Marriage vs. singleness?

First, the episode within Matthew 19 depicts Jesus' response to the Pharisees questions concerning divorce- ironically we have, and can, gain insight as to what Jesus believes marriage is- and is not. But, let us remember that Jesus is addressing divorce- not marriage and singleness. This passage is often quoted by many single men and women within a ministerial position to justify their status (or so I have noticed)

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I  say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. (Jesus is responding to the Pharisees here, so there understanding of the law needs to be taken into view)

Now the disciples are intrigued as they are looking on and listening to Jesus' current run in with the religious order of the day- their questions engender a sort of appeal ... sounds more like a dummy check to see if they understood what Jesus was saying.

      The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”-(Matthew 19:1-12 ESV)

Correct me if I a wrong but the "saying" that Jesus is referring to, the one that not everyone can receive, is that "it is better not to marry." It would be hard to imagine Jesus giving a position that was against marriage- but it would be equally as odd to imagine Jesus stating that one way (singleness) was better than the other (marriage). Jesus then makes an example out of the eunuchs and explains the different means to becoming a eunuch:

1. Eunuch from birth.
2. Eunuch due to castration.
3. Eunuchs due to celibacy (self control).

All of these forms of eunuchism are understood to be for the sake of the Kingdom, but the odd detail is that the aspect of his polemic that is it understood to be something that "not everyone can receive" hinges upon the individuals sexual desires and sex drive- leastways, that is the impression that I am getting. At this point the conversation moves into a broader framework for me- the Kingdom is comprised of both married couples and singles. Indeed, single individuals are a byproduct of sexual intercourse between 2 individuals and the only way for that to be ordained within God's good creation is marriage. At multiple points in Israel's history God commanded his people to be fruitful and to fill the earth and subdue it.

So, my position dwindles down to this. I am not convinced that singleness is more "Kingdom" than marriage. However, I am not comfortable saying that for every individual the choice is exclusively their own- as a christian, Jesus is Lord. He wants to partner with us! If we are the church and Jesus is our head then the pathway through life, whether that means by way of singleness or marriage, needs to be something the Lord ordains and arranges- and we submit to. I don't think its healthy to emphasize the need for one and not the other as they are both positions advocated by both Jesus, and Paul. My personal struggle is not to adopt a superiority complex now that says "I am single, and while you married people look happy, you shouldn't be because you are a spiritual failure (as one blogger has put it) rather its allowing the fruitfulness of God's mission for creation to be unraveled within the interesting relationships of the church body- comprised of both married couples and single individuals. Also, if I assume that position (and I will not) I would potentially be placing myself between a rock and a hard spot should I feel called by God to enter into a marital covenant in the future. Whoops! I think a big problem for us within this culture context is that marriage is something we have entitled ourselves to (we even believe that God has someone for all of us) We live in a society where the government will better meet your needs if you are married, and most churches won't hire you into a full time position unless you are married. The seems to be an emphasis upon the wrong vision.

A key point for me to remind myself of is that marriage is NOT about sexual desires, or romantic desires. Rather, marriage is about partnering together, committing ourselves to one another in order to establish God's kingdom in the here and now. Intimate relationships exist outside the confines of both marriage and sexual intimacy. However, for the purpose of procreation within the context of God's Kingdom the 2 must be married.  Obviously, this conversation is quite slippery! I haven't even introduced Paul's writings into this conversation BUT we need to learn to interpret Paul through Jesus' eyes ... not vice versa!

Indeed, it is not good for man to be alone but thankfully we have one another- marriage certificate or not.

Did Jesus preach the gospel?

These videos will get you in the ballpark as to what Scot McKnight has been kicking up so much dirt about as of late in his new book "The King Jesus Gospel" Though I have not read the book yet I have been following the dialogue surrounding the book rather closely. He ask a simple question: did Jesus preach the gospel? McKnight is confronting the tendency of so many people to interpret Jesus by way of Paul instead of interpreting Paul through Jesus. So, the question still stands, did Jesus preach the gospel? This gives rise to the obvious question of what is the gospel?

Dilemna: Nationalistic patriotism and the call of the Kingdom (Part 1?)

I would breifly like to get somethings off of my chest but before I start I want to make it clear that I am deeply sympathetic towards those who lost loved ones on September 11th, 2001 ( as well as every other day of the year) and I wish that this had never happened at all. But, the current dilemma is that it has actually happened and we now find ourselves in a time of distress.

In the wake of the 10 year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks I can't help but marvel at the actions of not only the typical christian laymen within America, but also church officials. There is so much noise in the areas of theology that in this day and age it is so often times a challenge to hear the truth for having to navigating through not only the various teachings of the day but also the biases implanted in our thinking- which are otherwise a product of growing up in such a society as we do here in America. I am learning this lesson on a daily basis! So when it comes to such things as terrorist attacks on "God's most favored nation", the practice of military advance, or protection, through force (more specifically the act of killing), or the recitation of the pledge of allegiance during a church service, you can't help but feel the tension that you are now engaged in an internal battle to separate what God envisioned for the world in Jesus from what political systems of the day expect of us. Most will often cite Romans 13 as vindication for pledging ones allegiance to their political power but does one ever stop to ponder how this mentality hurt christian men who found themselves subject to the governing authorities of the 1930's and 1040's in nazi Germany? Surely the forest has been missed for the trees when one exegetes Romans 13 and dismisses Romans 12.

There are deterministic theologies out there that say that God is sovereign over all and through all- thus, God is the cause of all things both good and bad. I, as well as many others, label this as a fatalistic theology precisely because that is what this branch of thinking facilitates. Clearly, Jesus never taught that God was the CAUSE of all things- but this is not to say that God is not sovereign THROUGH all things. Prominent eschatologies, especially in America, seem to give the impression that things must get worst before they can get better (enter: the second coming OR the "rapture" if you lived after 1860) and so we are alright praising God for the bad because eventually it will get so bad that Christ will have to return but we (the church) will be spared of all of this. This interpretation is often dubbed "escapist theology". Perhaps there are American soldiers fighting right now who have been heavily influenced by such despensational, premillenial theologies that, given their theological positions, they only seek to embolden young men and women who are engaged in the war on terror (what a silly idea) because, as such Zionist ideals play out, the middle east is the real enemy through whom the anti-christ will enact his final attempts to usurp the people of God, aka America. Where does this fit into the person of Jesus? The same Messiah who commanded us to love our enemies, pray for them, feed them, and clothe them is going to predispose his return with a military advancement upon the enemies of America? ... it simply does not fit! I am not calling for what some call the "abolition of war" as I recognize that we live in a world of war and conflict. I truly wish to entertain the question, with serious inquisition, as to what is the christians role in all of this? I fear that we cannot end war all together but we can do something about christian involvement in such things.

"Jesus is Lord"

Such a proclaim is remarkable. It is obvious that so many of us often lose sight of the fact that proclaiming Jesus' Lordship over our lives has immediate implication for our lives as ambassadors of another kingdom in the here and now- not just in America but all of the earth! "Lord" is an empirical term- it recognizes headship and authority. If you are a christian than Jesus is your king and you represent this kingdom! How is it that we lose sight of this as soon as the world's largest political power goes to war or experiences a moment of vulnerability?

What an odd response that so many came up with in light of the deaths of innocent men and women when a terrorist attack finally penetrated the shores of America. What did we do? In 2001 the American people were encouraged to go shopping and, in 2011, on the 10 year anniversary of that horrible event, we find ourselves pledging our ALLEGIANCE to the flag of America ... in our churches! Do we really believe that those trapped in the twin towers on 9/11 died FOR America? Rather, did they not actually die BECAUSE of America? And our response to all of this? We wave flags, salute America, and proclaim "God bless America!" What about the rest of the world? Are we not reverberating the same ideals of the Israelites when we put our nation above the rest? I just don't get it! It hurts my very being to see such uncritical patriotism at play in the world and in our churches! Further more, I don't see anyone ever being able to forget about the acts of violence America experienced on 9/11. No one forgets the very people they hate and despise! I feel that most Americans wish horrible things for middle easterners- instead of praying for them. In the hours following the assassination of Osama Bin Laden I was confronted by a woman who was opposed to my opposition of christians rejoicing in his death. Her response was this: "I wish we could have arrested him so we could have shown him a bit of hell before we sent him to hell!" ... Is this how Christ would speak of ANYONE?

I do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater here so I will state that there are times when our governments enact Christ-like justice, and there are times when we meet the needs of the downtrodden. However, to me, it is more about what we do when they fail to do these things? Do we simply bypass that reality in light of the times that they did good? It surprises me that I find myself in the minority amongst Christian's that believe violence and killing is anti-Kingdom! Actually, most people I know believe murder is a sin but, when in war it is permissible. If there was any point that Jesus made clear it was that killing was a sin, and violence was not the way of the Kingdom of God.

So, I have pledged my allegiance to the Kingdom of God. The recitation of any other pledge, in church or out, is strictly prohibited. Evil is real and and it is present in our world. As the Kingdom of God we are called to be the light and salt of the Earth- a light that reveals the nature of God for the Earth and the salt that preserves it!

Jesus is Lord therefore Caesar is not!

So, i've been reading Bonhoeffer as of late ...

"The followers of Christ have been called to peace and they must not only have peace but also make it. And to that end they renounce all violence and tumult. In the cause of Christ nothing is to be gained by such methods. His disciples keep the peace by choosing to endure suffering themselves rather than inflict it on others. They maintain fellowship where others would break it off. They renounce hatred and wrong. In so doing they over-come evil with good, and establish the peace of God in the midst of a world of war and hate."-Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Living amid the fragments of insufficient ethics.

"One of the ironies of the current situation is that the attempts to deny that ethics responds to the peculiarity of our current social and historic situation only makes us more subject to that situation. We are told that we live in a morally bankrupt age. People think what was at one time unthinkable; indeed they do what was once unthinkable ... We experience our world as so morally chaotic that we now feel our only alternative is for each person "to choose," if not create, the standards by which they will live.

I suspect that the experience of the world as morally adrift has a more profound source than the mere observation that people are permitted to do what was once unthinkable. Our disquiet about morality more likely arises from within us. Even though we feel strongly about abortion, divorce, dishonesty, and so on, we are not sure why we feel as we do, And the less sure we are of the reasons for our beliefs, the more dogmatically we hold to them as our only still point in a morally chaotic world. Ironically, our dogmatism only masks our more profound doubt, for although we hold certain moral convictions adamantly, we secretly suspect that we believe what we do because we have been conditioned. We hold certain beliefs as if they are unconditioned, yet are impressed with the knowledge that all beliefs are the result of environment, and thus at least potentially arbitrary. That very acknowledgment seems then to reduce all moral disagreements to subjective opinions about which there can be no argument.

This lurking suspicion that we really have no firm grounds for our beliefs makes us all the more unwilling to expose what we think to critical scrutiny. We thus take refuge among others who think as we do, hoping sheer numbers will protect us from the knowledge of the uncertainty. Or sometimes we suppose that if we think deeply and critically about our moral convictions, we will be able to supply adequate justification for what we believe. In both cases we assume that "ethics' must be able to provide the means for preventing our world from falling into a deeper moral chaos.

... Underlying such a view of morality is the presupposition that we are required by our own predicament to make up our "own minds" about what is good and bad. Indeed, those who do so with determination are seen as morally exemplary because they act autonomously rather than uncritically accept convention. But the very notion we are "choosing" or "making up" our morality contains the seeds of its own destruction, for moral authenticity seems to require that morality be not a matter of one's own shaping, but something that shapes one. We do not create moral values, principles, virtues; rather they constitute a life for us to appropriate. The very idea that we choose what is valuable undermines our confidence in its worth. In many ways the current popularity that "ethics" enjoys is odd, for most people most of the time would prefer not to have to think about what is the right or wrong thing to do. They simply want to get on with the living of their lives: to fall in love, raise families, have satisfying professions, support decent and worthwhile institutions."

Taken from: "The Peaceable Kingdom: A primer in christian ethics" by Stanley Hauerwas

The insufficiency of ethnical shaping to which Hauerwas is appealing to is something I have seen all to often in our culture. Can we critically come together and be a people who are shaped by our moral and ethical convictions? In an interview, Hauerwas has this to say in response to his "impractical and unlikely" claim as a "christian pacifist" a position in which he thinks that one cannot exist without the other:

"I fear that one of the reasons non-violence isn't given the time of day is because so many American Christians think they can have a relationship with Jesus that doesn't have immediate implications for their lives."-Stanley Hauerwas

I would only add that many American christians cannot clearly see the dichotomy of "american" with "christianity" because so many of these individuals read scripture, and understand Jesus, in light of their uncritical patriotism and nationalism. Howard A. Snyder muses upon this point in his book "Salvation Means Creation Healed: The Ecology of Sin and Grace," He says ...

"Uncritical patriotism is a long-standing dynamic in American history- as it is in many places in the world. Love of country is good and proper, of course. But, when it leads to disregard for the welfare of other lands and peoples, it becomes a plague. When patriotism or nationalism turns into ideology, and when criticism of our own government becomes unpatriotic, we are in grave danger. Uncritical patriotism leads to idolatry."-Howard A. Snyder

Been thinkin' as of late ...

I just spend the last 3 weeks on the road. I traveled up to Bushnell, Illinois for Cornerstone. From there we traveled through Chicago, Wisconsin and Minnesota to play a few shows and work with the local churches there. It was a great encouragement to see the kindness and generosity of people- even complete strangers. From Minnesota I flew with my friend Bradley to Houston in order to lead worship at a camp. The purpose of this blog was inspired by my observations made along this journey, some of which were confirmed by spending around 20 hours in 3 different airports consecutively and simply watching people.

Let me start this off by saying that I feel that the reality of the Kingdom of God, the fusion of Heaven with Earth, includes more than just a "spiritual awakening to an invisible Creator" that, by which, inspires me to live a better, more moral life. I wouldn't throw out this aspect of this reality but I would not dare to replace it with such. The kingdom of God is evident in our hearts, our minds, and our actions- its exactly how the Kingdom is being established in the here and now. We are in fact ushering in that "appearance"...

For a few years now, and more intensely as of late, I have been pondering the "imago dei". As I see it, this is essentially the basis of any model of "in Christ" rhetoric that is said to be a present reality foreshadowing a future hope. This has been the question I have continually asked myself concerning all of my life decisions. Can I do ___ and still bear the image of God in Christ? This is a hard thing to weed your way through, especially when we live in such a narcissistic society that masquerades such self-centeredness around under the veil of entitlement. So I ask myself these questions now ...

Can I still bear Christ' image and take the life of another?

Can I still bear Christ' image and go on vacation?

Vacation is such a staple in our culture. But, I wonder if people ever think about the idea of being served, and consumed with yourself and your desires, to ever be at conflict with the person of Jesus? I have only met a hand full of people who would share this opinion with me but this does not surprise me. Now, I must fight against the legalistic stereotypes while not allowing the labels of society to deter me from asking myself the tough, and necessary questions that need to be asked.

One of my favorite chapters in all of scripture starts off with the idea of surrender.

"I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect"-Romans 12:1-2

Give me your input and lets see where and how we can sharpen one another.

Love,
Seth

Crucify the bastard ...

Lately I have been asking myself a question; a question that is becoming more and more necessary for me to ask. I truly want to reflect Jesus and I want to experience that transformation from self-consumed indulgence to an "other-oriented" heart and mind. Here is what I do not want: I don't want to fool myself into believing that to achieve this means that I must simply swallow how I truly feel, at which point this transformation will come because I have exemplified some form of pseudo-ignorance. I want the real thing- not the emotional manipulation that we are used to. I don't want to feel one way and act another way. Most of all, when I am hurting, I do not want to feel obligated to just smile- I want to desire to smile. I don't want any faking ... from myself and from others. I want the things we talk about to be true. I want the people we are to be true. No obligations.

There is a bastard in me- a person who wants revenge, who wants to achieve great things, He wants comfort, and He wants to be respected. This person wants to be right, and he wants to be left alone. But, this person is raging war with the true person I want to be. (sounds like dualism on a personal level) I find myself crucifying this bastard all of the time. He is not wanted and I have no desire to keep him and nurture him. I want him dead, on a cross- a sport for the crows.

I have to constantly sift through my thoughts and emotions to avoid this bastards influence. So, I ask you: Who is the bastard in you that you need to crucify?