Thanks to Ben Gray for turning me onto this awesomeness.

Mark Twain’s thoughts concerning organized or conventional religion are made quite clear in his Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

Huck Finn’s natural (or instinctive) and free expression concerning religion and spirituality is by far superior to that of any other characters appearing in the story so far as confidence, clarity, and boldness of expression is concerned. Huck is not vague concerning his beliefs and their accompanying idealistic systems (or lack thereof), whereas other characters in the story are a bit more nuanced in their own expression of their beliefs and systems. In other words, these other characters simply continue to sort of unconsciously operate within their existing belief structures without giving much thought to the value and/or health of these belief structures. Huck Finn, in his natural and free spiritual expression, is keenly aware; these other characters are seemingly oblivious to what they are actually doing in the name of God and consequently function like mindless religious robots. This juxtaposition appears often in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, but no more clearly than in Twain’s introduction of the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons to Huck Finn. It is an interesting contrast of ideolgy, and it reveals much about Mark Twain himself.

The Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons are unthinking Christians who are engaged in a violent 30-year blood feud against one another. The two families obviously represent all the hypocrisy and shallowness that conventional religion can muster.

Next Sunday we all went to church, about three mile, everybody a-horseback. The men took their guns along, so did Buck, and kept them between their knees or stood them handy against the wall. The Shepherdsons done the same. It was pretty ornery preaching — all about brotherly love, and such-like tiresomeness; but everybody said it was a good sermon, and they all talked it over going home, and had such a powerful lot to say about faith and good works and free grace and preforeordestination, and I don’t know what all, that it did seem to me to be one of the roughest Sundays I had run across yet (83).

Clearly, the mere possession of bibles doesn’t make one a saint anymore than my owning an automobile makes me an auto mechanic. Too, the ridiculously simple act of going to church on Sunday morning and listening to a preacher’s sermon about brotherly love doesn’t actually result in brotherly love. Huck Finn’s reliance upon his own rules and his own instinct is clearly superior to the conventional or popular religion of the church going Grangerfords and Shepherdsons. In fact, Huck is sickened by the moral and spiritual display of these so-called “Christian” families.

There was four or five men cavorting around on their horses in the open place before the log store, cussing and yelling, and trying to get at a couple of young chaps that was behind the wood-rank alongside of the steamboat landing; but they couldn’t come it. Every time one of them showed himself on the river side of the woodpile he got shot at. The two boys was squatting back to back behind the pile, so they could watch both ways.

By and by the men stopped cavorting around and yelling. They started riding towards the store; then up gets one of the boys, draws a steady bead over the wood-rank, and drops one of them out of his saddle. All the men jumped off of their horses and grabbed the hurt one and started to carry him to the store; and that minute the two boys started on the run. They got half way to the tree I was in before the men noticed. Then the men see them, and jumped on their horses and took out after them. They gained on the boys, but it didn’t do no good, the boys had too good a start; they got to the woodpile that was in front of my tree, and slipped in behind it, and so they had the bulge on the men again. One of the boys was Buck, and the other was a slim young chap about nineteen years old.

The men ripped around awhile, and then rode away. As soon as they was out of sight I sung out to Buck and told him. He didn’t know what to make of my voice coming out of the tree at first. He was awful surprised. He told me to watch out sharp and let him know when the men come in sight again; said they was up to some devilment or other — wouldn’t be gone long. I wished I was out of that tree, but I dasn’t come down. Buck begun to cry and rip, and ‘lowed that him and his cousin Joe (that was the other young chap) would make up for this day yet. He said his father and his two brothers was killed, and two or three of the enemy. Said the Shepherdsons laid for them in ambush. Buck said his father and brothers ought to waited for their relations — the Shepherdsons was too strong for them. I asked him what was become of young Harney and Miss Sophia. He said they’d got across the river and was safe. I was glad of that; but the way Buck did take on because he didn’t manage to kill Harney that day he shot at him — I hain’t ever heard anything like it.

All of a sudden, bang! bang! bang! goes three or four guns — the men had slipped around through the woods and come in from behind without their horses! The boys jumped for the river — both of them hurt — and as they swum down the current the men run along the bank shooting at them and singing out, “Kill them, kill them!” It made me so sick I most fell out of the tree. I ain’t a-going to tell ALL that happened — it would make me sick again if I was to do that. I wished I hadn’t ever come ashore that night to see such things. I ain’t ever going to get shut of them — lots of times I dream about them.

I stayed in the tree till it begun to get dark, afraid to come down. Sometimes I heard guns away off in the woods; and twice I seen little gangs of men gallop past the log store with guns; so I reckoned the trouble was still a-going on. I was mighty downhearted; so I made up my mind I wouldn’t ever go anear that house again, because I reckoned I was to blame, somehow. I judged that that piece of paper meant that Miss Sophia was to meet Harney somewheres at half-past two and run off; and I judged I ought to told her father about that paper and the curious way she acted, and then maybe he would a locked her up, and this awful mess wouldn’t ever happened.

When I got down out of the tree I crept along down the river bank a piece, and found the two bodies laying in the edge of the water, and tugged at them till I got them ashore; then I covered up their faces, and got away as quick as I could. I cried a little when I was covering up Buck’s face, for he was mighty good to me (86,87).

Personally, I don’t think Mark Twain was too far off in his celebration of Huck’s natural and free spiritual expression over that of the conventional or popular religious expression embodied by the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons. It would not be surprising at all if people today would find a Huck Finn more appealing than a contemporary or conventional church person and/or their conventional church authorities (aka: Grangerfords and Shepherdsons).

Would it surprise you? Really? Honestly, it wouldn’t surprise me at all. I find the Huck Finn approach to be more appealing, and I’m an insider … I think.

Work Cited: Twain, Mark. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Dover Thrift Editions). New York: Dover Publications, 1994.’, ‘The Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons’

Invictus by William Ernest Henley 1849–1903

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

What an excellent little poem. Excellent! Thoughts on interpretation? Personally, I think Invictus sounds like a renunciation of authoritative expressions of religion and spiritual systems that objectify the individual.

And if we do this sort of thing with our relationship with God, I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet that we do it to one another too. In other words, our relationships may be defined in terms of duties and practices. Not cool.

This morning, I was perusing a small, 208 page paperback titled Meditations for the Humanist: Ethics for a Secular Age by A.C. Grayling. Yes, I read everything, and so should you! Meditations for the Humanist is basically a re-worked devotional for humanists and it addresses all of the majors (e.g., Moralizing, Tolerance, Mercy, Civility, Fear, Death, Lying, Loyalty, Racism, Peace, Memory, Leadership, Family, etc.). The manner in which these things are addressed is quite remarkable and surprising for a “secular” work. It seems that this secularist has found a way to address these big issues with an authentic and fascinating devotional tone. Some zealous religious folk out there would argue that such a thing would be absolutely impossible. It is, after all, a “secular” work! For them, the idea of secularism and devotion is a contradiction in terms. I would disagree with them, of course. I would also suggest that they take a look at Meditations for a Humanist.

The chapter I opened up to was titled “Faith.” It was an interesting and thought provoking chapter, to say the least, given the context. And while I do not adhere to everything that I read in this chapter, I would be lying if I said that there was nothing of value to be found within it. In fact, it may just be possible that Grayling’s thoughts on faith are deeper and broader than most religious expressions of the subject. After all, most expressions of faith delivered to us by our religious leaders are ultimately reduced to easy, convenient and polemic statements, such as “Well, we believe because we just do!” And yes, that’s ultimately true, especially as concerns tenets such as salvation and resurrection, but that huge leap from disbelief to resurrection forces us to skip over a lot of very important things along the way that should be wrestled or even struggled with for faith’s sake.

You see, there is healthy and edifying faith and there is unhealthy and unedifying faith. The former is mature; the latter is fanaticism. Edifying faith is spiritual; unedifying faith is religious. Individuals who blindly leap from disbelief to fanatical faith miss out on a lot of important and personal spiritual growth. Growing up is part of the faith process and authentically struggling and wrestling with issues of faith is its catalyst. Spiritual leaders who require such huge leaps from searching people neither help nurture maturity, nor do they properly introduce faith. The result then is not faith, but fanatical belief, and they do not create healthy, fluid conversationalists, but instead create unhealthy, unmovable pseudo-evangelists. We would do well then to re-think our ideas and concepts of faith and stop teaching people that faith – true faith – is this huge leap from one worldview to another that is as fantastic as it is odd. Yes, it looks good on paper, to some, and it may grow a church, but it doesn’t work in the real world and it doesn’t nurture healthy spirituality.

So, perhaps it in fact would be a good thing to check out what the devotional secularists are saying about faith? Why not?

The following excerpt from Grayling’s chapter on faith clearly expresses and expounds upon my above thoughts in clear and challenging fashion, He writes:

It is a curious fact that responsible enquiry [sic], of the kind conducted by scientists and expected in courts of law, is careful in drawing its conclusions, and open-minded about the possibility of contrary future evidence, whereas, in sharp contrast, matters of faith are tenaciously regarded as inviolable, irrefutable, and unrevisable. The careful and open-minded procedures of science have given us electric light, antibiotics, central heating, television and computers. Science has often been perverted to bad uses – bombs and gas-chambers – but it is politics and politicians, not science and scientists, who do that. Religious belief, meanwhile, whatever it might do in comforting the fearful in the dark, has always and everywhere brought war, intolerance and persecution with it, and has distorted human nature into false and artificial shapes. Some try to palliate or even excuse the crimes committed by religion in human history by invoking the glorious art and music it has produced, to which that answer is that Greek mythology and secular avocations have done the same, without burning everyone at the stake in the process.

Faith is a negation of reason. Reason is the faculty of proportioning judgment to evidence, after first weighing the evidence. Faith is belief even in the face of contrary evidence. Soren Kierkegaard defined faith as a the leap taken despite everything, despite the very absurdity of what one is asked to believe. When people can doggedly choose to believe that black is white, and can, in the utter certainty, go so far as to shoot you because you do not agree, there is little room for debate. “Faith, fanatic faith, once wedded fast to some dear falsehood, hugs it to the last,” says Thomas Moore’s “Veiled Prophet of Khorassan.”

The sort of fanatic faith that Grayling is exhorting is limited neither to geography, nor to a singular religion. It is prevalent, globally. It finds expression in the East as well as the West. It is found in Islam and Christianity and everything in between. Fanatic faith is everywhere all of the time! You can find its fanatic seed laboring to subversively sprout in every religious community on earth. It’s sad really. Fanatic faith and its faithful minions malign the Incarnate God that they think they speak for and impede authentic spiritual growth and maturity of all who would unfortunately follow them into their self-inflicted religious petrification. Meanwhile, faith – authentic faith – calls all who would hear towards the struggle and the wrestling and the search that has always accompanied humanity’s quest for meaning and understanding in our own changing time(s), space(s) and epoch(s). Such a quest requires much flexibility. Fanatic belief doesn’t do flexible. If I were Grayling, I wouldn’t believe any of it either. And I do not …

A healthy and vibrant faith isn’t strapped to preconceived ideas or notions or plans; it is fluid, free, and freeing. A person of faith rides the wave wherever it may take them and they find Divinity all along the way. A person of faith is blessed by God all along the way and realizes all the good things God has for them and wants to give them and they receive them. A person of faith is able to enjoy all the surprises Divinity may have for him or her along the way. A fanatic belief system prevents all of this surprise and beauty from happening. Fanatic belief ruins surprises and destroys beautiful things.

I was reminded of this by reading a secularist devotion this morning. Imagine that …

A few incredible images by Dima Ishanin.

[T]heology begins with an initial understanding of God propped up by basic assumptions and presuppositions, be they good or bad. Could it be that we – culturally shaped creatures of habit that we are – actually shape and form our practical theology around preexisting images or notions of God, for good or for ill? Could it be that all subsequent theologies are in some form, shape, or way informed by that big preexisting image or notion? Could it be possible, that our big image or notion of God is so familiar to us that all other images or notions seem void just because they do not ressonate with our preexisting images and notions of God? Could it be that some notions and/or images of God are in fact more sensible or meaningful than others? Could it be, that anti-postmodernists fail to see theology where there is in fact deep theology because it exists outside of their peripheral range? Could it be that postmodernists suffer from the same blind spots? Could it be that where some claim there is no God, God exists in ways to which they are blind? Could it be that the charge of theological vacancy only exists because those who fling the charge miss all that postmodern expressions of faith actually say or express about God?

John D. Caputo’s “Weak Theology,” which incidentally has nothing to do with “weak theology,” if by ‘weak theology” one means “a lack of theology,” but it is rather a well articulated “theology of weakness,” as can be seen in 1 Corinthians 1:25′s “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men,” and Philippians 2:5-8′s “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross,” is clearly represented in postmodern expressions of the Christian faith. What is it? Caputo says it better than I ever could, so, I let his work speak for itself.

…I am duty bound to warn the reader in advance not to expect too much. With all this talk of the stirring of event, I do not mean to stir up expectation of power. For however much prestige and power a name may accumulate, an event is a more wispy and willowy thing, a whisper or a promise, a breath or a spirit, not a mundane force. As such, this hermeneutics of the event will at best offer a somewhat undernourished theology as opposed to the hearty and robust ones that populate the tradition. I am tendering something in the spirit of what Derrida calls “a non-dogmatic doublet of dogma.” This theology of event lacks corpulent articles of faith, a national or international headquarters, a well-fed college of cardinals to keep it on the straight and narrow, or even a decent hymnal. Think of it as a “theology without theology” that accompanies what Derrida calls a “religion without religion,” as a “weak theology” that accompanies Vattimo’s “weak thought,” or perhaps even as the weak messianic theology should accompany Benjamin’s “weak messianic force.” In advocating weakness I am patently running together Derrida, Vattimo, and Benjamin, but I am also shamelessly citing St. Paul on the “weakness of God” (1 Cor. 1:25), all in the hope of inciting a holy riot, as Paul himself was sometimes wont to do. If Slavoj Zizek is in search of a robust and pulpy theological orange juice, he must do his shopping elsewhere. I confess, this theology of the event does not serve up the Sache selbst in all its palpable presence, which I love as much as the next chap, but only a tearful concession that the Sache selbst always slips away (The Weakness of God, p.7).

I think the anti-postmodernist crowd likes theological orange juice, specifically for the pulp. I also think that most postmodern people of faith deeply resonate with the theology of “God as Event” as advanced by Caputo, which admittedly contains no pulp, but is nonetheless deeply theological, but in a different sort of way. The point? If we are being intellectually and spiritually honest, we would have to admit that a great chasm exists between the two camps and that in spite of the chasm it would be very difficult to charge postmodern expressions of faith as being theologically shallow just because you happen to like your orange juice pulpy. Even without the pulp, there is still a whole lot of juice in that glass …

Consider, for example, “The Weakness of God” and a “Theology of the Event.” Are these not deep expressions of theology? Yes.

The Gospels themselves emphasize The Weakness of God and a Theology of the Event. Again, consider Caputo’s thoughts on the matter.

On the classical account of strong theology, Jesus was just holding back his divine power in order to let his human nature suffer. He freely chose to check his power because the Father had a plan to redeem the world with his blood. … That is not the weakness of God that I am here defending. God, the event harbored by the name of God, is present at the crucifixion, as the power of the powerlessness of Jesus, in and as the protest against the injustice that rises up from the cross, in and as the words of forgiveness, not a deferred power that will be visited upon one’s enemies at a later time. God is in attendance as the weak force of the call that cries out from Calvary and calls across the epochs, that cries out from every corpse created by every cruel and unjust power. The logos of the cross is a call to renounce violence, not to conceal and defer it and then, in a stunning act that takes the enemy by surprise, to lay them low with real power, which shows the enemy who really has the power. That is just what Nietzsche was criticizing under the name of ressentiment (The Weakness of God, p.44).

Who says postmodern expressions of faith can’t be catalysts for an incredibly deep and rich theology of God? Not me.

A recent chat with friends regarding peaceful, non-violent resistance of cultural norms led to one of the most difficult parables spoken by Jesus. Luke 16:1-9 has stumped and mystified interpreters for years, if not centuries. Some argue that the real meaning of this parable is lost to us forever; others point to Jesus’ overarching penchant for non-violent subversion as the key that unlocks the real meaning and intention of this parable. Given the social, political, and religious setting in which Jesus was situated, I tend to side with those who cite subversion.

The Parables as Weapons of the Weak

William R. Herzog II, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Colgate Rochester Divinity School, and author of Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God: A Ministry of Liberation, dedicated an entire chapter to this parable in his monumental work Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed. The chapter is titled: A Weapon of the Weak: The Parable of the Dishonest Steward. In this chapter, Herzog agrees with James Scott¹ and immediately explains why:

This chapter reads the parable as an example of how the vulnerable utilize what James Scott calls “The weapons of the weak” in their endless struggle for survival in a hostile world governed by invisible elites. Specifically, the parable presents a limit situation, a steward (estate manager) summarily dismissed from his job on the basis of hostile rumors, and follows the steward’s limit acts that seek to ensure his survival.

The above quote clearly points to what is coming, as far as Herzog’s interpretation is concerned. Jesus is simply continuing his kingdom agenda. This agenda or program is founded upon the peaceful, non-violent resistance of elite powers that dominate the religious, social, and political landscape of the 1st century. Remember, Jesus himself is a member of the lowly peasant class. He and his people are constantly oppressed by an almost invisible but very, very real power and the elitists who profit from it. So, the elite continue to benefit, while the peasant class suffers even more. Something had to change! Jesus, however, broke ranks with the members of his class who called for a violent overthrow of these oppressive powers. This obviously did not set well with the zealots, but Jesus preached a different message and he lived a different way. Jesus said that members of his kingdom peacefully resist such powers in non-violent and creative ways. Many, many contemporary believers mistakenly cite this as passivity. Pacifism, however, implies non-action. Jesus never said, “Do not act! Passively take the punches.” No! Jesus taught and lived in a way that reflects non-violent resistance. His program put this teaching onto the ground in a very, very tangible way. This is not the same thing as pacifism. This subtle fact concerning Jesus’ kingdom leads us right back to Luke 16:1-9, and offers us a glimpse into the real meaning and intention behind the text. Jesus was arming his listeners – the oppressed – with non-violent tools of active and progressive resistance. Remember, James Scott later cites these tools as universals in class struggles and refers to them as “Weapons of the Weak.”

Herzog, of course, explains the parable further; the following are his main interpretive building points:

In the village context, peasants had little access to the systemic factors that dominated their lives because they could do very little about them, so they tended to focus on people who were within their reach, such as the steward or estate manager.

The hostile charges brought against the steward need to be seen in their context. They are not moral charges that cast a shadow over the character of the steward but tactics in the endless resistance that is part of everyday life in agrarian societies. The charges are brought to sabotage the steward, undermine his authority, and place the villagers in a stronger bargaining position.

James Scott differentiates between the “onstage” public life of the village and its “offstage” or “backstage” existence. The elites and their retainers control the onstage life of the village but cannot penetrate its offstage world, where the rituals of deference and the symbolic compliance of the peasants are put aside. Backstage is where “gossip, tales, slander, and anonymous sabotage mocks and negates the public ritual order,” and this is where “elite control [does] fall away.” The attack on the steward has come from offstage. It is anonymous slander or gossip, intended to put the steward on the defensive, knock his feet out from under him, throw him off balance, and create suspicion between him and his master.

So, what is Jesus doing in the telling of this odd parable? Given all that Herzog says in the above, it seems clear that Jesus does much more than simply pray for the reign of God on earth; he literally and tangible enacts its principles too! He clearly is teaching his listeners how to take the cards out of the oppressor’s hand. The oppressor (in this story, the rich man and his manager) held all of the cards, but the oppressed found a non-violent way to force him to lay them down. The oppressed did so by working subversively through the rich man’s manager.

The oppressed actually subverted systemic injustice by starting rumors about the manger and his wasteful dealings concerning the rich man’s possessions. This rumor got back to the rich man. The rich man consequently fired the manager and abandoned him to the lower class. The manager, in a last ditch effort for survival, befriends the oppressed class and cuts their already exaggerated and inflated debt payments considerably (this manager was probably over-charging them, and pocketing the money). This act lightened the stress load of the peasants considerably. The peasants found a way.

This is not just an interesting interpretation of the parable; it is the only sensible interpretation. Let’s look at the parable, just to be sure:

The Parable of the Dishonest Manager

Luke 16:1 He also said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was wasting his possessions. 2 And he called him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Turn in the account of your management, for you can no longer be manager.’ 3 And the manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do, since my master is taking the management away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. 4 I have decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses.’ 5 So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 He said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ 7 Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ 8 The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. 9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings.”

It seems Jesus was actually teaching his listeners the art of peaceful, non-violent resistance through the subversive guise of parable. This will undoubtedly create more than a bit of discomfort in most North American Evangelicals, but they need a little discomfort in their faith lives anyway. Seriously, when was the last time you heard of this side of Jesus in church? It’s right there, in the parable! Is there a better interpretation? If there is, no one has found it yet! Countless New Testament scholars have struggled over the meaning of this parable for centuries, but if you have a better interpretation – and you really could have a better one – then by all means share it!

Sometimes the basic truth is simply inescapable. If that basic truth is obvious in this simple reading of this parable, then the question becomes: Can we handle all of Jesus? Can we handle the sort of Jesus who equips the oppressed in subversive – and non-violent – fashion?

End Notes:

¹ James Scott’s work focuses upon the ways that members of low social class resist dominance. Scott argues that dominated classes fight back with what he calls “Weapons of the Weak,” or “Passive Noncompliance” (e.g., foot dragging, dissimulation, false compliance, pilfering, feigned ignorance, slander, arson, and sabotage). Scott is Sterling Professor of Political Science at Yale University. Prior to this position, Scott was the Eugene Meyer Professor of Political Science and Anthropology. He also has spent much time in Agrarian Studies.

Works Cited:

Herzog, William R.. Parables As Subversive Speech: Jesus As Pedagogue of the Oppressed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994.’, The Parable of the Dishonest Manager

Art Citation: The above art was a peice included in a four-artist effort that took place between the Degraves St. underpass and Flinders St. Station in Melbourne, Australia in 2009. The show was called “Resisting Subversion of Subversive Resistance.”

More than a few of his students were visibly perplexed. Some grumbled and booed in visible disagreement; a few others were applauding the professor wildly. Many more were honestly peaked in interest and sat on the edge of their seats clearly wanting to hear more and waiting to see what happened next. It was a bold and confident statement, for sure, especially given the main topic of the class – Homosexuality and Faith. It may have been more than a little cocky too. No. It was cocky. It was also entirely accurate. There is not a sexual ethic in the Bible, not one that we can completely lift from the text and apply in our own day, at least not without some serious textual modification (modifying the text!?!). Sorry, everyone. It really looks like we will have to figure this one out all on our own. No one is going to show us or tell us how to do it. It’s too bad, really. This entire subject – sexual ethics – would be so much easier if we had it all laid out right there in front of us, but the truth is that we just don’t have it all laid out before us. We will actually have to think and do the hard work of figuring it out as best as we can. Damn.

A lot of people will read the above paragraph and viscerally react by reaching for their Bible and turning directly to the passages that are popularly used to paint homosexuality incompatible with faith, or, at worst, a total abomination. Everyone is familiar with the handful of passages that are so often cited in conversations about our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. In fact, these passages are often referred to as “clobber passages” because they are so often used/misused by individuals who are looking for biblical validation for their claim concerning Divinity’s damnation of homosexuality and homosexual persons. These individuals point to these specific passages in the bible and triumphantly claim that they have completely exhausted the heart and mind of God, at least on this issue.

“See! There it is, right in front of you!” They say with all the passion and well-meaning vigor they can muster. “Can’t you see that God prohibits and condemns homosexuality?!? It’s right there!!! It’s right there in front of your face … and in print!!!”

“Well, no, not really.” I say. “I can’t see prohibition or condemnation. I might see what you see if I read and interpreted these passages superficially, but I know there is much more to the texts you are citing than the simple words printed in front of me. There is a lot more going on in these texts then a simple surface reading reveals and if we are going to be in the business of damning people in the name of God then I really think that we should do the hard work of investigating them – the texts – more thoroughly.”

“What?!? What are you talking about, Shawn?!? It’s the Word of God! Is it not?!? It’s clear that God loves the sinner but hates their -”

“I’m just saying that there is so much more going on in these texts than a quick, superficial, surface reading reveals. Interpretation takes work and investigation requires an understanding of all the different dynamics that informed and shaped the texts. I think we should investigate things deeper before we start claiming to speak for God in such an absolute and exhaustive way on such important life issues. Don’t you think that if -”

“Well, you obviously have been ruined by too much study and learning, Shawn. Seriously, you need to look for your First Love again! You need to approach everything with child-like faith because -”

“I never met a child who reduced a person’s sexual orientation to spiritual abomination and assigned homosexuals to hell. In fact, I’m pretty sure our children have no need for such differentiation. At recess, everyone plays kickball until we teach them how to alienate.”

And so the conversation goes and goes and goes. Honestly, I’m not sure why we all are still wrestling with this issue. The answer should be obvious to us all by now. In fact, we should have moved on to new and more pressing issues. Unfortunately, we haven’t made it that far yet, but I’m extremely hopeful for the future. I’m hopeful that we all can take the humble approach to issues that are as sensitive and as important as human sexuality. I’m hopeful that we can set aside our personal prejudices, opinions, and assumptions so that we can actually approach this topic with open minds and open hearts. This is the sort of future into which we all should invest our time, treasure, and talent.

We all need to deeply investigate the bible passages that are so relevant to this discussion if our future is ever going to be realized. That said, an authentic understanding of the complicated cultural dynamics of interpretation should precede this investigation. Yes, we desperately need to explore this area, but we need to know how to do so.

The Rev. Dr. Walter Wink shows us how to do just that in an article titled Homosexuality and the Bible.

Wink focuses his sharp and thorough analysis on the bible passages so often used to prohibit and condemn homosexuality in a way that honors the cultural dynamics inherent to the text and involved in interpretation. His analysis of the popular “clobber” passages is so well articulated that it would be utter vanity for me to attempt to communicate it otherwise. So, Wink’s analysis follows…

The first passage is found in Genesis 19:1-29. Dr. Wink also discusses three others: Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10.

One [of the clobber passages] is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29). That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them “like women,” thus demasculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21.) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting adults of the same sex is legitimate or not. Likewise Deut. 23:17-18 must be pruned from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship; the King James Version inaccurately labeled him a “sodomite.”

It is not clear whether 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 refer to the “passive” and “active” partners in homosexual relationships, or to homosexual and heterosexual male prostitutes. In short, it is unclear whether the issue is homosexuality alone, or promiscuity and “sex-for-hire.”

Another passage is found in Leviticus 18:22. Dr. Wink says the following concerning this often cited passage.

Lev. 18:22 states the principle: “You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (NRSV). The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

Such an act was regarded as an “abomination” for several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence the spilling of semen for any nonprocreative purpose — in coitus interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), male homosexual acts, or male masturbation–was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. (Female homosexual acts were consequently not so seriously regarded, and are not mentioned at all in the Old Testament (but see Rom. 1:26). One can appreciate how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered questionable in a world facing uncontrolled overpopulation.

In addition, when a man acted like a woman sexually, male dignity was compromised. It was a degradation, not only in regard to himself, but for every other male. The patriarchalism of Hebrew culture shows its hand in the very formulation of the commandment, since no similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual acts between females. And the repugnance felt toward homosexuality was not just that it was deemed unnatural but also that it was considered unJewish, representing yet one more incursion of pagan civilization into Jewish life. On top of that is the more universal repugnance heterosexuals tend to feel for acts and orientations foreign to them. (Left-handedness has evoked something of the same response in many cultures.)

Whatever the rationale for their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command of Scripture. The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts. (That may seem extreme, but there actually are some Christians urging this very thing today.) It is unlikely that any American court will ever again condemn a homosexual to death, even though Scripture clearly commands it.

Dr. Wink spends a considerable amount of time analyzing the idea of biblical authority and the selective application of this authority by those who claim that the bible condemns homosexuality. Said differently, he questions the idea of attributing authority to the passages that condemn homosexuality while simultaneously ignoring the passages that require a specific form of punishment. Would we really execute homosexuals, as the Bible says we should? If not, then why do we call the Bible’s prohibition and condemnation of homosexuality authoritative? Personally, I want nothing to do with any religious expression that calls for the execution of homosexuals. Any religious expression that call for executions is an evil expression. (NOTE: An important portion of the quote above appears again in the quote below. This was intentional and it should be read in context for a clear understanding of the point being made).

Putting these texts to the side, we are left with three references, all of which unequivocally condemn homosexual behavior. Lev. 18:22 states the principle: “You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (NRSV). The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

Such an act was regarded as an “abomination” for several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence the spilling of semen for any nonprocreative purpose–in coitus interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), male homosexual acts, or male masturbation — was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. (Female homosexual acts were consequently not so seriously regarded, and are not mentioned at all in the Old Testament (but see Rom. 1:26). One can appreciate how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered questionable in a world facing uncontrolled overpopulation.

In addition, when a man acted like a woman sexually, male dignity was compromised. It was a degradation, not only in regard to himself, but for every other male. The patriarchalism of Hebrew culture shows its hand in the very formulation of the commandment, since no similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual acts between females. And the repugnance felt toward homosexuality was not just that it was deemed unnatural but also that it was considered unJewish, representing yet one more incursion of pagan civilization into Jewish life. On top of that is the more universal repugnance heterosexuals tend to feel for acts and orientations foreign to them. (Left-handedness has evoked something of the same response in many cultures.)

Whatever the rationale for their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command of Scripture. The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts. (That may seem extreme, but there actually are some Christians urging this very thing today.) It is unlikely that any American court will ever again condemn a homosexual to death, even though Scripture clearly commands it.

Old Testament texts have to be weighed against the New. Consequently, Paul’s unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Rom. 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion.

“For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up,” or “exchanging” their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up” or “exchanging” their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them.

In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were “straight,” and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was straight. He had no concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his world. There are people that are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically or as a result of upbringing no one really knows, and it is irrelevant). For such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex.

Likewise, the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision. Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are divine punishment for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with AIDS the world around are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS a divine punishment, since nonpromiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk.

And Paul believes that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences, but Paul here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is “natural” is therefore relevant to the case.

Anyone who refers to themselves as a person of faith should take the time to investigate more deeply the literature they call sacred especially if their interpretation of this sacred lit leads to very, very strong condemnations of others. A faith that condemns, after all, is no faith at all; it is accusation-driven discontent. If we use texts to condemn others then all we are left with ourselves is condemnation. So, surely there must be something deeper involved that is being ignored, missed, or simply sailing over our oblivious heads. A person of deep faith will search for that missing something before they condemn others. Deep faith requires us to do that sort of searching. So, if need be, start searching. If you aren’t capable of such work, then seek out the people who are, like Dr. Wink, and find out what they have to say on the matter before you begin condemning other human being, either directly or indirectly.

“There is not a sexual ethic to be found anywhere in this Bible,” proclaimed the confident professor from the front of his seminary classroom.

The following is a scene from Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ. It is probably my favorite depiction or interpretation of Jesus of Nazareth – ever! I’ll explain why I say so after the video. So, without further ado, here is the scene from The Last Temptation of Christ.

It is called “Jesus Defends Mary.”

Martin Scorsese’s film version of The Last Temptation of Christ is based upon a 1960′s novel written by Nikos Kazantzakis. The film is incredible, if not pure cinematic genius.

I realize that when it was originally released it caused no small uproar in the literary and cinematic worlds. Why? I’m not sure. Basically, the story is an expression of the life of Jesus from a human point of view concerning Jesus. Jesus, in both the book and movie, is tempted all the way to the cross, but never succumbs. The story unarguably emphasizes these temptations, even up and through the very last and greatest of them, but never depicts Jesus as actually succumbing to them. So, needless to say, I don’t know what all the controversy was about at all. Sometimes, it seems, Christians are more zealous than rational thinking. I won’t say a word about the lack of artistic sensibility that is often displayed during such “controversies.”

I love this movie. I happen to prefer the depiction of Jesus as more human than supernatural robot. This preference is probably the reason I enjoy the Gospel of Mark so much. In the scene above, for example, Jesus seems like he is winging it. I love it! Jesus stumbles upon a very volatile and dangerous event and sort of knows that it shouldn’t happen but appears to be less sure about what he should do or say. So, this Jesus just reacts instinctively and dives headlong into the situation and wings it. It’s a great, great scene. It’s human and humanizing. If you listen closely you can hear the name of the hypocritically self-righteous Zebedee’s windowed mistress being publicly volunteered by someone in the crowd. Brilliant! I love this entire scene. I love the movie.

I can relate to this.