hoffing and puffing

In this part of my site, I will post individual pieces I prepared prior to the inauguration of “Hoffing and Puffing.” In ways direct and indirect, they may contribute to my goal – self-conscious engagements with the realities of everyday life. Posted writings will be moved to the Archives after a month.

A Christian Basis for the Acceptance of Homosexuality

(A talk I  presented at the Penn State College of Medicine on Monday, April 21, 2008)

I hope you will forgive me for reading my remarks. I want there be time for questions and discussion, and I have much I want to say. So, speaking from a text will allow me to say as much as possible and still protect time for some interactions with each other. By the way, the projected information is primarily to provide you with specific Biblical text references that relate to my remarks.

The point of my remarks is to suggest that there is within Christianity a basis for the acceptance of homosexuality that is consistent with a devout Christian faith and the teachings that inform and nourish that faith.

There are a number of clarifications I need to make –

First, I am not a Christian and have absolutely no intention or desire to become one. Especially in matters of personal faith, I try to respect and defend for others the same religious liberty I claim for myself. However, when Christians decide to insert their faith directly and aggressively into defining public policies that shape my life as a citizen, the situation changes. What I’m committed to protect in the context of personal faith, I am not willing to honor in the context of politics. In Christianity’s political role, it is irrelevant if a person is a believer or not. Its claims require critical scrutiny and, if appropriate, rejection and vigorous opposition.

Second, by “acceptance of homosexuality” in this discussion I am referring to a distinction that is consistent with the acceptance of heterosexuality in the Bible; that is, the distinction between a person’s sexual orientation and a person’s sexual behavior. I am speaking of the acceptance of sexual orientation, not necessarily sexual behavior. For example, the Bible accepts a heterosexual orientation even though it gives considerable attention to its disapproval of many forms of heterosexual behavior. My remarks are premised on a parallel structure for homosexuality.

Third, I can offer no “proof” for my position. I will not even insist that it is the “correct” Christian position on this issue. I will only offer perspectives that I believe have integrity within the context of Christian teachings and are worthy of a life guided by Christian faith.

Fourth, if you brought with you the belief that Christianity and homosexuality are fundamentally incompatible, my primary goal is not to change your belief as much as to impact the way you view and treat others, especially homosexuals and Christians who have come to alternative understandings of their faith.

Fifth, if we try to address this issue from the perspective of church history, or the actual practices and perspectives of people who claim to be Christians we run into an impasse. In practice, there are Christians who embrace homosexuality and Christians who vehemently reject it (and there have been both kinds of Christians for a long, long time). Based on practice alone we’re left to settle the matter on the basis of power, not truth; that is, which practice dominates. Some may be happy asserting the power of the majority, for example, but that is not a criterion for truth compatible with Christian teachings.

Therefore, my discussion of Christianity is Bible centered, especially in the gospels and the letters of Paul in the New Testament. I will use the “New English Bible”; the most rigorous and reliable English language translation

If we ground a consideration of Christianity and homosexuality on the Bible, there are several generalizations that I believe are fair summaries of what we initially find –

1. There are two Old Testament references in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13; and three New Testament references in Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9, and I Timothy 1:10 that specifically condemn homosexuality. For example, in I Corinthians 6:9, Paul says that “none who are guilty of adultery or of homosexual perversion…will possess the kingdom of God.”

2. There is one Biblical passage suggestive of homosexuality that implies a different perspective. In Luke 17:34, while discussing when the Kingdom of God will come, Jesus says “I tell you this, on that night (when the Kingdom comes) there will be two men lying together in one bed; one will be received, the other left.” Some may argue this is not about homosexuality. They may be right, but I am quite confident that if it said that both men lying together in one bed would be condemned it would be interpreted as homosexual.

3. I do not include references that express a condemnation of “sodomy” if they do not include an explicit application to homosexuality. Sodomy is a term that describes sexual acts that in American society today are performed with greater frequency by heterosexuals than by homosexuals. Therefore, it is both dishonest and unfair to make it the special burden of homosexuals. I do not include Deuteronomy 23:17-18 because it explicitly applies to temple prostitution, both heterosexual and homosexual. And I do not include Genesis 19 and Judges 19-21. They are not accounts of homosexual behavior but of heterosexuals attacking other men to violate them. Furthermore, they are accounts that should offend even the most rabid anti-homosexual because both accounts include fathers who offer their virgin daughters as substitutes for the targeted men, saying, “rape them and do anything to them you’d like.”

4. Homosexuality, whether perceived as a perversion or an abomination, is not a prominent preoccupation of the Bible in either the Old or New Testament. For example, in the New Testament there is significantly greater attention paid to adultery, how we relate to our enemies, the dreadful consequences of wealth and power, the role of women, perceptions of self, family, marriage, divorce, celibacy, and multiple teachings about the proper foundation for Christian faith and life that are much more prominent and much more extensively developed.

To move forward with our consideration of the topic, we first need to consider three broad issues: Biblical literalism, Biblical selectivity, and the Christian understanding of Law and Gospel.

Biblical Literalism

This refers to the claim that every word of the Bible is the Word of God – the literal truth directly articulating God’s voice and will. Thus, since there are passages in God’s Word that condemn homosexuality. Case closed.

I wish I could find an honest response that was more gentle, but this claim is foolishness and puts in jeopardy the sacred authority it most seeks to honor. Consider just two superficial examples. They pose no stumbling blocks in themselves unless you insist on the literal truth of every word in the Bible.

- Adam and Eve, the first human beings, had three children – Cain, Abel, and Seth. Then in Genesis 4:17 it says, “Cain lay with his wife…” Where did she come from? And for Seth it says in 4:25, “Seth too had a son…” How did he do that? Biblical literalism is foolish because it leaves you with the unhappy choice of absurdity or incest. Take your pick.

- Matthew and Luke provide us with genealogies of Jesus, but they are not the same. Two illustrations: in Matthew Joseph’s father is Jacob and in Luke his father is Heli; in Luke there are 42 generations from Jesus to David and in Matthew there are 28 generations from Jesus to David. And we’re asked to believe that both are literally true.

Biblical selectivity

This is the practice of engaging some Biblical texts in their literal form, while either reinterpreting or totally ignoring other Biblical texts without any Biblical principle of interpretation that guides such a distinction. Biblical selectivity makes it possible to pursue homosexuality aggressively with words of rigid condemnation, while interpreting away Jesus’ injunctions to “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies” [Matthew and Luke], and ignoring his teaching that “it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” [Matthew, Mark, and Luke]. It simultaneously absolutizes Leviticus’ rejection of homosexuality while ignoring and rejecting Leviticus’ equally unambiguous prescriptions for marriage, food, and everyday life. Frankly, it annoys me that people who eat pork and shell fish, have tattoos, cook while they are menstruating, cut and dye their hair, and go to ball games on Sundays are ready to pounce on homosexuals armed with Leviticus’ words of condemnation.

Biblical selectivity uses Biblical literalism selectively. In doing so, it violates Biblical literalism, the golden rule, and any form of authentic fairness because it is just plain arbitrary and ultimately manifests habits and prejudices more than revelation.

Law and Gospel

The relationship between the Law and the Gospel is central to understanding the teachings of Jesus and the Christian life.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to complete.” [Matthew 5:17] It is easier to imagine what it would mean to abolish the Law than to complete it. What does it mean to “complete” the Law?

The answer is to accept and affirm the Gospel – faith in the “good news” of God in Christ. This gives us language to talk about the completion of the Law, but we still need a fuller appreciation of what are the meanings and implications of this language.

Let me suggest a few possibilities based on the examples from Jesus’ life and the teachings from Paul.

Ø The Gospel completes the Law by moving the focus from the exterior of our lives to the interior; from appearances created by our behavior to the essence of who we are in our heart and mind. Immediately after Jesus says he has come to complete the Law he offers this example based on the Law’s prohibitions of adultery: “If a man looks on a woman with a lustful eye, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” [Matthew 5:28] The Gospel completes the Law, in this example, by moving the issue of adultery from the evidence of behavior to the inner spirit that guides our behavior.

Ø The Gospel completes the Law by centering us in the purpose or the essential meaning of legal structures. Jesus continues by saying, “always treat others as you would like them to treat you: that is the Law and the prophets.” The Law prescribes specific behaviors; the Gospel penetrates those outer forms to identify their essential purposes and meaning. In light of the Gospel, what is the greatest commandment in the Law? Jesus says, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind.” The second is like it: “Love your neighbor as yourself. Everything in the Law and the prophets hangs on these two commandments.” [Matthew 22:35ff and Mark 12:30ff]

Ø The Gospel completes the Law by diverting us from misunderstandings related to the role of the Law in our lives. What misunderstandings? Well, that we can justify ourselves, that we can earn our place with God, that we are the source of our own righteousness. Listen to Paul: “no human being can be justified in the sight of God for having kept the Law;” [Romans 3:20] “all are justified by God’s free grace alone;” [Romans 3:24] “a man is justified by faith quite apart from success in keeping the Law;” [Romans 3:28] “What the law could never do, because our lower nature robbed it of all potency, God has done for us;” [Romans 8:1ff] “we are discharged from the law, to serve God in a new way, the way of the spirit, in contrast to the old way, the way of a written code.” [Romans 7:6]

Ø The Gospel completes the Law by redirecting how we frame and live our lives. It repositions us. Our most fundamental task has shifted from “making a name for ourselves” through good works and righteousness defined by the Law to the obedience of faith in the Gospel through which God’s love rescues us from the consequences of our presumption and sin. This reflects the essential theological difference between Judaism and Christianity. The central theological concept in Judaism is redemption; the work of renewal guided by the Law. The central theological concept in Christianity is salvation; the Gospel message of God’s deliverance of us through his son, Jesus Christ, from death and damnation as a free gift of love in spite of our unworthiness.

Where does this leave us about our consideration of Christianity and homosexuality? My view is that it suggests that neither Biblical literalism nor Biblical selectivity can guide us to an appropriate understanding of this issue. And it suggests that the central guide to a Christian’s understanding of homosexuality should be built within the guidance of the Gospel not the specifications of the Law.

Now with your indulgence, I’d like to share a true account of one Christian’s life as he struggled to live within the guidance of the Gospel message of the Bible. Mine.

I was born and raised about 100 miles east of here in northern Bucks County. We were the people called “Pennsylvania Dutch”; but really we were Pennsylvania Germans, as my Dad insisted. My ancestors lived in Bucks County since the late 17^th Century. My grandparents were Mennonites, Lutherans, and German Reformeds. My mother was Lutheran. My father and I were German Reformeds. We belonged to a union church that served both congregations.

From my earliest memories there were three reference points for my personal identity. I was a proud American. I was culturally German. And most fundamental of all, I was a devout Christian. These were not garments I wore to cover my nakedness. They were the essence of who I knew myself to be. How did my life as a German American committed to the Christian gospel take shape? Here are some specific examples.

- I attended Pennsylvania public schools for 12 years and every day we started with the reading of ten verses of the Bible, the pledge to the flag, and the Lord’s Prayer. I knew of no one who did not consider herself or himself to be a committed Christian, but the school ritual required by Pennsylvania state law created considerable distress for many of us. Reading the Bible, we believed, was to be an act of personal devotion not a requirement of the state. Prayer was not to be a public spectacle, but as Jesus said, “when you pray, go into a room by yourself, shut the door, and pray to your Father who is there in the secret place.” [Matthew 5ff]

- I remember when Congress changed the pledge to the flag during the passions of the McCarthy era, inserting just two words – “under God”. Oaths of any kind were not easy for us to absorb. We thought there was valid guidance in Jesus’ teaching that “plain ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is all you need to say; anything beyond that comes from the devil.” [Matthew 5:37]. And then, to unify God and state within an oath, caused us considerable consternation. We believed that separating church and state was essential for the protection of our Christian faith; not for the protection of atheists or secular humanists.

- We had strong, pacifistic tendencies – not because of any sympathy for Hitler and the Nazis, but because we thought Jesus’ teachings to “turn the other cheek”, to “love your enemies”, to “pray for your persecutors”, to have a “gentle spirit”, to “show mercy”, to “have pure hearts”, and to be “peacemakers” somehow were relevant to our lives and how we lived them.

- We struggled against worldliness within ourselves and within our community. I often describe the deprivation of the early years of my life: no TV, no cars, no movies, no dances, and worst of all, no make-up. We believed there was truth in the notion that we could not serve God and money, that we should not “store up for (ourselves) treasure on earth” [Matthew 6], that true discipleship required us to be willing to part with all of our possessions [Luke 14:33], and we were comforted by Jesus’ encouragement to “put away anxious thoughts”.

- We understood our stewardship of the land to be an expression of our devotion to God and our gratitude for the plenty of his creation. We reaped without waste, we gleaned the fields after harvest, and we tended the fence rows as nurturing acts of piety. Somehow we neglected the injunctions of Leviticus 19:9 that prohibit all of these agricultural practices under direct instructions from God to Moses.

- We were skeptical of doctors, restrained in seeking medical attention, and ready to use home cures that had evolved from long and intricate lines of informal communication (usually through “old wives”). Yet, I don’t remember a single occasion when we consulted or followed the medical instructions of the Torah. [i.e., Leviticus 13ff – leper, infections, blemishes]

- When Norm Slotter’s brother died unexpectedly leaving behind a childless widow, it never occurred to anyone in our community that Norm had to make her pregnant or marry her in spite of unambiguous Biblical texts that asserted it was the will of God that he should do so.

- I anchored many of my core beliefs in my Christian faith. For example,

- I assumed that slavery was antithetical to the Christian Gospel, failing to ponder why the Bible never condemns slavery and why Paul counsels slaves to obey their masters. [Ephesians 6:5]

... I committed myself to the civil and human rights of every person and to the need for a particular commitment to provide protection for people whose rights have been violated and denied even though, for example, I never met a person of African descent until I was in my mid-teens. I did not base this on secular or political principles, but on my Christian faith – my belief that we are all God’s children and that in Christ we are one. It never occurred to me that on Sunday mornings Christians were more divided, less whole than at any other time during the week, and yet supposedly closer to God in worship.

... I believed that democracy, based on the sovereignty of the people, captured the spirit of God’s universal love even though Paul insists that there is no political authority but by act of God and we are always subjects never sovereigns. [Romans 13:1]

... I expected to enter into a monogamous marriage and to have children within the guidance and blessings of my faith, never seriously considering that the Bible counsels me that celibacy is the best way for a man to live [I Corinthians 7:25]; that “it is a good thing for a man to have nothing to do with women” [I Corinthians 7:1]; that my marriage would be a concession to my weakness; and that as a weak man I may need several wives.

... I understood my faith as the foundation for my devotion to my family without considering the implications of Jesus’ teachings that “if anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, even his own life, he cannot be a disciple of mine” [Luke 14:26] or “there is no one who has given up home, or wife, brothers, parents, or children, for the sake of the Kingdom of God, who will not be repaid many times over.” [Luke 18:29]

... I thought that Mrs. Wycoff was the best Sunday school teacher I had ever had and I knew my Dad respected her leadership on the church consistory never realizing that Paul taught that “a woman must be a learner, listening quietly and with due submission. I do not permit a woman to be a teacher” [I Timothy 2:11] adding that “in all congregations of God’s people, women should never address the meeting.” [I Corinthians 14:34]

I could continue, but enough is enough. What’s my point? It is simple. In every circumstance previously mentioned I, and the community of faith of which I was a part, carried a profound commitment to embrace and affirm the Christian gospel as it was known to us through the New Testament. In some instances we tied ourselves tightly to the language of specific Biblical texts. In other instances we were oblivious to the challenges posed for our beliefs by specific Biblical texts. But in all instances, we were steadfast in the work of faith; the work of translating the implications of the Gospel for our relationship to God and for our relationship to each other.

This is where I hope Christians will place themselves when they consider homosexuality in America today. I hope they will ground themselves in the teachings and the spirit of the Gospel as reflected in the testimony of the New Testament. It will not give them “the answer”, but it will guide their spirit and it will make it possible for some of them to experience the meaning of the Gospel through their loving embrace of brothers and sisters they don’t fully understand but who they can include in the fellowship of faith.

Here are some of the teachings embedded in the spirit of the Gospel that I think can lead a Christian to embrace such a position:

- “no sin is beyond forgiveness for man” [Matthew 12; Mark 3]

- “The conclusion of the matter is this: there is no condemnation for those who are united with Christ Jesus in faith.” [Romans 8:1]

- “With us, therefore, worldly standards have ceased to count in our estimate of any man…” [II Corinthians 5:16]

- “Put no confidence in anything external.” [Philippians 3:3]

- “Christ brought us freedom from the curse of the law” [Galatians 3:13]

- “When you seek to be justified by way of law, your relation with Christ is completely severed; you have fallen out of the domain of God’s grace.” [Galatians 5:4]

- “Do not judge superficially, but be just in your judgments.” [John 7:24]

- “in judging your fellow-man you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, are equally guilty” [Romans 2:1]

- “in the rigid obstinacy of your heart you are laying up a store of retribution for the day of retribution.” [Romans 2:5]

- “always treat others as you would have them treat you” [Matthew 5; Luke 6 and 18]

- “Let us therefore cease judging one another, but rather make this simple judgment: that no obstacle or stumbling-block be placed in a brother’s way.” [Romans 14:13]

- Paul’s teaching on love in I Corinthians 13.

- “Be generous to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another as God in Christ forgave you.” [Ephesians 4:32]

- “pursue justice, integrity, love, and peace with all…” [II Timothy 2:22]

- “Put on the garments that suit God’s chosen people: compassion, humility, gentleness, patience. Be forbearing with one another, and forgiving. To crown all, there must be love, to bind all together and complete the whole.” [Colossians 3:12ff]

- “But you, man of God, must pursue justice, piety, fidelity, love, fortitude, and gentleness.” [I Timothy 6:11ff]

- “…pursue justice, integrity, love and peace with all who invoke the Lord…” “…the servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome, but kindly towards all. He should be a good teacher, tolerant, and gentle when discipline is needed.” [II Timothy 2:22ff]

- “Let us then pursue the things that make for peace and build up the common life.” [Romans 14:19]

My personal view today stands outside of Christianity. The way it looks to me is that the most visible and vocal forms of American Christianity reflect a profound rejection of the Christian Gospel. They imply that to glorify God we should seek power. They are most attuned to satisfying the desires and perspectives of the most powerful, the most vindictive, and the most privileged among us, turning their backs on the most vulnerable, the least understood, and the most despised and rejected. The New Testament’s message is unambiguous in this regard. Power and wealth corrupt and separate us from God; nothing glorifies God more than to be present in love with those who are rejected and at risk. To far too great an extent, contemporary American Christianity has become the great engine of rejection and targets with especially poisonous contempt those who fall outside the domination and uniformity it aggressively seeks to impose. It is significantly easier for me to understand how a homosexual can be an authentic Christian based on Biblical teachings than for me to understand how significant portions of contemporary American Christianity can claim any authentic association with the teachings of the gospels and the letters of Paul.

In America today, it is too common to find Christians who wrap themselves in the protection of the Gospel’s cleansing love; while they war against their targeted enemies armed with the merciless weaponry of the Law. Yes, homosexuals suffer from their targeted contempt, but we all are being damaged and deformed. For all of their religious fervor, they embody a cynical betrayal of Christian charity and an undermining of the noblest possibilities for our life together as Americans. Thank you.

So Many Christians, So Little Christianity: The Great Dilemma of Our Times

(This was a "sermon" I gave at the Foothills Unitarian Church in June 2006.)

Reflecting on my talk, I was reminded of Kierkegaard’s observation that many times the best part of a book is its “preface.” He wanted to write a successful book, so he decided to write a book only of prefaces. My talk today, while not all prefaces, starts with quite a few.

Preface I There was a mistaken version of the title of my talk that said “too many Christians” instead of “so many Christians.” I don’t want to be associated with judgments about how many Christians there should be. For example, my life became richer and deeper when I left Christianity. My Mother’s life was richer and deeper within Christianity. I am unable and unwilling to decide when there are too many, too few, or just the right number of Christians. I only intend to observe the fact that there are many self-professed Christians in our society today.

Preface II I’m not trying to be cute or clever with this title. From where I stand the discontinuity between who people say they are and how they understand the meaning and implications of who they say they are is a real dilemma with considerable significance for all of us. It must be examined. By the way, I am not talking about hypocricy or the discontinuity between principles and behavior that haunts us all. I am talking about actually knowing, understanding, and embracing who you say you are.

Preface III Ordinarily I would not be willing to raise and discuss this topic in a public setting because I am not myself a Christian. Not only do I have different beliefs and understandings, there is much in Christianity that personally I do not respect and find offensive. Nevertheless, I’m not comfortable publicly critiquing the intimate commitments of other people’s faith and the meaning they derive from their faith especially when I do not share those commitments. But we are living in times when Christianity has been aggressively inserted into public life in ways that impact believers and nonbelievers alike. So, if some Christians chose to use Christianity to define the public life of which I am a legitimate part, it is both justifiable and necessary to examine the reality they have created for me ever bit as much as for themselves and for our society. If they want to define the public world I must live in according to their Christianity, than it becomes necessary for me to examine their Christianity and their representation of it.

Preface IV I do not want the title to imply that there is or should be a single, fixed, rigid notion of Christianity to which all Christians must comply. On the contrary, I believe there are many legitimate ways to understand Christianity and to pursue the building of a Christian life that has both authenticity and rigor. By analogy, there is not a single, fixed way to understand and pursue “democracy.” There are a variety of legitimate ways to understand and pursue a democratic life within a genuine commitment to democracy.

Preface V Nevertheless, there are some clear and consistent elements – we might call them orientations, dispositions, frameworks, perspectives – that are essential to inform the work of constructing understandings of Christian faith and life. There may be many legitimate forms of Christianity, but they need to be constructed in relationship to a common core of Christian meaning and Christian orientations. Otherwise, Christianity simultaneously can mean anything and ends up meaning nothing. Again, the democracy analogy applies. Democracy has many possible forms, but their legitimacy is based on relationships to a defining set of core elements.

Preface VI The dilemma I want to discuss this morning is this: why is it at a time when so many people vigorously affirm their Christian faith and insist on inserting it into the definition of public life that some of the most distinctive and essential characteristics of Christianity have disappeared, have receded into irrelevance, or are, even, actively mocked and ridiculed by the very people who claim the mantle of Christianity? Why is it that the very people who place themselves within Christianity so often reflect such a limited and enfeebled, if not downright distorted, understanding of essential Christian teachings? Why is it that people who want to use Christianity to define my public life communicate so little attachment to what Christianity asks believers to consider and embrace in building our lives in this world?

[For example, at the 2004 Republican National Convention people who endorsed reconciliation, consultation, collaboration, and greater understanding of our enemies in the Middle East were ridiculed as “girlie men” to which Christian delegates wildly cheered their approval in a standing ovation. How are we supposed to understand this? What understanding of Christianity do they possess that suggests to them that ridicule of reconciliation, forgiveness, and understanding is an appropriate representation of Christianity?]

There’s more to consider here than we have time to cover. So, today I’ll presume nothing more than a first step – I’d like to take a stab at identifying some of the essential, distinctive teachings of Christianity. I cannot and will not tell Christians how to incorporate these teachings into their faith and life. But, I believe, they cannot just be set aside and ignored or denied for people who claim to build their lives within the framework of a Christian faith.

I will identify six tightly unified aspects of Christianity that I believe it is fair to expect every Christian will take into account in constructing her or his life as a private person, as a citizen of this world, and as a child of the God of their faith. These six interrelated perspectives, I believe, are essential framing perspectives for Christians in shaping understandings of their faith but seem to have, at best, slipped into enfeeblement or irrelevancy among too many Christians in America today.

1. It is important to understand that Christianity is based on a set of teachings – from Jesus in the gospels to Paul in the epistles – that presume Christians occupy a unique position in this world. The New Testament expects that Christians will not be privileged, will not be powerful, will not be dominant, and will not be understood by the world around them, but instead will be persecuted, will suffer, will die, and will be an offense to those who control the world in which they live. They will be the ones who are killed and ridiculed. In contrast, Christians in America occupy privileged positions, they control the seats of power, they dominate the social landscape, they are quick to be offended, and they are just as quick to set straight those who offend them. But most troubling of all, they reflect little awareness that their current position puts them in tension with the origins of their faith and the orientation of their faith’s most basic teachings about the life of a Christian in this world. They don’t even acknowledge the need to work through this profound discontinuity between their contemporary circumstances and the presumed orientations of their faith.

“We are fools for Christ’s sake. We are weak; we live in disgrace. They curse us, they persecute us; they slander us. We are treated as the scum of the earth, the dregs of humanity.” [I Corinthians 4:10-13]

2. Christianity asks us to take into account a distinction between the way things appear to be and the way they are most authentically. Both classical philosophy and Christianity are premised on the conviction that truth, that virtue, that beauty, that wisdom, and that justice are not as they appear to be in the ordinary course of life in this world or as they are understood to be according to the dominant shared opinions of the majority. Remember, the best Socrates could do in this world was to know that he didn’t know and the best that we can do in this world according to Paul is to know that we can’t justify ourselves and that we need to be saved.

“do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth for where your treasure is there will your heart be. You cannot serve God and money.” [Matthew 6:19-21]

“render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s” [Matthew 22:21]

“seek God’s hidden wisdom that the powers that rule the world will never know. Things beyond our seeing, things beyond our hearing, things beyond our imagining, all prepared by God not men.” [I Corinthians 2:7-10]

“The wisdom of this world is folly in God’s sight. So never make mere men and their accomplishments a cause for pride.” [I Corinthians 3:19-20]

“live by the grace of God and not by worldly wisdom” [II Corinthians 1:12]

“with us worldly standards have ceased to count in our estimate of any man” [II Corinthians 5:16]

3. Christianity asks us to take on the profoundly difficult work of living within the tension between the possibilities of our lives and the limitations of our lives. Our limitations do not exempt us from high purposes or responsibility, but our noblest accomplishments can never overcome our limitations. It’s profoundly challenging to accept the reality that we are simultaneously obligated to discipline our lives and accept that even our highest achievements within that discipline will be insufficient to justify ourselves…to earn our place in the sight of God. Christians are never exempt from good works, but good works will never justify them. Only faith; faith in the gift of God’s love is their only hope. The remarkable thing about God’s gift of love is not that it rewards our virtue, but that it forgives our failures, our limits, our sin. And this is the reality for the “best” among us as much as it is for the “worst” among us.

“we are justified by faith alone quite apart from any success in keeping the law and good works.” [Romans 3:28]

4. Christianity asks us to find and express ourselves, our highest and deepest selves, in and through our understanding and treatment of others. We don’t find and express ourselves in separation or isolation from other lives but through the way we connect our lives with the lives of others.

“you have learned ‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth’ but what I tell you is do not set yourself against the man who wrongs you. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left.” [Matthew 5:38-39]

“you were told ‘love your neighbor, hate your enemy.’ What I tell you is this, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. If you only love those who love you and if you greet only your brothers what is extraordinary about that? Even the heathen do as much.” [Matthew 5:43-46]

“when you do acts of charity for others, do not announce it with a flourish. Don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. And when you pray, don’t offend your neighbor. Go into a room by yourself, and shut the door.” [Matthew 6:2-6]

“Never pay back evil for evil” [Romans 12:17]

“Discharge your obligations to the authorities; pay your taxes and tolls, with reverence and respect to those to whom they are due.” [Romans 13:7]

“Care as much about each other as about yourselves.” [Romans 12:16]

5. As a corollary to the above orientation, Christianity asks us to set aside self-importance and self-sufficiency and to center our lives in a new, demanding set of orientations and qualities that have become harder and harder to find evidence of in today’s Christian America.

blessed are those

• who know their sin,
• who are sorrowful,
• who have a gentle spirit,
• who hunger and thirst to see right prevail,
• who show mercy,
• whose hearts are pure,
• who make peace,
• who suffer persecution for the cause of right,
• who suffer insults and every kind of calumny for the sake of their faith. [Matthew 5:3-11]

“pursue the things that make for peace and that build up the common life.” [Romans 14:19]

“put on the garments that suit God’s people – compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience, and crown it all with forgiveness and love.” [Colossians 3:12]

“in reaching for money and power men have wandered from the faith. They must shun this and pursue justice, integrity, piety, fidelity, love, fortitude, and gentleness.” [I Timothy 6:10-12]

6. Finally, from an unlikely source, Nietzsche, we have the abstract theoretical articulation of the most essential characteristic of Christianity. Unlike the apparent view of the President, right-winged American Christians, and, even, Nietzsche’s own reputation, it is not “dominate to win.” Rather, the essence of Christian teachings and of the Christian life at its best is a unique and demanding paradigm – “going under to overcome.” My guess is that most American Christians would have little or no idea what this might mean. Yet Nietzsche articulates it powerfully and embraces it, abstractly, with profound seriousness.

The Christian messiah did not come as a king who ruled in Zion. He came as a baby born in a manger because there was no room in the inn. The Christian messiah was God who lived among us on earth as a carpenter’s son. The Christian messiah suffered a criminal’s death among common thieves even as he brought authentic truth into the world. The Christian messiah died to give us eternal life. The Christian messiah offers us a gift of salvation and life everlasting even though we are hopelessly unworthy. The Christian messiah calls us to a faith that frees by making us “slaves of Christ”.

There is a pattern here. It is going under to overcome. It is the majestic God presenting himself as a vulnerable baby. It is the sovereign God presenting himself as a suffering servant. It is the persecution of truth for the authentication of life. It is death creating life. It is loving and making precious those who are unworthy. It is the bondage that sets us free. It is not who is stronger, but who is deeper. It is not who wins; it is what is authentic.

This is why, even in a dangerous world, Christianity expects us to be peacemakers. This is why, even within the realities of our human limits, Christianity expects us to find ways to love our enemies. This is why, even amid the relentless self-interestedness of capitalism, Christianity expects us to care as much about each other as about ourselves. This is why, even as we feel our self-righteousness, Christianity expects us to do our good works out of the spotlight of glory and to affirm the commitments of our faith in the tranquility of our own personal space. This is why, even given our love of family and nation, Christianity asks us to set them aside in forming our relationship with God. Christianity does not offer a story of domination, but a story of appropriate submission – going under to overcome. Paul describes Christians as the victims who do not perish; those who through their death receive eternal life. Christians are those who go under to overcome.

A troubling passage that complicates “family values” ends with Matthew quoting Jesus saying, “By gaining his life a man will lose it; by losing his life for my sake, he will gain it.” [Matthew 10:39] It’s clear he was talking about how someone actually lives; not just what they say they believe.

If in fact, American Christians today are building their lives of faith in relationship to these essential dispositions and orientations, it is a profound tragedy that there is so little evidence of it, especially when our nation currently is led by someone who claims to be guided by the Christian faith. This should create a melancholy lament among believers because they are not being represented as they know themselves to be. And it should anger nonbelievers because we are being tyrannized by a self-righteous fraud.

June, 2006

Last Lecture - May, 2007

This is the last class I will teach in political philosophy as part of my professional responsibilities as a regular faculty member. To be honest, it fills me with considerable regret.

I hope you’re willing to be surrogates for prior students because I want to express my gratitude to you and to them. I want to thank all of you just for being yourselves. One of the most remarkable gifts of having a career as a university educator is the constant renewal that students have brought to my life through your energy, your curiosity, and your undaunted sense of future possibilities. Thanks for keeping me young beyond my years.

Probably none of you remember a man who worked here at CSU named Bill Hervey. Bill was a remarkable person who served many years as the College of Liberal Arts’ academic adviser and taught political philosophy in the political science department. Decades ago Bill and I took a seminar together on 19^th Century political philosophy at Cornell University.

Our professor, a brilliant but eccentric and cranky fellow, had a cryptic exchange with Bill one day in class. I have carried a vivid memory of that moment with me for more than thirty years. It went something like this.

Bill asked a simple question, but as with many things that have an honest simplicity in their directness and purity they often lead to considerable complexity and ambiguity. Bill asked the professor why he enjoyed teaching and was so deeply committed to teaching.

The professor answered without hesitation saying, “Because teaching political philosophy gives me the unique opportunity to stimulate my students to think about and to understand better the three most significant issues that shape their lives.” And then he stopped. Fortunately, Bill did not.

Bill probed further, “What are those three significant issues.” Again, the professor answered unhesitatingly, “sex, death, and God,” he said and nothing more. Bill asked no more. The rest of us were similarly speechless. I will never be sure exactly what the professor meant, but after all he did say that he wanted to stimulate his students’ own thoughts and understandings. He certainly did mine.

So, I want to express why I still carry those three words with me and why they capture a sense of what I have valued most about my work related to studying and teaching political philosophy.

Why sex? Why not – no! It’s sad that the mere word “sex” so often is captured by its negative connotations – prurient interests, undisciplined and self-indulgent sensuality, or the superficial, misguided, and abusive. Typically, we’re somewhat uncomfortable reflecting on sex because we are captured by a sense of inappropriateness and personal delicacy. The sad part is not that sex can’t have any of these negative or sensitive dimensions, but that we lose sight of how sex is also essential to the most honorable characteristics of our humanity.

Quite simply, we are drawn to one another. We share with each other inexpressible intimacies. We find enrichment and delight in one another. We make significant commitments to honor and protect one another. We prevent the total extinction of the species in a single generation through each other. Through our children we live beyond ourselves. We create worlds of shared values, responsibilities, and opportunities. We save ourselves from empty narcissism by opening ourselves up to the fuller possibilities we inspire in each other. And we learn about the indispensable need for trust and vulnerability if we are ever to build beyond ourselves.

It’s a destructive deception to believe that love, interrelatedness, compassion, honoring our neighbor, collaboration, sharing, and nurturing are merely romantic and unrealistic ideals, noble but unachievable principles. They are the direct and concrete manifestations of the sexual consequences of our humanity. We are compelled to love one another; not, first, as a moral injunction, but as an impulse of our inherent sexuality. That honorable compulsion gives form and purpose to the nobler possibilities of our shared lives.

Why death? Until recently, it was assumed that we all faced two inevitabilities – death and taxes. It now appears that if the current administration has its way there soon only will be one inevitability – deadly debt. Seriously, just as we are sexual beings we are mortal beings. We will die. But why should we focus on the fatality of our death especially while we are so absorbed with living?

Death is our most profound limitation. Even though human beings have accomplished remarkable victories over many of the limiting conditions we face, it is more than a probability that we all will die.

We need to build our lives within a dynamic tension between our limits and our possibilities. Recognizing the limitation of our mortality is one of the most essential elements in putting our potentialities into a context that effectively realizes their most positive, creative, and ennobling possibilities. Nothing distorts us in more destructive ways than an unbridled sense of self-importance and self-sufficiency. When as creatures, mortals who will die, we presume to be unlimited creators we risk the dreadful consequences of living beyond our being. Humility grounded in the truth of our mortal limits, and the openness and tolerance it creates towards one another, is a necessary ingredient in the healthy expression of our power as human beings.

Also, it is not morbid for us from time to time to ask ourselves an essential but haunting question – what am I willing to die for? For what am I willing to offer up the precious lives of my children? Please remember, the question is not what am I willing to ask someone else or someone else’s children to die for, but what am I willing to die for and to offer up my own to protect.

The reason I believe these are not morbid questions is because our answers reveal the foundations and assumptions of our lives and how we live. Our answers to the questions of death reveal what we live for. What we are willing to sacrifice reveals what we cherish and hold most dear. There is no sacrifice when we displace costs onto others; only when we offer up what is most precious to our lives is it a sacrifice. That is difficult, but not morbid. It sheds light on who we are and how we are building our humanity.

And why God? As an atheist there may be a ring of falseness to my pressing the issue of God for your serious engagement. I hope you can believe that I intend nothing inauthentic.

We offer up all kinds of claims about God to one another. The universality of God has been both illustrated and tested in that God has served on every side of every war. Our representations of God vary widely. Our use of God reflects everything from unconsidered habits, to calculated manipulations, to commitments of exceptional integrity. But what there is in common, regardless of our claims and beliefs about God, is the profound need for all of us to engage the question of God in the building of our lives.

What is it that makes the question of God even more fundamental than our various answers about God? Why do we need to engage the question of God regardless of our personal response to God or beliefs about God?

Because the question of God demands us to consider what we regard to be most true, most beautiful, and most just in our lives. The question of God is the most fundamental question related to human purpose and meaning. It is the question of authenticity. It is the question that requires us to authenticate our lives and to develop the principles that most appropriately should shape our lives. It is the question that requires us to understand the authentic foundation upon which we intend to build our lives.

The good news is that sex, death, and God, and the perspectives and challenges they bring to human life, are as relevant to a guy moving onto Medicare as they are to young women and men ready to take on the world. You have my appreciation and my hopes for well-nourished and meaningful lives.

A Wedding Toast – June 22, 2007

[Recently, we celebrated my younger daughter’s marriage. Some who shared this occasion with us have asked for a copy of my toast. I’m pleased to make it my first piece in the “Recollections” section of my site.]

I apologize but I feel quite emotional tonight. Please bear with me because, at least, it’s emotions of pride and delight.

Maureen and I want to thank you so much for sharing Bird and Ryan’s marriage celebration with us. The support each of us receives from our families and friends makes us stronger and more confident in building the most intimate and fragile relationships of our lives. That’s why establishing a couple’s most personal bonds with each other needs a public affirmation and celebration.

Bird and Ryan remind me of at least two ways in which my life has grown deeper and better through them.

First, Bird’s addition to our family in 1978 helped me learn that the most remarkable quality of love is that it is expansive, not fixed. I honestly feared having a second child because I loved Shoshana so much. I thought my love had fixed limits and a finite capacity that already belonged to Sho. Bird taught me that our love grows. And in teaching me that about love, she helped me grow. Birdie, I love you.

Second, I knew I would embrace and nurture any child that came to Maureen and me, but my preference was to have daughters. And did I ever get them! It is deeply satisfying to grow into a time in my life when I genuinely want to have a son. I could go on for the rest of the evening about my admiration for Ryan but I will say it as simply and directly as I know how – Ryan is the son any father would cherish. Even as a dotted-line dad, he stretches my life and makes it feel more authentic. Ryan, I love you.

It may sound strange to say this, but my toast to them will be to wish them an imperfect marriage. A perfect marriage, or more accurately, the illusion of a perfect marriage is a lie, it creates unintended intolerance, and it has as much sparkle and vitality as a stagnant pond.

• When we’re “perfect,” there aren’t any paths for our growth or opportunities for transforming our lives;
• When we’re “perfect,” we become impatient and judgmental about anything or anyone who misses the mark;
• When we’re “perfect,” we lose touch with ourselves and with the reality of our limits and our failures;
• When we’re “perfect,” our self-sufficiency makes others superfluous;
• When we’re “perfect,” love comes easily but adds nothing.

It’s through the affirmation of our imperfections that we open up paths for growth; that we invite transforming possibilities into our lives; that we reach out to others with tolerance and empathy; that we create a candid honesty about ourselves; that we learn to need each other; and, most of all, that we learn to love and to cherish being loved.

Although we are living through a time of religious zealotry, it is not a time framed by a generous loving spirit. We have lost an understanding that in building our world, our nation, our communities, our families, and our relationships of intimate commitment the truly remarkable possibilities of human love come to life in relationship to the acknowledgement of our imperfections, not the deceptions of perfection.

In the presence of our imperfections, love makes it possible for us to be honest with one another, to accept each other as we are, to enjoy each other’s foibles, and to create opportunities for new beginnings through understanding and forgiveness.

So, I invite you to join me in toasting Bird and Ryan tonight. May they be the beneficiaries of the unique challenges, the exhilarating adventures, and the profound gratifications of a loving, imperfect marriage. To Bird and Ryan.