Rachel Held Evans - God and the Gay Christian, Part 4

‘God and the Gay Christian’ Discussion, Part 4 - (Romans 1)
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/god-and-gay-christian-romans-1

by Rachel Held Evans
October 9, 2014

Over the next few weeks, on Wednesdays, we will be discussing Matthew Vines’ book, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships.  (See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.)

I chose this particular book because I think it provides the most accessible and personal introduction to the biblical and historical arguments in support of same-sex relationships, and because Matthew is a theologically conservative Christian who affirms the authority of Scripture and who is also gay. His research is sound and his story compelling, and he’s a friend—someone I like and respect and enjoy learning from. 

(Scheduling note: Our next installment in this series will be on October 22. I’ll be on the road speaking next week and unable to moderate and participate in the conversation.) 

Today we reach a critical chapter in Matthew’s book, for it deals with one of the two New Testament texts commonly cited to oppose same-sex relationships. 

Romans 1

Perhaps the most significant passage in the debate regarding the Bible and same-sex relationships is Romans 1: 26-27, which opponents to same sex relationships often point to as a “clear” statement on the matter. 

The passage is part of the apostle Paul’s message at the opening of Romans about how “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Romans 1 focuses on how Gentiles have fallen short, and Romans 2 focuses on how Jews like himself have fallen short. (This sets up Paul’s argument that redemption for both is offered through Jesus Christ.)

According to Paul, the sins of the Gentiles are rooted in their worship of idols, which led them to indulge in vices like envy, slander, gossip, murder, arrogance, and “shameful lusts.” Here he notes: “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones” and the men “abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.”  

“Pau’s depiction of same-sex behavior in this passage in indisputably negative,” acknowledges Matthew. “But he also explicitly describes the behavior he condemns as lustful. He makes no mention of love, fidelity, monogamy, or commitment. So should we understand Paul’s words to apply to all same-sex relationships, or only to lustful, fleeting ones?” 

To get to the bottom if this question, we have to discern why Paul wrote what he did—the principle behind his statements. 

[Here, almost as an aside, Matthew makes a very important point: “Focusing on the reason behind biblical statements is not a new principle. Christians of all stripes ask not only what but why when we study Scripture.” He cites slavery as an example. The New Testament authors often tell slaves to submit to their masters (Titus 2:9-10, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Colossians 3:22-25, Ephesians 6:5-9, 1 Peter 2:18-24), a point not lost on those Christians who advocated for the preservation of slavery during the Civil war. To make a case for abolition, Christians had to look beyond what appears on the surface to be an endorsement of slavery to examine why the New Testament authors wrote what they did. While Matthew doesn’t spend much time on this particular issue, this is what ultimately changed my mind about LGBT people and the Bible. The moment I realized I couldn’t win a “proof text” war with a slave-owner was the moment I realized that in discussions like these, we can’t rely on a few Bible verses pulled from their context—not when lives are at stake. But more on that at a later date…] 

So what did Paul mean when he wrote Romans 1? 

As has already been shown, same-sex relations in the first century were not thought to be the expression of an exclusive sexual orientation but were widely understood to be the product of excessive sexual desire wherein the one engaging in same-sex behavior did so out of an excess of lust that could not be satisfied. The most common forms of same-sex behavior in the Greco-Roman world, Matthew notes, were pederasty and sex between masters and their slaves, and the majority of men who indulged in those practices also engaged in heterosexual behavior with their wives. So we’re not talking about committed, monogamous, sacrificial relationships here. Not by a long shot. 

Citing the writings of Philo, Plato, and Dio Chyrysostom, Matthew notes that same-sex relations were not considered objectionable to these writers because partners shared the same anatomy, but “because they stemmed from hedonistic self-indulgence.” 

Matthew provides multiple examples of this reality (both in this chapter and others). Particularly relevant in this case is Dio Chyrysostom’s argument that some men had such insatiable sexual appetites they abandoned the “easy conquest” of women for more challenging sex with males, and John Chrysostom’s commentary on Romans 1 in which the father of the Church states: “[Paul] does not say that they were enamored of one another but that they were consumed by lust for one another! You see that the whole of desire comes from an excess which cannot be contained itself within proper limits.” 

The concept of same-sex orientation and the notion of committed same-sex relationships was simply not part of Pauls’—or these other writers’— worldview. “In Paul’s day, same-sex relations were a potent symbol of sexual excess,” writes Matthew, and so “they offered an effective illustration of Paul’s argument: We lose control when we are left to our own devices.” 

“But while that principle remains true today,” he says, “the specific example Paul drew from his culture does not carry the same resonance for us. This is not because Paul was wrong—he wasn’t addressing what we think of today as homosexuality. The context in which Paul discussed same-sex relations differs so much from our own that it cannot reasonably be called the same issue. Homosexuality condemned as excess does not translate to homosexuality condemned as an orientation—or as a loving expression of that orientation.” 

I don’t know about you, but I don't know any gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians today who pursue same-sex relationships because they have grown tired of heterosexuality and want to try something new. The gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians I know tell me they have experienced same-sex attractions for many years, often since childhood, and simply want to be in a committed, sacrificial relationship with someone to whom they are attracted. And Matthew's analysis of this passage, which is shared by many other biblical scholars, gives me reason to believe Romans 1 isn't speaking about them.

Unnatural – like long hair 

So what about the words “natural” and “unnatural”? Wouldn’t they suggest that Paul, like so many who crudely argue the case today, condemned same-sex behavior because the “parts don't fit?” 

Matthew again returns to what no good biblical scholar would dispute: that many of the gender roles alluded to in Scripture are rooted in patriarchy. In the ancient world, if a man took the active role in a sexual encounter, his behavior wad generally deemed “natural.” If he took the passive role, he was derided for engaging in “unnatural” sex for supposedly playing the role of a woman. The opposite was true for women: sexual passivity was deemed “natural,” while dominance was “unnatural.” 

Once again, Matthew cites multiple ancient authors, including Philo, Plato, and Josephus, to show how the terms “natural” and “unnatural” were used in ancient writings. “They were not synonyms for ‘straight’ and ‘gay,’” he concludes.  “They were boundary markers between what did and did not conform to customary gender roles within a patriarchal context…In societies that viewed women as inferior, sexual relationships between equal-status partners could not be accepted. Same-sex unions in particular disrupted a social order that required strict hierarchy between the sexes. We see this hierarchy reflected in Romans 1 by the use of the phrase ‘their women’ in verse 26, which points to the subordinate role of women in ancient times.” 

This doesn’t mean Paul himself was sexist, Matthew argues, particularly given his high praise of women throughout his epistles. But it could mean he simply invoked the terms “natural” and “unnatural” as a shorthand reference to what the ancient world would have understood as a violation of accepted cultural norms regarding gender roles, motivated by excessive, unctrolled lust. 

Here is where Matthew makes one of his best points of the book, one that I particularly resonated with given my own experience with head coverings during my year of biblical womanhood. 

The apostle Paul makes the very same appeal to “natural” and “unnatural,” in the context of gender roles, when he argues that women should wear head coverings: “Judge for yourself,” he writes, “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory?” (I Corinthians 11:13-15)

“Nature” and “disgrace”—these are the very same words Paul uses when discussing same sex behavior in Romans 1:26-27! And yet most Christians today do not read 1 Corinthians 11 as a universal dictum regarding God’s design for hairstyles and head coverings. 

Citing Jim Brownson’s scholarship on the topic, Matthew notes that these norms regarding hair length, head coverings, and hierarchal gender roles were rooted in the honor-shame cultures of the Mediterranean, where violating them could do serious harm to the spreading of the Gospel. 

Concludes Matthew: “For Paul, same-sex desire did not characterize a small minority of people who were subject to special classification—and condemnation—on that basis. Rather, it represented an innate potential for excess within all of fall humanity.” 

He cites fifth century Christian bishop Julian of Eclanum who interpreted Romans 1 as a contrast of those who make “right use” of sexual desire with those who “indulge in the excess of it.” For Julian, the moral of Romans 1 is that “he who observes moderation in natural [desire] uses a good thing well; but he who does not observe moderation abuses a good thing.” 

This is a takeaway that applies to all readers of the text—gay or straight.

***

Also, if you want to learn more about the Bible and sexuality, check out the Reformation Project conference in Washington D.C., November 6-8. Speakers include David Gushee, Allyson Robinson, Gene Robinson, Justin Lee, Jane Clementi, Danny Cortez, Frank Schaefer, James Brownson, Kathy Baldock, Alexia Salvatierra, and Amy Butler.

***

Questions for Discussion: 

1. What do you think of this interpretation of Romans 1? If it is not a condemnation of people who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, what might be the message? What can we learn from it? 

2. This study has shown the degree to which patriarchal assumptions affected so much of what was considered "shameful" and "unnatural" in the ancient world. How do we continue to relate to Scripture as inspired and authoritative, even when it reflects these (and other) cultural norms that no longer apply today? 

Rachel Held Evans - God and the Gay Christian, Part 3

'God and the Gay Christian' Discussion, Week 3
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/god-gay-christian-old-testament

by Rachel Held Evans
October 2, 2014

Over the next few weeks, on Wednesdays, we will be discussing Matthew Vines’ book, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. (See Part 1& Part 2.)

I chose this particular book because I think it provides the most accessible and personal introduction to the biblical and historical arguments in support of same-sex relationships, and because Matthew is a theologically conservative Christian who affirms the authority of Scripture and who is also gay. His research is sound and his story compelling, and he’s a friend—someone I like and respect and enjoy learning from. 

Today we finally begin our discussion of those biblical texts often used to condemn same-sex relationships. These six passages (a remarkably small percentage of Scripture as a whole) are sometimes referred to as “clobber passages.” Drawing from the work of biblical scholars, most notably James Brownson, Matthew looks at the context, language, and historical background of these passages to conclude that the Bible does not directly address the issue of same-sex orientation or the expression of that orientation. “While is six references to same-sex behavior are negative,” writes Matthew, “the concept of same-sex behavior in the Bible is sexual excess, not sexual orientation” and so these passages do not apply to gay, lesbian, or bisexual Christians in committed same-sex relationships.  Our focus for this discussion is on the Old Testament texts. Next week we will move on to the New Testament texts. 

The Real Sin of Sodom 

Given the vast and obvious disparity between the gang rape scene of Genesis 19 and those gay, lesbian, and bisexual people seeking to enter into committed, sacrificial relationships with one another, it still surprises me that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is used to condemn same-sex orientation and relationships. And yet it remains a favorite among those who protest against “Sodomites” outside courthouses and even churches these days. 

If you are unfamiliar with the story, check out Genesis 18 and Genesis 19 (and prepare for a potential faith crisis—there’s a very weird bit about a pillar of salt which, as a child, left me frightened to look out the back window of our car lest I share the fate of Lot’s wife). Matthew wisely includes Genesis 18 in his analysis because the story of Abraham and Sarah welcoming the mysterious strangers into their home is meant to stand in contrast to the actions of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, who rather than welcoming the mysterious strangers, threatened to gang rape them. The author of Hebrews makes the connection, writing “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing, some people have entertained angels without knowing it” (Hebrews 13:2). 

“The sin of Sodom,” writes Matthew, “had far more to do with a lack of hospitality and a bent toward violence than with any sexual designs the men had on Lot’s visitors.”  

Throughout Hebrew Scripture, and particularly in the prophets, the evils of Sodom are referenced as a way of reminding the people of Israel to avoid falling into the same ways. (If you’re reading Enns’ The Bible Tells Me So right now, you’re probably making some fun connections here.) The prophet Ezekiel offers the most detailed description of the city’s sins, declaring, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me…” (Ezekiel 16:49-50, emphasis mine). 

When was the last time you heard the “Sodomite” slur hurled at someone for overeating, indulgence, arrogance, and disregard for the poor? Hits a bit too close to home for most Christians, I guess. 

Sexuality goes unmentioned, both in the Ezekiel passage and in every other Old Testament reference to Sodom following Genesis 19. “If Sodom’s sin had indeed been homosexuality,” writes Matthew, “it is highly unlikely that every written discussion of the city for centuries following its destruction would fail to mention that fact.”  This is true for other ancient Jewish literature as well, he argues, where Sodom’s sins are identified as arrogance, indulgence, and lack of hospitality. 

So what about the men of Sodom’s threats to gang rape Lot’s guests? 

As Matthew points out, this has nothing to do with sexual orientation or an expression of sexual desire. In the ancient world, for a man to be raped was considered the ultimate degradation, a sign of total defeat. Warriors who wanted to shame their conquered foes often raped them in order to humiliate them.“Aggression and dominance were the motives in these situations,” writes Matthew, “not sexual attraction.” 

Here Matthew compares this passage to Judges 19, where we find the gruesome and troubling story of the raped and dismembered concubine, who served as a substitute for the men of Gibeah who wanted to rape an old man’s houseguests. In both stories, hosts wishing to protect the male guests offer women—essentially considered property at the time—to the mob instead, which goes to show that this was not about sexual preference, but about violence and domination. It also goes to show how badly women suffered in this patriarchal culture. Notes Matthew: “Neither Lot nor the old man of Gibeah said, ‘Don’t do anything to these men, because that would be a same-sex act.’ Instead, they both expressed concern that the visitors had come under the protection of their homes. The men were their guests and the ‘sacred duty’ of hospitality…was paramount.” 

[Pause here to consider the wisdom of appealing to any of these stories for our sexual ethics…Sorry. Couldn’t help it. Carry on. ]

But what about New Testament references to Sodom in Matthew 10:15, Luke 10:10-12, 2 Peter 2:7, and Jude 7? 

Only the latter two passages make reference to Sodom’s sexual sins. Jude 7 says the people of Sodom and Gomorrah “indulged in gross immorality and went after stranger flesh.” But rather than referring to same-sex relationships, the phrase “strange flesh” seems to refer to the attempts to rape angels instead of humans. Jude 6 supports this connection by comparing Sodom’s transgressions with the unusual sins described in Genesis 6 where angels mate with human women. 

It was the Jewish philosopher Philo who first explicitly linked Sodom’s sins to same-sex behavior, and his idea caught on. But Philo was operating from ancient assumptions regarding same-sex behavior, Matthew argues, and therefore condemning the actions of the men of Sodom as the excessive pleasure-seeking of men who could also be satisfied with women. “He was not taking a position on the issue we are facing today,” writes Matthew, “gay people and their committed relationships.” 

The Abominations of Leviticus 

Even though it was decided in the Council of Jerusalem that Gentile Christians are not bound to Scripture’s Levitical law, discussions continue to this day regarding how those texts apply to followers of Jesus. Often cited in the discussion regarding same-sex relationships are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which describe same-sex behavior between males as an “abomination” punishable by death.  

© 2013 Breville USA, Flickr | CC-BY | via Wylio

It’s easy to forget just how many of these laws are disregarded by Christians without much thought. Leviticus 3 and 11, for example, forbid eating animal fat or blood, shellfish, and animals that walk on all fours and have paws—all of which are denounced as “abominations,” along with having sexual relations during a woman’s period, and charging interest on loans. 

As Matthew points out, in the vast majority of cases, the word “abomination” (typically the Hebrew, toevah, which is used in Leviticus 18 and 20) refers to what the Israelites associated with the idolatrous practices of the Gentiles, leading Old Testament scholar Phyllis Bird to conclude that “it is not an ethical term, but a term for boundary making,” with “a basic sense of taboo.” Many other biblical scholars share this view, which helps make sense out of why eating shellfish and charing interest on loans might have been considered taboo to the ancient Israelites, but not Christians today. “So while ‘abomination’ is a negative word,” Matthew says, “it doesn’t necessarily correspond to Christian views of sin.” 

Furthermore, you can’t get very far in reading Leviticus or Deuteronomy before you notice laws regarding rape, marriage, menstruation, and women-as-property make it very hard to argue that while Old Testament laws related to diet no longer apply, Old Testament laws regarding sexuality do.  In addition, there are no condemnations of either polygamy or concubinage, which are in fact assumed within the text. 

Another argument that falls short is the argument that the severe punishment for male same sex behavior—the death penalty—suggests it was and is a more serious sin. We can’t forget that disobedient children were also to be stoned, along with a people who used the Lord’s name in vain and those who violated the Sabbath. Daughters of priests who fell into prostitution were to be burned alive, and in Exekiel 18:13, the death penalty is applied to anyone who charges interest on a loan.

Gender Complementarity 

But the most important point Matthew makes in these two chapter isn’t about Old Testament law and its many abominations. His most important point concerns gender complementarity: 

“Non-affirming Christians who want to make the most persuasive arguments ground their case in the idea that Leviticus banned male same-sex relations because same-sex unions violate gender complementarity…So as we read these ancient texts, we need to keep this question in mind: Do these writings suggest that same-sex unions are wrong because of the anatomical ‘sameness’ of the partners involved? Or is the primary concern a different issue?"

Here Matthew points again to the work of Philo, whose views on sexuality reflect how it was understood in his time. According to Philo, the great crime of male same-sex behavior—pederasty, specifically—was that males would “suffer the affliction of being treated like a women” which Philo referred to as “the greatest of evils, unmanliness and effeminacy.” This posture is reflected widely in many of the writings from the world from which Scripture emerged. 

In the ancient world, deeply misogynistic attitudes were the norm. Same-sex behavior between males was rejected because women were considered inferior to men and it was considered degrading for a man to be “treated” like a woman.  In addition, it was believed that men who engaged in same-sex behavior did so out of an abundance of out-of-control passions, not because of fixed sexual orientation. 

This understanding sheds light on why Leviticus contains no parallel prohibition of female same-sex relations. “If the issue were anatomical complementarity,” Matthew argues, “female same-sex relations should be condemned on an equal basis. And yet, the text is silent on this matter…The entire question of how bodies fit together doesn’t seem to be on the radar. The concern we see is centered around the proper ordering of gender roles in a patriarchal society.” 

In light of this reality regarding patriarchy, Matthew advocates what some might call a “redemptive movement hermeneutic” regarding gender, suggesting that while Scripture reflects a patriarchal culture, it still grants women more honor and value than many of Israel’s counterparts and ultimately points to gender mutuality through the redemptive work of Christ.  In other words, we can accept Scripture as authoritative and true without accepting the patriarchal assumptions of the culture from which the Bible emerged. 

Frankly, I’ve never found arguments against same-sex relationships from these Old Testament texts particularly persuasive, and I suspect that if these were the only passages in question, there might be more unity of thought within the Christian community. What seems to trip most people up are references to same-sex behavior in the New Testament, to which we will turn our conversation next week.

***

Also, if you want to learn more about the Bible and sexuality, check out the Reformation Project conference in Washington D.C., November 6-8. Speakers include David Gushee, Allyson Robinson, Gene Robinson, Justin Lee, Jane Clementi, Danny Cortez, Frank Schaefer, James Brownson, Kathy Baldock, Alexia Salvatierra, and Amy Butler.

***

Questions for Discussion 

1.    How have these texts—the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the laws of Leviticus—affected your understanding of the Bible and same-sex relationships? Do they factor in to your understanding or are the New Testament texts your focus? What do you think of Matthew’s argument? 

2. Throughout God and the Gay Christian we see how patriarchy and ancient understandings of gender roles affected how same-sex behavior is referenced in Scripture. How does this affect your overall view of Scripture and how it should be interpreted regarding gender and sexuality?

10 Things Your Childhood Pastor Didn’t Tell You (But Should Have)

Source link

September 3, 2014 by Benjamin L. Corey Comments

1. The flavor of Christianity you grew up with isn’t the only flavor out there.

There are around 40,000 different Christian denominations all with their own particular nuances and ways of expressing the Christian message. I fear too many of us grow up thinking that our group is the one group who “gets it”, but with 40,000 different expressions of Christianity out there, chances are slim that you grew up in the one faith tradition who had it all correct. Each expression of Christianity has inherent strengths and weaknesses, all of which should be considered on the individual merits.

2. Visiting and exploring other Christian traditions is beneficial to your journey, not detrimental.

One of the most valuable things I learned in seminary had nothing to do with biblical languages or theology, but rather diversity. We were assigned to attend a worship service at a church we’d never otherwise go to, so I picked the most charismatic church I could find. I had expected to find a long list of reasons to make fun of them, but what I actually found was a group of loving and sincere people who radically changed my impression of charismatics. We must encourage exploration among Christian traditions.

3. The Bible is notoriously difficult to read and understand.

Growing up I was often taught that the Bible was the “user manual for life”, but could never figure out who would write a user manual that was so complicated and difficult to understand. Understanding and interpreting scripture is anything but easy– this is why most Christian traditions require professional clergy to have a minimum of a 3 year advanced seminary degree that covers things like ancient languages, hermeneutics, etc. Even then, competent scholars will often disagree! Had I been taught the truth that the Bible is difficult to read and interpret, I would have had more grace on both myself and others.

4. There’s no such thing as a “plain” or “straight forward” way of reading the Bible.

As if the Bible were not difficult enough to understand, we also have the problem of reading our own cultural ideas and values into the scriptures when we read them. As a result, it’s simply not possible to plainly read the Bible and walk away with a pure understanding of what it’s actually saying. This doesn’t mean we give up, but that we hold what we think it to be saying in sincere humility, knowing that we have a tendency to infer our own world on the ancient world.

5. The Bible actually does contradict itself– but that’s okay.

I think as Christians we’re often afraid to admit that the Bible does contradict itself, and that as a result, it’s not without error from a historic/factual standpoint. We’re afraid that if we admit to some of these things about the Bible the house of cards will collapse– but that’s not the case. In fact, some contradictions actually make the Bible more true instead of less, such as the different accounts of the Resurrection. The differing accounts actually show that there wasn’t an attempt by the disciples to “get their story straight” but instead is an authentic eye witness testimony on each account. We need not fear reality.

6. Jesus didn’t always agree with the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).

Have some parts of the Old Testament that really don’t sit well with you? You’re in good company– Jesus seems to have felt the same way. In Mark 10 when Jesus is asked about the law, he prefaces his comments with “Moses only gave that to you because your hearts were hard”, which shows that the OT law wasn’t something perfect, but the opposite– a concession to sinful humanity. In other parts Jesus completely rejects some things such as the permissiveness of violence. Jesus tells his listeners: “You have heard it said an eye for an eye, but I tell you do not resist an evil person”. What his listeners would have heard was, “I know the Bible says that when we use violence it should be fair and limited, but I’m telling you that’s wrong– don’t use violence at all.”

So don’t worry if stuff like stoning people in the OT turns your stomach– Jesus felt the same way.

7. Jesus valued compassion and empathy over rule following.

Truth be told, Jesus wasn’t an “anything goes” kind of person but he also wasn’t a rigid rule follower. Instead, Jesus valued empathy and compassion over man-made rule following. Jesus was a rule-breaker with things like being a friend of gluttons (instead of following the book of Proverbs), and did good works instead of resting on the Sabbath (one of the things that got him killed). The Jesus of the New Testament seems to be someone who chooses the side of compassion when there is tension between rule following and loving others.

8. The end-times stuff was all made up less than 200 years ago.

I was almost 33 years old before I found out that other Christians didn’t believe in the modern end-times rapture garbage. Doom-and-gloom rapture/end times theology is not part of historic Christianity– it came from a man named John Nelson Darby who was just born in 1800. Now, just because something is “new” doesn’t mean it is wrong, but pastors should probably give full disclosure on this: the end times madness is new, not part of historic Christianity, and is unique to evangelical fundamentalism.

9. Jesus doesn’t care what political party you belong to.

While the American version of Jesus has been married to right-wing politics for the last 30 years, the real Jesus could probably give two-hoots which political party you belong to. In fact, my best guess would be that Jesus would invite you to abandon the politics of the American Empire altogether so that you might completely devote yourself to living as a kingdom building exile whose citizenship is elsewhere.

10. Doubt can make your faith stronger.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in the last seven years of being in seminary it’s this: I have serious doubts. As a child I was taught that doubt was the enemy of faith, but as an adult I am finding it is actually an ally. The more I doubt some aspects of our Christian tradition, the more I find myself clinging to the Jesus in the New Testament because I become more convinced that he is my only hope– both for this life, and the next.

Kingdom Theology (Stay & Work) vs. Rapture Theology (Wait & Leave)

"If there was ever going to be a rapture (there won't be, but we can pretend for a minute)

this is how it would go: 'In the Old Testament, God consistently used those who were

willing to fight for their fellow man, even when it meant fighting with God himself.'" - Anon

"The desire of some Christians to be swept away while their fellow humans are

left behind to suffer is a complete repudiation of the way of Jesus." - Anon

"... Jesus came into the world to be the prototype of a new humanity,

to show us what it means to live out our human vocation in

this broken world as we wait for the dream of God to come

in its fullness." - Scott McKnight | Barry Jones

"The church must resurrect the incarnation of Jesus so that a new community of humanity

is borne by mission, ministry, message, and worship.' - R.E. Slater

Peter Rollins - The Rapture (Parable)

The Coming of the Lord

1 Thessalonians 4.13-18

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,[d] that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with themin the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Theology of the Rapture 

Wikipedia link for Dispensational and Mainline views

Rapture is a term in Christian eschatology which refers to the "being caught up" discussed in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, when the "dead in Christ" and "we who are alive and remain" will be "caught up in the clouds" to meet "the Lord in the air".[1]

The term "Rapture" is used in at least two senses. In the pre-tribulation view, a group of people will be left behind on earth after another group literally leaves "to meet the Lord in the air." This is now the most common use of the term, especially among fundamentalist Christians and in the United States.[2] The other, older use of the term "Rapture" is simply as a synonym for the final resurrection generally, without a belief that a group of people is left behind on earth for an extended Tribulation period after the events of 1 Thessalonians 4:17.[3][4][5] This distinction is important as some types of Christianity never refer to "the Rapture" in religious education, but might use the older and more general sense of the word "rapture" in referring to what happens during the final resurrection.[6]

There are many views among Christians regarding the timing of Christ's return (including whether it will occur in one event or two), and various views regarding the destination of the aerial gathering described in 1 Thessalonians 4. Denominations such as Roman Catholics,[7] Orthodox Christians,[8] Lutheran Christians,[9] and Reformed Christians[10] believe in a rapture only in the sense of a general final resurrection, when Christ returns a single time. They do not believe that a group of people is left behind on earth for an extended Tribulation period after the events of 1 Thessalonians 4:17.[11]

Authors generally maintain that the pre-tribulation Rapture doctrine originated in the eighteenth century, with the Puritan preachers Increase and Cotton Mather, and was then popularized in the 1830s by John Darby.[12][13] Others, including Grant Jeffrey, maintain that an earlier document called Ephraem or Pseudo-Ephraem already supported a pre-tribulation rapture.[14]

Regardless, pre-tribulation rapture theology was popularized extensively in the 1830s by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren,[15] and further popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.[16]

- Wikipedia's Introduction to the topic

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Theology of the Rapture - Theopedia

http://www.theopedia.com/Rapture

Rapture

The Rapture is the popular term used to describe one perceived view of the Lord's return based on the writings of the Apostle Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. The word "rapture" comes from the Latin rapere used by the Vulgate to translate the Greek word harpaz?, which is rendered by the phrase "caught up" in most English translations. See below:

"For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord." (1 Thess. 4:16-17, ESV)

It is the term used primarily in Dispensationalism to refer to the "catching up" of believers who are alive at the Lord's return, which they see as an event preceding the Lord's "official" second coming, and the setting up of his millennial Kingdom on earth.

Dispensational premillennialists distinguish the rapture from Christ's second coming to earth. The degree to which the rapture is secret or public is a separate issue. The timing of the rapture is associated with a final period of Tribulation anticipated by Scripture.

Criticism of a separate "rapture"

The doctrine of the rapture as an event separate from the general resurrection is a fairly recent doctrinal development within the scope of the Church's historic body of belief. Prior to 1830, most of the 'rapture texts' were regarded as referring to the General Resurrection. This was especially the case with the 1 Thessalonians 4 passage which was primarily regarded as referring to the resurrection rather than a rapture.

Virtually no prominent theologians held to this theory before Darby's influence in the 1840’s. For example, none of the great reformers, e.g. Luther^[3]^ or Calvin^[4]^, believed in a "Secret Rapture" theory. Nor did the ancient church fathers such as John Chrysostom, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus expressly assert the theory of the pre-tribulation rapture, with the possible exception that The Shepherd of Hermas, 1.4.2 speaks of not going through the Tribulation.^[5]^

Some Reformed theologians are still favorable of using the term "rapture" but insist on making a very clear distinction between rapture as a synonym for resurrection and what Dispensationalists propose by the term, namely an escape from a yet-future tribulation period.

John Stott calls this idea "escapism" in his book Issues Facing Christians Today (2006, 4th ed.). He goes on to write that the Dispensational concept of a "secret rapture" is one of the most destructive doctrines gripping the Evangelical Church today. According to Stott, it thwarts planning, hinders social involvement, and gives Christians a gloomy outlook for the future.

Other texts used by proponents of a separate rapture, such as Matthew 24:40 - Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left., when taken in context (especially Christ's statement in Matthew 24:34) are seen by some Preterists as predictions of the Roman catapult bombardment of Jerusalem during the 42 month siege of Jerusalem from late 66-70 AD, not to a rapture. While Dispensationalists claim that the predictions in Matthew 24 are yet-future, centering on a secret-rapture, critics maintain that an exegesis of this passage reveals that this is at best unlikely, if not biblically and historically impossible (cf. The Most Embarrassing Verse In The Bible by Andrew Corbett).

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Amazon source link

Amazon Book Description

Popular notions of Christian spirituality today tend to focus on getting us out of the world or getting the world out of us. Many are looking to spirituality as a means of disengaging from this life—to experience the transcendent or discover personal wholeness. On the other hand, much of popular Christian thought seems to be about avoiding the corruption of the world by being pious and following the rules. But Jesus offers a radical model for living. As the Incarnate One who dwelt among us to accomplish the mission of God, he teaches us how to dwell in the world for the sake of the world.

If we are to become like [Jesus], we must learn what it means to live out this missional spirituality in the places we dwell. What does a Christian life deeply rooted in the logic of the Incarnation look like? Missional teacher and pastor Barry Jones shares his vision for authentic Christian spirituality focused on becoming more like Jesus. We dwell in a specific place and time in history, with unique bodies and in a world for which God has great purposes of redemption. This presence in the world should lead us to pattern our lives after the life of Jesus who was a boundary breaker, a shalom-maker, a people-keeper, and a wounded-healer.

"Jesus' life shows us what it looks like to be fully human, to be whole and holy . . . to be in the world and not of the world, to live passionately for the world and not protectively withdrawn from it," says Jones. "Allowing the logic of the Incarnation to inform our vision of the spiritual life corrects the tendency toward a self-oriented pursuit of transcendence or a negative spirituality of behavior modification and disengagement from the world." Including practical suggestions for real-life application and questions for discussion, Jones describes living a missional life from a place of deep connection with and dependence on God. Not only must we have a clear and compelling vision of the life we want to live, but we must also cultivate the spiritual disciplines necessary to live out our vision in the specific contexts of day-to-day life. We need a renewed vision of Christian spirituality that leads us to be conformed into the image of Christ who dwelt with us for us.

- Amazon

Kingdom Then, Kingdom Now

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/10/09/kingdom-then-kingdom-now/

by Scot McKnight

October 9, 2014

Comments

If one keeps an ear close enough to the ground one might just hear a subtle shift at work in kingdom and heaven language. It works a bit like this: Heaven no longer matters that much but kingdom language is awesome. That language about the future kingdom has quietly become either a fictional, rhetorical utopia or not much more than a way of getting people to be more concerned about the Here and Now. And that kingdom language can get us to make this world and our country and the common good a better place.

Are you hearing this shift? If this is rhetorical only is it a trick? is it little more than projection? But if that kingdom future is real and will happen what does it say about spirituality? (Much in every way, one might mutter.)**

Barry Jones, in his new book Dwell, is out to shape a kind of spirituality that is missional and ecclesial and not just missional in the sense of justice or individualistic. So he opens with a study about the stories we live in and live into, the problem of our brokenness, and importance of the Spirit as we become the dwelling place of God but then he touches on “glimpses of the world to come.” It is there that I want to focus our conversation today.

In his section on story he speaks not about the missio Dei (the mission of God) but the visio Dei (the vision of God), and here he sees these themes: it is about God’s presence and God’s just reign and God’s peace.

Barry contends Jesus sets before us a model, a model of what a missional, incaranational spirituality looks like — and it looks like a new kind of community — and, I would add, if it looks like a new kind of community, what kind of disciplines do we need to work toward that kind of community and what kind of virtues do we need to be at the forefront if this is what it looks like?

• Jesus was a boundary breaker. Boundary breaking is about opening the door to others.

• Jesus was a shalom maker. Peace requires more than one person.

• Jesus was a people keeper (not sabbath keeping but people keeping).

• Jesus was a wounded healer.

If the kingdom is a society marked by these kinds of behaviors (seen in Jesus in how he lived), what happens to spiritual disciplines? The first thing that happens is that we realize they are not just for personal transformation but for community formation!

Jesus Christ came into the world to save the world—to secure, by his death and resurrection, the dream of God, the dream of shalom. But he also came into the world to be the prototype of a new humanity, to show us what it means to live out our human vocation in this broken world as we wait for the dream of God to come in its fullness. For us to live out a spirituality deeply informed by the logic of the incarnation—life with God for the world—is for us to pattern our lives after the life of Jesus who was a boundary breaker, a shalom maker, a people keeper, and a wounded healer. In order to pursue this repatterning of our lives, God has given us a set of embodied practices—the spiritual disciplines—through which the Spirit does his work of making us more like Jesus (99).

[I used C-Pen 3.5 to enter this quotation. Amazing new tool.]

- Scott

* note - C.Pen works by scanning non-digitized sources (library books, invoices, class notes) onto your computerized document

**Comments to Scott:

"Yes I have noticed this trend for some time now (decades actually). More recently Rob Bell picked up on this conversation some dozen years ago (Kingdom as here and now, not later) without losing sight of its hope both in this life as in the next. End Times rhetoric and Eschatological doctrines have been diminishing as the church in corollary step has been placing more emphasis on "getting out into the world and doing the work of Jesus" in Jesus' behalf. That is, the church is to daily resurrect Jesus' incarnational ministries so that they are Christianity's missiology, message, and worship. Kudos to Barry Jones for pointing these truths out and making them relevant. Thanks Scott." - Russ

continue within this series -

Historic Premillenialism v. Rapture Theologies

Leaving Behind "Left Behind"

Of Blood Moons & Prophecy: "What Kind of God Leaves People Behind?"

Kingdom Theology (Stay & Work) vs. Rapture Theology (Wait & Leave)

Is "Left Behind" Really A Christian Movie? (podcast)

Why the Rapture isn’t Biblical… And Why it Matters

Debunking "Left Behind" Theology - Resources for Shaping A "Raptureless" Theology

or continue to -

Index to past articles on Kingdom Eschatology

Speaking Out - Learning to Distinquish the Differences Between Islam and Islamism

Amazon source link

Book Description

Eye-opening accounts of heroic resistance to religious extremism.

In Lahore, Pakistan, Faizan Peerzada resisted being relegated to a “dark corner” by staging a performing arts festival despite bomb attacks. In Senegal, wheelchair-bound Aissatou Cissé produced a comic book to illustrate the injustices faced by disabled women and girls. In Algeria, publisher Omar Belhouchet and his journalists struggled to put out their paper, El Watan (The Nation), the same night that a 1996 jihadist bombing devastated their offices and killed eighteen of their colleagues. In Afghanistan, Young Women for Change took to the streets of Kabul to denounce sexual harassment, undeterred by threats. In Minneapolis, Minnesota, Abdirizak Bihi organized a Ramadan basketball tournament among Somali refugees to counter the influence of Al Shabaab. From Karachi to Tunis, Kabul to Tehran, across the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, and beyond, these trailblazers often risked death to combat the rising tide of fundamentalism within their own countries.

But this global community of writers, artists, doctors, musicians, museum curators, lawyers, activists, and educators of Muslim heritage remains largely invisible, lost amid the heated coverage of Islamist terror attacks on one side and abuses perpetrated against suspected terrorists on the other.

A veteran of twenty years of human rights research and activism, Karima Bennoune draws on extensive fieldwork and interviews to illuminate the inspiring stories of those who represent one of the best hopes for ending fundamentalist oppression worldwide.

Why Bill Maher and Ben Affleck Are Both Wrong

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karima-bennoune/bill-maher-ben-affleck-islam_b_5937838.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000051&ir=Religion

Karima Bennoune | UC Davis law professor, author of “Your Fatwa Does

Not Apply Here: Untold Stories from the Fight Against Muslim Fundamentalism”

Posted: 10/06/2014 10:18 am EDT Updated: 10/06/2014 10:59 am EDT

When I watched Bill Maher -- with whom I agree about many other issues -- talk about Islam on his show "Real Time" last Friday night, I felt as though my father's life story was being erased.

According to Maher, no one in Muslim majority countries openly denounces fundamentalism. "They are afraid to speak out." Such claims deny heroic battles waged by many people of Muslim heritage against extremism. For example, Mahfoud Bennoune, my dad, was an Algerian anthropologist who risked his life throughout the 1990s jihadist violence in his country. He taught evolution despite a classroom visit from the head of the so-called Islamic Salvation Front (dad threw the guy out!).

Though later forced to flee his apartment, Mahfoud Bennoune remained in his country despite death threats. He went on to repeatedly denounce terror and the extremist ideas that underlie it. For four years, every time he went out, he did not know whether he would come home again. But he never, ever shut up because of that.

My father believed the jihadists "trample Islam underfoot in the name of jihad." A free-thinker and secularist, he remained proud of the positive aspects of his religious heritage, such as Muslim historical contributions to science, even while being honest about the dangers both radical and conservative interpretations pose. Armed only with pen and voice, he fought back. He was just one of thousands of Algerian democrats to do so then, and today thousands of others from Afghanistan to Somalia continue the same fight.

As Michael Steele -- not someone I often agree with -- correctly noted on Maher's Friday show, people like these do not get significant Western media coverage. Have you heard much about the stalwart Iraqi human rights advocate Samira Saleh Al Naimi recently killed by ISIS in her hometown Mosul after publicly excoriating their brutality? Even when they pay with their lives, people like her are often forgotten by the world.

So, I want to challenge Bill Maher -- who is right about the need to ardently defend liberal principles -- to start supporting those who do, but whose stories are untold. Suggesting the fundamentalists somehow represent Islam, as Maher did, overlooks people like Al Naimi, but also acquiesces to the claims of the repulsive ISIS would-be "Caliph" Baghdadi who wants that to be true.

In fact, many liberals and progressives in Muslim majority contexts are fighting back. While writing my book, "Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here: Untold Stories from the Fight Against Muslim Fundamentalism," I interviewed nearly 300 of them from 30 countries -- traveling from Pakistan to Mali -- to hear how they continue to resist.

I think of Raif Badawi who faces 1000 lashes in a Saudi jail for running the Saudi Arabian Liberals website. Or those I saw protesting on the streets of Lahore against blasphemy death sentences, despite being told suicide bombers would turn up. Or the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq that runs a shelter for women fleeing ISIS, while simultaneously denouncing the group's misogynist atrocities (like its reported "concubine market" in Mosul).

These people deserve better than for Muslims to be painted as mainly being a bunch of fundamentalists or Islam seen as inherently extreme. For example, on Friday's show atheist writer Sam Harris opined shockingly that "Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas." How does one begin to respond to such an anti-humanist assertion?

On the same HBO program, Ben Affleck passionately defended Islam and accused both Harris and Maher of bigotry. "It's gross, it's racist... You are painting the whole religion with the same brush," he insisted. I am sincerely grateful to him for expressing the outrage many of us feel over such negative stereotypes.

However, Western liberals also make me nervous when they downplay the gravity and the scope of the challenge posed to people of Muslim heritage themselves by fundamentalism and jihadism, even as a rejoinder to discriminatory portrayals of the faith. I do agree with Maher that many Westerners in the liberal camp have been reticent to openly critique Muslim fundamentalism and have failed to grasp the desperate need to defeat it.

"ISIS couldn't fill a double-A ballpark in Charleston," Affleck suggested. Sadly, this is not true. Despite denunciations by countless laudable Muslim groups and individuals, ISIS could pack Madison Square Garden with a well-armed, and small but significant minority -- including young recruits from the West. The Pakistani Taliban have pledged allegiance to ISIS as have some jihadist groups across North Africa. Gulf governments -- that have long been supported by the U.S. -- have for years poured money into some of these same groups.

While Affleck was right to note that the U.S. has wrongfully waged wars against Muslim majority countries like Iraq, killing many more than the Westerners who have been killed by Muslim extremists, the real issue in the debate about Muslim fundamentalism is not the West vs. Islam. It is the huge number of people on the ground being slaughtered by the fundamentalists, from Afghanistan to Nigeria.

Liberals and progressives of Muslim heritage face a very grave crisis indeed, both in terms of violence and the ideology that promotes it. We need both Bill and Ben to rethink. We do not need either stereotypical generalizations, or minimizing responses to fundamentalism, however well-intentioned. What we need is a principled, anti-racist critique of Muslim fundamentalism that pulls no punches, but that also distinguishes between Islam (the diverse religious tradition) and Islamism (an extreme right wing political ideology.) We need support, understanding and to have our existence recognized.

One final notable feature of the Maher v. Affleck debate is that no women and no Muslims were on the show. New rule -- when debating what Muslims supposedly think about fundamentalism, you ought to have some people of Muslim heritage at the table.

past related articles -

Islam in itself is Neither Good or Bad