are not satisfied with good, as God was satisfied with what God saw in creation--what God saw even in the first days of creation. In fact, for us, today, good is bad. How messed up is that? And yet we teach this trash to our children. And the problem is so advanced, the truth so distorted, that even when God says, "It is very good," their first reaction is, "...ah, well, maybe next time."
But good is good--great even.
There is nothing wrong with good. Good is not bad. Good is wonderful, in fact. Good IS something to be proud of. Good means, "Well Done." Good is, and should be, satisfying. Good is enough...more than enough.
Yes, we can always be 'better.' And striving to improve is good. So, how can we be satisfied with what we do and who we are, without becoming contented--for contented means that we do not seek anything more, that we stop trying. Surely acknowledging the good does not entail such a slip into lethargy. Can't "good" also encourage us to more when we recognize it as such?
How can we reclaim the concept of "Good"? How can we develop a fuller (and more helpful) spectrum of (self-) assessment? I believe we need to start teaching our children that there are more options than "exceptional" and "piss-poor." Our productivity, our fruitfulness, depends upon it...and so does our joy.
For God, creation was not just good, not merely good.
God saw that it was good.
What's so wrong with that?
Words matter. Both the words we use with others, and the words we use with ourselves matter a great deal. Words frame and build the story of who we are...of who I am. We must be mindful of the words we use, therefore. Recently, I have been startled with the use of the word "good" in our culture today.
A couple of weeks ago, I was talking to a fellow clergyman, a colleague and friend. He was sharing his struggle to find the energy to keep up ministry in the church. He is nearing retirement age, he mused. And he just didn't have the stamina and endurance he had when he was young. His fear was was not doing an adequate job in his role as pastor. This is not how he phrased it to himself, though. He said, "I just want to be sure that I am doing an exceptional job, especially for these people at my congregation." And in the very next breath he reiterated, "I don't want to be a piss-poor leader." I understood exactly what he meant. Right away, in my mind, I agreed with him. I thought to myself, 'What a noble desire resides in the heart of this man, my friend!' At first, I thought that that attitude was the one to have. After all, we want to avoid laziness and mediocrity. Then I thought again.
I noticed the words he used: "exceptional" and "piss-poor."
Then I noticed the words he didn't use.
The way he talked, it was clear to me that my friend saw nothing--no oasis or rest stop or ledge to fall on--between exceptional and piss-poor. If you were not the former, you were the latter, just like that.
I shared with my friend the chasm I noticed between the words he used to describe himself and his work. I pointed out that there are points between exceptional and piss-poor, and not all of those points are bad. I said, "What's wrong with being good?"
Last week, in confirmation class with seven 7th-graders, we were hearing again the story of creation found in Genesis 1. We talked about how, again and again while God was creating, God paused and remarked, "And it was good." I asked the class: "What does 'good' mean? If a teacher or a coach tells you that what you did was good, how would you feel?" Here were the answers:
"Good means you did your very best, but you could have done better."
"Good means you didn't do it perfect."
"Good means you tried."
"Good means you should do better next time."
All of the responses were like this. And my heart broke.
Then, I got angry at the injustice we have perpetrated upon our young people by teaching them a distorted and evil conception of the good.
In our culture, good is not good enough. We are not satisfied with good, as God was satisfied with what God saw in creation--what God saw even in the first days of creation. In fact, for us, today, good is bad. How messed up is that? And yet we teach this trash to our children. And the problem is so advanced, the truth so distorted, that even when God says, "It is very good," their first reaction is, "...ah, well, maybe next time."
But good is good--great even.
There is nothing wrong with good. Good is not bad. Good is wonderful, in fact. Good IS something to be proud of. Good means, "Well Done." Good is, and should be, satisfying. Good is enough...more than enough.
Yes, we can always be 'better.' And striving to improve is good. So, how can we be satisfied with what we do and who we are, without becoming contented--for contented means that we do not seek anything more, that we stop trying. Surely acknowledging the good does not entail such a slip into lethargy. Can't "good" also encourage us to more when we recognize it as such?
How can we reclaim the concept of "Good"? How can we develop a fuller (and more helpful) spectrum of (self-) assessment? I believe we need to start teaching our children that there are more options than "exceptional" and "piss-poor." Our productivity, our fruitfulness, depends upon it...and so does our joy.
For God, creation was not just good, not merely good.
God saw that it was good.
What's so wrong with that?
Monday, September 29, 2014
Top 7 Podcasts
Inspired by my last blogpost, I would like to share some of the top Podcasts that have my attention right now. There are so many podcasts out there, professional and amateur, that it is hard to sift through them. I would like to share some with you that will be worth a listen, in my estimation. Though I have tried many more, these 7 are the ones to which I continually return.
MORE IMPORTANTLY: I am looking for more good Podcasts to follow. My hope is that as you read this list, you will say--"Ryan just has to listen to ______. He will love it." Please share the podcasts that you are into. I would love to check them out!
I listen to Podcasts when I exercise and just around the house. The following 7 are all engaging. Some are just for entertainment. I have chosen all of them to learn more about the world, and to expand my own horizons.
7. 60-Second Space; 6. 60-Second Science; 5. 60-Second Mind
I lump these together to keep this blogpost brief. Scientific American sponsors and creates these podcasts. They are all about 1 minute long and they give condensed information about recent discoveries in scientific research. Though it sounds esoteric, the topics are chosen to be interesting, engaging and practical. There is a whole series of these 60-Second podcasts. My three favorite are above, and each deals with science and technologies relating to the topic in the title. There is also an earth science podcast and a technology podcast, and there may be others. Want to learn something? Do you lead a really busy life? Take 60 seconds out of your day and lend an ear. We live in amazing times. Average Duration of Each Episode: 60 seconds
4. This American Life
National Public Radio produces this podcast. Each week, the writers, reporters and staff of This American Life choose a theme and then bring stories that explore that theme to listeners. I would label this a "human interest" podcast. Ranging from art, literature, history, biography, fiction, comedy, journalism and so much more...contributors share all sorts of perspectives on life---particularly life in America. The podcast is entertaining and educational. Every episode has something you will relate to, or at least something you will feel passionately about. Average Duration of Episode: 1 hour
3. The Partially Examined Life
I was a philosophy major. I love philosophy still. After trying out several philosophy podcasts, this is the one that I listen to all the time. Each episode is a discussion of a particular philosopher's or thinker's works (usually a selection, not the whole body of work). The participants of the discussion are all amateur philosophers (with day-jobs), but they are all very well educated and bright. Normally, there are three or four guys who discuss the ideas, although sometimes they have guests on--every now and again the actual thinker they are discussing (unless they are discussing the work of a dead person, of course). Although I sometimes disagree with comments made by the panelists, I learn tons. In fact, I enjoy the podcast more for how I am challenged by some of the comments, reactions and ideas of the panelists. This is a very engaging podcast. It is like sitting down in a comfortable chair and discussing important ideas with a group of friends. Average Duration of an Episode: 1 to 2 hours (it is worth every minute of it).
2. On Being
Also from National Public Radio, On Being is hosted by Krista Tippet out of Minneapolis, Minnesota. This podcast is about faith and life. Each episode Krista has a conversation (much fuller than a mere interview!) with an important figure in the world. It could be an author, a poet, a scientist, a religious leader--any interesting person! Krista explores the work and spirituality of each guest, and together they try to plumb the depths of the question "What does it mean to be human?" These podcasts are touching and soul-enriching. Each episode will give you a new perspective on life...and a new perspective on yourself. Don't miss this one!!! Average Duration of an Episode: 1 hour [podcasters also have the option of listening to the "uncut" conversations...these are longer, but they are worth it!]
1. Car Talk
Also from National Public Radio, this show is hosted by Click and Clack, two Italian-American car mechanics who went to MIT. These guys are smart, but they are even funnier. If you want a fun podcast, you need to try this one. Even if you don't like cars or care about cars, you will enjoy this show. Click and Clack take calls from people who have car troubles and they diagnose the car's problem on the air. Along the way, they end up digging into people's lives and discussing all sorts of issues like relationships and spirituality and philosophy. I have been listening to CarTalk since 2006, and it never gets old! Just hearing the hosts' distinctive voices--and laughs--immediately brightens my day, and gives me hope for this world. This is so much more than a car show. But I have also learned a lot about automobiles--and physics/mechanics. Average Duration of an Episode: 1 hour...totally not long enough.
So, there it is. My top seven podcasts.
What else should I be listening to?
Let me know.
Meanwhile, happy listening!
MORE IMPORTANTLY: I am looking for more good Podcasts to follow. My hope is that as you read this list, you will say--"Ryan just has to listen to ______. He will love it." Please share the podcasts that you are into. I would love to check them out!
I listen to Podcasts when I exercise and just around the house. The following 7 are all engaging. Some are just for entertainment. I have chosen all of them to learn more about the world, and to expand my own horizons.
7. 60-Second Space; 6. 60-Second Science; 5. 60-Second Mind
I lump these together to keep this blogpost brief. Scientific American sponsors and creates these podcasts. They are all about 1 minute long and they give condensed information about recent discoveries in scientific research. Though it sounds esoteric, the topics are chosen to be interesting, engaging and practical. There is a whole series of these 60-Second podcasts. My three favorite are above, and each deals with science and technologies relating to the topic in the title. There is also an earth science podcast and a technology podcast, and there may be others. Want to learn something? Do you lead a really busy life? Take 60 seconds out of your day and lend an ear. We live in amazing times. Average Duration of Each Episode: 60 seconds
4. This American Life
National Public Radio produces this podcast. Each week, the writers, reporters and staff of This American Life choose a theme and then bring stories that explore that theme to listeners. I would label this a "human interest" podcast. Ranging from art, literature, history, biography, fiction, comedy, journalism and so much more...contributors share all sorts of perspectives on life---particularly life in America. The podcast is entertaining and educational. Every episode has something you will relate to, or at least something you will feel passionately about. Average Duration of Episode: 1 hour
3. The Partially Examined Life
I was a philosophy major. I love philosophy still. After trying out several philosophy podcasts, this is the one that I listen to all the time. Each episode is a discussion of a particular philosopher's or thinker's works (usually a selection, not the whole body of work). The participants of the discussion are all amateur philosophers (with day-jobs), but they are all very well educated and bright. Normally, there are three or four guys who discuss the ideas, although sometimes they have guests on--every now and again the actual thinker they are discussing (unless they are discussing the work of a dead person, of course). Although I sometimes disagree with comments made by the panelists, I learn tons. In fact, I enjoy the podcast more for how I am challenged by some of the comments, reactions and ideas of the panelists. This is a very engaging podcast. It is like sitting down in a comfortable chair and discussing important ideas with a group of friends. Average Duration of an Episode: 1 to 2 hours (it is worth every minute of it).
2. On Being
Also from National Public Radio, On Being is hosted by Krista Tippet out of Minneapolis, Minnesota. This podcast is about faith and life. Each episode Krista has a conversation (much fuller than a mere interview!) with an important figure in the world. It could be an author, a poet, a scientist, a religious leader--any interesting person! Krista explores the work and spirituality of each guest, and together they try to plumb the depths of the question "What does it mean to be human?" These podcasts are touching and soul-enriching. Each episode will give you a new perspective on life...and a new perspective on yourself. Don't miss this one!!! Average Duration of an Episode: 1 hour [podcasters also have the option of listening to the "uncut" conversations...these are longer, but they are worth it!]
1. Car Talk
Also from National Public Radio, this show is hosted by Click and Clack, two Italian-American car mechanics who went to MIT. These guys are smart, but they are even funnier. If you want a fun podcast, you need to try this one. Even if you don't like cars or care about cars, you will enjoy this show. Click and Clack take calls from people who have car troubles and they diagnose the car's problem on the air. Along the way, they end up digging into people's lives and discussing all sorts of issues like relationships and spirituality and philosophy. I have been listening to CarTalk since 2006, and it never gets old! Just hearing the hosts' distinctive voices--and laughs--immediately brightens my day, and gives me hope for this world. This is so much more than a car show. But I have also learned a lot about automobiles--and physics/mechanics. Average Duration of an Episode: 1 hour...totally not long enough.
So, there it is. My top seven podcasts.
What else should I be listening to?
Let me know.
Meanwhile, happy listening!
Sunday, September 21, 2014
Books that Changed My Life
Apparently, there is a blogger's bandwagon on which I have heretofore failed to jump. I understand that it is now in vogue to share a list of the top 10 books of one's life. I have enjoyed thinking back, and searching my book shelves to decide which books make the cut of such a list. The hard part, for me, was not finding just ten, but rather finding as many as ten! I have read countless books, for school and for fun, and yet there are only a few that have been so transformative that I would fain put them on a serious top ten list. Just as in life we only find a handful of truest friends, so too, only a few books really affect us deeply and profoundly...changing the course of our thought and life.
Before we get down to business, however, I must make a disclaimer. The Bible does not appear on this list. I think it unfair to place the Bible on this list, since it is the most effective book in my life. The Book is so rich, varied and expansive, and the Book is so transforms me--comforting, challenging, correcting, supporting and guiding me--that it is truly beyond any category, particularly the category of literature. The Bible then, properly exists before and behind this list, above it and throughout it. There is no story like the story of God and God's people.
One final note: this list is NOT in random order. The list is a countdown to the most profound book in my life, and thus #1, the end of the list, is the most impactful book upon my life.
10. Bunnicula by James Howe, et. al.
Although this book is neither a classic, nor a giant in the world of literature, it made a huge impact on me. Bunnicula is a series of books (7 now, but when I was in grade school there was only 4 or 5) about a vampire rabbit, whose evil designs are thwarted by a house cat and pet dog. Chester is the quixotic cat, redoubtable, if excitable and misinformed. Harold, the dog, is his unwitting (well, oblivious, really) partner. Adventures ensue as Chester and Harold try to uncover the mystery of Bunnicula, and work to save their unsuspecting human owners. I read these books as a child, and so I do not remember and cannot speak for their quality in writing. However, these books got me to enjoy reading. The book is full of adventure, humor, character and plot. I would not be the avid reader I am without Bunnicula, and the misadventures of Chester the cat.
9. Spider-man, Storm and Power Man Battle Smokescreen! (Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc.)
I love reading comic books and graphic novels, and not just those telling the exploits of Spider-man. This comic is what started everything off for me. This special, promotional issue serves as a public service announcement for kids against the ills of smoking. When I was in early grade school, I read this comic...and the rest is history. After this, I began collecting Spider-man comics, and to this day, Spider-man is my favorite comic book character.
8. The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene
I read this fairly recently--while I was in seminary. Although life took me through high school English, to Philosophy in college and on through the humanities, I have always been interested in science. Brian Greene writes in such a way that armchair scientists are able to sink their teeth into some of the most amazing discoveries in astrophysics and cosmology, and come away with a sense of awe for God's creation unfolding around us. If you want to know about that creation, and you love science (but don't get it)--try this book out! This (and other titles by Greene) are an entertaining one-stop-shop for amateur thinkers.
7. Imzadi by Peter David (Star Trek: The Next Generation)
I believe I read this book in high school, though it may have been middle school. As you may know, I love Star Trek. And although I have read many Star Trek novels over the years, this one stands out. At heart, it is a love story...and I display, from time to time, romantic tendencies. This book opened new worlds to me as I read about how life interrupts love and how love can evolve over time, and about regret and second chances. As will all science fiction, the advancements in technology only serve to highlight humanity. I learned a lot of humanity from this book. And it is good Star Trek.
6. The Birth of Tragedy by Friedrich Nietzsche
I read a lot of Nietzsche at Augustana College, in my philosophy studies. I even did a senior seminar on Nietzsche works when I was a sophomore. I believe he is given a bad rap, particularly for his seemingly anti-Christian sentiments. In any event, this work of his is particularly meaningful for me. In it, Nietzsche looks back to ancient Greek culture to learn about lessons for humanity today. It taught me that the art and stories of the past can teach us important lessons. In particular, this book taught me how art can be a window into culture and thought. His distinction between Dionysian and Apollinarian art is widely applicable to life as helpful categories. This book challenged me to think about our culture, and appreciate art.
5. The Complete Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Sherlock is, perhaps, the most well-known and -loved character in all of western literature. We admire his genius and try to imitate it. Sherlock is larger-than-life, and yet very real defects in his character bring him alive to us and make him relatable. The relationship between Watson and Holmes is also an inspiration. I believe that we all long for such friendships in our lives. These stories are engaging and inspiring. Most of all, the adventures of Sherlock and Watson are fun.
4. The Lutheran Book of Worship (ELCA Hymnal)
Hymnals form us in faith; they are instructors. In and through them we learn scripture, theology, prayer and song. Hymnals knit us together in community, as we join our voices into one voice. When I was too young to remember, I am told that I loved to be in worship and hated having to go to the nursery or to Sunday School. I wanted to be in the sanctuary with all of the adults. As soon as I could read, I was using this book to guide my worship. In fact, I was motivated to learn to read just so that I could follow along with all the other people. Later, once I discovered a copy of the LBW at home, I would sit and read through it. From these readings, I gained a love for liturgy--for the different ways people can come together and praise God. This book taught me how to pray and to worship. This book was a primer for the deep theology I would later study in college and in seminary. I still love sitting down to plan and write worship services. I still love singing and praying and praising. If I had not discovered this book in my own home, I may not have become a pastor or a theologian. I love the "new" red hymnal, but I began my journey of faith with the ol' green book.
3. Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits by Soren Kierkegaard
If you know me, you know my love of Kierkegaard. As I was sitting down to make this list of books, it was difficult not to list 10 of Kierkegaard's works!!! I compromised by choosing two--this one and the next one. Kierkegaard is my spiritual and theological mentor. His words describing God and the life of a Christian are immensely helpful. In this book, a collection of separately published discourses, Kierkegaard interprets Bible passages in such a way that one can see the relevance and importance of God's Word for our lives today. His categories are groundbreaking and his dialectical reasoning is both instructive and invaluable. What does it mean to follow Jesus Christ--in practical terms? Oh, read this book. Kierkegaard is a difficult author to read, however, if you can get through his verbosity, it is worth it. His theology is profitable, edifying and unbelievably up-building.
2. The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening by Anti-Climacus (Soren Kierkegaard)
Of Kierkegaard's works, this is (in my humble opinion) his best and most useful. In it, he takes on the topic of sin. In short, he explains how and why despair is sin, and it is the only mortal sin--the only sin that can keep us from God's love, salvation and eternal life. Ultimately, he shows how faith (faith in Jesus Christ) fights and can conquer despair--and how each individual participates in and with that faith. This book made me fall in love with Kierkegaard, a relationship that continues to grow and that has, indeed, changed the way I think about God, life and everything. This book awoke me from sleep and lifted me up.
1. Dune by Frank Herbert
Dune was the first book on my list, and it is hands-down the #1 book I have read. This novel changed my life. And the other 15+ books in the series helped. Herbert created a rich and expansive universe in this book. In reading it, my horizons and perspective were expanded immeasurably. Dune treats a wide-ranging spate of issues and facets of humanity and how they function in our lives: society, history, ecology, religion, mysticism, power, politics, love, loyalty, destiny, endurance, determination, duty, justice, the future of humanity--generally speaking, what it means to be a human being in a complex universe full of unknowns. This is the only book I have read over a half a dozen times. If you fail to read all of the other books on this list, at least read this one.
Happy reading, friends!
Before we get down to business, however, I must make a disclaimer. The Bible does not appear on this list. I think it unfair to place the Bible on this list, since it is the most effective book in my life. The Book is so rich, varied and expansive, and the Book is so transforms me--comforting, challenging, correcting, supporting and guiding me--that it is truly beyond any category, particularly the category of literature. The Bible then, properly exists before and behind this list, above it and throughout it. There is no story like the story of God and God's people.
One final note: this list is NOT in random order. The list is a countdown to the most profound book in my life, and thus #1, the end of the list, is the most impactful book upon my life.
10. Bunnicula by James Howe, et. al.
Although this book is neither a classic, nor a giant in the world of literature, it made a huge impact on me. Bunnicula is a series of books (7 now, but when I was in grade school there was only 4 or 5) about a vampire rabbit, whose evil designs are thwarted by a house cat and pet dog. Chester is the quixotic cat, redoubtable, if excitable and misinformed. Harold, the dog, is his unwitting (well, oblivious, really) partner. Adventures ensue as Chester and Harold try to uncover the mystery of Bunnicula, and work to save their unsuspecting human owners. I read these books as a child, and so I do not remember and cannot speak for their quality in writing. However, these books got me to enjoy reading. The book is full of adventure, humor, character and plot. I would not be the avid reader I am without Bunnicula, and the misadventures of Chester the cat.
9. Spider-man, Storm and Power Man Battle Smokescreen! (Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc.)
I love reading comic books and graphic novels, and not just those telling the exploits of Spider-man. This comic is what started everything off for me. This special, promotional issue serves as a public service announcement for kids against the ills of smoking. When I was in early grade school, I read this comic...and the rest is history. After this, I began collecting Spider-man comics, and to this day, Spider-man is my favorite comic book character.
8. The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene
I read this fairly recently--while I was in seminary. Although life took me through high school English, to Philosophy in college and on through the humanities, I have always been interested in science. Brian Greene writes in such a way that armchair scientists are able to sink their teeth into some of the most amazing discoveries in astrophysics and cosmology, and come away with a sense of awe for God's creation unfolding around us. If you want to know about that creation, and you love science (but don't get it)--try this book out! This (and other titles by Greene) are an entertaining one-stop-shop for amateur thinkers.
7. Imzadi by Peter David (Star Trek: The Next Generation)
I believe I read this book in high school, though it may have been middle school. As you may know, I love Star Trek. And although I have read many Star Trek novels over the years, this one stands out. At heart, it is a love story...and I display, from time to time, romantic tendencies. This book opened new worlds to me as I read about how life interrupts love and how love can evolve over time, and about regret and second chances. As will all science fiction, the advancements in technology only serve to highlight humanity. I learned a lot of humanity from this book. And it is good Star Trek.
6. The Birth of Tragedy by Friedrich Nietzsche
I read a lot of Nietzsche at Augustana College, in my philosophy studies. I even did a senior seminar on Nietzsche works when I was a sophomore. I believe he is given a bad rap, particularly for his seemingly anti-Christian sentiments. In any event, this work of his is particularly meaningful for me. In it, Nietzsche looks back to ancient Greek culture to learn about lessons for humanity today. It taught me that the art and stories of the past can teach us important lessons. In particular, this book taught me how art can be a window into culture and thought. His distinction between Dionysian and Apollinarian art is widely applicable to life as helpful categories. This book challenged me to think about our culture, and appreciate art.
5. The Complete Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Sherlock is, perhaps, the most well-known and -loved character in all of western literature. We admire his genius and try to imitate it. Sherlock is larger-than-life, and yet very real defects in his character bring him alive to us and make him relatable. The relationship between Watson and Holmes is also an inspiration. I believe that we all long for such friendships in our lives. These stories are engaging and inspiring. Most of all, the adventures of Sherlock and Watson are fun.
4. The Lutheran Book of Worship (ELCA Hymnal)
Hymnals form us in faith; they are instructors. In and through them we learn scripture, theology, prayer and song. Hymnals knit us together in community, as we join our voices into one voice. When I was too young to remember, I am told that I loved to be in worship and hated having to go to the nursery or to Sunday School. I wanted to be in the sanctuary with all of the adults. As soon as I could read, I was using this book to guide my worship. In fact, I was motivated to learn to read just so that I could follow along with all the other people. Later, once I discovered a copy of the LBW at home, I would sit and read through it. From these readings, I gained a love for liturgy--for the different ways people can come together and praise God. This book taught me how to pray and to worship. This book was a primer for the deep theology I would later study in college and in seminary. I still love sitting down to plan and write worship services. I still love singing and praying and praising. If I had not discovered this book in my own home, I may not have become a pastor or a theologian. I love the "new" red hymnal, but I began my journey of faith with the ol' green book.
3. Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits by Soren Kierkegaard
If you know me, you know my love of Kierkegaard. As I was sitting down to make this list of books, it was difficult not to list 10 of Kierkegaard's works!!! I compromised by choosing two--this one and the next one. Kierkegaard is my spiritual and theological mentor. His words describing God and the life of a Christian are immensely helpful. In this book, a collection of separately published discourses, Kierkegaard interprets Bible passages in such a way that one can see the relevance and importance of God's Word for our lives today. His categories are groundbreaking and his dialectical reasoning is both instructive and invaluable. What does it mean to follow Jesus Christ--in practical terms? Oh, read this book. Kierkegaard is a difficult author to read, however, if you can get through his verbosity, it is worth it. His theology is profitable, edifying and unbelievably up-building.
2. The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening by Anti-Climacus (Soren Kierkegaard)
Of Kierkegaard's works, this is (in my humble opinion) his best and most useful. In it, he takes on the topic of sin. In short, he explains how and why despair is sin, and it is the only mortal sin--the only sin that can keep us from God's love, salvation and eternal life. Ultimately, he shows how faith (faith in Jesus Christ) fights and can conquer despair--and how each individual participates in and with that faith. This book made me fall in love with Kierkegaard, a relationship that continues to grow and that has, indeed, changed the way I think about God, life and everything. This book awoke me from sleep and lifted me up.
1. Dune by Frank Herbert
Dune was the first book on my list, and it is hands-down the #1 book I have read. This novel changed my life. And the other 15+ books in the series helped. Herbert created a rich and expansive universe in this book. In reading it, my horizons and perspective were expanded immeasurably. Dune treats a wide-ranging spate of issues and facets of humanity and how they function in our lives: society, history, ecology, religion, mysticism, power, politics, love, loyalty, destiny, endurance, determination, duty, justice, the future of humanity--generally speaking, what it means to be a human being in a complex universe full of unknowns. This is the only book I have read over a half a dozen times. If you fail to read all of the other books on this list, at least read this one.
Happy reading, friends!
Monday, September 15, 2014
Good Gossip
Some psychologists and social scientists theorize that gossip is an evolutionary trait in humans. In other words, gossip plays some helpful role in the survival of human beings. Therefore, there are times when gossip is healthy and beneficial. When used properly, done responsibly, gossip is good.
Primates, like gorillas, spend a lot of time grooming each other. Picture a train of apes picking nits, lice or fleas out of their neighbor's back hair. This tendency not only contributes to hygiene, but also helps bond apes together into community. Those that groom together, stay together.
When humans were hairier, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that we, too, participated in communal grooming. Nit-picking, which no doubt began purely as a hygienic regimen, had the added benefit of forming human community. As we sat there, vulnerable, grooming one another, trust flourished and matured. As we lost our body hair, the need for picking nits passed. At the same time, language was advancing, and became the basis for community. Grooming turned into gossip. Imagine a circle of humans picking each other's brains, sharing experiences and emotions, hopes and plans. Gossip is the way that humans help each other with mental and emotion hygiene, the way we clean and clear our minds and hearts of things that are bothering us. Gossip is one way that we build and maintain community. Sharing intimate details of our inner lives with others requires trust and intimacy. Sharing opinions and beliefs help communities to reach consensus on issues and solutions to problems. When gossip helps us process our own thoughts and emotions, when gossip helps build communities of trust, then gossip is good.
I often share my frustrations about life and people with my family and friends. I only share these frustrations when I know that my words and feelings won't go any farther than that one conversation. But venting about my frustrations allows me to get over it...and to get over myself. When I am annoyed or discontent, I sometimes forget that I have the power within myself to overcome those feelings with joy. I forget that I am in charge of how I act and can let go of feelings and situations that bring me down. Sometimes I just need to get it out so that I can move on--I don't need anyone else to do anything to solve my problem for me. I don't need the world to change; I just need a change in perspective; I just need to purge my own emotional baggage. Gossip is good when it can help me do that. This form of gossip only works, though, when you know that your words will die with the person to whom you tell them.
At church, perhaps the most common form of healthy gossip concerns the physical and emotional well-being of others. We talk about people who are sick and in the hospital. We talk about how so-and-so was irritable or disgruntled the other day about something. We talk about our own physical ailments, sometimes trying to one-up each other in the comparison of ills--especially when the aches and pains are a result of age. When we gossip about people's health, we must do so out of a spirit of caring. Gossip about another's health is good when we listen in compassion or ask after people because we care what is going on in their life. Receiving and sharing such information empowers us to mobilize the whole community in prayer and service. When we know, we can pray; and prayer works. When we know, we can help and support the one who is ill, and their loved ones. Gossip is good when it allows us to keep compassionate contact with others.
The most common form of gossip is that concerning the sins and mistakes and failures of others. Gossip is at its worst when we talk about others in judgement. And yet, even this gossip--if handled well and performed carefully--can be good and healthy. One task of community is to regulate behavior. In order to keep the community intact, we need certain rules and social expectations. These social contracts enable us to stick together, maintain conditions that allow trust to exist, provide means to resolve conflict, and protect the individual (their rights and autonomy). When I sin, I may not realize it. When I sin, I may just sweep it under the rug, idly refusing to repent and change myself for the better. But knowing that others see my actions and are affected by my behavior, then I am motivated to learn where I have done wrong, and I am compelled to repent and change my ways. Gossip can be a mechanism that can strengthen community by regulating or limiting unhealthy behavior in individuals. Christians have a duty to guide one another. We have a responsibility to hold each other accountable to the Law and the Gospel. Gossip can help----but only if it is done very carefully!!!
Because it is so easy for gossip to simply become judgement. Gossip can just as easily destroy community and divide people, as it can build community and unite individuals. One careless comment about another person can sour a web of relationships, turning the linguistic grooming into guerrilla warfare.
When it comes to gossip about sin or bad behavior or offense, the only person you should be gossiping with is the one who has sinned or behaved badly or offended you. Because, in that case, the only people being bitten by fleas are the two of you. Groom each other first. Get rid of the fleas you share between you before you spread those fleas to others in the community. Don't turn people agains the one who has sinned, get the one who has sinned to turn around.
Evolution has provided us with gossip. When done right--with the right people, in the right way, and for the right reasons--gossip can contribute to social and inter-personal well-being. But if gossip only makes you sin, if gossip only drives you apart from someone, then cut it out.
Gossip is for grooming.
Gossip is not for dodging or judging or getting ahead or getting even.
Pick the nit, not the person.
Don't become the louse, let gossip be guided by love.
Primates, like gorillas, spend a lot of time grooming each other. Picture a train of apes picking nits, lice or fleas out of their neighbor's back hair. This tendency not only contributes to hygiene, but also helps bond apes together into community. Those that groom together, stay together.
"The nice part about living in a small town
is that when you don't know what you are doing,
someone else does." -Unknown
When humans were hairier, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that we, too, participated in communal grooming. Nit-picking, which no doubt began purely as a hygienic regimen, had the added benefit of forming human community. As we sat there, vulnerable, grooming one another, trust flourished and matured. As we lost our body hair, the need for picking nits passed. At the same time, language was advancing, and became the basis for community. Grooming turned into gossip. Imagine a circle of humans picking each other's brains, sharing experiences and emotions, hopes and plans. Gossip is the way that humans help each other with mental and emotion hygiene, the way we clean and clear our minds and hearts of things that are bothering us. Gossip is one way that we build and maintain community. Sharing intimate details of our inner lives with others requires trust and intimacy. Sharing opinions and beliefs help communities to reach consensus on issues and solutions to problems. When gossip helps us process our own thoughts and emotions, when gossip helps build communities of trust, then gossip is good.
"If any man seem to be religious and bridleth not his tongue
...this man's religion is in vain."
-Bible (James 1:26)
I often share my frustrations about life and people with my family and friends. I only share these frustrations when I know that my words and feelings won't go any farther than that one conversation. But venting about my frustrations allows me to get over it...and to get over myself. When I am annoyed or discontent, I sometimes forget that I have the power within myself to overcome those feelings with joy. I forget that I am in charge of how I act and can let go of feelings and situations that bring me down. Sometimes I just need to get it out so that I can move on--I don't need anyone else to do anything to solve my problem for me. I don't need the world to change; I just need a change in perspective; I just need to purge my own emotional baggage. Gossip is good when it can help me do that. This form of gossip only works, though, when you know that your words will die with the person to whom you tell them.
"If there is anything more annoying in the world
than having people talk about you,
it is certainly having no one talk about you."
-Oscar Wilde
"We are all guilty of sin, error, and moments of sheer stupidity;
none of us should be casting stones.
The occasional arced pebble might be overlooked."
-Richelle E. Goodrich
The most common form of gossip is that concerning the sins and mistakes and failures of others. Gossip is at its worst when we talk about others in judgement. And yet, even this gossip--if handled well and performed carefully--can be good and healthy. One task of community is to regulate behavior. In order to keep the community intact, we need certain rules and social expectations. These social contracts enable us to stick together, maintain conditions that allow trust to exist, provide means to resolve conflict, and protect the individual (their rights and autonomy). When I sin, I may not realize it. When I sin, I may just sweep it under the rug, idly refusing to repent and change myself for the better. But knowing that others see my actions and are affected by my behavior, then I am motivated to learn where I have done wrong, and I am compelled to repent and change my ways. Gossip can be a mechanism that can strengthen community by regulating or limiting unhealthy behavior in individuals. Christians have a duty to guide one another. We have a responsibility to hold each other accountable to the Law and the Gospel. Gossip can help----but only if it is done very carefully!!!
"Often people that criticize your life are
usually the same people that don't know the price you paid
to get where you are today. True friends see the full picture of your soul."
-Shannon L. Alder
"The wise will hide your follies and help you learn,
but the wicked ones will gossip about it with scoundrels."
-Aniruddha Sastikar
When it comes to gossip about sin or bad behavior or offense, the only person you should be gossiping with is the one who has sinned or behaved badly or offended you. Because, in that case, the only people being bitten by fleas are the two of you. Groom each other first. Get rid of the fleas you share between you before you spread those fleas to others in the community. Don't turn people agains the one who has sinned, get the one who has sinned to turn around.
"It is presumptuous to draw conclusions about a person
from what one has heard."
from what one has heard."
-Jude Morgan
Evolution has provided us with gossip. When done right--with the right people, in the right way, and for the right reasons--gossip can contribute to social and inter-personal well-being. But if gossip only makes you sin, if gossip only drives you apart from someone, then cut it out.
Gossip is for grooming.
Gossip is not for dodging or judging or getting ahead or getting even.
Pick the nit, not the person.
Don't become the louse, let gossip be guided by love.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Work It Out Between the Two of You
"If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17)
Put any two people together, in any kind of relationship long enough, and one will hurt or offend the other. The two will disagree on something, it is inevitable. It is human nature. It is life. Thanks be to God that Jesus knows us, and gives us the teaching above, which is so practical for our daily lives.
Many Bibles put section headings or titles on various parts of scripture. The Lutheran Study Bible entitles this passage, "Reproving Another Who Sins." Most entitle this section of Jesus' teaching, "Disciplining Members of the Church." Indeed, the passage above provides a simple and healthy process for governing interpersonal conflict. However, a better section title might be, "Work it Out Between the Two of You."
When you look at the context of the passage, it is clear that Jesus' intent is not to teach us how to discipline one another, but rather to teach us how to work things out, how to be reconciled to one another. Before we write someone off, we are to actively try to work things out three times, before we treat them as an outsider. (Notice, however, that even once they are an outsider--gentile or tax collector--we are still to hope for their repentance and return to the community. Jesus spent a lot of time with Gentiles and tax collectors...he healed them, talked to them, listened, ate with them, and worked with them. The irony! Treat them as Gentiles and tax collectors means befriend them! The Christian never shuns or despises the outsider, but loves even the enemy.)
When Jesus lays out this system of conflict management, he just finished sharing the Parable of the Lost Sheep. In that parable, the shepherd leaves his 99 sheep to recover the 1 that was lost. Before that, the disciples asked Jesus, "who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?" Jesus responded by showing them a child, and said that the young child--vulnerable, humble, with no status in society--is the greatest. And, "Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me." Those who frustrate and offend us because they act childish or infantile...those are the ones we are to welcome....
The purpose of Matthew 18:15-17 is not discipline, but rather reconciliation. The only goal is that the two (offended and offender) repair the relationship between them.
If someone offends you, go to that one...
Go to that one, and do not gossip.
When reconciliation is the goal, the first person who should hear your grievance is God. Then, the only human being who should hear the story of how you were offended is the one who offended you. This goes against human nature. When we are offended, we want to tell everyone but the one who caused the offense. We want others to support us and to see how wrong the other is. We want someone to punish the other person. But Jesus gives us this commandment so that we seek reconciliation, not discipline! So, to do that, we have to go to the offender first.
Go to that one, and do not wait for them to come to you.
When reconciliation is the goal, the responsibility of reconciliation is placed on the one who is offended. This goes against human nature. When we are offended, we want the offender to come to us, groveling for forgiveness! We wait for an apology. And only then are we willing to consider forgiveness and reconciliation--maybe. But if you want what Jesus wants (what God wills), then you will not wait for the offender to come crawling back, ashamed and repentant. No, if you want what God wills, you will leave your 99 friends who have your back, and you will go look for that 1 who offended, so that you can regain that one.
Go to that one, again and again.
When reconciliation is the goal, the Christian never gives up entirely. After we have followed the whole process (1. go to that one; 2. go to that one with one or two witnesses; 3. go to that one with the whole church), then the ball is in the offender's court. At that point, we need not actively pursue reconciliation, but we continue to wait for it. It is no longer our responsibility, but the responsibility of the offender to seek reconciliation at that point. But we hope for it. We look for it in holy expectation. In Matthew, after Jesus has explained the whole process of "Working it Out Between the Two of You," Peter asks him, "Lord, if another member of the church sins agains me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?" Jesus said to him, "Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times." In other words, forgiveness is always an option. Reconciliation is always and forever the goal. This goes against human nature. When we are offended, and we have made the attempt to reconcile at least once or twice, we feel that our duty to our fellow human being is done. 'They don't want reconciliation? Fine, then I am done,' we say. Or we forgive the offender, and they just keep running over us---offending us in the same way over and over again, never changing. And so we decide to get wise, saying, 'They won't fool me again. I am done.' But Jesus explains that we are never done...if we want what God wants. We will foolishly forgive, again and again, because reconciliation is the goal. Nothing else on earth is more important...if we want what God wants. And if we don't want what God wants, then we have become to Jesus a Gentile and a tax collector. Even then, to be forgiven, we must forgive.
What a hard teaching! And yet it is elegant in its simplicity. It is practical. It works. It can be applied to any relationship. It has so many applications in our daily life. Yet, it takes love and discipline (that is, it takes faith) to do what Jesus here commands.
This is what God does...
If it is good enough for God, then it is good enough for me. When I sin against the Father, God does not go to Jesus to sneer and gripe about me. God does not turn his back, not even after forgiving seven times. God does not go to Satan and say, "Devil, take him." When I sin against the Father, God comes to me. We work it out, me and God. And what matters to God is not that God is right, but that we find a way to keep the love between us.
When we are in community with others, we hurt people. But thanks be to God that hurt can be overcome with love, sin can be overcome with grace. It is not just our mission...it is our hope. Amen.
Put any two people together, in any kind of relationship long enough, and one will hurt or offend the other. The two will disagree on something, it is inevitable. It is human nature. It is life. Thanks be to God that Jesus knows us, and gives us the teaching above, which is so practical for our daily lives.
Many Bibles put section headings or titles on various parts of scripture. The Lutheran Study Bible entitles this passage, "Reproving Another Who Sins." Most entitle this section of Jesus' teaching, "Disciplining Members of the Church." Indeed, the passage above provides a simple and healthy process for governing interpersonal conflict. However, a better section title might be, "Work it Out Between the Two of You."
When you look at the context of the passage, it is clear that Jesus' intent is not to teach us how to discipline one another, but rather to teach us how to work things out, how to be reconciled to one another. Before we write someone off, we are to actively try to work things out three times, before we treat them as an outsider. (Notice, however, that even once they are an outsider--gentile or tax collector--we are still to hope for their repentance and return to the community. Jesus spent a lot of time with Gentiles and tax collectors...he healed them, talked to them, listened, ate with them, and worked with them. The irony! Treat them as Gentiles and tax collectors means befriend them! The Christian never shuns or despises the outsider, but loves even the enemy.)
When Jesus lays out this system of conflict management, he just finished sharing the Parable of the Lost Sheep. In that parable, the shepherd leaves his 99 sheep to recover the 1 that was lost. Before that, the disciples asked Jesus, "who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?" Jesus responded by showing them a child, and said that the young child--vulnerable, humble, with no status in society--is the greatest. And, "Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me." Those who frustrate and offend us because they act childish or infantile...those are the ones we are to welcome....
The purpose of Matthew 18:15-17 is not discipline, but rather reconciliation. The only goal is that the two (offended and offender) repair the relationship between them.
If someone offends you, go to that one...
Go to that one, and do not gossip.
When reconciliation is the goal, the first person who should hear your grievance is God. Then, the only human being who should hear the story of how you were offended is the one who offended you. This goes against human nature. When we are offended, we want to tell everyone but the one who caused the offense. We want others to support us and to see how wrong the other is. We want someone to punish the other person. But Jesus gives us this commandment so that we seek reconciliation, not discipline! So, to do that, we have to go to the offender first.
Go to that one, and do not wait for them to come to you.
When reconciliation is the goal, the responsibility of reconciliation is placed on the one who is offended. This goes against human nature. When we are offended, we want the offender to come to us, groveling for forgiveness! We wait for an apology. And only then are we willing to consider forgiveness and reconciliation--maybe. But if you want what Jesus wants (what God wills), then you will not wait for the offender to come crawling back, ashamed and repentant. No, if you want what God wills, you will leave your 99 friends who have your back, and you will go look for that 1 who offended, so that you can regain that one.
Go to that one, again and again.
When reconciliation is the goal, the Christian never gives up entirely. After we have followed the whole process (1. go to that one; 2. go to that one with one or two witnesses; 3. go to that one with the whole church), then the ball is in the offender's court. At that point, we need not actively pursue reconciliation, but we continue to wait for it. It is no longer our responsibility, but the responsibility of the offender to seek reconciliation at that point. But we hope for it. We look for it in holy expectation. In Matthew, after Jesus has explained the whole process of "Working it Out Between the Two of You," Peter asks him, "Lord, if another member of the church sins agains me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?" Jesus said to him, "Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times." In other words, forgiveness is always an option. Reconciliation is always and forever the goal. This goes against human nature. When we are offended, and we have made the attempt to reconcile at least once or twice, we feel that our duty to our fellow human being is done. 'They don't want reconciliation? Fine, then I am done,' we say. Or we forgive the offender, and they just keep running over us---offending us in the same way over and over again, never changing. And so we decide to get wise, saying, 'They won't fool me again. I am done.' But Jesus explains that we are never done...if we want what God wants. We will foolishly forgive, again and again, because reconciliation is the goal. Nothing else on earth is more important...if we want what God wants. And if we don't want what God wants, then we have become to Jesus a Gentile and a tax collector. Even then, to be forgiven, we must forgive.
What a hard teaching! And yet it is elegant in its simplicity. It is practical. It works. It can be applied to any relationship. It has so many applications in our daily life. Yet, it takes love and discipline (that is, it takes faith) to do what Jesus here commands.
This is what God does...
If it is good enough for God, then it is good enough for me. When I sin against the Father, God does not go to Jesus to sneer and gripe about me. God does not turn his back, not even after forgiving seven times. God does not go to Satan and say, "Devil, take him." When I sin against the Father, God comes to me. We work it out, me and God. And what matters to God is not that God is right, but that we find a way to keep the love between us.
When we are in community with others, we hurt people. But thanks be to God that hurt can be overcome with love, sin can be overcome with grace. It is not just our mission...it is our hope. Amen.
Friday, August 22, 2014
Kinds of Love, Part II: Agape
Having discussed, in my last post, the loves eros and philia, we now turn to the final and highest form of love, agape. Although, agape may not be unique to Christianity, one cannot be fully Christian without loving, or trying to love, in this way.
AGAPE
This type of love is actually quite simple to understand. However, this sort of love is the most difficult. Indeed, agape is offensive to our human sensibilities.
This type of love is most commonly characterized as self-sacrificing love. As Jesus put it, the love that inspires to lay down one's life for a friend. Agape is the deepest kind of love. It requires intimacy, openness and trust. When Paul writes about love in 1 Corinthians 13--"Love is patient. Love is kind.... Love does not insist on its own way..." and so on, he is referring to agape love. It is a love so powerful that we would even give up ourselves, our own life, for the object of our love. This is how Jesus would have us love our neighbors and ourselves. Being pushed to make sacrifices for ones we love is an offense to individuality--individual rights and rights of property. Agape forces us into the type of humbleness and compassion that offends our sense of autonomy. Yet the gains of agape are immeasurable. Jesus says at one point, "...those who cling to their life will lose it, and those who lose their life will gain it...." Part of what he refers to here is the self-emptying that is required for agape. Although I lose my position of central importance in agape, I suddenly and mysteriously gain an infinitely greater importance by communing with the whole in love. The whole what? In a word, God. In several words: God, the cosmos, all of humanity, etc. In agape, I never entirely lose myself (rather I gain myself!), but instead, I grow to sense my linkage to something greater--my place in the vast tree of life.
But that is not all we can say about agape. Indeed, we must say more, for Jesus commands us to not only love our friends and those we know, but also to love our enemies and strangers. Agape is not just a matter of degree. That is, agape is not simply that I love my loved ones more deeply. For instance, I am more likely to jeopardize my life protecting one of my nieces, then for a casual friend. This contrast does not make my love for my niece agapic love. Philia, and even eros, can be self-denying or self-sacrificial. Agape is not so much a matter of degree as it is of application. Agape is set apart from the other loves because agape is love that is shared with those who are difficult to love.
The word we have for such an expansive application is "unconditional." I believe that few individuals appreciate the weight of this word. Jesus died on the cross for all people--the whole world. Not just his followers, those that loved him, and those that were good, pious people, but also criminals (even the ones executed beside him!), his enemies, the people who accused and incarcerated him, and those who hated him enough to kill him. Jesus shared his love no matter what the other person thought of him or did to him. Jesus' love was not conditioned by any thought or action or feeling or -thing on the part of the other, the recipient of his love. Jesus loves us even while we are dead in sin, because his love is unconditional. If his love were not, then he would not love us until we were purified and wholly righteous.
Agape is not tolerance. Tolerance is passive. Meanwhile, agape is active and proactive.
Agape is not mere acceptance. It does not condone malicious or destructive behavior. Instead, agape works to correct such behavior in others through the process of repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation, and through teaching and loving.
Agape is not a feeling. It is not even a decision or commitment. Agape is obedience to the will of God. It is following God's example of love in Jesus Christ. In this respect, agape is actually quite easy, for all it takes is to follow Jesus, our Pathfinder.
Agape is not preferential. The true litmus test for agapic love is not how deeply I love my spouse or family or friends. The true test of agapic love is whether or not one loves and shows love toward the stranger, the offender, and the enemy. Grudges chase agape out of the heart. So do vengeance, envy, hatred, fear, loathing, prejudice, bigotry, and indifference.
Agape does not search for reasons to love, despite undesirable traits or actions. If we must find a reason to love someone, then we never leave eros or philia. At once, love becomes conditional since we love because of or insofar as the other has a characteristic we admire or love.
Agape is and goes beyond every category, every judgment, every consideration. I love my Muslim brothers and sisters, not because they are faithful and peace-loving people (though they are), and not even because they are human beings (though they are), but simply because God loves them. And God's will is that I love them. I love sinners, not because of their righteousness (they have none), and not because they are repentant (they may not be), but simply because God loves them. And God's will is for me to love them, too.
Agape is a power that God injects into every ugliness, sorrow or evil---to transform it.
For the Christian it is true that the only way we can attain agapic love is through union and continual communion with God. God is source and guide and strength. Before God, the individual realizes how small, sinful and imperfect he or she really is. And realizing this, it becomes the most natural thing to love all others unconditionally (as God does). Before God, we realize that we are all completely equal when compared to God's infinite majesty and power and righteousness. Such is the mystical and cosmic unity found in Christ, that all are equal and agapic love spreads easily and equally across all...
...if we allow God's nature to offend us.
AGAPE
This type of love is actually quite simple to understand. However, this sort of love is the most difficult. Indeed, agape is offensive to our human sensibilities.
This type of love is most commonly characterized as self-sacrificing love. As Jesus put it, the love that inspires to lay down one's life for a friend. Agape is the deepest kind of love. It requires intimacy, openness and trust. When Paul writes about love in 1 Corinthians 13--"Love is patient. Love is kind.... Love does not insist on its own way..." and so on, he is referring to agape love. It is a love so powerful that we would even give up ourselves, our own life, for the object of our love. This is how Jesus would have us love our neighbors and ourselves. Being pushed to make sacrifices for ones we love is an offense to individuality--individual rights and rights of property. Agape forces us into the type of humbleness and compassion that offends our sense of autonomy. Yet the gains of agape are immeasurable. Jesus says at one point, "...those who cling to their life will lose it, and those who lose their life will gain it...." Part of what he refers to here is the self-emptying that is required for agape. Although I lose my position of central importance in agape, I suddenly and mysteriously gain an infinitely greater importance by communing with the whole in love. The whole what? In a word, God. In several words: God, the cosmos, all of humanity, etc. In agape, I never entirely lose myself (rather I gain myself!), but instead, I grow to sense my linkage to something greater--my place in the vast tree of life.
But that is not all we can say about agape. Indeed, we must say more, for Jesus commands us to not only love our friends and those we know, but also to love our enemies and strangers. Agape is not just a matter of degree. That is, agape is not simply that I love my loved ones more deeply. For instance, I am more likely to jeopardize my life protecting one of my nieces, then for a casual friend. This contrast does not make my love for my niece agapic love. Philia, and even eros, can be self-denying or self-sacrificial. Agape is not so much a matter of degree as it is of application. Agape is set apart from the other loves because agape is love that is shared with those who are difficult to love.
The word we have for such an expansive application is "unconditional." I believe that few individuals appreciate the weight of this word. Jesus died on the cross for all people--the whole world. Not just his followers, those that loved him, and those that were good, pious people, but also criminals (even the ones executed beside him!), his enemies, the people who accused and incarcerated him, and those who hated him enough to kill him. Jesus shared his love no matter what the other person thought of him or did to him. Jesus' love was not conditioned by any thought or action or feeling or -thing on the part of the other, the recipient of his love. Jesus loves us even while we are dead in sin, because his love is unconditional. If his love were not, then he would not love us until we were purified and wholly righteous.
Agape is not tolerance. Tolerance is passive. Meanwhile, agape is active and proactive.
Agape is not mere acceptance. It does not condone malicious or destructive behavior. Instead, agape works to correct such behavior in others through the process of repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation, and through teaching and loving.
Agape is not a feeling. It is not even a decision or commitment. Agape is obedience to the will of God. It is following God's example of love in Jesus Christ. In this respect, agape is actually quite easy, for all it takes is to follow Jesus, our Pathfinder.
Agape is not preferential. The true litmus test for agapic love is not how deeply I love my spouse or family or friends. The true test of agapic love is whether or not one loves and shows love toward the stranger, the offender, and the enemy. Grudges chase agape out of the heart. So do vengeance, envy, hatred, fear, loathing, prejudice, bigotry, and indifference.
Agape does not search for reasons to love, despite undesirable traits or actions. If we must find a reason to love someone, then we never leave eros or philia. At once, love becomes conditional since we love because of or insofar as the other has a characteristic we admire or love.
Agape is and goes beyond every category, every judgment, every consideration. I love my Muslim brothers and sisters, not because they are faithful and peace-loving people (though they are), and not even because they are human beings (though they are), but simply because God loves them. And God's will is that I love them. I love sinners, not because of their righteousness (they have none), and not because they are repentant (they may not be), but simply because God loves them. And God's will is for me to love them, too.
Agape is a power that God injects into every ugliness, sorrow or evil---to transform it.
For the Christian it is true that the only way we can attain agapic love is through union and continual communion with God. God is source and guide and strength. Before God, the individual realizes how small, sinful and imperfect he or she really is. And realizing this, it becomes the most natural thing to love all others unconditionally (as God does). Before God, we realize that we are all completely equal when compared to God's infinite majesty and power and righteousness. Such is the mystical and cosmic unity found in Christ, that all are equal and agapic love spreads easily and equally across all...
...if we allow God's nature to offend us.
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Kinds of Love, Part 1: Eros and Philia
Since we are on the topic of marriage, lo, these last few posts, it may be good to talk about love. Love and marriage, after all, go together like a horse and carriage (or so the song goes...perhaps we might find a more relevant simile). The blogpost that follows will not be overly sentimental. I am not against sentimentality, and personally, I have a very soft and gooey core. But love is a serious matter. Indeed, the love found within marriage is not and cannot be based on "feeling" or "sentiment." Love is and must needs be stronger than this--Christian love especially.
As I reflect on love here, I will use the three most common types of love delineated by three different Greek words for love: eros, philo and agape. These three distinctions are culturally determined, and therefore arbitrary. However, English really only has one word for love, and yet most would admit that we love different people differently, depending on relationship--that there are different types of love. What follows are my reflections on each kind of love in turn, as well as some general thoughts.
Enjoy. Hope you love it.
EROS
This is perhaps one of the most misunderstood of loves. From this Greek word, we get the term "erotic." As your eyes moved over that English word, a couple of things may have happened: you may have perked up, thinking something juicy was surely to follow; you may have experienced a mental red flag--"should I be reading this"; you may have made a knee-jerk judgment--"a pastor shouldn't be blogging about erotic stuff". Especially in our culture here in America, the word "erotic" comes with a lot of baggage. Erotica is taboo. Although some may be of the opinion that erotica is perfectly fine for individuals or couples in private, erotica are not allowed in the public sphere.
Eros does include erotic love, but there is also much more to it than that. Plato, writing about eros, said that eros is, at root, the appreciation or admiration of beauty in all its forms. Love of nature is eros. Love of art is eros. And, yes, love or attraction to the beauty of the physical human form--the body--is eros. Eros is aesthetic love, the attraction to things that are visually impressive or beautiful. And not necessarily just physical. A well crafted or artful piece of prose or poetry can also evoke the love described as eros. An elegant logical argument or mathematical formula can inspire eros. Eros can also be felt for an idea or action. Love of freedom or even of country is eros. I can love the action of giving one's life or money or time for another human being. All of this can fall under the heading of eros.
Eros, therefore, is good, despite what our puritanical culture may say. It is true, eros can take many unhealthy forms, but eros is, generally speaking, good. When eros tempts us to objectify someone or something, this is wrong, for instance. Also, remaining entirely in the aesthetic, in eros, throughout one's life is not healthy either. Eros is, if you will, a gateway love. It is base level love, the beginning of love. Love can grow and flourish to be so much more. If I love nature for its beauty, great! But how much better when I am able to love even the uglier or nastier parts of nature. Some plants, animals, environments and natural processes are not very beautiful. And yet a mature love will find reasons to appreciate, will find the beauty in, even the less attractive underside of nature. I ought to be physically attracted to my spouse--it is good to feel eros for my spouse--and yet, if the entire relationship is based on eros, then I have not reached the full potential of love. My love for my spouse remains contingent on the beauty I perceive in him or her. A mature love will be excited by the beautiful in the other, but it will also dive deeper.
Sex. There, I have your attention again. Friends, sex is good. And not just for its procreative potential. The Church has done humanity a disservice by refusing to embrace sex--erotic love--as a gift from God, and a good thing. We are designed to take pleasure from sex for many functional reasons. But I believe that God also wants us to take pleasure in sex simply for the good pleasure. Because sex is such a spiritually and emotionally powerful phenomenon, however, there must be limits and rules. We are protected from be hurt by sex or using sex in unhealthy ways by the teachings of the Church. Monogamy, sex within marriage, equal sharing of pleasure, consent, fidelity--all of these things and more protect us from abusive sexual relations, giving us the freedom in Christ Jesus to enjoy the gift of our human bodies, the gift of sex.
Eros can and is spiritual, can and does have a spiritual dimension, however, eros can be neither the foundation on which spiritual love is based, nor the sum total of our love. Eros is often the beginning of love, but if love does not establish roots (philo and/or agape), then it will whither and die or it will be incomplete and eventually damaging to the human lover. Eros is a wonderful and nourishing fruit of the tree of love, but it will not bear good fruit if it doesn't have a healthy root system.
A specific example may be helpful here. I do not mean to pick on anyone, but this example will help clarify eros. Take the people who say things like: "My worship of God is being out in nature" or similar things. It is true (Martin Luther even says it, so you know its true) that the Word of God is written on every leaf and cloud and star and blade of grass. Nature does make us appreciate God's good work, and gives us a necessary sense of awe in regard to God. However, the love of nature is eros, and therefore not enough in and of itself. Agape is the root and goal of Christian love. Nature, therefore, is acceptable--right, our duty and our joy--but it is insufficient. Nature causes us to love God's action, providence and love, to love the things that God does and is, but it does not and cannot constitute a full loving relationship with God. Loving God through nature is like loving my spouse because she is intelligent or beautiful. Although, such eros is a good instigator of love, it is not enough to base the fullest of relationship on. And if there is one being with whom we are to have a full relationship, it is God. And so we must dig deeper.
PHILIA
Basically, this is the love experienced in friendship or in family relationships. The English language proper noun "Philadelphia"is rooted in philia. It comes from adelphos + philo or "brother" and "love" rendering the compound meaning of "brotherly love." Hence, Philadelphia is the "City of Brotherly Love." Philia is perhaps the most wide-ranging of the three loves. Like eros, it can be applied to non-persons. Philosophy is the love of wisdom (philo + sophia = love of wisdom). An audiophile is someone whose hobby is hi-fi...someone who chases after the perfect sound, and who loves the technology that can produce the best quality music.
Although much can be written about philia, we must, for our purposes, focus on one difference. Philia goes beyond the surface attraction to a thing, to a deeper admiration. For instance, philia is the movement from loving someone for their physical beauty (although it may start with that physical attraction) to appreciating the person for who he or she is, for the whole personality and being of the individual. Notice, attraction to intelligence can also be eros. The difference in philia is that the attraction cannot be explained by any one trait. Philia is a love and connection strong enough even to withstand some disappointment and "ugliness." Philia is the love we have for our family, even when our family members may frustrate or annoy us.
Philia has limits, however. It is preferential love. In families, the initial bond is the cultural importance we put on blood relationship. I love my nieces because they are the daughters of my brothers. And that reason for my love is sufficient. In fact, it is through the sieve of that love that I also feel proud of their intelligence, beauty, talent, etc. And even when they do wrong, those failures are eventually sifted out by the love I have for them simply because they are my nieces. Meanwhile, friendship must begin with some connection based on either sympathetic thought, emotion or experience. And that is where the preference initially lies, though it may grow to become self-sustaining.
The limitation of philia is that there is a circle of relationships with a definite boarder. I love because there is a reason to love. And there is a boundary to that love that places some within and some without. There is also a boundary within each of the philenic relationships themselves. We love our friends (and to differing degrees), but we may not make the same sacrifices for them as we would for our family members. Philia is preferential. Some (things) are preferred, and some (things) are not.
Well, I believe I should end for now, as we have run long enough. My next post will treat the third, and I believe ultimate, form of love: agape. Stay tuned!
As I reflect on love here, I will use the three most common types of love delineated by three different Greek words for love: eros, philo and agape. These three distinctions are culturally determined, and therefore arbitrary. However, English really only has one word for love, and yet most would admit that we love different people differently, depending on relationship--that there are different types of love. What follows are my reflections on each kind of love in turn, as well as some general thoughts.
Enjoy. Hope you love it.
EROS
This is perhaps one of the most misunderstood of loves. From this Greek word, we get the term "erotic." As your eyes moved over that English word, a couple of things may have happened: you may have perked up, thinking something juicy was surely to follow; you may have experienced a mental red flag--"should I be reading this"; you may have made a knee-jerk judgment--"a pastor shouldn't be blogging about erotic stuff". Especially in our culture here in America, the word "erotic" comes with a lot of baggage. Erotica is taboo. Although some may be of the opinion that erotica is perfectly fine for individuals or couples in private, erotica are not allowed in the public sphere.
Eros does include erotic love, but there is also much more to it than that. Plato, writing about eros, said that eros is, at root, the appreciation or admiration of beauty in all its forms. Love of nature is eros. Love of art is eros. And, yes, love or attraction to the beauty of the physical human form--the body--is eros. Eros is aesthetic love, the attraction to things that are visually impressive or beautiful. And not necessarily just physical. A well crafted or artful piece of prose or poetry can also evoke the love described as eros. An elegant logical argument or mathematical formula can inspire eros. Eros can also be felt for an idea or action. Love of freedom or even of country is eros. I can love the action of giving one's life or money or time for another human being. All of this can fall under the heading of eros.
Eros, therefore, is good, despite what our puritanical culture may say. It is true, eros can take many unhealthy forms, but eros is, generally speaking, good. When eros tempts us to objectify someone or something, this is wrong, for instance. Also, remaining entirely in the aesthetic, in eros, throughout one's life is not healthy either. Eros is, if you will, a gateway love. It is base level love, the beginning of love. Love can grow and flourish to be so much more. If I love nature for its beauty, great! But how much better when I am able to love even the uglier or nastier parts of nature. Some plants, animals, environments and natural processes are not very beautiful. And yet a mature love will find reasons to appreciate, will find the beauty in, even the less attractive underside of nature. I ought to be physically attracted to my spouse--it is good to feel eros for my spouse--and yet, if the entire relationship is based on eros, then I have not reached the full potential of love. My love for my spouse remains contingent on the beauty I perceive in him or her. A mature love will be excited by the beautiful in the other, but it will also dive deeper.
Sex. There, I have your attention again. Friends, sex is good. And not just for its procreative potential. The Church has done humanity a disservice by refusing to embrace sex--erotic love--as a gift from God, and a good thing. We are designed to take pleasure from sex for many functional reasons. But I believe that God also wants us to take pleasure in sex simply for the good pleasure. Because sex is such a spiritually and emotionally powerful phenomenon, however, there must be limits and rules. We are protected from be hurt by sex or using sex in unhealthy ways by the teachings of the Church. Monogamy, sex within marriage, equal sharing of pleasure, consent, fidelity--all of these things and more protect us from abusive sexual relations, giving us the freedom in Christ Jesus to enjoy the gift of our human bodies, the gift of sex.
Eros can and is spiritual, can and does have a spiritual dimension, however, eros can be neither the foundation on which spiritual love is based, nor the sum total of our love. Eros is often the beginning of love, but if love does not establish roots (philo and/or agape), then it will whither and die or it will be incomplete and eventually damaging to the human lover. Eros is a wonderful and nourishing fruit of the tree of love, but it will not bear good fruit if it doesn't have a healthy root system.
A specific example may be helpful here. I do not mean to pick on anyone, but this example will help clarify eros. Take the people who say things like: "My worship of God is being out in nature" or similar things. It is true (Martin Luther even says it, so you know its true) that the Word of God is written on every leaf and cloud and star and blade of grass. Nature does make us appreciate God's good work, and gives us a necessary sense of awe in regard to God. However, the love of nature is eros, and therefore not enough in and of itself. Agape is the root and goal of Christian love. Nature, therefore, is acceptable--right, our duty and our joy--but it is insufficient. Nature causes us to love God's action, providence and love, to love the things that God does and is, but it does not and cannot constitute a full loving relationship with God. Loving God through nature is like loving my spouse because she is intelligent or beautiful. Although, such eros is a good instigator of love, it is not enough to base the fullest of relationship on. And if there is one being with whom we are to have a full relationship, it is God. And so we must dig deeper.
PHILIA
Basically, this is the love experienced in friendship or in family relationships. The English language proper noun "Philadelphia"is rooted in philia. It comes from adelphos + philo or "brother" and "love" rendering the compound meaning of "brotherly love." Hence, Philadelphia is the "City of Brotherly Love." Philia is perhaps the most wide-ranging of the three loves. Like eros, it can be applied to non-persons. Philosophy is the love of wisdom (philo + sophia = love of wisdom). An audiophile is someone whose hobby is hi-fi...someone who chases after the perfect sound, and who loves the technology that can produce the best quality music.
Although much can be written about philia, we must, for our purposes, focus on one difference. Philia goes beyond the surface attraction to a thing, to a deeper admiration. For instance, philia is the movement from loving someone for their physical beauty (although it may start with that physical attraction) to appreciating the person for who he or she is, for the whole personality and being of the individual. Notice, attraction to intelligence can also be eros. The difference in philia is that the attraction cannot be explained by any one trait. Philia is a love and connection strong enough even to withstand some disappointment and "ugliness." Philia is the love we have for our family, even when our family members may frustrate or annoy us.
Philia has limits, however. It is preferential love. In families, the initial bond is the cultural importance we put on blood relationship. I love my nieces because they are the daughters of my brothers. And that reason for my love is sufficient. In fact, it is through the sieve of that love that I also feel proud of their intelligence, beauty, talent, etc. And even when they do wrong, those failures are eventually sifted out by the love I have for them simply because they are my nieces. Meanwhile, friendship must begin with some connection based on either sympathetic thought, emotion or experience. And that is where the preference initially lies, though it may grow to become self-sustaining.
The limitation of philia is that there is a circle of relationships with a definite boarder. I love because there is a reason to love. And there is a boundary to that love that places some within and some without. There is also a boundary within each of the philenic relationships themselves. We love our friends (and to differing degrees), but we may not make the same sacrifices for them as we would for our family members. Philia is preferential. Some (things) are preferred, and some (things) are not.
Well, I believe I should end for now, as we have run long enough. My next post will treat the third, and I believe ultimate, form of love: agape. Stay tuned!
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Why Your Marriage Needs the Church
My last blog was a rather scathing deconstruction of the institution of marriage. If I was harsh, it was an attempt to knock the holiness of marriage loose from the cultural and governmental miasma that clings to it. A religious marriage, that is a wedding in a church, is often sought more out of a matter of course, instead of an intentional and active desire to seek God's presence in a marriage relationship. Add to that, the dalliance of the church with the state in the granting of marriages, and the result is a confusing mess and an unspiritual tradition.
Here, it behooves me to reconstruct marriage--hopefully without the banality of rote custom, and the perplexity of civil benefits and legal procedures. I will begin with the mysterious or sacramental, and move to the practical.
The most stable structure, especially for uneven ground, is the tripod. We find in Christianity, as in daily life, the idea that the same is true for relationships. That is, pairs are weaker than triads. The Christian God is inherently relational. God's nature consists of three interrelated persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This triad serves as the strong ground of our being. Because we are made in God's image, we are not fit to be alone. And even if we couple, we yearn for the third to feel complete. In marriage, the healthiest third party in the relational scheme is God.
Even in our daily lives, this plays out. Human beings are constantly triangulating. In family or relational systems theory, a two-person relationship (especially when unstable) can only tolerate so much tension or anxiety before that system instinctively tries to pull in a third person. In a triangular relationship, the anxiety or tension can be passed around to each of the three people in turn, and therefore withstand a great deal more. It is interesting that even when a fourth person is introduced, the web of relationships that develops is two interlocking triangles. For example, if I have an argument with a friend that continues to defy resolution, I will instinctively seek another friend to bolster my side or to try and mediate towards a solution. I introduce the third. Further, if my original friend also seeks support by drawing in one of his or her friends into the discussion/argument/relationship, then what occurs is two triangles. My third party and my friend's third party do not relate to one another directly. Instead we have two triads: me-my friend-my support and me-my friend-my friend's support. What almost always results is faction, or--just as powerful--the perception of factions. In other words, division. And a house divided cannot stand.
Jesus promised us that where two are gathered he is present. A marriage always seeks a third party, especially as the couple travels the uneven ground of life. God is best at being that third party, since seeking friends to adopt into the deep intimacy of the marriage relationship can so easily damage the delicate trust and balance of the marriage relationship. Friends (and other human support) are necessary in the life of each spouse, as we will see shortly, however, God is uniquely qualified for the deepest intimacy and for the hardest trials. God is the base and foundation, or rather the three make the tripod: me, my spouse, and God. God's presence in a marriage is as mysterious as Christ's presence in the Eucharist. We must simply trust that Christ is present in, with and under the bread and wine because Jesus promises to be. We seek a religious wedding to hear God's promise: "I will be with you, present in your marriage." The state cannot convey that promise, cannot and ought not be able to communicate God's vow.
Once the foundation is set (me, my spouse and God), then the rest of the structure can be built safely and to last. The rest of the house, the walls and rooms and roof, are family and friends and church family. Here we move to the practical. Simply having the foundation is fine, like camping on dry ground. However, (and here we risk following the analogy to absurd lengths, but it works) most people prefer a whole house, or at least a cabin or shack. If God is in my marriage, I can seek the support of friends without the risk that that relationship will adversely affect the foundation of my marriage. My family and friends cannot turn me away from my partner in any way--whether they try to do so intentionally or not. No further triangulation can touch the deepest, most intimate foundations of my love and relationship with my partner.
In the religious wedding, three sets of vows take place, two of which we have already hit upon. The couple makes vows to each other, God vows to be present to complete their base, and lastly, the Church (the congregation) vows to support the couple in their life together. This vow is more practical, or at least less mysterious, but no less holy.
Individual sisters and brothers in Christ may support the couple in a great variety of ways. For our purposes, I would like to focus on how the Church, corporately, aids the couple in fulfilling the vows they have made to each other, vows that extend until death parts them.
Generally speaking, the Church teaches people two things: 1. how to relate to God and 2. how to relate to other people. Jesus even taught his disciples the two greatest commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and being. And love your neighbor as yourself. I now turn to specific and practical teachings of the church that help us to love in relationship. These teachings are applicable to all human relationships, but are even more vital to the marriage relationship, which is arguably the most intense relationship in life. I will try to speak of each one in terms of the marriage relationship in particular.
The Church proclaims God's promises. Humans forget--especially when stress and turmoil distract us. Married couples can forget, too. They can forget the vows they made to each other. They can forget God's presence in their lives. The Church repeats God's promise, God's vow to the couple, over and over again. "I am with you." The couple needs this reminder so that the foundation of their love will not crack. The Church proclaims God's presence.
The Church teaches and encourages prayer. Prayer does many things, but in this context, I would like to highlight one thing in particular. When we pray, we practice openness toward God. We bare our innermost thoughts, our heart and soul, to God in prayer. Now, God knows all of these things even before we pray, and yet the discipline of prayer is crucial so that we might learn trust and openness. In a marriage relationship, communication is the most crucial activity. The more each person can open their thoughts and hearts to the other--in trust--the stronger the relationship will be. Prayer is the deepening of intimacy with God, but it is also practice to deepen intimacy with others. If I am ashamed or shy in telling God what God already knows, I will never be able to confide in another human being. But the more I become comfortable with openness to the Deity, the more courageous I will become in risking trust with others--particularly my spouse.
The Church instructs people how to live within a covenant. God has made a covenant with us, and we with God. A covenant outlines expectations on both sides. We expect God to be present, to love us and to be our help, etc. God expects us to love, worship, follow and obey him. Every human relationship exists within a covenant--whether that covenant is explicit or implicit. That is to say, that every relationship, from co-worker to friend to spouse carries with it expectations of some kind. Communication is crucial for making those expectations clear so that the covenant can be maintained. A covenant also details what must be done to repair it when it is broken, when expectations are not met.
The Church teaches and encourages forgiveness. When trust (or a covenant) is broken, the first step in repairing that trust is and must be forgiveness. Every married couple will eventually face hurt, disappointment, offense and sin that will come between the two. The only way a married couple will be able to continue into the future is if they learn how to forgive one another. Forgiveness involves giving up resentment, retribution and the desire to hold someone's actions against them after the fact. Forgiveness is a process.
The Church teaches and encourages repentance. This is part of forgiveness, but is also worth treating on its own. When one spouse hurts or breaks trust with their partner, this infraction must be recognized (notice, forgiveness can happen without repentance, but reconciliation cannot). In repentance, I admit that I am wrong, and I endeavor to correct my sinful behavior in the future. Repentance and forgiveness can be indicated briefly in this way: if you are wrong, admit it (repentance), and if you are right, let it go (forgiveness).
The Church teaches and encourages reconciliation. Forgiveness does not always end with a continuation of the relationship. I can forgive someone who sins against me without having to intentionally associate with them, let alone live with them. But if a relationship is to survive or even grow from a break in trust, then forgiveness must lead to reconciliation. The scriptures and the Church help teach people how to repair a relationship, how to repair and rebuild trust. If something as damaging as adultery occurs in a marriage, forgiveness is necessary for both parties to move on with their own lives, even if they separate or divorce. Reconciliation is the only process that will enable the couple to move on in their life together. Reconciliation requires a conscious choice, and a lot of hard work. It requires repentance, reform, forgiveness, faith, hope and love. Reconciliation requires the example of God's love for us--steadfast, unconditional love and grace.
The Church teaches and encourages giving, service and an eternal perspective. If a couple is too inwardly focussed, then they lose perspective and momentum. Just as a congregation who loses their sense of mission will stagnate, so too will a married couple. A marriage must have goals, and the couple must have a mission to work on together. The sentimental image of a marriage relationship is an embrace--and this is good component of marriage. But a still better image is two people walking along the path of life side-by-side. Charity and service give the married couple an opportunity to work together to be a blessing to others. And focussing on something bigger than themselves gives them perspective on their own problems. Focussing on worship toward God gives them an eternal perspective. As Paul states, the glory that we stand to receive in Christ Jesus is so great that it is not even worth comparing to our current sufferings and trials. A healthy dose of outward and forward momentum will give the couple the desire and the power to overcome interpersonal struggles.
The Church teaches and encourages many other things that I will not belabor here, but that are infinitely helpful, or even essential, for any relationship, especially marriage: patience, endurance, gratitude, joy, hope, righteousness, stewardship, humility, wisdom, temperance (or restraint), courage (or fortitude), integrity...love...and the list goes on.
My friends, it may well be possible that a couple can find their way to these virtues and skills on their own. But the Church exists to instill these things in God's people. The Church exists to teach and to be a practicing ground for all of these skills necessary for relationship with God and others.
But in order to learn these things, a couple must not only be married in the Church, but they must live in the Church. That is, the true benefit of a religious wedding comes from regular church attendance, and the effort to follow Jesus Christ in one's daily life.
The wise couple, the lasting couple, will not only remember God's presence with and between them, but also will avail themselves of God's help offered through the Church.
Here, it behooves me to reconstruct marriage--hopefully without the banality of rote custom, and the perplexity of civil benefits and legal procedures. I will begin with the mysterious or sacramental, and move to the practical.
The most stable structure, especially for uneven ground, is the tripod. We find in Christianity, as in daily life, the idea that the same is true for relationships. That is, pairs are weaker than triads. The Christian God is inherently relational. God's nature consists of three interrelated persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This triad serves as the strong ground of our being. Because we are made in God's image, we are not fit to be alone. And even if we couple, we yearn for the third to feel complete. In marriage, the healthiest third party in the relational scheme is God.
Even in our daily lives, this plays out. Human beings are constantly triangulating. In family or relational systems theory, a two-person relationship (especially when unstable) can only tolerate so much tension or anxiety before that system instinctively tries to pull in a third person. In a triangular relationship, the anxiety or tension can be passed around to each of the three people in turn, and therefore withstand a great deal more. It is interesting that even when a fourth person is introduced, the web of relationships that develops is two interlocking triangles. For example, if I have an argument with a friend that continues to defy resolution, I will instinctively seek another friend to bolster my side or to try and mediate towards a solution. I introduce the third. Further, if my original friend also seeks support by drawing in one of his or her friends into the discussion/argument/relationship, then what occurs is two triangles. My third party and my friend's third party do not relate to one another directly. Instead we have two triads: me-my friend-my support and me-my friend-my friend's support. What almost always results is faction, or--just as powerful--the perception of factions. In other words, division. And a house divided cannot stand.
Jesus promised us that where two are gathered he is present. A marriage always seeks a third party, especially as the couple travels the uneven ground of life. God is best at being that third party, since seeking friends to adopt into the deep intimacy of the marriage relationship can so easily damage the delicate trust and balance of the marriage relationship. Friends (and other human support) are necessary in the life of each spouse, as we will see shortly, however, God is uniquely qualified for the deepest intimacy and for the hardest trials. God is the base and foundation, or rather the three make the tripod: me, my spouse, and God. God's presence in a marriage is as mysterious as Christ's presence in the Eucharist. We must simply trust that Christ is present in, with and under the bread and wine because Jesus promises to be. We seek a religious wedding to hear God's promise: "I will be with you, present in your marriage." The state cannot convey that promise, cannot and ought not be able to communicate God's vow.
Once the foundation is set (me, my spouse and God), then the rest of the structure can be built safely and to last. The rest of the house, the walls and rooms and roof, are family and friends and church family. Here we move to the practical. Simply having the foundation is fine, like camping on dry ground. However, (and here we risk following the analogy to absurd lengths, but it works) most people prefer a whole house, or at least a cabin or shack. If God is in my marriage, I can seek the support of friends without the risk that that relationship will adversely affect the foundation of my marriage. My family and friends cannot turn me away from my partner in any way--whether they try to do so intentionally or not. No further triangulation can touch the deepest, most intimate foundations of my love and relationship with my partner.
In the religious wedding, three sets of vows take place, two of which we have already hit upon. The couple makes vows to each other, God vows to be present to complete their base, and lastly, the Church (the congregation) vows to support the couple in their life together. This vow is more practical, or at least less mysterious, but no less holy.
Individual sisters and brothers in Christ may support the couple in a great variety of ways. For our purposes, I would like to focus on how the Church, corporately, aids the couple in fulfilling the vows they have made to each other, vows that extend until death parts them.
Generally speaking, the Church teaches people two things: 1. how to relate to God and 2. how to relate to other people. Jesus even taught his disciples the two greatest commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and being. And love your neighbor as yourself. I now turn to specific and practical teachings of the church that help us to love in relationship. These teachings are applicable to all human relationships, but are even more vital to the marriage relationship, which is arguably the most intense relationship in life. I will try to speak of each one in terms of the marriage relationship in particular.
The Church proclaims God's promises. Humans forget--especially when stress and turmoil distract us. Married couples can forget, too. They can forget the vows they made to each other. They can forget God's presence in their lives. The Church repeats God's promise, God's vow to the couple, over and over again. "I am with you." The couple needs this reminder so that the foundation of their love will not crack. The Church proclaims God's presence.
The Church teaches and encourages prayer. Prayer does many things, but in this context, I would like to highlight one thing in particular. When we pray, we practice openness toward God. We bare our innermost thoughts, our heart and soul, to God in prayer. Now, God knows all of these things even before we pray, and yet the discipline of prayer is crucial so that we might learn trust and openness. In a marriage relationship, communication is the most crucial activity. The more each person can open their thoughts and hearts to the other--in trust--the stronger the relationship will be. Prayer is the deepening of intimacy with God, but it is also practice to deepen intimacy with others. If I am ashamed or shy in telling God what God already knows, I will never be able to confide in another human being. But the more I become comfortable with openness to the Deity, the more courageous I will become in risking trust with others--particularly my spouse.
The Church instructs people how to live within a covenant. God has made a covenant with us, and we with God. A covenant outlines expectations on both sides. We expect God to be present, to love us and to be our help, etc. God expects us to love, worship, follow and obey him. Every human relationship exists within a covenant--whether that covenant is explicit or implicit. That is to say, that every relationship, from co-worker to friend to spouse carries with it expectations of some kind. Communication is crucial for making those expectations clear so that the covenant can be maintained. A covenant also details what must be done to repair it when it is broken, when expectations are not met.
The Church teaches and encourages forgiveness. When trust (or a covenant) is broken, the first step in repairing that trust is and must be forgiveness. Every married couple will eventually face hurt, disappointment, offense and sin that will come between the two. The only way a married couple will be able to continue into the future is if they learn how to forgive one another. Forgiveness involves giving up resentment, retribution and the desire to hold someone's actions against them after the fact. Forgiveness is a process.
The Church teaches and encourages repentance. This is part of forgiveness, but is also worth treating on its own. When one spouse hurts or breaks trust with their partner, this infraction must be recognized (notice, forgiveness can happen without repentance, but reconciliation cannot). In repentance, I admit that I am wrong, and I endeavor to correct my sinful behavior in the future. Repentance and forgiveness can be indicated briefly in this way: if you are wrong, admit it (repentance), and if you are right, let it go (forgiveness).
The Church teaches and encourages reconciliation. Forgiveness does not always end with a continuation of the relationship. I can forgive someone who sins against me without having to intentionally associate with them, let alone live with them. But if a relationship is to survive or even grow from a break in trust, then forgiveness must lead to reconciliation. The scriptures and the Church help teach people how to repair a relationship, how to repair and rebuild trust. If something as damaging as adultery occurs in a marriage, forgiveness is necessary for both parties to move on with their own lives, even if they separate or divorce. Reconciliation is the only process that will enable the couple to move on in their life together. Reconciliation requires a conscious choice, and a lot of hard work. It requires repentance, reform, forgiveness, faith, hope and love. Reconciliation requires the example of God's love for us--steadfast, unconditional love and grace.
The Church teaches and encourages giving, service and an eternal perspective. If a couple is too inwardly focussed, then they lose perspective and momentum. Just as a congregation who loses their sense of mission will stagnate, so too will a married couple. A marriage must have goals, and the couple must have a mission to work on together. The sentimental image of a marriage relationship is an embrace--and this is good component of marriage. But a still better image is two people walking along the path of life side-by-side. Charity and service give the married couple an opportunity to work together to be a blessing to others. And focussing on something bigger than themselves gives them perspective on their own problems. Focussing on worship toward God gives them an eternal perspective. As Paul states, the glory that we stand to receive in Christ Jesus is so great that it is not even worth comparing to our current sufferings and trials. A healthy dose of outward and forward momentum will give the couple the desire and the power to overcome interpersonal struggles.
The Church teaches and encourages many other things that I will not belabor here, but that are infinitely helpful, or even essential, for any relationship, especially marriage: patience, endurance, gratitude, joy, hope, righteousness, stewardship, humility, wisdom, temperance (or restraint), courage (or fortitude), integrity...love...and the list goes on.
My friends, it may well be possible that a couple can find their way to these virtues and skills on their own. But the Church exists to instill these things in God's people. The Church exists to teach and to be a practicing ground for all of these skills necessary for relationship with God and others.
But in order to learn these things, a couple must not only be married in the Church, but they must live in the Church. That is, the true benefit of a religious wedding comes from regular church attendance, and the effort to follow Jesus Christ in one's daily life.
The wise couple, the lasting couple, will not only remember God's presence with and between them, but also will avail themselves of God's help offered through the Church.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Marriage: The Church's Affair with the State
I have the honor and good pleasure to conduct seven weddings this year. As I have been planning wedding services and conducting pre-marital counseling for seven couples, marriage has been on my mind a lot lately. What follows is a general reflection on the phenomenon of marriage:
As I mentioned in last week's blog post, marriage is a human cultural invention.
God did not command us to get married, he commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. God did not conduct a wedding for Adam and Eve, nor did he require them to endure one. God did intend them to be together, for "It is not good that the man [or the woman] should be alone" (Genesis 2:18). Adam and Eve were made out of the same flesh, and so ideally should work toward the reunion of that one flesh. But humans created marriage to mark God's less formal and more primordial intentions.
Marriage is not a commandment of God, but instead simply a human mechanism to help us follow God's more general wishes: 1. that we not be alone 2. that everyone has an equal partner or helper, and 3. that one be able to trust and depend on his or her partner. God never commanded humans to state explicit vows to one another. We require each other to make marriage vows, so that we can rest assured in the explicit intentions of another human being. After all, God made a covenant (a system of bi-directional vows), so why wouldn't a human being make a covenant with his or her partner?
But just as with sex (see last week's blog post: "How Does God Want Us to Have Sex?: In Search of a Biblical Position"), marriage in the Bible is very different form what marriage is today.
Biblically speaking, marriage is intended to be contractual. In the Bible, marriage and sex were a transaction. The man and woman entered a practical, socially binding agreement that gave each party something that they needed. In marriage, men were assured an heir. That's right, men (and not women) got married for the babies. Meanwhile, women were assured socio-economic security. Women could not own property themselves, were not given the freedom to work to support themselves. Women were, generally speaking, weaker and held no rights--not even rights over their own bodies. Thus, women needed a man to provide for them and protect them. The vows of marriage were to ensure that the man and the woman worked together for mutual benefit and didn't try to take advantage of the other.
The Bible, therefore is clear: marriage is not about love. God wanted all of his children to love each other. For our One God there is but one kind of love--the love one human is commanded to show God and every other human being. That love is modeled not on the goddess Venus or her son Eros, but rather is modeled on the one, true God's love for God's creatures. Judeo-Christian love is of one kind: steadfast, non-romantic, and based not on emotion but rather on promises. God's love is not about inter-personal relationship, but about mutual trust and support--providing for the practical needs of survival.
Think of it this way: the only type of love that matters for a Christian is the type of love found and expressed between the Father and the Son, the Father and the Spirit, the Son and the Spirit...and so on. There is only one love. It is not sexual. It is not emotional.
There is but one kind of love.
Sex is something else.
Emotion is something else.
Romantic involvement, broadly understood, is something else.
What we, in Christianity today, call marriage is something else.
The New Testament is pretty clear: disciples of Jesus Christ are married to Jesus. One vow, one relationship super-cedes all others--our vow to love God and be in relationship with God alone. Our relationships to everyone else and to everything else are mediated through that one marriage to Jesus Christ (accomplished through the Church). If I love my neighbor, it is only because of my marriage to Jesus Christ and the fact that I relate to my neighbor only through marriage. I have no spouse but Jesus. I have no family but Jesus. I have no friends but Jesus. If I have any enemies, it is because I have made Jesus my enemy first. (Remember, I can only relate to others through Jesus. Therefore, if another person is my enemy, Christ has already become my enemy.)
You see, when one is baptized, that one is made one with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; the person is clothed with Christ, joined to Christ in his dying and rising--not just until death parts them. Baptism is one's marriage to God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
For this reason, St. Paul and other New Testament writers adamantly preached that Christians should not get married at all. If our nation and culture were truly Christian, marriage and weddings would not exist. Paul wrote that marriage was allowed only for the weak--those who were tempted to have sex and could not avoid their addiction to "the flesh." Marriage, Paul argued, was the only context in which preferential love and sexual expressions of love were even remotely permissible. For Paul, marriage is--at best--a necessary evil. The only thing that marriage is good for is to prevent you from doing other evil things beside getting married.
According to Jesus, the only thing worse than marriage is divorce. Why? Because if you cannot be faithful to another human being with whom you have entered a covenant, then you certainly cannot be faithful to your God. Indeed, dismissing the marriage covenant between you and another human is--by the same stroke and action--dismissing the marriage covenant you have made with God. In the very act of divorcing my spouse, I have divorced God. (No wonder Paul tells us not to get married! The stakes are absolute.)
In sum, the only good marriage is our marriage to God. This statement is most certainly true...if we trust the words of Scripture.
So why is the Church in the business of marrying people to each other at all? For the life of me, I can only think of one reason: the Church is unfaithful to God.
When it comes to marriage as a spiritual--or religious--phenomenon, there is only one marriage allowed: our marriage to God; there is only one wedding allowed: baptism. And the One Marriage is only allowed to be consummated in one way: holy communion. (Some Christian mystics use sex as a metaphor for communing with God, which is a good and helpful enough metaphor. But literally, the only communing we do with God is the Eucharist.)
Marriage to a human spouse is not spiritual, but mundane and practical...not religious but secular. Human marriage is, therefore, a matter of the secular state and not within the purview of the Church.
Marriage between two people is a state matter. Christians, being in the world but not of the world, are justified in seeking a legal marriage in order to obtain the protections, rights and privileges such a relationship offers under and according to the law (worldly law).
Throughout history, marriage has always been more about legality than spirituality. Marriage, remember, is a cultural institution, not a divine one. Marriage was invented as a means for human beings to hold two people accountable to one another--a means for a human being to hold her spouse accountable. Marriage is not about God holding us accountable--we are accountable to God for our promises whether or not there is a formal vow or a public vow or a legally recognized vow creating a legally defined relationship. Marriage is about humans holding humans accountable. Thus, marriage is a state matter.
Faith offers no reason to get married, but every reason to avoid a religious/spiritual marriage.
Meanwhile, human law offers every reason to get married. Tax laws, parentage rights/responsibilities, public validation of social position, inheritance laws, economic provisions, etc. are the only reasons to get married.
In the early Christian Church, weddings simply didn't happen. Marriage was solely a state institution. No wedding liturgy dates back to the early Church. And there is no evidence that Christian Churches were called on or felt obliged to bless civil marriages. Rather, Paul curses marriage and instructed churches to teach the same.
Notice also, that when Paul recommends marriage for those who cannot handle a pure Christian life, he is not sending them to the Church to get married. Paul is sending folks to the state. Although Paul does not make his theology about the role of state governments in the world yet, one can already anticipate in his thought what later theologians would conclude. To wit, God instituted state governments to help curb sinfulness by creating societies of peace and stability. In other words, when Paul suggests that Christians marry, he is, in effect saying, "Since you can't follow the Church, at least the non-Christian state help you avoid as much evil as possible."
But by the Middle Ages, marriage had become an action of the Church. Why? Because in 425 C.E. the Church became the bedfellow of the state because of Emperor Constantine. Since that time, the Church has continually tried to monopolize marriage for one reason: power. By the Middle Ages, the Church was already aiming to hold power in the world. Marriage was one instance of the Church usurping power from the state. Eventually, the state was not allowed to give two people the rights and privileges of being united under the law without the authorization of the Church. The Church wanted as much worldly authority as it could get. The Church wanted power and was given power.
Today, when I conduct a wedding, there is no doubt in my mind that I am acting as a representative of the state more so than the Church. As a called and ordained minister of the Church of Christ, I can bless all sorts of relationships. But when I marry two people, that marriage is only effective when I sign a legal, government document. And most of the time when two people ask me to marry them, what they want me to do is serve as their public witness and substitute government official to sign off on their legal marriage. In their minds, marriage happens in church. Traditional weddings are officiated by a pastor, not a judge. What couples usually want is a traditional wedding, not necessarily a divine blessing on their marriage.
If it were up to me, I would have the Church quit being involved in marriage. If it were up to me, weddings would be something that people sought from the state alone. All marriages would be conducted by a justice of the peace or some other governmental official vested with the power to marry. Only then, if--and only if--two people desired to hear the Good News that Jesus alone was the foundation of their relationship together, I would have the Church be on hand to bless their civil union and to ask God to help them live together in love, faith, hope, etc.
If it were up to me, I would never be asked to exercise the powers invested in me by the state of Illinois by pronouncing two people to be married.
After all, when I conduct pre-marital counseling, I am not really preparing two people for marriage. I am preparing two people to live as followers of Jesus Christ. The three of us present at those sessions implicitly understand that I am equipping them for Christian behavior within a relationship specifically and completely defined by a worldly institution...the state.
Faith informs a couple's marriage relationship in the same way that faith informs an individual's politics. The Church is forbidden to dictate the latter, why is the Church able to officially determine the former?
[Note: This year, I am doing more weddings than I have ever had the opportunity to do before. Weddings are not my favorite part of ministry, but I am growing to enjoy them more and more. It is not that I dislike performing weddings. Instead, from what history has taught me and from what the Bible teaches, I believe that the Church really has no business performing marriages for the state. The ELCA has orders (liturgies) for blessing homes and new jobs and all sorts of things. I am all for blessing marriages in the context of worship. But the Church has no official capacity or power when it comes to people buying homes or seeking new jobs. We can ask God's blessings on marriage without the Church being a servant of the state. I would prefer just being a servant of Christ's Church. For that reason alone, I will continue to preside as a deputized state official at weddings...because for the time being, my Church asks and expects me to serve in that way.]
As I mentioned in last week's blog post, marriage is a human cultural invention.
God did not command us to get married, he commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. God did not conduct a wedding for Adam and Eve, nor did he require them to endure one. God did intend them to be together, for "It is not good that the man [or the woman] should be alone" (Genesis 2:18). Adam and Eve were made out of the same flesh, and so ideally should work toward the reunion of that one flesh. But humans created marriage to mark God's less formal and more primordial intentions.
Marriage is not a commandment of God, but instead simply a human mechanism to help us follow God's more general wishes: 1. that we not be alone 2. that everyone has an equal partner or helper, and 3. that one be able to trust and depend on his or her partner. God never commanded humans to state explicit vows to one another. We require each other to make marriage vows, so that we can rest assured in the explicit intentions of another human being. After all, God made a covenant (a system of bi-directional vows), so why wouldn't a human being make a covenant with his or her partner?
But just as with sex (see last week's blog post: "How Does God Want Us to Have Sex?: In Search of a Biblical Position"), marriage in the Bible is very different form what marriage is today.
Biblically speaking, marriage is intended to be contractual. In the Bible, marriage and sex were a transaction. The man and woman entered a practical, socially binding agreement that gave each party something that they needed. In marriage, men were assured an heir. That's right, men (and not women) got married for the babies. Meanwhile, women were assured socio-economic security. Women could not own property themselves, were not given the freedom to work to support themselves. Women were, generally speaking, weaker and held no rights--not even rights over their own bodies. Thus, women needed a man to provide for them and protect them. The vows of marriage were to ensure that the man and the woman worked together for mutual benefit and didn't try to take advantage of the other.
The Bible, therefore is clear: marriage is not about love. God wanted all of his children to love each other. For our One God there is but one kind of love--the love one human is commanded to show God and every other human being. That love is modeled not on the goddess Venus or her son Eros, but rather is modeled on the one, true God's love for God's creatures. Judeo-Christian love is of one kind: steadfast, non-romantic, and based not on emotion but rather on promises. God's love is not about inter-personal relationship, but about mutual trust and support--providing for the practical needs of survival.
Think of it this way: the only type of love that matters for a Christian is the type of love found and expressed between the Father and the Son, the Father and the Spirit, the Son and the Spirit...and so on. There is only one love. It is not sexual. It is not emotional.
There is but one kind of love.
Sex is something else.
Emotion is something else.
Romantic involvement, broadly understood, is something else.
What we, in Christianity today, call marriage is something else.
The New Testament is pretty clear: disciples of Jesus Christ are married to Jesus. One vow, one relationship super-cedes all others--our vow to love God and be in relationship with God alone. Our relationships to everyone else and to everything else are mediated through that one marriage to Jesus Christ (accomplished through the Church). If I love my neighbor, it is only because of my marriage to Jesus Christ and the fact that I relate to my neighbor only through marriage. I have no spouse but Jesus. I have no family but Jesus. I have no friends but Jesus. If I have any enemies, it is because I have made Jesus my enemy first. (Remember, I can only relate to others through Jesus. Therefore, if another person is my enemy, Christ has already become my enemy.)
You see, when one is baptized, that one is made one with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; the person is clothed with Christ, joined to Christ in his dying and rising--not just until death parts them. Baptism is one's marriage to God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
For this reason, St. Paul and other New Testament writers adamantly preached that Christians should not get married at all. If our nation and culture were truly Christian, marriage and weddings would not exist. Paul wrote that marriage was allowed only for the weak--those who were tempted to have sex and could not avoid their addiction to "the flesh." Marriage, Paul argued, was the only context in which preferential love and sexual expressions of love were even remotely permissible. For Paul, marriage is--at best--a necessary evil. The only thing that marriage is good for is to prevent you from doing other evil things beside getting married.
According to Jesus, the only thing worse than marriage is divorce. Why? Because if you cannot be faithful to another human being with whom you have entered a covenant, then you certainly cannot be faithful to your God. Indeed, dismissing the marriage covenant between you and another human is--by the same stroke and action--dismissing the marriage covenant you have made with God. In the very act of divorcing my spouse, I have divorced God. (No wonder Paul tells us not to get married! The stakes are absolute.)
In sum, the only good marriage is our marriage to God. This statement is most certainly true...if we trust the words of Scripture.
So why is the Church in the business of marrying people to each other at all? For the life of me, I can only think of one reason: the Church is unfaithful to God.
When it comes to marriage as a spiritual--or religious--phenomenon, there is only one marriage allowed: our marriage to God; there is only one wedding allowed: baptism. And the One Marriage is only allowed to be consummated in one way: holy communion. (Some Christian mystics use sex as a metaphor for communing with God, which is a good and helpful enough metaphor. But literally, the only communing we do with God is the Eucharist.)
Marriage to a human spouse is not spiritual, but mundane and practical...not religious but secular. Human marriage is, therefore, a matter of the secular state and not within the purview of the Church.
Marriage between two people is a state matter. Christians, being in the world but not of the world, are justified in seeking a legal marriage in order to obtain the protections, rights and privileges such a relationship offers under and according to the law (worldly law).
Throughout history, marriage has always been more about legality than spirituality. Marriage, remember, is a cultural institution, not a divine one. Marriage was invented as a means for human beings to hold two people accountable to one another--a means for a human being to hold her spouse accountable. Marriage is not about God holding us accountable--we are accountable to God for our promises whether or not there is a formal vow or a public vow or a legally recognized vow creating a legally defined relationship. Marriage is about humans holding humans accountable. Thus, marriage is a state matter.
Faith offers no reason to get married, but every reason to avoid a religious/spiritual marriage.
Meanwhile, human law offers every reason to get married. Tax laws, parentage rights/responsibilities, public validation of social position, inheritance laws, economic provisions, etc. are the only reasons to get married.
In the early Christian Church, weddings simply didn't happen. Marriage was solely a state institution. No wedding liturgy dates back to the early Church. And there is no evidence that Christian Churches were called on or felt obliged to bless civil marriages. Rather, Paul curses marriage and instructed churches to teach the same.
Notice also, that when Paul recommends marriage for those who cannot handle a pure Christian life, he is not sending them to the Church to get married. Paul is sending folks to the state. Although Paul does not make his theology about the role of state governments in the world yet, one can already anticipate in his thought what later theologians would conclude. To wit, God instituted state governments to help curb sinfulness by creating societies of peace and stability. In other words, when Paul suggests that Christians marry, he is, in effect saying, "Since you can't follow the Church, at least the non-Christian state help you avoid as much evil as possible."
But by the Middle Ages, marriage had become an action of the Church. Why? Because in 425 C.E. the Church became the bedfellow of the state because of Emperor Constantine. Since that time, the Church has continually tried to monopolize marriage for one reason: power. By the Middle Ages, the Church was already aiming to hold power in the world. Marriage was one instance of the Church usurping power from the state. Eventually, the state was not allowed to give two people the rights and privileges of being united under the law without the authorization of the Church. The Church wanted as much worldly authority as it could get. The Church wanted power and was given power.
Today, when I conduct a wedding, there is no doubt in my mind that I am acting as a representative of the state more so than the Church. As a called and ordained minister of the Church of Christ, I can bless all sorts of relationships. But when I marry two people, that marriage is only effective when I sign a legal, government document. And most of the time when two people ask me to marry them, what they want me to do is serve as their public witness and substitute government official to sign off on their legal marriage. In their minds, marriage happens in church. Traditional weddings are officiated by a pastor, not a judge. What couples usually want is a traditional wedding, not necessarily a divine blessing on their marriage.
If it were up to me, I would have the Church quit being involved in marriage. If it were up to me, weddings would be something that people sought from the state alone. All marriages would be conducted by a justice of the peace or some other governmental official vested with the power to marry. Only then, if--and only if--two people desired to hear the Good News that Jesus alone was the foundation of their relationship together, I would have the Church be on hand to bless their civil union and to ask God to help them live together in love, faith, hope, etc.
If it were up to me, I would never be asked to exercise the powers invested in me by the state of Illinois by pronouncing two people to be married.
After all, when I conduct pre-marital counseling, I am not really preparing two people for marriage. I am preparing two people to live as followers of Jesus Christ. The three of us present at those sessions implicitly understand that I am equipping them for Christian behavior within a relationship specifically and completely defined by a worldly institution...the state.
Faith informs a couple's marriage relationship in the same way that faith informs an individual's politics. The Church is forbidden to dictate the latter, why is the Church able to officially determine the former?
[Note: This year, I am doing more weddings than I have ever had the opportunity to do before. Weddings are not my favorite part of ministry, but I am growing to enjoy them more and more. It is not that I dislike performing weddings. Instead, from what history has taught me and from what the Bible teaches, I believe that the Church really has no business performing marriages for the state. The ELCA has orders (liturgies) for blessing homes and new jobs and all sorts of things. I am all for blessing marriages in the context of worship. But the Church has no official capacity or power when it comes to people buying homes or seeking new jobs. We can ask God's blessings on marriage without the Church being a servant of the state. I would prefer just being a servant of Christ's Church. For that reason alone, I will continue to preside as a deputized state official at weddings...because for the time being, my Church asks and expects me to serve in that way.]
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
How Does God Want Us to Have Sex?: In Search of a Biblical Position
Sex is biological, but it is also much more than that for humans.
For other animals and for plants, sex remains (with few exceptions) biological.
But what is the "more" that humans find in sex?
I believe that sex is considerably spiritual, and that sex is so infused with power over us and our relationships in such subtle ways that we do not appreciate its effect on us.
By "spiritual," I mean the mysterious nexus of body, mind, emotion and more. "Spiritual" does not refer to something that is simply ephemeral, although it points to that, too. We are spiritual beings, and a part of that spirituality is having physical bodies.
So, if sex is spiritual, we should expect to get some direction from God on matters of sexuality, particularly through the Word of God--Jesus and the Bible. As we hear Jesus preach and read the scriptures, however, we find that God is pretty clear on sex, but clear in a very different way than most Christians assume.
What we learn from Jesus and the Bible is this:
Sex is cultural.
What this means is that sexual ethics and morality are conditioned by culture and not by divine revelation. To be sure, God does reveal some things about sex, and the purpose of this blog is to tease out biblical teachings about what sex is and how we should do it, so to speak. However, if we are going to use biblical models of sexual relationships, then modern humans are really on the wrong track. For example, in many modern cultures in the West, it is important to us that sex be accompanied by love. If we are going to pattern our sexual relationships on the Bible, literally translated, then love is the last thing we would require before sex...and if we did require it before sex, then we would be breaking God's commandments. More on that later.
God is never specific about the relational context in which sex should occur.
Instead of micro-managing, God only gives us some general principles to guide us in our quest for sex: loyalty, fidelity, mutual trust and the benefit of vows (marriage).
What about monogamy? Surely, monogamy is one of God's guiding sexual principles. Well, yes and no. Monogamy is only revealed as the right way in the New Testament (and strict monogamy as a N.T. teaching is still debatable). Meanwhile, many Christians base their sexual ethics on Old Testament commandments. If we are going to listen at all to the Old Testament about sex, then we have to put polygamy, serial monogamy and sex outside of wedlock back on the table.
Issues of monogamy aside, the Bible is clear that if a man or woman is going to be faithful to a partner, it is really helpful to communicate that intention. God never said, "Marry and multiply." God did try to get his human creatures to be good to one another. Marriage was never a commandment, it was a human invention to help us to follow God's design for us: fidelity and mutual trust. Marriage as we know it, therefore, is also a purely cultural construct. Adam and Eve were never married. There was no wedding, no witnesses to any vows made (except God who is always our witness), no formal vows were even made--certainly no vows made in public, as we require today. Humans created marriage so that the promises made by two people could be formal and publicly accountable. We created marriage so that the contract could be enforced, that's all.
But marriage is off topic. We are talking about sex. The evolution of marriage is interesting and complex and deserves its own blog post. Yes, marriage is designed to be the proper relational context of sex. However, the point here is: marriage is not a divine estate (certainly not a sacrament--sorry Romans). Marriage is a cultural institution. Hence, sex is a cultural thing.
Today, many Christians believe that sex is about love. But that goes against everything the Bible tells us about sex.
The first thing God tells us about sex is: "Be fruitful and multiply..." (Genesis 1:28). Not only is this the only thing about sex that we consistently get right, it is the only divine commandment in the entire Bible that we haven't broken. We got this one, so we can move on, right? Let's not be hasty. Please note that the first time God tries to explain to humans why sex is even a thing, God says nothing about what a sexual relationship is supposed to look like. Sex is no more than a biological function. God gives the exact same commandment to the other animals--simply, "Be fruitful and multiply...." God refuses to micromanage the how-to-make-it-happen-responsibily at this point, and simply tells humans, "You need to start having sex." Things were so uncomplicated in Eden.
The rest of Genesis, and indeed most of the rest of the Old Testament, never expands on that one, basic ideal and purpose and context of sex, namely that it is all about biology. Abraham has sex with his slave, Hagar, in order to procreate and obtain an heir. His wife, Sarah, supports this plan (at first) and God does not punish Abraham's extra-marital sexual behavior. Why? Because sex is about biology--procreation--first and foremost. Yes, Sarah eventually changes her mind. We modern romantics tell ourselves that Sarah comes to despise Abraham's sexual relations with Hagar because she is jealous of Abraham and wants him to be true to her. In reality, Sarah changes her mind because she is jealous of Hagar and Ishmael (the child of Abraham and Hagar).
Here we see the first non-biological dynamic associated with sex: power.
Sarah is jealous of Hagar and Ishmael because they are all of a sudden threats to her and her son, Isaac's, claim to prominence in the family and right of inheritance. Sex is no longer merely biological, it is political. What does God do in response? God works to make it apolitical because sex, biblically understood so far, ought not be politicized. God lets Sarah force Abraham to exile Hagar and Ishmael, but then God goes to great measures to support, preserve and bless the exiles. Ishmael would come to inherit a great nation--just like Isaac.
God does not want sex to be about power. If I am having sex to exert power over another person, or I am using sexual relations to gain more power, this is wrong. But notice, it is not wrong because sex-of-power is devoid of love, it is wrong because we humans have made the biology more complicated (inter-personally speaking).
Another biblical story that comes to mind when I think of sex, is the story of Ruth and Boaz (found in the book of the Bible titled: Ruth). In chapter 3, Ruth goes to Boaz resting on the threshing floor and presents herself for him to have sex with her. Now, the modern readers assumes the following and inserts it between the biblical lines: Ruth falls in love with Boaz as soon as she sees him and does everything she can to win his love in return. As it happens, they find that they love each other (only after having sex, BTW) and decide to get married, and they live happily ever after. What really happens? Well, according to the Bible (if you believe the Bible), Ruth's friend Naomi tells her to go and have sex with Boaz because Naomi needs to seek, "...some security for you, so that it may be well with you" (Ruth 3:1). Ruth wasn't in love. She went to lay down with Boaz for reasons of survival and security. After spending an intense night together on the threshing floor, Boaz does decide to marry Ruth. Boaz wasn't in love with Ruth. By presenting herself for sex, Ruth was proposing a contract--I will "take care of you" if you take care of me, if you will. Proving it is a contract, Boaz says that he cannot marry Ruth right away, but must wait to see if another man will exercise his right to claim her as his. All of a sudden, Ruth is owed a debt. She had sex with him as a down payment on marriage. Now he says he can't give her that, so he owes her something. In a show both of good faith and in order to compensate Ruth, Boaz gives her "six measures of barley" so that she does not go back to Naomi "empty-handed" (Ruth 3:15, 17). Boaz does ultimately marry Ruth--and for all the right biblical reasons, none of which are love.
The story of Ruth and Boaz tells us something: sex is about life. Not just the life of the species, but also about life for the individual. Sex is both a tool to propagate the species and a tool used to ensure an individual's abundant life. The latter requires things like trust, security, relationships, and other suchlike things. As far as the Bible tells us, God fully supports and blesses the way that Naomi, Ruth and Boaz use and understand sex. Sex is good and is for the good of God's people.
Imagine with me. What if Boaz refused to have sex with or marry Ruth because he "did not love" her? The Bible and God would have judged him--and not positively. Ruth, whose descendent was going to be King David and therefore also Jesus, needed Boaz to preserve her life and to help her create the life that Israel was waiting for (in and through David and Jesus). If he had said, "I can't. I don't love you." He would have been selfishly putting himself before Ruth and all of Israel. Make no mistake, according to the Bible, Boaz has a duty to Israel and a responsibility to Ruth to forget about his own feelings and have sex...then get married. Compassion for the poor and devotion to nation and countrymen are more important than what Boaz wants or feels. If there is one thing God punishes in the Bible, it is selfishness at the expense of God's needy people.
Again and again, the Bible is clear--God is clear--that sex is not about love or emotion or even spirituality per se. Sex is for procreation. Sex is transactional and contractual--a commodity that can be traded for the goal of economic and social security. Sex is not about inter-personal relationship, it is about contractual agreement. We modern romantics are offended by this, but God condones and blesses it.
For many modern people in the West, sex is spiritual. For us, sex is emotional and mental and relational, and, yes, still physical...specifically, pleasurably physical.
We have sex for reasons other than procreation. We have sex for pleasure.
We have sex for reasons other than ensuring our own lives and livelihoods.
We have sex to express (and to help build or strengthen) meaningful inter-personal relationships--not just for our survival, but for our happiness. The relationships are not a means to an end, but an end in themselves. We do not love our partners just so that we have practical support through life, we love them--and have sex with them--just to get happiness being together with them.
None of the reasons why we have sex today are biblical. In fact, the reasons we have sex are downright hedonistically self-indulgent compared to the reasons why people in the Bible had sex.
So, are we wrong for associating sex with love?
Are we wrong for taking pleasure from sex?
Are we wrong to want to build relationship for relationship sake and not just for security in the world?
No, we are not wrong.
Because sexual ethics and morality do not come to us as revelations of God.
Sex--how we view it and how we do it--are cultural constructs.
In biblical times, people viewed sex (and marriage) differently than we do today. They had different rules, methods, taboos and preferences than we do. And that is ok.
Because all God wants us to remember is:
Sex, because it is a part of creation, is good.
-and-
Sex should be somehow grounded in mutual trust, fidelity and the goal of abundant life.
God has not changed his intentions and hopes for us when it comes to sex, and yet the subtext and process of sexual relations in biblical times is foreign to us. Why? Because the culture of and surrounding sex has changed and evolved. God supports and blesses that evolutionary process.
God says, "Be fruitful and multiply."
Culture says, "Here's how we expect you to do that in ways that are healthy for you and society."
Right now, our culture says sex ought to be about love and a deeper inter-personal relationship. Why? Because these things are the best goods that sex can offer society. We do not need to dramatically increase the human population on earth (in fact doing so would be disastrous). We do not need sex-as-social-security because we have come up with better, more generous and dependable corporate systems of preserving individual lives and their socio-economic security. In the past, a woman's social security meant having a man to protect and provide. Today, social security is about protecting each individual's civil liberties and ensuring a healthy society that gives both men and women opportunities to seek life and liberty, and to pursue fulfillment. God's gift of sex is freed from these requirements to give us different benefits and blessings today. Therefore, sex is understood differently today, and cultural expectations surrounding sex are different. Sex can make life good and healthy for us in different ways today than it was able to in biblical times.
In other words: sex has evolved, and the Holy Spirit must guide us toward sexual ethics and morality...biblical examples and models are no longer prescriptive.
And at the end of the day, the only time God disapproves of our approach to sex is when it becomes about something other than or is destructive to abundant life.
God does not want to micro-manage your sex life.
The Church isn't supposed to, either.
So, I put the question: How can Christians be better witnesses of the Good News about sex?
For other animals and for plants, sex remains (with few exceptions) biological.
But what is the "more" that humans find in sex?
I believe that sex is considerably spiritual, and that sex is so infused with power over us and our relationships in such subtle ways that we do not appreciate its effect on us.
By "spiritual," I mean the mysterious nexus of body, mind, emotion and more. "Spiritual" does not refer to something that is simply ephemeral, although it points to that, too. We are spiritual beings, and a part of that spirituality is having physical bodies.
So, if sex is spiritual, we should expect to get some direction from God on matters of sexuality, particularly through the Word of God--Jesus and the Bible. As we hear Jesus preach and read the scriptures, however, we find that God is pretty clear on sex, but clear in a very different way than most Christians assume.
What we learn from Jesus and the Bible is this:
Sex is cultural.
What this means is that sexual ethics and morality are conditioned by culture and not by divine revelation. To be sure, God does reveal some things about sex, and the purpose of this blog is to tease out biblical teachings about what sex is and how we should do it, so to speak. However, if we are going to use biblical models of sexual relationships, then modern humans are really on the wrong track. For example, in many modern cultures in the West, it is important to us that sex be accompanied by love. If we are going to pattern our sexual relationships on the Bible, literally translated, then love is the last thing we would require before sex...and if we did require it before sex, then we would be breaking God's commandments. More on that later.
God is never specific about the relational context in which sex should occur.
Instead of micro-managing, God only gives us some general principles to guide us in our quest for sex: loyalty, fidelity, mutual trust and the benefit of vows (marriage).
What about monogamy? Surely, monogamy is one of God's guiding sexual principles. Well, yes and no. Monogamy is only revealed as the right way in the New Testament (and strict monogamy as a N.T. teaching is still debatable). Meanwhile, many Christians base their sexual ethics on Old Testament commandments. If we are going to listen at all to the Old Testament about sex, then we have to put polygamy, serial monogamy and sex outside of wedlock back on the table.
Issues of monogamy aside, the Bible is clear that if a man or woman is going to be faithful to a partner, it is really helpful to communicate that intention. God never said, "Marry and multiply." God did try to get his human creatures to be good to one another. Marriage was never a commandment, it was a human invention to help us to follow God's design for us: fidelity and mutual trust. Marriage as we know it, therefore, is also a purely cultural construct. Adam and Eve were never married. There was no wedding, no witnesses to any vows made (except God who is always our witness), no formal vows were even made--certainly no vows made in public, as we require today. Humans created marriage so that the promises made by two people could be formal and publicly accountable. We created marriage so that the contract could be enforced, that's all.
But marriage is off topic. We are talking about sex. The evolution of marriage is interesting and complex and deserves its own blog post. Yes, marriage is designed to be the proper relational context of sex. However, the point here is: marriage is not a divine estate (certainly not a sacrament--sorry Romans). Marriage is a cultural institution. Hence, sex is a cultural thing.
Today, many Christians believe that sex is about love. But that goes against everything the Bible tells us about sex.
The first thing God tells us about sex is: "Be fruitful and multiply..." (Genesis 1:28). Not only is this the only thing about sex that we consistently get right, it is the only divine commandment in the entire Bible that we haven't broken. We got this one, so we can move on, right? Let's not be hasty. Please note that the first time God tries to explain to humans why sex is even a thing, God says nothing about what a sexual relationship is supposed to look like. Sex is no more than a biological function. God gives the exact same commandment to the other animals--simply, "Be fruitful and multiply...." God refuses to micromanage the how-to-make-it-happen-responsibily at this point, and simply tells humans, "You need to start having sex." Things were so uncomplicated in Eden.
The rest of Genesis, and indeed most of the rest of the Old Testament, never expands on that one, basic ideal and purpose and context of sex, namely that it is all about biology. Abraham has sex with his slave, Hagar, in order to procreate and obtain an heir. His wife, Sarah, supports this plan (at first) and God does not punish Abraham's extra-marital sexual behavior. Why? Because sex is about biology--procreation--first and foremost. Yes, Sarah eventually changes her mind. We modern romantics tell ourselves that Sarah comes to despise Abraham's sexual relations with Hagar because she is jealous of Abraham and wants him to be true to her. In reality, Sarah changes her mind because she is jealous of Hagar and Ishmael (the child of Abraham and Hagar).
Here we see the first non-biological dynamic associated with sex: power.
Sarah is jealous of Hagar and Ishmael because they are all of a sudden threats to her and her son, Isaac's, claim to prominence in the family and right of inheritance. Sex is no longer merely biological, it is political. What does God do in response? God works to make it apolitical because sex, biblically understood so far, ought not be politicized. God lets Sarah force Abraham to exile Hagar and Ishmael, but then God goes to great measures to support, preserve and bless the exiles. Ishmael would come to inherit a great nation--just like Isaac.
God does not want sex to be about power. If I am having sex to exert power over another person, or I am using sexual relations to gain more power, this is wrong. But notice, it is not wrong because sex-of-power is devoid of love, it is wrong because we humans have made the biology more complicated (inter-personally speaking).
Another biblical story that comes to mind when I think of sex, is the story of Ruth and Boaz (found in the book of the Bible titled: Ruth). In chapter 3, Ruth goes to Boaz resting on the threshing floor and presents herself for him to have sex with her. Now, the modern readers assumes the following and inserts it between the biblical lines: Ruth falls in love with Boaz as soon as she sees him and does everything she can to win his love in return. As it happens, they find that they love each other (only after having sex, BTW) and decide to get married, and they live happily ever after. What really happens? Well, according to the Bible (if you believe the Bible), Ruth's friend Naomi tells her to go and have sex with Boaz because Naomi needs to seek, "...some security for you, so that it may be well with you" (Ruth 3:1). Ruth wasn't in love. She went to lay down with Boaz for reasons of survival and security. After spending an intense night together on the threshing floor, Boaz does decide to marry Ruth. Boaz wasn't in love with Ruth. By presenting herself for sex, Ruth was proposing a contract--I will "take care of you" if you take care of me, if you will. Proving it is a contract, Boaz says that he cannot marry Ruth right away, but must wait to see if another man will exercise his right to claim her as his. All of a sudden, Ruth is owed a debt. She had sex with him as a down payment on marriage. Now he says he can't give her that, so he owes her something. In a show both of good faith and in order to compensate Ruth, Boaz gives her "six measures of barley" so that she does not go back to Naomi "empty-handed" (Ruth 3:15, 17). Boaz does ultimately marry Ruth--and for all the right biblical reasons, none of which are love.
The story of Ruth and Boaz tells us something: sex is about life. Not just the life of the species, but also about life for the individual. Sex is both a tool to propagate the species and a tool used to ensure an individual's abundant life. The latter requires things like trust, security, relationships, and other suchlike things. As far as the Bible tells us, God fully supports and blesses the way that Naomi, Ruth and Boaz use and understand sex. Sex is good and is for the good of God's people.
Imagine with me. What if Boaz refused to have sex with or marry Ruth because he "did not love" her? The Bible and God would have judged him--and not positively. Ruth, whose descendent was going to be King David and therefore also Jesus, needed Boaz to preserve her life and to help her create the life that Israel was waiting for (in and through David and Jesus). If he had said, "I can't. I don't love you." He would have been selfishly putting himself before Ruth and all of Israel. Make no mistake, according to the Bible, Boaz has a duty to Israel and a responsibility to Ruth to forget about his own feelings and have sex...then get married. Compassion for the poor and devotion to nation and countrymen are more important than what Boaz wants or feels. If there is one thing God punishes in the Bible, it is selfishness at the expense of God's needy people.
Again and again, the Bible is clear--God is clear--that sex is not about love or emotion or even spirituality per se. Sex is for procreation. Sex is transactional and contractual--a commodity that can be traded for the goal of economic and social security. Sex is not about inter-personal relationship, it is about contractual agreement. We modern romantics are offended by this, but God condones and blesses it.
For many modern people in the West, sex is spiritual. For us, sex is emotional and mental and relational, and, yes, still physical...specifically, pleasurably physical.
We have sex for reasons other than procreation. We have sex for pleasure.
We have sex for reasons other than ensuring our own lives and livelihoods.
We have sex to express (and to help build or strengthen) meaningful inter-personal relationships--not just for our survival, but for our happiness. The relationships are not a means to an end, but an end in themselves. We do not love our partners just so that we have practical support through life, we love them--and have sex with them--just to get happiness being together with them.
None of the reasons why we have sex today are biblical. In fact, the reasons we have sex are downright hedonistically self-indulgent compared to the reasons why people in the Bible had sex.
So, are we wrong for associating sex with love?
Are we wrong for taking pleasure from sex?
Are we wrong to want to build relationship for relationship sake and not just for security in the world?
No, we are not wrong.
Because sexual ethics and morality do not come to us as revelations of God.
Sex--how we view it and how we do it--are cultural constructs.
In biblical times, people viewed sex (and marriage) differently than we do today. They had different rules, methods, taboos and preferences than we do. And that is ok.
Because all God wants us to remember is:
Sex, because it is a part of creation, is good.
-and-
Sex should be somehow grounded in mutual trust, fidelity and the goal of abundant life.
God has not changed his intentions and hopes for us when it comes to sex, and yet the subtext and process of sexual relations in biblical times is foreign to us. Why? Because the culture of and surrounding sex has changed and evolved. God supports and blesses that evolutionary process.
God says, "Be fruitful and multiply."
Culture says, "Here's how we expect you to do that in ways that are healthy for you and society."
Right now, our culture says sex ought to be about love and a deeper inter-personal relationship. Why? Because these things are the best goods that sex can offer society. We do not need to dramatically increase the human population on earth (in fact doing so would be disastrous). We do not need sex-as-social-security because we have come up with better, more generous and dependable corporate systems of preserving individual lives and their socio-economic security. In the past, a woman's social security meant having a man to protect and provide. Today, social security is about protecting each individual's civil liberties and ensuring a healthy society that gives both men and women opportunities to seek life and liberty, and to pursue fulfillment. God's gift of sex is freed from these requirements to give us different benefits and blessings today. Therefore, sex is understood differently today, and cultural expectations surrounding sex are different. Sex can make life good and healthy for us in different ways today than it was able to in biblical times.
In other words: sex has evolved, and the Holy Spirit must guide us toward sexual ethics and morality...biblical examples and models are no longer prescriptive.
And at the end of the day, the only time God disapproves of our approach to sex is when it becomes about something other than or is destructive to abundant life.
God does not want to micro-manage your sex life.
The Church isn't supposed to, either.
So, I put the question: How can Christians be better witnesses of the Good News about sex?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)