Marginal Christianity

Posted by Wesley Hill As Lent moves rapidly towards its close, I’ve been trying (and mostly failing) to make space in my life for some more meditative reading, and right now I’m inching through Frances Young’s God’s Presence: A Contemporary Recapitulation of Early Christianity. It’s a remarkably unclassifiable book, as Young weaves her work in Patristics (the study of the church Fathers) together with personal, pastoral reflections, largely revolving around her disabled son Arthur. Today this passage struck me in an especially forceful way:     “Arthur’s limited experience, limited above all in ability to process the world external to himself, is a crucial element in who he is, in his real personhood. An ultimate destiny in which he was suddenly ‘perfected’ (whatever that might mean) is inconceivable—for he would no longer be Arthur but some other person. His limited embodied self is what exists, and what will be must be in continuity with that. There wi...

  July 3, 2015 by Paul Louis Metzger 0 Comments ©iStockphoto A gay friend shared with me today how delighted he is in the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage ; he spoke of how the ruling brought validation to same-sex couples he knows who have waited for years for equal rights. Yesterday a friend on the other side of the issue shared her consternation. Many people with social conservative convictions fear that they and their views will be consigned to the closet, just like gays and lesbians in the past (See this article and video ). I would assume many of you have friends whose emotions and convictions range across the spectrum on this issue. But how often do you and I sit down together with all of them to listen and share? We need to take the conversation from the court room and the closet to the table. My friend and colleague Dr. Brad Harper is writing a book with his son, Drew. Like me, Brad holds to a traditional view of marriage based on our re...

Posted by Wesley Hill   My friend Alan Jacobs, a traditional sort of Anglican Christian, wrote this the day after the Obergefell ruling: Perhaps I am soft on sin, or otherwise deficient in serious Christian formation — actually, it’s certain that I am — but in any case I could not help being moved by many of the scenes yesterday of gay people getting married, even right here in Texas. I hope that many American gays and lesbians choose marriage over promiscuity, and I hope those who marry stay married, and flourish. I know what he’s saying. I felt that too.   But I was thinking more today, What is that experience? For those of us like me who hold to a Christian view of marriage that contradicts the SCOTUS definition , what does it mean to be moved by scenes of gay marriage?   Well, for starters—and I’m speaking for myself here, not necessarily for Alan—I think that for many, many (not all) gay people in America today, the options have not been...

  June 9, 2015 J. R. Daniel Kirk Certain kinds of people simply cannot be part of the people of God. Making such a judgment is not based on bigotry. It is simply based on the story of God in which the people of God are defined in particular ways. These definitions demand that some are out while others are in. Canaanite Transformation Take Canaanites. This is a blanket term for the people living in the land that God gave to the people of Israel through the wars of Joshua. They are excluded from participation in the people of God. One way they are so excluded is in multiple warnings not to allow daughters and sons to intermarry with these indigenous peoples. Such liaisons might lead the Israelites astray to worship gods other than Yhwh. But there is only one way to make sure that no such commingling occurs: kill them all. “You must devote them to complete destruction,” says Deuteronomy 7:2. Make no covenant. Show no mercy. So when a Canaanite woman from the hi...

May 11, 2015May 11, 2015 J. R. Daniel Kirk Over the past few weeks I have been taking occasional soundings into questions surrounding homosexuality in the ancient world. Just to clarify what has not been clear to some: it is obvious to me that Paul did not approve of (some sort of) same-sex coupling. The question I have been probing is what did he not approve of, and why? I regularly hear that the things Paul stood against were pederasty and temple prostitution . In a couple of previous posts ( here and here ) I questioned whether these forms of same-sex relations existed, and/or might have otherwise been the object of Paul’s scorn. Last week I took up a third possible target for Paul’s same-sex polemic: slave sex . This was a ubiquitous reality in Rome. And, it was built on a system of social hierarchy that was deeply embedded in not only “pagan” Greco-Roman culture, but also early Judaism and nascent Christianity. Jewish and Hellenistic A couple of people have pushed ...

April 27, 2015 J. R. Daniel Kirk What was the sexual climate of the first century Mediterranean, and how does that help us to understand what the New Testament is talking about? That’s a question that runs right through the middle of many conversations about sexuality in the church, and about homosexuality in the church in particular. One line of argument is represented in Ken Wilson’s book, A Letter to My Congregation , which I’m reading alongside other people at church. His summary represents an important cluster of arguments that we find across both academic and popular discussions. His version of it is this: the kind of sexual activity that Paul was concerned about when he talked about male same-sex coupling was activity that was exploitative, and that any of us would oppose as well. Specifically, he lists pederasty, temple prostitution, and sex with slaves. A week or two ago I raised a question about pederasty . Romans were disdainful of this practice which w...

  April 20, 2015 J. R. Daniel Kirk When City Church in San Francisco announced that it was altering its policies with regard to the inclusion of LGBTQ folks, they indicated that an important voice guiding them forward was that of Ken Wilson, founding pastor of the Ann Arbor Vineyard Church. Yesterday Wilson preached at City Church, part of an ongoing conversation about what “inclusion” might look like ( sermon audio here ). There were two parts of his sermon that resonate with some themes I have been working out here on the blog over the past several years. The one I want to engage today is this: Knowing what you believe about something does not tell you what you should do about it–especially with respect to people who do not share your conviction. I have talked about this before as we have had some discussions about what it means to hold a traditional position in a society that does not identify as Christian. The imperative to love our neighbor as ourse...

  April 15, 2015 J. R. Daniel Kirk A few weeks ago, City Church in San Francisco announced its decision to become a “third way” church with respect to the issue of homosexual practice: a church where there could be divergence of opinion and practice (life-long abstaining or life-long commitment to a single partner), but where all would be treated as equal members of the body. An important guide for the church’s decision has been Ken Wilson, A Letter to My Congregation . I think that Wilson’s book is, overall, helpful in laying out a biblical approach to a contested question. Part of Wilson’s own journey included coming to the conclusion that what the New Testament opposes as same-sex relations is not what contemporary homosexual Christians are trying to live into. He cites three norms of homosexual practice which, he believes, are indicative of same-sex relations in ancient Rome: Pederasty Temple Prostitution Sex with slaves Like most evangelical Christian...

Apr 6, 2015 @ 0:13 by Scot McKnight One is no longer surprised to read in discussions about same-sex relations — in church or in society at large — that Jesus did not bring the matter to the surface. In fact, some have said he never said a word about it. Some, of course, draw a conclusion from this: Therefore, it was not important to him (and should not be to us). There is a case to be made for such a conclusion about Jesus but arguing from silence to what should be done today is a careless game to play. But let’s dig back to the question: Did Jesus talk about homosexuality? I shall present today a mild case that in fact he possibly did. Before we get started, it needs to be emphasized that Jesus never explicitly says anything about same-sex relations though there are three texts that  could mention or imply  same-sex relations. We are dealing here then with ancient texts, evidence, and historical probabilities. I will move from the least likely to the...

Wed, 28/01/2015 - 06:54       This is not going to be a conventional review of James Brownson’s book on gender and homosexuality in the Bible. I’ll begin with two very broad assertions, then look at the texts, and finish with some cautious and increasingly opaque conclusions—be warned. For a summary of Brownson’s argument see this post . For a detailed critical evaluation of the book see Andrew Goddard’s essay . Two broad assertions First, I think Brownson overstates his case. On the one hand, I don’t think it is as easy as he suggests to eliminate gender complementarity from the biblical notion of being “one flesh”. Same-sex union, therefore, would have to be parallel or analogous to the “one flesh” union rather than an emerging facet or subset of it. On the other, while it seems reasonable to claim that the biblical texts cannot be made to pass judgment on the apparently modern notion of loving, committed same-sex relationships, I rather doubt...

1.        Jesus did not say nothing about homosexual relations.   He reaffirmed the created order of his Father of male and female in marriage and gave no hints or loopholes for any other relationships to be so considered.   (Not a position statement on homosexuality.   Just an observation about claims made in the debate.)   2.        Paul did not say those who do not work should not eat.   He said those who choose not to work because of belief that the return of Jesus was imminent should not eat.   Nothing about welfare eligibility here!   3.        Grace does not negate or diminish or render optional works.   That’s a false dichotomy as are the theological conflicts built on it:   Augustine-Pelagius, Calvinist-Arminian.   Grace empowers and makes works possible and non-negotiable.   It is grace and works or perhaps even grace=works,...

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/12/19/ae-cannot-bear-very-much-reality/ A&E Cannot Bear Very Much Reality       Dec 19 2013 @ 1:10pm <img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-209988" alt="ABC's "Good Morning America" - 2013" src="http://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/168290943.jpg?w=580&h=438" width="580" height="438" /> I have to say I’m befuddled by the firing of Phil Robertson , he of the amazing paterfamilias beard on Duck Dynasty (which I mainly see via The Soup). A&E has a reality show that depends on the hoariest stereotypes – and yet features hilariously captivating human beings – located in the deep South. It’s a show riddled with humor and charm and redneck silliness. The point of it, so far as I can tell, is a kind of celebration of a culture where duck hunti...