It is possible that in playing we can anticipate our liberation and with laughing rid ourselves of the bonds which alienate us from real life.
~ Jurgen Moltmann
I have recently been revisiting many of my thoughts about suffering, lamenting, and journeying with those in exile. Having been put off by the dominant self-indulgent and trite approaches that Christians (and the rest of society) tend to take toward suffering I fear that I have been missing a crucial part of journeying with the godforsaken. I have focused on genuinely empathising with such people, sharing in their cry, their pain, and their abandonment. And I still continue to do that… but that's only one part of the picture. The other bit, the bit that I've been missing, is how we go about doing this. If we are the Shekinah that goes forth to be with exiled people then we really do transform tears into laughter, isolation into solidarity, and death into new life.
This means — and this is the key of what I'm getting at — that even as we journey with those in exile, we will be known as delight-full people. This is so for two reasons. The first is because we remember. We remember the goodness of what God has done for us, especially in Christ. Therefore, the corollary of remembrance is gratitude. And this is what I've been missing. I had realised that God's goodness towards me required that I exhibit this goodness towards “the needy” but I was missing the fact that this action is performed fundamentally as an expression of gratitude. It was Christopher Wright's comments in Old Testament Ethics for the People of God that blew this door open in my mind. In my focus on lament I had focused on reminding God of the plight of the abandoned — lest he forget his covenant (yes, there is prophetic precedence for this). But what I was missing was the fact that my lack of gratitude revealed that it was I who had forgotten what God had already done. And, as C. Wright goes on to argue, without gratitude we lose the ethical implications of our own history and end up undergoing a moral decline that leads to outright disobedience.
The second reason why we are a delight-full people is because of our expectation. Not only do we remember what God has done, but we remember God's promises, and what God will do. Therefore (especially since we have already received the first-fruits of this in the coming of the Holy Spirit), we live as a people filled with joy. It is my recent research on the Lord's Supper that really has me thinking about this. Because we are assured that God is making all things new we can operate joyfully even in the midst of brokenness. The anticipatory and eucharistic aspects of the Lord's Supper make joy an unavoidable part of Christian living. This is not because we are cold-hearted or refuse to enter in the pain of others. We will still mourn with those who mourn for as long as they mourn, but sorrow will not have the last word. It is the root of joy that we have in the assurance of our hope that enables us to stay in those broken places. And it is the joy that we exhibit even in mourning that makes our mourning transformative.
Therefore, this allows us to operate with a much more playful ethic. Here Moltmann's comments in The Church in the Power of the Spirit become significant — especially in light of my own personal biases. Moltmann argues that a Western focus upon Jesus' Lordship has caused our ethic to be one that follows the structure of command and obedience. However, when one comes to appreciate the aesthetic side of Jesus' reign (that is to say, Jesus is the Lord of the cosmos but also the Lord of glory) our response can be much more festive. Having encountered the Father who runs out on the road to meet his prodigal children how can we not overflow with joy? As Moltmann also says in Theology and Joy, “Only the innocent, namely children, or those liberated from guilt, namely the beloved, are able to play.” It's as though we move into the margins and join the songs of lament only to discover that somehow along the way those songs have gained new strains and turned into songs of wonder and of praise. It's as though we join those dancing because their hearts are broken and somehow the dance transitions into a dance performed by overflowing hearts. And soon everybody is dancing, and laughing, and we realise that right here, right now, we are participating in the wedding banquet of the Lamb.

For you, there'll be no more crying,
For you, the sun will be shining,
And I feel that when I'm with you,
It's alright, I know it's right.
~Fleetwood Mac
This is the sort of people that we should be if we genuinely do believe that there will come a day when Christ will return and make all things new. For we are those who do affirm that one day there will be no more crying, one day all wounds will be healed, one day the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. If we believe this then this should be clear in our interactions. We should journey with those who are crying and those who are in darkness so that they too may glimpse this assurance. So that when we are with them they will know all will be right.
And the songbirds keep singing,
Like they know the score,
And I love you, I love you, I love you,
Like never before.
~ Fleetwood Mac

Over against the contemporary emphasis upon “being in the moment” and living within the “Eternal Now,” Christians are to be a people marked by remembrance and expectation.
The most definitive stages of history are the past and the future. The past is definitive because of the death and resurrection of Jesus and the out-pouring of the eschatological Spirit; and the future is (even more) definitive because it is in the future that all of history will be consummated and all creation will be made new.
This is not to say that Christian avoid the present through cheap sentimentality or utopian dreams. What is does mean is that Christians live within the present very much shaped by the past and the future — we do what we do now because we remember and we expect.
People with no memory or hope are trapped within the “Eternal Now” where they are unsure about what to do, or why they do what they do.
Slowly I am learning how to live with memory and hope. I firmly believe that understanding ourselves historically is essential to living transformatively.

But we should also note that [current] attitudes [held by the frustrated general public] fall far short of the ideas that animated the democratic revolutions. Working people of nineteenth century North America did not plead with their rulers to be more benevolent. Rather, they denied their right to rule.
~ Noam Chomsky
And, once again, this is where those who belong to much of the “Christ transforming Culture” approach (especially as it is presented by H.R. Niebuhr) essentially miss the point. They choose to operate from within the structures of power pleading for a little more morality, a little more social consciousness, a little more benevolence. If we fawn at the feet of the king perhaps he will throw us a bone.
Yet when Christians recognise that Jesus, and only Jesus, is our king and ruler we do not bow and scrape before corrupt powers that try to claim the authority of Christ. Instead we deny their right to rule over us and live within a Church that exists as its own polis. Of course, when we deny the lordship of these “satanic” powers (for these powers also try to claim the throne of heaven as their own) we can be assured that we are on the right track to genuinely transforming culture.

Gordon T. Smith, author of A Holy Meal: The Lord's Supper in the Life of the Church, suggests that there are seven motifs that give definition to the Lord's Supper — Remembrance, Communion, Forgiveness, Covenant, Nourishment, Anticipation, and Thanksgiving.
In speaking of remembrance Smith argues that celebrating the Lord's Supper as a memorial causes us to anchor our minds and hearts in a past event. Over against cultural voices that urge an ahistorical lifestyle, Smith argues that we must be able to remember otherwise our love becomes untruthful and our lives become meaningless. Therefore, it is the memory of Jesus' death and resurrection that takes priority over all the other memories that swirl around us.
However, remembrance is not merely an intellectual activity. This is especially evident in the Old Testament. The primary power of remembrance is that it causes the past to be made present. Remembrance is not nostalgic or cheaply sentimental, it is not an escape from the present into the past, but it is living within a past-shaped present. Not only is the past made present but the one we remember also becomes present — not that Christ is made present but we are awakened to the fact that Christ is already present in our midst.
Yet there is another side to remembrance in the Old Testament that Smith does not pick-up on. Not only is remembrance something that the people of God must focus upon but there are also times when the people of God must cause God to remember. This is particularly the case for those who are experience exile — for Christ is not always present in our midst. Exile, after all, is the experience of godforsakenness. Thus Exodus 2, the lament psalms, and several passages within the prophetic books, all speak of those who have been abandoned now crying out for God to remember the covenant he made with his people. As Exodus 2 says, “And the sons of Israel sighed because of the bondage and they cried out; and their cry for help because of their bondage rose up to God. So God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God saw the sons of Israel and God knew them.”
Now, I am quite convinced that much of the Church in North American is experiencing something akin to exile (I don't think this is the case because the Church has lost socio-political power; rather, I think that the fragmentation, disunity, and spiritual emptiness of many churches points to exile). In such a situation the Lord's Supper as a memorial can serve a dual purpose. It will cause the people of God to remember their true identity, and — when celebrated as a cry to heaven — it can also cause God to remember the new covenant that was inaugurated by Christ. In the Eucharist we remember who we are and remind God of who he is. Thus, there can be times, especially in exile, that celebrating the Lord's Supper does make Christ present once again.

For those who are interested another student has written an article in response to Dr. Stackhouse's critique of my article on Billy Graham. Here it is:
Upon reading Dr. Stackhouse’s response to Mr. Oudshoorn’s article on the Rev. Billy Graham, one thing stands out: Dr. Stackhouse’s criticism that the article lacked the sure foundation of serious scholarship was supported only by Dr. Stackhouse’s opinion. Consequently, in sorting out the merit of Mr. Oudshoorn’s theological and historical understanding of Rev. Graham’s legacy, we shall have to content in trading opinions. And while I am sure Dr. Stackhouse had good reason for not offering a scholarly rebuttal of his own (this was not the point of his article, there was not enough space to develop a thorough theological and historical treatment of Rev. Graham, etc.) his response begs a deeper question: why was he so inclined to write, and with no less zeal than Mr. Oudshoorn, a counter-point article in order to set the record straight?
I suspect Dr. Stackhouse’s ire was roused because of something other than Mr. Oudshoorn’s impressionistic journalism. Rather, it seems that Mr. Oudshoorn’s article has hit a nerve because of its subject, the Rev. Billy Graham. Rev. Graham, who has reached iconic status within the evangelical movement over the past half century, has come to represent much that we as Evangelicals see is good about Christianity. He is a man of deep character, he is the paragon of pastoral humility and compassion, he has given himself completely to God’s missional work in the world, and he has championed the value of each and every individual in the eyes of the Lord. Thus, when one questions Rev. Graham, one questions the very heart of our Evangelical self-identity. In this way, Rev. Graham is not simply a sacred cow, he is the sacred cow of modern Evangelicalism.
And this is why, his journalistic oversights aside, Mr. Oudshoorn is right to challenge the legacy of Rev. Graham. While I must concur with Dr. Stackhouse’s concern that Mr. Oudshoorn’s article may be laying the blame for the sandy foundations of the Evangelical church at the wrong door, and is further right to point out that Mr. Oudshoorn has selectively appropriated scripture in support of his argument, the point yet remains that if Rev. Graham represents much we appreciate about our Evangelical identity then he might very well also represent much that is wrong.
In this way Mr. Oudshoorn’s help in describing the relationship between Rev. Graham and the individualism that is washing away the Evangelical church is crucial if we are to recover a solid foundation. While it is true that those who come forward to accept “Jesus into their hearts” at one of Rev. Graham’s crusades are linked with and encouraged to become members of churches, it is also true that for Rev. Graham the church, at best, functions secondarily to the individual work of the Lord in a person’s life. Thus like those having come to know the Lord at a crusade, we as Evangelicals are left struggling to understand how the church should have any hermeneutical or soteriological claim on our lives.
To make the point, I want to suggest that the reason an article such as Mr. Oudshoorn’s has elicited a rejoinder from a Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College is not simply because of the merit (or lack thereof) of his journalism, but rather because he has put his finger on the glaring lack of significant ecclesiology in the work of both Rev. Graham and evangelical institutions such as ours. Outside of a Systematic C course, there are few conversations taking place about recovering the significance of the church for our salvation here at Regent College. And for this reason we should commend Mr. Oudshoorn for drawing our attention to this embarrassing deficiency in our theology.
Of course we should also expect the kind of response that Mr. Oudshoorn has received; for where the primacy of the individual person reigns supreme, a reminder that within our orthodox tradition salvation is wrought through the church rather than through our individual encounters with God will often be met with harshly, especially when that reminder comes through a tearing-down of our most precious sacred cow.

Over the summer I engaged in an ongoing dialogue about gay marriage with a New Testament scholar that I know in Toronto. I emailed him the post I wrote on July 28, 2005 entitled, “When Justice Conquers Holiness: Why I Support Gay Marriage.” Over the course of this debate I have decided to recant my position. The thing is, recanting is something I didn't want to do. I have a strongly negative emotional reaction to the idea of saying that homosexuals can't marry. The idea that God would not allow homosexuals to marry just doesn't make any sense to me. Yet that seems to be what the texts tell us. And so, as much as I kick and scream against it, I have decided to submit to another authority.
Over the course of this discussion I have realised how important it is to disagree with God if we are to be faithful to God. There are all sorts of tensions around the character of God as God is revealed in scripture and we should be careful not to resolve those tensions too easily. If I worship a God that I always agree with, a God that always makes sense to me, then I am in grave danger of worshipping a God created in my own image. If I am worshipping a God that is other than me, a God who possesses the qualities that Christians ascribe to God, then it is understandable that a finite creature like myself would sometimes not understand God, and sometimes strongly disagree with God as well. It is by submitting to a God that we do not always agree with that allows us to be made into God's image — instead of making God into our own images.
For those who are interested, I have included the email exchange that went on between my prof and I.
Prof:
I have read your recent meanderings and have a few questions about your
logic and a few of the holes in the logic. I have not read belo's book.
I have only been reading things that focus on the meaning of the text
and the thematic connections I have not focused on.
I marked your paragraphs by number from 1-10.
Paragraph 1 raises the justice tradition and the holiness tradition and
I am wondering if this is a correct assumption since much of what you
later say depends on this bifurcation, especially when in par 2 this
bifurcation has Jesus as the advocate for the one and his opponents as
the advocate for the other, putting the holiness tradition at a clear
disadvantage. A jew of Jesus' day would not have seen the argument and
discussion in such terms and divisions.
The move into par 3 that begins' It is for this reason..' left me
saying what is the connections between par 2 and 3 and it is not clear
to me the leap being made. never mind the leap in Brueggemann's logic
as you persent in par. 3
Par. 4 is bizarre. The holiness tradition is rooted in an urge for
order… Is this God's view? He raises the question of holiness
because it was humanity's role and Israel's vocation to be 'holy'
because God is holy and that the unredeemed world needed to be
presented with the image of God reflected in a true humanity that did just that.
To put this simply on the level of 'order' is to miss God's point, despite what Israel ended up doing with it.
Par. 5 is not how LGBTO would look at themselves. This only serves to
blanket the churches reaction which you are at odds with. The language
'the oppression of homosexuals' is a laden comment that is self-serving
and not categorically true. If you encourage homosexuality through
marriage, how do you know that YOU are not contributing to their
oppression that you accuse the Church of?
There is the need for a new creation perspective that integrates true
justice and true holiness which challenges either sense of bifurcation
that you continue to foster as the problem.
Par 6 the term porneia would no doubt include homosexuality.
Par 7, your exegesis of Rom 1 is superficially despite you desire to
'remain true to the text.' As Paul describes a society committed to
idotatry (the offspring of Adam) it will be a society that expresses
itself in homosexual terms, as one indicator of its condition. How has
God come to resolve that problem? Not by simply the institution of
marriage.
In par 8 you make a cavalier and unproven statement 'There is nothing
here that overthrows what Brueggemann says.' WHo cares what
Brueggemann says, if it is not what God says, it matters nothing.
Par 9 the homosexuality is not a choice comment is unprovable. The
church is not a 'community of sinners' but a community of new creations
who see humanity differently and should desire encouraging toward a new
creation practice. To use the tired argument that we are all sinners
and therefore what right do we have to challenge those who engage in
homosexuality because we cannot help ourselves in heterosexual sin
misses the point. You also mention the broader biblical context but do
not present the story as a move from creation to new creation. What is
God's expectation of his new creation world? It is not served by
assuming that it is part of that world to think of homosexuals as being
married.
Your paragraph 10 is a subjective anti-Church rant. What do you mean, 'the very act of marriage that redeems them?'
How about the 'creation mandate' and ROm 1 in the context of fallen
humanity and that new creation desires to offer true intimacy in the
renewed presence of YHWH, without making this about 'justice' and
'rights' etc.
I find your comments open to many holes, that need plugged and I would
not be convinced by such self-serving stuff being passed off as a
statement of justice.
By the way I read your paper on speaking Christianly. I wonder about
the 'words' and not the practice comments. Words seem too narrow an
idea. ALso a statement on pg. 7 'the church that seeks to exist as a
counter-culture yet chooses to speak the language of culture will
become
absorbed and marketed' might be a good thesis to prove.
Over to you buddy boy
Dan:
You've challenged me a great deal. Let me try to continue moving the discussion forward. I'm typing a whole lot but I really would appreciate your further thoughts on this. Despite my biases I really do have a desire to be faithful. Increasingly I am developing an appreciation for those who have authority over me and I am finding myself increasingly willing to admit
that I'm wrong and humble myself (I hope).
(1) You are correct in thinking that much of what I say is premised upon Brueggemann's comments about the justice and holiness traditions. Reading Dempster's book has caused me to revisit much of what Brueggemann
says and it seems he carries a particular bias against creation theology, holiness traditions, and temple ideology which — although this may be an important countering voice to the ways in which those things have been abused in the context from which he writes — don't do justice to the text. If Brueggemann is wrong then the foundation is knocked out from under
me.
(2) Let me try to clarify how I understand the division. I agree that there is no sharp and clear bifurcation between justice and holiness — Brueggemann notes this but still does a pretty neat and tidy job of seperating them anyway — but I think the question raised is one in relation to cleanness and uncleanness. What has changed in this regard after Christ? I think what Brueggemann is trying to do (following Belo, I think) is to argue that Jesus
radically changes the notion of what is clean or unclean. Thus his table fellowship with sinners, tax-collecters, prostitutes, and his contact with
lepers, etc. It is no longer that the clean person comes into contact with the unclean person and is thereby defiled. Now the unclean person is made clean by contact with the clean person.
(3) Of course this would suggest some sort of fundamental transformation (a new creation). As you rightly note, I don't really pick up on this so let me
try to do so now. I was worried that when I was writing down these (somewhat rambling) thoughts that the argument I used is the same as others who would justify Christian violence and other such atrocities so I hope I can seperate myself from that (and from the whole Niebuhrian school of thought). Of course this hits me pretty hard because I've been spending a whole lot of the last few years wondering just where in the world this new creation is occuring. Of course it would be so much easier if people could just become
Christians and God would change their sexual orientation so that it reflects the original order of creation. But that doesn't happen. It would be great
if God healed all the lepers that became Christians but that's not happening. But this is where I try to distinguish between what I would call the genetics of
fallenness and the practice of sinfullness. Engaging in acts of violence is the practice fo sinfullness (even if there is a genetics of fallenness that it is
premised upon) while a homosexual orientation seems more like a genetics issue — like being born mortal. Of course we believe that as new creations we have overcome death — but that doesn't mean we will never die. Faith in the resurrection allows us to die well. Similarly (and perhaps you will say that my analogy doesn't fit here) homosexuality, like mortality, is something that must be practiced Christianly — and the Christian context for any sort of sexual
relationship is marriage. That's why I talk about marriage as a redemptive, as opposed to sinful, act.
Let me pick up on another example (although this issue is also contentious). Jesus, when speaking of divorce, argues that divorce was not ideal but was permitted because of human sinfulness. Now, if one thinks that divorce and remarriage can still be permitted after Jesus, can a similar argument not be
made for marriage and homosexuality? It's not ideal but it is permissible due to human fallenness. It seems to me that this is a movement towards the true intimacy that you mention.
(4) This, therefore, would be the beginning of my response to your more faithful, and detailed, exegesis of Ro. 1. Your connection of homosexuality to
idolatry is accurate and so I wonder if Christian marriage is a way in which homosexuality can be practiced while worshipping the one true God — until
the new creation of all things and the full consumation of God's kingdom.
So let me tie up a few other loose ends.
(5) Granted the whole homosexuality is “not a choice” is unprovable. But I'm not using this argument to support the notion of the Church is a community of
sinners. I whole-heartedly agree that we are a new creation people. I hope me last few comments how shown how I differ from the view that “well, what the hell, we're all sinners anyway.” You'll notice that my perspective still wouldn't be widely accepted by the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bi, trans, questioning) community because I argue that a homosexual orientation is a symptom of fallenness. However, there are instances where I think homosexuality is not genetic but is still permissible. I have done a great
deal of work with women who have survived repeated and exceedingly violent sexual assaults at the hands of men. Such women have quite understandably turned to other women in order to find intimacy. Shall we say
that such a thing is never permissible? I know that God can (and does, I've seen it happen) heal people from even this kind of trauma — but what of those who have to wait until the resurrection for such a healing? It seems that gay marriage is a way that the Church can journey with these people until such a
time.
(6) You mention that gay marriage may actually contribute to the persecution of the LGBTQ community. However, my focus isn't so much on overcoming
persecution altogether (persecution is, after all, fundamental to my understanding of Christian identity). Rather, my question is: how is the Church to journey with the LGBTQ community? It makes sense
that there will continue to be persecution for, as long as the Church is the Church, it will be persecuted.
(7) Finally, I am revisiting old thoughts I had about the Church being a community of intimacy that enables those who are celibate to find fulfillment. Perhaps if the Church were the community she was intended to be — a community of radical welcome and self-giving love — marriage would not be such an issue for either heterosexual or homosexual people. It seems to me
that one should find one's deepest fulfillment from being a member of the people of God, and, if that is truly the case, the door is opened for a way of living celibately that does not seem too hard to carry.
Well, that's a mouthful. I'll be eagerly awaiting your response — you've got a track record of making me recant certain beliefs and so I'll see how this
plays out.
Prof:
I have been thinking about what you have been writing about this same-sex marriage thing and I think I am hearing what you are saying but it is not either good logic or good theology, from where I sit. The issue of marriage as redemptive is a big chestnut that needs to be cracked, for it is built on some poor analogies from an over active mind that desires compassion to be express where scorn has been the most obvious response from the people of God. I cannot ask you to detach compassionately from the situations in order to gain some perspective but your 'desire to be faithful' despited biases is the place to build on.
To connect homosexual orientation genetically to the issue of being born
mortal is a hopeful leap; but alas one which is not given biblical justification. The later is clearly diagnosed in scripture; the former is not. TO compare this to the question of divorce is to appreciated that, despite the church debates over the meaning of Jesus' statements, Jesus did say something about divorce and hardness of heart, while he did not do the same for homosexuality.
The creation mandate is the beginning of the story and the end of the story. How does God's new creation reality address that and which same-sex marriage, despite offering some sense of rights and privileges and maybe even intimacy, does not?
THere will be many of your gay friends who will not be fully 'healed' until the resurrection. yet God promises them, in Christ, the ability for true intimacy now. That is not to say that gay marriage is the Church's avenue to journey, primarily because the church would be legitimating, what Paul understood as an _expression of fallenness and, dare I say, idolatry. Idolatry must always be replaced with true worship and gay marriage is not it.
Your question is a valid one: How is the Church to journey with the LGBTQ community? First, the Church needs to appreciate its qospel mandate in new creation terms and then to understand how 'rehumanization' of all people is central to the gospel. Second, the Church has to confess its sin of persecution of those exploited peoples and those who have chosen certain lifestyles. THird, the church has to get its hand dirty, in a true priest-king fashion, and declare the dominion of God to all peoples. The people of God need to be the people of God and living with true intimacy is possible, even for a celibate.
Your starting points need to be evaluated and your presuppositions test.
This journey is also about you and the issues you have and are dealing
with. Test every assumption, for what you are speaking of is vital and
could be 'lethal.'
Dan:
I am grateful for the thought you have given this and your willingness
to dialogue with me despite my biases. I imagine things will be quite
busy for you over the next few months. I miss your courses and hope
your students realise what a privilege it is to be in your classes.
I only have a few more objections to buttress what may indeed be poor
logic and theology.
(1) You are right to note that Jesus was remembered for speaking about
divorce but not about homosexuality. Perhaps in this regard (and in
the
analogy I make linking homosexuality to mortality) I am engaging in a
leap that is unjustified. However, I can't help but wonder if the
issue
of homosexuality wasn't really “on the radar” with Jesus. Granted it
was a part of the Greco-Roman world but how much contact would Jesus
have with that issue? I've been reading James Dunn's “Jesus
Remembered”
and if Jesus' ministry was mostly located within Galilee it's not
surprising to me that we have no record of Jesus teaching on this
topic.
Of course, there are many ethical situations that we face that Jesus
never spoke about explicitly. We are forced to try and live faithfully
by learning from the teaching trajectory started by Jesus. Thus,
although there is no specific teaching on slavery in the Jesus
tradition, we can develop a faithful Christian response that seeks to
eliminate slavery based on Jesus' words and deeds. Other examples
abound: we can say that Christians should oppose nuclear armament, not
because Jesus taught about nuclear weapons, but because of his
teachings
on violence, love of enemies, etc., and because of the way he lived his
life. Naturally it seems easier to draw these conclusions because the
links are more obvious. In situations like homosexuality where it
seems
like Scripture is much more silent and the links are not so obvious (or
are they just not obvious to me because of my biases?) it is more
difficult to know how to respond. I worry that in such situations it
becomes easy to rely on
other traditions and we can end up piling up burdens on people that
they are not able to carry.
So I think I need a little more to refute my analogy other than the
argument that Jesus is silent on the topic. I still wonder if I'm onto
something with the comparison to divorce.
(2) Continuing with the topic of a “redemptive” understanding of
marriage (that big chestnut waiting to be cracked), I wish you could
explain to me more about why marriage does not provide a context where
homosexuals can engage in true worship and no longer engage in
idolatry.
You simply say that gay marriage is not the context for true worship.
Can you explain why not?
(3) I appreciate your threefold response as to how the Church is to
journey with the LGBTQ community. I am intrigued by your emphasis on
the Church learning to live as God's priest-king people (the whole idea
of priesthood has been increasingly exciting to me as I've dived into
some OT studies and developed a bit more of an understanding of that
role. It seems to be sorely neglected by many of us Christians today)
that extends God's dominion to all people. Could you fill out a little
more about what you mean by that?
(3) As I have been thinking about this issue I have tried to examine
what my biases are and how they may be warped… but we all have our
blind-spots and I would find it helpful if you shared what you perceive
my biases to be. One bias that I have tried to avoid is the whole
notion that intimacy is only (or most fully) experienced in sex. I
really don't believe that. I think one's deepest intimacy should come
from being a part of the people of God. So, I don't think what I write
hinges on the popular notion of sex and intimacy. After all, I am
living as a single person and I don't feel some sort of emptiness or
deficiency because I am not married or not in a sexual relationship.
That said, I do think marriage and sexual intimacy is a great blessing
from God and I am trying to examine why some people groups may be
excluded from that — or what God-given boundaries exist around it.
Perhaps there are other assumptions and presuppositions you have picked
up on that you could share
with me?
(4) In my efforts to be faithful (as much as I have studied and read
about this) I have also been spending time praying. I was all set to
recant and submit on this issue after receiving your last email but as
I
was praying I felt fairly strongly that — at least for the moment — I
shouldn't recant quite yet. Man, I hate to even pull that card (as if
what I feel when I pray is definitive for Christian living, that's one
helluva dangerous slope as well), but I'm just trying to be honest.
Prof:
Classes started yesterday and we had a good beginning in all three.
In your last email you begin a thought with ' I can't help but wonder.'
That is another way of saying 'I hoping (with little evidence to
support my hopes.' My radar is up with sentences like that political
correctness.
Because homosexuality was a particular Gentile malady and not on a
Jewish neve mind Jesus radar screne is not really the point. It was
you
who made the analogy between something Jesus said (divorce) and
homosexuality. You can't have it both ways!
Slavery is a dehumanizing ethical evil, no questions. Are you prepared
to say that the homosexuality discussion should be approached like
slavery. If so does the analogy say that homosexuality is evil and
dehumanizing? Your cope out on scriptures silence is the 'fear' that
it
will become 'easy to rely on other traditions and we can end up piling
up burdens on people that they are not able to carry.' Come on, deal
with the issues here and not your fears (or biases). Scripture has not
left us in a vacuum on how to deal with human idolatry and
dehumanization and does not need to give a commandment with precision.
That does not give us license nor freedom to violate people in our
responses.
Marriage does not provide a context where homosexuals can engage in
true worship and no longer engage in idolatry, because we are not in
the
position to try and reform (or 'redeem' a term I resent being used this
way) idolatry. Through the power of God's new age Spirit we are to
implement God's plan to tear down idols.
The 'priest-king' implication comes from the creation mandate to
'cultivate and keep the earth.' It is carried through similarly with
the priests in the tabernacle and temple and it reflects the mission of
Jesus in whose steps we follow.
You mention that you think 'marriage and sexual intimacy are a great
blessing from God and I am trying to examine why some people may be
excluded from that.' Marriage may be a symbol of true intimacy, but it
is still only a symbol, and not the real thing. Was Jesus able to
express true intimacy? I assume he was not married (gay or otherwise).
WHy offer people a symbol, investing it with more life than it can or
was ever intended to bare. Is doing that not what Israel did with the
temple or circumcision etc. asking the symbol to give life, which it
was
unable to do?
My favourite paragraph was your last one. After trying to logic your
way through this discussion your play the 'reflective pietist' card.
Be
honest but be sure, as we must all, confront, your desires and your
blindspots. Again this is as much about you and your journey as it is
issue related.
Dan:
I have read your last email several times. This has continued to be a
topic of thought and prayer for me, and I really feel that the thing
for
me to do now is to submit to your teaching and the authority of the
Church. I really wasn't trying to pull the “pietist reflective” card.
I wasn't trying to use that to buttress my point, I really was just
trying to be honest.
Perhaps (and here I am being quite vulnerable and that makes me a wee
bit nervous) I am somewhat blinded to the significance of the issue
because of a sexual relationship I had in the past. Perhaps I have
developed something of a blindspot to just how sacred sexual intimacy
is
and how deeply inappropriate sexual relationships are connected with
idolatry. Funny, when I was coming out of that relationship, I
realised
how I had really made that woman my god — I was able to connect that
sexual relationship with idolatry in my own life. Needless to say that
should make me very cautious about making my position an authoritative
position.
So, you've got me, I recant.
Once again I affirm the idea the one's truest fulfillment, and one's
deepest intimacy, comes from being in Christ and belonging to the
people
of God. That was never the issue for me. I agree that this debate is
just as much about me and the journey I am on — a journey that is
leading me deeper in intimacy with marginalised people (that was the
reason why I compared this issue to slavery, slaves and homosexuals,
are
two oppressed bodies of people).
Yet it seems that this sort of intimacy is lacking in most Christian
communities. So, as I journey with people from the LGBTQ community I
almost feel like I, even though I'm heterosexual, need to take a vow of
celibacy or something. I mean I'm not really confident that most
churches actually offer this sort of intimacy to anybody (gay or
straight). It's almost like we need some heterosexuals who are willing
to take on celibacy and singleness so that these sort of communities
can
develop. Maybe the Roman Catholics are onto something in this regard.
But then again maybe this way of thinking is still investing the symbol
of marriage with too much meaning. Ideally it shouldn't matter if
people married or singled journey with the LGBTQ community but, given
where we are right now, perhaps there needs to be some people who are
willing to deliberately choose singleness until the churches that exist
around us more truly resemble the Church as Paul describes it. I don't
know.

Well, I'm going to step outside of my regular writings and suggest a few blogs to those who read mine. There are some pretty serious Christian scholars blogging these days and so, for those who are interested, I'll list a few of their sites.
www.benwitherington.blogspot.com. Ben Witherington is a New Testament scholar of some caliber. He teaches at Asbury Theological Seminary.
www.forsclavigera.blogspot.com. This is the blog of James K.A. Smith a theologian with special interest in postmodernism and another movement known as radical orthodoxy. He teaches at Calvin College.
www.sacradoctrina.blogspot.com. Joel Garver is Christian philosopher. He teaches at La Salle University.
www.willimon.blogspot.com. Recently made a Bishop in the Methodist Church Will Willimon is a leading figure in pastoral issues. Prior to this he was the chaplain (and also a prof) at Duke University.
www.markdroberts.com. This dude is a pastor and an author with a special interest in Christian origins and contemporary cultural issues. He currently serves in a Presbyterian Church in California.
www.jesuscreed.org. This is the blog of Scot McKnight. Scot is a New Testament scholar with an interest in the Emerging Church (non)movement. He teaches at North Park University.
www.theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com. This blog belongs to Doug Groothuis who is a philosophy prof at Denver Seminary. I love his bio: “Professor of Philosophy and the author of ten books. He has been in a bad mood since 1998. Some would say longer.”
And finally:
www.livejournal.com/users/ericisrad. This is Eric's blog. He's a web-programmer who talks a helluva lot of theology. He constantly saves my ass when other people trash talk me on my blog and, if you read my blog, you should read his.

I recently submitted a revised edition of my earlier post on Billy Graham to a student published paper at my school. This is the revised version:
One of the regular critiques of Medieval Christendom highlights the way in which infant baptism became the method by which entire societies and whole nations of people were made Christian. There was little focus on discipleship or the formation of a Christian identity that posed any sort of challenge to the reigning powers. Within Christendom one was simply born into both the Church and the state and one revealed oneself to be a model Christian by living as a model citizen. Naturally those of us who live after Christendom have good reason to question such an understanding of Christian identity.
However, what we tend to overlook is that this is essentially what Billy Graham did to American Christianity in the twentieth century. Only Reverend Graham made it even easier. No ritual was required – all that one had to do was ask Jesus into one’s heart in order to be a born again Christian. Once more being a good Christian was equated with being a good citizen. Christians were those committed to the morals and values of America. With such an understanding of Christianity there was little need for any sort of ongoing discipleship, identity formation, or the practice of the disciplines that build Christian virtues. Billy could just travel from arena to arena and soon America was (yet again?) a Christian nation.
The result of this was churches closely linked to social and political power full of people who didn’t have a clue about what it meant to live as a part of the people of God. Consequently, as the Christian gloss over the practice of socio-political power has become increasingly unnecessary these churches have discovered themselves to be impotent, uninteresting, and empty. Essentially Reverend Graham built God’s house on the sand. But, as Jesus said, such houses will not stand when the storm comes. The storm has come and the house that Billy built has collapsed.
After Christendom’s history of false baptisms the Church needs to return to a truer understanding of this sacrament. After all, one becomes a Christian not by having Christ “in me” but by being in Christ. Graham proclaimed a gospel that placed Jesus in my heart and thereby made me, the individual, the body of Christ. Yet St. Paul is clear that what matters is not having Jesus in my heart but being in Christ – and this is what baptism is all about. One is baptized into Christ and into Christ’s body, the Church. We, the Church (not I, the individual) are the body of Christ.
Therefore, baptism rightly understood is seen as the act by which one becomes committed to the discipleship, the formation, and the discipline of the Church. Of course this is much more demanding than simply asking Jesus into one’s heart, and I suspect that it is the demands of discipleship (disguised as an aversion to ritual?) that have caused baptism to lose its significance in the contemporary Church. However, it is crucial that we recover the centrality of baptism. For since it links the individual believer to the body of Christ it is a genuinely salvific act.
It should be emphasized that those who undergo this baptism cannot remain on intimate or comfortable terms with socio-political powers. In baptism one becomes crucified with Christ – and Christ was crucified by the socio-political powers. Therefore, to try and wield such power is a (literally) violent contradiction of Christian identity.
Once again Graham’s (per)version of the gospel misses this central point. Billy takes the gospel of the New Testament – the good news of Jesus’ Lordship – and turns it into a message that offers individual souls a way to get into heaven when the body dies. Such an individualistic, disembodied, and otherworldly gospel means that Billy has no problem being connected to socio-political powers. Yet when one understands the gospel as the proclamation of Jesus’ Lordship one cannot help but be drawn into conflict with state powers. It is baptism into the communal practice of cruciformity that is the true foundation of God’s House.
Interestingly enough Dr. John Stackhouse wrote a response that will be printed in this week's paper. For those who are curious, here it is:
I write in regard to Dan’s piece, “Jesus in My Heart: How Billy Graham Built God’s House on Sand.” I am dismayed by it.
To be sure, I am not against vigorous, opinionated journalism. (The record shows that I have undertaken a bit of it myself.) Nor am I against criticism of the North American evangelical movement. (Ditto.)
I want to say, furthermore, that I like Dan personally, I have enjoyed having him in my courses, and I respect his commitment especially to the poor. He is a zealous Christian.
Alas, this article shows some of his zeal, at least, to be “without knowledge” (Rom. 10:2). As one who has published scholarly research on Billy Graham, I can categorically say that Dan does not understand Brother Graham either historically or theologically.
Historically, Billy Graham has not played the role Dan ascribes to him in the development of either evangelicalism or American culture. The tensions in American culture that trouble Dan about religion and society go back to the Puritans of America’s founding. There is no big change with Graham in these tensions, and it is wildly inaccurate, not to say libelous, to lay these issues at his door.
Theologically, Billy Graham simply does not say what Dan thinks he says. Having myself listened to dozens of Graham’s sermons and read hundreds of pages of his writing and of his biographers’, I wonder on what basis Dan presumes to characterize Billy Graham’s message. Graham has always emphasized holiness of life and the importance of church membership, and his organization has worked hard in both publications and in programs to link those who sign “decision cards” at rallies with local churches to avoid exactly the kind of cheap conversion against which Dan inveighs.
Others in our community likely will want to take issue with Dan”s soteriological and ecclesiological musings, including his highly selective reading of the New Testament, in which he privileges the language of “in Christ” while ignoring even denigrating–the multiple uses of Christ in us (e.g., John 15:1-10; Gal. 2:20; Col. 1:27).
For now, I will simply point out that Dan has built his criticism of Billy Graham not on the rock of serious scholarship, but on the sand of journalistic impression. Such a criticism cannot be allowed to stand, and it will not.
John G. Stackhouse, Jr.
Sangwoo Youtong Chee Professor of Theology and Culture
Yowza!