I have a confession to make. I am not a fan of apologetics. So often, it seems like the practice of apologetics becomes a kind of mental gymnastics to smash square theories into round holes. Apologetics is like the nicer, better looking brother of the conspiracy theory. The “everything must fit” mentality that often drives some people’s use of apologetics seems to, more often than not, lead to some far fetched, damaging theories. I submit as exhibits A and B, the Gap Theory and the Day/Age Theory. Both of these theories are attempts to bash a square Bible into the round hole of science. Why can’t we just stop, take a breath, and realize that not everything has to fit perfectly? That’s not how the world works, and that’s not how the Bible was written (more on this later).
Back to my confession. So much of what I’ve been doing here with these blogs about homosexuality is starting to feel like apologetics to me, and it’s really turning me off. I’ve been so tempted to end this series by channeling Inigo Montoya and saying, “You keep using that verse. It doesn’t mean what you think it means.” Period. End of discussion. But that wouldn’t be fair, would it?
So here I am, trying my best to muster the energy to tackle Paul, or, better yet, the common misinterpretation of Paul’s comments on human sexuality – and doing so in a fair way instead of going the way of Mr. Montoya. With that, I’ll make my first pithy statement:
1. When Paul talks about homosexuality and when we talk about homosexuality, we’re not talking about the same thing.
Paul’s understanding of homosexuality is very different from ours. To Paul, it’s all about the act. That’s all he sees and all he knows. He doesn’t talk about homosexual desire or homosexual orientation. In fact, sexual orientation or sexual identity in general – hetero or homo – are not concepts in Paul’s mind.
He sees the raw data that is the act of homosexual sex, and to make matters worse, in the culture in which he writes, homosexual sex acts are mostly performed in connection with ritual pagan worship. Paul sees heterosexual men participating in pagan temple worship, and this participation often included homosexual sex with one of the many male temple prostitutes. The concept of men and women having a homosexual orientation and living in monogamous, homosexual relationships is something unheard of for Paul.
2. When we translate any of Paul’s so-called references to homosexuality using the word “homosexual,” we’re mistranslating.
I’m not sure how to approach this point. I could lay out all the details about the various Greek words Paul uses, and I could go through a detailed lexical analysis of each word. However, I’m not sure I could do that and keep your attention. It’s all a bit technical and nuanced – as language tends to be. So I’ll spare you and just say this:
As I mentioned above, Paul, when he uses words that have been translated over the last hundred years or so as “homosexual,” he’s not thinking about the same thing as we are when we use those words. There’s a lot of evidence that he has pedophiles and child molesters in mind, not adult homosexual men and women. As with all discussions of sexuality in scripture, the only condemnation we see is condemnation of deviant forms of sexuality, and this is no different. When grown men sexually abuse and manipulate young men, it’s wrong. When heterosexual men have sex with male prostitutes, it’s wrong.
But what would Paul say if he came across a homosexual couple who are involved in a loving, committed relationship? Who knows! He didn’t have that category, so he didn’t comment on it. And the words he used didn’t take this category of human sexuality into account.
So to translate the Greek words Paul uses in Romans and 1 Corinthians as “homosexual” or some form of that word is, at best, missing the mark, and, at worse, a gross mistranslation.
3. When we focus on homosexuality, especially in Romans 1, we miss the point entirely.
Sometimes we forget, when we’re reading Romans 1, to continue on to Romans 2:
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?
Oopsie! Sorry Paul, I didn’t know you were trying to teach us about a kind of self-righteousness that causes us to be intolerant, impatient, and judgmental. I liked it better when you were just talking about icky homosexuals (sorry, Inigo is coming out again).
In all seriousness, there is a reason Paul sets up what he sets up in Romans 1, and that is what follows in Romans 2. We have no room to pronounce judgment on others based on what they do or how they live. I believe Paul might also say it this way: “When you point the finger, there are three fingers pointing right back at you.” Or maybe you prefer Jesus’ approach in Matthew 7:4: “How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?”
(Down Inigo! Down boy!)
So even if we come to the conclusion that Paul’s understanding of homosexuality is the same as what we call homosexuality today and that it should be condemned, we still have no room for intolerance, impatience, and judgment – Paul’s words, not mine.
The way I see it, this is pretty simple. What we thought we knew about the Bible and homosexuality just isn’t based on proper exegesis. We’ve approached the Bible backwards for too long. We’ve allowed our current cultural understanding and our own negative feelings toward same-sex relationships to inform our reading of the Bible. We’re projecting our own prejudice on the witness of scripture. We decided that we don’t like something, so of course the Bible agrees with us. It’s something that has happened many times throughout history, and no one is immune to the tendency to read personal prejudice into the text.
(My apologies for taking so long to finish this discussion. To be completely frank, I grew weary of it – not because the issue isn’t important to me, but because, for lack of a better phrase, I moved beyond it. People are gay. That’s a fact. We can’t ignore it anymore or pretend scripture has our back on this issue. We have to move beyond the debates and start doing something about the fact that there are millions of gay and lesbian Christians, and God loves them as much as he loves us. Let’s lay down our swords and start opening our arms. The fight is over.)
Lately I’ve been struggling with the idea of Apologetics.
(Hi, by the way. I know I’ve been gone a long time. It’s a very long story, and I may get into it someday, but for now, let’s just move on. Cool?)
You know what I mean when I use the term “Apologetics.” It’s that defending of the Christian faith – that ability to provide an air-tight defense of what Christians believe. Apologetics done “well” usually sound or read like the closing statements of an expensive lawyer. They involve compelling language and hard facts. At times, the detail to which the apologist goes is astounding, parsing phrases and words in order to caulk the edges of his or her defense.
I gotta admit: I’m not a fan.
One of the biggest reasons I struggle with the Apologetics approach is that the Apology is almost never wrong (I almost wrote “never wrong,” but I should probably leave some room here). With enough clever wording and tricky maneuvering, a good apologist can prove almost any point.
To be fair, I’m mostly referring to Christian Apologetics. I think this is where we can observe the dangers of the Apology most readily. Just consider how much ink has been spilled to prove, without a doubt (and to pick a hot topic right now), the existence of a hell – i.e. a literal place of eternal conscious torment. Many good Christians have written millions of words on this very topic, citing Bible verse after Bible verse, building their air-tight case that proves, without a doubt, that hell exists.
Yet so much more ink has been spilled in defense of the exact opposite position – that there is no hell, or that God will save everyone, or that evil people cease to exist when they die, and on and on. And with each of these Apologies, the apologist provides Bible verse after Bible verse, creating his or her own air-tight defense of whatever point of view he or she is defending.
So who wins? The person with the best Apology? Because both are pretty good. Who gets to judge which is best? Me? You? The community of believers?
And that’s my problem with Apologetics. Anyone can defend just about anything and find enough evidence to do so. There’s got to be a better way.
Yes, I’ve had quite the year, and that’s a big part of the reason I haven’t finished my blog series on the Bible and homosexuality.
But there’s another reason. I’m starting to feel like an apologist. I’m starting to feel like an evidence peddler.
“Step right up, folks! I’ve got a bunch of cool verses that prove my point. And check out what I can do here with a little Greek word study. Pretty nifty, eh?”
And honestly, I’m at the point in the process where becoming an apologist is necessary. The kinds of things Paul has to say about homosexuality in his letters and the words he uses are just not normal for us. In short, us and Paul, we’re on different pages on the issue. But that takes some time to explain.
Don’t get me wrong. I want to explain it, and I will very soon. Part of the reason I want to talk about Paul’s understanding of homosexuality is because I genuinely believe, based on theological reflection, that God loves homosexuals, and that a homosexual Christian is not an oxymoron.
So even though I have to get over my current disgust of Apologetics to do it, I will. I just might need a couple more days.
There are six things that the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
gay people, curse words,
Democrats,
sexuality in general,
tolerance,
a person who tries to promote unity,
and happiness.
Wait, that’s not right. Let me double check that on biblegateway.com…
There are six things that the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that hurry to run to evil,
a lying witness who testifies falsely,
and one who sows discord in a family.
Oops, I was way off! Hopefully other people haven’t made that mistake.
And now, enjoy a funny picture of a baby.
…trying to do something different than “Christianese…”
Let’s start talking about getting rid of some of the common phrases in the Christian world. Here’s a few that bug me.
1. Heavenly Father
OK, maybe it’s not that bad of a phrase, but let me do what I do and pick it apart. Heavenly – not of this world, not earthly… not present, not near, separated, etc. Father – male, dad, patriarch, ruler, etc. Father is a good word, but not for everyone. So do we want to associate all those things with God? Do we really think about all those things when we say “Heavenly Father?” Or are we just saying it because other people have said it? Could using the phrase make people think God is distant and not present? Could some associate the negative feelings they have of their own fathers with God? Maybe…
Sure, I’m being a little over the top here, but come on! There are better phrases to use. How about “Loving God,” or “Gracious God,” or anything else that isn’t androcentric and outdated.
2. Man
As in “God’s ways are better than man’s,” and “Mankind,” and “With man, this is impossible, but not with God.” Can we finally get away from this androcentric, patriarchal stuff? Could it be that women would like to be included in the whole mix? I mean, haven’t we tried to keep them oppressed for long enough? I know what you’re saying – “When I say ‘Mankind’, I’m referring to men and women.” OK, so why not say, “Humankind?” Maybe women don’t want to be lumped in to a category that bears the name of the all-powerful (tongue ripping through my cheek), all-fallible “man.”
Same thing goes for “Brothers.” Paul used that word like crazy, and I’m sure he meant “brothers and sisters…” but that’s the culture in which he lived. His culture revolved around the man, so saying “brothers” to refer to men and women was what he did. We don’t live then. We live now. Let’s try to be a little more gender inclusive. I know we can do it!
3. Just
Whenever someone says the phrase, “Let’s say a word of prayer,” I always think that the most common “word of prayer” is probably the word “just.” Think about it. “Dear God, we just come to you today ask you to just…” and the “justs” keep coming. What’s up with that? Are we trying to seem humble in our prayers? Are we trying to minimize our requests? “God, I’m just asking for this…” Or has it become a filler word, like “um” 2.0?
Maybe we could really become a little more “just” as Christians. That would be a good thing. Instead of saying “just” all the time, we could practice a little justice in this world.
4. Relationship
As in, “I don’t believe in religion. I believe in a relationship with Jesus.” Great concept, and I’m sure it was really profound when it was first uttered. But I think the time has come to retire that phrase. We do believe in religion. It’s what we do. It’s the particular way we have decided to have relationship with God. It’s the structure that we choose to use to respond to God’s revelation. Yeah, religion can and often is a really bad thing, but not always. It’s necessary.
5. Personal Relationship
Taking it one step further – the notion of a “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ. What does that mean? Is that even biblical? God works in communities. Jesus saves the world. The Bible is a book written to and meant to be read in community. This personal stuff seems to be more of a product of American Christianity than anything else. Yes, there are personal aspects to our relationship with Jesus, but there are also corporate/communal aspects, global aspects, etc.
6. What does the Bible have to say about _____?
If you read my previous posts, you probably know where I’m going here. Why have we turned the Bible into the answer key/owner’s manual for everything with which we come in conctact? “Abortion? What does the Bible have to say about that?” “Republican or Democrat? What does the Bible have to say about that?” “Speeding on the freeway? What does the Bible have to say about that?” Are we really OK with stripping the Bible of all it’s beauty to turn it into some kind of how-to on life? Should we just consider it normal to treat the Bible like we do the US Constitution? Pastors have become Judges who interpret biblical law instead of shepherds who help people experience the kingdom of God here and now. There’s a lot more here, but I won’t get into it.
That’s a good start. Have any others you’d like to share?
It’s one of the most dreaded phrases we as teachers/pastors/ministers can utter. “What the Greek word _____ really means is…” I’m sure those of us who are regular church goers have heard some variation on this phrase many times. Here are a few reasons why it’s a bad idea to utter those words:
(side note: I will mostly write about the NT and Greek for a couple reasons. One is that I have mostly studied Greek, so I’m closer to that topic. The second is that I don’t find the problems I will explain below to happen as much with Hebrew and the OT. I’m not sure why this is the case.)
1. Most likely, we’re wrong:
And if we’re not completely wrong, we’re at the very least slightly off. Koine Greek (or NT Greek) was not a magical, beautiful, robust language. It was the language of the people. Koine means “common.” It was common Greek. When we say how rich and deep each and every word actually is, we’re misunderstanding the fact that this language is not necessarily a deep and rich language.
Think about this: We all know about the word “agape.” We’ve heard that it means “unconditional love,” or something like that. But when you start to read the NT, you realize that the NT writers used agape all the time. It was the normal word for love. It didn’t have any deep and magical meaning. It just meant “love.” Now the NT writers used agape in a lot of different ways; sometimes to indicate the love God has for people, and other times to indicate the kind of love the Pharisees had for themselves.
If you think about it, agape functions just like the English word “love.” People love their spouses, their jobs, their cars, their American Idols, their parents, and so on. It doesn’t mean much without the context.
2. When we say “What the Greek really means…” most often what we really are saying is, “What the dictionary says…”
A great example of this that I’ve heard is that the Greek word for “believe” in the NT really means, “to trust in, rely on, and cling to.” As if the author knew when he or she wrote “pisteuo” that the word was pregnant with such deep and rich meaning. But if we just bust open an English dictionary, we can learn that the definition for believe can be any of those things. So we’re really not expressing what the Greek means as much as we are expressing what the English definition of a given word actually is. No Greek needed there.
I think the problem comes when we don’t have enough knowledge of Greek to do a proper word study. We simply open a basic lexicon and list of the various definitions of a Greek word. That’s not exactly how it works. In other words, we can’t just open up a Greek lexicon, look up “pneuma,” read off the definitions of “spirit, wind, breath, etc.” and claim we’ve done a word study. Furthermore, we can’t then take those definitions and say the Greek word pneuma really means “spirit, wind, breath, etc.” The author may not (and most likely did not) have all of the definitions in mind when he or she used the word.
Think about how frustrating it would be to have someone pick apart one of your emails like this. To a friend, you might write something like, “I’m scared I might lose my job this week.” Should your friend bust open the dictionary and read all of the definitions for “scared” in order to properly understand your feelings? Wouldn’t that most likely lead him or her down the wrong road when considering the intended meaning behind what you wrote? Think about it…
3. We remove the text from the people:
When we utter the words, “What the Greek really means” in a sermon or teaching, one of the things we are communicating is, “The English doesn’t cut it. You have to be able to read the Greek to really understand what’s going on here.” Think about the kind of frustration that would cause someone. It could have devastating effects to regularly hear that you can’t truly understand what’s going in the Bible on unless you read Greek. Suddenly the text doesn’t seem as accessible as it did before. In order to really “get it,” you have to know what the Greek really means.
4. It makes the English versions seem unreliable:
If we keep harping on the idea that the English translation of the Bible is incomplete, we start to develop in people a mistrust of the various versions of the Bible. If we’re always saying certain words really mean something other than what a person’s English translation uses, we may be cultivating something in the people who hear us that is not healthy.
English translations, by and large, do a good job at translating what is a pretty complicated language and subject matter. I say Greek is complicated more because it is a dead language that no one speaks anymore. This makes it a bit challenging because we can’t consult a native speaker to help us with what we’ve translated. So in the end, most translations do a good job communicating the ideas behind the text. Sure, they could have chosen different definitions for some words, but the spirit of what was written survives.
5. We put ourselves in an undeserved position of authority:
We are the ones who can really know what the Bible means. We know Greek, and since you can only understand what the Bible is really saying by reading the Greek, you must come to us in order to get to the bottom of scripture.
Sure, I might be overstating it a little, but I’m not that far off. If I’m a pastor who is regularly saying, “What the Greek really means…”, I’m presenting myself as a type of authority in this area. In other words, I’m saying, “I know Greek. That’s why I can know what the Bible really means.” And to take it a little further, “You don’t know Greek. Come to me, and I’ll tell you what the Bible really means.”
Add to this the fact that most people can’t really check what we’re saying to see if it’s true. If I say the Greek word means something, who’s going to challenge me on that? Most will take it as gospel. That’s a bad thing. I’m placing myself and my words in a position of authority that is above criticism. Bad news for any person in a power position over others.
The boring stuff of Greek:
Here’s an interesting thought: The title of my little blog is “grapso skubalon.” The first word means, essentially “to write.” The second word is a crass way of saying “dung.” Nothing too enlightening there. But I purposely put the first word in the future tense. My original thought was to title the blog, “I will write crap.”
Here’s where it gets interesting – The tense of the word “grapso” can be future (as I originally intended it), or the tense can be subjunctive (exactly the same form), which would change the translation to “I might write crap.” Small difference, but kind of a big one. And the kicker is that the only way to tell what form I was using is by context. Since there is no context, it could go either way.
And that’s the boring stuff of Greek. Did I intend the sentence to be future or subjunctive? Do I think I will always write crap, or do I think I might write crap at some point, but I might not? Big difference…
Note this: it’s a long way from saying, “What the Greek really means…” Not to mention, it’s a lot more boring too. People get excited about the perceived “magic” of the Greek language. In reality, Greek word studies can be boring and uninformative.
So when you feel yourself about to say those dreaded words, “What the Greek really means…,” bite your tongue and express your thought without appealing to the Greek.
*These guys say it much more gracious than I am saying it.
It’s time for another venting session. I’ve hinted at this topic before in a couple posts, but it’s been on my mind once again.
Honestly, I’m not sure how really to express this, but the idea that keeps going on in my mind is that I have just spent a lot of time and money to get a worthless degree. All told, I have spent 7 years of my life studying Bible and theology only to come out on the other end and realize that no one really cares.
I have this romantic notion that people will come to me and say, “Hey, I can’t figure out this thing I read in the Bible. What do you think?” I guess I thought that at some point, people would want to know some of the stuff I’ve spent years learning.
But the reality seems to be that no one cares. In fact, most people, when they learn you have a seminary education, just want to argue with you or prove you wrong.
My wife seems to have the opposite problem. She has multiple degrees in the field of Psychology, and people usually approach her hoping she will diagnose them or a friend. Most people see her as somewhat of an expert, and they want to know what she thinks.
I find the opposite to be true. Some people look at me and my seminarian friends, think that we consider ourselves to be experts, and proceed to tell us what they think. It’s like, “Oh, you have a degree in Theology, do you? Well, here’s why you’re wrong…” Maybe that’s overstating it. It’s not always that obvious. But I do feel a general sense of hostility from the Church world toward people who have seminary degrees. In fact, a pastor recently told me that he would prefer to not hire a seminarian at his church. What?!?! Isn’t that why we go to seminary? To be better at church work?
I’m going to keep going here… sorry if this is getting long.
I think the problem is this: Pastors think seminarians are bitter and jaded because of the intense scholarship they encounter. But the reality might be that seminarians become bitter and jaded because all they want to do is share what they’ve learned with others, but those “others” don’t want to hear it. In one sense, it seems that pastors are a little threatened by seminarians. And why wouldn’t that make a seminarian bitter and jaded? The very institution they want to serve with their newfound knowledge rejects them.
Those who know me can probably see right through this rant. They see what motivates me to write what I write… so be it. I can’t help that. I started this process many years ago to be a better pastor and help other pastors become better pastors. Here I sit on the other side of some painful rejection that makes me doubt I made the right decision.
I have no positive ending to this post. Call it a lament, I guess.
update: I need to add a few more thoughts. First, I love Fuller Seminary. I would not trade my degree for anything. I’m proud of myself for completing it, and I think it is incredibly important for anyone wanting to work in the church world to have such a degree. This leads into the second thing: There is a paradox about all of this. I truly believe people working with the Bible and theology need to be trained. At the same time, it seems that people really don’t care if you’re trained. To me, that is just an impossible paradox that I can’t reconcile and still don’t know how to approach.
This is the worst economic climate we have ever experienced. Life will never be the same again. We are doomed.
Or are we? What’s with all the fear mongering these days? The economy is not in great shape, sure. But are all these crazy reactions helping? One of the higher-ups at my school recently declared that we are officially in a depression. He deduced this by reading Herbert Hoover’s book about the great depression. Really? A depression? Seems a little premature and irresponsible to declare to a group of employees that the country is in such a state… but that’s another blog topic.
A co-worker sent me a link to a great article that addresses this kind of narcissism that declares we as a country are in a uniquely terrible situation. I wish so much that the leaders of this country would show just a little optimism through this time. It would do so much good.
I’m not a huge fan of George Bush, but at least he had somewhat more of a positive approach to tough economic times, maybe even to a fault. I remember him coming under so much criticism for telling people to go shop when we were at war. Kind of a weird thing to say, I know, but I think he was trying to tell people to just go about their normal business, and by doing so, they would ensure the economy stays strong.
Here’s a quote from the article above that stuck out to me:
During World War II, the UK was facing not only a suffering economy but also a daily pounding of heavy explosives from the enemy. In an attempt to quell the public anxiety, the British government posted signs around the city with the sage advice, “Keep Calm and Carry On.” Perhaps another reason to carry on is that, like all previous calamities, this too shall pass. And, if we keep calm, we may actually look back and gain confidence from the proof that history provides us. Leaders today may want to hunker down and send a similar message.
Oh that I wish the message of “Keep calm and carry on” would be the type of message we were hearing from the government. Instead, there is very little assurance and confidence and mostly a lot of fear mongering.
Can we get a grip for a moment? We’re not in a unique situation here. This has happened before and will happen again, and we will survive.
Ok, time for another pointless rant. You’ve all heard the marketing where a retailer offers to beat anyone’s advertised price or they will give you the product for free. If you’re from LA, you know about Larry the mattress guy who uses this technique… (You’re killing me Larry!)
I’m in Binghamton, NY this weekend and I heard a used car advertiser on the radio saying he will beat any advertised price or he will give you the car for free plus an extra $5000. “5 Gs and the keys!” Ridiculous!
And let me tell you why. Do you really think these people are going to give you the product for free? Let’s say I want to buy a 06 Accord from the guy. He’s selling one for $18000. I find the same one advertised for $16500. So his choices are to sell it to me for less than that (beat the advertised price) or give me the car plus $5000. Uh, gee. What’s he gonna do?! Will he take maybe a couple hundred dollar hit on the car or lose the car and five grand? Or will Larry sell me a mattress for a little less than he would like, or will he give me the mattress and lose all the money he had in it?
This is just the stupidest marketing ploy I’ve ever heard. Am I the only one that sees through this crap? Am I the only one so entirely furious about this? Ok, I’m not really that mad, but come on! I think we’re smarter than this.
I guess one thing these people could be saying is, “I can sell this product for cheaper than anyone else because I paid less for it than other retailers, but you have to do the work to get the cheap price. You have to find it cheaper and prove it or I’m taking you to the bank.”
Nice.
I’m over this whole “Diet Coke is so horrible” thing. “Don’t drink anything with aspartame in it! It’s a poison!” Right. So is caffeine. So is water for God’s sake! You can actually die by drinking too much water. So get off it already! People have been drinking diet soda for a long time with no detriment to their health.
Sure if you drink it in huge quantities, it will probably mess you up. But so will too much pasta or too much fruit. I know someone who ate too many carrots and drank too much carrot juice and literally turned orange.
That being said, I do want to warn everyone of the dangers of drinking Diet Cherry Chocolate Dr. Pepper. This stuff is a poison to your taste buds. It’s like drinking a liquid tootsie pop. Nasty! For the love of real diet soda, stay away from this filth.
