The Wager

Something in my borderline OCD/anal-retentive nature craves the metaphysical presence of a compass, a litmus test, a standard by which I can weigh and measure my potential decisions. In part, I blame my debate training. I learned early on about Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). What will this decision/action/belief cost? What will the benefits be?

In all, I find this to be a highly pragmatic approach. However, in spiritual matters, this method doesn't yield the clearest of results. For years, I was fascinated by a philosophical argument posed by the great mathematician, Blaise Pascal. Not only did the man revolutionize mathematics, he posed many theories in philosophy that we study to this day. As with all philosophy, scholars have argued back and forth over Pascal's ideas. I have no intention of delving into all of that.

Pascal's wager is basically this: If I live my life by the tenets of Christianity, and when I die, I discover that there is in fact, no God, no Christ, no afterlife, what have I lost? I have lived well, a life with purpose, leaving a legacy of kindness, generosity, and benevolence. If I die, and find that all I have believed to be true, I have gained eternal paradise.

While this theorem is often used to justify belief in Christianity, I use it to examine my beliefs as a Christian. All of this is based on the premise that God exists, and He is benevolent. Again, Pascal drew this conclusion with his immortal statement cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). From there, I extrapolate his wager.

If I hold a particular belief, and act accordingly, my entire life, when I die and stand before the Father, if I am correct in that belief, I have gained His approval. If my belief proved false, how would the Father react? What would be the consequences, in life and in the hereafter, for that belief?

Let me put this in more specific terms. The hot issue at the moment appears to be Christianity and its views on homosexuality. The Evangelicals believe its a sin, and a damnable one at that. The progressives embrace it as love, and welcome homosexuals into their midst warmly. Who is right?

Apply the wager.

If I believe homosexuality to be a damnable sin, and live my life accordingly, my life will look like the status quo in most of Christendom. Homosexuals are shunned, unless they renounce their sexuality as immoral. They are to be "cured" by whatever means necessary. They may not hold any position of leadership in a church. At worst, they are reviled with signs and slogans proclaiming God's hatred toward "fags." What happens when I stand before the Father and this view is the truth? I won't get into the potential consequences of God's view on how we treat each other. Clearly, these arguments have zero impact on the bulk of Christians. So, you are dead, your belief was true.

And what if you are wrong?

You have acted as a bigot. You have been a living roadblock to millions, preventing them from finding the love and grace of God through Christ. Hands, hearts, minds, extraordinary talent and skill alienated from the body of Christ by your belief. You now must stand in front of the Father, and account for souls lost, people damaged, lives harmed. What will He say? How will your belief make Him feel? What price must you pay? What must you live with, for all of eternity?

Now reverse it all. You believe that God's love and grace extend to homosexuals just as they are. If you are wrong? Are there situations in which God can condemn us for loving too much? If you are right, you acted as Christ.

Here, the CBA is of great value.

What is the cost? What is the benefit?

For me, there is only one answer.

Our beliefs have a price. For me, I cannot pay that price unless I know it to be for good, for benefit, and not for harm. If I am wrong, let the price be my own, not paid by others. This is my compass, my North Star. I can effectively weigh my actions and beliefs. Do I refuse to give to those in need because they may squander my generosity? In the end, how would God view my action, or in this case, lack thereof?

I find that no mater how I apply this metric, it invariably leads me to decisions in line with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. I don't always succeed in applying it. Sometimes I react in old habits and ways that bring no honor to Christ. But I try. Isn't that essence of our faith?

ProChrist: Progressive Christianity

Earlier this month, renowned author Anne Rice announced that she “quit being a Christian.” This renouncement of religion had nothing to do with renouncing faith. In the face of an unending campaign of hatred, bigotry, politics, greed, legalism, judging, and a list of other sins to make the Magnificent Seven blush, Rice found she could no longer affiliate herself with a religion baring Christ’s name that bore no resemblance to Him. In her words "In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life."

Rice is anything but alone. The teachings of Jesus fill the pages of scripture with compassion, mercy, love, kindness, and virtues that can only be described as divine. In the two millennia since he taught us to love God with all we are, and love our neighbors as we love ourselves, the Gospels, the truly good news, have been corrupted, distorted, perverted into something that I can only describe as “anti-christ.”

In place of love and grace, Christianity has come to stand for bigotry, condemnation, a place that those who need to know a loving savior would never dare set foot into because they know what awaits them: scorn. The cry “love the sinner, hate the sin” has become a sine qua non of the religious right, but they ignore the fact that the heart of that statement is judgment. For those keeping score at home, judgment is forbidden for humans to touch. Only God may judge, because He is the only one who knows, who understand all that we have been through, the experiences of our lives that have shaped and formed our decisions. The bright shining sword of justice wielded by the self-righteous has replaced the unfathomable mercy and love of the cross as the true symbol of Christianity.

Like Rice, I found myself at odds, adrift, unable to find a community of faith with beliefs in line with my own. I searched and researched, realizing without a title, a name of a movement of believers, finding like-minded people would prove impossible. Fortunately, I found one.

Progressive Christianity.

What does that mean? The movement stands for many things. Social justice, or in plainer terms, care and giving to those in need, reaching out to the marginalized and forgotten, the cast-offs of society and sadly of the rest of Christendom. Progressive Christians believe in the importance of ecological conservation, and doing all we can to protect our environment. They recognize that love intimately shared between two persons, committed to each other for the duration of their lives, is beautiful and divine, regardless of gender. Above all, they recognize that Christ gave us the highest and most important commandment, and we must commit our lives to living by that standard.

My journey to define my own faith, to seek out what is true and good, led me to a place of confusion. My spiritual walk for decades existed on the idea that scripture is inerrant. The words of the bible must be taken literally. Unfortunately, I found errors. Even within the gospels, pronounced differences exist between the synoptic gospels and John, down to the day of the last supper and of Christ’s crucifixion. References Christ made to the old testament contained errors. Was Christ wrong? Was his memory flawed? Or did the author of that Gospel simply record his words incorrectly?

I found in scripture that a woman who is raped must marry her rapist. That people caught in adultery must be put to death. That slavery is a right, just and proper societal practice. These are things that few churches today would support, however, they demand that scripture be found literally inerrant.

Where do these revelations leave me? At first, confused. Now, I understand why Christ gave us the Great Commandment, a compass to guide our paths to a true north. Our world is in so many ways different from the world of Christ and his disciples, even more so from the old testament writers. But some things do not change. Compassion, mercy, and love are rare commodities, in this century and in all that came before. People are beautiful creations, that life all too often scars, damages, wounds in ways that cause them to act abhorrently. I learned that when I stand before God to give an accounting of my life, I want him to pronounce “My son, you loved too much.”

In that reckoning, to have my deeds recounted, measured and found to be less than loving, less than as close to Christ-like as I can manage, then i would be ashamed of my life. I can think of no worse punishment in the ever after than that.

Yesterday, my quest led me to an organization I feel I can proudly be a part of. The Beatitudes Society, as far as I can tell, support all of the things I value. They ascribe to a faith of tolerance, mercy, compassion, and social activism. They do not rely on eschatology to fuel emotional fervor. They seek to actively make the world a better place, not to sit idly by and condemn it.

I have hope now that even in the reactionary wastelands of the bible belt, that the true message of Christ can ring out. That others out there have found a faith that resonates with mine. A journey is always better when we don’t have to walk alone.

The Bible, homosexuality, and the truth.

The Evangelical Christian movement in the United States is a source of irritation for me. Not because I disagree with the Christian faith. I absolutely agree with Christianity. However, I utterly disagree with any representation of any brand of faith that would take the Bible, and specifically the teaching of Christ, and use it as a weapon to bludgeon other people.
Christ summed up the entirety of the faith in the Great Commandment:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind (intellect). This is the great (most important, principal) and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as [you do] yourself. These two commandments sum up, and upon them depend, all the Law and the Prophets.

In essence, this is the litmus test. Whatever your belief on an issue, whatever doctrine you encounter, it passes or fails based on this metric.

The evangelicals have made their stance known on the topic of homosexuality. They hold the intractable belief that sex is only permissible between a man and a woman who have been wed. They hold that the scriptures dictate this stance, and the scriptures are inerrant.

The core problem here is this: they have no desire to believe in inerrant scripture. They only desire to defend what in their minds is inerrant interpretation.

I believe that the scriptures are the inspired Word of God. I believe that He speaks to us through the Bible. But am not arrogant enough to believe that we interpret His words without error.

A History of Bad Interpretation

Unfortunately, the Christian Church has over two millennia of indoctrinated bigotry. Jews were executed under the Inquisition. Slavery was justified and extended because it was “in the scriptures.” Blacks were defined as subhuman “by the scriptures.” Women were relegated to inferior status because of the scriptures. The documentation of these acts of prejudice and intolerance can be found in libraries and the internet.

In every one of these examples, the doctrine was intractable, supposedly backed by the inerrant word of God, and the official stance of the Church.

I use the phrase “the church” here to speak of established institutions with political and power structures. For over 1,000 years, that was the Catholic church. It has extended to cover both protestant and catholic belief systems. However, not all churches fall under this umbrella. Today, many houses of worship have eschewed bigotry for tolerance. Have opened their doors and hearts to all who seek to live a life of love as set forth by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. I view these communities of faith to be the bride of Christ, the biblical description of the church. I view those who seek to pass judgment and condemn the people they are meant to embrace and love as “the Church.”

The list of bad doctrine, embraced and endorsed by Christians over the centuries, fills libraries. There are, no doubt, pages of examples of further crimes of bigotry committed by supposed Christians, but I think I have sufficiently made my point for this topic: the “inerrant scripture” has been riddled with errors for as long as the faith has existed. I do not fault the scripture itself. I indict vehemently those who will stand in the pulpit with such arrogance and self-righteousness to espouse their beliefs and interpretations of scripture as unimpeachable.

This is anathema, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus Christ.

The rules for interpreting scripture

The fancy, technical term for in depth study and interpretation of scripture is exegesis. This no task to be taken lightly and requires a level of discipline most Christians fail to bring to the Word of God. Moreover, exegesis concerns itself with “what did the author intend? What did the author want the people with which he was communicating to understand?”

The rules of exegesis are:

Rule No. 1: Survey the historical context in general.
Rule No. 2: Confirm the limits of the passage.
Rule No. 3: Become thoroughly acquainted with your paragraph or pericope.
Rule No. 4: Analyze sentence structures and syntactical relationships.
Rule No. 5: Establish the text.
Rule No. 6: Analyze the grammar.
Rule No. 7: Analyze significant words.
Rule No. 8: Research the historical-cultural background.

I will not explore these with depth here. I present them to demonstrate the rigor with which this undertaking must be handled. The whole of the Bible is written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. We should understand the implied “ancient” before each language name. These writings occurred two to three millennia ago, and just like English, languages evolve. I have difficulty trusting anyone with handling the translation of these ancient tongues who is not a PhD in historical linguistics. The academic, and unbiased, study and understanding of ancient languages sheds a pure light on what the biblical authors tried to communicate to their audiences. Within that context, we can grow to understand what they are, in turn, saying to us.

Point by point thru the New Testament

I chose to focus here on the scriptures in the New Testament that have historically been used to ban homosexuality and condemn the men and women who have romantic and erotic feelings toward the same sex. The Old Testament has fewer passages on this topic, and dealing with the Levitical texts opens a can of worms that I have no desire to deal with here.

I will also not be presenting the “conservative” view of these scriptures as they are well known. My focus is to explore the original languages, the historical context, and attempt to understand what was being communicated in each passage.

In the New Testament, three passages exist which have been used by Christians to directly indict homosexuality: Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9, 1Timothy 9-10. All three are from Pauline Epistles, with Christ being strangely silent on the topic. A fourth verse, Jude 1:7, is virtually unused by evangelicals, but I will examine it as well.

Romans 1:26-27 (New American Standard Bible)

26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error

Though other passages are more frequently cited, this one is the most direct addressing of same-sex couples in all of the New Testament.

Many progressives argue that the bible appeared to advocate a number of activities found to be reprehensible in the modern world: genocide, slavery, subjugation of women, torture, execution of women found to not be virgins on their wedding night. In some passages, the bible seems to dictate the women who are raped must marry their attackers. Clearly, all of these are unthinkable today.

I believe that when employing exegesis, you come to understand the context of what each of those scriptures meant. They applied to specific situations that have no true analog today. Some argue this passage belongs in this category.

In Paul’s time, specifically as he spent his life reaching the gentile, or Greco-Roman world, a fundamental daily truth was that the dominant religion in the Roman Empire employed prostitutes in the temple. Participants in the orgiastic, sexual “rituals” performed in pagan fertility rights engaged in heterosexual and homosexual activities. Clearly, this is not in line with a holistic biblical view of the place and role of sex. A common progressive interpretation of this scripture is that Paul is speaking to men and women who have abandoned their “natural” sexual identities for something that is against what their natural sexual desires would be. It is “unnatural” for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals and homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. In context, Paul is writing to Romans (duh) and no Jewish or even Judeo-Christian bias/prejudice can be assumed here. These people lived in the world of temple prostitution. Furthermore, any individual having multiple sex partners of any gender, particularly at one time, would be found to be “unnatural,” using this interpretation.

In addition, in Paul’s time, orgies, particularly in the temple, promiscuity, and pedophilia, would be far more problematic and in need of addressing than any type of committed, monogamous homosexual relationship. Even today, we can view any one of these practices as unhealthy, damaging and in some instances, illegal.

As with another pandemic error, the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which the bible explicitly states that God destroyed the cities because “not one righteous man” could be found, perhaps we are missing the point here. A group of men knocking on your door demanding to rape the visitors in your house falls well within the realm of unrighteous. Rape is never acceptable. Rape is, at heart, a perversion of an act of love into an act of power and control. The Bible has a zero tolerance policy in regards to coercion of another person’s choices and rights. In the world of the Romans that Paul wrote to here, the historical accounts of what transpired in the temple showed an almost identical perversion: sex as a means of power and control.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New American Standard Bible)

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

This passage is hugely problematic for those in the “God hates gays” camp. The translation of this scripture varies widely amongst nearly all modern translations of the bible.

Regardless, I will just boil it down to this: In the time this was written, and to the audience Paul addressed (Greek, since its to the citizens of Corinth) the word used to describe sex between two men was “paiderasste.” The word Paul used, “arsenokotai,” has lost its meaning over the centuries. “Arsen” meant “man,” so even the traditional view would let lesbians off the hook here.

In plain truth, we have no real idea who Paul was talking about here. The linguistic norm, which he would have known, was not used. Instead, we have a word that we have no true understanding of, and the wholesale condemnation of 10% of the population is based upon.

The next verse in 1 Timothy, uses the same word. I cannot, in good conscience adhere to, promote, or even entertain any doctrine that condemns based on something this nebulous.

Many scholars argue that Paul once again addressed the boys and young men forced into prostitution in the temples, and the men who engaged them in sexual activity. Given historical context and audience, there is logic in this interpretation. However, as we have no certain scholarship on the word he used itself, I cannot with great confidence adhere to this view.

Jude 1:7 (New American Standard Bible)

7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

First, my previous statement about Sodom and Gomorrah stands here as well. Second, the phrase “strange flesh,” the emphasis of this particular study, is “sarkos heteras.” The fact that our word “heterosexual” derives from “heteras” is an irony for another time. While this passage is far less used than the Pauline passages, it has been hurled at those men and women that church going folk want to hate. We have zero inclination or understanding about what Jude is specifically speaking to here. Rape is a strong contender, and no one would advocate that. A logical interpretation would be that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah sought to rape angels, who are not human and have no gender. Their flesh would indeed be strange.

Again, we don’t have a clearly defined direction. Its far too vague to base a doctrine on it.

Author’s Intent

Like Paul and Jude, I have an intent and audience in mind. I write all of this with a clear understanding that the hardliners will not sway in their beliefs. Logic, reason, and fact have no part in dogma, and these men and women would willingly set themselves on fire to watch others burn.

I write for the men and women who take to heart Christ’s edict that we love each other. Who see the horror and injustice inflicted on His children in his name. I write this for the man or woman, young or old, who have been taught that they are anathema and hell-bound for who they are. I write this for every person who ever cried out to heaven to change them, and received no answer, because in heaven’s eyes, they are precisely as they should be.

In 20 years time, I think this will largely be a non-issue. Historically, the progressives have successfully steered the church as a whole away from bigotry. For the here and now, I pray that with every passing day, more and more churches and communities of faith will embrace homosexual men and women, loving them and accepting them precisely as they are.

For the hardliners, I pray mercy on them. I fear for them when they face the judgment of God, and have to answer for their hatred and intolerance. May they receive the grace they could never show to others.

Supernatural 5.15 - Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid

Strange though it may seem, for the past couple of years, one source that continually challenges me spiritually is a television show. A primetime drama recounting the struggles of two brothers as they fight off the forces of evil, and those sources turn up in the most surprising forms and places, even from within. It also makes to look at my faith heritage from knew perspectives. Fittingly, the show is called Supernatural, and I have decided to incorporate recaps and thoughts about the episodes here.

An Introduction to Supernatural

This show is at the top of my not-to-be-missed list for a number of reasons. The story is amazing, and the mythology delves into the dark and frightening aspects of the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition, specifically angels and demons. This lore has fascinated me for as long as I can remember, but I have been profoundly dissatisfied with the portrayal of angels, and specifically Lucifer in most media.

The saccharine “Touched by an Angel” topped the list of offenders, in my book. I cannot imagine that beings whose only opening line throughout scripture was “Be not afraid,” would look like Roma Downey with a hair light. Angels are fierce, frightening, powerful, warriors. And Lucifer was the head of them. God’s most favored, the highest created being. The idea of the devil with horns and hooves and a tail is as equally absurd as the gowned, winged lovely ladies from the Renaissance. From the Bible, Lucifer was the head cherub, beautiful beyond measure. Evil, in my experience, never prances around shouting “I am evil!” It is seductive, masquerading as righteousness.

Supernatural hits every one of these notes precisely right, in my opinion. Further, it invokes the most compelling aspects of the monomyth. We have the heroes, two brothers: Sam and Dean Winchester. Horrible events have plagued their lives from their earliest memories. The forces of heaven and hell await them at every turn, trying to draw them into a cosmic power-play of which the brothers desire no part, and through it all, they choose to sacrifice their own happiness and comfort to save people from dark forces the likes of which the average citizen is utterly unaware.

In the first season of the show, as the writers and cast sought to find their footing, we had the brothers Winchester, their trusty 1967 Chevrolet Impala (in black, thank you very much), and a road trip to some burg or other with a monster problem. As the show’s creators saw the strength of the performances and chemistry between Sam, played by Jared Padalecki, and Dean, portrayed by Jensen Ackles, they saw the opportunity for much larger stories, spanning episodes and ultimately seasons.

The big question for this season hovers around whether or not they will succumb to seemingly suffocating pressure. And herein is the aspect of the show that I love and fear in equal measure: destiny.

I despise the very concept. Destiny has been romanticized, utterly ignoring the core of the idea: your life is not your own. No matter what choices you make, what struggles you fight, what pain you suffer, none of it matters, because you really have no say. You are the pawn of capricious powers. For five years, we have watched Sam and Dean fight and suffer to escape a supposed destiny, and the weight of that path is crushing.

I love that the show tosses the stupidly romantic idea of destiny on its ass, but I fear that the writers will ultimately choose to let destiny win. We shall see.

Beyond these items I will attempt to not spoil you to the major goings on in the show.

Better off Undead

This week’s offering, Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid, in many regards represents the finest aspects of Supernatural. We had the monsters of the week, zombies, and who doesn’t love a good zombie apocalypse? Season 5 marks the wrap up of a story that began in the Pilot, but truly kicked into gear at the end of the first season. Dead Men is a great display of the writers ability to take a seemingly unconnected happening and weave it seamlessly into the larger arc.

We had the trademark Supernatural humor, an aspect of this show that always endears itself to me. I greatly appreciate a story that can take on the combined forces of heaven and hell and still laugh at itself. We also saw a great deal more about one of the primary supporting characters: Bobby Singer. The trucker cap-clad hunter has been a staple since season 1, and has functioned as a father to both Sam and Dean in a capacity that I feel even their biological father never did. We had seen in Season 3’s “Dream a Little Dream of Me” that Bobby, like most all hunters, got sucked into the dangerous and soul-crushing world of tackling the things that go bump in the night by the death of a loved one: his wife. Seeing no other option, he had killed her when a demon possessed her. The guilt and agony of ending the life of his beloved wears heavily on him still, especially that he now knows how he could have saved her with 50 words of Latin.

When the undead rise from their graves in the small South Dakota town where Bobby’s junkyard lies, the zombies don’t terrorize. They seek to resume their lives as they had known them before they died.

One thing this show does superbly well is to pose moral questions before its viewers. If someone that you had loved returned from the dead, would you question it? Even if you had the full knowledge of a hunter, knowledge dictating that this situation would only end bloody, would you sacrifice a few moments of reunion to end it before it heads south?

In this situation, for Bobby at least, that answer was “no.” This episode saw arguably Jim Beaver’s, the actor who portrays Bobby, finest performance in the series. This is no slight praise for an actor of Beaver’s calibre. In my opinion, season 5 has been particularly emotionally brutal. I suppose with an apocalypse afoot, Lucifer roaming the earth, the impact will be greater. Certainly Dead Men kept those stakes high.

I felt the script maintained a terrific balance, giving us insights into the heart ache of the people who had lost loved ones, and being reunited with them, the horror of watching the zombies turn, and the satisfying action of dispatching the undead.

In true Supernatural fashion, the final moments brought things to an emotional climax. We find out that all of this chaos happened to send Bobby a message: you will suffer if you continue to help the Winchesters. One of the saddest moments in the episode, for me, was how Sam and Dean tried to assure themselves and Bobby that they would all be alright. In the end, their closest friend an ally looked small and broken.

The only part of the episode I would criticize would be elements of the denouement felt forced and contrived. It’s a tightrope act for writers: how to include enough information from previous episodes in the dialog to clue new viewers in, but not so much as to alienate the faithful. In this situation, I felt they failed. However, the emotional gravitas was assuredly there.

This season has had a lot of criticism that the writers have not paid enough attention to the apocalypse. Supernatural does not draw the kind of massive ratings that shows like American Idol do. Obviously, an apocalypse is an expensive proposition to film. Personally, I rather like this approach. Lucifer and Michael have waited eons to face off once again. I imagine that for immortal beings, their timelines would be dramatically different than our own. Also, we know that the stubbornness of the Brothers Winchester have put the evil one’s plans on hold.

I am very interested to see how the writers unfold the final act of the apocalypse. I only hope they make the same bold, courageous choices they have made throughout the show’s course. The final moment’s of Dead Men leave us with an image of Dean, Bobby and Sam staring into the funeral pyre for Bobby’s wife. The expressions on their faces paint a picture of loss, pain, sadness, suffering, and weariness. For their sakes, and ours, I hope that they emerge from the final conflict intact.