What every organist everywhere needs to, for the love of all that is good and right, STOP DOING

A few posts ago I wrote about certain problems common to leaders of musical worship, and I pointed out that organists are just as vulnerable to some temptations as are praise bands. Today I’ll write about another temptation peculiar to organists that I’ve noticed an awful lot.

That is the temptation to play any given hymn, response, musical setting, or other piece of music waaaayy too slowly.

If you’ve ever attended a church service that featured organ music, you’ve probably heard what I mean. Sometimes the “waaaayy” of “waaaayy too slowly” is an exaggeration, sometimes it’s not, but the “too slowly” is almost always present.

True story: When I was thirteen and my immediate family moved to a new state, we tried out a bunch of churches in our new town so we could decide which one we wanted to call home. We couldn’t just pick one from our old denomination, because our old denomination was Presbyterian (PCUSA, if you wanted that detail) and our new town was in New England, where Congregational churches abound and Presbyterian churches are few and far between. We eventually settled on our local United Methodist church for a variety of reasons, but one of the minor reasons was that it was the only one whose organist played the hymns at their proper speed.

Anyway, yeah, too often, organists play too slowly.

Sometimes I complain about this problem to a certain friend at my current church, who always counters that the organist is trying to play in a “stately” manner. In fairness to my friend, organs excel at playing in a stately manner, and the organist probably is trying to take advantage of that fact by giving every hymn, response, musical setting, and so on an air of stateliness. She may not even realize she’s doing it.

But there are at least two problems with taking that approach, and therefore at least two reasons I’d like organists everywhere to knock it off.

The first problem is that not every hymn, response, musical setting, or what have you is meant to sound stately. Sometimes a stately is just plain wrong for a given piece. “Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing,” for example–or anything else set to the tune “Nettleton“–should sound sprightly, not stately. “Nettleton” can be lively or mellow, though it should be played at the same tempo either way. But it just plain doesn’t have the gravitas you need if you’re aiming for stateliness, so for ol’ John Wyeth‘s sake don’t slow it down.

Try this, organists: Take the lyrics to any given hymn and sit down with them, or better yet stand up or go for a walk or something, and try singing them without an organ or any other instrument, at the tempo that feels most natural and right for that particular hymn. Then, when you return to your organ, play the hymn at that tempo instead of the one you usually use. Your congregation will thank you.

The second problem relates to a general principle of leading musical worship, which is that nothing kills a congregation’s enthusiasm like a song that drags on too long because it’s being led too slow. (This principle also holds for worship bands, youth group guitarists, and anyone else who leads group singing of any kind in any situation ever.) Even just a little too slow, so little you hardly notice if you’re the one leading the singing, can stretch a heretofore lively song out into an utter dirge once you multiply the slowness by three or four verses. When that happens, the congregation feels trapped in the song, and they stop thinking about God and start thinking about how the worship leader really should be playing faster. They stop closing their eyes in joyous rapture and start looking out the window to watch the glaciers whiz by.

The best tempo for any given hymn or musical setting or whatever is whatever tempo is proper for that hymn or musical setting or whatever. Usually that’s whatever tempo feels most natural, absent the limitations of the congregation or the instruments or whatever else might affect the way you lead singing. But I found, in my years leading musical worship for my college fellowship (yup, I was once that guy), that when you’re actually up there in front of the group, sometimes time distorts itself so the tempo that feels right to you then is actually a bit too slow.

The remedy is easy: Err on the side of playing a little too fast. Don’t race through it, of course; that doesn’t work either. Just play a little faster than you think you should. Sometimes that’ll mean that the song or hymn feels a little too fast, sure–but more often than not it’ll mean that you actually get the tempo just right. And your congregation will thank you.

Just please, please, please stop playing everything too slowly. Yes, this means you.

Thank you.

A few reflections for Good Friday

Today is Good Friday (or Holy Friday in some traditions), the day Christians commemorate the execution of Jesus. Rather than one long post on a single topic today, I thought I’d share a couple of brief(ish) observations on topics related in some way to the cross.

  1. Sometimes we spread the message of the cross in some really screwy ways. Mel Gibson’s 2004 splatter flick The Passion of the Christ, for example. When it first came out, an awful lot of voices in the Christian press were proclaiming how wonderful an opportunity it presented for evangelism. Take your friends to see it! Show them how much Jesus suffered for their sake!

    Except no. If you already know the story of Jesus, sure, you’ll have some context for the events of the movie–but if you don’t, all you really see is some poor guy getting wailed on for two hours. It’s basically torture porn. This is a message of love … how, exactly?

    In a way, what it reminded me of most was a movie they showed at a Maundy Thursday supper at our church when I was maybe three, that my parents didn’t think to remove me from the room for. It was one of those reel-to-reel jobs, and for some reason it didn’t have sound, because I remember the pastor narrating (“This is Peter–crying, because Jesus is dead”). But there was a graphic depiction of Jesus’ crucifixion. I remember thinking for months after that, “I’d cry if I were nailed to a cross.” I also remember unsettling dreams about myself or my family members facing imminent crucifixion, usually as some sort of medical procedure whose purpose was never explained. Point is, I saw Jesus’ crucifixion in the context of his life and in a family and church community that would continue to care for me and help me understand, and it still kind of traumatized me. As essential a part of the Gospel as the crucifixion is, we should think more carefully than we sometimes do about how we talk about it with non-Christians, not-yet-Christians, and new Christians.

  2. The theology of the cross is another thing we do weirdly sometimes. About ten or twelve years ago I found myself in conversation with the pastor of a Reformed Presbyterian Church. He was a great guy, but it was clear from the beginning that his theological perspective was very different from mine. He talked about the relationships between grace and law or between the Old and New Testaments in more oppositional terms than I was comfortable with. It wasn’t that I disagreed with his theology, not entirely; I just thought he was allowing too little room for other interpretations to supplement or modulate it.

    As our conversation wrapped up he handed me two pamphlets he had on him that he said would help explain the matter further and give me something to think about. I gladly accepted, and when I got home I read the pamphlets. His good intentions notwithstanding, they were no help whatsoever.

    The problem was that they were written not to convince an outsider that the RPC’s theology of the cross was true but to convince other RPC folks that this or that soon-to-be-ex-RPC-pastor’s theology of the cross was false. Both pamphlets were strident in their defense of something they called “classical reformed covenant theology” (which I’ll abbreviate “CRCT”), but I only knew what that was from a college class on the Puritans I took years before; the pamphlets themselves told me nothing about CRCT, except that so-and-so’s theology wasn’t it. We should defend truth against error, sure, but I was rather put off by the weak arguments (“He can’t be teaching CRCT because he’s not using the phrase ‘substitutionary atonement'” and that sort of thing), the theological rigidity, and the hostile tone of the pamphlets.

    To be fair to the pastor, he hadn’t meant to alienate me. I couldn’t help wondering if he’d meant to hand me those pamphlets or if he thought he was handing me different ones. Or maybe he meant to hand me those because he hadn’t read them and thought they were about something different. I guess, if there’s a lesson here, it’s to know what you’re sharing with whom.

  3. One day during our junior year of high school (which is grade 11, if any non-Americans are reading this), one of my best friends gave me a tape she’d made for me of the soundtrack to the Andrew Lloyd Webber/Tim Rice rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar. I hadn’t seen a stage performance or movie of it–still haven’t, actually–so it took me a while to sort out which characters were singing some of the songs. But I liked the music well enough, so I kept listening to it.

    I was a bit bothered by Jesus’ apparent lack of concern with matters of salvation and his ignorance of why his Father wanted him to die. And worse, the play ends with Jesus’ burial and doesn’t include his resurrection. Seems rather a glaring omission.

    But as I listened to the tape again and again over the years, I came to appreciate what the opera does well. For example, the political side of what some people hoped and others feared that Jesus would do often gets ignored amid our discussions of spiritual salvation, but Superstar captures it very well. The disciples’ cluelessness about what Jesus is actually up to is evident throughout, as are their changing moods, as the jubilation of Palm Sunday gives way to the violence of Good Friday–and as an egotistical Jesus swings wildly (as they see it) from benevolence to wrath to despair and back again. Even if it takes some liberties with the Scriptural accounts, Superstar has forced me to think about the events of Holy Week, the role of politics, and the perspectives of the disciples more deeply than I might have otherwise. That tape my friend gave me remains a staple of my music collection. And I’ve been grateful to her ever since.

Me and the Eucharist: a brief history

Tomorrow–maybe today, by the time I get this posted–is the day that my church calls Maundy Thursday, some other churches call Holy Thursday, and pretty much all churches commemorate the Last Supper Jesus shared with his closest followers before he was arrested. So here’s how I came to think what I think about the Lord’s Supper–or Communion, or the Eucharist, or whatever you might call the thing with the bread and wine (or grape juice or whatever).

I grew up in a Presbyterian (PCUSA) church that served Communion on the first Sunday of every month and invited all baptized Christians, regardless of their denominational background. There was a brief liturgy, including prayers and responsive readings, and then the congregation stayed in the pews while the servers brought around plates piled with small cubes of white bread followed by plates filled with small plastic shot glasses of grape juice, each of which elements we’d consume immediately.

Then my family moved and we began attending a local United Methodist church. Communion was also the first Sunday of the month there, again open to all baptized Christians, and again we’d have a brief liturgy of prayers and readings, but we’d receive the elements by going forward to kneel at the altar rail, where the servers would give us cubes of white bread and shot glasses of grape juice.

A few years later I attended my first Roman Catholic service: a Christmas Eve Midnight Mass with a friend’s family. My friend advised me that, since I wasn’t Catholic, when the time came to go forward for Communion I should remain seated. That was my introduction to the concept of closed Communion, which is when a church doesn’t serve Communion to people who aren’t of its denomination, and also to the practice of giving the congregation only the bread and not the wine.

That closed Communion experience followed me to an Anglican church I visited with some friends when I was in college. The service felt similar enough to the one at my other friends’ Catholic church that I assumed the same rules applied. When the time came for the Eucharist to be served, I went forward but crossed my arms over my chest, and the priest prayed a blessing over me. After the service, though, he asked if I was a believer and if I’d been baptized; when I said yes to both questions, he assured me that I could indeed receive Communion there–which, on subsequent visits, I happily did.

But during college I also attended a few other churches on occasion, including some non-denominational evangelical churches. The contrast between the way these churches did Communion and the way the Anglicans did it could hardly have been starker. Where the Anglicans had a complex, thorough, and well-ordered liturgy, these other churches had a Scripture reading and a brief extemporaneous prayer, and where the Anglicans made a point of serving Communion every week, these other churches served it once a month and in some cases only a few times a year. And I found that, where I left the Anglican service feeling like I had partaken of a sacrament infused with meaning and sacredness, I left these other churches feeling like I’d just eaten a crumb of bread and drunk a shot of grape juice and that was it.

Now, I’m not saying there wasn’t any spiritual significance in the way these other churches served Communion; I expect there was for most people in the congregation. And probably some folks would have found the Anglican liturgy impenetrable, restrictive, or otherwise off-putting. I’m just telling you how I felt about the services after I attended them. Your mileage is perfectly welcome to vary.

Anyway, after college I moved again and started attending another Presbyterian church (PCUSA again), but this one did Communion differently from the church of my childhood. Twice as often, for one thing: the first and third Sundays of the month, and a few years later they began serving Communion every week. For another thing, the congregation went up front to receive the elements, we’d tear pieces off a large loaf of bread–or break off a piece of matzo–rather than picking up pre-cut cubes, and we’d dunk the bread in goblets of grape juice rather than sipping the juice from individual shot glasses. On the whole they were a much more liturgical lot.

Then I moved again and started attending an Anglican church plant. The only thing that made their Communion feel any less meaningful than my earlier Anglican experience was that instead of the usual wafers they had us tear off pieces of pita, but for some reason the pita they used was made with a grain that sent big cough-inducing chunks down our throats.

Another move saw me again make my church home at an Anglican church–though this one uses the wafers, so there aren’t any grain particles. Also, you have the option of sipping wine from the chalice or dunking your wafer. (I usually sip, unless I’m sick.)

But one of the things I’ve found, after going to Anglican churches regularly for the last few years, is that, at least for me, weekly Communion doesn’t dilute the meaning or sacredness of the sacrament the way you might assume. (More than likely, that very assumption is precisely what drives some churches’ decision to serve communion only a few times a year: the less frequently Communion happens, the more it will probably mean to people when it does.) No, for me it’s quite the opposite. Weekly Communion becomes almost a form of sustenance, a frequent reminder of my dependence on a grace that I can’t earn but am still given and must still come forward to receive.

And tomorrow, on Maundy Thursday, I’ll go forward again.

Peace to you, whatever your faith, tradition, theology, or lack thereof, and whatever you’ll be doing on Thursday.

Why worship leaders should maybe stop listening to worship music

All right, despite my Lenten intentions, it’s been a few days since the last time I had a chance to post, and I’m not sure this week will be any better. It also remains to be seen what’ll happen once Lent ends, but maybe I’ll figure that out by then. But I’m here tonight, anyhow, so here’s a post.

A few of my recent posts have centered on music, so here’s one more. And this one will probably hold true for you regardless of what kind of worship music you prefer in your church services, regardless of what kind you connect with or what kind helps you connect with God.

A couple of months ago, a friend of mine posted a link to this article by Zac Hicks about how choirs in the middle ages and worship bands today too easily and too often slide from leading the congregation in worship to worshiping on behalf of the congregation. Sometimes that happens because, gradually and (one would hope) unconsciously, those entrusted with leading musical worship become enamored of ever more complex and interesting music–or of their own talents–and the congregation either can’t keep up or doesn’t see the point. Sometimes it happens because, gradually and (one would hope) unconsciously, the congregation takes an ever more passive role in musical worship, content to watch and listen to what happens up front rather than to participate themselves, and the worship leader eventually tires of cajoling them and stops trying. Sometimes these leader-side and congregation-side problems happen in tandem.

Thing is, despite Hicks’ focus on worship bands, worship bands aren’t the only ones subject to this problem. Sure, I’ve seen pop-star wannabes and rock-band theatrics that proved plenty of worship bands were more interested in their own music-making than the congregation’s. But I’ve also heard overwrought flourishes and awkward instrumental breaks that proved plenty of organists were more interested in their own music-making than the congregation’s. At their root, the instruments they’re using and the style of music they’re making don’t end up mattering that much.

Several years ago, I had the privilege of attending services at the Duke University Chapel a few times. The impressive space and aesthetics of the building and the majestic sound of the organ complemented each other brilliantly. But the organist (whose name I no longer remember) insisted on adding more and more layers of harmony to the successive verses of every single hymn, bringing the sound to the brink of horrific discord by the end and making even singing the melody difficult. The music ended up being one of the reasons I didn’t worship there more often. (Admittedly, the lack of community in the large and anonymous crowd was another, but it was still worth going once or twice.)

A few years before that, I regularly attended a Presbyterian church (PCUSA, if you were curious) that had both “traditional” and “contemporary” services every week, though I generally opted for the “traditional” service. The organist in those days was plenty talented at playing the organ, but not so talented at leading a congregation in worship. Between the second-to-last and last verses of every hymn he insisted on inserting a few bars’ worth of instrumental solo. And every week at least a few people, especially if they were new, would start singing the last verse too early and get embarrassed. Every. Single. Time. I liked enough other things about the church that I stuck around, but the organist was horribly off-putting. (I should note that he’s stopped doing those instrumental solos since then and just plays the hymns straight.)

Now, the offertory, the music played while Communion is being served, or any of those other parts with which the congregation isn’t expected to sing along anyway, those are all fine. And there’s nothing wrong with a recital or a concert either, whether by an organist or choir or worship band or anything else. I’m just saying that soloing, like anything else that smacks of showing off, has no place in the leading of what should be participatory musical worship. And that’s true no matter what musical styles or instruments are involved.

It does seem, though, that worship bands are vulnerable to the temptation to inappropriately solo in a way that organs and choirs may not be. That’s because much modern praise music is modeled after pop music, which often includes instrumental solos, usually before the last verse or refrain. And worship bands learn much of their repertoire by listening to CDs (What? I still own CDs.) recorded by Christian bands of one kind or another, and since the recording is usually just a band playing in a studio rather than a band leading a congregation, they leave the solo in. The worship leaders who listen to the recording think the solo sounds like a natural, normal part of the song, so when they’re rehearsing the song, they leave the solo in. And when they’re leading the congregation in singing the song, they leave the solo in.

Maybe organists and choir directors have a similar problem. I’ve heard a lot more recordings of modern praise music than of organ music or choir music, though, so I don’t know.

What I do know is that it’s dangerous for people entrusted with leading a congregation in musical worship to listen to recordings of worship music. It can be done, of course, if due care is given to preserve the participatory nature of congregational worship. But for far too many worship leaders, it’s too tempting to try to imitate the recording–the instrumentation, the structure of the song, and all other elements of it–too closely. For many worship leaders, the best course of action may be to sell, give away, throw out, burn, or otherwise get rid of their worship music CDs.

They’d be doing a great service to the congregations they lead.

Why I like old hymns and their old lyrics

In yesterday’s post I mentioned that I grew up in a church where we sang hymns and then went to a youth group where we sang modern folk-inflected praise songs. Might as well write a bit more about church music today, while I’m on the subject.

The first thing I’ll say is that I’m not here to take sides in the hymns-versus-praise-choruses debate. People connect with God through many different kinds of music, including not only the stately majesty of hymns and the creative energy of praise choruses but also the lively immediacy of Gospel songs, the lavish richness of classical choral compositions, the spare simplicity of monastic chants, and plenty of other forms. More than one of those musical forms has helped me connect with God myself at one time or another, and if hymns resonate a little more deeply with me, that’s just me; other folks have the same response to other kinds of music. That’s one of many things that makes the diversity of the worldwide church so enriching and exciting.

But I do want to write about hymns a little bit today, and the thing I want to address is the modernization of the lyrics. It doesn’t happen often, but it happens, and I usually detest it.

See, one of the things I like so much about hymns is their theological density. The verses of a good hymn can bore through the layers of a theme or unfold a progression of ideas in a way that fires my imagination and gets my spirit–which, for me, has a close relationship with my brain–eager for God to reveal himself. (Again, that’s what hymns do for me; other musical forms grab other people, and sometimes also me, in other ways that are also good.)

But sometimes modern Christians insist on revising the words so the hymns say something different. I’m not talking about writing a new refrain to insert between the verses of a classic hymn, though for purely aesthetic reasons I’m not always crazy about that practice either; I’m talking about rewriting the words of the hymn itself. Why some Christians do this, I don’t know, and it probably varies from instance to instance. Maybe they see a word they don’t really understand, so they figure that to make the hymn comprehensible to them, or maybe accessible to non-Christian visitors to their churches, they have to rewrite the line to remove the offending word. Maybe they see a theology they don’t recognize, so instead of trying to understand it they replace it with another one. Maybe–and this one I can sort of accept–they see gender-specific language in a lyric that’s meant to apply to all humans everywhere, so they try to expunge it for the sake of inclusivity.

Whatever the reasons, the classic instance of this problem, for me, is coincidentally (and irritatingly) one of my favorite hymns: “Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing,” usually sung to the tune “Nettleton.” The version I grew up singing had this second verse:

Here I raise my ebenezer;
Hither by Thy help I’m come;
And I hope by Thy good pleasure
Safely to arrive at home.
Jesus sought me when a stranger,
Wand’ring from the fold of God;
He, to rescue me from danger,
Interposed His precious blood.

Robert Robinson’s original 1757 lyrics were in a different order, so perhaps in inveighing against monkeying with hymn lyrics I’m a bit hypocritical. But this version, even while reordering them, leaves the ideas themselves essentially intact. What doesn’t is this late-20th-century revision:

Hitherto thy love has blessed me;
Thou hast brought me to this place.
And I know thy hand will bring me
Safely home by thy good grace.
Jesus sought me when a stranger,
Wand’ring from the fold of God;
He, to rescue me from danger,
Bought me with his precious blood.

To begin with, the first four lines are completely rewritten. Now, I understand that nowadays the only reference point people have for the word “ebenezer” is Ebenezer Scrooge. But the word itself, derived from Hebrew, means “stone of help” and is used in I Samuel 7:12 as the name of a monument Samuel erected to commemorate a victory over the Philistines, won with God’s help. (Side note: we should totally start using “ebenezer” as a normal word again.) The idea of a journey and a return home is preserved, but in addition to replacing God’s help and pleasure with his love and grace, the change deprives the hymn of both a vivid image and a Biblical allusion.

The other major change to this verse is in the last line, where “interposed” is replaced with “bought me with.” These are two very different understandings of the cross. The newer version is economic: there was a price to be paid for me, and Jesus paid it, using his blood as the currency. But the older version has an immediacy to it that the newer one doesn’t quite capture: death or some other danger was making straight for me, but Jesus stepped between it and me so that it would strike him instead. In the newer version, Jesus pays a ransom for me; in the older version, Jesus takes a bullet for me.

Mind you, the new lyrics are not theologically incorrect. It’s not as though the hymn used to be true and now isn’t. It’s that the hymn used to say one true thing and now says a different true thing instead. The first true thing, which may have fit well with 18th-century theological emphases and sensibilities, has been replaced by a different true thing, which fits well with 20th-century theological emphases and sensibilities. But maybe it’s because the revision fits so well with current thinking that we should keep singing the old, un-revised version to remind us of other truths that we too easily forget because we don’t encounter them as often.

That’s one of the reasons I like hymns. And it’s one of the gifts that, at their best, they can offer the whole church–including the people who prefer praise choruses.

The World Vision dust-up and schools’ statements of faith

Anyone been following the World Vision kerfuffle this week?

On Monday Richard Stearns, the President of Christian aid organization World Vision U.S., apparently apropos of nothing, announced that the organization would allow itself to employ Christians in legal same-sex marriages (at least in its U.S. offices). The decision, he said, emanated from the organization’s desire to pursue Christian unity in helping the world’s poor over taking any particular stand on a divisive issue.

Predictably, Christians all over America, especially those from the more socially conservative Pentecostal and Evangelical churches from whom World Vision draws much of its support, took up arms. A few came to World Vision’s defense (including this article by Rachel Held Evans, which was the first I read of any of this business), but most slammed Stearns and World Vision for compromising the gospel, for sacrificing truth for some dream of unity, or for other such sins–you know, the standard accusations Christians in one group level against Christians in another group who are willing to work with people Christians in the first group don’t want to work with. (Billy Graham faced similar accusations, early in his career, from Fundamentalist churches who were happy to support his crusades until he made clear that he was willing to share a podium with Catholics and liberal Protestants.) Today, Stearns and World Vision announced that they were reversing the decision.

There are arguments to be made on both sides, certainly. There are plenty of faithful Christians who believe World Vision’s decision on Monday was the right thing to do, or at least a step in the right direction, and there are plenty of faithful Christians who believe World Vision’s reversal of that decision on Wednesday was the right call.

But today I want to focus less on World Vision’s actions than on Christians’ reactions.

First, while noone else quite matches its reputation for scope and effectiveness, World Vision isn’t the only game in town. Christians who want to support international aid and relief efforts, sponsor children and communities, and otherwise participate in work similar to World Vision’s do have other options. Both World Vision’s detractors and its defenders would do well to remember this point. Calls to stop supporting World Vision should be followed immediately by suggestions of other worthy organizations to support instead. Likewise, accusations that World Vision’s detractors would rather let children starve than support them through that organization should be tempered by the recognition that many (though probably not all) who pull their support from World Vision will direct it to another organization also doing good work, and by the recognition that World Vision’s policy change may–or may not–attract new support that offsets what was lost.

Second, and more importantly, this whole incident highlights a disturbing overemphasis on issues pertaining to homosexuality in American churches today, an assumption that a particular set of beliefs concerning the acceptability or unacceptability of homosexual behavior is a core part of the gospel message. Here’s Evans:

I have to ask: Since when? Since when has the reality that Christ has died, Christ has risen, and Christ will come again ever been threatened by two men committing their lives to one another? Since when have the historic Christian creeds, recognized for centuries as the theological articulation of Orthodoxy, included a word about the issue of gay marriage? Since when have my gay and lesbian friends—many of whom are committed Christians—ever kept me from loving God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength and loving my neighbor as myself? Since when has a single interpretation of the biblical passages in question here been deemed the only one faithful Christians can have? [Emphasis in original.]

On this point I agree very much with Evans, although to her last question I would add, “And to whom has God given the final authority to deem it so?”, since there are plenty of Christians with differing ideas who seem to think their deeming is the correct one.

A few years ago I was considering the possibility of trying to teach history at a Christian high school somewhere, so I started checking out various schools to see what kinds of things they required of their teachers. Nearly every school had a statement of faith which it required all its faculty to sign. Fair enough; parents who want to send their kids to a religiously-affiliated school are quite reasonable to expect that the teachers who will be filling their children’s heads with knowledge will do so in a manner consistent with the family’s and the school’s professed faith. And, much as I expected, there were some statements that I could sign in good conscience and some that, for a variety of reasons, I could not.

But what disturbed me most about those statements of faith was the astonishingly large percentage of them that included a line about the wrongness of homosexuality or the rightness of traditional heterosexual marriage. And what disturbed me about those lines was not so much the position the schools were taking on homosexuality, which was more or less the position I’d expect most of those schools to take. What disturbed me was that so many schools had decided that that one issue was so important that it belonged in the statement of faith at all.

Affirming the Trinity? Yes. The saving work of Jesus on the cross? Sure. The Resurrection? Absolutely. The authority of the Bible? Maybe, maybe not, depending on how you’re asking me to interpret the text. (You’ll notice I said there were a variety of reasons I couldn’t sign some of the statements of faith; a line insisting on six-day creationism was one of them.)

The definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and the sinfulness of same-sex romantic relationships? Um, sorry, how is that central enough to Christianity to even be on this list?

See, most of those statements of faith didn’t include a word about race issues, about poverty and economic justice (a topic Jesus himself addressed a lot more than sexual orientation), about violence on large scales and small, or about a host of other social issues. No, the one social issue they mentioned was homosexuality, and specifically the wrongness thereof. Is that issue–and only that issue–really so close to the heart of the gospel, the core of the Christian faith, that it belongs in a school’s statement of faith? Or anyone’s?

Well … no. Not anyone’s I’d be willing to work for, anyway.

The argument of procreation: also pretty problematic

In my last post I pointed out an oft-unnoticed flaw in one of the arguments Christians sometimes use to support the belief that homosexual sex is sinful. While I’m at it, here’s another argument Christians sometimes use to the same end, and a reason that argument is also highly suspect.

The argument in question today runs roughly as follows:
1. God’s primary–or perhaps only–intended purpose for human sexual activity is procreation.
2. Therefore the only acceptable forms of sexual activity are those that can potentially result in the fertilization of an egg by a sperm.
3. Therefore the only acceptable sexual activity is between one woman and one man. If two women have sex, there are eggs but no sperm, and if two men have sex, there are sperm but no eggs, so in either case procreation cannot happen.

This argument comes up especially frequently in debates over same-sex marriage, and is generally cited by those who want to argue that marriage should be restricted to couples who are capable of having children (or who would be capable of having children if all their procreative organs were functioning properly; advocates for this position usually ignore the plight of couples wherein one or both partners is infertile). But quite apart from any other reasons you or I may have for disagreeing with this argument, it holds a few implications that many people, even those who believe homosexual sex is wrong, would still find untenable.

By the logic of this argument, if the only acceptable forms of sexual activity are those that can potentially lead to the procreation of children, then not only homosexual sex but also all of the following are also inherently sinful:
— Heterosexual sex that does not include coitus
— Heterosexual sex in which the woman is past menopause
— Heterosexual sex in which either partner is known to be infertile
— Heterosexual sex at any stage in the woman’s menstrual cycle at which conception is impossible
— Heterosexual sex with birth-control pills, condoms, or other contraceptives

At this point, some Christians might sputter in protest and point out that heterosexual sex in which the woman is past menopause is clearly not sinful, if the example of Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 18 is any indication. Fair enough–but God specifically told them that he was going to give them descendants, which is not something he says to the vast majority of post-menopausal women; Abraham and Sarah are a special exception to the norm. Logic demands that a post-menopausal woman remain celibate (unless God specifically tells her otherwise), or else that the sex-is-only-for-procreation argument is rubbish.

Along similar lines, Christians will sometimes use the story of Onan in Genesis 38:8-10 to argue against masturbation and other non-coital forms of sexual activity. Onan’s brother Er had died without a son, so Onan’s responsibility was to have sex with Er’s widow Tamar so that the firstborn son could be an heir for Er. Onan had sex with Tamar but pulled out, in order that a child would not be conceived, and as punishment God struck Onan dead.

But the use of this story to argue against non-coital forms of sexual activity overlooks the reason Onan was supposed to have sex with Tamar in the first place, which was to conceive a child who could be Er’s heir. Onan knew full well that, legally, the child would not be his–and he also knew that Er’s property would revert to him (that is, to Onan himself) if Er didn’t have a son. Thus the reason Onan incurred God’s wrath was not that he engaged in an unacceptable form of sexual activity but that, for selfish reasons, he refused to fulfill his legal and moral obligation to his deceased brother. Christians who think masturbation, oral sex, or other non-coital forms of sexual activity are sinful may still be able to build a case, but they’ll have to look elsewhere for their arguments; the story of Onan presents a pretty flimsy one.

As for the two arguments against homosexual activity that I’ve discussed in yesterday’s and today’s posts, the position those arguments are meant to support may be right or it may be wrong–and there are plenty of people, even Christians, on either side–but those arguments are too severely flawed to keep using. Let’s all agree to knock it off, shall we?