Don't "Just Vote"

The increasing difficulty of getting younger people to be involved in politics and particularly in regards to our civil responsibility to vote has led to one of the stupidest phrases ever: Just vote.

Well, I'm gonna say what someone else should have: don't. The notion of just vote is so suggest you have freedom to vote for whoever you want It is supposed to be the no pressure way to say that. We don't care who you vote for, just that you do. Just vote.

Well now it is time we put an end to that. For one, we should dispel the idea that we don't really care who you vote for. The truth is I do. I care because if I'm voting it means I think this person should be president, and that only happens if other people do to. So while you are free to vote for whoever you want, I want you to vote for the same person I am. What I especially don't want is you ignorantly voting for the wrong person. Which is the real issue.

The next problem is not only that I do care who you vote for, but if you really think about it, saying it doesn't matter who you vote for diminishes the civil responsibility itself. If it doesn't matter who, then does it matter why I vote? If it doesn't matter who or why does it matter if I vote at all? The truth is I could steal a little red "I Voted" sticker - something else I find really stupid - and you would never know. The principle that it is absolutely essential looks foolish to someone who thinks "it was not essential when I was 16 and could not vote".

Instead we need to be advocating interest in our government and its running. We ought to be saying what really matters is you get to know the candidates, find out what they stand for, decide what philosophies of politics you stand for, discern what issues matter most and go from there. What we need is for people to just be informed, by more than a biased campaign commercial or a Facebook propaganda statement. Instead of trying to build up some minimal effort campaign to blindly and ignorantly go to the voting booths that day we need to advocate for people to care about politics. That will not only spurn voting, but informed voting.

When one actually thinks this candidate ought to be president, they will go to the poll. And their vote will matter, because it will matter to them that they had the right to vote. The responsibility to vote will be one taken with more seriousness than whoever ABC or FOX is pushing.

And this requires more than simply seeing if the name is recognizable or there is a "D" or "R" beside them. A man once told me that if you stand against abortion then you don't need to be informed, you need to go and vote Republican. But not all Republicans are against abortion. More moderate Republicans for example advocate that states instead of federal governments should have the right to allow/outlaw abortion. So one may not be necessarily voting for someone opposed to abortion. This is only one example in which voting simply by party is not much better than blindly going to the booth. And this is again why our mantra cannot simply be "just vote" as if the party titles will then guide them in the booth.

I also believe increasing a passion for politics and policy will increase the availability of politicians who are more willing to hold stances outside their party. It may even finally allow us to move beyond the strict two party polarization, or even finally give way to a real third party candidate. This part may be pure idealism. But I think that the involvement of the moderates, swings, and inactives would over time have to have some impact on the political landscape, and likely affect the middle. Consider right now our polarization is about trying to make one hate the other party's plan without knowing anything really about it, or their own party's plan. And such negative campaigning goes on, because as much as people hate it, it works. It seems one of the reasons it works is we would rather a quick assessment that makes, it rarely impacts the politically involved, who have usually made up their mind. It impacts the middle ground of people who "just vote".

Just voting is a good way to make elections about popularity contests and political propaganda. It is a way to people not care as much about actual policy and then not value the government we have, or the difficulties that go into running it. I think it would even foster respect for those we oppose, because we would have had more exposure for their genuine desire to do what they think is right than some belief that they don't care about our country.

Finally, then maybe even people would stay home who should. I don't want ignorant voting. In fact the first year I could vote I didn't, because I did not know enough about the candidates. And I'm glad. And the truth is people telling me to get out there don't teach me anything about responsibility or the right to vote. Teaching me to genuine want a say will do that. And some times it will teach me that I really don't like either candidate. Sometimes you look and realize that voting is actually casting your support for people you don't want. And that too does not help our nation. One of the things we have yet to teach is also that refusing to vote for those we don't support is an option as well. If the glaring absence of people has been noticed enough to spurn a ridiculous "just vote" campaign, then what would an informed absence cause? Perhaps it would lead to solving it not by encouraging us to come but convincing us, by giving us worthwhile candidates.

The moral of the story is simple, what we need to do is get more involved in politics. That should be our campaign. And on top of that, we should discourage uninformed 'just voting' simply so we get some red sticker of honor and appease those around us. At best it does not encourage better politics or true civic duty and right, at worst it gets the wrong guy in office.

Get informed. Then you decide.

AL MVP Dilemma

This year's AL MVP race may be the toughest its been in years. There are two guys who not only have had worthy years, but historic campaigns. To me, and I imagine most of this year's voters, it comes down to Mike Trout of the Angels and Miguel Cabrera of the Tigers.

Some of you may have read my original post musing on the MVP award. To summarize I will offer the principles I posted there, if you want further explanations read the original post.

1. I always approach the award with preferential bias.
2. I don't use WAR value when determining MVP.
3. MVP ought to favor players who play for contenders, but could still be won by players who play for non-contenders.
4. The value of a player on a contender is also weighed against the value of other players on that contender.
5. The MVP is best for a full season of work. A quick note here, I initially said this made me feel Trout ought not be an MVP, but his continued performance caused me to change my mind as I mentioned in a recent mailbag.
6. Voters should not hold grudges against players. This was mainly in reference to Ryan Braun, and is relevant here only slightly in Cabrera's that if some would withhold voting for Cabrera because of past offseason indiscretions. But since that was a couple years ago now, and not in relation to PEDs (where BWAA has been on its run of vigilante justice) I doubt this point has much bearing on the AL MVP (but it certainly will on NL MVP).
7. Traditional stats (such as triple crown stats) matter.
8. MVP is best when not shared with awards like Cy Young or Rookie of the Year.

Now let me give a quick case for each player and then say something in relation to these musings.

Mike Trout has made me a believer that he is MVP worthy. Perhaps the best case being that Albert Pujols is not the star player of the Angels, even though he is one of the best hitters in the history of the Game. I mean that kinda noise is like DiMaggio joining the Yankees and overshadowing Babe Ruth. The guy is the truest package of 5-tool talent and makes me think of Griffey Jr when you think of the that kinda outfielder with talent, star power, and production. He is the youngest 30/40 player in baseball history, the first player to hit 30hrs, 45sb, and 125runs in a season. He's also the first player to reach the .320 ave, 30hr, 45sb combo in a season. He was one stolen base away from being I believe the 1st 30/50 player. 

His numbers were as follows: .326/.399/.564 (.963 OPS) 27 doubles, 8 triples, 30 home runs (totaling 65 extra base hits), 129 runs, 182 hits, 67 BB (to 139 k's), 49 stolen bases in 139 games. He led the league in SB and runs scored. All this playing a premium athletic position and his first year in the majors. The Angels failed to make the playoffs, but were in contention until the end of September but ultimately finished 3rd in the AL West with 89 wins. 

Miguel Cabrera is an underrated star. I say underrated not because he is not thought of as a star but because he's not thought of often as a future Hall of Famer, but with a career .318/.395/.561 slash, the year in impact he has on his teams, a World Series ring, over 300 home runs in 9 1/2 seasons, and over 1800 career hits, meaning 3000 is not out of the question, Cabrera is an offensive monster. Besides Albert Pujols, I'm not sure there has been a more consistently amazing hitter this decade. Perhaps most impressive is he is of the likes of Pujols and Braun in that he has never had a bad season. All that, and this was his best year! This year, he missed his career best batting average by 14 points, this was also his second highest slugging percentage, and his OBP was only his 5th best. But he put up career bests in home runs, extra base hits, runs batted in, hits, and total bases. But more impressive to how he stacked up against his career numbers, and how across the board they were good and if not career highs, definitely among his better career numbers, what was more impressive than this was how these numbers stacked against the rest of baseball. In fact, he became the first player to win the triple crown since 1967! One of the hardest and rarest offensive feats he pulled off. Here is the breakdown of his year:

Cabrera hit .330/.393/.606 (.999 OPS) with 40 Doubles, 0 Triples, 44 Home runs (totaling 88 extra base hits), 109 runs, 205 hits, 66 walks (to 98 k's), and 4 stolen bases in 161 games. He led the league in average, home runs, runs batted in (Triple crown categories), as well as slugging percentage, OPS, and total bases. He played most of the season at 3B (a few at DH or 1B), but his defense is not good. His team won 88 games, and in the final month beat out the fading White Sox for the American League Central Division crown. While not a part of MVP consideration, his team has advanced to the American League Championship Series and still has a chance at making the World Series.

Here's the quick picture: Cabrera is the essence of the classic league MVP. He has dominated the traditional stats in a way that has not been done for some time. His full season and great performance has greatly outperformed Trout. Trout in his first year put up historic numbers, and is the complete package including massive speed and incredible defense. While Cabrera's Tigers did make the playoffs, Trout's Angels actually won more games, and certainly were contenders, but could not win in their far more difficult division.

Here is where I stand in relation to the principles set forth in my previous MVP blog:

1. My bias is not as much into play here in terms of who I prefer. Living in Minnesota I have not been high on the Tigers, so I may be somewhat biased against Cabrera. But I've always found him such a great player, and when you look at my bias in terms of stats and stuff, many of those lean in favor of Cabrera. So I think it evens out a lot in spite of my opposition to the Tigers. No favorite.

2. Since WAR values Trouts numbers, obviously this hurts him. His defense is excellent and and production from there is more 'valuable' by WAR standards. Although b-r oWar even values Trout's production over Cabrera's. So this really does not bode well for him. But I'm sorry, Cabrera in my view shows to be a better offensive player. He may not have the running game, but his other numbers in addition to the superior runs scored/batted in outcome makes me think that's a good reason why I don't consider WAR in these things. But even if you disagree, and you'd have many on your side (such as folks from the staff of MLBtraderumors.com who have been advocating Trout mainly in their weekly chats) it doesn't matter, because it has none here. Since WAR then cannot benefit Trout, this favors Cabrera.

3. Both players really played for a contender, and as I mentioned the Angels though they failed to make the playoffs did win more games than the Tigers. Had they been in the same division, the Angels would be favored. So there is no big distinction here. It is not like the Braun-Kemp race last year. However, not only because the Tigers made the playoffs, but turned up the heat when it counted and etched past the White Sox in the final month of play I will say this slightly favors Cabrera.

4. Both teams featured excellent offense and pitching. The Angels even added top of the rotation arm in Greinke mid-season and the Tigers had last year's Cy Young/MVP Justin Verlander. Both teams had another star power player (Fielder and Pujols), they both had several good hitters in average. Aside from Fielder, Cabrera's power stands out in the lineup (no other player had more than 18 HR) while Trout did have more sluggers (in addition to Pujols, Trumbo slugged 32 HR, and Morales had 22 HR). Also aside from Fielder, no one on the Tigers had more than 74 RBI. 3 of Trout's teammates had more RBI's than him. However Trout stood out as the runner, with only one other player with 80 runs scored and one other with 20 SB's (still 29 less than him). The Tigers had two other players with 80+ runs, no one on the team were real base stealers. We should here consider also Trout's role on this team, because he was not the main guy for driving in runs, we should not hold it against him that others did that better. The truth is both players excelled in the area a player of their role were supposed to, and Trout also exhibited numbers of a traditional run producer. In that respect, while Cabrera really stood out on his team, Trout really did in relation to his role. And as I said in my previous blog, to not only be necessary to the team, but shine on it is key. That makes this instance favor Trout.

5. Trout overcame my bias of partial season production to even make this blog possible. Bottom line is while he started a month late, he put up numbers few players do in an entire year. However, they are standing up against Cabrera's full year. And it hurts him, mainly because it allowed Cabrera to have some superior numbers, and ultimately win the triple crown. I'm excited like many to see what Trout's numbers will look like next year with a full season of maturity and a full season of AB's under his belt. We may not have to wait 45 years for another triple crown winner. And on top of it, he could also lead the league in stolen bases, a quadruple crown winner! But that is the amazing expectation for next year, and had the Angels started the year with him, they may have been in the playoffs, and this blog may never be happening. But that wasn't the case, and his inability to play a full year while not removing him from the MVP race certainly has favored Cabrera's chances.

6. I talked about how little this will affect anything. But if it does, the hype that has followed Trout for over a year coupled with his unbelievable arrival, along with Cabrera's past means BWAA grudges/favors will easily favor Trout.

7. This is really what the award comes down to. If you think the traditional stats matter, then you really have to vote for Cabrera. He has dominated the traditional stats in a way that has not happened in 45 years. That cannot be overlooked. The rarity of that achievement speaks for itself. Although as noted Trout has made some achievements in certain stats like no one his age or no one before, those combinations have never been as traditionally valuable as the triple crown combo. Therefore, while Trout has had his own historic season in the stat department, the good old stats still favor Cabrera.

8. Not wanting someone to share MVP with something like Rookie of the Year is my own bias. And when a player is that good they are that good. After all, if the MVP is a rookie of course he is going to be Rookie of the Year. But here is a case where he is not over and above that much greater than anyone else, that he needs to be MVP. I just like seeing the awards divied up, Trout will still get Rookie of the Year award and MVP love on the ballot, I just don't see how his campaign is great enough to overcome this bias, which favors Cabrera.

Decision: Trout has had an amazing year, and I do think that had he played that first month my biases could not stop me from favoring him all the way, especially because it might have gotten in the way of Cabrera's triple crown. But that is not the case. While Trout's numbers are historic and deserve this to be a close race, it's obvious to me who the MVP is. His team is in the playoffs, he's been an offensive star for a decade, and he just ended the triple crown drought. Trout has done an amazing job to look like a slugger when he is a runner and run scorer, making him an allround run producer and his defense makes him a run stopper. But Cabrera owned the league in run producing, and I don't think we can hold defense as much against him as some do. While he has never been a great defender, his woes at 3B this year are hardly his fault. His team signed another first baseman, and decided to move Cabrera to 3B, somewhere he has not played regularly for some time because he really isn't a 3B anymore. He made the switch, and then still produced offensively.

Ultimately I guess I cannot imagine someone winning the triple crown and not winning the MVP, especially when the next best candidate has not even played a full season and way behind in some important stats like HR and RBI. And on top of it all, one team is in the playoffs, one is not. Cabrera has surprisingly for his consistent star power play never won an MVP. It would be a travesty if he took a team to the playoffs while winning a triple crown and still could not get one on his shelf. Therefore I'm willing to say the 2012 American League MVP is Miguel Cabrera. Let Trout win it next year, since he likely will.

If I were creating my own custom Bible...

I have been recently in the quest for a new Bible. I have tons upon tons of them of various translations and Study editions from Jewish Study Bibles to Lutheran Study Bibles, from the Amplified to the Message. I have lots of them, I like to be able to compare them, use them in different places/situations, or sometimes just switch it up and use a different translation just because. But lately I have been looking for a very specific Bible for my own personal devotion and theologizing. I should say this: I have this habit of refusing to write in Bibles. In part this is due to the fact that I like my clean looking Bible. Whereas many people have their best bibles looking tathered and used, I do everything I can to not let my Concordia Self-Study Bible from confirmation (my beloved among my collection) show its age. Only one Bible of mine have I ever written in, and it was the cheapest one I owned, but I had little room. This is the other issue, my Bibles don't usually have adequate space for writing, and i want it to be readable in the future. But right now I want something I will really go through. In high school I read an entire New Testament and Psalms pocket Bible (or as I call them today, Marcion Heretic Bibles) and highlighted anything that jumped out at me for whatever reason. I want to do that again, and more. I want a Bible I'm gonna go highlight and note crazy on. Unfortunately my search has been quite frustrating as of late. Because I have so many Bibles, I'm allowing myself to be a bit picky. The other day I finally found a Bible that could work (wasn't perfect, but it fit my major needs for a personal devotional Bible). Then I saw the price, and I put it back. Honestly, I find it ridiculous that Bibles have gotten so darn expensive. Perhaps that is something to consider as a church that is trying to get people to read the Bible more. Personal Bibles, ones with just about any special feature or that meet any special need seem to be far more expensive than our book of faith should be.

This got me thinking...if I could design a Bible to my very needs/wants - based on what I've seen in recent months scoping out the Bible market, what would my custom Bible have?

• it would have a good size font. My days of getting little pocket Bibles are over. My eyesight has been worsening each year through my twenties, and my eye doctor said it will likely last through my thirties until I'm forty in which it could level off, actually get better, or get even worse. So I want something good on the eyes. This is more than more regular size print (I believe 8 point font is the standard these days), it needs to be slightly larger (like a 9.5-12 size).
• in addition to size, font type can make a difference too. I find the new Common English Bible uses a good font type in its translations that I have. This also improves character spacing and appears larger than it is, thus it adds to the legibility of the font and is easier on the eyes. I believe the fonts it uses are variations of Estilo and L Avenir typeface.
• it uses a  clean layout with different colors to help the eye contrast everything on the page. I found the Holman Christian Standard Study Bible does this really well. As you can see below, color is used to distinguish verse numbers (blue) from text (black), headings (red), highlights of notes (bold), translation notes (different background). For how much is going on in this Bible page, it is well organized and even easier in person to distinguish.
• The margins be wide enough for lots of notes. Since this Bible will be for personal writing, devotion, theologizing, musing, and such, since I am specifically looking for a Bible I can mark up I want space for this. I hate looking at a Bible with notes tightly wrapping in between the text. I like my Bibles looking clean and organized. So if it is gonna have notes, it's gonna be designed for note taking. Sadly, I have found this is one of the hardest things to find in Bibles today. Between page space being a premium, and I believe an assumption the people are not writing in their Bibles this is hard to find (especially in non-KJV Bibles). But this has been absolutely necessary for my next Bible.
• It has some good devotional content. I was looking recently at a C.S. Lewis Bible, and I liked that it was not flooded with notes (I don't really need notes, I have study bibles, I want to do devotion with this) but it occasionally had exerts from his works that reflected or talked about a specific text. Such a thing, from a collection of good theologians would be grand and really helpful for me to read the Bible for me. As a pastor, it is so common to read it abstractly or thinking about sermons. So if my bible has extras, it will be devotional material. 
• It had well placed maps and charts. I think these are really helpful. A good map or diagram gives a good visual to what one is reading and can cause one to hear/read something differently. I wouldn't so much want these at the back of the Bible but scattered within it at key places.
• It is has a leather cover or some similar imitation material. Hard cover Bibles are just way heavier, paperback are a bit tackier and harder to keep open. Although in the end I probably would have it in a Bible case/carrier anyways, I definitely want it to be lighter in weight.
• This means it will likely be a medium size bible. I don't need pocket size, but I don't want some giant thing that I can't carry around. So something that fits a standard Bible carrier. I know because I want wide margins and decent font size it will require a larger size than the smaller bibles, but so long as I can avoid the really big sizes (like same size or preferably a bit smaller than my study bibles).
• Another challenge to maintaining the good size is thicker paper. My wife points out how much it bothers her whenever you can see the text from the other side of the paper. Not only is this sometimes bothersome, but if I'm gonna be writing a lot in the Bible and highlighting a lot, it really matters. Also, the more solid the page the more durable. I want long lasting and as I say clean look. Thin pages tend to wrinkle and tear easier. 
• It must be a good translation I would use a lot. This has been really difficult because I use so many. My beloved Concordia Bible is the old NIV, my Lutheran Study Bible is ESV, my church uses NRSV, my favorite pocket Bible is a Holman Christian Standard Version. When I want more basic I use CEV. But recently I have really been dipping my feet in CEB and liking it (for the most part). Some of the beloved texts just aren't the same, and as it employs a similar translation style to NIV it requires some more interpretation than say NRSV or ESV. There are a few things I don't really like about it, but in general I find it is an excellent colloquial translation. I think it's different enough, and easy enough that I might prefer that one, but I've never been sold on any one translation. Since this is a custom Bible we will say I can edit the CEB some. Which would enhance its desirability to me. But either way I might go with that just to be different, to live in a different kind of Bible for a while. But if there is any feature I may come to regret, it would likely be this one.
• It has a thumb index. I underestimated how awesome it is, but recently borrowed someone's Swedish Bible which had book tabs and it was so fast getting to wherever I needed. A thumb index is nice because it is also quick, and does not jut out like the book tabs you buy. But because you can get them, and they eat away at margin space which is more important to me, this is more of an ideal wish (since it is my custom Bible) than something I'm looking hard for right now.                                                      
• It has a single column page outline. I've recently gotten into single column Bibles, and I must admit I enjoy them more. I think it actually makes the page less intimidating looking (a good tip overall for making the Bible more approachable to people) and then a single verse usually does not use up too many lines. But also because the inside margin always loses space from the binding, so it is harder to make notes on the inside column. A single column style allows me to write all my notes on the outside margins of the page. As the second image below demonstrates, then the inside column can go to verse references (which on two column Bibles go in-between the two columns).                                                           vs  
• It would not be a red-letter Bible. I have two issues with red-letter Bibles, one theological, one practical. Theologically, I do ask if it is good to lift up the Words of Jesus over the rest. Don't get me wrong, I'm a bit of a Jesus nut (regular readers of my blog know this), and I even understand the notion of canon within a canon. But I also believe that some of the greatest promises of Christ in scripture are found elsewhere in the Bible. Additionally, as we proclaim Christ the "Word made flesh", what do we make of the deep theological connection elsewhere in the Bible? My other issue is practical: that is red letter print looks nice in things like Mark where Jesus says a few things here, then goes and does a bunch of stuff, then says a line or two to this woman or that demon. But in Gospels like Matthew and John that record long discourses of Christ, entire pages in a bright red font are not good on the eye. Especially over time when the ink begins to fade some. But also because there are moments where translators are not even sure Jesus is speaking. Such as John 3.16. Is that part of Christ's discourse or John's own commentary? 
• It would fit nicely into a good Bible Case. I mentioned this earlier, but I'll say a bit here. Carriers can make them easy to carry (go figure) and can hold a few good accessories, such as pens and highlighters. Since I want to use it in that way, it should have a carrier that helps it meet those needs.
• It would have a few extra blank pages on the back for additional notes. I write a lot, or may have larger thoughts that don't belong to a specific page/verse, a few free pages can let me do that.
• It would have a ribbon bookmark. Personal devotion means I want to continue where I left off at times. I don't like hard bookmarks as much because they seem in the way while I am reading. Ribbon ones don't fall out, make it easy to open to that page, and don't take up space or bother.
• And very importantly, it would be affordable. For how much I said I'm looking for, there was a Bible that met a lot of my really important needs that I was ready to buy the other day, until I saw how much it would take to buy it. When you have as many Bibles as I have, you just don't pay that much for that kind of Bible.I get why Study Bibles in particular can get expensive, but Bibles that do not require a lot of new or extra contributions for its publication but are primarily layout features ought not be costing $50. 

So that is my current custom Bible features. Some are luxuries, some are really important for me right now in terms of what I really think I need from my next Bible. In case you are wondering, I have considered things like the Augsburg Fortress Lutheran Study Bible or the NRSV Notetakers Bible and electronic versions of Bibles. There are reasons they all just are not what I'm looking for, even though I have given each considerable thought.

If you think you know of the perfect Bible to fit my needs by all means let me know in the comment section. Or tell me about your quest for a good Bible. Did you find anything among these features that you wish for your next book of faith? Whatever you do readers, keep reading the Bible...and my blog ;)

Mark 10 Follow-up

I've already done two blogs on this last Sunday's Gospel reading. So it might seem a bit extreme to do another one, but this is a challenging text for many. I wanted to share a few things that came up in some of my text studies and from my opportunity to listen to a sermon on this text. I should say right away that what comes now might be seen as words of caution about ways we address issues within this text, or seen as simply my reactions. I don't mean this to be critical or suggest some ideas in my text studies or the sermon I heard were bad. They weren't. But they did, many of them, raise a new issue for me, which is why I want to put it out there so others can be aware of this too when they approach these texts in the future. If anything, this blog may show just how difficult the task of teaching and preaching can be, as it illuminates some nuances we ourselves don't see that may change the impact of the entire message for our hearers. So I'm primarily talking here as a hearer.

If you missed it, the text and my initial thoughts can be found here.

The first thing I want to mention is the decision to draw in other texts, particularly the woman caught in adultery in John 8. In one of the text studies and the sermon I heard, this was drawn on for a word for forgiveness. What was good about it, was that to a person in adultery Jesus removed the condemnation from her. He freed her with forgiveness, and the relevance is obvious. In this text Jesus calls those who divorce and remarry adulterers. The use of this text is to say Jesus forgives adulterers. That is good. But my one word of caution, which was not addressed either time this text was drawn on was Christ's words "Go and sin no more". The implications of that word (which comes within his whole declaration to this woman) may seem easy in the situation of being "caught in adultery" (i.e. stop sleeping around) but what is the implication when the adultery is done with a new spouse? The application of this text, while it can be used for forgiveness, can also open a whole new bag of worms, or at least heighten the issue of what does one do with a new spouse when Jesus calls that adultery. Since I'm guessing most sermons don't go that path (mine admittedly likely would not have) we ought be careful not to force ourselves into it with this text or worse yet, heighten the issue without addressing it.

Another key question that came up, that I did not really talk about in my blog but that came up in both my text studies, and the sermon was the reaction of married couples, or the way it applies to them. I mentioned in my blog I was married, but my parents divorced mainly to indicate how in my life I heard it first. But left it at that. But this is a real issue, because those divorced felt the impact of this text far more than those married. Even worse is the situation where the married laud this over those divorced. It becomes our triumph of the law over those adulterous divorcees. At the least you have people like myself who feel immediately distant from the text and at the worst it becomes the button of pride by which one separates oneself among others in this world or even this church. Here are some of the things that came up in response to this:

One idea was that those who think themselves better immediately are met with Jesus' next words about receiving the kingdom as a child. Thus setting oneself as higher is the wrong thing to do, it is precisely about looking outside oneself towards Christ. Those divorced are in a position where they cannot look at their marriage/family to claim holiness, they already must look to the cross. But so it is in fact to we who are married. Any pride is met with these words on receiving the kingdom as a child. It is as Mary sings in her magnificat
He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
    he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
⁵² He has brought down rulers from their thrones
    but has lifted up the humble.
My reaction is I really like this idea. I like that it lets one draw on the entire gospel, but also because it distinguishes our actions in regards to marriage/divorce with receiving the kingdom. It makes it clear that we don't simply talk about the cross as a fix it for this sinner or that sinner. It is not to level the playing field by bringing everyone up to the same holiness of their own, it is bringing everyone into the holiness and righteousness of Christ alone. I thought this was a good use of the entire Gospel lesson for Sunday. My only caution would be that if one does this, it should take more unpacking than simply saying it as a footnote to the married ones. It needs its own time, which could take away from the whole of the sermon or begin to feel like two different sermons, so don't use 1-4 sentences and move on, find a way to really work it in naturally to the larger point one is preaching on the text.

The next way to address those married I believe came from both text studies (but maybe just one) and was also used in the sermon. This method is based on using the law to also target those married. The text brought in here was Jesus' words from the sermon on the mount that looking even lustfully at another is an act of adultery. Thus saying you who are married are not excused. And this is true, sin comes from within, and such does name even married couples as adulterers. Here is what I heard when this was used each time though: it's adultery either way, so why not divorce when you want to? By equating the two because they are both named as adultery, we undermine the action of divorce. I don't know if to those divorced this softens the blow to them, but to one not divorced it actually softens the prospect of divorce. Now I admit, that may simply be the heart of a sinner talking, trying to justify an act because one has already done the idea so to speak. But that is what preachers deal with; sinners. We need to be clear when doing this that married people being adulterers is not an excuse for adultery in divorce. What this means is we need to be sure that when we are using the law we're not simply saying lust is the same as divorce, rather lustful people also need the word of forgiveness and new life that divorced people need. Every time I heard this used it seemed off handed, a quick "well looking lustfully is adultery", like that settles it. But saying it simply carries no sting but instead sounds more of an equation of the two rather than the law cutting to the heart. The task should be why the good news of the Gospel for the divorced wife is the good news the married wife needs as well. For then she sees not pride over the divorced woman but rather looks for the balm for her own broken life.

Another way that came up in the sermon was that being married does not equal a good marriage. I liked this method, because it instantly caused me to reflect. My one thought is that we should not simply note examples that would lead our hearers to think divorce is preferable, such as abuse. That stifles honest reflection for those who aren't considering or in extreme situations that lead to divorce but are still not being good spouses. We should say that not just abuse, but even things like selfishness - moments we try to act as two not one - are also included. That if Christ responds with the creational promise and act of marriage, then divorce is not the only means by which we try to put it asunder. Similar to what I spoke of last week, that divorce is our attempt to change a reality God has caused, and remarriage is adultery precisely because we cannot undo that, then it is simply a part of many ways we in our marriage try to undo what God has done.

This leads me to the final piece I'd like to bring up. This came from one text study I sat in on last week, and I thought about it some more this last weekend as I sat in at a wedding. Jesus goes back to creation - to a promise of what God does in marriage. While unlike the Catholic church the Lutheran church does not see marriage as a sacrament, I think we ought to learn from them when we are so willing to declare it merely a covenant of people, merely a civil act. To Luther marriage actually belonged to one of the three estates - family. It was established by God, and I would dare to say that means not only the institution itself was established, but so is each marriage. We need to recover the creational promise, namely that there is a divine act in marriage when God joins two together into one flesh - to where each husband should say as Adam that his wife is now 'flesh of my flesh'. That is the reality God creates in marriage. And what was brought up in text study, is that at marriage we don't hear that as law, we hear that as a good word. When the pastor declared this last weekend the couple husband and wife, the words "What God has brought together let no one separate" is a word for the sake of the spouses. When you get married you rejoice in those words, there is joy in that God has done something, and we can declare to the world that it cannot be undone. It only becomes a law to us, a word we violated, a condemnation when we seek to undo it. It is only a word against us when we act against it. We claim that promise up until the point when we want to be free from it, when we want to undo what God has done. When we are holding on in marriage, sometimes barely we need that word to sustain us. When we are through with marriage, we are through with the promise. It becomes a law precisely when we want the act of coming together (and therefore separating) to be an act of humans alone.

I bring this up, because then we are speaking about something common within the Christian life, bigger than divorce, bigger than even those married (since a greater challenge is not simply this Gospel applied to the married, but to the single). What is really at work is God giving us words to sustain us, and we one day despising that word. That to those like children who need a blessing, those who like divorced need forgiveness, those who like newly wed need God's action, we turn to God for a word from him. But then, just as quickly, just as easily at some point we find ourselves thinking we no longer need his promises or his actions. And what ends up is thinking we no longer need the cross. Once one has been forgiven, or converted, or baptized sometimes the thought is "I got it from here", Christ gave me a second chance and I'm gonna make the most of it kinda mentality. Like an alcoholic who is sober for three months and believes he no longer needs AA or a sponsor, we think we don't need the baptismal promise or the redemptive cross. We did once, but not now. We turn a promise into a law, by moving from what God does to what we do, and it finds us wanting. Whether we want control like a growing child fighting for responsibility, or we want to be free from baptism and our Christian calling to live a way that seems the better option, this is a common occurance. Divorce is but a single moment in a lifetime of stepping away from God's promises, either not wanting them holding us back from the life of sin we could live or not wanting to have to rely on them to receive the kingdom (like a child?). The only caution here is the temptation to not talk about divorce because of how sharply we feel the bite of the text. I don't mean we should do that, but I do mean that when the text is narrowed in so much sometimes what is helpful is not trying to draw everyone into that specific realm of adultery or broken marriages but to look at the larger experience of sin and grace that this falls in. Divorce becomes the illustration provided by Christ himself, to a sin one need not be divorced to partake in. Because then the impossibility, the harshness, the firm words of Christ, the certain need for a place for forgiveness becomes the means by which we all cry out for a Savior, and all of us walk away not trying to equalize our sin, but seeing how we need, even still, always, Christ himself.

Mark 10-as a little child

Earlier this week I took some time to wonder about the Gospel reading for this Sunday, as it dealt with Divorce. What I did not note or focus on at all was that Sunday's Gospel actually includes another brief pericope (probably included because it is short so likely would not get its own Sunday, and so preachers have more options for preaching on when it comes to a really tough text like this one). I thought I'd share a few thoughts on that text as well.

13 People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." 16 And he took the children in his arms,put his hands on them and blessed them.

Now I'm not as big into those attempts to make too much of the two pericopes being together. I think there are ways we can use them together, but making too much of it is in my estimation overplaying their relation together. It is clearly episodic: Pharisees test Jesus, Jesus and Disciples go into a house where they discuss the topic further, and now people start bringing children to Jesus. The implication that they are bringing the children to Jesus could suggest Jesus is still in the home where he taught the disciples, but Jesus' anger and teaching around the children seems to me to be clearly isolated from their previous discussion on divorce. I bring this up because a lot of commentaries I think make too much of Jesus talking about divorce affecting vulnerable women by treating them as worthless and now the 'worthless' children (who held little social value then) Jesus advocates for. As I noted in the other blog, Jesus does not use any language of decrying injustice in that instance but actually names sexual fidelity, and he targets not only the man who puts the woman away for another but the woman who leaves the man for another. Thus there is far more than the societal impact on the vulnerability of women that is at play in Jesus' teaching on divorce.

I think the same should be said about children. It is true that children were also at the bottom of the social totem pole, and that they were not highly valued. But if we make too much noise around Jesus inviting them or make that a "value" claim, we may be saying more than we intend (or even if we intend, more than we should). And worse off, we will misinterpret what Jesus actually does and says. If it becomes about "value" the temptation is not to make it being about Jesus desiring the children regardless of their value - or lack therefore. Instead it becomes about Jesus seeing some value we don't see. And the message is of a worth we (or at least children) possess instead of the divine intention of Christ to not treat us according to value, worth, potential, etc. God's love gets turned into God's ability to see what others cannot, instead of a truly unconditional love.

Bo Giertz perhaps identifies this best when he says:
Jesus takes even the small children up in His arms and blesses them. The disciples object when the children are first brought forward. They give the reason: What can these little creatures grasp of the great Master's message? But Jesus has a different opinion: "The kingdom of God belongs to such ones." We great and wise people prefer to turn these words upside down and say, "such ones belong to the kingdom of God," thus to rescue a bit of man's honor, for then at least the small children have been explained to have a right to God's kingdom by virtue of some innocence or some purity or some other good thing which should therefore reside in human nature from the beginning. Then, we think, perhaps it is still found in me, and finally we conclude that conversion is not altogether necessary! But Jesus says otherwise: "The kingdom of God belongs to them." The great, undeserved gift - the Savior coming down to earth bringing new life and heavenly atonement - is given by God's command to these children, who are born of flesh and belong to the world of sin and mortality. There is no question of some romantic view about children that is out of touch with reality. Rather, the blessed truth is that God's salvation reaches also these, who can neither consider nor understand what is happening to them.

Giertz rightly sees a difference between whether or not the kingdom belongs to them because of Christ or they belong to the Kingdom by right. And while we may not always word it the way Giertz identified the temptation to do so, the minute it becomes about seeing worth, this can become the path. If Christ sees worth in them...maybe he sees it in us. Or maybe we at least had worth and repentance is returning to that worth. The movement is away from the actual Gospel story, away from even this pericope where they come forward by Christ's choosing, and are blessed because he blesses them. It moves away from this into some philosophical notion of human dignity. Those who feel outcast, are only so because they've been made to believe that. But that idea does not lead to a real cross. Instead of the message being about God's gracious acting, it is about us simply reevaluating ourselves or others.

We can talk about how society placed a "value" on children. But not to contrast it to the value Jesus sees but to contrast it to the fact that Christ's acts, his blessings, and his death were never something to be earned or based on some form of human value. They were based on God's intention to enter into this world, not to rescue our system of values and equality but to rescue us from the real sins that transgress even the most straight moral thinking. He did not call the children forward to move us into a modern world of value, but to move them and us into the kingdom of God itself.

How do we receive the kingdom like a child? Not by trying to become one, or find the worth they have, but as uncontrollably as they do. By being taken before the living Christ, blessed, given a promise. Becoming like a child is not steps we take to make ourselves children (that's as ridiculous a notion as trying to climb back up your mother's womb to be born again), it's the actions of those whom our life depends. Just like our desire to find some spark of value to make the kingdom ours, so is our desire to make ourselves like children a failure to receive Christ. Every effort to put ourselves in that state will in fact take us from it, because little children (the word here in Mark for little children can include infants, Luke's Gospel in fact is explicit that it is infants) don't put themselves at Christ's feet they are taken there. What Jesus speaks about, what can be seen from children, is that the kingdom comes from outside of us. And it is given, as is a child's life and care. Instead of trying to somehow find what children have so that we can find it in ourselves too, the idea is precisely the opposite, they don't have it...that's why they receive the kingdom of God. That's why Christ takes us in his arms. All of us. Our sin. Our deaths. Our cross. He takes it, and he gives us the kingdom.

Mailbag: readers start responding

Well after I decided to write about whatever I wanted during last week's mailbag, it apparently was incentive enough to get some new questions in the comment section. Hopefully that'll continue in the future. Well let's take a look at the current stack of mail for the Armchair Theologian:

Dear Armchair Theologian,

The Rev, really? And what is wrong with Aquaman?

First off, plenty is wrong with Aquaman. I know DC just did a whole reboot of their universe, and supposedly Aquaman has been drastically improved (I admit I have not read the new Aquaman), still, the guy just always seems to be at the bottom of the totem pole of superheroes. South Park acknowledged this when they essentially added Aquaman to the league of Super Best Friends (and gave him a name that reflects just how he is viewed among superheroes). And one only need to see poor Raj in Big Bang Theory having to dress as Aquaman when they appear as the Justice League to lose all confidence in Aquaman.

As to the Rev, you got something better? If I had a doctorate and wanted to be a villain it would open up more options, but until then I'm gonna stick with the Rev. Deal with it. 

If you have no idea what this entire conversation was about, you might want to read last week's mailbag here. 

Sincerely

The Armchair Theologian aka the Rev

_______________________________

What is your opinion of the doctrine of the trinity? Do we have to believe in it?

I'm a trinitarian through and through. I confess the three ancient creeds, I love Luther's catechism on the creed. My opinion is that it is necessary for the church. As to "do we have to believe it" the problem is such questions usually start to make faith into a new work. What must I believe to count it as faith? What is my faith checklist? When we do that we make it more about our formulations. Churches and Christians who are turned off by such (usually using the "no creed but the Bible" language) do recognize we are doing something with doctrine we shouldn't be doing. Any teaching of doctrine as "having to get it right to be saved" will lead to a new form of works-righteousness, one found in the head rather than the hands. 

That said, any notion that Trinitarian theology is not biblical is in my mind baloney. Or more importantly, it is to say if one does not believe in the trinity, where is one getting their belief about God? It was hundreds of years before the doctrine of the trinity was officially made and fleshed out, yet from early on its various confessions about God were already becoming issues of discussion. What the doctrine became is the outcome of  centuries of debate and biblical reading. It is the expression of the paradoxical nature of the God the Christians met in scripture. It is like saying "We don't believe in three gods, but we also read scripture talking about God as Father, Son, and Spirit. They are not the same, since they relate to one another, yet all divine, yet all are of the same divine being..." The more they encountered passages that say this then that, the more they had to hold God in mystery, and this was the best way to explain it. One does not need to use the word trinity or memorize its creed, but I believe faithful reading of scripture will lead precisely to the creed. It might be one thing to not use it, it's another to challenge/deny it. So I ask, if you don't believe in the Trinity, what are you reading?

And now we can talk about how doctrine has its place, not as a checklist for faith, but an expression of faith. And I think it is particularly important for teachers of the faith, because God is not making sure you have the right answers, but the right teaching will drive one to God. It will drive you to the right God, it will drive you to him deeper and deeper. Doctrine is good and useful when it compacts centuries of theology into clear/concise biblical teaching, and when it aids in the faithful preaching of God's word. It is good when it is used to help people use the larger voice of scripture to interpret and understand individual parts of scripture. It is good when it aids in preaching the word to create faith, and then in the expression of that faith. That is the place for doctrine. So it is not a matter of having to believe in the trinity, it is a matter that complete biblical teaching results in believing in the trinity, and it is very helpful for people to express that faith in the words of the doctrine of the trinity, as it helps remind us of the many ways we hold our fragile understanding of God in tension, and all the ways we can trust in this God for our sake. 

I think being anti-doctrine is foolish, since ultimately we will have a teaching about God, and we will either be using some form of doctrine (formal or informal) to inform our reading of scripture or we will soon likely find ourselves lost or confused, contradicted. Doctrine has also been used as a weapon to throw at other churches and Christians (another reason some people like churches that claim to have no doctrine - and I say claim because they do, even if they do not make it formal and organized), a way of defining the true church, so on and so forth. When we see it used aggressively, piously, exclusively, or as a necessary formulation that one must memorize, we miss its primary use - to hold together what we have gleaned from scripture, to use it for interpretation, to express what the Word has proclaimed to us about God. It's a delicate line to tow between how doctrine proclaims the truth and the doctrine being the truth itself, that to not know it or accept it is heresy, heterodoxy, or some other expression of standing outside the faith. 

I'd like to turn to one of the more well-known figures of American Lutheranism, C.F.W. Walther, to give a quick word more on what I am saying. Walther is most well known today for his work on the distinction of Law and Gospel, in it, Walther makes a series of theses on making the proper distinction. 

I would like to lift up from his thirty-third lecture on the twentieth thesis (Thesis XX reads: In the sixteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when a person's salvation is made to depend on his association with the visible orthodox Church and when salvation is denied to every person who errs in any article of faith) where Walther says: 

"Some imagine they are quite strict Lutherans when they assert that no one can be saved who is not a Lutheran or who does not profess the Lutheran doctrine at least on his deathbed. But this claim stamps them, not as genuine Lutherans, but as apostates from Lutheranism. The Lutheran Church does not set up such a claim, but it does indeed instruct men how to be justified and saved by grace. There are persons living among the sects that love the truth and may be better Christians than some Lutherans. Christ rules everywhere, even among His enemies."

Note that Walther does not lift up professing proper doctrine, but having proper faith, and the church having proper doctrine; that is, the church teaching in a manner that can produce proper faith. I think this is helpful, in that it can remind us that people use different formulations, or understand the scripture differently, and the Spirit can use the smallest spark of gospel preaching to ignite a passionate faith. Doctrine is not used to determine who is in who is out of the faith and the afterlife, but rather to help draw people in, and express what it means to be in. Pure and simple.

Your trinitarian, doctrine-loving brother in Christ,
the Armchair Theologian

_________________________

Armchair Theologian,
I recently read your blog about the Christ figure of Harry Potter. I found it interesting, but I really must disagree. I think Harry is the obvious person I see Jesus be. He dies for others, hes the hero. How could you make is a bird?
Lizzy

For those wondering what Lizzy is talking about, she is responding to my post about whom I saw as the Christ figure in the Harry Potter series. In it, I propose Fawkes, Dumbledore's phoenix.

As to your question Lizzy, I think it's great to have you respond to my suggestion. And I get why one would see Harry instead. As I said in my blog "Now it's not a perfect fit. Harry is still the "hero", he still defeats Voldemort, Fawkes does little else for anyone else, not too mention he's a bird (throwing incarnation out the door). He never was a human--but neither was Azlon. So he's in good company. Having seen the movies many times and read the books a couple times he's my pick for the best bet of a Christ figure in Harry Potter. Who's yours?"

Harry is obviously yours, and I see why. But Harry also has some real issues that prevent him from being ideal. For one, he is actually only spectacular in how others choose him. He is marked by a curse cast upon him. He is the boy who lived because of his mother's sacrifice for him, not any inherent protection or power. He is only the chosen one because Voldemort made him so, made him a horcrux, insisted on his blood for his return. His wand chose him (not the other way around). And much of his story is trying to fit in, trying to be normal, it is genuine adolescent issues, not messianic fulfillment. And at times that runs contrary to messianic fulfillment.

Harry's death could be described in terms of what Gustaf Aulen refers to as the classic theory of atonement, that is what Harry really has going for him. Perhaps for you I will explore that some more soon. But until then always remember that Rowling first wrote a story, and as I also mentioned, you cannot make a perfect case for anyone in the story. She wasn't writing a theological piece first and foremost. While we find these similarities, we must always realize that such metaphors/symbolisms have their limit. And until I hear Rowling name one specifically, with no explicit Christ-figure, I think it is good to look uniquely at characters that we might otherwise overlook for those who seem more obvious because of how central they are to the story of the series.

But it's all speculation. Thanks for the input. Keep reading, keep responding.

The Armchair Theologian.

_______________________________

Last one, let's be quick

Armchair Theologian,
your blog says "Jesus, BASEBALL, and more" yet you're always talking about Jesus and never baseball. Where's the pasttime love?
Tommy

Tommy,

thanks for the reminder to keep up with some of my other passions. I love Jesus, so I spend a lot of time reflecting on him, faith, the church, and scripture. It's also what I'm professionally trained in. So I guess I assume it is where I would be most interesting. You will also notice that since you asked this, I changed the title of the blog for other reasons. But I still keep baseball in the blog explanation. And so in honor of your question, here is a little past time love:

As a follow up to my blog on the MVP, I will make two updates as the race continues. 

1) Ryan Braun went from being someone who deserves to be on the MVP ballot (even if not the MVP) to deserving to seriously be the MVP. He may not win it because the Crew fell short of the playoffs, but the Brewers rose as unlikely last minute contenders, and his great season continued. Really he probably should be MVP, but I would understand why Buster Posey would be MVP as his team are playoff bound, he is coming back from injury, playing in a pitcher park, and playing a more demanding position. So I get it. But If I were to vote, Braun would be #1 on my Ballot, Posey #2.

2) I said I did not feel that Trout should be MVP. I have since changed my position. He is the youngest 30/40 player and just may be one of the few 30/50 players in baseball. He just keeps delivering amazing numbers. So I'm willing to revise my position and accept him as MVP.

There ya go, a little love to the ball fans.Your fellow fan,

The Armchair Theologian

If you have questions, dilemmas, responses to the armchair theologian, leave em in the comment section below and you might just be featured in next week's mailbag.

Mark 10 - Never Divorced

This is one of those Sundays where preachers of the Revised Common Lectionary look at the Gospel lesson for the day and say "Ya know, I haven't preached on the Old Testament in a while..." If you're wondering why, it is because Jesus gives his harsh word about divorce in this upcoming text. And he doesn't even provide an out clause like he does in Matthew's Gospel (Mat. 19.9) to at least give some ground for acceptable divorce. Here the word comes down hard, like a sledgehammer sized gavel upholding the law against the greatest of resistance.
Let's take a look at the text:

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied. 4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,"Jesus replied. 6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Perhaps the first thing to note here is that Jesus was not running around simply condemning divorced people. The notion that this text is a weapon against those divorced misses actually what it really is: a weapon against Jesus. It comes out of an attack at him, not us.
But that does not change what he said about those divorced, does it? It does not make it easier to be remarried and hear Jesus telling you that you are now in adultery. While I myself am currently quite happily married, my own parents divorced. My own father remarried. So what of this do we say?

It says that like us, Jesus values marriage. Any person who chooses to get married does not do so with the intention of getting divorced. We come to it with expectation and value, the same perhaps as Jesus. We may not always have much of an opinion of others who get divorced in our increasingly autonomous society, but we all get into marriage with a similar view. Even if those who flippantly think "I'll just get divorced if it does not work out" they rarely assume that is the case. Martin Luther in his teaching on the Ten Commandments regularly saw that for every negative imperative by God ('You shall not') it implied a positive aspect. If we are not to kill our neighbor we are then to help preserve his life, if we should not misuse God's name vainly then we are to use it properly. Likewise, if we are not to be divorced, then we are to seek the value of marriage.

It should also be said that Jesus reveals that there is a place for divorce. Namely, within the history of God's people, sometimes it has been necessary to permit this because of the hardness of the human heart (has that ever changed?). But what that means, is clearly that divorce ultimately arises out of sin (which I'm sure most divorced couples would agree, even if they debate as to who's sin caused such) and it means it is counter to God's creational intention. Considering how Jesus notes particularly the story of creation and the new household formed (which is then the place for offspring as well - the continuing of this new creation) we can see why divorce itself would be counter-creational. And since the places in which it happens declares the presence of sin it is counter to the will of God.

But Jesus does not stop at saying sin is only in what leads to divorce. His words to his disciples explicitly speak against remarriage, which is in my mind the most difficult part of the entire text. But there is also a cultural piece to speak of here. Myself and most if not all my readers will acknowledge that we enter into marriage by our own will, and courtship and reasoning for choosing our mate differs greatly among ourselves much less among those in Jesus' time and place. I note this because the marriage provided there an important place for many women, who relied on parents or husbands in the far more patriarchal society. It is worth noting this because divorce then could mean life or death. A previously married woman has a hard time remarrying. As such she would be dependent on family. Even in today's world, as Donald Juel (Lectionary Commentary: Theological Exegesis for Sunday's Texts ed. Roger E. Van Harn) notes, women and children - those who would be most vulnerable in the patriarchal society and most affected by the divorce - are still in most cases the most vulnerable people in our society. We've come far, but yet the issue of what one will do after divorce can be a real one. If you doubt that one only has to see legal disputes over property, child supports, and so on after a divorce. One of the ways abusers trap the abused is the threat of losing everything. The abuser tries to make or convince the spouse of total dependence to prevent the ability to leave. When Jesus speaks of this, he therefore is not only affirming creation, and noting the presence of sin in divorce, he is speaking against an act that would have a negative societal role towards the vulnerable. In a culture where one can be sent away and replaced, and such an act has dreaded consequences on the one replaced. Such an understanding may help us then give credence and support to those engaged in the legal system, and uphold the vocation of lawyers who assist in that process and to give a theological eye to what is often only viewed in light of who earned what, how to hurt the divorcee, how to maximize one's assets, and the utter pain associated with the whole process. Yet Jesus names the real pain and wrong being a process that leaves one destitute.

But I think this is more than just a justice issue, Jesus himself to his disciples names adultery - not murder, poverty, robbery or other sins that might speak more of the injustice of such a putting away of a person. And he looks both ways when he speaks of this: not just the man putting away the woman (which would have had the larger social impact) but of the woman divorcing, remarrying. Especially since it would be important for a woman to perhaps do so, why is it a sin, notably a sexual sin related to marriage fidelity?

Jesus within the gospels at other times seems to upset family orders, choosing those who listen to his words as brothers and sisters over his kin, saying son will act against father and daughter against mother. Yet here instead of crying out for some form of anti-familial upsetting of the world's order he decries upsetting this order as adultery and declares "what God has joined together let no one separate". What is different about this creational joining from other ones? When it is by our hands the answer is nothing. And perhaps that is precisely what Jesus is pointing out. The act of divorce is as parents disowning a child: one cannot change the fact that this is their child. They can choose to no longer acknowledge it, but they cannot change it. A boy who grew up without a father will never know him, but that man still is his father. And the way we look at said fathers, the way we say shame on those who pretend it is not so, that is what God sees in the relationships we break. Permitting divorce because of sin is like removing a child to protect him from his abusive or neglecting parents, it happens, but it does not change the created order. Sin upsets the law but it does not undo it. This is why acting as though the separation has undone it is a transgression of the law. Divorce stands in opposition to this order but is convicted under it, in fact the only thing that stands truly outside the law is Christ. Thus it is those who listen to him who are his sisters and brothers (apart from the created order), the gospel does pit child against parent. By the gospel Jesus clearly names a reality that is apart from this order. Our own hands, our divorce, we cannot remove the accusation that rests by the voice of the law. Only Christ can.

We must therefore turn to Christ. When he gives the answer to 'lawful' divorce he ultimately responds with a word apart from the law - forgiveness. Remember I began by saying this entire text was a trap not against us, but against Christ. That is where the attack must ultimately land, upon the cross. Often the divorced person is seen as outside the church, because of the law Christ gives on marriage and divorce. But one must rather have it the other way: the church is the one place where the lawbreaker - the adulterer - finds rest from the accusation. Divorce has legal, emotional, and social implications. It tears families apart. But Christ is the place where instead of being divorced from a family we are drawn into one. It is the place where the table is filled with tax collectors and adulterers, and they can meet this title with the knowledge that it is true, one has sought to separate what God put together, one has sinned, one is an adulterer. But then this is precisely where I go. Sometimes we think repentance entails making the marriage all better instead of the adulterer seeking the cross where the sin is actually taken away and forgiveness is actually bestowed.

My last thought on why Jesus is especially firm on marriage is because God stands quite in contrast to us when it comes to covenants. Marriage is a covenant, it is a binding promise. God makes those too. In fact, the relation between husband and wife become the illustration for God and Israel, Christ and Church. Adultery is often the sin of the people of God, when they seek to turn to other gods, turn away from our Lord. Why would God insist, that even in matters of broken marriages the covenant stands? Because that is what our relationship to him has always been: broken oaths; adultery. Yet while we often think our relationship with God has ended, been divorced (maybe we make it "official" and drop our church membership) he still considers us his bride. He refuses to send us away vulnerable. He won't let sin upset our marriage, instead he gives us a law we can transgress but not remove and a cross in which neither the law nor sin have the last word - instead "It is finished" does. What we don't need to do is soften the power of the law which even in places where divorce must happen, has a word of demanding care for the vulnerable, and even still a word of transgression - a word that demands that divorce has not broken the family. No we don't need that word softened, what we need instead is a cross where the adulterer, the divorced, the broken can lie down with the rest of us and sing "My faith looks up to Thee"

Donald Juel on this also writes:
"That some will experience the words as hurtful is not surprising. The law works by punishing disobedience and transgression. A proper response is not to define the problem away by trying to explain Jesus' words as somehow appropriate to an ancient culture or as a patriarchal bias. It is to ask how God deals with brokenness, which is of course the main theme of the Gospel story."

And of this story we shall never be divorced. Instead it shall always call us home to dinner again.

For those interested I had a follow-up blog on this text which can be found here.