Rage: Sing, Blog, Thomas' Rage.

“Rage:
Sing, Goddess, Achilles' rage,
Black and murderous, that cost the Greeks
Incalculable pain, pitched countless souls
Of heroes into Hades' dark,
And left their bodies to rot as feasts
For dogs and birds, as Zeus' will was done.
Begin with the clash between Agamemnon--
The Greek warlord--and godlike Achilles.”

The first lines of Homer’s Iliad.

Rage. And countless, pointless deaths. All as the will of God.

I need a minute. I need a god-damned minute. I've got my own rage.

………………

This week, news dropped from the international charity World Vision that they would begin to allow same-sex couples to work for their organization. They did not affirm homosexual marriages as good or bad. They did not claim that practicing homosexuality was moral or immoral. They merely said they wanted to allow homosexual Christians to have the opportunity to work for World Vision the same as heterosexual Christians.

And the evangelical community lost their mind.

People called World Vision apostates. Some said this ultimately shows LESS compassion for the poor by showing disdain or apathy for their eternal souls. One man said it was a betrayal to the kids they serve. Scores of people flocked to the internet to proclaim they would no longer support the organization, and thus, the children and poor families they serve.

All because World Vision said they wanted to give a gay person the opportunity to cook, vaccinate, and otherwise serve the poor.

Less than two days later, World Vision backtracked, reversed their hiring practices, and even apologized for the confusion they caused the evangelical community about … here it is… their unwavering commitment to the authority of Scripture.

And now I'm going to lose my mind.

……………..

This might be the epitome of human arrogance and sinful behavior right here. I have such disgust for my brothers and sisters in Christ right now I can barely put together coherent sentences.

The organization’s mission is to offer food, clothing, medicine, education – the basic subsistence level care to relieve poverty and human suffering. All things we Americans take for granted. Things every American considers the bare necessities and gives their children without a second thought.

But the concept of a gay person offering that same aid is so repugnant to the evangelical sensibility that they would hold those services – THE VERY SURVIVAL OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING – in order to ensure their own sense of righteousness isn’t transgressed.

I can barely even speak my teeth are clenched so hard right now.

Let’s take a moment and look at the actual words that Richard Stearns, CEO of World Vision, said concerning the inclusion of gay Christians.

“Through our many discussions and much prayer, we began to discern some clarity around this issue. You see, World Vision’s mission is not the same as that of our local churches; nor are we a body of theologians whose responsibility is to render biblical advice and interpretations of theological matters. We are, as our mission statement so clearly expresses, “an international partnership of Christians whose mission is to follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice, and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God.” And it is this mission that unites us—Baptist, Pentecostal, Seventh-day Adventist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Orthodox, nondenominational, etc.—more than 50 different expressions of the Christian faith represented within WVUS alone. In fact, for 60 years the Christian mission of World Vision has been a platform uniting followers of Christ around the world. 

As World Vision employees, we are first and foremost united in our response to Jesus’ call to follow Him and to serve the poor. This unity gives us space to acknowledge a range of views on issues among the Christian churches we attend and the denominations we represent. Those issues include methods of baptism, divorce and remarriage, views on evolution, the role of women in church leadership, and whether birth control is acceptable. At World Vision we hold a strong view of the authority of Scripture in the life of the church and in the lives of each of us as followers of Christ, but we intentionally choose not to require specific beliefs or practice in any of these debated issues as conditions of employment at World Vision U.S. In other words, we don’t have a list of issues on which we mandate agreement as a litmus test for hiring. Instead, we leave these areas under the authority of the various church bodies to which each of us belongs and to the freedom of all of our employees to discern for themselves, fully understanding that there is a range of views within and among our churches.” (Emphasis mine.)

On what planet is withdrawing food from a starving person considered “good news?” Who wants to be a part of a Kingdom that regulates the bare necessities needed for existence based on the moral purity of the person handing it out??! And for 60 years, Christians have been united under the mission of World Vision despite theological and moral disagreement. What God creates human souls, has them born into abject poverty, and then decides his elect group of followers can’t feed them because the person who wants to cook the food or make the copies in the home office puts his genitals in the “wrong hole.”

WHO CARES?! I have to say, if God turns out to be more concerned about one guy having sex with another man instead of the fact that millions of people are dying without basic access to food and water, he isn't worth our worship. He is no different that the Greek gods and goddesses we read in ancient epics that played chess with human souls.

But, that kind of God isn't the one I see in Jesus. And she’s not the one I hear about from the prophets. And he isn't the God that I have experienced. And I am not alone.

God cares about the poor. God redeems those who experience injustice. God upholds all those who fall, whether from the weight of poverty or as an act of submission crying out “Get away from me, Lord. I am a sinful man.” It is in truly knowing this God that I cannot help but be disgusted by the stark contrast I am seeing – a God that would have his followers starve out the poor in order to shun and shame someone who fell in love in a disagreeable manner. It makes me want to spit.

………………..

Ok. I have calmed down a tad.

I keep hearing this word “sin” getting thrown about. There is this (sometimes implicit) accusation that liberal Christians are afraid to use the word sin but the evangelical community is the stalwart and courageous remnant staying true to the truth of the Gospel. Or that liberal Christians are erasing the concept of sin from Christianity.

Let me disabuse everyone of that notion right now.

If there were ever a better time to talk about the incredible amount of Scripture concerning greed, I don’t know when it would be. In fact, many of the Bible verses I see getting thrown around as proof that homosexual Christians shouldn’t serve the poor for World Vision ALSO LIST GREED as a chief sin to avoid.

The reason why liberal incredulity over this isn't devolving into a slap fest of each wing accusing the other of ignoring sin is because it would miss the entire point! World Vision’s mission relies on sinners of all varieties being able to come under the big tent of the service of the Kingdom of God. In fact, I think it could be argued that one of their key evangelizing goals is to convert the rich and greedy sinners into servants of the oppressed and “least of these.” And that goal is accomplished by owning a really big tent that is open to all without prerequisites.

Also, sin is not simply some list of things we should avoid doing. It is a placeholder for the fact that we aren't God. It is a state of being. It is the quintessential quality of humanity: imperfection. Yet the other quintessential quality is our desire to not be that way – our constant struggle, as individuals and as a race of living beings, to be better.

This is something the evangelical community can never understand. Because for them, the equation that leads to heaven is one of repentance for specific actions. And simply being isn't specific enough of an action. And of course, it doesn't give one that sense of moral superiority that offers assurance of being “saved.”

The height of sin very well might be when an entire group of people feels their own imperfections are excusable while another group is somehow more imperfect and beyond repair. And that lack of humility is only worsened by taking an entire class of vulnerable people as hostages. They effectively lifted their own sense of righteousness to the place of God – choosing what lives are worth saving and which lives are worth sacrificing.

I am still beyond shocked by this whole thing.

So will I stop supporting World Vision because they have reversed their policy? No. Not at all. And I encourage everyone reading to support their mission despite the fact they caved to the callused sociopathic wing of the Church.

And in this moment, even though I want so badly to be angry forever and to never fall back into the naïve hope that evangelicals could learn what it means to empathize in a way that mimics our Lord Jesus, World Vision reminds me of our end goal:

“Together we share a quest for justice, peace, reconciliation, and healing in a broken world.”

I welcome the opportunity to feed the hungry and heal the sick with my evangelical brothers and sisters – the ones I feel so much rage towards right now. I need to find forgiveness and mercy. And there might not be a better way to do that than to set aside our differences and join forces by helping relieve human suffering and ensuring that all of God’s children have the basics necessary for survival.

And perhaps while I undertake this journey, my evangelical brothers and sisters will find it in their hearts to invite our homosexual Christian brethren along for the journey as well. And through the mutual exposure, true peace, reconciliation, and healing in this broken, messed up whore of a Church can be forged.

God’s will cannot be to forfeit so many human lives and cause incalculable pain all for the sake of self-righteous rage, whether mine or theirs. We are better than Achilles and Agamemnon. God is not Zeus. Other human beings are not pawns to be played to serve our own ends. We have an obligation to them by holy edict from our Savior as well as the reason-based claims of a common humanity and those obligations do not rise and fall with the policy changes of who stands beside us in that service!

I’m seven times seventy scraping knees. I need to give forgiveness and mercy just as I so desperately need it. I am a man. But I am a criminal.

It is because of his great love we are not consumed, his compassion never fails. May we all remember that humble place we end every day – as an imperfect human in need of reconciliation and healing. Shame on us all when we forget it.

Worshipping a Book.

Here are three very prominent, evangelical churches describing the Bible:

“We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the verbally inspired word of God, the final authority for faith and life, inerrant in the original writings, infallible and God–breathed (2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Peter 1:20, 21; Matt. 5:18; John 16:12,13).”

“The Bible is God’s word to all men. It was written by human authors, under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the supreme source of truth for Christian beliefs and living. Because it is inspired by God, it is truth without any mixture of error. (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Timothy 1:13; Psalm 119:105,160, 12:6; Proverbs 30:5)”

“We believe the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God and that men were moved by the Spirit of God to write the very words of Scripture. Therefore, we believe the Bible is without error. … By obedience to the Word of God and daily yielding to the Spirit of God, every believer should mature and be conformed to the image of Christ.”

(I appreciate the last church not swarming me with obviously out of context proof texts. Also, take a note of the first one: VERBALLY. Does that mean OUT LOUD? This development kind of blows my mind.)

These three churches represent the heartbeat of evangelical thinking. Local church pastors look to these churches for signals and then turn and convey those ideas down to their congregations. Moreover, our modern technology has allowed people all over the globe to sit under their tutelage and guidance – to be a long-distance community member in a way.

These three statements of faith are powerful. They hold sway and articulate a point of view held by many.

When I began my graduate studies, I wanted to study ethics in a way that would use the Bible as the primary foundation of all ethical norms in order to be more ecumenical and be able to build bridges theologically. I wanted to “speak their language” as I once did when I was amongst their ranks. But two classes in, I realized I could no longer do this and would never want to. Why? Because the Bible is not what they say it is, at least not the way they mean it. And I don’t want to participate in the game of building a false god to defend my agenda like these three descriptions do.

All three refer to the infallibility of the Bible, the idea that it is without error. I have heard this line my entire life growing up in the evangelical community. But if you work hard enough, you can make the Bible say just about anything you want concerning how we should behave now. The Bible isn't a script for our lives that we either choose to follow or not as time marches on. It is a narrative of the past documenting the journey others took trying to figure out what was good and true and right for their lives in those particular contexts. It’s an historical narrative, not an ethical treatise, not a book on canon law.

What troubles me so much about those three paragraphs and the general idea behind them is that they do very little to demonstrate the difficulty and complexity in deciphering where our faith fits into deciding how we live our modern lives as democratic citizens in a pluralistic society.* If you and I personally believe this about the Bible and orient our personal life towards that belief, what does that mean for how we write laws with constitutional limits? How do we coerce another human as an equal citizen based on a belief in the inerrancy of a holy text to which they don’t subscribe? And most importantly, how do we as Christians presume to tell someone else which parts of the Bible are not subject to cultural differences (homosexuality) but others are (slavery)? Who gets to be the final authority on the Bible’s interpretation?

What these statements of faith fail to recognize is that the Bible isn’t self-interpreting. We, as humans, have to translate it, read it, and interpret it, which can lead people in a million different directions. Mother Theresa vs. Pope Urban II. The preferential option for the poor vs. the Crusades. Westboro Baptist Church vs. the Confessing Church.

Even if we conceded that the Bible was inspired by God, is inerrant, and is the ultimate authority on how humans should live their lives, that would not automatically lead to the conclusion that God wants us to build a society that coerces people to live that way. Why? Because despite our good intentions and our certainty, we might unknowingly be Pope Urban II or Westboro Baptist instead of Mother Theresa. Those who led the Crusades (as well as those who followed them) all thought they were doing the right thing. They weren’t. So we made a society that tries to protect us from that happening again. And that’s a very good thing!

So do we just throw the Bible out, then? How do we look at the Bible in a productive, nuanced way that helps us understand how we live our lives and how we create a good society?

My pastor used to say something that has stuck with me for many years. In speaking about his mission despite his own imperfections, he would say, “God hits straight with a crooked stick.” Over the years, I have heard a phrase over and over again, “God spoke to me through what you said.” In my life, I have felt like I brushed up against the divine in situations we would call anything BUT perfect, inerrant, or inspired. At funerals, in hospitals, in moments of absolute despair, in poverty, in hell on earth. Yet, God was there. And I felt in tune with her presence and will.

Since when did God start requiring perfection to do his work? After all, even the Garden of Eden was merely “good,” not perfect.

There is a subtle beauty in the story of the Bible, a perfection if you will, that has nothing to do with its historical accuracy or its inerrancy. It is a narrative, a play, and it invites us to participate (These are ideas put forward by N.T. Wright, by the way.) The Bible is a story of humanity, throughout history, attempting to discern who God is and what he wants for us as individuals and as his creation. And in that story, we find God attempting to meet with the authors and protagonists in meaningful ways. And the story invites us to continue that journey and to continue meeting God, seeing her in her creation and finding the best way to reconcile back to her.

The PURPOSE of the Bible is perfect, even if its words aren't always. The content of the Bible outlines the journey over history of our spiritual ancestors trying to discern who God is. It is messy. And scattered. And contradictory. Just like you and I are. As Walt Whitman says, “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.” We are crooked sticks and so is the Bible, but that doesn't mean it can’t fulfill the purpose of a perfect creator.

Historical accuracy is not a prerequisite for something being true.

Let’s think about the parable of the Prodigal Son. It is this beautiful and compelling story told by Jesus about a young boy who takes his inheritance early, squanders it away, finds himself living a life that he knows could be better, humble returns to his father expecting to be scolded, and instead finds a father who celebrates his return with mercy and love. Has anyone ever contemplated whether that story ACTUALLY happened? Was there ever really a prodigal son and his father and the jealous brother? Probably not.

The reason why this story rings so true to most everyone who reads it is because we can find ourselves within that story, probably even more than one character. Not because we think it happened but because it still happens! There has probably been a moment in our life when we felt like the prodigal son deeply in need of mercy; or the jealous brother who is scandalized by radical love; or maybe even the father, put in a position where we can forgive and celebrate reconciliation or not. This narrative is bold!

Some people might say, “Well Jesus told that parable AS A parable. No one expects it to have happened. The history in the Bible is different. It was told as fact.” Says who? How do you know that? We presume Jesus told that story in order to express a profound truth to the listeners about the character of God, his mission, and our place in it. Isn’t it possible that the authors of Job were doing the same thing? Or the historians who logged the stories of the conquest of Canaan? Or even the early church when they were developing the canon they wanted to forever tell the story of Jesus’ life and death?

Let’s go a bit deeper. What if Jesus never actually told the Prodigal Son story? Does that matter? Does that wipe away the deep truth that we find in that story? Do we think, if Jesus didn’t actually tell it, that God is less like the father figure? Do we find ourselves less in that story? Not me. And I wager to bet many people who really sit down and think about it would say the same thing. We connect with that story. It has meaning that is independent of whether or not it actually happened or even if some later editor included in the Bible. It is powerfully true and remains that way.

The Bible is not a book with God’s fingerprints all through it. It is a book with God’s presence written through it and human fingerprints trying to discern that presence. Sometimes, it comes out skewed as when God supposedly frees people from slavery only to permit them to enslave other people; or when God forbids human sacrifice but then Jephthah vows to offer God a sacrifice for a victory in battle – and God accepts.

And it is not a book whose ultimate authority is easily transmuted into our modern context. This is why we have situations like modern Christians thinking divorce should be legal (and even necessary) despite the Bible clearly saying God hates it. Or how Paul can say women shouldn't wear jewels and braid their hair but if we were to go to 99% of Sunday morning services around the country we would find no one following that teaching despite their belief that God inspired it. Or how public prayer is never shamed despite Jesus’ teaching against it. Or how U.S. soldiers are overwhelmingly Christians despite Jesus’ teaching on “turning the other cheek.”

Figuring out how we live our life in our modern context (be reconciled to God) is much more complex than simply reading what our spiritual forebearers did and replicating it without any critical thought. It’s never that simple. It requires deep thought, study, and conversation.

But, the Bible is a book. We need to let it be just that.

It wasn't written by God. It was written about God. And about us, as a human race, trying to see her and be reconciled to her.

Most importantly, it is not God. It is a human product subject to human error and interpretation.

When we can all admit that freely, we can get to the tough work of actually conversing where the Bible and its teachings fit into our modern lives and our modern society. Otherwise, we end up making the Bible and God into something they simply are not.

--------------

*They are also troubling for reasons of caricaturing who God is. She becomes the dominant interpretation of the Bible which is itself the dominant interpretation from history. It gives very little room for discovery and experience.