Stephen W. Hiemstra's Blog, page 69

Mark 11:1-11—Palm Sunday

Palm Sunday Donkey

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

I beg you Lord, deliver us!  I beseech you Lord, prosper us! (Psalm 118:25 SWH)[1]

Hosanna (הוֹשִׁ֨יעָ֥ה נָּ֑א):  What is in a word?

Mark’s Palm Sunday

Mark’s account of Palm Sunday is amazingly simple:  The disciples hunt around for a donkey;  they have a small parade; some people start shouting;  they scope out the temple and go home.  No palms!  No Pharisees hanging around.  No prophecy.

Parade

Still, this is no ordinary parade.  France notes that nowhere else in the gospels do we read of Jesus riding .  The parade fulfills the prophecy:  Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey (Zechariah 9:9 ESV).

Hosanna

The whole story builds up to v. 9 and the shouting:  Hosanna!  Blessed is he who comes in the name of the lord (Mark 11:9).  Hosanna is a transliteration of a Hebrew phrase appearing only in Psalm 118:25 cited above.  The rest of the phrase is cited from the next verse (Psalm 118:26).  Beale and Carson  describe Psalm 118 as a “royal song of thanksgiving for military victory” regularly sung at Passover.  The truncation of Psalm 118:25 to exclude the second half of the sentence (I beseech you Lord, prosper us), underscores the military intentions of the Palm Sunday crowd.  The next verse makes this point very plain:  “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David”(Mark 11:10).

Who is really being blessed here?

The Greek in v. 9 admits a second translation:  “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.”

Mother Teresa

Mother Teresa once described herself as Christ’s donkey.  When we come humbly in the name of the Lord, in some sense we too become Christ’s donkey.  And we too are blessed.

Footnotes

[1] אָנָּ֣א יְ֭הוָה הוֹשִׁ֨יעָ֥ה נָּ֑א אָֽנָּ֥א יְ֜הוָ֗ה הַצְלִ֨יחָ֥ה נָּֽא (Psalm 118:25 WTT).

 R.T. France.  The New International Greek Testament Commentary:  The Gospel of Mark.  Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans.  P. 428.

 G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson [Editors].  2007.  Commentary on the NT Use of the OT.  Grand Rapids:  Baker Academic.   Pp. 206-207.

Mark 11:1-11—Palm SundayAlso see:A Roadmap of Simple FaithChristian Spirituality Looking Back A Place for Authoritative Prayer Other ways to engage online:Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net, Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com. Newsletter:  http://bit.ly/HailMary21

 

The post Mark 11:1-11—Palm Sunday appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.

Prayer for Healing

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

Great Physician,

All praise and glory, power and dominion, truth and justice are yours, because you heal our diseases without appointment or cost. You only ask that we have faith.

We confess that faith is hard for us. We want your gifts without commitment, without thought, without devoting our hearts to what our eyes see everyday. Forgive our materialistic attitudes and unrighteous living.

Thank for the gift of forgiveness that Jesus made possible on the cross. Thank you for the many Easter eggs, blessings that you have given us with science, like the treats that we hide where we know our kids will find them.

In the power of your Holy Spirit, turn our eyes to you that our hearts will follow. Heal our sin-sick lives that our bodies and minds might also be healed.

In Jesus’s precious name, Amen.

Prayer for Healing
Also see:
The Face of God in the Parables
The Who Question
Preface to a Life in Tension
Other ways to engage online:



Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com




Newsletter:  https://bit.ly/Spring_23 ,  Signup
 
 

 

The post Prayer for Healing appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.

The Physician

This shall be the law of the leprous person

for the day of his cleansing.

He shall be brought to the priest.

(Lev 14:2)

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

The nature of truth and faithfulness takes on a whole new level of significance when lives are at stake. Although one can pray about most anything, but our minds often fixate on medical situations when someone asks if anyone is in need of prayer. When it comes to medical conditions, we feel vulnerable, alone, and, many times, hopeless.

The Great Physician

Jesus is best known as a healer both of body and spirit. Even Jesus’ most adamant critics admit that he was an exorcist, which seems odd because in the next breath these same critics will deny the existence of demons that can be exorcised (Sanders 1993, 15). How can Jesus exorcise demons that don’t exist? Even more odd, in this materialistic world where people deny the existence of God, these same materialists seem obsessed with the demonic, if Hollywood movies be any guide to public opinion. The existence of the spiritual world appears to reveal a cleavage between thoughts and feelings of many people.

Roman Catholic priest Francis MacNutt noted four types of healing needing prayer:

Repentance of sin (spiritual healing),
Emotional (or relational) healing,
Physical healing, and
Deliverance (healing from spiritual oppression) (MacNutt 2009, 130).

In the New Testament we see Jesus healing people matching each of these categories. Jesus could easily be described as the first medical missionary.

We live at a time when the spiritual relationship to medical problems is most obvious because the leading causes of death are preventable. Preventable illnesses and conditions point to a spiritual problem because the only things standing between the condition and treatment is a decision. Suicide, drug overdoses, obesity, and refusing to be vaccinated are leading causes of death in America today—so much so that live expectancy has been declining in recent years. Other obvious issues include anxiety, depression, and hypochondria.

There is no shame in visiting a doctor in this materialistic world, but don’t tell me I need to see a pastor or priest—I am not crazy—people tell themselves. Interestingly, Carl Jung (1955, 31), a student of Sigmund Freud, described the psychiatrist as a priest in a secular religion. Counseling in this framework served as the confessional in this new religion where the patient confessed his sins and the counselor then proscribed the steps to be taken to receive absolution. Jung supported this interpretation of Freud’s psychiatry noting Freud’s use of numerous speculative myths to support his theories, such as his theory of penis envy.

Parable of the Physician

One of Jesus’ shortest parables appears to be nothing more than a declarative sentence: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.” (Matt 9:12). This parable is one of Jesus’ proverbs, which in Hebrew is one type of parable. The same sentence appears in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, albeit in different contexts.

The sentence appears as a doublet in Mark: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) A Hebrew doublet is a poetic expression where the primary statement is repeated in different works in the second. Thus, Jesus is equating sin to sickness. This parallel is interesting because the Apostle Paul famously said: “For the wages of sin is death.”

 (Rom 6:23) If sin is the cause of illness and death, then physicians are effectively called upon to treat our sin, just like pastors and priests.

The Matthew version of this parable inserts a phrase not found in Mark or Luke: “Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” (Matt 9:13) Mercy is one of the Beatitudes in Matthew 5 and is the first attribute of God mentioned in Exodus 34:6. If God requires a change in the heart, mercy, burnt offerings (sacrifices) are a lesser priority.

The Physician
Also see:
The Face of God in the Parables
The Who Question
Preface to a Life in Tension
Other ways to engage online:



Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com




Newsletter:  https://bit.ly/Spring_23 ,  Signup
 
 

 

The post The Physician appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.

Rogers Advocates for LGBT Equality, Part 2

Jack Rogers. 2009. Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality:  Explode the Myths, Heal the Church.  Louisville:  Westminster John Knox Press. (Goto Part 1)

Review by Stephen W. Hiemstra

The single, most important organizational issue facing the Presbyterian Church (USA; PCUSA) in this generation has been the loss in membership. Since the merger of the Northern and Southern denomination in 1984, total membership has declined from 3,100,951 in 1984 to 1,667,767 in 2014 [1]. This is a loss of about half (46%) in 30 years or an average of 1.5 % per year . Because the primary evangelism practiced in the PCUSA is with our own youth, slowing the departure of young people from the church has been an obvious, but unattended priority . So what was PCUSA leadership doing while this was going on? Part of the answer is the subject of Jack Rogers’ book, Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality [4].

What was the biblical warrant for the priority given in the PCUSA  to gender confusion?

Bible Passages Pertinent to Homosexuality

Rogers (66) lists 8 biblical texts that get the most attention in debating homosexuality:

Genesis 19:1-29 (Story of Sodom and Gomorrah).
Judges 19:1-30 (Rape of Levite’s concubine).
Leviticus 18:1-30 (law).
Leviticus 20:1-27 (law).
1 Corinthians 6:9-17-17 (vice list).
1Timothy 1:3-13 (vice list).
Jude 1-25 (unnatural relations). and
Romans 1 (new covenant rejected).

To this list, Rogers (86,128-136) adds several other passages which he sees as biblical analogies, including:

Acts 10-15 (acceptance of gentiles).
Luke 10:25-37 (good Samaritan).
Matthew 19:10-12 (Jesus on marriage).
Acts 8:26-39 (Ethiopian eunuch).
Isaiah 56:4-5 (Eunuch’s acceptance).

Most authors start a conversation of homosexuality with a discussion Genesis 1-3 because the Bible’s discussion of sexual relations from that point forward assumes monogamous heterosexual marriage is the exclusive model for sexual relationships. This is why, for example, polygamous marriages are never raised up as a Biblical standard (even if tolerated by ancient society) and homosexuality is later condemned as sin (Lev 20:13).

Biblical Model for Marriage

The modeling of monogamous heterosexual marriage in Genesis is obvious and has always been the focus of church moral teaching.  A creator God creates Adam and Eve in His image (Gen 1:27) and immediately tells them to continue His work of creating (Gen 1:28), which heterosexual sex makes  possible (Gen 2:24). Sin arises when the woman believes a talking snake’s word over God’s word (Gen 3:1-6).

Intensification of Sin

This story of original sin is followed by stories of intensification of sin—Cain’s murder of his brother (Gen 4:8) and Lamech’s introduction of polygamy (Gen 4:19; Feinberg 1998, 30). The story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19) can accordingly be thought of one of these examples of intensification of sin.

This intensification of sin is evident both because the story follows a sequence of increasing greater sins in the Genesis accounts culminating in Noah’ s flood where  God brings an apocalypse of water.  Why?  Because of sin (Gen 6:5-7). Modeled on the flood, God then destroys the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah through fire.  Why?  Again, it is sin (Gen 18:20). God’s judgment is reserved for especially egregious sins.

Rogers Response to Traditional Reading

Rogers disputes that Genesis 1-3 lays out monogamous heterosexual marriage as a model (83). Stripping out the biblical model of marriage throws the interpretation of the later passages that deal with homosexuality into confusion.  In general, he tip-toes around the problem of sin.

Sodom and Gommorrah

For example, taking the story of Sodom and Gomorrah out of context Rogers views the story primarily as a problem in inhospitable behavior towards a traveling guest.  He argues this interpretation because “in the ancient world homosexual rape was a traditional way for victors to accentuate the subjection of captive enemies and foes” (67) However, this sociological interpretation is contrary to the tradition of scripture.  For example, in Ezekiel we read:

“As I live, declares the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.” (Ezek. 16:48-50) 

Two things about this passage stand out.  First, the word abomination stands out here because it normally evokes the Mosaic law (Lev 20:13) where homosexual sin is condemned and subjected to the death penalty.

Second, the women of Sodom (as well as the men) are involved in this abomination. The involvement of women is important because Rogers argues that the men  of Sodom were just establishing male dominance in the Genesis account, not engaging in homosexual activity [6]. Because woman do not normally use sex to establish dominance, the usual biblical interpretation is that we are seeing the sexual perversion of both genders in Sodom and Gomorrah. This point is reinforced in the New Testament where we read:

“just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 1:7 ESV)

There is no reason to appeal to extra-biblical arguments, as Rogers does repeatedly, when the biblical text itself is clear.  [7]

God’s Role in Sodom and Gomorrah

In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, it is important to understand that God himself destroys the cities.  If their destruction expressed a cultural bias, Abraham had ample opportunity to destroy the cities  when he captured them as a prize of war in Genesis 14.  He did not.  In fact, Abraham later interceded with God (an example of prayer) for the cities in Genesis 18:25-33.  Abraham’s behavior is an important object lesson for us.  We are to pray for those caught up in sin and leave judgment to God.

Holiness Code

How does Rogers deal with homosexuality in the holiness code of Leviticus?

Rogers cites 3 reasons for the holiness code focusing on the need to maintain ritual purity:

Israel needed to distinguish itself from neighboring nations in order to survive.
Mixing with other people or adopting their customs threatened purity.
Male gender superiority had to be maintained. (68-69)

Rogers sees both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 fitting into this cultural critique, but the Bible focuses on ritual purity as being modeled after God’s immutable character:

“For I am the LORD who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.” (Lev 11:45 ESV)

God’s immutable character also informs Jesus’ comments about the human heart. Jesus said:

“But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.  For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.” (Matt. 15:18-19 ESV)

The expression, “out of the heart,” means feelings and emotions, and it implies that Jesus was suspicious of such motivations .  By contrast, Rogers abrogates these verses because they are inconsistent with the double love command (Matt 22:36-40) and—like the holiness code itself—they are an example of culturally conditions laws (69).  Using a general principle (double love command) to abrogate a specific command (prohibit homosexuality as sin) does have biblical warrant, but primary example in Genesis 3:1 is criticized as satanic.[9]  In any case, the church has historically abrogated the ceremonial codes in Leviticus, but not the  holiness codes which form the basis of much of the Apostle Paul’s moral teaching.

Roger’s Interpretation

Much more could be said about Rogers’ arguments about homosexuality. However, his frequent use of cultural arguments generally focuses not on what the Bible says, but why he thinks the Bible says it. He then questions the motivation of the biblical author and those that disagree with his interpretation. It is hard to reconcile this sort of rhetoric with a high regard for scriptural authority, on which he professes to be an expert (7-8).

Although I disagree profoundly with the argumentation and conclusions of Jack Rogers’ Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality, he does a better job than any author I know of chronicling recent changes in the PCUSA. Unfortunately, the changes that he has advocated have led even more rapid decline in denomination membership than in previous years and, as a parent of kids struggling to believe, I grieve the denomination’s insistence on majoring in minors rather than preaching, teaching, and supporting the Gospel.

Nevertheless, in Christ we are never without hope.  Consider this verse:

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb 4:15 ESV)

This verse is a personal reminder that we all struggle with sin.  The irony is that the church offering the most healing [10] may not sing the sweetest siren song .

Soli Gloria Deo

Footnotes

[1] Total U.S. population grew from 225 million in 1980 to 309 million in 2010 or 36 percent or about 1.2 percent per year (https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Demog...).  This implies that PCUSA membership has fallen even as population has increased.  This trend would be considered  a stunning failure in top leadership in any other organization.

The rate of decline in membership in the PCUSA has been accelerating in recent years and jumped from 3.29 percent in 2011 percent to 5.26 percent in 2012 with the passage of provisions encouraging the ordination of homosexuals. See:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyt...

 The aging of the membership underscores this assessment.

[4] Kinnaman (2011, 21) provides a research-based exploration of the dropout of our youth.  He sees the core problem as a “disciple-making problem”.  A distracted church is unlikely to spend the time necessary to make disciples or to commit resources to making it happen.

 The parallel between Ezekiel’s characterization of Sodom and Gomorrah and postmodern secular society is most striking.

[6] The rape of Levite’s concubine in  Judges 19:1-30 is a parallel passage.

[7] Solo Scriptura—in God’s economy all knowledge is God’s knowledge, but the only authority for matters of faith in the reformed tradition is scripture.

Elliott (2006, 264) studied the use of emotions in the New Testament and concluded:  “Emotions are a faithful reflection of what we believe and value.”  Jesus’ teaching about the heart and suspicion about emotions suggests that the underlying problem of sin motivated his teaching.  This is why Paul could write: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures…” (1 Cor 15:3 ESV)  Atoning for sin was at the heart of Jesus’ ministry both on earth and post-resurrection.  This is why the Gospel requires both truth and grace (John 8:11).

[9] The passage reads:  “Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, Did God actually say, You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?” (Gen. 3:1 ESV)  Satan infers from a general principle (any tree) that it is okay to eat from a specific tree (the tree of knowledge) which is, of course, not what God said.

[10]  Each time we mourn a loss, we have to make a decision.  Do we lean into our pain or do we lean on God?  (Matt 26:36-44) Our identity is defined by the answer we give to this question each and every time.  Healing arises when our identity is in Christ, the Great Physician.

 “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (2 Tim. 4:3-4 ESV)

REFERENCES

Elliott, Matthew A. 2006. Faithful Feelings: Rethinking Emotion in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.

Feinberg, Jeffrey Enoch. 1998. Walk Genesis: A Messianic Jewish Devotional Commentary. Clarksville, MD: Lederer Books.

Kinnaman, David. 2011. “You Lost Me:  Why Young Christians are Leaving Church…” Grand Rapids:  BakerBooks.

Rogers Advocates for LGBT Equality, Part 2
Also see:
Fortson and Grams Bible Limits Sex to Christian Marriage, Part 1 
Campbell Turns Gender Confusion into Ministry
Webb: Analyzing Culture in Scripture and in Life
Vanhoozer: How Do We Understand the Bible? Part 1 
Books, Films, and Ministry
The Who Question
Preface to a Life in Tension
Other ways to engage online:



Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com




Newsletter:  https://bit.ly/Spring_23 ,  Signup
 

   

The post Rogers Advocates for LGBT Equality, Part 2 appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.

Availability: Monday Monologues (podcast), March 27, 2023

 By Stephen W. Hiemstra

This morning I will share a prayer and reflect on Availability. After listening, please click here to take a brief listener survey (10 questions).

To listen, click on this link.

Hear the words; Walk the steps; Experience the joy!

Availability: Monday Monologues (podcast), March 27, 2023
Also see:
The Face of God in the Parables
The Who Question
Preface to a Life in Tension
Other ways to engage online:



Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com





Newsletter:  https://bit.ly/Spring_23 ,  Signup
 



 

The post Availability: Monday Monologues (podcast), March 27, 2023 appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.

Prayer for Availability

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

Blessed Lord Jesus,

All praise and honor, power and dominion, truth and justice are yours because you are always available and answer our prayers.

We confess that we are not always fully present to those around us. Our minds wander and we wander through life without purpose or honor.

Thank you for the many blessings of this life, those that are obvious and those that we only discover as time passes.

In the power of your Holy Spirit, create in us a clean heart and a right spirit, that we might be fully present and share your presence with those around us.

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen.

Prayer for Availability
Also see:
The Face of God in the Parables
The Who Question
Preface to a Life in Tension
Other ways to engage online:



Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com




Newsletter:  https://bit.ly/Spring_23 ,  Signup
 

 

The post Prayer for Availability appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.

The Tax Collector and the Pharisee Revisited

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

(Gen 1:1)

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

Two words of theological importance in understanding God are transcendent and immanent. To say that God is transcendent means that he stands above or outside of the universe that he created. Normally we attribute transcendence to God the Father because of his role in creation. Just like a carpenter is not part of a cabinet that he builds, God stands outside the universe because he created it. By contrast, when we call Jesus Emmanuel, we are highlighting his immanence—God with us, as the word, Emmanuel, translates in Hebrew.

Have you ever wondered how God hears our prayers? If God the Father is transcendent and Jesus is immanent, just not standing in front of us, how does God know what we are praying? I have always seen this as a role of the Holy Spirit, God within us. The Holy Spirit is the power of God that sustains and provisions us, grants us spiritual gifts, and hears our prayers. As we read: “And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” (Gen 1:2) Hovering requires time and energy, just like your telephone requires electricity.

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, discussed earlier, pictures two worshippers in the temple praying. God the Father is normally considered the object of their prayer, but this parable includes an observer, Jesus Christ, who interprets the parable for us. It is Christ himself who cautions us: “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:14)

The sort of humility in view in this parable is that of self-reflection. A self-reflective person is one who is open to learning from their own experience. I used to tell my kids that there are three kinds of people in this world: those who never learn, those who learn from their own mistakes, and those who learn from other people’s mistakes. While the parable appears to focus on this second type of learner, it is generally true that people who prayer are open to learning from God, which implies that Jesus does not discount the third type of learner.

More generally in this parable we witness God’s attribute of accessibility. God is accessible in prayer (through the Holy Spirit) and he is accessible through Jesus Christ by means of his parables. This accessibility is not constrained by the manner of prayer, but it is better to be humble than self-praising if you want to be justified. Here in this parable we see a God who stands as judge over both our actions and our prayers.

Justification before God

The key term in this parable is the word translated as justify (δικαιόω). The Greek word for justify can have at least four definitions:

To take up a legal cause, show justice, do justice, take up a cause.
To render a favorable verdict, vindicate.
To cause someone to be released from personal or institutional claims that are no longer to be considered pertinent or valid, make free/pure.
To demonstrate to be morally right, prove to be right, pass. of God is proved to be right (BDAG 2005).

Justify is a legal term and its usage in Luke 18:14 favors the second definition. The idea here is that a self-reflective, humble person is more likely to be right with God than someone full of themselves, which is relatively easy to understand.

More normally as Americans, we eschew interpreting our relationship with God in strictly legal terms. Being a child of God suggests a more intimate relationship than we might seek in a court of law. But we are neither always obedient children nor always disobedience. Perhaps, a better way to look at it is to say we relate to God on multiple levels, depending on circumstances. The Good News is that regardless of circumstances, we are still members of God’s family.

The Tax Collector and the Pharisee Revisited
Also see:
The Face of God in the Parables
The Who Question
Preface to a Life in Tension
Other ways to engage online:



Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com




Newsletter:  https://bit.ly/Spring_23 ,  Signup
 

 

The post The Tax Collector and the Pharisee Revisited appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.

Rogers Advocates for LGBT Equality, Part 1

Jack Rogers. 2009. Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality:  Explode the Myths, Heal the Church.  Louisville:  Westminster John Knox Press. (Goto Part 2).

Review by Stephen W. Hiemstra

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA; PCUSA) approved ordination of homosexuals in 2012 and gay marriage in 2014. As moderator of the 213th General Assembly in 2001 and in other leadership roles, Jack Bartlett Rogers was an important advocate for these changes. In his book, Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality, he lays out the argument for why he believes that:

“We need to give people who are LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender] full and equal rights within the church and work for their rights within the broader society. That means that marriage, ordination, and every other right necessary to bring people who are homosexual into full equality with people who are heterosexual.” (107-108)

Because this book was published in 2009, it anticipated changes in the policy of the PCUSA by several years and played an active role in advocating for these changes. As such, readers interested in the genesis of these changes will want to be familiar with the arguments in this book.

Who is Jack Rogers?

Rogers is currently Professor Emeritus of Theology  at San Francisco Theological Seminary. While he is the author of numerous books, I am most familiar with his book, Presbyterian Creeds: A Guide to the Book of Confessions (2001), a study both in church history and dogmatics. Dogmatics is: “the study of the arrangement and statement of religious doctrines, especially of the doctrines received in and taught by the Christian church.” Rogers describes himself as “evangelical theologically” which makes sense for a former faculty member at Fuller Theological Seminary, but probably not for a faculty member at San Francisco Theological Seminary (6).

Outline of Book

As advocacy, Rogers’ Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality can be described as a work in the field of dogmatics. Rogers writes in 8 chapters:

Studying Homosexuality for the First Time.
A Pattern of Misusing the Bible to Justify Oppression.
A Breakthrough in Understanding the Word of God.
Interpreting the Bible in Times of Controversy.
What the Bible Says and Doesn’t Say about Homosexuality.
Real People and Real Marriage.
Recommendations for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
All are One in Christ Jesus. (vi)

Before the chapters are 2 prefaces and acknowledgments. After the chapters are an appendix, a lengthy study guide, notes, and a topical index. Missing is a scriptural index.

Rogers Requires Careful Reading

For example, one of the problems with the term, evangelical, is that the meaning has changed dramatically over the years and is often criticized as being a meaningless term. In chapter 1, Rogers defines an evangelical as:

“someone who accepts three propositions: (1) People can and should have a personal relationship with God through trust in Jesus Christ. (2) The Bible is the final authority for salvation and living the Christian life. (3) God’s grace in Jesus Christ is such good news that everyone should hear about it” (6).

So far so good. Rogers then goes on to distance himself from “fundamentalists” whom he describes as “more politically monolithic and more theologically conservative than evangelicalism.” (7) Fundamentalists have attempted over the years to give theological substance and voice to the evangelical movement.  Yet, Rogers uses them primarily in his book as a foil for criticism.

Rogers as Artful Politician

Chapter 2 is a case in point. Attorneys often cite this old saw:

if the facts support your case, then argue the facts; if the facts don’ support your case, then argue the law; if the facts and the law don’t support your case, then stand and shout.

Here the chain of reasoning is:  homosexual conduct is medically risky (fact) and it is a sin (law) [4], but it is also okay by Rogers (stand and shout).  If biblical interpretation provided a strong case for mainstreaming LGBT persons in the church, then one would expect chapter 2 to lay out the case for homosexuality—it does not. Instead, chapter 2 focuses on how biblical interpretation was misused to oppress blacks and women in the past (17). The art of politics lies in using innuendo—an indirect rather than a direct assault—to make an emotional point (standing and shouting) supporting your case. In this case, he argues that the Bible was misused in the nineteenth century to support slavery and oppress women—now, it is being misused to oppress homosexuals.

The problem is that evangelical Christians in the nineteenth century also successfully led efforts to abolish slavery and promote women’s rights [5].  The fascinating part is that in making these arguments he both lionizes 2 key constituencies (blacks and women) and, by inference, defames his opponents as being in the same league with racists and misogynists from the past who misused the Bible. While this is artful politics, one does not expect this line of reasoning within the church and it does not suggest a strong biblical case for homosexuality.

Rogers’ interest in Christology and his background in neo-orthodoxy are also fascinating. Troubling was the way that he split (much like the earlier split between evangelicals and fundamentalists) Jesus Christ from the scriptural witness—we understand Jesus Christ only from scripture and direct revelation (52-53).   The tradition of the church primarily represents scriptural interpretations rendered over time.  Consequently, because Rogers does not claim a new revelation of God [7],  it is highly misleading to separate Jesus from the scripture witness.

Rogers Departs from Reformed Interpretation

His proposed interpretative technique is laid out in 7 guidelines:

Jesus Christ is the center of scripture.
Focus on the plain text in grammatical and historical context.
Depend on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Be guided by the consensus of the church.
Let all interpretations be guided by the rule of love—love of God and neighbor [8].
Establish a best text.
Seek the whole counsel of scripture (65).

A key problem with this list is item 6—establish a best text—which is in direct tension with item 7—seek the whole counsel of scripture. Picking a favorite text and reading the rest of the Bible in view of it allows complete freedom to read the text anyway you like—or, if you are a church leader, to control the interpretations of the church with your particular theology in view . In fact, item 5 is an example of a best text (item 6) and an attempt to control interpretation .

Missing from this list is a key interpretative technique that Rogers employs repeatedly throughout his book.  He argues that the biblical homosexual prohibitions exist primarily to establish male dominance.  For example, he writes:

“The hosts [in Sodom and Gomorrah] do not seem to think of the attackers as primarily homosexual, or they would not offer women for them to abuse.” (67)

No doubt Moses employs this argument to show the depravity of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah; Rogers employs the argument to defame the hosts as misogynists and to divert attention away from homosexual sin.  Rogers employs this sociological argument repeatedly (e.g. 74-75) which has the unfortunate consequence of undermining the authority of scripture in the eyes of those reading Rogers text—especially women.  How can church unity follow from interpretation techniques that by their nature divide and conquer along gender lines?

The Protestant reformation was launched along with a new interpretative method—John Calvin’s—which focused on the authority of scripture.  Without saying so, Rogers discards the interpretative standards of the reformed tradition by substituting his own standards.  The irony of Rogers’ proposed changes in church polity and biblical interpretation follow American culture much the same way as he criticized the church doing in generations past.  The difference is, however, that American culture today is overtly secular, atheistic, and post Christian.

Assessment

Jack Rogers’ Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality is likely to be debated for years to come. It is easy to read and hard to understand. The target audience is broadly the LGBT community, woman’s groups, and minorities within mainline denominations. Rogers may, however, be remembered more widely as re-energizing interest in the study and practice of dogmatics, but perhaps for reasons he may not want to own.

In part 1 of this review, I have summarized of Rogers’ methods of argumentation and interpretation. In part 2, I will take a closer look at the biblical texts which both focus on homosexuality and at the biblical texts which Rogers’ highlights in his final chapter.

Footnotes

Comments supporting this assessment are found on a website:  www.DrJackRogers.com.  Anyone doubting Rogers’ position on this issue will want to read the first blurb on the first page by Bishop V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church.  Early in chapter 1, Rogers also discusses a group called More Light Presbyterians who have a: “ mission of More Light Presbyterians is to work for the full participation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people in the life, ministry and witness of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and in society.” (www.MLP.org).

 Readers interested in the debate over scripture with Robert Gagnon (author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice) can find this online at:  http://bit.ly/1GrGVvz.  Read part 1 of my review of Gagnon at: http://wp.me/p3Xeut-15F.

 http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...

[4]  Read part 1 of my review of Gagnon at: http://wp.me/p3Xeut-15F.

[5] See:  Dayton (2005).

[6 At the heart of his argument is a weak analogy.  In fact, the Bible’s arguments about slavery and role of women evolve between the Old and New Testaments in a way that is not true for homosexuality. The weakness in this analogy was the focus of a recent book by Webb (2001).  Read my review at: http://wp.me/p3Xeut-Bn.

[7] Rogers’ revelation is more political than spiritual.  He writes:  “I worked through how the church, guided by the Holy Spirit in understanding the scriptures, reversed our prohibitions against ordination to leadership of African Americans, women, and divorced and remarried people.” (15)  The argument goes 1 then 2 then 3 then 4, therefore 5.  The Bible never promoted slavery, even if it acknowledged it; women are clearly in leadership in both the Old and New Testament, although not as frequently as today; and divorce is a sin in the Bible, except in the case of adultery, yet the modern church has mostly looked the other way.  He is confusing what some people in the church have done with a mandate from the Holy Spirit and drawn an inference that cannot be made in scripture, but is now politically popular.

[8] At the heart of this debate over homosexuality is the proper definition of love.  In the Greek, Rogers is using a principle based on the Agape love (ἀγαπάω; love of neighbor) to excuse a sin based on type of Eros love (ἔρως; passionate love).  At a minimum, this argument is mixing apples and oranges.  It is certainly not an inference that could be drawn from Matthew 22:36-40 which is based on Old Testament law (Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18) which also prohibits homosexuality (Lev 20:13).

 The usual way that Protestants seek to interpret scripture starts with a focus on the intent of the author which is clarified by the whole counsel of scripture.  Then and only then is the reader’s interpretation brought in.  See for example:  (Vanhoozer 1998).  See my review at: http://wp.me/p3Xeut-Yq.

 The double love command (Matt. 22:36-40) is certainly important and much beloved among Christians. However, how can a general statement about love overrule specific guidance on the sinfulness of homosexuality?

 Thompson (2004, 58-62, 67, 71) viewed Calvin having 4 interpretative principles, including:  1. understand the author’s intent, 2. communicate effectively, 3. consult the original texts, and 4. consider the text and its application in the context of the canon of scripture.

REFERENCES

Dayton, Donald W.  2005. Discovering an Evangelical Heritage. Peabody: Hendrickson.

Gagnon, Robert A. J. 2001. The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Rogers, Jack. 1991. Presbyterian Creeds: A Guide to the Book of Confessions. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

Thompson, John L.  “Calvin as Biblical Interpreter.”  Pages 58-73 in The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin.  Edited by Donald A. McKim.  New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 1998. Is There a Meaning in This Text:  The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge.  Grand Rapids:  Zondervan.

Webb, William J. 2001. Slaves, Women and Homosexuals:  Exploring the Hermaneutics of Cultural Analysis.  Colorado Springs:  IVP Academic.

Rogers Advocates for LGBT Equality, Part 1
Also see:
Fortson and Grams Bible Limits Sex to Christian Marriage, Part 1 
Campbell Turns Gender Confusion into Ministry
Webb: Analyzing Culture in Scripture and in Life
Vanhoozer: How Do We Understand the Bible? Part 1 
Books, Films, and Ministry
The Who Question
Preface to a Life in Tension
Other ways to engage online:



Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com




Newsletter:  https://bit.ly/Spring_23 ,  Signup
 

   

The post Rogers Advocates for LGBT Equality, Part 1 appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.

Judge: Monday Monologues (podcast), March 20, 2023

 By Stephen W. Hiemstra

This morning I will share a prayer and reflect on The Callous Judge. After listening, please click here to take a brief listener survey (10 questions).

To listen, click on this link.

Hear the words; Walk the steps; Experience the joy!

Judge: Monday Monologues (podcast), March 20, 2023
Also see:
The Face of God in the Parables
The Who Question
Preface to a Life in Tension
Other ways to engage online:



Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com





Newsletter:  https://bit.ly/Spring_23 ,  Signup
 



 

The post Judge: Monday Monologues (podcast), March 20, 2023 appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.

Petition for Ethical Guidance

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

Almighty Father,

All praise and honor, power and dominion, truth and justice are yours, because you teach us to the honor the law, be mindful of the world, and advise us when wisdom and knowledge fail us.

We confess that you alone are the Lord, nothing happens without your permission, but we are rude, impertinent, and are too quick to judge others. Forgive our hardened hearts and willful minds.

We give thanks that you are willing to overlook our shortcomings, teach us, and lead us where we need to go.

In the power of your Holy Spirit, quicken our consciouses that we might not sin. Remind us of your law, teach us about the ways of the world, and guide us even when we too easily stray.

In Jesus’s precious name, Amen.

Petition for Ethical Guidance
Also see:
The Face of God in the Parables
The Who Question
Preface to a Life in Tension
Other ways to engage online:



Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com




Newsletter:  https://bit.ly/Spring_23 ,  Signup
 

 

The post Petition for Ethical Guidance appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.