The conversation I am not having…

Generally at New Years I forgo making any resolution. I have the dedication and commitment of squirrel crossing the road when it comes to keeping those resolutions. I think the entire “New Year’s Resolution” is simply a trap to feel guilty later on. For me it is generally January 3^rd or 4^th if I am lucky enough to make it that far. But this year is different. I have decided to make a resolution. My resolution is to not engage in the following conversation.

 Homosexuality

 It is not that I have been proselytizing over the issue. I neither stand on street corners handing our pamphlets or begin conversations with, “You know…” Yet, I have been passionate about this issue, and am often engaged in the conversation.

I have decided I am not having any conversation regarding whether homosexuality is a sin and/or what the bible says about it. This dialogue has been going on since as long as I can remember. I still remember when “A day without orange juice” implied that gay was not okay.[1] There are a number of reasons why I have decided to forego the debate.

          First, any conversation regarding sexuality should be between the person and their spiritual mentor. Not that I think that sexual mores should not be discussed, they should. The values around sexuality that we should be discussing is about the respect and dignity afforded each other. Please understand that requiring consent is about respect and dignity.

          Second, collectively us Christians have done incredible damage to our own moral legitimacy by engaging in this discussion. I have even heard it suggested that the "gay issue” is worth splitting the church over. (It so isn’t). By engaging in this discussion I have been complicit in perpetuating this insanity. There are sexual sins that are so much more deserving of our attention, time, and energy. First, would be the trafficking of children, women, and men for sexual exploitation. Collectively, we remain awfully quiet in this regards. (which concerns me.) Second, is rape culture. (I am more than willing to engage in a discussion that it does exist. Our mentality of “the woman had it coming” even permeates our judicial system.)

          If we ever have the issues of rape and trafficking being seriously discussed, I might be more inclined to return to the “gay” conversation. In an earlier time I was told that my stance on homosexuality was a distraction. I now know how much of a distraction it was and still is. These, to my mind, are the issues worth getting worked up over, not the acts of two consenting adults.

          Third, most of us, if not all of us, have become far too concerned over the speck in our sibling’s eye while we ignore the plank in our own eye. For me it comes down to the point that my journey of faith is my journey. (And, am I the only one who gets this is a carpenter joke?) Having soup with my friend one day, his comment was, “Who am I to say someone else’s sins are worse than my own?” My focus on you is to be one of ‘how can I be of help?’ 

          While I realize that I risk “to say nothing is be complicit” I think it is important that we stop worrying about consenting adults and move onto more egregious concerns.

---

[1] In the late 70’s Anita Bryant an American Singer, beauty pageant winner, and Anti-LGBTQ activist was also the spokesperson for Florida Orange Juice.

(This is based on a message I gave pre-Covid)

What was he thinking?

Hebrews 2:17 & 18: For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

     Today we celebrate the birth of Christ Jesus. That part of me that needs to poke at everything wants to point out: it is mostly made up.  Not that Christ wasn’t born, but he was not born in December. The entire nonsense of shepherds tending their flock while ass deep in snow did not happen. At least not in snow.

     This year is a little darker, maybe even sinister, for me. I find myself questioning the birth of Christ. Questioning, not if it happened, but why it happened. What was he thinking? It is one of those times I stand convinced of our collective putridness. To my perspective Jesus coming here would be like going for a dip in a septic tank. (I am hoping the meds kick-in in the New Year.)

     Did he come as God, with all the fanfare and celebration we would expect? No. Did he come forcing everyone to genuflect and bow? No. There was no privilege claimed. He came as the lowliest of positions; the illegitimate child of a peasant girl from a town that defines insignificance. Mary being pregnant outside of marriage should have been stoned to death.

     We know that the pretense for Joseph going to Bethlehem does not hold up to scrutiny. The timing of the events don't line up. When biblical commentaries do acknowledge this they say that it makes for a better narrative. I prefer the narrative that Joseph being a decent guy got Mary out of town until it was safe to come home. He seemed to be that kind of guy. Perhaps the idea of a census taking place was part of an original deception on Joseph's part.. 

     Jesus was fully human. His birth would have been anguishing for Mary and tinged with anxiety. She would have known of women dying during and after child birth. As a child, there would have been skinned knees to kiss; tears, puke and shit to clean up. As a teenager did he have a crush? I would think so. His purity came not from abstinence – a concept that is ours, and is disturbing. His purity came from the love he had, and still has, for us. But he must have known desire, and the heart break of rejection. Otherwise how could scripture be accurate in claiming he had to be like us in EVERY way? He would have known exhaustion, illness, rejection, and all the foibles of life. 

    Contemplate that, the guy who created everything had become fully human.

  Ultimately, he was a despised one. His death on the cross would have been a fitting finish to a life spent being shunned by people. At least those people who seemed to matter. Crucifixion at its core was about shaming the executed. Those who accepted Jesus, generally the other despised ones, grieved. Mary who had borne the anguish of his birth, would bear the anguish of his death. She would have known that she had one last job; to care for his broken body.

    His coming here, if we really pay attention, let’s us know how wrong we have things. The Kingdom of Heaven is the opposite of what we assume it to be. It is not about competition, it is not about being at the top of a pyramid scheme of righteousness. Rather, we are called to service. It is recognizing ourselves in each other. It is recognizing Christ in each other.

Mark 9:35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

 

      God does not simply sit on high demanding love, praise and obedience. Rather he seeks an involvement in our lives, individually and collectively. That is what advent is about. The celebration of which should be everyday not just this time of the year. That involvement comes through us. I am not a fan of the salvation from hell doctrine. I believe we are called into a salvation from idiotic living. A life of service to each other. As I learned in 12 step groups, “Let it begin with me.”

1 Corinthians 1:27 -  29 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.

 

Merry Christmas, may you feel the full weight of the Love of God in this time of year!

 Ruth

The Book of Ruth

The Bible, or “The Goat Herder’s Guide to the Galaxy” has many layers to it. To read it on a superficial level is to diminish the message, or messages, contained therein.  The complexity and layered meaning of scripture reflects the complex and layered aspects of life.This is also why the Bible reflects back to the reader the perspective on life of the reader; we see what we want to see. In my opinion, and as I am the one writing this post – that matters the most, Ruth is one of the most complex and layered of the stories within the Bible. It is also only of two books in  scripture named for a Gentile; the other being Job. It is also one of two named after a woman.

     We know more about Ruth than any other woman in the Bible. This includes Mary of Nazareth and the Samaritan woman at the well. The political and cultural contexts of this story are many and are important to know. They provide the back drop so that the message of the story of Ruth can be more clearly seen. The story is about how God works through the hesed in the interactions between people. Hesed is one of those words for which the definition is culturally defined and for which there are only partial translations into English. For the purpose of this post hesed is defined as “unfailing kindness to the helpless.”[1] The back drop for this story is the economic disadvantage of women, particularly the widow, and the exclusion of the foreigner.

     The story is simple. A woman named Naomi, her husband, and two sons travel to the country of Moab because of a famine in the Bethlehem area. While in Moab her sons marry Moabite women, then her husband dies, then her sons die. Thus, the story is about two widows. Naomi and Ruth, the other widow, Orpah, goes back to Moab so is not part of the story. Ruth travels back to Bethlehem with Naomi. Two women travelling alone would have been extremely risky. The story really begins on the road back to Bethlehem. There are three significant acts of hesed and I will tell the story from that perspective.

     The first act happens as Naomi tells her daughters-in-law to go back to Moab, life would be easier for them. Orpah agrees, Ruth makes a declaration of love and loyalty used even in these days in weddings, Ruth 1.16 & 17. This is no small decision as Ruth is accepting life in a strange country while being a widowed woman. Thus, taking on three barriers to anything but a subsistence life. This scene is actually two acts; one of Naomi the other of Ruth.

     When the women arrive in Bethlehem Ruth goes out into the fields that are being harvested to glean. Gleaning was the practice of picking from the edges of a crop which had been intentionally left to feed the poor. This is one of the provisions for caring for the poor and disadvantaged within the Tanakh. For a woman to be doing so was risky, on a number of levels. This is when the owner of the land shows up. He asks “Whose maiden is this?” He is told that she is Ruth, who has become the subject of town gossip.

     The second act of hesed, is Boaz telling Ruth to glean in his fields. He also tells the overseers of the harvest to watch over her, and make sure she gets a little extra in her gleaning. This is because, “All that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband has been fully told me.” Ruth 2.11. The gossip spoke of Ruth's good deeds.

     Then things get interesting. There is a celebration of the harvest being held on the “threshing floor.” Naomi coaches Ruth in how to capture the attention and heart of Boaz. During the celebration Boaz has his fill of food and drink and is “happy of heart” and he lays down and goes to sleep. Ruth goes to Boaz and “lays at his feet.” Boaz wakes up and asks Ruth what she is doing? Her response, is priceless, “I am Ruth, marry me as it is the right thing to do!” (This is paraphrased.)

     The third act of hesed was that Boaz, somewhat underhandedly, arranges to marry Ruth. It is unclear who has committed the act of hesed. This is often the case with compassion and kindness. Although it is Ruth who is married, it is Naomi who benefits. In the act of providing for Ruth, Naomi is provided for as well. So, has it been Boaz for marrying Ruth or Ruth for arranging for Naomi to be cared for?

     God is nowhere to be seen in the book of Ruth. He is mentioned but does not make an appearance. My take on this is that God is present within the acts of kindness and compassion we take with each other. We are told that whenever two or more of us gather in his name he is there, so the idea that God can be found within the spaces between people is not THAT outrageous. It does call for us to be mindful to how we treat each other.

     I think it is more than significant that Ruth, who is continually identified as the Moabite (other), is held up as an example of hesed. It is more than just a message to us for how we are to behave. There is a message about God. While Ruth converts to Judaism with “your people shall be my people, and your God my God.” But again we see the inclusion of a member of a people for whom God apparently despises. 

     The third of our Wisewomen again brings honour and integrity into the lineage to Jesus. Perhaps we should stop paying so much attention as to who is “in” and who is “out.” There are so many people that we see as deserving exclusion based on our comfort or discomfort with them. Perhaps we should pay more attention to “the content of a person’s character” to borrow a phrase.              

---

[1] Aaron Lockhart, “Toward a Unitive Understanding of Hesed: Mercy Defined and Displayed.”

Rahab

Joshua 2

Joshua 6.17 – 25

The scriptures treat sexuality curiously. So do we by the way. Which probably explains why scriptures do so. Consider that we refer to Mary as the Virgin Mary, this is despite that fact that she had at least four other children. Likewise, the wisewoman of this narrative, Rahab,  is perpetually termed a prostitute even though that had nothing to do with why she is in the bible. It would be like to referring to King David as Dave the Adulterer. I think we should stop calling her that and come up with a different name. 

Before Israel invaded Canaan, Joshua had sent two spies to scope out the land. The two spies took lodging from Rahab. It does not make reference to whether they paid for other services. Then things get interesting. Somone told the King of Canaan that Rahab was hiding the spies in her house. She was brought before the King and convincingly lies. Her story was that they had came to her, she didn’t know where they were from, and that they took off as night came. It is interesting the number of commentaries that stress that in the heat of the moment, she had the presence of mind to lie. But this is not why she is an important figure.

Rahab returns to her place and hides the spies upstairs. The King falls for the story and the men sent to catch the spies go running out of the city. Rahab goes up to the roof where she had hid the spies and talks to them. She tells them that everyone has heard about their God, and everyone was afraid of him because he was the meanest god around. Then, she asks that when the Israelites attack that they spare her life.

The spies agree and promise that her life and those of her family will be spared. The only condition is that they must remain in Rahab’s home. The spies sneak out the window, her house is part of the city wall, and her window provided passage out of the city.

The Israelites surround Jericho a number of days later and hold a seven-day dance party around the city. Then as the trumpets blared and the people shouted, the walls of Jericho fell. Except, Rahab’s house which had been part of the city walls remained standing. As Joshua is yelling that everyone and their pet needed to die, he remembered to spare Rahab and her family. Later, and this is not part of the narrative, Salmon marries Rahab. Salmon is a descendant of our first wisewoman; Tamar. In turn, Rahab gives birth to our next wisewoman, Ruth.

I see her story as being significant. The reason is that she is an exclusion from the commands given to Israel, and her inclusion in the people of Israel. Her story also presents a more rounded picture regarding God “the hitman’ that seems to permeate the Old Testament.

First, to be obedient to God Rahab should have been killed. Consider the instructions of God, “do not leave alive anything that breathes.” Deut 20.16.  With Rahab and her family being left alive not only do we see an exception, we begin to understand that maybe the instructions were hyperbole. There is a popular idea that Rahab had become faithful to God, but that is only inference. Scripture seems clear, “But Rahab the harlot, and her father’s household, and all who belonged to her, Joshua saved alive; and she dwelt in Israel to this day, because she hid the messengers whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.” Josh 6.25 To be included was the exact opposite of what they were told to do. 

Second, the “trash talking” of the Lord. The hyperbole of conflict in the Ancient Near East was an important literary style. Especially as often wars were started to see whose deities were the strongest, biggest and meanest. It was not uncommon for people to write of the god they worshiped as being the meanest guy around. Rereading scripture with this in mind does smooth some of the edginess. (I explore this further in a later post.)

Thirdly, Deuteronomy instructs the Israelites “You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons.” Deut 7.3. Yet, Rahab who should have been killed, should not have been married by an Israelite. Furthur having the reputation as a "harlot", no self respecting man would have married her. So again, we see an exception to God’s commands and the people's tradions being made. Before you decide that obedience is not required, understand that there might be different dynamics were at play. But, also if you think that someone's past trumps their present, think again.

Rahab was not an insignificant addition to scripture. We see a woman being portrayed as being courageous in aiding Israel to it victory. Perhaps we should refer to her as Rahab “the Brave.”

 Three Wise Women

 Matt 1.1 – 17

I don’t think there is anyone, save the most ardent of biblical scholars that would read the genealogy in the beginning of Matthew. I also would hazard a guess that after this post you just might. An uncareful read of this genealogy reveals a rogue’s gallery of suspects. There are adulterers, murderers, swindlers, just to name a few. It has been suggested that the inclusion of the genealogy in Matthew is that it clearly shows that Jesus comes from flawed stock, and that his humanity could be found in any of us.

There are also five women identified, four by name one by implication. Mary is the most easily recognizable of the lot and is held high regards. As she should be. There is Bathsheba who was the woman that King David committed adultery with, she is identified as the wife of Uriah. Then we have Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth. Tamar is arguably either a Canaanite or an Israelite. I lean towards the Canaanite perception. Rahab was a Canaanite woman, for whom there were biblical prohibitions against marrying. Despite this, Salmon marries Rahab and she gives birth to Boaz who marries the next woman named in the genealogy. Ruth is a Moabite, another ethnic group prohibited from marrying into the nation of Israel. Regardless of that, she is married by Boaz, and becomes the great grandmother of arguably Israel’s greatest King, David and the great-great-grandmother of Solomon who is identified as being the wisest of the kings. (It was actually a low bar.) These three woman bring a new perspective into the birth of Christ. These women also did some of the most interesting stuff.

Tamar

Genesis 38

Tamar had been married to Er, the son of Judah. Judah was the patriarch of the Tribe of Judah. Tamar arguably, though underhandedly, restored Judah’s integrity. Er was described as being so evil that he was killed. This was in the days of God “the hitman.” So Judah tells Er’s brother Onan to sleep with Tamar to father a son. Onan, who did not want to have a son with her “spilled his seed” on the ground. So, God killed him. (By the way, this is not the basis of a prohibition against masturbation. Privately message me and I will provide a better basis for that prohibition.) But God does seem kinda cranky, doesn’t he? This left the third son, Shelah, who was apparently too young at the time. As time passed, Judah becomes a widower, and after recovering from his grief, goes on a business trip.

       By this time Shelah was old enough to marry Tamar. This brothers marrying the widow of a brother was the marriage arrangement that was the basis of Jesus being tested regarding the resurrection and the seven brothers having married the same woman. The reality is that Tamar wanted a husband to take care of her now, and a son to take care of her as she grew older. He would be her access to economic security. This theme gets repeated elsewhere in the Old Testament. Shelah, I think for obvious reasons was nowhere to be seen on the marriage front. So Tamar takes things into her own hands.

     Disguising herself by wearing a veil, Tamar hangs out by the side of the road. Judah seeing her assumes that she is a prostitute. So he bargains for her services. He offers a young goat, she asks for a security deposit which turns out to be his seal, his cord, and his staff. The deal being struck, they had sex and Tamar became pregnant. Tamar then went home.

     The first sign that things were not as they should be was that Tamar was not there to receive the goat. Even worse, the report from where Tamar and Judah struck the deal was that there was no prostitute. Trouble began when three months after the deed, Tamar was noticeably pregnant. Judah demanded she be brought out and burned to death. Now, her being burned to death relates to Levitical Law which had not been created at that time. However the issue was that Tamar was to remain chaste despite the fact that she was widowed, and that Shelah had not stepped up to the plate. (To coin a term.)

     As she was being brought to Judah to be killed she sent the seal, the cord, and the staff. When he saw those Judah realized just what had happened. Judah to his credit got honest saying, “Tamar is more righteous than I.” That was a huge admission on Judah’s part. Huge, in the way that you have really no idea how huge. I love the story of Tamar. I believe it adds legitimacy to the bible. Afterall, who could make up such a convoluted story? I mean it rivals anything Shakespeare could invent.

     But in this story, Tamar by her actions had restored integrity to Judah, and thus to the tribe of Judah. This was regarding the fathering of the her sons. Further to this, Tamar gave birth to two sons, Perez and Zerah. Apparently, Perez and Zerah, like Isaac and Esau, were quite active in the womb as they were being born. Perez stuck his arm out in a race to be born, but Zerah made it out first. Apparently prepared for such a situation, Tamar ties a string around Perez's wrist so she knew who was first.

       Tamar the first of our wise women, not only brought honour to the genealogy of Jesus, she also assured that Judah had a son to carry on the lineage of Abraham. What happens to Shelah and Zerah is not mentioned. It was Perez’s being the first born that allowed the lineage of Abraham to be carried on. My preference for believing Tamar was a Canaanite is that the other two women were outsiders. And we see those who were excluded bringing honour and dignity ancestors of Jesus.