Tag Archives: Jesus

The Kingdom of Heaven is an Irishman (Who Doesn’t F Around)

(Written 2.July.2011)

I had this dream not too long back that there was a whole bunch of people gathered in some castle singing about the hope to come when this tree outside (huge…think baobab) would bloom it’s fruit. The fruit were these huge alien gourd-like things that were multi colored and really…looked alien like. Anyway, before I entered the castle, I noticed the fruit (gourds) were actually opening up. So I get inside with the intention to tell the people that it’s happening—the very hope they’re singing about is going on right now. Well so the crowd quiets down to listen but the Music Man—who’s on stage playing piano with his back to the crowd of people doesn’t stop playing or singing. He just keeps droning on about someday the thing we hope for will happen, and kept giving cues and prompts to the people to sing with him about that hope. Well so needless to say, I was pissed. Everyone was waiting to hear what I had to say—though some were still murmuring about who I was and why they should listen to me, and this guy just wouldn’t shut up. So I got on stage and told him (the Music Man) if he was going to act like a child, I was going to treat him like one. So I bent him over my knee and spanked him repeatedly.

Needless to say that got everyone real quiet.

The floor was mine.

So I proceeded to tell them that the very thing they were hoping to come someday—when all will be right, was going on right now and they’re missing it. So they all followed me outside (except for the Music Man; don’t really know what happened to him after that) and in the courtyard of the castle was a huge table. And all these presents of varied shapes and sizes were on it. And there was so much food and it all looked so crazy (think the feast in HOOK), and everyone somehow just knew which gift was theirs. There were no names on any of them, but people began to go to where there gift was, sit down at the table and open it. When all were open, they ate and talked and showed their gift, and no one was ashamed of their own gift, nor was anyone jealous of someone else’s. We all kinda just knew that all of it—the gifts, the banquet table, and the banquet had all come from the gourds that had bloomed and opened.

I myself was walking around the table, observing everything, but mostly, I was looking for some of the gourds. I wanted more than anything to try the fruit in the gourds and see what it tasted like. I didn’t find my gift, or my chair, because I desired to find a gourd and try the fruit more than to sit down and open my gift — if there was one.

And then I woke up.

Never did find a gourd fruit and get to taste it.

Well so, it really got me thinking about a number of different things—namely God stuff (yes, as usual), and began to ponder the dream. Now I welcome all sorts of interpretations and if you think you know what some of it means, by all means, let me know and comment below. But here’s my interpretation: the Music Man is religion. I’ve always thought of religion in that way and in a number of songs I’ve written that’s the image of religion to me. I think the dream itself pretty much sums up why I call religion the Music Man, but if you just don’t get it, I’ll clarify. The man in the dream playing piano just wanted to lead the crowd blindly. He didn’t even face them. He was so hell bent on his own dogma that he could even stop playing his song for a moment to hear actual truth.
That thing that everyone was singing about was the coming of the Kingdom. The tree was the Tree of Life. The banquet was the Banquet. And it was all happening now—as everyone was so blinded indoors by the Music and the hope that someday it’ll come, but not soon. Maybe when they die. And they were all complacent in that. “Let’s all just sing about the someday but not yet when all will be well and everything that had to be endured will be made up for when the bad is destroyed and the good lasts.”

I’ve really had an issue with this sort of complacent, wishful type of thinking. And the more I read, and the more I looked and the more I hungered, I realized its just fool’s gold. Marx was right. Religion can be the opiate of the masses when what it does is make you settle in your seats, take the beating, saying “thank you sir may I have another!” all in the “hope” that someday it’ll all be alright. That all the pain and suffering and hardship and sin and fallen nature and messing up—all of it, will have been worth it when the day of Armageddon, the end of the world comes.

It’s not as if I was never there myself. I’ll admit. I totally had that thinking. I came to this point (very hippie, lots of Bob Marley influence) where I would say “we’re all just refugees of Zion.” (Read that out loud in your best stoner accent)

But this concept of the Kingdom is something that has been the velvet line running throughout all my thoughts; especially after the dream. I really wanted to wrap my mind around it. So I read through some books, like George Eldon Ladd’s “The Presence of the Future” and seeing just what people think. Then of course, I turned to scripture to see what it says.

I encourage you to go in and see what parables Jesus used to describe the Kingdom of Heaven (GOD), but I want this to be the thing that stands out: before the cross, Jesus told of the coming of the Kingdom—it was at hand. After the cross, he doesn’t really talk about it coming anymore.

It’s as if the cross was some pivot, some corner turned and some new day forming. As if the Kingdom is here—we just don’t see it fully yet. Some don’t see it at all. Some see it, and lose sight, and see it again, and then lose it again. I would fall into this last category. It’s as if I grasp it, only to open my hands and realize nothings there. Then again, there may be still others who may not follow the norm, know the lingo, or dance the right dance, but are caught up in it—knowingly or not.

So what in the world does it all mean (DOUBLE RAINBOW!)?

Part of me really wants to explain this out. Make it practical. Make it theological. Make it something with a profound depth that’ll change your life. But then the other part of me really doesn’t.

The banquet is here. It’s now; and…now. And now. In fact, it’s every now. There’s a party going on and we’re in it. And we’re mixing it up and we’re with people and some are friends of the guy who’s house it is, and others are friends of friends, and still others are people that just saw that there was a big party going on and the door was open so…here they are.
And maybe there are those—there’s some at every party, who’s goal it is to be the life of the party. To be it, the thing that keeps the party going, and all attention is drawn to them. I know that often times, I’m totally that guy.

Yep.
That guy.
A lot of people have some sweet skills (like the gifts on the banquet table). Nunchuck skills, computer hacking skills. You know, skills. I have few. One of them though, is my sweet dance moves. My wife can attest, I’ve got some mad sweet sexy dance moves. Anyway, as I was saying, for me, I’m prone more often than not to get so swept up in the party that I wanna be the life of the party. The drunker on it I get the drunker on the attention I get, the more and more I crave it. It may start out that I truly add to the fun of it all; that people really like me being there. But the party invariably goes from being a rad gathering of people from all walks of life, to becoming all about me and my self gratification.
Love me love me love me.
Tell me I’m awesome.
Tell me this party wouldn’t be the same without me.
Yep.
Until I get too drunk and the “life of the party” becomes the “death of the party.”

I don’t mean to crash here or make this about me, but I use myself to point out that it seems the more you desire to succeed at the party, the more you fail. The more you try to be the life of the party, the more you take away from the life of the party.

I know, I know. I don’t want to sound as if I’m saying “so give up, you’re covered by grace. Whatev’s.”

No.

That’s not it.

This isn’t a ticket to just do what you want.

It’s a ticket to fail at the party.

I mean, maybe—maybe this whole thing is a celebration for us, but not of us. Maybe the Kingdom is a charming Irishman. And he comes in very polite, and wins you over with his awesome accent. And, you invite him to stay. You don’t mind. But then he gets comfortable. And he starts messing shit up. And the life that you thought you had some control of—that you were succeeding at (think Charlie Sheen, “winning, duh.”), begins to seem to fall apart. Until it gets to the point where you realize you never really had a handle on the reins at all.

Does that freak you out? It does me. I hate it.
I used to write scripts in my mind how I wanted my life and its parts to go and would then try my hardest to make life fit the script.

It didn’t.

It doesn’t.

But maybe what God’s inviting you to do isn’t break. Isn’t become heartbroken and forlorn. But join the Irishman. Join the party. Maybe God wants to get you to let go of you, let go of yourself, and party.

Maybe our world isn’t something to simply suffer through or to beget something greater. Maybe that’s just part of the bigger picture. Maybe the whole thing is getting it by not getting it, grasping it to let it slip away. Hear the music and dance. Freely. He–God, He’s got this. This is the story. This is His dream He’s dreaming.

The Kingdom is now. And not yet.

How that looks is between Him and you. Are you gonna let the Irishman in?

Leave a comment

Filed under God stuff

Peter Pan, Pirates, 6 Points, and The 6th Day

(Written 25.June.2011)

We recently had to clean the basement at the school I work, which—no joke, is hoarder central down there. There were troves of things we just decided to chuck (making a big pile in the center of the room); and for a group of Montessorians, is crazy and unheard of due to the fact that Montessorians are just a step down…or over, from hoarders.

Well one of the things that I found that was set to be merely thrown away was the original story of Peter Pan. It drove me to thinking about how if and when I have kids some day, I’d love to read that story to them. Visions of beautiful nights, curled up in their beds, reading through a chapter a night and having them beg for just one more page—I know, I’m an idealist, and a romanticist. Thus, I took it from the trash pile and took it home. (I must note to all those out there, not only is it hoarder central, but there were so many books that weren’t age appropriate and were just tossed; I understand, digging through trash from a school is wrong, forgive me, but I couldn’t help feeling like simply throwing that book away was a waste…I’ll face the jury if I need to.)

Anyway, as I’ve been in school this summer (really grueling 8 weeks of 8-4 Monday through Friday) to get my certification for teaching (I’m not certifiable yet…), my mind has continued to go back to that story and the theme of “growing up.” As I continued to sit…and sit…and sit… for hours in class learning about the Montessori philosophy, Maria Montessori herself, the method, and each of the environments, I couldn’t shake the feeling that there was something to “growing up” that we just haven’t got quite right. So I began to ponder my own childhood, my own upbringing, and my own nature (I don’t mean to not focus in class…again, I’ll face the jury if I must), and the thought that came up was the concept of mistakes; moreover the idea of correcting mistakes. Something about that thought struck a chord in my heart and mind and I began connecting dots that I didn’t see before—nor during; kinda like doing a connect the dots puzzle where you don’t really know what and where the dots are going to appear.

(That, in itself sounds pretty awesome, and I would totally do connect the dot puzzles if the dots were invisible until you started and then appeared on the paper as you were doing it and you wouldn’t really know what the picture is or if you’re done until it’s all finished, and no more dots appear.)

I don’t know about any of my readers, but I personally am my own worst critic. Nothing anyone says to me comes close to the own judgment I put on myself. Go ahead…try. Moreover, I know that my “nature”, my “natural inclination” when correction mistakes that have been made—be it by an adult or a child, is to drive the point home and make sure that this lesson is learned. I feel the need to make sure that this mistake is never made again. It can’t just be me though. I know I’ve been on the receiving end of someone’s rant at my expense over something I’ve done and should never do again.

So Peter Pan; as I said, my mind took me to so many places over this topic but the centralized focus was the story of Peter Pan. Now I’m not literary agent—my undergrad was in Philosophy, not English, so before I dive right in here please note, these are my thoughts, not a literary interpretation of Peter Pan and any theme therein.

Peter Pan was a boy who refused to grow up. He fought alongside fellow displaced boys with the same mindset, against Pirate Men who wanted to wipe them out—or make them grow up, as the ultimate defeat. I loved reading this story as a child, mostly for the thoughts of being able to fly, and sword fighting, for sleeping in trees, and having adventures in a land without limits. As I’ve gotten older, I find myself playing the role of adult. Further, I find that I do this because it’s what is expected of me. Be a man. Have a trajectory. Set goals. Accomplish them. Take life by the balls and show it whose boss.

I think God has other plans for me. That or I just can’t seem to shake the feeling that I’m still a kid just playing dress up. I find myself doing things without an explainable reason or purpose. I can’t seem to fully integrate into “adult” society or the throngs of conformity.
I don’t shower as often as I should.
I eat sometimes til I’m sick, not til I’m full.
I glance at ladies for a few seconds longer than I should.
I tell dirty jokes.
I burp. I fart.
I laugh at farts and I laugh at South Park.
I want to see movies I probably shouldn’t.
I mess up. I make errors of judgment. I fall seemingly all too quickly. I’m humbled; I make mistake after mistake after mistake.
And mistake after mistake I make, I treat myself as I was either raised to do so, or am inherently inclined to do so: by drilling it into myself that this is bad. And I’m bad. And I shouldn’t be making these mistakes. I should be past making these mistakes. I’m too old to be doing this, Damn it. “

I need to grow up.

And then I work at a school with the most awesome age of kids, 3-6 year olds. And I find myself treating them completely different than I treat myself. I have love. Compassion. Grace. I hold them when they fall; I hold them when they come to me after they make mistakes. I help them with whatever it is they’ve done “wrong.” I desire to see them do what’s right themselves, not do what’s right for them. I desire them to be independent, but always knowing I’m there to help.
I don’t want them to “grow up” and struggle with making mistakes, but know that it’s okay.
And I realize that maybe what is my nature isn’t really what’s right.

Maria Montessori should’ve been a saint. Before I ever came along and struggled with this myself, she crafted an approach so simple, yet so profound: help the child be independent, not a “grown up.” When a child makes a mistake, understand that they’re kids in a foreign world. Mistakes are gonna happen. A teacher should never draw attention to the mistake made, but to dealing with it and moving on. We have only recently discovered in the realm of science, of psychology, and all that stuff that I was interested in but never to pursue, that the brain learns better after correcting a mistake than by doing it right the first time.
Inventors like Thomas Edison pointed this out. With that quote about finding a million ways a light bulb doesn’t work. The lesson just seems to stick more when we’ve screwed it up one or many times—unless of course, you refuse to be okay making these mistakes, when your mind is so blinded by making yourself mistake free, by never making mistakes.

I really feel like what this does is turn us from people to machines. And when we do that, the story of it all becomes a textbook to teach us how to get it right.
But it isn’t a textbook, not really, not unless you make it one.

This is all a story and we are all characters in it. And characters need to rise and fall. It’s why we connect with protagonists and characters in stories we read or see in film; and what makes us love the story. It’s what makes a damn good stories that stay with us.

Yet it’s not our story. It’s God’s. And He’s telling it. Yet He seemingly gives His characters the ability to be part of the story telling or not; to be self aware, to think they can fully know the story, to think they can change the plot. And what is the plot? Well the gospel of John says it’s Jesus. He’s the Word, the Logos, the Reason, the Plot.

So what we make Him out to be decides what we think the story is all about.

(Keep in mind, I really think that even this—our ability to be part of the story telling or not, to think we can change the plot, or the apparent ability to tell the plot as characters of the story itself, is all part of the story teller’s telling of the story. )
Here’s how the story has been read and how it’s usually read today:

God created everything in Genesis One and it was all good. We, humanity screwed it up—it became not all good, and now God is spending the rest of time correcting our mistake. He did this by sending His Son to die for us so that we can get back to the place where it was all good. And the story isn’t finished yet, but we’ve had a prophet right a book about how it’s all gonna end, so we pretty much know the end of the story and feel we understand it all. Cause the story’s been written and given to us which tells the whole story. And now we can spend the rest of our lives as grownups, cause we have book telling us how, and to be ready and grown up for the end of the story.

Hmmmm…..yep. That about sums up everything I’ve been taught.

I’ve had the privilege (or by the Story teller’s intention) to be/become part of a church which is stepping away from this dogma that was in each of our pasts. I can’t escape it. I’ll readily admit I once thought that way, and still have times catching myself thinking that way. But thanks to my Pastor, Peter Hiett, thoughts and feelings I’ve had for a long time are now able to be put to words and expressed. I don’t want to claim anything as wholly my ideas, my profound, ground breaking theological concepts, but express that a door has been opened to theology I hadn’t come into contact with before.

Pistol Peter Hiett’s writings and study himself has led me to see that there is a field of Theology which believes that this is how the story should actually be read:

God is still creating, and we are on the verge of the 7th day. Genesis One is the big picture of it all, and the rest is the story of the 6th day—of humanity being made in God’s image. It isn’t going to be finished, it IS finished(like Jesus said on the cross); we just don’t see it yet.

Firstly, this actually made sense when you study Genesis, as that chapter one is supposed to be a separate text from Genesis two and three, not read combined. But more importantly, this means we didn’t just screw up God’s “intended will” (as I’ve was lead to believe that there’s a difference between His intended will and His apparent will), but its all part of God telling His story. This makes Jesus not a correction for our mistakes, but the center, the point—the plot.

And this makes the sin that started it all something more (or less) than what we’ve made it.

What was the original sin? Taking a fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, so that we ourselves could know right from wrong, good from evil. And we convolute on dilute it into so many different theological concepts that layer upon layer covers up the most simple of truths until we forget it and humanity itself becomes guilty time after time of that original sin.

Cause after all, what is the most basic thing we as humans strive for? What is our most basic goal? To know what is good and do it, and to know what is evil and avoid it. And this has taken so many forms from hedonism to asceticism, that we forget that it’s all the same really.

Even Christians. God to church and learn good from the pastor to do good and not do evil. Learn what God want s and how to do it, learn what God doesn’t want and how to avoid it. Join church groups that help with this. Go to seminars and lectures and worship services and small groups and dinners for 8, and make yourself into what God wants. Grow UP.

It’s still taking the fruit.

Maybe the two trees at the center of the Garden—the Tree of Life, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil weren’t/aren’t two trees at all. Maybe they’re one and the same. And maybe God’s plan was for us to eat of that tree, but not TAKE the fruit, rather receive it. Be given it.
But like in a Montessori classroom, we haven’t been given a lesson on that work yet. So we made a mistake. Not THE mistake, a mistake.
Now I know it can be totally gotten into about whether God intended it or not (again, that whole theology of God’s intended will and actual will), but it’s interesting to work in a classroom full of kids just itching to grow and learn. You know that putting something in their reach is just asking for trouble and simply expecting them not to be curious or touch it is being stupid.

God knew what He was doing, and this is where the story can diverge depending on how you see this act.
If it’s all part of the story, and we’re still in that 6th day, then God had a point in putting the tree out; He knew the nature He created us with and what we would do, and did it anyway. Just like a teacher who puts out a challenging work, and says to the child, “please don’t do this work until I’ve given you a lesson,” and then walks away, and the child decides to try it anyway.

But…if it was all good, and we screwed it up, then the story can get so convoluted, and we spend all our efforts and energy trying to get it to make sense. We try to form an understanding of God by asking—and in the end, seeming to blame God, saying, “Why did He put that tree (that work) out at all if He knew we’d fall?” Or, we say we have such a vile filthy nature, thanks to Adam Eve, and we need to do whatever we can so that we don’t make mistakes like them again. We need to learn all the rules and we need to grow up. No more being kids and making mistakes.
We become pirates.

And we turn God into one as well.

Whether we agree fully, in part, or so we think, not at all, by viewing God and the story in this light, we are all in some way following the 5 (or, by result 6) points of Calvinism. Basically, Calvinism is known by an acronym: T.U.L.I.P. the 5 points:

Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)
(If you want an expanded text on these, click HERE)

Derived from these 5 points though, is what many Calvinists come to call the 6th point—which, I say if you follow these, then really this point is a given and you should simply make it known to be part of your dogma and 5 points; anyway it’s this: the concept of “double predestination.” It can simply be stated as the other side to the coin of predestination—that just as God sovereignty chooses those whom He will save, in the same way He chooses those whom He will not save.
Again, you may not believe all of these, but there is a thread running through many the Christian churches that sticks rather closely to these. God creates the world, we mess it up, and now are totally depraved, from birth—or come the age of atonement (whatever that is). God has to send His Son to correct our mistakes (I so badly want to say f*** up), but just as we were free to choose or not choose the fruit in the Garden, we are free to choose or not choose Jesus. As a result, God “intends” for all to be saved, but is stopped short by our free will to choose. Yet at the same time, God is all knowing and so from before time began knows or “predestines” which ones are gonna choose Him and spend eternity in Paradise, and which ones are gonna burn in Hell and damnation.

If you don’t believe all of this, namely the predestination part, then God to you becomes captain of a ship which you can choose to get aboard or not—by choosing to believe in His son, and ask Him to be Lord and Savior of your life (which is really kinda like telling your Mom she can be the one that squeezed you out of her…well, out of her), but if you don’t….you’re gonna burn in Hell and damnation.

And how do we get aboard this ship? Well, we grow up. We see that we need the ship, and the Captain, and it’s up to us to get on board. He’s extended the invitation, but it’s up to us to make the Peter Pan in all of us Grow Up.

I’ve come to realize that for most of my life, I’ve viewed the story of the Prodigal Son in this light. He screws up, realizes he’s hurt, dirty, and living in a reality of a Pig Sty, and logically decides to return to His father. Yes yes. Humble myself, turn from my filth and pig sty, and tell my Father that I am not fit to be His son, but I will be a servant if He’ll take me. Yeah. That way, I can still get outta this filth and back to what I’ve decided is Good.
Never mind that His father runs out to him on the road and hugs him. This was his mindset. And this is the mindset we expect everyone who “chooses” Jesus to have. We tell them, “He’ll be waiting on the road to hug you and welcome you and throw you a party, but you have to be a man, you have to grow up, see what you’re living in, pull yourself up by your boot straps, and decide to make the long journey to Him.”

To find love, Peter Pan, you have to leave the imaginary Neverland of your mind, and grow up. What was that line from the beloved film of my generation, Hook? “Why Peter, you’ve become a pirate.”

In our quest to be what God wants us to be, we’ve forgotten what He’s created us as. In growing up ourselves, we’ve forgotten that we were ever—and still are, children. So much so that the process to “become a child of God” has become something that requires us to grow up (as the Prodigal Son).
We’ve lost sight that to save us, God didn’t wait for us to come to him, but entered our world—as imaginary as we’ve let it become. And he did it gently. I want to avoid gender stereotypes and roles of male and female, and father and mother, because it can get too convoluted. But I need to point out that (who some have dubbed a Christian Mystic, whatever that means) Julian of Norwich thought of Jesus as a Mother, and that the pains on the cross were like the pains of child birth.
I hesitate in this side of the topic because I don’t want to make this about gender, but about adults and children. And how we treat adults and how we treat children. And how we think God treats us, as adults or as children. What I can say is that I love this image because of how beautiful it is to think that rather than acting like we picture the story of the Prodigal Son, Jesus didn’t/doesn’t just wait for us to come to Him, He entered our world. And what is He really like? What does He really expect from us? Is it to come to Him as adults, self aware and disgusted with our being, or as children? What was that thing He said about children and the kingdom of heaven?

What do we do when we’re hurt as kids? What do we do when we realize we’re dirty as kids? What do we do when we feel guilty as kids? We cry to our parents and want nothing but to curl up in their lap and rest our heads on their chest. It has nothing to do with logic, just emotion. Something snaps us out of our imaginary play world, and we want to run to our parents. And what does a good parent do? They’re not off somewhere waiting for us, or to come to us and express our humility, they’re right there the whole time; they’ve been there the whole time. All it takes is snapping out of it to see they’re right there to hold us.

I realize how unnerving this can be. But I think there’s a part in all of us that truly, doesn’t want to be grown up, instead, we want to fly, we want to fight, we want to crow.

But in the notion of needing to make ourselves something, in becoming Pirates to be saved, we make God a Pirate. And because Jesus is the image of an invisible God, we make him a Pirate. We think that He came into this world with the mindset of fighting fire with fire. We need to have this in order to make sense of the story as we see it. We turn the plot into something it’s not so that the story can be as we want it to be.

So we love and crave the plot, Jesus, to be like people like Mark Driscoll envision: A balls to the wall manly man Jesus, who could take both Chuck Norris and Macho Man Randy Savage in a fight and who came into our world kicking ass and taking names and inviting us on a quest to do the same, and who conquered Jerusalem…by…riding in on a donkey.

We make Jesus a pirate because we think that’s what we’re supposed to be. And Jesus has to be this in order for our views of ourselves, the story, and our role in it to not be shaken.

But what if…what if there was another way to look at it?

What if the story is still being told? What if no matter how old we get, we’re still in the 6th day of creation, being made in God’s image, and so we will always be learning, always growing, always kids? What if, just like a (Montessori) Teacher, God knew the nature He created us with? He knew in putting out a work (the tree) we weren’t ready for, that we’d eventually make our way to that work and try it before we were able to? What if then, the rest is His giving us a lesson in the work, teaching us about Good and Evil, about Life, so that come the 7th day, we’re ready for it?
What if this whole existence is God still telling a story that ends with “it’s all good.”
What does that make us?

In the film Batman Begins, there’s a line that the film emphasizes and kinda comes back to here and again. It happens when a young Bruce Wayne falls down the well. His loving father comes and does not criticize his actions but simply says this, “And why do we fall, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves back up.”

What if God isn’t trying to correct our mistake and to make us grow up, what if He doesn’t want us as pirates, but as Peter Pans, to see ourselves as He sees us—as His children? What if through this whole fallen existence what He is telling us is this:

“And why are we fallen, Adam (humanity)? So we can learn to pick ourselves back up.”

3 Comments

Filed under God stuff

‘Them Gays’ and The Church

UPDATE 2: (7.May.2020)

APPARENTLY there’s been repeated clicks on this post, and I’m doing a disservice to NOT include the actual scriptural foundations for everything. And I’ve actually been including it for my college students every semester, but don’t know why I’ve never gotten around to doing so here.

Anyway. Here we go.
It all began in a fun, lively little Twin City area called Sodom and Gomorrah. In fact, the word we often see translated into homosexual is “sodomite.” BUT before we get into that, what was the issue with the town in the story? Were they wicked because of being gay, or because of rape? Is mob violence the same as consensual homosexuality? Can there be same sex rape to which the perpetrator ISN’T gay?

And how would you make sense of Ezekiel 16:53? Which was preceded by verses 49-50, explaining the actual “sin” of Sodom.

Okay, you say, but it CLEARLY says in Leviticus (18:22, 20:13) that you can’t have relations with the same sex.
True. It ALSO says not to shave the sides of your head OR trim your beard. Or get tattoos. (Lev. 19:27, 28)

Why? Well, all of this had to do with the acts of worshiping pagan gods. Idol worship, and this is what temple prostitutes would do. Nations at the time, as an act of worship of their gods would shave the sides of their heads and mark their bodies.

How do we know that when it talks of lying with someone of the same sex it’s talking about temple prostitutes? Well, it’s referenced in 1 Kings 14:24.  “male cult prostitutes” is the rough English translation.
How would they worship pagan gods at the time? Go to the temple and “petition” the god by having sex with one of the temple prostitutes–male or female. You gave the prostitute your…*ahem* “seed”, by giving it to the MALE prostitute, you were then offering it to the god.

IN FACT, the word used for a male temple prostitute was/is SODOMITE. While the female temple prostitute was/is a harlot.
So “Sodomite” never meant homosexual, but a male temple prostitute…one who happened to have sex with both women and men as a means for those coming to worship the pagan gods.

And that was ruled a big NO NO. Probably why we don’t have sex in churches today…
Too much baggage associated with temple prostitutes and sex as a form of worshiping pagan gods…

So “wrongness” isn’t tied with the act of laying with someone of the same sex itself, but with that of idol worship.

Alright. That’s enough OT. Moving on. But what about the mention of Homosexuals in the NT?

Well, the word in the greek is “Arsenokoites.” And it’s only used two times in the whole of the Bible (1 Cor. 6: 9-10, and 1 Tim. 1: 9-10). It references the Hebrew term “Sodomite.”
BUT. Here’s the deal Arsenokoites is a compound word–like Butterfly–and compound words are tricky. Like butterfly, we’re not talking about a fly made of butter, arsenokoites is similar. And since it’s only used twice in the Bible, without any context as to what the word means, we have to look elsewhere.

Arsenokoites is a compound word coming from arsen, and koites.
Arsen= man
Koites= the plural for beds. (It’s where we get our word, “coitus.”)
So arsenokoites is actually “man who has sex in many beds”

But again, given the non-biblical Greek texts which use this word to give it proper context and definition, this wasn’t about homosexuality, but about taking advantage sexually.
This was more about rape.

Arsenokoites was someone who took advantage of someone else sexually.
Who raped.

Well then what about in Romans 1:26– where it talks about natural vs unnatural???

You mean the Greek word, “physis”?
Well, that SAME WORD was also used in Romans 11:24 to talk of God offering salvation to Non-Jews. That’s UNNATURAL!!!

So AGAIN, it can’t be the “unnaturality” that makes it wrong, but the motivations.

Therefore…
That’s a word often used and means we need to look at what came before to give understanding.
Therefore…Romans 1:26 needs to be framed in reference to before. Specifically Romans 1:23.
Which states AGAIN about idolatry. Worshiping pagan gods.

Lusts were SHAMEFUL when they were about indulging in sexual acts in honor and worship of pagan gods.

Sex tended to be tied into the Greco-Roman form of worship (as it did with “pagan” cultures in the OT).

The writer of Romans was addressing an audiences all too familiar with this practice and was drawing a larger point about the sinfulness of pagan worship.

Basically. The gist of all this? PAGAN DEBAUCHERY DOES NOT EQUAL HOMOSEXUALITY.

paul harvey

UPDATE 1: (1.August.2012)

This being one of the top viewed posts on my blog, I felt the need to add a minor blip to it, in order to convey what I believe the Bible is saying about homosexuality. The post itself is a specific response to a specific conversation and–while still worth reading, only conveys a broad picture of what I hold true.

The large scope of the matter, I feel, rests on the word Sodomite.
In the New Testament, the passages concerning homosexuality–and all the times in the various translations the word ‘homosexuality’ is used, the actual word that it’s translated from is ‘Sodomite.’ Sodomite was a term familiar to the Jew, and it’s history does in fact date back to Sodom and Gomorrah, and the story of Lot there.
Yet what is intrinsically tied to this term, Sodomite, has been lost in modernity, lost in translation, and lost in meaning.
You see, Sodomite was a term used to reference male temple prostitutes. Whereas female temple prostitutes were referred to as Harlots, to distinguish a temple prostitute that was male as opposed to one that was female, they referred to them as Sodomites.
As I said, it was indeed coined based on the story of Lot in Sodom, and the gang rape and desire to rape the angels visiting Lot, but I believe that there is an enormous difference between what we call and consider homosexuals today, and what was termed a Sodomite in Scripture.
You see, if we’re referring to Sodomites, we’re not only referring to the male version of a prostitute, but there’s a whole ideology and cultural understanding of specifically ‘Temple’ prostitution that we do not seem to grasp.
Temple prostitutes were known for vile sexual acts, what we would deem presently/modernly as ‘Sexual Deviancy.’

There is no love represented in Temple Prostitution. It is vile sexual action in the mindset of ‘worship’ of false deities.
Now, we know according to John’s letters (1st John) that God is LOVE, and where the Spirit of God is, there is Freedom.
When Paul was writing about Sodomites in the New Testament, he was referencing the Greek and Roman community present in his time, and noting to his followers, to the churches he was writing to, not to become embedded in that culture. The gratuitous sexuality for the sake of itself and pleasure what was what Paul was warning against.
For in it, there is no love, and without love, there is no freedom.

So I ask, if Paul was really warning about ‘giving in to our sexual desires,’ our lusts, no matter what they are, was he warning against homosexuality, or against actions that contain no love, and therefore, no freedom, and thus, are binding, addicting, enslaving?

While I will state that the “Gay Pride” movement–especially men in it, has the strong appearance of what can only now be described as ‘Temple Prostitute’ ideology–flagrant sexual acts for the sake of the acts themselves, the friends I have in the GLBT community can only be considered as seeking love.

So how then, can those that seek love, even if it is in a way which runs contrary to what and how we consider to be the ‘natural order of things,’ be faulted as not loved by God as they are, for who they are?

Even still, the crazy thing about God is that he not only is Love, but He seeks out the lost and the low–the prostitutes. He even commanded one of His prophets to marry a Harlot so for Hosea (the prophet) to better understand God’s relationship and abounding, unrelenting love for us.

As such, I will forever hold that God is love, and where love is, God is.
Yet the funny thing about scripture, is that it cleaves us, like we were two people, not one. The very passage that says, “but if we love one another, God lives in us and His love is made complete in us,” and “we love because He first loved us,” goes on to say that “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ yet hates his brother, is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.”

Part of me thinks, “Alright, God lives in me, and His love is made complete in me, cause I have loved.”
And then part of me thinks, “Crap, there are people I struggle with loving, and if I can’t say I love them while saying that I love God, not only am I a liar, but I don’t truly love God.”

See?
Two people. One of me loves, yet one of me doesn’t.
The good news is that that one that doesn’t will one day be cut from me and thrown into the fire forever, while the one that loves will live on IN LOVE, to Love, forever and ever.
And I hold this to be true of EVERYONE, regardless of gender, orientation, or sexual preference.

~And the world will be better for this.

ORIGINAL POST: (Written 10.June.2011)

In recent conversations with some online friends, I really felt the need to express my thoughts/heart on homosexuality and the LGBTQ+ community.

Here we go:

I think too often we take the story of the horrific sexuality that happened in Sodom and Gomorrah, combine it with Romans 1, where it says “God gave them over to their shameful lusts” and then make some sort of theological doctrinal dogma…stuff about homosexuality. Without covering terrible English translating (the actual translation of Romans 1 would read something more like “God let them have their dishonorable sufferings,” note, sufferings, which is a more broad category that somehow–translation wise, the “Church” has attributed to homosexuals only.), let’s just take it as is for argument’s sake.

Firstly, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are my ways your ways.”God
If we are to know him, we are to know his Son. Who…as it turns out, was significantly silent on the subject of homosexuality. What He was loud and proud about was love. Love to such a degree that those who may be our “enemies” are who we are supposed to love, which will then make us perfect, as the Father is perfect. Love to such a degree that the last and the least were made first, and the first (Jesus), was made last for such a feat. But herein lies the problem. Modern Evangelicalism claims to be followers of Christ—to be Christians, but we’ve got an awful lot of Darwinism (the philosophy, not the science) in our doctrine.
We (I’ll lump myself in even though I’m ashamed of it) by our actions seem to say, “God came to save the world, yeah, but there are those of us who are winners, and those who are losers.” Sounds a lot like the Christian version of “survival of the fittest” to me. So…why does that need for a loser rear its ugly head in a religion whose King became the very last and least, the loser, so that we all could win?* (Insert obligatory Rob Bell reference that “Love Wins.” God wins in the End)

Why do we need to have villains, losers? Gays. Muslims. Mormons. Obama. The people that shop at Wal-Mart. Osama. Harold Camping.
Why?
So that we can know we are right? How is that Christianity? When our God became the scapegoat, so that all of us losers (that’s right, we all are; maybe in a later post I’ll tell you why I am) could win?
Mull on that for a bit and I’ll continue with point number B.

Number 2: “for they exchanged the truth of God for a lie.” Pretty sure that’s what Paul was getting at in that Romans 1 passage. The byproduct of that was everything else which follows in the passage. And I’m pretty sure it wasn’t just “the gays” that “exchanged the truth of God for a lie,” but all humanity at one time or another.
You. Me. Everyone.

So…God consigned us to a destruction of the body…in any and every perverse way we ourselves had the freedom to think of. Cause after all, what is shameful lusts but sin? And what is sin? Paul goes on to call it lawlessness. And what does the bible say is the law? Pretty sure it says it’s summed up in this: love.
So…sin is lovelessness…which is essentially selfishness.
And that looks an awful lot like all of humanity, not one single group.

So how does all that seem to translate to what the notion now seems to be: “God has made some sort of more shameful sin that looks like people are born with it, and I guess I just don’t know ‘cause it’s so damn confusing.”

Now we come to some of the more “liberal” Christian views. Some say, “hey, you know what, this whole homosexual thing is just your sin nature. And as such—while I myself can’t seem to work out an “abstinence from sin” program for my sin, we’re gonna tell you that all you have to do to be a Christian and serve God is to abstain from being Gay. Just…stay single, and…don’t rock the boat. And we’ll love you as a single person in the church struggling with an addictive sin just like we do alcoholic Christians and the like. Because quite frankly, when it boils down to it, we can’t fathom a God who might create someone to be something like a homosexual and yet still desire Christ.”
I think it’s easier to just lump it in with “other sins” because of not understanding it. “You’re not really Gay, you’re just a sinner. And when we get to heaven, you’ll see. Just as when you become a Christian you get a new heart and a new spirit, someday when we get to heaven, you’ll get a new body. And that’ll be a non-gay body. So…YAY GOD!”
Sorry, but I just don’t think it’s too clear on whether that entails gays getting a brand spanking new non-gay body. In fact, it really is rather vague on that. It says the sin, the lawlessness—which is lovelessness will be gone; that it will be burned away. But as for whether that entails homosexuality…not so clearly defined…
Who knows what heaven is gonna be like? Maybe it will entail the freedom and ability to share yours, your neighbor’s, my neighbor’s, and anyone else we(I) come into contact with’s ecstasy and joy. Pure, unadulterated, heavenly joy, with no heterosexual/homosexual labels coined and pertaining. That deserves to be said again… WITH NO HETEROSEXUAL AND HOMOSEXUAL LABELS COINED OR PERTAINING.
I think when we get to heaven the only sexuality that is going to exist is…heavenosexuality.(just made that up on the fly, copyright, gotta give me mad proppas if you wanna use it.)
What I’m saying is this: doesn’t it kinda make more sense that just as when we are in Heaven there will be “people from every tribe, nation, race, and people group,” yet our focus will not be on those defining traits, but on the fact that truly, we are of one nation—that of Zion; wouldn’t it make sense that maybe there won’t be any “earthly” defined sexuality? That we will all share in each others joys and praises and heavenly ecstasy?

Thus, we will all be heavensexuals.

It’s here I feel like I need to clarify on the point of Gender vs. Sexuality. I believe they are two differing aspects. In that, I don’t think gender necessarily garnishes sexuality, nor sexuality, gender. Now I know that that has seemed to become perverted in our state and time, that there seems to have been a rickety bridge constructed between gender and sexuality, but I think its false. So when I talk of Heaven, understand that I do not mean we will give up our gender—that there will be no male or no female, but just as everything, it may not matter once we’re there. . I don’t know how that’ll look. I mean, Lewis gets into some pretty crazy descriptions of such in Perelandra–that of gender and male/female debate, and he is able to word it much more eloquently than I find myself able to, so I’m just going to point people that way, to that book if they want to see a great description of Gender and the whole “male/female” shtick.

For now, I rest with this: we are all family. Sons and daughters of a Father we may not fully know or understand, but a day will come when we know just as we are known. Until then, we are called to Love God, and Love each other. IN that makes the kingdom now, if we so choose to see it. But as for me, if anyone (Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, Transgender, Muslim, Obama, Wal-Mart shoppers, etc) can see who Jesus really is, and love Him—or at least allow themselves to be loved by Him, if anyone sides on the side of love and compassion, knowing love kisses everyone, you’re welcome to do so in my church, standing next to me.

14 Comments

Filed under God stuff