Morning Meditations - "Mountain Goat" #2

I tried not to stare as she wrapped her fingers around the mug. The lines and folds on her hands told of stories beyond what I had found in the history books.

I had recently moved halfway across the world for the second time in my life. The wise sages of the previous dwelling were still but an e-mail away, but I desperately missed having tea with my Church Mothers--women whose greatest accomplishment was their love for the Kingdom beyond their cultural borders.

And then I remembered her that I had read about in the history books. Mum came across her name some nine years ago when my brother and I were looking up baptism names, and told me to find out what it meant. Google only gave me two words:

Mountain Goat

Here I was, hoping for an impressive Biblical name that started with the letter J because that was what my brother and I agreed on. And since Mum was dead against Jezebel (what's wrong with being named after Ahab's evil wife??), the only other option we could come up with at the time was "Mountain Goat."

Not "Father is rejoicing" like Abigail, or "Full of Grace" like Hannah.

Mountain Goat.

But then I read the rest of her story in the history books and the more misogynistic side from back in the day greatly admired that she wasn't simply a woman who sat and looked on while there was work to be done. That her story wasn't featured in every other sermon also helped.

And so it was.

And now, she sat across from me in the chair, her legs crossed at the ankles with the warm cup of milk in her hands.

"Tell me the story again," I urged.

She took a sip from the cup, her eyes betraying she was in a world far beyond the present.

"Even if they remember my story, they don't remember my name," she said quietly. "And rightly so. Who remembers a Jewish name that means "mountain goat," much less the name of a woman whose husband is barely mentioned?"

But it mattered to me. I needed to hear it again.

"Please, ma'am," I asked again. "It's important to me."

She gave me a full look for the first time, her eyes searching. They were a deep brown and looked like deep pools that drew me in.

Then she took another sip from the cup, and took a slow breath. It was like that with her every movement, slow and thoughtful.

"It was a day like today..."

To be continued...

Based on a loose interpretation of Judges 1-5.

Morning Meditations - "Mountain Goat" #1

"Tell me the story again," she said with a quiet urgency.

I took a sip of my warm milk. What did a young woman like her want to have anything to do with this old lady? The history books gave me a few short paragraphs, and I was only to be remembered as the lady who drove the tent-peg into the head of the enemy.

"Even if they remember my story, they don't remember my name," I whispered under my breath. "And rightly so. Who remembers a Jewish name that means "mountain goat," much less the name of a woman whose husband is barely mentioned?"

"Please, ma'am," she begged. "It's important to me."

I looked into her eyes for the first time. They had an urgent sense of purposeful searching, and while I didn't know her story yet, I had a feeling it would be important I told her my story.

I took another sip of my milk and inhaled slowly.

"It was a day like today..."

To be continued...

Based on a loose interpretation of Judges 1-5.

Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:25-35, Paul on Marriage

Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away. But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

 - 1 Corinthians 7:25-35

Introduction

            In deciphering scripture, there are many issues that one needs to consider. The tendency in reading scripture is for one to read our own agenda into the text without letting it truly speak to us. Often when this happens, scripture becomes the cause for division and manipulation. In the case of this scripture from 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 that is under exegesis, much has been said about whether marriage should be a qualifier for one to be in ministry. Each difference in opinion has caused the division in the church to fracture a little bit more. If Paul were the author of this letter, and he preached so much about unity in the community, could it possibly have been his intent for his letter to cause division? Here we will examine this text more closely.

Literary Criticism

            With regards to authorship, scholars seem to come to a general agreement that this first letter to the Corinthians is Pauline. Both Jerome Murphy-O’Conner and Joseph Fitzmyer interprets the Lucan account to be the main source of credibility that Paul did actually travel to Corinth.[1] However, Murphy-O’Conner goes on to say that:

Luke gives the impression that he arrived more or less on the heels of Aquila and Prisclla, he arrived more or less on the heels of Aquila and Priscilla, who had ‘recently’ come from Italy as a result of the edict of Claudius (Acts 18:1-2). Thus, Paul would have arrived not long after A.D. 41. Unfortunately, things cannot be as simple as this.

He argues that it is on his second missionary journey that Paul arrived in Corinth. In holding the Lucan account and placing Paul’s other letters on a chronological timeline, we arrive at the conclusion that Paul probably left Corinth sometime in A.D. 51.[2]

Murphy-O’Conner writes that “Paul returned to Ephesus in mid to late summer AD 52. He stayed there for two years and three months (Acts 19:8-10), during which he probably wrote letters to Galatia, Philippi, Colossae, Philemon, and Corinth.”[3] Murphy-O’Conner, Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch all agree that 1 Corinthians is not actually the first letter that Paul wrote to the Corinths, as Paul does make a reference to a previous letter in 1 Corinthians 5:9.[4] Murphy-O’Conner writes that the first letter was actually lost. These three scholars maintain that because of the reference to a previous letter, it sets it up that Paul “was already situated in a well-set-up information exchange relation.”[5] Murphy-O’Conner writes that

The circumstances surrounding the writing of 1 Corinthians are much more complex, and go a long way to explaining the number of subjects dealt with in what is easily the most dialogical of all Paul’s letters . . . Paul had three sources of information regarding the situation at Corinth – Chloe’s people, the delegation, and the letter. Together these revealed two sets of problems, to which Paul responds in different ways.[6]

Form Criticism

            Malina and Pilch suggest that the book of 1 Corinthians can actually be divided into two sections. They write that

In the first part of the letter, Paul responds to the information brought by Chloe’s people . . . In the second part covering questions put in the letter sent by some Corinthians, Paul deals with their concerns about having children (7:1ff), arranging marriage (7:25ff), eating foods set before images (8:1ff), and gifts of the Spirit (12:1ff); about his own idea of a collection for Jerusalem (16:1ff); and about Apollos (16:12).[7]

Ben Witherington III seems to agree with this analysis of the text. He writes that “[Paul] is convinced that even social problems have theological roots and ethical implications . . . He must show the future good of allowing love to govern how, when, and whether one expresses one’s freedom, knowledge, and gifts . . . Paul structures his discourse to achieve these aims.”[8] He gives the suggestion that this chapter under exegesis falls under the section probatio, which includes arguments concerning marriage and singleness amongst other topics. He writes that “The probatio was the heart of a rhetorical speech or letter and included the principal arguments used to persuade the audience.”[9]

Textual Criticism

            To gain as close of an unbiased understanding of this text as we can, we need to examine the text more closely, especially with regards to the use of words such as “virgin” and “unmarried.”

            Fitzmyer offers that the noun parthenos could have been in reference to a girl without experience of a man, or who has not been given to a man. He writes that

Elsewhere in the NT it denotes (14 times) a chaste marriageable girl (except Rev 14:4, where it is figurative: parthenoi, those who have not defiled themselves with idolatory) . . . Here, however, parthenoi has to be understood as masc. as well as fem., because v. 26 extends its connotation to anthropos, “human being,” and v. 32 applies it to masc. ho agamos. For this reason, the RSV, REB render it “the unmarried.” The translation “betrothed” (ESV, Hurley, “To Marry,” 16; Elliot, “Paul’s Teaching”) is tendentious and wrong; and parthenoi, as “widow(er)s married only once” (Ford, “Levirte Marriage,” 362) is bizarre. The noun occurs elsewhere in the Pauline corpus only in 2 Cor 11:2.[10]

Richard Horsley however, offers that “Traditionally, because of the reference to “his virgin” (NRSV: fiancée) in verse 36 and the verb “cause to marry” in verse 38, the passage has been understood as addressed to fathers about their virgin daughters.”[11] Gordon Fee seems to agree with this translation. He writes that “Of the various options for the meaning of “virgins,” that seems most probable which sees Paul as speaking to some who are betrothed and are now questioning whether to go through with their marriages.”[12] If we hold that Paul was writing this letter to address the issues raised by the Corinthian church, then the argument presented by Horsley and Fee would probably hold more water.

Fee goes on to address the use of the word “being loosed” that presents some difficulty to work with. It is often assumed that in this case, Paul is referring to divorce. However, Fee raises the question that “If Paul had intended divorce, therefore, why did he use this strange noun?”[13] He writes that “The clue lies with the word “loosed,” which is found throughout the papyri as a technical term for discharging someone from the obligations of a contract . . . If the view is correct, then [the reference here would be] in particular to those who are already under obligation to one another.”[14] Fitzmyer agrees with this argument. He writes that “The perf. Lelysai might seem to mean, “have you been loosed from a wife,” i.e., by death or divorce. The NEB understands it of one whose marriage has “been dissolved.” In view of the preceding question, however, it must mean, “Have you been free of any bond to a wife?” . . . In saying this, Paul is not speaking against marriage as such.”[15]

Another part of this text that needs to be examined are the words “free of concern.” Fitzmyer writes that “Paul is expressing his pastoral care by providing guidance to the celibate male, and is undoubtedly using a notion often associated with marriage in Stoic writings . . . Paul makes this assertion about an unmarried man in the context of an exhortation in favor of virginity. What he thus asserts is intended as a recommendation to consider the appropriateness of “pleasing the Lord” in a celibate way of life.”[16] Fee offers here that

The words “to be free from concern” translate the infinitive “to be” and the adjective “without anxiety” (amerimnous). They have to do with a state of being, not with “cares” as such . . . Paul’s concern most likely still has to do with living in the present age as an eschatological person. That is, because life is determined by one’s new existence in Christ (already but not yet, with the “not yet” clearly in view), the believer should be free from the anxiety-ridden existence of those who are determined by the world in its present form . . . These things do not determine one’s existence; the clear vision of the future does.[17]

Redaction Criticism

            Because of the nature of this text being a specific letter addressing specific issues to the Corinthian church, there is little that can be said about the redaction of this text. However, we do find that this issue of the “present distress” that Paul talks about in verse 26 is also discussed in Luke 21:23.

The passage in Luke makes reference to a time of great distress in the land. However, the tone in this text seems to indicate more of an empathetic tone toward those who are suffering than one of reprimanding for the fate that they found themselves in. If anything, it seems to suggest that Paul might have suggested the Corinthian church remained as they were because in a time of great distress, a change from the status quo might bring trouble, similar to the reference made in the Lucan text.

Another portion of scripture that seems to reflect what Paul is saying in verse 26 about a man remaining as he is can be found in verse 8 where he encourages the unmarried and the widowed to remain as he was. However, it is difficult to interpret what he might have really meant in that text. Murphy-O’Conner suggests that, “When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians he was single. His formulation, however, draws attention to a latent ambiguity.”[18] He also raises the point that we cannot make the conclusion that Paul remained single his whole life based on one verse found in one of his letters.[19] This again points us back to the fact that Paul wrote this letter specifically to the Corinthians, addressing the specific issues that they had asked him.

Source Criticism

That Paul begins this part of the letter with “Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy,” seems to indicate that he could not address this issue directly based on his knowledge of the Law. Peter Tomson offers that when we approach this passage, we have to recognize Paul’s authority as a Jewish religious teacher in his “previous life.”[20]

Witherington makes the suggestion that “Throughout this letter Paul tries to inculcate in the Corinthians a sense of what it means to live in the eschatological age . . . For Paul, the one thing of eternal significance that humans can do in this world is serve the Lord, proclaiming the good news of eternal salvation available through the crucified Messiah Jesus.”[21] If we hold this argument to be true, then perhaps we can assume that Paul wrote this section of his letter based solely on his authority as an apostle of Christ, “one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.”

Socio-Historical Criticism

            Witherington writes that “Often the study of passages like 1 Corinthians 7 has been attempted without consideration of the character and conduct of Roman marriage and family life. Such background study might help to explain why the Corinthians were acting as they were and why they were making statements like “It is good for a man not to ‘touch’ a woman.””[22]

Malina and Pilch offer that “The principle behind [Paul’s answers] are consistently the same: our present living is hemmed in by coercive conditions . . . The theme here is anxieties that come from family life. Given the shortness of time before the Lord’s coming, it seemed better, in terms of orderly and devoted living, to bypass family problems.”[23]

In his book, “Paul on Marriage and Celibacy,” Will Deming offers that there may have been a reason for Paul’s approach to celibacy. He writes that “An option pursued by a number of other scholars posits an ascetic theology among the Christians that arose from their confusion over Paul’s teachings on holiness and eschatology. As Johannes Weiss explains, these “earnest, fearful, unfree souls” were frightened by the Apostle’s condemnation of sexual sins, such as one finds in 1 Corinthians 6, and by the nearness of the End.”[24]

However, we still need to understand what is going on in the Roman world during this time to truly understand what it is that Paul is speaking to in this passage. Witherington offers several ways in which we can look at this. He writes that

First, while moderns tend to view a home as a haven or refuge from public life, the demarcation between public and private life was by no means as strong in antiquity . . . Whether because of work or because of arranged marriages, Romans frequently looked outside the home for pleasure and for much else that we would associate with home and family . . . A good deal of this background information comes into play in 1 Corinthians 7 because of the household setting of the ekklesia, which meant that sexuality and sex roles . . . represented an area Christians themselves could influence and control, whereas the public world was outside their control.[25]

Also, advocating that singleness was better than marriage was a view that would probably have been frowned upon by the Roman Corinthains. Witherington writes that “Some emperors, especially Augustus, had done all they could to encourage Romans to marry and have many children. Augustus even put into law penalties on women who remained unmarried too long after being widowed.”[26]

            At the same time, there was also much debate between the Stoics and the Cynics about the issue of marriage. Deming writes that “The starting point for this “Stoic-Cynic marriage debate” . . . was the recognition of a basic datum of free Greek society: marriage involved a man in weighty responsibilities . . . The effect was cumulative: marriage was the equivalent of leaving the freedom of one’s bachelor days behind and beginning the settled life of a responsible citizen with all its cares and concerns.”[27] One of these concerns was the issue of having children, as this was synonymous to being married in the eyes of both Stoics and Cynics. Deming goes on to write that “The basic question they asked was: Should the intelligent, informed, morally upright person take on such responsibility?”[28]

            The Stoics did not evaluate marriage as an entity in itself, but “as an important component in a larger system of morality. The act of marrying was a sign of allegiance to a higher metaphysical order.”[29] The Cynics, on the other hand, saw freedom to be more important than anything else. Deming writes that “the Cynic idea of freedom necessarily also included freedom from the responsibilities of conventional existence: “from all care about food, clothing, house, home, marriage . . . For this reason they resolutely excluded marriage from their sphere of moral concern.”[30]

            These were the arguments both for and against marriage during the time that Paul wrote this letter to the Corinths. However, Deming also presents that “In 7.26 Paul speaks of what is “good for a man”, an expression he uses in 7.1, and for which we have analogies in Stoic authors. In contrast to 7.1, however, where Paul follows this phrase with a Cynic-like judgment on marriage, here he states explicitly that he is giving his own advice as one who has been shown mercy by the Lord.”[31]

Witherington seems to agree with this argument. He writes that “He urges the Corinthian Christians to do what is for their benefit (v. 35), that is, what allows couples to be united and individuals to be sure of what their marital status ought to be.”[32] He also says that Paul is not merely being socially conservative “in the interest of the ekklesia’s survival.”[33] Murphy-O’Conner makes the same argument in this. He writes that

Paul applies a very coherent set of principles to the solution of these problems. (1) God’s call comes to people in all walks of life. Hence one’s social status essentially irrelevant. In particular, celibacy is not intrinsically better than marriage (verse 7). Thus in itself no social change will raise one in God’s estimation. (2) A change of status may be initiated in order to compensate for human weakness . . . (3) A forced change of status should be accepted.[34]

Praxis

            In examining what Paul really thought about community and life in the church, it is hardly surprising that even in this text in 1 Corinthians, we come to the conclusion that essentially, whatever labels or structures that society may try to impose on us really does not matter. We may not always come to the same conclusion about everything concerning lifestyle habits, but we are essentially just “everyday people” trying to live “everyday lives.” As Paul himself concludes in this passage, “This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.” (1 Cor. 7:35).

Everyday People

Sometimes I'm right, but I can be wrong

My own beliefs are in my song

The butcher, the baker, the drummer and then

Makes no difference what group I'm in

I am everyday people

Yeah, yeah

There is a blue one who can't accept the green one

For living with a fat one trying to be a skinny one

Different strokes for different folks

And so on, and so on and scooby-dooby-doo

Ooh, sha, sha

We got to live together

I am no better, and neither are you

We are the same, whatever we do

You love me, you hate me, you know me and then

You can't figure out the bag I'm in

I am everyday people

Yeah, yeah

There is a long hair that doesn't like the short hair

For being such a rich one that will not help the poor one

Different strokes for different folks

And so on and so on and scooby-dooby-doo

Ooh, sha, sha

We got to live together

There is a yellow one that won't accept the black one

That won't accept the red one that won't accept the white one

Different strokes for different folks

And so on, and so on and scooby-dooby-doo

Ooh, sha, sha

I am everyday people

           

Bibliography

Dunn, James D.G., Editor. Paul and the Mosaic Law. Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994.

Dunn, James D.G., Editor. The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987.

Fitzmyer, Joseph. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 32 from the Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.

Horsley, Richard A. 1 Corinthians from Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998.

Murphy-O’Conner, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Murphy-O’Conner, Jerome. St Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology, vol. 6 from Good News Studies. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983.

Malina, Bruce J. and John J. Pilch. Social Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006.

Witherington III, Ben. Conflict & Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

---

[1] Joseph Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: a new translation with introduction and commentary, vol. 32 from the Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 37; Jerome Murphy-O’Conner, St Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology, vol. 6 from Good News Studies (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983), 130.

[2] Murphy-O’Conner, St Paul’s Corinth, 139-140.  For the purpose of this paper, we will not go into an extensive discussion of when the letter to the Corinthians might have been written. Various texts, including the Cambridge Companion to St. Paul and Social Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul  seem to either point to Murphy-O’Conner as the authority on Paul, or make the general assumption that Paul is indeed the author of the letters to the Corinthians. Murphy-O’Conner’s in-depth discussion of dating 1 Corinthians in this book.

[3] James D. G. Dunn, eds., The Cambridge Companion to St Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 75.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 59.

[6] Dunn, 75-76.

[7] Malina, 59.

[8] Ben Witherington III, Conflict & Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 73.

[9] Ibid., 76.

[10] Fitzmyer, 314.

[11] Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians from Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 104.

[12] Gordon D Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 323.

[13] Ibid., 331.

[14] Ibid., 332.

[15] Fitzmyer, 316.

[16] Ibid., 318-319.

[17] Fee, 342-343.

[18] Jerome Murphy-O’Conner, Paul: A Critical Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 62.

[19] Ibid., 62-63.

[20] James D. G. Dunn, eds., Paul and the Mosaic Law (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 255.

[21] Witherington, 179.

[22] Witherington, 170.

[23] Malina, 90.

[24] Will Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 16.

[25] Witherington, 172-173.

[26] Witherington, 174.

[27] Deming, 52.

[28] Ibid., 54.

[29] Ibid., 57.

[30] Ibid., 61.

[31] Ibid., 173.

[32] Witherington, 174.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Dunn, 78.

On Being Single in Ministry

Some time back, Hannah tweeted looking for writers who would be willing to share a few thoughts on being single in ministry. It was something I had been keen to write about, but never quite knew what approach to take, especially when it's a topic where I can easily come across as sassy or having a chip on my shoulder. So I told Hannah I would give it some thought and see what I come up with. Here goes...

It started about three or four years ago. "You know, the Bible does say that it's not good for man to be alone," they would say, when I try to explain that I have no time for romantic relationships. If we're about to count on the historical accuracy of the Creation story, then yes, Adam would have been the first and only man on earth at the time; of course he was alone (and if the Creation story isn't historically accurate, then, well, we don't even need to have this discussion). So God being a God of relationships created Eve; but we would be treading on dangerous territory if we were to assume that God was only concerned about eros in the Creation story.

So, allow me to respond with this: The girls that I laughed with eleven years ago when we were giggly, hormonal teenage girls, I still laugh with today. So thanks for worrying, but I'm not alone.

For most of my seminary career, I had a good mix of married, dating and single friends, and no one felt out of place. Even now, a year after I graduated, we still keep up with each other knowing the ministry life isn't easy, and that we all need the support we can get. Sometimes we wrestle with each other over things that come up in our individual ministry journey or some theological thought we came across. Other times it's just the occasional "meow" or hassling on Facebook. So thanks again for worrying, but no, I'm not alone.

I had/have incredible mentors who walked/are walking me through the seasons of doubt, darkness, and wrestling with faith, religion and all attached to them. They still check in from time to time to make sure I'm sane and spiritually healthy. So again, thanks, but... You get the point (hopefully).

Since I mostly live out of a two-suitcase mindset to be ready for the next stop in this globe-trotting adventure, the only thing I get to collect is people. So really, thanks, but... I'm pretty sure I'll never be alone. (And on my cheekier days, I add Éowyn's famous line, "I am no man.")

Remember all those Christian dating books we try to get our youth/teenagers to read? If you've never actually read any of those but are shoving them down someone else's throat, shame on you. Go pick one up and read it now. I don't entirely buy into many of these books, but anyone who has read a good one will tell you the biggest rule about "Christian dating" according to those books is that you have to accept that you are a whole being and embrace that. Looking for a relationship to make you feel whole isn't healthy. I may be way past my teenage years, but try telling me that isn't still true now and I'll ask you why you're asking youth/teenagers to read those books.

Besides, being single comes with a lot of freedom. I can pour myself into my job without worrying about someone else's schedule. Working with young families often mean working with the perks and quirks of last-minute-ness. Things get planned or cancelled at the last minute and having the freedom to come and go without interrupting someone else's schedule has been wonderful. And of course, there's the freedom of up-and-going as I please. Spend three months in Germany? Sure! Move to New Zealand? Oh, why not? Go to Timbuktu? Where do I sign up?

Easy-peasy.

And I've enjoyed watching myself be pushed out of my comfort zone simply because there isn't a someone else to depend on. Stuff like dealing with confrontation, or unplugging the toilet, or learning appropriate social boundaries and cultural etiquettes, or fighting with ants. And almost every cross-cultural worker has an embarrassing moment to share if they cut loose and are able to laugh at themselves rather than hide in a hole in fear of another boo-boo.I get to own all my embarrassing moments stories!

Being by myself (not alone--there's a difference) also forces me to go out and meet people. Which works really well with relationships being the most important part of my approach to ministry.

Then there are the perks of being the single, female "pastor" that everyone looks out for from time to time because she's "all alone in the world." They feed me, clothe me with hand-me-downs and nag at me when I fall sick while I try not to take advantage of them.

Of course, there are down-sides to being single in ministry, besides the occasional longing for an accomplice in these mad adventures.

A lot of times, folks don't take my being a pastor very seriously. It comes with the whole woman in ministry conversation that will have to be for another time. And she's not even married, so how could she possibly be a real pastor? The usual assumption is that because I'm young, single and act like I don't have a care in the world, I'm also probably untrained (I've managed to keep the fact that I have a Master's degree from a seminary a secret) and simply passionate about Jesus and kids. Young, my florist friend, has asked me about three times now how many more years I have left in school. And when I remind her again that I'm a pastor, and that I'm done studying, she asks again, why don't you do more studying? Well, I still do, just not formally--how else can I prepare to teach kids each week?

Then there are the annoying matchmakers. The rebel streak in me wants to simply not give any of the "matches" a chance, which can be inconvenient sometimes when he turns out to be a fairly attractive young man.

And then there are the ones who assume that because I don't have a family to go home to, I can always be counted on to run the extra errand. This isn't something I mind much, especially since most folks here don't do that to me, and the ones that do only ask because they know I would enjoy the errand. But friends have been taken advantage of based simply on the assumption that they don't have a social life outside of the church or their job. I mean, if he/she had any kind of decent social life, he/she would have found a nice young man/woman to marry by now.

Before you make the assumption that I've written off getting married, I haven't. I have high regard for the institution of marriage, and great admiration for the ones who fight to make it work. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:8-11, and 32a -

But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife . . . But I want you to be free from concern.

We can talk about what the passage really means if you want, but I'll ask that we kindly do this face-to-face, and if you will read the exegesis paper on that passage that I wrote for my Master's level New Testament class before we chat.

My "Leaving Church" Story

Years ago when I first started taking blogging more seriously, I gave myself a few rules of things I will not blog about.

1) Political commentary.
As it is, there are enough opinions out there to sway the crowds one way or another. I don't need, or want to, start another heated debate. Words are only of use if they compel people into action.

2) Reactionary posts.
Because the blogosphere is a public forum, I don't need to throw out a passionate reaction to an event or something I came across only to process my thoughts a little further and regret a post a week later.

3) Personal drama.
Again, the blogosphere is a public forum. Unless healing and reconciliation have taken place, dirty linen doesn't have to be aired in public.

Today, I'm breaking rules #2 and #3.
I'm treading carefully with this post today because there are episodes that I'm considering writing about where reconciliation has not taken place, so I'll throw in a disclaimer early on that these stories are only shared to give credibility to the bigger story, and not to turn this blog into a bitch-fest.

So here we go. This is my "Leaving Church" story, a response to the recent frenzy in the blogosphere.

It began in 2005, when I came across Donald Miller's Blue Like Jazz. I was on a student-leadership team in a Christian liberal arts college, and that was the book we were reading on campus that year. Miller's book articulated many of my frustrations with a brand of Christianity that I had been struggling with because it was getting too superficial for my liking, and made me want to apologise to every person whom the church had left a bad after-taste with.

A year later, as a ministry intern, I found myself watching theologians, professors of religious studies and retired ministers bickering amongst themselves about how much time our staff organist should be allowed to rehearse on the organ in the sanctuary. I realised then how broken institutions can be, and decided that if this is what becomes of theologians, professors of religious studies and retired ministers, I would never go to seminary, and never work in a religious institution (never mind that I had already "responded to my call to ministry"). I wasn't ready to completely abandon the institution--the church is family. Just because all the Big Brothers and Sisters screw up or don't play fair doesn't mean you disown them.

So instead, my first real grown-up job was at a para-church organization. Freshly graduated with the conviction that I knew nothing, I thought working at a para-church organization would still keep me involved in the local churches, but at a level where I only need to watch from the peripheries and not get tied up in the politics. That would buy me some time to work through my issues with the local church, find some healing and eventually start seminary feeling less jaded.

Maybe I only have myself to blame for getting overly-involved. But after a couple years of watching policy after policy being implemented that were quick-fixes to a more deeply-rooted problem without thorough thinking through of what long-term implications there might be to those directly affected by these new policies, one cannot help but feel even more jaded by institutions. And then I discovered more and more voices amongst my new-found community in seminary that resonated with my thoughts. Oh, I could tell you of the countless hours we spent dreaming up what Church could be like if we could just start our own church amongst our own circle of friends and not have anyone else join in--most of which happened while we were avoiding writing about sanctification and the likes of it.

But we all knew. We couldn't run away and start our own thing. Most of us who understood the history of our tradition, the Church of God Reformation Movement, started by DS Warner, knew that that was exactly how we started off. As students of Church History, we knew that it had been done before--countless times, even before DS Warner.

The summer of 2010, I had the privilege of spending a few months with a group in Berlin, Germany. This was a group that came together to figure out what Church meant in 21st Century Berlin, a cosmopolitan, global city that had moved on from the days where Luther's reformation had a significant impact on ecclesiology. The group in Berlin wasn't a sensation because they were trying to start a hip 21st-Century style of monastic-living. They were sensational because they were intentionally committed to community and to the spiritual betterment of each one in the group. But even more so, to the reality that engaging in community means engaging in each other's dirt and learning to fight fair when we disagree rather than say, I'm just going to go off and start my own thing.

Kelley Philips, my internship supervisor in Berlin explained to me that the statement, "If we would all just go back to the 1st-Century Church where everyone came together to take care of everyone else, the world would be a better place," had become a popular catch-phrase in church-language these days. But we often ignore the possibility that the 1st-Century Church probably fought all the time too, as they define what "fair share" meant. We paint idealistic pictures of what the Church should be or look like, rather than embrace it for what it is and try to work through those pieces. I could quote you one Bonhoefferian thought after another about the impact of pursuing human idealism instead of pursuing the reality of God, but the reality is, these are only words.

So what IS your leaving church story, you ask. I could tell you of the heartache of trying to find healing after that dark year in undergrad. I could tell you of the 4 years I spent defending an institution even though there were realities I faced everyday in that institution that discouraged me even more. I could tell you of how I beat up a TV in anger when this same institution told me they wanted no part in my involvement with the missio Dei since I wasn't one of them (ask my friends Emily, Ashley, Michael, Yocum and Jason. They witnessed the anger).

You want a leaving church story? I don't have one to tell you because after all this time, I haven't left. And it's not because I haven't wanted to, or haven't had the guts to. But it's because the Church is family. I can dream all day about being born into my ideal family, but it is in digging through the dirt with my real family that I can truly understand "For God so loved the world..."

Beloved Church of God theologian Gil Stafford is known for his words, "Be the Church." As I was ruminating over how to articulate my "leaving church" story, I found it ironic that we're talking about leaving the church when the reality is, we ARE the Church. How can we possibly leave the church if that requires us leaving ourselves?

Or maybe that's what it comes down to. Maybe we need to leave ourselves, our ideals and definitions of what Church should be, and just simply BE the Church.

Making Sabbath, Brain Vomit

Katherine commented yesterday that I apparently have been doing a lot of thinking recently.

I guess meltdown cycles have become so normal to me. Just keep doing stuff, don't stop and think, then eventually, crash and my mind cannot stop spinning as it starts processing all the stuff that has caused the meltdown. So I start writing. By the time I get to just about recovery, the cycle repeats itself.

Mia and Kya asked me yesterday what my job was. I told them I was a pastor. Mia then asked what I did in my free time. I had to stop and choose my words carefully because Mia was having a hard time dealing with having to grow up. She has as much quiet confidence as one can possibly get in an eleven year old, but the thought of leaving childhood and free time behind is making her dread becoming a teenager.

I couldn't possibly fib about how much fun growing up can be if I didn't believe it myself.
I couldn't tell her I don't have much free time because I don't know how to say no, and I don't know when to stop.

I don't remember how I answered her question, but it definitely made me stop to think.

The reason why I don't have much free time is because I don't choose to make time to be free.
I'd easily make time for just about anything under the sun--except myself.
Oh, and God.

Dang.

But what's my problem? Why can't I stop? What am I trying to prove?
Truth is, I don't know.

Came across these truths in this week's lectionary readings...

"All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him. For dominion belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations. To him, indeed, shall all who sleep in the earth bow down; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, and I shall live for him. Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord, and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn, saying that he has done it." - Psalm 22:27-31

This.
This should be the very reason for my existence.
This should be why I eat and why I sleep, and why I do what I do.
But is it?

Some time ago, in a discourse on pastoral theology, a dear wise friend put it (somewhat) in these words.

Creation came into existence because of God's overwhelming love. It isn't just a giant act of masturbation, but one that yearns for a response.

His words left a deep impact with me only partially because his use of the M word made the 13-year-old girl in me giggle. But it made me think.

How many times have I tried to use the things I do to try to show that I'm in relationship with my Creator?
How many times have I been guilty of trying to fill the hours of my day with more things to do hoping that it would fill some kind of hole that only Love can fill?
How much easier is it to pretend that actions earn love when the truth is I'm too proud to accept something that I can in no way claim credit for?

The truth is, Love isn't something that exists because God was showing off.
It isn't a warm, fuzzy feeling that everything is going to be ok.
It isn't even a thing, an act or a feeling.

Dr Ross once explained that the reason why God was so upset with the Israelites worshiping idols made out of their jewelry wasn't just simply because they had broken his commandment about idol-worship, or that God was jealous. In those days, jewelry were a symbol of covenant relationship (ie marriage), and to have taken their jewelry and melted them into an idol would be the present-day equivalent to taking one's wedding band off and whoring oneself to another.

It's never been simply about breaking commandments as much as it is about intentionally violating covenant relationship.

This after all, is the Lover that so selflessly passionate that it yearns for a response like a young man or woman so smitten in new love.
This is the Lover that sent a rainbow to Noah and his family saying, remain in covenant relationship with me.
This is the Lover that gave Abraham his new name saying, through my covenant relationship with you, I will bless the nations.
This is the Lover that passionately pursues Israel even after she has whored herself out to others as many times as she did.
This is the Lover that says I will die for you no matter how many times you throw my wedding ring away.

This is the Lover that says,

For my covenant that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith. If you simply adhere to the law just so you can be an heir, faith is null, and my covenant is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law, neither is there violation. (Romans 4:13-15, paraphrased)

I've been in the middle of my fifth/sixth month lull for a while now. MaryAnn says that "5 months is about right for what you are feeling [like crap]." It's supposedly the time when the novelty of everything is starting to wear off. Chad speaks of memories of his fifth/sixth month with such "fondness".

In the midst of life happening, trying to figure out how to not screw up my job, and trying to put an end to my year of transition and change in community/whanau/gemeindschaft, I've tried to ignore my need for some sense of constancy, even if just a thin thread of something. I don't like change very much, and even if I've come to a place of acceptance of its place as a by-product of something I love far greater--the adventure--there are moments of loneliness and a deep desire for a constant. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel alone. It's just a longing for a something or a someone that has stuck around since the awkward TK days, to the time when I fell in and out of love, to the milestones in Anderson, to the times of questioning in Berlin, to the most recent year of transitions.

Something or someone that sticks around just because.

Oh wait.
There is a someone.
And a Someone that does love me.
Someone with a love so passionate that no matter how many times I might screw up or find myself unworthy and try to walk away from the covenant relationship, continues pursuing.

I don't even have to do anything to prove myself worthy.

And so I make my mind stop spinning for a while.
And take a deep breath.
And write.

Not because I have to.
Not even because I need to.

But just... because.

Looking in the Mirror of My Books
Yesterday Seeds of Contemplation arrived and it is very handsome. The best job of printing that has ever been done on any book by me. I can hardly keep my hands off it. Jay Laughlin says the burlap effect we have on the cover is really a material they are using now on the walls of nightclubs. Well, it is the Christian technique: sanctify the saturnalia and lupercalia with Christian liturgy: turn them into Christian feasts.


Every book that comes out under my name is a new problem. To begin with, every one brings with it an immense examination of conscience.


Every book I write is a mirror of my own character and conscience. I always open the final printed job with a faint hope of finding myself agreeable, and I never do.


The Passion and Precious Blood of Christ are too little in this new book -- only hinted at here and there. Therefore the book is cold and cerebral. What is the good of trying to teach people to love God without preaching through Christ's wounds? The reason I do not do so is because I am still selfish. I find myself thinking about what we ought to get for dinner in Lent; about how to distribute signed complimentary copies of the deluxe edition of this book. I should never have gone into such a thing as a boxed special edition. I must be nuts.
- Thomas Merton (March 6, 1949, II.287)