I have a confession, with the exception of the Bible and a few other books I do not re-read books.
I guess I always felt like I got the basics of what I read the first time so why do it again. I do not want you to think I am ill-educated, I have read from Hitchens to Hesse, Aeschylus to Ellison, Dickenson to Kazantzakis, the Quran to the Bhagavad gita. Yet something is missing.
As I prepare for a life outside the ivory/tagua tower I am beginning to feel a certain poverty of my education, in that the width of my education far outstrips its depth in most areas.
I think of my mother, who can rattle off poetry she memorized in the 3rd grade and has kept close to her heart all these years hence. I hear of people returning to this work or that work (often times Shakespeare) every year to see how it reads after this experience or that experience, and I am jealous.
I think of the conserving and centering force of this task, the digging and redigging of trenches in the mind. Perhaps rereading is like morning suffrages, but for the intellect.
And so, dear readers, I would like to know what book(s) you reread yearly?
For that matter what is the proper nature of re-readable books? Is it just something you like, something that has touched you a certain way, is it edifying, short? What?
As for me I am compiling a list of potential books to reread, here are ten:
Jesus and the Disinherited
Mimensis
The Screwtape Letters
Night
Freedom of a Christian
All the King’s Men
The Sound and the Fury
Invisible Man
Victoria
The Pastor
Peace,
Chris
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
What if we’ll have the poor with us always because we keep stealing from them?
I was reading John 12:6-8 today and was struck by something. Judas is admonishing Mary for pouring expensive perfume on Jesus because the money could have been given to the poor. Then there is a parenthetical statement that Judas didn’t really care for the poor, but was stealing from the common purse. Then Jesus responds, “You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”
This last verse has been used to justify regressive taxation and to attack the welfare state and attempts to create economic justice and equality. The argument is, at base, “there will always be poor folk, Jesus, who knows all, and is all, says so!” Therefore attempting to tweak economic and social systems to lessen or even end poverty is silly, futile, and maybe even dangerous and demonic.
In response to this, I believe it is Brian McLaren who says, “No! Jesus’ focus in this statement is that the poor will be with you!” That is, you will always be confronted with the needy neighbor on your doorstep—so living in gated communities, or in ways that you are not always struck by poverty, is wrong, unnatural, immoral, and maybe dangerous and demonic.
Today though, I am struck with another possibility. Jesus is saying stealing from the poor, as Judas does, will keep the poor in poverty. Or to state it another way, we will know theft of the inheritance of the poor by wolves in sheep’s clothing has stopped when poverty stops.
Now, this interpretation was hard for me to come to, because when I come to the gospel’s treatment of Judas I do so with a hermeneutic of suspicion. In general, I feel that where the gospels demonize (sometimes literally) Judas they are making rhetorical points, not describing a historical reality. As Christological claims increased in the early Christian community Judas’ betrayal became a greater and greater problem until the only solution available was “he’s a demon.” After all, if we didn’t get that Jesus was the Messiah—the Christ—the Son of God—God enfleshed—perhaps we also did not see Judas for what he was—in it for the money—a betrayer from the beginning—possessed.
All that to say I generally read descriptions such as this one accusing Judas of intending to steal from the poor with some hesitancy. I think it is a bias of the author. For the author Judas could not simply have been disillusioned by Jesus, Judas must have been a demon-possessed thief.
But, because I came with this suspicion I did not, in previous readings, make the connection between theft by Judas and the continued poverty of the poor. We will have the poor with us always because people, in making pious claims about helping the poor, but in fact enriching the rich/themselves, taking wealth from the commonwealth.
This last verse has been used to justify regressive taxation and to attack the welfare state and attempts to create economic justice and equality. The argument is, at base, “there will always be poor folk, Jesus, who knows all, and is all, says so!” Therefore attempting to tweak economic and social systems to lessen or even end poverty is silly, futile, and maybe even dangerous and demonic.
In response to this, I believe it is Brian McLaren who says, “No! Jesus’ focus in this statement is that the poor will be with you!” That is, you will always be confronted with the needy neighbor on your doorstep—so living in gated communities, or in ways that you are not always struck by poverty, is wrong, unnatural, immoral, and maybe dangerous and demonic.
Today though, I am struck with another possibility. Jesus is saying stealing from the poor, as Judas does, will keep the poor in poverty. Or to state it another way, we will know theft of the inheritance of the poor by wolves in sheep’s clothing has stopped when poverty stops.
Now, this interpretation was hard for me to come to, because when I come to the gospel’s treatment of Judas I do so with a hermeneutic of suspicion. In general, I feel that where the gospels demonize (sometimes literally) Judas they are making rhetorical points, not describing a historical reality. As Christological claims increased in the early Christian community Judas’ betrayal became a greater and greater problem until the only solution available was “he’s a demon.” After all, if we didn’t get that Jesus was the Messiah—the Christ—the Son of God—God enfleshed—perhaps we also did not see Judas for what he was—in it for the money—a betrayer from the beginning—possessed.
All that to say I generally read descriptions such as this one accusing Judas of intending to steal from the poor with some hesitancy. I think it is a bias of the author. For the author Judas could not simply have been disillusioned by Jesus, Judas must have been a demon-possessed thief.
But, because I came with this suspicion I did not, in previous readings, make the connection between theft by Judas and the continued poverty of the poor. We will have the poor with us always because people, in making pious claims about helping the poor, but in fact enriching the rich/themselves, taking wealth from the commonwealth.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
An oldie but a goodie: "What kind of Lutheran are you?" quiz
I made this while serving in YAGM over in England. It is kind of fun, as I am in my last year of seminary, to look back and see where I was at theologically then.
Peace,
Chris
Peace,
Chris
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Being Bi-vocational
So, one of the things ELCAers going through the candidacy process have been told as of late is that they need to be prepared to be “bi-vocational.”
I would like to stir up the pot a little bit. When we are told that we need to be bi-vocational are we really being told that we need a second job?
If I remember my reformation history accurately part of the revolutionary nature Luther’s teaching was his understanding of vocation. In a sense the medieval church eschewed uni-vocational ministry; or to put it another way bi-vocationality was impossible in that system. By this I mean the only job that was “spiritual” the only job that was actually fulfilling God’s will and calling upon a person’s life was that of the priest.
Luther’s response to this was that a father changing a child’s diaper was as holy as the prayers of a whole monastery of monks. It was a re-capturing of the noble spiritual truth that when we serve our neighbor we also serve God. All of a sudden being a baker, a banker, a mother, a father, a husband, a plumber, or a social worker were all vocations—they were all jobs of spiritual worth, all jobs we are called by God to do because they serve a common good, a communal neighbor, and thus serve Christ and his Gospel.
Thus I have four questions I believe to be worth discussing:
1. So why is it that only now, when there aren’t enough full-time calls for Lutheran pastors, that the ELCA is calling us to discern a second vocation?
2. For that matter what does this “bi-vocational” language say to pastors who are fathers and mothers? GED certifiers? Volunteers of all sorts? What if a pastor has discerned that God has called him to be a pastor, God has called him to volunteer at a homeless shelter, God has called him to be a husband, and God has called him to be a father? That’s four vocations already! Four holy callings upon a man’s life!
3. The lifestyle of a pastor makes maintaining other vocations, such as parent and spouse, hard to do (http://www.pastorburnout.com/pastor-burnout-statistics.html http://www.desperatepreacher.com/pastorcare/intro_clergyfamily.htm) why is the ELCA only concerned with a clergyperson’s other vocations once it involves money? (As a side-note yes I am aware of the wholeness wheel http://www.elca.org/Growing-In-Faith/Vocation/Rostered-Leadership/Leadership-Support/Health/Wholeness-Wheel.aspx)
4. For that matter, when we discuss lay-folk and non-ordination track folk we lessen the use of this language of vocation. Why is it only when the work life of ordained-folk is concerned that we trot out this language of vocation?
I guess it seems that as a church it is important to call things what they are.
Peace,
Chris Halverson
I would like to stir up the pot a little bit. When we are told that we need to be bi-vocational are we really being told that we need a second job?
If I remember my reformation history accurately part of the revolutionary nature Luther’s teaching was his understanding of vocation. In a sense the medieval church eschewed uni-vocational ministry; or to put it another way bi-vocationality was impossible in that system. By this I mean the only job that was “spiritual” the only job that was actually fulfilling God’s will and calling upon a person’s life was that of the priest.
Luther’s response to this was that a father changing a child’s diaper was as holy as the prayers of a whole monastery of monks. It was a re-capturing of the noble spiritual truth that when we serve our neighbor we also serve God. All of a sudden being a baker, a banker, a mother, a father, a husband, a plumber, or a social worker were all vocations—they were all jobs of spiritual worth, all jobs we are called by God to do because they serve a common good, a communal neighbor, and thus serve Christ and his Gospel.
Thus I have four questions I believe to be worth discussing:
1. So why is it that only now, when there aren’t enough full-time calls for Lutheran pastors, that the ELCA is calling us to discern a second vocation?
2. For that matter what does this “bi-vocational” language say to pastors who are fathers and mothers? GED certifiers? Volunteers of all sorts? What if a pastor has discerned that God has called him to be a pastor, God has called him to volunteer at a homeless shelter, God has called him to be a husband, and God has called him to be a father? That’s four vocations already! Four holy callings upon a man’s life!
3. The lifestyle of a pastor makes maintaining other vocations, such as parent and spouse, hard to do (http://www.pastorburnout.com/pastor-burnout-statistics.html http://www.desperatepreacher.com/pastorcare/intro_clergyfamily.htm) why is the ELCA only concerned with a clergyperson’s other vocations once it involves money? (As a side-note yes I am aware of the wholeness wheel http://www.elca.org/Growing-In-Faith/Vocation/Rostered-Leadership/Leadership-Support/Health/Wholeness-Wheel.aspx)
4. For that matter, when we discuss lay-folk and non-ordination track folk we lessen the use of this language of vocation. Why is it only when the work life of ordained-folk is concerned that we trot out this language of vocation?
I guess it seems that as a church it is important to call things what they are.
Peace,
Chris Halverson
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
The Sanity/Fear Rally (Part 2)
In a previous post I described the Sanity/Fear rally and Stewart's reason for having it.
What follows are my reasons for going.
I came to the Rally to restore Sanity and/or Fear for civic fellowship, to affirm civility, and to negate the Beck-Tea Party axis’ stranglehold on national discourse.
1.I went to Stewart and Cobert’s rally because friends were going. On one level I mean Onleilove, Samantha and Aaron who I rode down with.
On another level I mean the many friends and friends of friends (for example my Hebrew study partner from undergrad in Oregon and the boss of the woman who convinced me to get Simul in Wisconsin) who also attended, but because of the massive crowd I never saw there.
On still another level I mean all those people who came together who share shades of the same cultural, social, generational, and political views as my own. I’ve heard it said the Sanity/Fear Rally was my generation’s Woodstock. I think that’s a little far-reaching, but the point it well made.
I wanted to participate in a big event in the national-life of our country. There seem to be fewer opportunities for communal and community oriented events in our national life. I think this lack fed into the Beck rally. But it is not only Sarah Palin’s heart that yearns for national purpose, for a public life and the ability to earn some social capital, but my own as well.
2. I also went to the Sanity/Fear rally because I am pro-civility. Much of Stewart’s expressed reason for going to the rally mirrors my own. I think many people are truly fearful. They are acting like chickens with their heads cut off because the media, and, I would add, reactionary people with far more detrimental intentions than simply selling newspapers and gaining high television ratings, are telling us we have everything to fear. These same people also demonize those with whom they disagree, and next thing you know everything becomes a yelling match. I believe healthy discussion and clear discourse can do wonders for understanding what those you disagree with believe.
3. That said, there are people out there with whom I disagree deeply. They are the final reason I went to the Sanity/Fear rally; I went because I am anti-Tea Party and anti-right wing extremist. In fact, because of the way they have handled themselves they deserve to be mocked. Their claims upon the soul of my country (and theirs), their overblown sense of their own strength, and their manufacturing of reality is unacceptable. Thumbing my nose at these tendencies is the third and final reason I went to the Sanity/Fear rally (and yes I am aware there is a disconnect between this and my previous reason for going to the rally).
What follows are my reasons for going.
I came to the Rally to restore Sanity and/or Fear for civic fellowship, to affirm civility, and to negate the Beck-Tea Party axis’ stranglehold on national discourse.
1.I went to Stewart and Cobert’s rally because friends were going. On one level I mean Onleilove, Samantha and Aaron who I rode down with.
On another level I mean the many friends and friends of friends (for example my Hebrew study partner from undergrad in Oregon and the boss of the woman who convinced me to get Simul in Wisconsin) who also attended, but because of the massive crowd I never saw there.
On still another level I mean all those people who came together who share shades of the same cultural, social, generational, and political views as my own. I’ve heard it said the Sanity/Fear Rally was my generation’s Woodstock. I think that’s a little far-reaching, but the point it well made.
I wanted to participate in a big event in the national-life of our country. There seem to be fewer opportunities for communal and community oriented events in our national life. I think this lack fed into the Beck rally. But it is not only Sarah Palin’s heart that yearns for national purpose, for a public life and the ability to earn some social capital, but my own as well.
2. I also went to the Sanity/Fear rally because I am pro-civility. Much of Stewart’s expressed reason for going to the rally mirrors my own. I think many people are truly fearful. They are acting like chickens with their heads cut off because the media, and, I would add, reactionary people with far more detrimental intentions than simply selling newspapers and gaining high television ratings, are telling us we have everything to fear. These same people also demonize those with whom they disagree, and next thing you know everything becomes a yelling match. I believe healthy discussion and clear discourse can do wonders for understanding what those you disagree with believe.
3. That said, there are people out there with whom I disagree deeply. They are the final reason I went to the Sanity/Fear rally; I went because I am anti-Tea Party and anti-right wing extremist. In fact, because of the way they have handled themselves they deserve to be mocked. Their claims upon the soul of my country (and theirs), their overblown sense of their own strength, and their manufacturing of reality is unacceptable. Thumbing my nose at these tendencies is the third and final reason I went to the Sanity/Fear rally (and yes I am aware there is a disconnect between this and my previous reason for going to the rally).
Simul Justus Et Peccator
As my little sinner-saint kitten, Simul, opens up my kitchen cabnet, climbs in, and goes to sleep, I note two websites that point toward her namesake this day:
Mockingbird points to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and quotes Stevenson thus: "With every day, and from both sides of my intelligence, the moral and the intellectual, I thus drew steadily nearer to that truth by whose partial discovery I have been doomed to such a dreadful shipwreck: that man is not truly one, but truly two."
And over at LivingLutheran Luther is hailed as our "Patron Saint-Sinner."
Mockingbird points to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and quotes Stevenson thus: "With every day, and from both sides of my intelligence, the moral and the intellectual, I thus drew steadily nearer to that truth by whose partial discovery I have been doomed to such a dreadful shipwreck: that man is not truly one, but truly two."
And over at LivingLutheran Luther is hailed as our "Patron Saint-Sinner."
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Theology of the Cross in Revelation
As I write my paper about what Revelation chapter 5 verse 5 means in light of verse 6-- essentially asking the question what does a slain lamb have to do with a conquering lion--I ran across an interesting sidebar that I do not have time to research in the moment. Here is the summation of my sidebar:
I think it is important to note the parallel between the lamb horned earth beast and the lion mouthed sea beast found in the 13th chapter of Revelation. Both lion roar/fangs and lamb horns hold authority, but of a violent/coercive kind. Perhaps these things could help understand the Lamb/Lion of Revelation 5. Talk about finding God in the form of the opposite!
I think it is important to note the parallel between the lamb horned earth beast and the lion mouthed sea beast found in the 13th chapter of Revelation. Both lion roar/fangs and lamb horns hold authority, but of a violent/coercive kind. Perhaps these things could help understand the Lamb/Lion of Revelation 5. Talk about finding God in the form of the opposite!
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
The Sanity/Fear Rally (Part 1)
I went to the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. My girlfriend
, two fellow seminarians, and I
got up early on that chilled Saturday morning and drove from Philadelphia to Pentagon City. There we took out markers and poster board and made a few cool signs!
We made our way to an extremely packed subway car and played the part of sardines all the way to the National Mall.
There we were met with Libertarians passing out signs, venders selling buttons, people giving away free towels, and people wielding homemade signs, lots of people wielding homemade signs!
We waded through the sea of people heading toward the stage in front of the Capital Building, passing Jumbotrons as we went. Along the way we saw met people from all over, from Alaska
to Texas, South Carolina to Wisconsin, Oregon to Maryland.
Eventually we found a place to sit near a Jumbotron, put down tarps, and enjoyed the rally. Stewart’s and Cobert’s show was great. It was filled with camp, satire, and stars (including the hosts of Mythbusters, Sheryl Crow, Kid Rock, and yes, R2-D2). Stewart and Cobert sparred over fear and sanity. Cobert was armed with a giant Cobert puppet and news clips, Stewart with guest appearances by R2D2 and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
Stewart ended the show with a speech about his intentions for the rally—about its meaning.
First the rally was a chastisement of the media, which in Stewart’s view, has amplified all problems in America to the point at which it we believe that we live in the end times, a catastrophic apocalypse in which killer bees will destroy us all—as will bullying—as will illegal immigration—as will our the Tea Party. The media has also projected a false image of our fellow Americans. They are “Marxists actively subverting our Constitution.” They are “racists and homophobes who see no one’s humanity but their own.”
Secondly, the rally was about affirming that this media echo-chamber is not true. Most Americans live their lives, “as people that are just a little bit late for something they have to do—often something that they really do not want to do—but they do it—impossible things every day that are only made possible by the little reasonable compromises that we all make.”
He made this second point clear with a video of people on a multi-lane highway that narrowed down to one lane in order to enter a tunnel. People were willing to take turns—to work together—in order to make it through to the other side.
Finally he concluded with a word of thanks, saying that seeing so many people come out to a rally to restore sanity restored his own.
I must admit, while I think it is important to affirm all of these things, to speak a still small word through the valley in order to point out that it has become an echo-chamber, and while I think it is also important to recognize dignity and humanity of people on both sides of an argument, I felt Stewart may have shot a little too low—maybe even have sided a little too strongly with the status quo. Having strong political views is seen as a vice, just getting along, just making it in a middle-class soccer-mom kind of way is a virtue. Not that there is anything wrong with middle-class soccer-mom’s, but I truly believe there are good strong political views and bad strong political views. I believe there is a whole large swath of America who doesn’t fit into a middle-class “just getting along” so don’t bother me Mr. Tea-Party-Man demographic.
And so, I have reflected upon this rally. Stewart allowed that it held multiple meanings—different people came for different reasons. In my next post I will describe what my reasons for going were.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Jacob Jebeked at the Jabbok: A sermon preached at Breath of God Lutheran
Greetings from your pastor Mark Parker who is currently with Breath of God’s youth at the Freeride event in North East Maryland.
Greetings from the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia.
Greetings and peace in the name of Jesus.
They tell you at Seminary to never go back to the original biblical language in a sermon, because then you are just showing off. But, sometimes it is only in the original language that certain aspects of a story shine forth.
Today’s story found in Genesis chapter 32 is one of them. There is a phrase imbedded in this story that just jumps off the page because of its alliterations,
because of the way it looks on the page,
and the way it feels in my mouth,
and the way it sounds to my ear; it cannot be ignored!
“Vay-ye’abek Ya’akob ba-yabok.”
Or, to translate it very concretely, “Jacob wrestled at the Jabbok,” as in the Jabbok river.
Or, in order to keep the original alliteration that rings in my ear like a can-opener to a herd of hungry cats,
“Jacob Jebeked at the Jabbok.”
Or, I would maintain,
At this time
In this place,
Before this assembly here,
“Jacob Jebeked at the Jabbok” could be translated, “Church! You are called to this community.”
“Jacob Jebeked at the Jabbok” is, for us today, the message:
“Church!
You are called
to this community.”
Let us pray:
Lord God, please bless the words of my mouth, please bless the meditations of our hearts and the places they lead us to. Amen.
Jacob Jebekked at the Jabok.
Jacob—born with one hand clamped to his brother Esau’s heel, attempting to pull him back into the womb so he could be the first-born instead.
Jacob—whose name means Supplanter or Trickster.
Jacob—who continued to degrade his brother once out of the womb, stealing both his birthright and his blessing.
Jacob—who took his father-in-law’s flock by hook and by crook.
Jacob, because of these anti-social actions had been estranged from his family, is returning to his brother Esau, but fears for his life.
Fears that Esau will want revenge, more than that his brother Esau will want Justice and want blood!
And so Jacob finds himself alone in the night.
Then he is confronted by, and wrestles with, a man that whole night.
Jacob, whose name means Supplanter or Trickster, is asked by this mysterious man, “what is your name?”
And Jacob answers.
Jacob says, “Jacob!”
But he is more than simply giving an answer.
Jacob is confessing.
Jacob is admitting, “Yes, I am a Trickster. Yes I am a Supplanter. Yes I stole what was my brothers and left him alone. No I have not been my brother’s keeper.”
And, in making that confession, in being confronted by the cowardly nature of his name, Jacob was given a new name.
Israel.
Now, Israel can be translated a few ways. In today’s translation it is suggested it means, “God strives” others suggest “God preserves.” I’m not here to parse out this word—that’s not the point.
What I want you to notice is that God is in his new name. The point is that, in confessing who he is, God enters in. Jacob is given a new start with God.
Church! There is a message for you in this. For you see Jacob is not the only one involved in a name change.
Not the only one who has confessed an incomplete showing in compassion and understanding toward his brother and his neighbor. Confession that he has, missed the mark.
You see, I both have and have not preached at this church before.
Yes, I’ve preached in this building before.
Yes, I’ve preached to some of the same people in the pews before.
But, last time I preached here I think I preached to St. Paul’s Lutheran Church wrestling with becoming Breath of God. Today, I preach to Breath of God Lutheran Church wrestling with being faithful to its roots as St. Paul’s Lutheran Church. I am preaching to a church in transition. A church with one foot on each side of the river Jabbok.
Yes, Breath of God/St.Paul’s Lutheran. Or, as Deaconess Kati Kluckman-Ault called to you when she would talk to Assistant to the Bishop Wolfgang, “Mark’s _________ people.” Mark’s ______ people.
Ummm… I suppose I should really call them Assistant to the Bishop Kati Kluckman-Ault and Bishop Wolfgang. After all you and Jacob are not the only people dealing with a name changes—with a new start.
But, the important thing is not the name change itself. It doesn’t matter so much if I’m preaching to St. Paul’s or if I’m preaching to Breath of God.
What matters is that the name change isn’t a re-branding—you know about rebranding—
how Coke briefly became “new-coke,”
how the cigarette company Philip Morris became Altria,
how Wal-Mart is supposed to be friendlier to workers now because it has a yellow sun in its logo.
That’s not what happened to Jacob, and from what I’ve seen, and what I’ve heard, that’s not what is happening here at this church. No, what is going on here on Clinton Street is not a re-branding!
this church here has confessed—truly confessed!
that at times you have not been as intentional as you ought in reaching out to your neighbors.
And not only that, God has entered in, yes God has entered in, and is doing a new thing—a spirit thing—a ______ thing.
A new start
you are becoming the community God wishes you to be.
God is entering-into your name, into your being, into who you are,
and through His grace transforming you!
Jacob Jebekked. Jacob, despite being alone in the night—Jebekked. He wrestled.
And I’m not repeating the phrase “alone in the night” for the emotional impact of this phrase alone.
No. Jacob was very intentional about being alone that night
he wanted to be alone that night.
If we look back a few verses Jacob begins by sending waves and waves of his property toward his brother, hoping that he will take them and spare Jacob’s life.
Then, he does the same with his family—sending them in front of him as a sort of human shield.
Let me repeat that, Jacob took the phrase “women and children first”—which usually refers to protecting women and children, and instead sends women and children toward Esau, his brother who he believes intends to kill him and possible kill his family as well!
Jacob is putting everything he has—property and family—between himself and his brother.
He is doing everything in his power to be separated from his brother.
He is doing everything he can to be alone in the night!
But God doesn’t let this happen! God doesn’t let Jacob alone!
No, Jacob wrestles with this man from sundown to sun up. If this happened here in Baltimore they started wrestling at 6:27 last night, and didn’t stop wrestling until 7:17 this morning.
Yes, Jacob wanted to be alone,
he didn’t want to deal with people,
he didn’t want to deal with his brother
—but God stepped in and Jacob was not alone—instead he wrestled for 12 hours and 50 minutes!
And, you know, we so often think about this story of Jacob wrestling, and only think of its divine meaning—we so often describe this as the story of Jacob wrestling with God—or maybe, if we’re feeling a little low church—we call it Jacob wrestling with the angel.
But, if you look carefully, Jacob is re-named Israel, not only because he wrestles with God—but because he also wrestles with humans.
Israel is Israel because he is “the one who strives with Divine Beings and with Human Beings!”—he wrestled with God, and with Man.
And Church, you are called. Church, you are called.
Now sometimes we forget that.
Sometimes we forget we are called.
Sometimes we, like Jacob, try to be alone—alone in our faith, alone in our piety, alone in our church buildings.
Jacob sacrificed his stuff and his family to be alone—but, I would maintain we sometimes do him one better.
One of the ways church folk try to be alone is by focusing on wrestling with God.
Yes. You heard me right. We try to be alone by wrestling with God.
Or, maybe, we try to focus so much on God that we forget about Man—on the divine to the point that we forget about the human.
And when we do that—we use God to hide from our brothers; from our neighbors; from our neighborhood.
God won’t let us do that!
After all, our God is the God who, at the end, says to us, “you fed me. You clothed me.”
And we ask, “when did we do that?”
And God responds, “when you fed the least of these, when you clothed the least of these.”
Yes, ours is a God who we wrestle with when we wrestle with others, when we wrestle with our sisters and brothers
Ours is a God who when we wrestle from sun up to sun down—those 12 hours and 50 minutes of darkness we are wrestling with both God and man—both divine beings and human beings! When we wrestle with one we wrestle with the other.
Or to put it another way, I think of a community meeting Pastor Mark was telling me about.
The main “issue” the community decided to focus on was the youth of Highland town. The youth, were described as both a “problem” and a people who needs help.
Perhaps they too can be Christ to you.
And, all I want to tell you, from all of that, is that I’ve been to Thursday night Basketball here at Breath of God.
I’ve seen you opening your doors to the youth.
But you can’t stop here!
Jacob Jebeked at the Jabbok.
Yes, in the end we find him limping into the morning light—changed—renamed—limping toward his brother!
We find him squinting a little as the light glimmers off the Jabbok. As he crosses over to the other side—cross over to a new relationship with his brother.
And Church! You are called to this community.
You have been called into a new relationship with the people of Baltimore!
You are called not only to serve here, but to learn here, and be community here!
You are called here! To Highlandtown.
You are called to wrestle,
and to engage,
and to be church
and to feel God’s breath reviving this place from Little Italy to O’Donnell Heights.
You are called to renewed engagement with your neighbors and with your brothers from Can-ton to Patterson Park.
Church!
You are called
to this community.
You are called to worship here!
You are called to belong here!
You are called to serve here!
You are called to grow in faith here!
Church! You are called to this community!
Amen and Alleluiah.
Greetings from the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia.
Greetings and peace in the name of Jesus.
They tell you at Seminary to never go back to the original biblical language in a sermon, because then you are just showing off. But, sometimes it is only in the original language that certain aspects of a story shine forth.
Today’s story found in Genesis chapter 32 is one of them. There is a phrase imbedded in this story that just jumps off the page because of its alliterations,
because of the way it looks on the page,
and the way it feels in my mouth,
and the way it sounds to my ear; it cannot be ignored!
“Vay-ye’abek Ya’akob ba-yabok.”
Or, to translate it very concretely, “Jacob wrestled at the Jabbok,” as in the Jabbok river.
Or, in order to keep the original alliteration that rings in my ear like a can-opener to a herd of hungry cats,
“Jacob Jebeked at the Jabbok.”
Or, I would maintain,
At this time
In this place,
Before this assembly here,
“Jacob Jebeked at the Jabbok” could be translated, “Church! You are called to this community.”
“Jacob Jebeked at the Jabbok” is, for us today, the message:
“Church!
You are called
to this community.”
Let us pray:
Lord God, please bless the words of my mouth, please bless the meditations of our hearts and the places they lead us to. Amen.
Jacob Jebekked at the Jabok.
Jacob—born with one hand clamped to his brother Esau’s heel, attempting to pull him back into the womb so he could be the first-born instead.
Jacob—whose name means Supplanter or Trickster.
Jacob—who continued to degrade his brother once out of the womb, stealing both his birthright and his blessing.
Jacob—who took his father-in-law’s flock by hook and by crook.
Jacob, because of these anti-social actions had been estranged from his family, is returning to his brother Esau, but fears for his life.
Fears that Esau will want revenge, more than that his brother Esau will want Justice and want blood!
And so Jacob finds himself alone in the night.
Then he is confronted by, and wrestles with, a man that whole night.
Jacob, whose name means Supplanter or Trickster, is asked by this mysterious man, “what is your name?”
And Jacob answers.
Jacob says, “Jacob!”
But he is more than simply giving an answer.
Jacob is confessing.
Jacob is admitting, “Yes, I am a Trickster. Yes I am a Supplanter. Yes I stole what was my brothers and left him alone. No I have not been my brother’s keeper.”
And, in making that confession, in being confronted by the cowardly nature of his name, Jacob was given a new name.
Israel.
Now, Israel can be translated a few ways. In today’s translation it is suggested it means, “God strives” others suggest “God preserves.” I’m not here to parse out this word—that’s not the point.
What I want you to notice is that God is in his new name. The point is that, in confessing who he is, God enters in. Jacob is given a new start with God.
Church! There is a message for you in this. For you see Jacob is not the only one involved in a name change.
Not the only one who has confessed an incomplete showing in compassion and understanding toward his brother and his neighbor. Confession that he has, missed the mark.
You see, I both have and have not preached at this church before.
Yes, I’ve preached in this building before.
Yes, I’ve preached to some of the same people in the pews before.
But, last time I preached here I think I preached to St. Paul’s Lutheran Church wrestling with becoming Breath of God. Today, I preach to Breath of God Lutheran Church wrestling with being faithful to its roots as St. Paul’s Lutheran Church. I am preaching to a church in transition. A church with one foot on each side of the river Jabbok.
Yes, Breath of God/St.Paul’s Lutheran. Or, as Deaconess Kati Kluckman-Ault called to you when she would talk to Assistant to the Bishop Wolfgang, “Mark’s _________ people.” Mark’s ______ people.
Ummm… I suppose I should really call them Assistant to the Bishop Kati Kluckman-Ault and Bishop Wolfgang. After all you and Jacob are not the only people dealing with a name changes—with a new start.
But, the important thing is not the name change itself. It doesn’t matter so much if I’m preaching to St. Paul’s or if I’m preaching to Breath of God.
What matters is that the name change isn’t a re-branding—you know about rebranding—
how Coke briefly became “new-coke,”
how the cigarette company Philip Morris became Altria,
how Wal-Mart is supposed to be friendlier to workers now because it has a yellow sun in its logo.
That’s not what happened to Jacob, and from what I’ve seen, and what I’ve heard, that’s not what is happening here at this church. No, what is going on here on Clinton Street is not a re-branding!
this church here has confessed—truly confessed!
that at times you have not been as intentional as you ought in reaching out to your neighbors.
And not only that, God has entered in, yes God has entered in, and is doing a new thing—a spirit thing—a ______ thing.
A new start
you are becoming the community God wishes you to be.
God is entering-into your name, into your being, into who you are,
and through His grace transforming you!
Jacob Jebekked. Jacob, despite being alone in the night—Jebekked. He wrestled.
And I’m not repeating the phrase “alone in the night” for the emotional impact of this phrase alone.
No. Jacob was very intentional about being alone that night
he wanted to be alone that night.
If we look back a few verses Jacob begins by sending waves and waves of his property toward his brother, hoping that he will take them and spare Jacob’s life.
Then, he does the same with his family—sending them in front of him as a sort of human shield.
Let me repeat that, Jacob took the phrase “women and children first”—which usually refers to protecting women and children, and instead sends women and children toward Esau, his brother who he believes intends to kill him and possible kill his family as well!
Jacob is putting everything he has—property and family—between himself and his brother.
He is doing everything in his power to be separated from his brother.
He is doing everything he can to be alone in the night!
But God doesn’t let this happen! God doesn’t let Jacob alone!
No, Jacob wrestles with this man from sundown to sun up. If this happened here in Baltimore they started wrestling at 6:27 last night, and didn’t stop wrestling until 7:17 this morning.
Yes, Jacob wanted to be alone,
he didn’t want to deal with people,
he didn’t want to deal with his brother
—but God stepped in and Jacob was not alone—instead he wrestled for 12 hours and 50 minutes!
And, you know, we so often think about this story of Jacob wrestling, and only think of its divine meaning—we so often describe this as the story of Jacob wrestling with God—or maybe, if we’re feeling a little low church—we call it Jacob wrestling with the angel.
But, if you look carefully, Jacob is re-named Israel, not only because he wrestles with God—but because he also wrestles with humans.
Israel is Israel because he is “the one who strives with Divine Beings and with Human Beings!”—he wrestled with God, and with Man.
And Church, you are called. Church, you are called.
Now sometimes we forget that.
Sometimes we forget we are called.
Sometimes we, like Jacob, try to be alone—alone in our faith, alone in our piety, alone in our church buildings.
Jacob sacrificed his stuff and his family to be alone—but, I would maintain we sometimes do him one better.
One of the ways church folk try to be alone is by focusing on wrestling with God.
Yes. You heard me right. We try to be alone by wrestling with God.
Or, maybe, we try to focus so much on God that we forget about Man—on the divine to the point that we forget about the human.
And when we do that—we use God to hide from our brothers; from our neighbors; from our neighborhood.
God won’t let us do that!
After all, our God is the God who, at the end, says to us, “you fed me. You clothed me.”
And we ask, “when did we do that?”
And God responds, “when you fed the least of these, when you clothed the least of these.”
Yes, ours is a God who we wrestle with when we wrestle with others, when we wrestle with our sisters and brothers
Ours is a God who when we wrestle from sun up to sun down—those 12 hours and 50 minutes of darkness we are wrestling with both God and man—both divine beings and human beings! When we wrestle with one we wrestle with the other.
Or to put it another way, I think of a community meeting Pastor Mark was telling me about.
The main “issue” the community decided to focus on was the youth of Highland town. The youth, were described as both a “problem” and a people who needs help.
Perhaps they too can be Christ to you.
And, all I want to tell you, from all of that, is that I’ve been to Thursday night Basketball here at Breath of God.
I’ve seen you opening your doors to the youth.
But you can’t stop here!
Jacob Jebeked at the Jabbok.
Yes, in the end we find him limping into the morning light—changed—renamed—limping toward his brother!
We find him squinting a little as the light glimmers off the Jabbok. As he crosses over to the other side—cross over to a new relationship with his brother.
And Church! You are called to this community.
You have been called into a new relationship with the people of Baltimore!
You are called not only to serve here, but to learn here, and be community here!
You are called here! To Highlandtown.
You are called to wrestle,
and to engage,
and to be church
and to feel God’s breath reviving this place from Little Italy to O’Donnell Heights.
You are called to renewed engagement with your neighbors and with your brothers from Can-ton to Patterson Park.
Church!
You are called
to this community.
You are called to worship here!
You are called to belong here!
You are called to serve here!
You are called to grow in faith here!
Church! You are called to this community!
Amen and Alleluiah.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
On Specialization
I ended up reading a small portion of a tentative English translation of a Coptic document by Hibat Ibn al-‘Assal, the translator of the Bible from Coptic into Arabic, and I got to a place where Hibat was describing the books of the Bible he affirmed as canon.
The author translated most of the books correctly, but when it came to the books of Wisdom there was one book that the translator did not know how to translate “’Quhalet.”
This is of course a hare’s breath away from the Hebrew title for the book we call Ecclesiastes. Now, I would have assumed the author knew this and was simply leaving things in a purer form of translation—transliteration, except that “’Quhalet” was accompanied by one little added mark, a question mark. I genuinely believe the translator of this document did not know that Ecclesiastes is a Latin rendering of the Hebrew title Qohheleth.
And this was one of the reasons I didn’t stay in England to do the Ph.D. at Cambridge but instead came back to the United States to do an M.Div. at Philly. I kind of like being a generalist, poking my nose in multiple steaming and smelly mounds of knowledge. I am not ready to become so specialized that I can’t see the forest because I’m caressing one specific portion of a specific leaf on one specific type of tree.
That said, before I kick Specialization to the curb, I do have to affirm that the skills fostered by a Ph.D. are formidable and transferable to other subjects. Additionally, in digging down through the layers of time and interpretation to get to your specific subject you end up bumping into a lot of interesting things—so in a sense you become a generalist by osmosis instead of by intent.
The author translated most of the books correctly, but when it came to the books of Wisdom there was one book that the translator did not know how to translate “’Quhalet.”
This is of course a hare’s breath away from the Hebrew title for the book we call Ecclesiastes. Now, I would have assumed the author knew this and was simply leaving things in a purer form of translation—transliteration, except that “’Quhalet” was accompanied by one little added mark, a question mark. I genuinely believe the translator of this document did not know that Ecclesiastes is a Latin rendering of the Hebrew title Qohheleth.
And this was one of the reasons I didn’t stay in England to do the Ph.D. at Cambridge but instead came back to the United States to do an M.Div. at Philly. I kind of like being a generalist, poking my nose in multiple steaming and smelly mounds of knowledge. I am not ready to become so specialized that I can’t see the forest because I’m caressing one specific portion of a specific leaf on one specific type of tree.
That said, before I kick Specialization to the curb, I do have to affirm that the skills fostered by a Ph.D. are formidable and transferable to other subjects. Additionally, in digging down through the layers of time and interpretation to get to your specific subject you end up bumping into a lot of interesting things—so in a sense you become a generalist by osmosis instead of by intent.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Pop utilization of religious themes: A reflection for Francis of Assisi
(I apologize for being unable to post this ad, it was taken down from Youtube)
In commercials for the movie John Rambo Francis of Asisi’s prayer for peace:
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon:
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope
where there is darkness, light
where there is sadness, joy
O Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
Amen.
was voiced over images of Rambo brutally killing a bunch of Burmese soldiers.
What are we to make of this kind of use/abuse of religious heritage? Does the juxtaposition of image and idea strengthen or weaken Christian dedication to peace? Do they make a mockery out of this aspect of Christianity? Was the filmmaker’s intent to glorify the violence, or even hallow it?
My experience of this mash up of peaceful prayer and violent act was that it was done in order to titillate. Initially, this juxtaposition was both fascinating and jarring. It felt like I’d participated in some sort of blasphemy. I felt like I was caught with my hand in the cookie jar, or like my mother found hardcore pornographic videos stacked amongst my hymnals.
Then, because this video was out there in the mainstream, the commercial world has said this is acceptable discourse in North American culture, my pack-mind took another look—it thought of righteous killing, of sacred violence. Perhaps, I thought, in some strange way, violence was fulfilling this prayer. Perhaps there was some sort of sacred inversion, like a theology of the cross. By diving into the depths of violence you can find a deeper peace. Maybe, for the deeply disturbed character Rambo, overlaying prayer atop violence was a righteous thing. Perhaps, it was, “a Zen thing.”
After having had such a thought I rejected it. Yet, having watched this commercial several times has left me unable to hear St. Francis’ beautiful prayer without re-living the violence of this clip. In a sense, commercial violence has been fused to sacred peace. Pop and Prayer have been intertwined in my mind.
In commercials for the movie John Rambo Francis of Asisi’s prayer for peace:
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon:
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope
where there is darkness, light
where there is sadness, joy
O Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
Amen.
was voiced over images of Rambo brutally killing a bunch of Burmese soldiers.
What are we to make of this kind of use/abuse of religious heritage? Does the juxtaposition of image and idea strengthen or weaken Christian dedication to peace? Do they make a mockery out of this aspect of Christianity? Was the filmmaker’s intent to glorify the violence, or even hallow it?
My experience of this mash up of peaceful prayer and violent act was that it was done in order to titillate. Initially, this juxtaposition was both fascinating and jarring. It felt like I’d participated in some sort of blasphemy. I felt like I was caught with my hand in the cookie jar, or like my mother found hardcore pornographic videos stacked amongst my hymnals.
Then, because this video was out there in the mainstream, the commercial world has said this is acceptable discourse in North American culture, my pack-mind took another look—it thought of righteous killing, of sacred violence. Perhaps, I thought, in some strange way, violence was fulfilling this prayer. Perhaps there was some sort of sacred inversion, like a theology of the cross. By diving into the depths of violence you can find a deeper peace. Maybe, for the deeply disturbed character Rambo, overlaying prayer atop violence was a righteous thing. Perhaps, it was, “a Zen thing.”
After having had such a thought I rejected it. Yet, having watched this commercial several times has left me unable to hear St. Francis’ beautiful prayer without re-living the violence of this clip. In a sense, commercial violence has been fused to sacred peace. Pop and Prayer have been intertwined in my mind.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Chris Halverson’s curriculum vitae
PERSONAL INFORMATION:
Christopher Lee Halverson
Male
Fargo, North Dakota 1983
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:
September 2009-August 2010—Vicar, St. John’s Lutheran Church, Pimlico Road, Baltimore, MD.
August 2008-May 2009—Field Education Student, Tabernacle Lutheran Church, Philadelphia, PA.
August 2008-December 2008—Hebrew TA, The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, PA.
EDUCATION:
2011 The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia—M.Div.
2007 University of Cambridge—M. Phil. (Hebrew Scriptures)
2005 University of Oregon—B. A. (Religious Studies, History, Certificate Creative Writing)
2002 East High School in Cheyenne Wyoming—Diploma
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS:
2008 Clinical Pastoral Education Altru Hospital Grand Forks, ND.
2008 The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia—Anti-Racism Training
2006 Grand National Archery Society—Archery Instructor Certificate
British Gymnastics—Trampoline Instructor Certificate
PUBLICATIONS:
Multiple articles in The Seminarian
BOOKS:
An Uncomfortable Bit of Rope and Other Essays on the Binding of Isaac
INTERESTS:
Religious Violence, Genesis chapter 22, Wisdom Literature, Ecumenism, Universalism, Creative Writing, Urban Ministry, Polyethnic Ministry.
Christopher Lee Halverson
Male
Fargo, North Dakota 1983
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:
September 2009-August 2010—Vicar, St. John’s Lutheran Church, Pimlico Road, Baltimore, MD.
August 2008-May 2009—Field Education Student, Tabernacle Lutheran Church, Philadelphia, PA.
August 2008-December 2008—Hebrew TA, The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, PA.
EDUCATION:
2011 The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia—M.Div.
2007 University of Cambridge—M. Phil. (Hebrew Scriptures)
2005 University of Oregon—B. A. (Religious Studies, History, Certificate Creative Writing)
2002 East High School in Cheyenne Wyoming—Diploma
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS:
2008 Clinical Pastoral Education Altru Hospital Grand Forks, ND.
2008 The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia—Anti-Racism Training
2006 Grand National Archery Society—Archery Instructor Certificate
British Gymnastics—Trampoline Instructor Certificate
PUBLICATIONS:
Multiple articles in The Seminarian
BOOKS:
An Uncomfortable Bit of Rope and Other Essays on the Binding of Isaac
INTERESTS:
Religious Violence, Genesis chapter 22, Wisdom Literature, Ecumenism, Universalism, Creative Writing, Urban Ministry, Polyethnic Ministry.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Cordoba and Lutherans in America
So, just a very brief thought. As the controversy rages over the mosque/community center at/3 blocks from being built/refurbishing a Burlington Coat Factory I have to wonder where in the building they will be putting the American flag.
No, seriously. Think about it. German Americans put the American flag in the sanctuary of their Lutheran churches to show how loyal they were during the world wars.
For that matter the Muhlenberg statue that resides in front of my Seminary was moved there from downtown Philly because people feared “patriots” would deface and destroy it. And Muhlenberg was the father of Peter Muhlenberg who, according to Lutheran lore ended a sermon as British troops marched toward Woodstock, Virginia, whipped off his alb to reveal his militia officer’s uniform, and proceeded to win the battle of Yorktown and liberate America from the British.
So, all that to bring up the fact that even today pastors wring their hands for days on end contemplating moving the American flag out of the worship area (this has especially become an issue as the idea of “centeral things” takes hold—basically you don’t want every little doodad sitting around the altar, just some water, some wine, and some bread). And so I wonder if, in 2100 Imams throughout America will still be trying to cajole their members to use non-Red, White, and Blue prayer mats and trying to move the flag from the base of the Mihrab to the fellowship hall.
No, seriously. Think about it. German Americans put the American flag in the sanctuary of their Lutheran churches to show how loyal they were during the world wars.
For that matter the Muhlenberg statue that resides in front of my Seminary was moved there from downtown Philly because people feared “patriots” would deface and destroy it. And Muhlenberg was the father of Peter Muhlenberg who, according to Lutheran lore ended a sermon as British troops marched toward Woodstock, Virginia, whipped off his alb to reveal his militia officer’s uniform, and proceeded to win the battle of Yorktown and liberate America from the British.
So, all that to bring up the fact that even today pastors wring their hands for days on end contemplating moving the American flag out of the worship area (this has especially become an issue as the idea of “centeral things” takes hold—basically you don’t want every little doodad sitting around the altar, just some water, some wine, and some bread). And so I wonder if, in 2100 Imams throughout America will still be trying to cajole their members to use non-Red, White, and Blue prayer mats and trying to move the flag from the base of the Mihrab to the fellowship hall.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
The Long Awaited "DL Bible Study" or "Cover: The ELCA’s Sexuality Statement in a local context"
First off, to all those who I promised this blog post to a long time ago, I’m sorry its way late.
Cover
When my evening Bible Study crew was passing around the movie Cover I knew something was up.
SPOILER WARNING!
Cover is about the Down-low culture. For those of you who don’t know what being on the Down-low (DL) is: Being on the DL is the phenomena of claiming to be straight, usually being in a relationship with a significant other of the opposite sex, often a wife or girlfriend, but then having sex with someone of the same sex.
“What? Isn’t that just being in the closet?” You might ask.
It may be that, but it is more than that. Being DL is more than being in the closet, it is also a rejection of (stereotypical) middle class white homosexuality by African American men.
Now, you might say, “sure, your parishioners were interested in this—its titillating… but how common is it? I’m not entirely sure, but I do know one of the places where DL hook-ups occur is Druid-Hill Park—sometimes known as “the meat market” which is just down the road from my church. Further, a friend of mine recently told me the DL culture is so prevalent that she and many other African American women deal with potential mates being on the DL so often that they ask point blank on a first date, “do you sleep with men?”
In order to think faithfully about people being on the DL I ended up breaking the phenomena up into the following constituent parts: Trust, Homosexuality, and Race.
TRUST:
I began the Bible Study by playing “the most disturbing scene” of the movie. This movie involved the main character sneaking into a hotel room, seeing her husband’s wedding ring on a table, and then catching her husband in the shower with another man. I pointed out that, viewing this scene from the ELCA’s statement on human sexuality, the disturbing thing wasn’t the homoeroticism but the wedding ring left on the table.
This is because our relationships—especially our sexual relationships—are there to build and protect trust. The sin isn’t boinking a man, the sin is breaking covenant with your wife. That’s because sin isn’t about breaking rules—even as our scripture does contain thou shalts and thou shalt nots. Sin is about turning away from God and neighbor and looking to ourselves.
Additionally, I used this scene to point out, point blank, that part of the reason this film was interesting to folk, and similarly that people are interested in one small part of the ELCA’s sexuality statement, is that it involves picking apart the sexuality of DL men and homosexuals. But in focusing on what two men are doing in a shower straight, non-DL-folk, don’t have to stop and think how our sexuality is or is not building and maintaining trust, and how the Sexuality statement bring up a lot of other things our society does that degrades our neighbors and our children. I quoted a professor who taught a class on sexuality and was constantly annoyed because her students kept referring to it as “the gay class.” It was as if hetrosexuals were assumed to be asexual beings—the class was not about them.
From there we moved to…
HOMOSEXUALITY:
I began by pointing out what the ELCA’s statement actually said about homosexuality. It said that Lutherans within our tradition oppose all forms of harassment and assault based on sexual orientation. “It supports legislation and policies to protect civil rights and to prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, and public services. It has called upon congregations and members to welcome, care for, and support same-gender couples and their
families and to advocate for their legal protection.”
Additionally, it affirms that there is a wide variety of views on homosexual marriage within the church.
Some ELCAers, “On the basis of conscience-bound belief, some are convinced that same-gender sexual behavior is sinful, contrary to biblical teaching and their understanding of natural law. They believe same-gender sexual behavior carries the grave danger of unrepentant sin. They therefore conclude that the neighbor and the community are best served by calling people in same-gender sexual relationships to repentance for that behavior and to a celibate lifestyle. Such decisions are intended to be accompanied by pastoral response and community support.”
On the other end of the spectrum, ELCAers such as myself, “On the basis of conscience-bound belief, some are convinced that the scriptural witness does not address the context of sexual orientation and committed relationships that we experience today. They believe that the neighbor and community are best served when same-gender relationships are lived out with lifelong and monogamous commitments that are held to the same rigorous standards, sexual ethics, and status as heterosexual marriage. They surround such couples and their lifelong commitments with prayer to live in ways that glorify God, find strength for the challenges that will be faced, and serve others. They believe same-gender couples should avail themselves of social and legal support for themselves, their children and other dependents, and seek the highest legal accountability available for their relationships.”
From there we moved to what the Bible has to say about homosexuality… except that I cautioned that I believe the Bible speaks about homoeroticism, not homosexuality. That is because romantic love is a modern concept. The very idea that you would partner up with someone you are sexually attracted to was much less prominent when the testaments were written. Marriage, for example, was, and in some cases still is, more about economy than eros or any other kind of love.
We discussed both Hebrew Scripture—specifically Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
I maintained that Genesis 19—the case of Sodom, was not talking about “Sodomy” in any contemporary sense, but instead about being inhospitable and exhibiting domination and ultimately attempting to rape, foreigners who were in fact messengers of God.
Then we looked at what the book of Leviticus was condemning as “an abomination” (Tobah in Hebrew) and looked at what other abominations were.
Here is a list:
Tobah
Gen. 43:32 They set a place for him, a separate place for his brothers, and another for the Egyptians who were eating with him. (The Egyptians are not able to eat with Hebrews, for the Egyptians think it is disgusting to do so.)
Gen. 46:34 Tell him, ‘Your servants have taken care of cattle from our youth until now, both we and our fathers,’ so that you may live in the land of Goshen, for everyone who takes care of sheep is disgusting to the Egyptians.”
Ex. 8:26 But Moses said, “That would not be the right thing to do, for the sacrifices we make to the LORD our God would be an abomination to the Egyptians. If we make sacrifices that are an abomination to the Egyptians right before their eyes, will they not stone us?
Lev. 18:22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.
Lev. 18:26 You yourselves must obey my statutes and my regulations and must not do any of these abominations, both the native citizen and the resident foreigner in your midst,
Lev. 18:27 for the people who were in the land before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become unclean.
Lev. 18:29 For if anyone does any of these abominations, the persons who do them will be cut off from the midst of their people.
Lev. 20:13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.
Deut. 14:3 You must not eat any forbidden thing.
Deut. 18:12 Whoever does these things is abhorrent to the LORD and because of these detestable things the LORD your God is about to drive them out from before you.
Deut. 22:5 ¶ A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor should a man dress up in women’s clothing, for anyone who does this is offensive to the LORD your God.
Deut. 24:4 her first husband who divorced her is not permitted to remarry her after she has become ritually impure, for that is offensive to the LORD. You must not bring guilt on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Deut. 25:16 For anyone who acts dishonestly in these ways is abhorrent to the LORD your God.
From this list it seems clear that abominations can be cultural practices that separate one group from another. For example Egyptians eat differently than Hebrews do, the Hebrew way of eating in an abomination.
I also listed what some of the eatable “forbidden things” were—pork, crab, etc.
I talked a little about purity laws, and how most things considered impure or tobah were things that didn’t easily fit into one category. For example crabs, they are fish, but they have legs like non-fish. Or menstrual blood—its blood, a death liquid, coming out of the vagina, a hole from which comes new life.
From there we looked at several pieces of the New Testament, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10,1 Timothy 1:9-10, and Jude 1:7.
I began this conversation by pointing out how Greek and Roman sexual mores are very different than our own. Greek men could have sex with boys and male Roman Citizens could have sex with pretty much any non-citizen. This explains why Paul advises people to have no sex what-so-ever (along with his assumption that the end of the world was neigh) —because sex in his society was always a question of power, a question of who is on top.
I noted that Romans 1 is a set up for Roman’s 2, “Therefor you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same thing. You say, “We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.” Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?”—In other words “wow, those pagans even get so drunk they boink people they’re not attracted too… and you, in your own way… do the very same thing!”
From there I mentioned 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy may be talking about pimps, not people performing homoerotic acts, as the word Paul uses is a word he coins himself, not the typical Greek word for people performing homoerotic acts.
I also pointed out how Jude is referring back to Genesis 19, which we had already discussed.
Finally we closed by talking about how race might shape men’s decisions to be on the DL instead of coming out.
RACE:
Here are a few quotes that I brought up to jumpstart our conversation:
Closeted or out?—“I’m only a homosexual when I’m having sex with a man.”
The African American Community—“It's like you've let down the whole black community, black women, black history, black pride. You don't hear black people say, 'Oh yeah, he's gay, but he's still a real man, and he still takes care of all his responsibilities.' What you hear is, 'Look at that sissy faggot.' ''
The Black Church— “coming out of the closet and pressing for rights in the Black church would be, I’d say, suicidal and destructive.”—Rev. Dr. Mozella G. Mitchell
Economics--“If you don’t have a job or a steady income, the thought of coming out may seem more like masochism than liberation.”-- Keith Boykin
The Gay Community--''The choice becomes, do I want to be discriminated against at home for my sexuality, or do I want to move away and be discriminated against for my skin color?''
Cover
When my evening Bible Study crew was passing around the movie Cover I knew something was up.
SPOILER WARNING!
Cover is about the Down-low culture. For those of you who don’t know what being on the Down-low (DL) is: Being on the DL is the phenomena of claiming to be straight, usually being in a relationship with a significant other of the opposite sex, often a wife or girlfriend, but then having sex with someone of the same sex.
“What? Isn’t that just being in the closet?” You might ask.
It may be that, but it is more than that. Being DL is more than being in the closet, it is also a rejection of (stereotypical) middle class white homosexuality by African American men.
Now, you might say, “sure, your parishioners were interested in this—its titillating… but how common is it? I’m not entirely sure, but I do know one of the places where DL hook-ups occur is Druid-Hill Park—sometimes known as “the meat market” which is just down the road from my church. Further, a friend of mine recently told me the DL culture is so prevalent that she and many other African American women deal with potential mates being on the DL so often that they ask point blank on a first date, “do you sleep with men?”
In order to think faithfully about people being on the DL I ended up breaking the phenomena up into the following constituent parts: Trust, Homosexuality, and Race.
TRUST:
I began the Bible Study by playing “the most disturbing scene” of the movie. This movie involved the main character sneaking into a hotel room, seeing her husband’s wedding ring on a table, and then catching her husband in the shower with another man. I pointed out that, viewing this scene from the ELCA’s statement on human sexuality, the disturbing thing wasn’t the homoeroticism but the wedding ring left on the table.
This is because our relationships—especially our sexual relationships—are there to build and protect trust. The sin isn’t boinking a man, the sin is breaking covenant with your wife. That’s because sin isn’t about breaking rules—even as our scripture does contain thou shalts and thou shalt nots. Sin is about turning away from God and neighbor and looking to ourselves.
Additionally, I used this scene to point out, point blank, that part of the reason this film was interesting to folk, and similarly that people are interested in one small part of the ELCA’s sexuality statement, is that it involves picking apart the sexuality of DL men and homosexuals. But in focusing on what two men are doing in a shower straight, non-DL-folk, don’t have to stop and think how our sexuality is or is not building and maintaining trust, and how the Sexuality statement bring up a lot of other things our society does that degrades our neighbors and our children. I quoted a professor who taught a class on sexuality and was constantly annoyed because her students kept referring to it as “the gay class.” It was as if hetrosexuals were assumed to be asexual beings—the class was not about them.
From there we moved to…
HOMOSEXUALITY:
I began by pointing out what the ELCA’s statement actually said about homosexuality. It said that Lutherans within our tradition oppose all forms of harassment and assault based on sexual orientation. “It supports legislation and policies to protect civil rights and to prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, and public services. It has called upon congregations and members to welcome, care for, and support same-gender couples and their
families and to advocate for their legal protection.”
Additionally, it affirms that there is a wide variety of views on homosexual marriage within the church.
Some ELCAers, “On the basis of conscience-bound belief, some are convinced that same-gender sexual behavior is sinful, contrary to biblical teaching and their understanding of natural law. They believe same-gender sexual behavior carries the grave danger of unrepentant sin. They therefore conclude that the neighbor and the community are best served by calling people in same-gender sexual relationships to repentance for that behavior and to a celibate lifestyle. Such decisions are intended to be accompanied by pastoral response and community support.”
On the other end of the spectrum, ELCAers such as myself, “On the basis of conscience-bound belief, some are convinced that the scriptural witness does not address the context of sexual orientation and committed relationships that we experience today. They believe that the neighbor and community are best served when same-gender relationships are lived out with lifelong and monogamous commitments that are held to the same rigorous standards, sexual ethics, and status as heterosexual marriage. They surround such couples and their lifelong commitments with prayer to live in ways that glorify God, find strength for the challenges that will be faced, and serve others. They believe same-gender couples should avail themselves of social and legal support for themselves, their children and other dependents, and seek the highest legal accountability available for their relationships.”
From there we moved to what the Bible has to say about homosexuality… except that I cautioned that I believe the Bible speaks about homoeroticism, not homosexuality. That is because romantic love is a modern concept. The very idea that you would partner up with someone you are sexually attracted to was much less prominent when the testaments were written. Marriage, for example, was, and in some cases still is, more about economy than eros or any other kind of love.
We discussed both Hebrew Scripture—specifically Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
I maintained that Genesis 19—the case of Sodom, was not talking about “Sodomy” in any contemporary sense, but instead about being inhospitable and exhibiting domination and ultimately attempting to rape, foreigners who were in fact messengers of God.
Then we looked at what the book of Leviticus was condemning as “an abomination” (Tobah in Hebrew) and looked at what other abominations were.
Here is a list:
Tobah
Gen. 43:32 They set a place for him, a separate place for his brothers, and another for the Egyptians who were eating with him. (The Egyptians are not able to eat with Hebrews, for the Egyptians think it is disgusting to do so.)
Gen. 46:34 Tell him, ‘Your servants have taken care of cattle from our youth until now, both we and our fathers,’ so that you may live in the land of Goshen, for everyone who takes care of sheep is disgusting to the Egyptians.”
Ex. 8:26 But Moses said, “That would not be the right thing to do, for the sacrifices we make to the LORD our God would be an abomination to the Egyptians. If we make sacrifices that are an abomination to the Egyptians right before their eyes, will they not stone us?
Lev. 18:22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.
Lev. 18:26 You yourselves must obey my statutes and my regulations and must not do any of these abominations, both the native citizen and the resident foreigner in your midst,
Lev. 18:27 for the people who were in the land before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become unclean.
Lev. 18:29 For if anyone does any of these abominations, the persons who do them will be cut off from the midst of their people.
Lev. 20:13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.
Deut. 14:3 You must not eat any forbidden thing.
Deut. 18:12 Whoever does these things is abhorrent to the LORD and because of these detestable things the LORD your God is about to drive them out from before you.
Deut. 22:5 ¶ A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor should a man dress up in women’s clothing, for anyone who does this is offensive to the LORD your God.
Deut. 24:4 her first husband who divorced her is not permitted to remarry her after she has become ritually impure, for that is offensive to the LORD. You must not bring guilt on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Deut. 25:16 For anyone who acts dishonestly in these ways is abhorrent to the LORD your God.
From this list it seems clear that abominations can be cultural practices that separate one group from another. For example Egyptians eat differently than Hebrews do, the Hebrew way of eating in an abomination.
I also listed what some of the eatable “forbidden things” were—pork, crab, etc.
I talked a little about purity laws, and how most things considered impure or tobah were things that didn’t easily fit into one category. For example crabs, they are fish, but they have legs like non-fish. Or menstrual blood—its blood, a death liquid, coming out of the vagina, a hole from which comes new life.
From there we looked at several pieces of the New Testament, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10,1 Timothy 1:9-10, and Jude 1:7.
I began this conversation by pointing out how Greek and Roman sexual mores are very different than our own. Greek men could have sex with boys and male Roman Citizens could have sex with pretty much any non-citizen. This explains why Paul advises people to have no sex what-so-ever (along with his assumption that the end of the world was neigh) —because sex in his society was always a question of power, a question of who is on top.
I noted that Romans 1 is a set up for Roman’s 2, “Therefor you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same thing. You say, “We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.” Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?”—In other words “wow, those pagans even get so drunk they boink people they’re not attracted too… and you, in your own way… do the very same thing!”
From there I mentioned 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy may be talking about pimps, not people performing homoerotic acts, as the word Paul uses is a word he coins himself, not the typical Greek word for people performing homoerotic acts.
I also pointed out how Jude is referring back to Genesis 19, which we had already discussed.
Finally we closed by talking about how race might shape men’s decisions to be on the DL instead of coming out.
RACE:
Here are a few quotes that I brought up to jumpstart our conversation:
Closeted or out?—“I’m only a homosexual when I’m having sex with a man.”
The African American Community—“It's like you've let down the whole black community, black women, black history, black pride. You don't hear black people say, 'Oh yeah, he's gay, but he's still a real man, and he still takes care of all his responsibilities.' What you hear is, 'Look at that sissy faggot.' ''
The Black Church— “coming out of the closet and pressing for rights in the Black church would be, I’d say, suicidal and destructive.”—Rev. Dr. Mozella G. Mitchell
Economics--“If you don’t have a job or a steady income, the thought of coming out may seem more like masochism than liberation.”-- Keith Boykin
The Gay Community--''The choice becomes, do I want to be discriminated against at home for my sexuality, or do I want to move away and be discriminated against for my skin color?''
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)