Grace

A conservative blogger - Stan, over at Winging It -  recently posted about Jesus and judgmentalism. Some liberalish people will point to Jesus' "judge not, lest you be judged..." and proceed to tell people "Jesus said 'don't judge!'"

Many, many conservativish people will jump on that and say, "You're missing the point! Jesus and the church made judgments all the time!" Stan had this to say this time...

"So, which did Jesus do in the John 8 story? They tell me He did neither [judge AGAINST, harshly or judge as in "form an opinion about" -dt]. I disagree.

In John 8:11 He says, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more." The question was "Should we stone her?" (John 8:4-6). Stoning would be condemning. Jesus didn't condemn her, didn't sentence her to punishment, didn't judge against her. But He did judge her. He told her, "From now on sin no more." That is, "You have sinned; don't do it anymore."

The world wants us to shut up about sin. They try to point to Jesus for that. It just doesn't work."

Two things:

1. I think these type of conservatives are missing the point. No one is seriously saying "don't make judgments about anything..." We ALL want people to judge harshly that the drunk driver needs to be stopped, the pedophile needs to be stopped, the oppressive tyrant needs to be stopped, the murderer, rapist, molester, abuser NEEDS to be stopped. We have judged these behaviors to be clearly harmful and decided/agreed that they need to be stopped. So, when more conservative people assume that people are saying "don't make judgments about anything," they assume incorrectly, if that's what they're doing.

What people are objecting to is the harsh judgmentalism and condemnation of people's lesser (ie, non-harmful to others) foibles. Whether that's the avid environmentalist/bicyclist who goes around judging harshly all those who drive and condemn them for their choices or the conservative religionist who goes around judging harshly all others' sexual opinions/practices. That sort of judgmentalism is off-putting, arrogant and counter-productive.

We're all in this generally striving together to generally do the right thing. No one wants to embrace a wrong behavior. We all can do better and we all make mistakes, being harshly judgmental about minor foibles (or what WE perceive to be a "sin") is not the way to help people out.

And note: Again, I'm not speaking of overtly harmful behavior. Yes! We should speak out and stop the pedophile, the rapist, the abuser, the drunk driver. And we don't need a line from the Bible or sacred text to tell us to stop those behaviors - they are overtly harmful behaviors that potentially or actually take away people's liberties, health and/or lives. We stop those behaviors precisely because they are harmful to life and liberty.

But how did Jesus handle the woman caught in a sexual "sin..."? Did he judge her harshly? No! Did he condemn her or the supposed sin? No! In fact, he specifically did NOT condemn her. Literally saying, "neither do I condemn you..."

Whose behavior did Jesus chastise? The ones who would have killed a woman for a supposed sin.

The religious zealots were embracing actual harmful behavior to KILL someone who may have been involved in a sexual foible... a non-harmful or less-harmful behavior. Assuming the man involved consented, they were prepared to kill - take away a life - for a consensual act.

THAT harmful behavior was indirectly rebuked in the story cited here, not the supposed "sin" of this woman, who was specifically not condemned.

So, again, the point is people are not saying "don't make judgments about anything!" It is still okay to stop and condemn actually harmful behavior, to save a life and to promote liberty. No, when people say, "don't judge," they are speaking of the harsh, condemning sorts of behavior.

So, where Stan said...

The world wants us to shut up about sin. They try to point to Jesus for that. It just doesn't work."

The point is, NO one - including "the world" - wants us to "shut up" about or give up on stopping actually harmful behavior. PLEASE let us work together to find graceful ways to stop harmful behavior. On the other hand, when you (or I) hold personal opinions about what God may or may not think about non-harmful behavior - what we do or don't do in our bedrooms, for instance - please, keep them to yourselves and/or express your concern in an humble and respectful manner AS a concern, and then only when asked. That's what people are wanting, at least in my experience.

2. The second thing: I don't know that I've ever heard a conservative take up the notion of "Neither do I condemn you..." in this story. This is a woman caught in what was, biblically (taken literally) a capital crime, a "sin" so heinous that the ancients believed that God wanted people killed for this sin. But Jesus quite literally - given a direct chance to do so - did NOT condemn her or her behavior. Given the chance, Jesus did not embrace the OT law literally. He chased away the would-be killers and said, "neither do I condemn you...". He DID go on to say, "Go and sin no more..." but he left it to the woman's judgment as to what that would be.

What I'd like to see our more conservative friends embrace is this "neither do I condemn you" attitude literally from Jesus. If you want to take something literally in the bible, embrace that literally. And if two gay folk get married, in love say (to yourself, preferably, unless asked), "neither do I condemn you..." even if you happen to think it is a wrong thing to do. Or if a child moves in with a partner without marrying, repeat after Jesus (again, to yourself unless asked), "Neither do I condemn you..."
If you're in your sunday school class and someone starts talking about a transgender neighbor and they ask your opinion, say, "Neither do I condemn them!"

It is my opinion that "neither do I condemn you" is another way of saying, Grace. Grace to you. Grace to you in your decisions. You are an adult, I grace-fully respect your right and duty to choose for yourself what is the Right Thing to do.

Grace.

It's a great attitude to embrace literally, seems to me.

That Is Enough

The perfect, smooth stones beside
the speckled stream told me

we wish to fly,
to leave these riverwashed banks and
sail through the carefree air
if only for a moment

and I told them

I have no powers to make it so
but I can agree with you
and join in the wish
that it might be so

and they told me

that is enough.

The Race

Some friends singing at the Jeff St Earth Day service. The song is "The Race" by the Steel Wheels, a great group of Mennonite fellas out of Virginia. The theme of the sermon was about how "they can't take our joy away..." that in spite of pollution, environmental degradation, a sometimes-hopeless uphill climb to change the status quo, we've got something to hang on to that no one can take away.

"The Race" begins...

I’ve gotta hope that never fails me
I’ve gotta song that I’m gonna sing
Tempests turn and the winds are wailing
I’ve gotta race that must be run I’ve gotta race that must be run
I’ve gotta race that must be run I’ve gotta race that must be run
Amen.

State of Grace

The song, State of Grace, by Louisville treasure, Tim Krekel. Played at my church last Sunday by Andy and friends.

"I'm walking in a state of grace
walking in a state of grace
my God has got my hand and I'm singing in the band
I'm walking in a state of grace..."

Go Home, You're Embarrassing Yourselves

 

Crazy, in the news...

“The country can be no stronger than its families... I really believe if what the Supreme Court is about to do is carried through with, and it looks like it will be, then we’re going to see a general collapse in the next decade or two. I just am convinced of that. So we need to do everything we can to try to hold it back and to preserve the institution of marriage.”

“Talk about a Civil War, we could have another one over this.”

~James Dobson

An Open Letter to the Desperate and Emotionally Fragile Religious Right:

I trace the roots of my faith tradition to the great defenders of religious liberty, the Anabaptists. I trace my family roots to the French Huguenots. Both of these groups faced actual religious oppression.

Because of their religious beliefs, the Huguenots and Anabaptists were jailed, tortured and killed by the tens of thousands by other Christian groups. Actual oppression for their beliefs.

I contrast that with the religious conservatives of today in light of the recent discussion of marriage equity. These conservatives are sounding emotionally desperate and speaking in the most drastic of terms, as if a simple marriage ceremony were the End of Times and the Devil, himself, was out stealing souls and spreading pestilence.

This is NOT religious oppression, people. You are NOT being oppressed for your religious beliefs. You are still free to believe what you wish.

When the Huguenots were told, "Abandon your faith tradition and embrace Catholicism or we will rip out your tongue and burn you alive!" ...that is oppression and a denial of religious liberty. This is not comparable in any way to "If you're in the flower business, you will be expected to sell flowers, even if you disagree with the event or people."

No, we are simply saying that if you are a business owner, we expect you to not discriminate against one bloc of people. That's all. We are not asking you to endorse certain marriages. We are not demanding that you change your religion. We are not demanding that you marry someone you don't want to marry. We're just expecting that business owners should not discriminate, that's all.

Don't want to endorse a loving marriage between two people? Fine, don't endorse it. But if you're in business in the public marketplace, you can't discriminate. IF your religious beliefs demand that you discriminate against some perceived “sinners,” then THAT part of your belief will not be allowed, just like if your religious beliefs demanded that you kill infidels, THAT part would not be allowed. Otherwise, believe as you wish.

Your religious liberty ends where another's rights begins.

This is not oppression or the end of the age. Lighten up. You just sound ridiculous and you are an embarrassment to your faith and the many people who have actually faced oppression and injustice.

Rock of Ages

A song played by Donna, Christy and Dan at a recent baptism at my church. "Rock of Ages" - not the well-known traditional hymn, but a traditional-sounding song by Gillian Welch.

Hunting Bigfoot with Jesus, 2

As I hiked back down from the mountain

in the center of the forest

in the middle of the night

I crossed paths with Jesus, again 

Long time, no see

I joked

And Jesus smiled like a saint 

So… Jesus,

I said tentatively, nervous as a squirrel

You’re really out here

In Search of Bigfoot

aren’t you? 

And, with a graceful grin upon his face

Jesus shook his head

 

Yes 

Wouldn’t it be cool if he really existed?

Like this whole family of beasties that

Have never been discovered before

Were really out here?! 

Jesus was clearly enthused about the subject 

But I don’t understand

I said

You are the Omniscient God

Don’t you already know if Bigfoot exists? 

Jesus nodded 

It is true

Dear Dan

That I am the God who

Knows-All-That-Can-Be-Known 

I nodded, waiting 

But

Not Everything Can be Known. 

Wow.

I said.

Sooo… maybe Bigfoot does exist?

I asked 

Maybe

He said.

I sure hope so.

Hunting Bigfoot with Jesus, 1

While walking through a dark forest tonight
Leaves beneath my feet
Guiding my path
I came across Jesus
Sitting on a stump
In the black woods.

 

Jesus

 

I said, a bit surprised,

What are you doing out here?!

He sat quietly

Do you like night hikes, too?

With the moon casting velvet shadows
And the spring peepers
Providing sweet night music?

 

Yes

Jesus said.
That's it.

 

The quiet beauty of

Creation at rest, and cetera...

 

It's certainly not because

I'm out looking for
Bigfoot
Or anything like that.

 

There was another awkward pause and

Then he said

 

Well, enjoy your hike.

 

Jesus is a funny guy, sometimes.

More Than One Way...

Frustration wanted to do a favor

For his cranky neighbor...
He wanted to fix his fence

“The fence is so very long and in such

Awful
Disrepair”

He thought

“And my neighbor did such a tremendously

flawed job

in building it to begin with”

He thought

 

“I’ll just help him out”

 
He thought

“and repair it for him...

as a kindness.”

 

But when Frustration went to fix the fence
Cranky chased him away
With a broom and a boot.
   

On the other side

Of the cranky neighbor
 
Grace had no intention of
Fixing the fence

Even though it was in such

Awful
Disrepair
 
Instead, she planted strawberries all along
The fenceline
 
And in the summer,
Grace and Cranky ate strawberries
With sticky fingers
And smiles
And leaned together against the crooked fence

Religious Conservatives Say the Damnedest Things

From Fred over at Hip and Thigh...

Now, if you want to define “forced” in that she doesn’t get to marry the man of her choosing, in which she falls in love, and all that other sappy romantic American sentiment, yeah, I guess she was “forced.” But under the circumstances of an ANE world some 3,000 years ago, a woman who is attractive to a Jewish man so that he would take her as a wife is a pretty good deal.

This came about as part of a conversation on whether or not there is God-approved slavery of the more modern/Civil War type of slavery (as opposed to indentured servitude, to pay off debts.)
I had said that there were a variety of types of slavery, including the indentured servitude (which allows for selling off one's chldren [!!] to pay off these debts, so even this is not a pollyanna sort of slavery), but certainly also including the forced against one's will, owned by another human being kind of slavery similar to the American type.

I also mentioned the case of "God-approved" (if you take the stories literally) kidnapping or "taking" of orphaned virgin girls after Israel had killed off their families, which I called forced marriage.

I pointed out that, of course, if the woman doesn't have the choice to say yes or no, to come or go, of course it is forced, by definition. What else could it be?

Fred insisted there wasn't and, at one point, responded with the funny/sad quote above.

I mean, come on, seriously... doesn't that sound like a "joke quote" that Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert would have made up? The only difference is that they would have included more scare quotes, like this...

Now, if you want to define “forced” in that she "doesn’t get to" marry the man "of her choosing," in which she "falls in love," and all that other sappy romantic American sentiment, yeah, I guess she was “forced.” But under the circumstances of an ANE world some 3,000 years ago, a woman who is attractive to a Jewish man so that he would take her as a wife is a pretty good deal.

That was so ludicrously over-the-top evil-sounding that I asked him about my posting it on my blog and giving him the benefit of the doubt, asking if he wouldn't want to clarify or back down at least a bit... He did not.

In fact, he appears to be at least hinting at defending the notion that "personal choice" is not a good thing for women (or men??) even today. I've asked him to clarify and am waiting. Surely he must agree with the individual's right to self-determination? Surely??

God talked to me...

God talked to me
and said

I would like to give you a present.
Name it, anything in the world

Wealth
Material goods
Power

Name it and it is yours!


I thought about it
and said

But Lord,
I have my friends

Anything more would be

superfluous.


And when God talked about me
later
to others

God said that I was much
smarter
than I look.

More On Biblical "Authority..."

Here is a fair and balanced take on the same topic as last post from our friend, Neil, who also does not allow commentary from "false teachers" like me on his blog. Neil says...

 

The "Christian" Left claims that the Bible was written by bad men... 

They don’t say the word bad, but that is obviously what they mean.  As John Wesley notes below, that is one of the three options, and the “Christian” Left has clearly dismissed the other two.

This book had to be written by one of three people: good men, bad men or God. It couldn’t have been written by good men because they said it was inspired by the revelation of God. Good men don’t lie and deceive. It couldn’t have been written by bad men because bad men would not write something that would condemn themselves. It leaves only one conclusion. It was given by divine inspiration of God. John Wesley

The Bible claims to speak for God in whole or in part several thousand times.  So either the authors were correct or they were a bunch of blasphemous pathological liars. The text does not leave any middle ground.

====

Neil is, of course, simply factually mistaken. As are many who have apparently been blinded by too strong an allegiance to tradition (mostly modern tradition, at that).

Point by point:

Neil mocks the "Christian" Left (being sure to demonize and slander them/us with his scare quotes, indicating his rather arrogant stance that he is in a position to decide who is and isn't Christian) by saying that we claim the Bible was written by men.

Of course, when we claim that the Bible was written by men, our source for that is... the Bible. As a point of fact, the books of the Bible all are directly or indirectly attributed to human authors. The Book of Luke begins...

“With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

Who wrote Luke, according to the Bible? It is attributed to the Human, Luke.

Who wrote Psalm 23? According to the text, "a psalm of David..."

Who wrote 1 Corinthians? According to the text, "Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes..."

Now, is it possible, even likely, that some of the texts which attribute some of the epistles or other books to Paul or some other author are misattributed? That some other human author penned it? Sure, that's possible. But the point is, according to the text in the Bible, these books were written by humans.

So, setting aside the arrogance of a quasi-literalist mocking people for taking the Bible literally, it's just a silly and irrational jab to mock people for daring to say that the Bible's various books were written by humans when that's just what the Bible says.

Neil goes on to say, "The Bible claims to speak for God in whole or in part several thousand times."

This, too, is simply, factually wrong. "The Bible" does not make ONE SINGLE CLAIM about "the Bible." Not one. Now, no doubt, what Neil (and this is not to single out Neil, many in his camp do this) are trying to suggest is that various places within the various books of the Bible, claims are made such as "Thus saith the Lord..." or "God spake..."

But those claims, set in the context of a story, are not factually equivalent to "This is a claim that the Bible is making about itself..." They just aren't.

For one thing, as any of our conservative friends will agree with, before one interprets a text, one has to determine the literary genre and devices being used. IS this a text that is intended to make a fact claim? IS it written in a style that must be taken literally? Is it using figurative language? These are questions that must be answered first.

In order to answer those questions, we humans have to use our human reasoning to think these things through. The Bible comes with no "key" to insist upon interpretation points, it is up to our own human reasoning to sort that out and, for good and for bad, our human reasoning is not perfect.

The point remains: Neil is wrongly belittling "liberal" "non-literalists" for taking the Bible more literally than he is when it comes to the authors and making non-literal and extra-biblical demands on how we "must" interpret Scripture if we want to be "good" (read "conservative) Christians.

Unfortunately for Neil, et al, a literal reading of the Bible does not support his claims, nor does simple reason or reality.