A Gamer's Lament

I grew up on video games.

I remember the excitement of our family's first system, an Atari 2600, being turned on for the first time. I remember watching with envy as my friend showed me his brand new NES. I remember pride when my brother and I raised the money to buy a Genesis for ourselves, and I have recently been on a major retro gaming kick, assembling a collection of older systems and games to enjoy.

(I'm currently replaying Metroid Prime. It's doing a lot to help me believe that Metroid: Other M never existed. Except that now I have mentioned it. Crap.)

Sadly, though, right now Gaming is getting noticed for reasons that have nothing to do with the game and everything to do with internet loners feeling that they are losing control of the medium they once considered their own. Where once only children and adult losers played video games, my generation grew up with them, and far from giving them up, got more refined with our tastes. But there remain those who want to remain the kings of the genre even as its stock rises, and these seem to be the ones who have the biggest problem with those who question what becomes laughingly referred to as "gaming culture."

I know gaming culture. Gaming culture is a kid gripping the controller as he tries to beat a level, or a shout of joy from friends as one trounces another in a party game. It is a barely contained squeak as a survival horror game scares you, or a groan of frustration as that one boss beats you AGAIN without a reasonably close saved game.

It's not about keeping women or minorities in their place. It's not about shouting slurs into a microphone. And it's sure as hell not about threatening and harassing people who disagree with you online.

Probably no one will care about this post. This is a Pastor's blog about questions of faith and religion and I doubt any of the people I mentioned read my posts. But I hope more and more internet personalities join in on what some have started by writing posts like these, particularly those of us who grew up gaming and would like it to grow up with us. (And by grow up, I mean learn to play well with others, not swear a lot and go to nudie bars.)

And in case someone out there does care about my opinion, and are in some way on the fence about this, maybe this'll help them take these steps to being better, as well.

Reader Question- "God hasn't said I'm wrong."

How would you, as a Christian, respond to another Christian who says to you during a disagreement, "Well, I've prayed and asked God to show me if I'm wrong, and I just want you to know you are doing the wrong thing"? With this line of reasoning, they'll always be right.    -Sarah
---------------------

(Note from the Management: Sorry about missing Thursday! Though he normally takes Friday off, we managed to tie Pastor Dan up until he answered the question. Of course, he was then unable to type. But while he was tied up we searched his house and now will hold his vintage Game Boy until he got back up to task because we are NOT gonna let him lag on this. Ok, here we go.)

Hey there, Sarah! Thanks for your question. To start off, I would answer with a story. Because, you know. Pastor here.

One day there was a terrible flood. The radio reported flood waters rising throughout a particular community and a man sat in his house and prayed that God would save him from the floods. 

A few minutes later some Firefighters pulled up in a van and told him to get in, that they were evacuating the area. But he refused, because he had prayed, and knew that God would save him. They tried and tried to convince him but he refused.

Then, as the waters came up to his door, a police boat came up to the house and the police called for him to get aboard, but again, he refused, saying that he had faith that God would save him. They begged and begged him but finally had to move on to save others.

Then, shortly after he was forced to climb onto his roof to avoid the floodwaters, a helicopter from a local news agency flew by, and the pilot flew in close for him to get aboard, but again, he refused. "I have prayed, and prayed," he called to the pilot, "And I believe that the Lord will save me!" The winds whipped up, the Pilot was forced to fly away, and eventually the house was swept away in the floodwaters, and the man drowned.

When he arrived at the gates of heaven, the man was a little disgruntled, went up to God and said, "O Lord, I had faith. Why didn't you rescue me?"

To which God responded, "Yeah, I don't know what happened. I sent a van, a boat, and even a helicopter to save you!"

This story isn't nearly as outlandish as it sounds. There are tons of Christians who are unable to recognize the work of God in the world unless it is accompanied by glowing lights and at least three celestial choirs. And yet the Bible is packed full of instances of the will (and word) of God being delivered by other people.

So to the Christian who says that they have prayed for God to tell them if they are wrong, I remind them that it is entirely possible that God is doing precisely that... through me. 

(Now give me my Game Boy back.)

Reader Question-- What should I be feeling?

My father passed away one week ago today, I've had to sort his finances out, organise his cremation and put his things in order. I did not like the man, he was plain and simply mean. I feel I should be mourning him but I don't feel anything but annoyed. (as I have said before my mother has terminal cancer and my daughter has health issues, I also have a job ) should I feel something apart from annoyed?       -Carol 

-----------------

Thanks for writing in, Carol.

I have never found it to be particularly helpful to worry over what one "should" be feeling in any given situation. Feelings and emotions are reactions, and instinctual. We don't choose our feelings, and so stressing over appropriate feelings in any situation is rarely helpful. We sometimes feel the need to mimic a certain reaction for social reasons, but in general, at least insofar as initial feelings go, we simply feel what we feel. 

You did not like your father, but for whatever reasons it fell to you to make the arrangements following his death. Annoyance is a perfectly reasonable reaction to all of this. 

That said, surface emotions rarely tell the whole story. The fact that you felt the need to ask the question may be an indicator that there is actually something else under the surface, another feeling waiting to be felt, if you will, and you're trying to find it.

Maybe it's anger at your father for being so mean. Maybe it's regret at never being able to tell him off. Maybe the sadness at the looming death of your mother was triggered by the death of your father in a way you weren't ready to deal with. Our emotions are interconnected, and how we feel for one person can affect how we feel about another. 

Or, maybe annoyance is all there is, and it bugs you because we've been raised to believe that the death of a father should mean more. After all, with all your concern for your mother and daughter, maybe you just don't have the emotional capital to spend on a guy you disliked, and so you made the emotionally healthy call to not waste more "feels" on him than he deserved.

Unless you talk about it, there's no way to be really sure. 

If you have the time or inclination, this is actually pretty good stuff to talk to a therapist about, working through your feelings. There is a lot going on for you right now, and maybe you'll just get to the more complex Dad feelings when you have the strengths.

But unless you are being actively bothered by any of this, my initial instinct remains... don't feel the need to second guess your feelings. He was who he was, you are who you are, and how you feel is entirely up to you. In time, you may NEED to feel something else from him, to avoid resentment. But as for "should," there is no should. You feel what you feel for who you feel it for.

That really is okay.

Concerning Dillon Taylor

So a white twenty year old named Dillon Taylor was shot and killed recently in Salt Lake City, UT. Radio personalities and some bloggers want to know where all the outrage over his death is. It's with his friends, family, and neighbors, where killings like this (that really aren't all that rare) usually are. Why didn't it get bigger, like Michael Brown's death? Well, it's simple, really.

For starters, the officer was wearing a body camera, which captured the full incident. The tape hasn't been released yet, due to being key evidence in the killing, but will be after the investigation is concluded. The police department in question made that clear, and it really is standard practice.

The Police Department has not been releasing tidbits of information to indicate that Dillon Taylor had it coming, thereby not enraging a mourning community further than they are.

Protesters are not being treated to peace officers armed as if they are an invading force.

So why hasn't Salt Lake City blown up like Ferguson did? Because it's amazing the difference having a competent police department makes. It's also amazing what protesters are capable of when the powers that be treat them like people.

Reader Question- Faking Conviction

Have you ever felt the need to maybe act like you are more sure about something than you were. As a pastor your job could be described as sort of a spiritual guide or teacher, how do you deal with situations in which you don't' necessarily have an answer or a even a strong moral conviction?      -Logan

------------

GREAT question, Logan.

As a Pastor, you would be amazed how often people just expect me to have the answer to so many things that I start to wonder what exactly people think we are taught in Seminary. 

For instance, one time I was working at a church that was hosting a Christmas Dinner for people who were going to be eating alone on Christmas day. They had been doing this meal for more than thiry years (longer than I have been alive, mind you) and I was just helping out as I could. One of the church ladies walks up to me and tells me that we are running low on Green Beans, and asks if its worth making another batch.

Me: Uhhh...

Her: I mean, I'm pretty sure we'd eat them all, if we did.

Me: Ok.

Her: So should we do that?

Me: Yeah?

Her: Great! Thanks!

So yeah... from time to time I get asked for an authoritative opinion on which I have very little idea what I am talking about. In general, I try to refer to people who DO know what they are talking about, but there are certainly times when I want to be seen as a know-it-all.

It hasn't really come up on the Blog yet, but from time to time in ANF I will be asked a question on which I don't have a strong opinion, and in those cases I try to show how I arrive at a certain answer by showing my thought process.

But there are times when people come to me with spiritual questions, and the fact is that in that moment I don't feel particularly spiritual. And at those times... yeah. There are times I wish I was more "certain" of my faith than I actually am.

I used the quotes there because as I have said a million times, once you are certain, you are no longer doing faith. So doubt is always a part of what I do. I often joke that clergy should, in addition to vacation and sick days, be allowed to phone in atheist once a month.

"Hello? Yes, sorry, I can't come in to work. I don't believe in God today. No, no, it's just a flare up, I'll be fine again tomorrow." And I usually am. 

In the meantime, I answer the questions and do my job to the best of my ability. I have described faith as a sense, and to go with a sight metaphor, those are the days on which the light is particularly dim. Still, I know how to act, still have all my learning, and I do my best so I'm not dragging others down with me, and looking forward to periods of bright light which are certainly coming. Still, it has been awhile since I have felt the need to "fake" faith. 

You see, when I was a young teenager, I was an atheist. 

It just sort of happened. One day I awoke to the knowledge that I no longer believed in God. Now I knew my parents believed, and I didn't think they were lying to me, I just thought they were wrong. I also know they would probably be sad if I told them the truth, and my Dad (a pastor) could get in trouble in his small, conservative church.

So I hid in plain sight.

I was the walking definition of a faithful preacher's kid. Always the first to sign up for youth outings and mission trips, sang the loudest during hymns, was up front at the stage at all the various "praisegasms" the youth group would attend. And why not? It wasn't like there was anything else to do, and I fun attending Sunday School and these youth functions and knowing that I, an atheist teenager, knew more about the Bible than any of my teachers except for my Dad.

It was years later when I suddenly had a relationship with God again. And when that happened, I didn't know what to do. The old activities had become stale... I couldn't worship that way anymore, because I had been doing it for so long and it was so fake. I started looking at all those praise bands and got very suspicious, wondering how many of them were just doing it for the job.

To some around me, they wondered if I was going through a crisis of faith, because my (now real) faith was much less visible. I didn't care what people saw anymore, what I was looking for was a real relationship with God.

Because of that time, I work hard to make sure that I never present myself as more faithful than I am, that people know the role that doubt plays in my everyday life. Because I did fake it, once. And I was really, REALLY, good at it.

Vlog- Prayer and Sport

Prayers and Sport!

Concerning Suicide

Since Robin Williams death, I have received a number of private questions concerning suicide, enough that I decided it would be worthwhile to address on a larger scale. There have also been quite a few discussions of the matter on various internet boards, with wildly varying opinions on the "appropriate" way to approach the subject.

I am going to approach the subject from my primary experience with it... that of a grief counselor. Because of that, I may seem callus or cold in some of the things I say, and so rather than shock people, I am going to say it up front so that people are duly warned...

Once you have committed suicide, it is no longer my job to take care of you. You are out of my hands. This means that I will do what I do without regard for your feelings or wishes, except insofar as they are important to the people you have left behind. 

It's sometimes funny how many people this offends, and speaks to the circles that build up around the deeply depressed, often completely missed or ignored by them, the people fighting to let them know that others love them and care for them, and also those hurt the most by the suicide when it occurs. But those are the people I (and all of us, really) need to care for now. Once the suicide has happened, it's too late to help the departed. The best we can hope for is to care for those caught in the blast radius, and try to prevent a chain reaction. 

(Besides, once the suicide has happened, it's not like what I say is likely to get back to them. Regardless of your beliefs concerning the afterlife, if departed people have the time and/or inclination to read my blog, we all have some reevaluating to do.)

So now, we will leave behind those who have died, and speak to those who remain.

1) You are allowed to be angry at the one who committed Suicide.  

Is it weird that this is something I need to tell people? In general, it's accepted fact that you are allowed to be irritated with people who cause you pain, in some sort of relation to the amount of pain they caused. Grief for the departed is one of the most powerful emotional pains that exist, can translate to actual physical pain and ailment regularly.

And yet, over and over again, we see people who feel that the departed is somehow off limits. "Oh, but they were suffering," and other such platitudes get raised over and over and OVER again until the grievers feel terrible for their feelings of anger. And yet, the anger remains, and do you know why?

Because the person who died made a choice. That choice hurt you deeply. And no matter WHY they made that choice, no matter WHAT they convinced themselves of to rationalize it, they still did it, and it hurt you. 

Maybe, after your wounds have had time to heal, you'll be able to forgive them. But that will happen on your time, not that of those around you who just want everything to be okay again. You do not HAVE to forgive them (and forced forgiveness is, of course, worthless.) So take your time. Be angry. It can't hurt them. And it may end up actually helping you heal. 

2) You are not responsible for their death.

This one is so hard. People will blame themselves for deaths from uncurable diseases, so a death as preventable as suicide hits them twice as hard. "I missed the signs, I should have known, I should have kept a closer watch, I should have called more..." etc., etc. 

Again, the one who killed themselves made a choice. THEY made it. If they were inclined to let you stop them, you probably would have. In the end, you can't watch someone all the time, and truly determined people find a way. 

I realize that just saying this won't make it ring true for you. Your feelings of guilt are something you are going to have to work through, and your ability to do so will have very little to do with rational thought. But when the time comes, as you work on forgiving the departed and letting them go, a HUGE step along the way is letting go of the illusion that you could have stopped it.

3) Get help. 

Suicide is contagious. Did you know that? That instances of suicide trigger other instances? Once someone you know had died that way, the possibility will always sit there in the back of your head, and the wonder... did it hurt? Was it truly an escape? And could it work for me?

Grief can trigger depression, and depression is an ugly, ugly disease. Combined with suicidal thoughts, it can be deadly. It's not a matter of willpower or positive thinking. The depressed person is sick. And while you MIGHT get better on your own, you improve your chances astronomically if you get help. So talk to people about your pain. Don't try to hide it, where it can fester. Be angry and hurt out loud. They may recommend medication. Get a second professional opinion if that worries you, but don't rule it out right away.

Of the people who contacted me about suicide, most were not considering it for themselves, but were picking up the pieces after someone else had, and the death of Robin Williams brought those old feelings back to the surface. But in case someone with those thoughts is reading this...

Don't do it. Please. I KNOW that it doesn't seem like it right now but this world needs you. Your actions matter, and can hurt the people you care about it ways you can't even consider right now. It could even kill them. So put it off. Get help. Speak to the ones you love and LISTEN when they talk back to you. Don't hide your pain but show it, make it so it can't be ignored. Because Hope is contagious, too. If you can beat your depression, you may be the hope that allows someone else to beat theirs, and then they can help someone else, etc.

If you are considering suicide, please click this link. It is to a chat with the Suicide Lifeline and someone can talk to you to help you. Don't wait. If you don't think you're worth it on your own, think of those around you. Because killing yourself WILL hurt them. 

And if you need, you can write me. 

Reader Question- Why do you hate Christianity?

I don't understand why you're a pastor if you hate Christianity so much. All you do is bash Christians. 
-Anonymous

------------


Well, now. I was wondering if I would get one of these. Now that I have, I feel as if I have arrived, like the Internet is recognizing my legitimacy, or something. So thanks for writing in, Anonymous. While not technically a question, I'll do my best to address the lack of understanding you are confessing to here.

I'll start with the second part... am I always bashing Christians?

Of my 40 or so posts so far, by my count 16 have included some form of criticism of how some Christians go about living their faith. Granting that not all of my posts are answers to questions, and some are just silly videos, we'll say that so far I have been criticizing Christianity about, oh, half the time. So it plainly isn't ALL that I do.

Then again, this is fairly standard Internet Hyperbole, so we'll adjust your statement accordingly and say that I am often criticizing Christians on this blog, which is fair enough. You may also have noticed that said criticism doesn't often (or possibly ever) go to people outside of Christianity. Other than the occasional joking comment, I don't know that I have ever really criticized other faiths, or atheism. Certainly not to the same degree. I suppose that is where you could come to the conclusion that I "hate" Christianity.

You'd be wrong, though. I don't hate Christianity. I actually love it quite a bit, went pro, so to speak. I openly identify as Christian, even in situations where that isn't the most popular thing to be. I show people how my faith influences my decisions and even try to pull back the curtain to show where those ideas come from, the actual thought process behind what I say and do.

I do sometimes criticize Christians, though. Because that's part of my JOB.

I'm not just your average Christian, here. I'm a Christian Leader. I've got the degree, the robe, the funny scarf and everything. I literally get paid to help Christians stay on the right track. And we often end up on the wrong tracks. So when a question involves Christians doing things for reasons, I often will end up pointing out how those reasons are misguided, hurtful, or just plain wrong.

I don't do the same for people of other faiths, or atheists. Why? Because that ISN'T my job. I am not an authority on Islam, Judaism, Wicca, or Buddhism. I can't speak with the same authority on them. (I'm also not really getting any questions concerning Wiccans behaving badly. Not to say that they aren't, but nobody feels the need to write in to me about it.) My authority is similarly limited for Atheists, who aren't particularly going to care what the Bible has to say about anything.

(Another bit of Christian "bashing" coming up- If you are trying to convince an atheist of anything, the Bible isn't going to be treated as authoritative by them. Just a heads up.)

I know that there are a lot of Pastors out there who spend most of their energy talking about the sins of people outside of their herd, creating a nice echo chamber where the Church can feel great and superior to everyone else. This robs a church of its potential for growth, and indeed undermines the basics of Christianity (why worship a savior if you don't need to be saved?) completely.

The Great Hypocrisy of the Church is NOT that we preach against sin while being sinners. It is that we preach against Sin while pretending that we aren't. I will always attempt to correct what I see as problematic behaviors in Christians while sticking to mostly just offering love and support to those who aren't because that is how my position works.

So, I don't hate Christianity. I have no interest in "bashing" Christians, but I will criticize them when I feel they've gone wrong because that is my job. So I don't criticize despite being a pastor. I criticize because that is what I am, and I am trying to do it right.

Reader Question- Why is everyone so miserable?

Curious about your thoughts on this whenever you have a chance. I personally agree with almost every word of it. This really hit home for me today. Mostly I guess I am just wondering what you think about why so many people are so sad today and what you think we can do about it. This is a wonderful read and great discussion. http://zenarchery.com/2014/08/everyone-i-know-is-brokenhearted/ 
-Rifah Odeh

--------------------- 

Thanks for writing in, Rifah!

You see articles on this sort of thing all the time, about how everything is horrible and the promise of the past failed to lead to the glorious future we were hoping for, leaving us in the present. What happened to us? Why are we all so sad, all of the time?

Trick Question... because we aren't.

This isn't to say that the difficulties enumerated in the article aren't real, because they are. For crying out loud, America isn't even really watching what is happening in Gaza anymore, because we have our own version going in Ferguson. Robin Williams, one of the most joyful people the world has ever seen, died in depression. The world is every bit as dark as it seems. And yet...

And yet, joy remains.

The internet is full to bursting with videos of people dumping ice water on each other. Not only is this often funny, it is also raising MILLIONS for ALS research. That would have been impossible even twenty years ago.

Today on ANF, someone was celebrating because they finally found a job after a long search. Yesterday I spoke to a young couple excited to get married, even while scared of what the future would hold when they did. On the radio on the way home, I heard the song "Gimme Some Lovin'" and got filled with joy. It's just such a great song! And the radio is full of them, songs that touch the joy of people, even if they don't really want that joy touched.

(Seriously, my biggest problem with Ellis' article was his riff on the music. That was where he left introspection behind and became a bitter old guy.)

I know it may seem like I am reaching here, or pulling up insignificant things. Who the hell cares about stupid ice bucket videos when Ferguson resembles a police state? There are too many problems in the world to be happy, right? So yeah, sure, we do all those little silly things to distract ourselves, but really, they aren't REAL reasons. So really we are miserable, right? No, no we aren't.

This is IMPORTANT, people, so listen up. There is still joy in this world. No matter how dark things get, those things that make you happy, no matter how trivial or insignificant,  those things that help you take the next step, become the most important things in the world.

Because without them, we would lose hope.

Without Hope, Ferguson won't matter. If the world just sucks and there is nothing we can do about it, then Ferguson is just a lost cause. But that isn't why protesters march. They march because they hope that maybe, just maybe, Michael Brown's life will change things, make it so we don't ever have to hear about such a case again.

Without Hope, the world becomes the dark, broken place that Ellis describes. Without Hope, nothing matters. And the very fact that the world can still hurt us shows we still have hope. A lot of things suck. But maybe one day they won't. And with that hope, we can get some stuff done.

I think occasionally Nerdfighters forget that a huge part of fighting Worldsuck is the joy that nerds can derive from silly, everyday things. We are shameless enjoyers of culture, people who write silly songs about Harry Potter or wear costumes to look like anatomically unlikely cartoon characters. We do these silly things and laugh, and enjoy, and then go out to make the world a better place, not because the way it sucks, but because we legitimately believe that it CAN be better.

We all get into moods like the one Ellis was probably in when he wrote that article, moods where all we can see is darkness and all we can do is hate the world that holds us in that darkness. But hold onto hope where you find it. We all do it in different, numerous ways. Some find our hope in silly games, or kitty pictures, or the embrace of someone we love. We find hope in religion, in spirituality, in education. We find it in science, in videos, or social media.

Find your hope and hold onto it, because with that hope, however you come by it, you can change the world. And I know that so long as Nerdfighters are doing silly things, -I- will always have hope for the world we live in.

Wooo- random angry post!

I am so sick of people right now.

I've been trying to keep updated on what is happening in Ferguson these days, but searching #ferguson on Twitter is an exercise in frustration. You get a pretty good picture of what is happening in the moment, but then you get... these IDIOTS.

You know the ones. The ones defending Darren Wilson, the cop who shot and killed Michael Brown, the ones who want him to be called a hero.

Are you kidding me?

No, seriously. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Suppose, just for a second, that everything they say about Michael Brown is true. (It isn't, not even close, that becomes more obvious with every passing day, but let's just run this drill, shall we?) Let's say he was a thug who pushed a police officer. Do you mean to tell me that a cop can't deal with that in a way that doesn't involve six freaking shots, and two to the head? That without a gun, the cops of Ferguson are incapable of dealing with school-yard bully tactics? Is that how incompetent we are saying the police are?

I'm all for supporting civil servants. I'm a liberal, for crying out loud. I support unions for teachers, cops, and firefighters. I support care for veterans. But this... this is just an insult.

I don't know Darren Wilson. Haven't the foggiest notion of who he is, other than the police officer who repeatedly shot and killed an unarmed teenage boy. Maybe he's a great guy. Maybe he's been wracked with guilt ever since this happened.

But even if that is true, he is guilty of criminal incompetence at the very best. At the worst, he is guilty of murder. Those are his options.

Neither exactly fits the definition of a hero. There really is only one reason to stick by him and defend him at this point. Either you're family and love him, and so were going to do it anyway, or you don't think that Micheal Brown's death was a big deal.

So why would it NOT be a big deal? Because he might have been a criminal? Execution is pretty steep for petty larceny, don't you think? Because he might have been angry? You've never sassed a police officer writing your ticket? Bet if you thought he might shoot you, you wouldn't. He might have been on drugs? Good lord, that's a lot of executed pot smokers. ANY of the things the Ferguson PD keeps throwing to justify the death of a seventeen year old boy about to go to college?

None are these are justifications for a killing. But the real reason is one they can't say.

Because we have at least come far enough in this country to know that you can't just SAY it's okay because he was a young black man. You might not have even admitted it to yourself. You've had practice in your justifications, after all, we're not all that far removed from Trayvon Martin.

But the only reason any reasonable person could convince themselves that the death of Michael Brown is not a tragedy is racism. If you don't really care if a black man gets killed, then this ISN'T a big deal, and Darren Wilson is probably just a guy who had a bad day.

Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown six times. Twice in the head. When this happened, Michael Brown was unarmed, by ALL accounts. There is no version of this story where Wilson is a hero. Or a good cop. You could maybe make an argument for a monumental mistake, but even so, it is certainly not the kind of mistake where you let the guy keep carrying the gun. One shot, MAYBE. Six shots, one of them an execution style shot to the head? No.

So stop defending him, unless you are willing to say, outright, that you don't think that killing a black man is a big deal. If you are going to be THAT racist, at least have the courage to say as much. Hiding behind respect for the badge (because we all know how fond the Right is of a civil servant,) is nothing but raw, pure, cowardice.

Podcast... what?

So after a few requests I am starting a weekly podcast. Most of the time this will just be my sermons as I preach them, but I may occasionally use them for something else, as well.

Can I just say how weirdly wonderful it is that so many of you care what I have to say about stuff? Thanks for all of the support!

The Pastor Dancast!

Reader Question- Should Women Submit?

Last night at Bible study, we started talking about women, submission, original sin, etc. The big section called into question was 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Could you shed some light on these verses and what they mean for women AND men? Do women have to get married/have kids to be redeemed (this doesn't make sense)?  -Kya

---------------------------

Kya, thanks for writing in. I have to admit, I have been dodging this question in my queue for about a week. My answer is no, but nailing down WHY exactly my answer is no in a manner that didn't just boil down to "because I said so" took a bit of work.

In a previous question I addressed the issue of female leadership, and came out fairly strongly in favor of it. Now, there are several issues where the Biblical record is mixed, and this is certainly one of them. The text that you mention here is the strongest Biblical Indictment against female leadership (or even participation) in church life. That's kind of a big deal, so here is the complete text, from the NRSV translation, which is the one I use the most often.

1 Timothy 2:11-15
"Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."

To some, this is an open and shut case... women cannot speak in church, which makes the leadership thing kind of difficult. If we are going to follow the Biblical record, doesn't this end the conversation? Aren't we left to choose between either forcing women out of leadership (to focus on childbearing, no less) or to abandon the Bible?

My answer is no. (You probably guessed that.) I don't think, based on the Biblical record, that this text ends the debate in favor of women silenced. I think it serves, finally, as a reminder that even our great leaders can get it wrong, from time to time.

Notice the language that Paul uses in the passage. He is informing Timothy, (his successor in leadership of the early church) of how he does things, and why. Paul is pretty good throughout his letters of owning when something he does is his own call, as opposed to what he sees as a command from God. Paul read the Bible and came to a conclusion, that is why he does things a certain way. His leadership decisions are based on discernment and scholarship.

And as it happens, I think his scholarship is wrong.

Pretty egregiously so, in fact. He is referring, here, to the tale of the Fall in Genesis, which can be found in Genesis 3:1-7. Here is the text.

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, ‘Did God say, “You shall not eat from any tree in the garden”?’ The woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said, “You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.” ’ But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves."

As you can, see, yes, the serpent is talking to Eve, and does, in fact, deceive her in a manner of speaking. But the text also says quite clearly that Adam was with her. So to read this text and come to the conclusion that Adam wasn't deceived, you have to assume that either A) he is deaf or B) he has the attention span of a gnat. As for the "Adam came first," reasoning, that's like saying the first person to be nominated to be President should always be the one who gets elected. Maybe it made sense to Paul, but it sure doesn't make any sense to me. Of course, women needed SOME role. So, babies? Sure, why not? There isn't even a Biblical argument for it, just a statement. It's actually pretty hard to figure out where this is coming from with Paul, as in another letter, he makes the case that there IS no distinction between male and female when it comes to redemption. (Galatians 3:28)

So I disagree with Paul, as it seems he himself does, as well, but I can hear some of my friends simply asking why I insist on the Biblical record at all, in light of this text. Isn't this a clear example of the Bible getting something wrong? 

Well, no. Because that IS how Paul felt on the subject. He gave his advice, but he also said why he gave his advice, and using his methodology, I chose to go another way. There are plenty of voices in the Bible I disagree with, in fact, it is impossible to agree with all voices in the Bible simultaneously. It is full of different viewpoints and perspectives, and does not permit the honest reader to simply conform.

If you are going to do real Biblical scholarship, you HAVE to think. You have to weigh the different voices and find the way between them. You have to recognize the many women who played pivotal leadership roles in the history of God's people and recognize that here, Paul got it wrong. It was even good enough to show us how and why he got it wrong. This actually should have been a layup for the church... instead, we got it wrong right along with him, except where amazing women made themselves impossible to ignore, and eventually paved the way for more to follow in their footsteps.

What these verses mean for men and women is that sometimes, even our great leaders (like Paul) can get it very, very wrong. You can never just let someone tell you what the truth is, you have to weigh it for yourself. At least Paul was good enough to give us a Bibliography that made it easy to see where faulty scholarship was at fault, other pastors or teachers might just say: "here is truth, now follow."

If you are going to do this faith thing, you're going to need to process, to think, to discern God's will. We can't just follow leaders in lockstep. There are some who say that faith and religion is all about blind obedience. This is the text that shows us that if we are doing faith that way, then we are doing it wrong. 

Reader Question- What the Hell?

You have mentioned hell a few times in your blog, I personally believe it doesn't exist and if it does it isn't eternal. I couldn't rationalize the thought of the holocaust and God then casting those people into a place of eternal torment. So my question is what is your take on hell? Is it eternal? Is it what we are living in now? Why do so many people seem to get off at the idea of seeing their neighbor burn for well just about anything?

Regards,
Joey D

-------------------

Hey there, Joey! I'm actually in a fairly similar place to you, Hell-wise. (I mean in how I understand the place.)

Like Satan, whom I talked about here, Hell is only sparsely (and inconsistently) described in the Bible. Most of the concept we have of hell actually isn't Biblical at all, but comes from works of fiction like Dante's Inferno. This hasn't stopped some religious groups from discussing it gleefully in their tracts and even Hell Houses, Haunted House type performances that are set up to try to literally scare people to accept Christianity.

More on that later.

The Old Testament doesn't deal in afterlife very much. Eternal life, at least to the culture the Old Testament was written for, was interested mostly in descendants, with one having their name carried on by children, grand-children, etc. (Interesting aside, this MIGHT be a societal basis for some homophobia... if you spend all your romantic energy on a relationship with no chance of children in a worldview like this one, you are not only risking your own immortality, but that of your ancestors. I never thought of that before.)  When it did talk about after-life implications it spent most of its time dealing with the concept of Sheol, a land of the dead-type place that had far more in common with Hades from Greek Mythology (a place where ALL the dead went, rather than just the bad people) than Hell as we understand it today. 

Enter Jesus, and questions of afterlife started becoming more important. The "Hell is Real" people love pointing out that Jesus himself refers repeatedly to Hell in his teachings. This is true... sort of. Remember those sparse and inconsistent references I talked about earlier? Jesus never really seems to feel the need to go into any great detail about "the fire" as he referred to it, though he does speak of it as a given.

The one real exception in this seems to be the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, from Luke 16:19-31. In this parable, Jesus talks about two men, a rich man and a poor beggar named Lazarus, who die on the same day. They enter the afterlife which is split in two by a huge chasm... on one side there is feasting, on the other, suffering. Lazarus is on the feasting side, the Rich Man suffering. The Rich Man calls to Abraham, (who is with the Feasters) to have Lazarus bring a drop of water to cool the Rich Man's tongue... but Moses says that both are receiving a balance to what they received in life, besides, due to the chasm, it is impossible.

This is, bar none, the most detailed afterlife description available to us. However, while it is often referenced by the Hell is Real camp, it isn't often actually told, for the following reasons.

1. The suffering component, which most modern Christians would equate to Hell, isn't actually presented as a punishment for sin, but rather as a Karmic balance to how well one had it in life, having, apparently, nothing to do with ones morality and behavior besides, MAYBE, charity. We have no tale of good deeds getting Lazarus to paradise, just the fact that he suffered in life, and the inverse for the Rich Man. 

2. As a Parable, the point of the story is not a tour of the afterlife, but rather a condemnation of the attitudes of the rich. It IS pretty interesting that the Rich Man still thinks he should get to be able to order Lazarus around, even in death.

So while they are eager to name this as an instance where Christ talks about Hell, it is fairly widely acknowledged to be a Parable, a metaphor. Ever notice how, when the Biblical message SEEMS to be punishment for the wealthy for BEING wealthy, even the Bible Literalists seem to be all about some metaphor? But I digress.

As a Christian who views the Bible as an authority, I can't simply do away with Hell, but as a universalist, I also don't see it as a permanent state of being. Given the inconsistency of the Biblical account, I need to think about function... if hell does exist, what would it be for?

The most consistent message on that count is the purifying fire, a process like a smelter that removes the dross from the ore. I like that image, because as a good Reformed boy I believe that everyone is sinful in one way or another, and so the purpose of Hell becomes not a punishment, or act of retribution, but rather a cleansing process, removing the bad while leaving the good. And like any process, this is not permanent.

In the end, I try to dwell on it too much, BECAUSE it is so inconsistent and mostly reduces me to conjecture. While I do believe Hell exists in some form, it isn't particularly important to my theology. 

But to some people, it seems to encompass ALL of their theology. I feel like those people LOVE the image of the afterlife presented in the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, if not the Karmic feel of it, because it has those in Paradise and those suffering in clear view of each other, even able to shout back and forth to each other. To them, the joy of paradise almost seems to be the fact that they get to watch others suffer, as if Hell serves as Heaven's entertainment.

For starters, that was ABSOLUTELY not the Parable's point, but the stories modus operandi to allow the Rich Man to have his conversation with Abraham. For the rest...

A lot of people see religion as a life of sacrifice in the worst way possible. There are all these "bad" things we want to do but can't. We want to steal, we want to cheat, we want to have sex with whatever without thinking about who we hurt in the process. But we can't do that, because if we do, we'll be punished for it. So we may not get to do those things, but you all who do will be punished and that will be GREAT!

Ugh. This isn't a theology. This is a five year old making themselves feel better because they were told to take their hands out of the cookie jar.

And yet, this is the mind-set perpetuated constantly by the Hell is Real folks, a worldview where bad people get what's coming to them so you better watch out, where religion becomes a game of near constant supervision and judgement, where the motivator for nearly any action becomes not "Jesus loves me" but rather "Jesus will get you!"

But do you know the saddest part of all of it? The most painful irony of it all is that even if these people are right about how Hell works, the way they have gone about building their world around it means they are CONSTANTLY ignoring the commands Christ labeled the most important: love of God, and love of neighbor. Which means that if Hell is a just reward for unrepented sins, with no hope for those who defy God's commands, then they are almost certainly going there.

So I'll keep doing like I do and hope that I am right and they are wrong. For ALL of our sakes.

Reader Question- What about the Cognitively Disabled?

My question is this: My family are not Christian, which is something I'm coming to terms with as I grow in my faith. For my parents, I don't think there's much I can do, as they've made their decisions and are pretty stuck in them. But my brother. My amazing big brother has Down Syndrome, and as such does not grasp the concept of God or religion. I'm terrified that that means He won't be saved, but surely God will not send him to hell because He is physically incapable of understanding? I've tried to find some stuff on the internet, without any luck, so do you have any wisdom on what you think God's policy with disabled people is?   -Gee

------------------------

Thanks for writing, Gee. 

Quite a few Christian Traditions have attached a great deal of importance to being "saved," that is, that one existential moment when a person asks Jesus into their heart, or makes some other highly visible sign of a personal relationship with God, and thereby is known to be a Christian. In those traditions it quickly becomes the primary aim of evangelism to get a non-believer to have that "saved" moment. 

I find that theology to be highly problematic, for several reasons, but the biggest one is the emphasis on personal understanding and acceptance. This theology (as it exists today, anyway) is largely a byproduct of the fundamentalist movement, which was an attempt to combine theology and Biblical Scholarship with Modern sensibilities. This brought with it a sort of "shame" on faith, the idea that we were supposed to be unshakable in what we believed, without doubt, based on the Biblical "evidence."

Now, that is an effective (if highly damaging) way to organize a church. Make it a shame to doubt and you can quickly get people into lock-step with each other, and trample the world under your footsteps. But there are those who get left out by that kind of theology, people who are honest about the fact of doubt in their lives, and people like your big brother.

When we tie salvation to cognition, what do we do with people who don't make that base cognitive standard? There are quite intelligent people in the world who simply cannot deal in abstracts... what could be more abstract than an invisible God who teaches through parable?

When I was working as a Hospice Chaplain, I was often called upon to do funerals for people who were unchurched, or on the outs with their church. I must have heard a thousand variations on, "Well, they had a tough life,but I assure you she was saved..." or "She wasn't always so sure about her Bible learnin', but she knew Jesus," as if people were asking me to sign off on a spiritual report card. 

I can't speak for your tradition here, and your pastors may disagree with me, but I can tell you what I believe, and on this topic, I believe it with all of my heart.

You don't need to worry about your big brother. The gifts of God are not now, and have never been, contingent on our ability to understand them, because the truth is, NONE of us completely understand them. There is always more to learn, more to study, more to pray about. We were saved before the universe existed, by a simple, inexorable fact... God loves us.

God loves your brother, and your parents. God also loves you, and knows that for you, any supposed paradise would not live up to the name if they weren't there with you. 

So keep on loving your amazing big brother. Talk to him about your faith from time to time, not in anxiety for his soul but to share yours with someone you love. (You might be surprised how much he does understand, emotionally and cognitively.) God made both of you. God loves both of you.

In the end, that's all that matters, not whether or not he can understand and clearly express the idea of being "saved."   

Mourning Robin and Michael

I need Robin Williams right now. He'd be perfect for this.

Robin Williams was the genius of pushing propriety. He took swearing to an art form, manipulating the words that we associated with naughtiness to keep us off guard while he took the world around us and made us look at it in a way we might not have thought of before.

He showed us that we were okay with someone beating the shit out of an Arab, but make a joke about him being a cabbie and we'll hiss. He used stereotypes like a brush, using outlandish impersonations to make us see just how far we were willing to go, and when we had had enough, we'd realize that we'd gone farther than we ever could have imagined.

He made us laugh at everyone, at everything. So maybe he could have made us laugh at this.

My initial plan for this post was to imitate Robin's style. Maybe I still will at some point, but for now I can't. Which is too bad, because I could really, really use the laugh.

Few comics were more scathing about how we looked at the world. The utter insanity of how our society operated was all he needed, Mork staring forever at what amounted to Human Civilization and in the end being about to do nothing about it besides laugh.

I could use that laugh. Not for Robin. I will mourn him but remember fondly how he made us laugh, and hope he has found some peace after nearly half a century of wrestling with bi-polar disorder and addiction. No, I need that laugh for Michael.

Remember Michael Brown? Unarmed, seventeen years old, and gunned down by police guns after stealing some cigarettes and candy.

He might have vanished as soon as he appeared, another tragic story quickly supplanted by a "personal interest" story, a race-car driver killed in a race. Kevin Ward Jr.'s death was sad, yes, though not the sort of thing one expects splashed on the news everywhere. It was a highly publicized traffic accident, not an unarmed boy being gunned down by police officers.

But Michael's story wouldn't go away. The people of his neighborhood rioted, refusing to vanish, refusing to allow the "official" story to be told and then swept away. The best option for them? Probably not, but the "No Justice, No Peace" message struck home for me, and hard. There is something to be said for showing the illusion of peace for the farce it apparently is.

Michael was returned to the spotlight as people refused to let his story die, until teargas forced them to disperse. Real conversation could maybe happen. And then, Robin died. And again, Michael has gone away. I don't know if his story will come back this time, or if it does, if it will be the truth. It doesn't take much for the media to scare the country with images of young black men.

I need Robin Williams. He'd have just the words to give us all a cathartic laugh to relieve the impossible tension while highlighting how horrible all of this.

Like how, even in the worst case scenario, Michael had pushed an officer of the law. Robin would likely have joked about Cops who couldn't come out on top over a schoolyard bully.

Like how Michael stealing cigarettes and pushing an officer (assuming, again, the worst case scenario) obviously requires deadly force, but Cliven Bundy and a few hundred of his best armed friends having an armed confrontation with federal officers doesn't even warrant jail time.

Like how when the people of our country are driven to the point of rioting out of their frustration with the state of justice in this nation, our media instead covers the death of a rich old white guy from Marin County, California. (No one was more scathing of the Rich White Guy from Marin than Robin. It would have been brilliant.)

He would have, but I can't. I can't find the funny anymore.

Someday, this will probably all go away. I hope the family gets their day in court, to confront the officer who thought gunfire was a suitable response to a push, if the story holds up. Maybe it DID make sense. But more likely it will just vanish under a tsunami of celebrity "news" and other such drivel, or a political story of the "heroism" of men who, had they been disarming white people, would have been called fascists. That's how our nation works, now. Get away from the downers, get to the funny story.

But for a long, long time, our funny stories were provided by Robin Williams. And everytime I watch a clip of his, I'll laugh, but remember the last joke, the one I needed that he couldn't make.

When I remember Robin Williams, I hope I will also remember Michael Brown, and the joke that their deaths made on the state of "justice" in the USA.

Reader Question- Touch Healing

I would love to hear your opinions on touch healing. Personally I don't buy in to it but I've had friends and relatives who've been very sick, and a couple who were terminally ill who went and sought out help from a touch healer. I also have a friend who is "certified" as a touch healer.I'm wondering what you think about it, as a man of faith. -Ruby

----------

Thanks for writing in, Ruby. And for the question! I went backwards and forwards on this WAAAAY more than I initially thought I would when I first read your question.

I'm actually coming to this from three places. The cynic, the end of life care provider, and the spiritual leader.

I'm going to let the cynic in me speak first, primarily because I don't like giving him the last word. There are a lot of people who do touch healing whom I would qualify as "quacks." They have a "certification" but you can print those out online, they say a lot of new age mumbo-jumbo, touch you while making a Jedi Pooping face, and then talk about what your spirit needs. If you plan on going to a touch healer, and leave the experience feeling like "well, my time just got wasted" it's good to remember than in a field where literally anyone can claim to be an expert after a google search, you are going to get some of those.

What my inner cynic sometimes forgets, though, is that while there are plenty of people who are doing the above, there ARE cases of touch healers (and people who go to them) who will swear by it. Touch disciplines such as Reiki are old and well attested culturally, if not necessarily by the medical community. So there IS something to it. But what?

When I was working as a Hospice Chaplain, the power of touch was undeniable. In a phase of life where people are hardly ever touched, we were trained to constantly hold hands, shoulders, etc., in such a way that wouldn't cause pain (and with consent, of course), and patients would swear all day about how much better they would feel afterwards.

I'm not a psychologist, and so I am not qualified to talk about the psychological effects of touch on the human psyche. It is possible that the good effects of touch healing can be completely explained by that sort of means. Maybe someone who HAS studied it will chime in. If so, I'd be fascinated to hear about it. Touch healers often use mystic language, but just because something is spiritual doesn't mean science won't see it as well, so who knows?

As a spiritual leader, I am aware that many of my counterparts warn against such things. I have even heard of it referred to as "New Age Devil Worship." I don't buy that.

While my inner cynic will always wonder if the touch healer is running a scam, I have zero fear for the souls of those who participate in it. People in chronic pain, near the end of life, or just looking for something to make them feel better, can all turn to touch healing. Some will leave disappointed, others will swear by it. The evidence in favor of touch healing is, to my knowledge, near entirely anecdotal.

So while I don't suspect that Doctors will be prescribing touch healing sessions any time soon, so long as people aren't being bilked for a lot of money (or told to avoid getting actual medical treatment), I wouldn't go out of my way to dissuade them. Because if it does work... even in bringing some peace to a traumatic time, then it is a positive thing. It won't HURT you, anyway.

So I'm cynical, but hopeful. Which probably isn't very helpful, but that's where I am at. I honestly don't have much experience with it.

(As a clarification, I am distinguishing Touch Healing from Faith Healing, here. Allow me also to say that if a touch healer you go to tells you to use touch healing exclusively, or to ignore medical advice given by Doctors, then place them safely in the quack category. Touch Healing is complimentary to normal scientific methods... and a "real" touch healer will tell you that.)

Sermon- Clean or Profane?

Experimenting with Sound Cloud. We'll see how this goes. I guess I could eventually consider a podcast as well. The text this sermon is based on is Acts 10:1-48, which was a bit long to add in the recording, so you can find the version I used here.

https://soundcloud.com/daniel-mccurdy/clean-or-profane

Reader Question- Honoring Parents

I am the oldest daughter in a very traditional, fundamental Southern baptist home. This past year, I started college and over the course of the year, my theological beliefs have become more moderate (and Jesus-emulating, I believe). I met a guy who I became really good friends with. We have recently started dating, and my parents (who have never met him) adamantly oppose this fact, simply because he is episcopalian (and therefore liberal, and wrong). I don't believe my relationship with my boyfriend is wrong, but my parents have made it clear to me they believe I am sinning and straying from The Lord. They have given me an ultimatum: them (and God) or him. I do not want to throw away my relationship with my parents, because my family is the most important part of my life. However, I don't want to ruin my budding relationship with my boyfriend, another very important part of my life, simply because my parents are prejudiced. How can I honor my parents when I am not going to do what they say? How do I show I love to them when they want to shut me out? How can I continue my relationship with them when every conversation is a ticking time bomb?

Thanks and DFTBA,

Anonymous

----------

Your parents are completely out of line here. Sure, the Bible says to honor your father and mother, but it also says not to exasperate your children. Your parents can advise you, but they do not own you, or your relationship with God, and behavior like this is completely unacceptable. This isn't Christian behavior. It isn't even grown-up behavior. 

I think you need to let them know that.

My advice here is to write them a letter explaining that who you date is your own choice, not theirs. I would explain that if, while you are dating your boyfriend and whatever comes after, they want to be a part of your life, they will be welcome, but you will continue your relationship with both your boyfriend and the Lord with, or without, their approval. If that means not being welcome in your home church, there are certainly others where you can attend.

If you have siblings or cousins or any other family, I'd also contact them separately, and make it clear that it is your parents decision to not be in communication with you, and that you deeply regret that decision, but as an adult woman, you cannot simply let them get away with that kind of behavior, and hope that it will not prevent those siblings or cousins from communicating with you independently of them.

To be frank, my guess is that your parents are bluffing, even if they don't know that they are. Sometimes parents (particularly in conservative religious households) have trouble letting go of the the "my way or the highway" mentality, and when it becomes clear that you will not allow such behavior to sway you, they will moderate their tone simply in an effort to be a part of your life. Can't let the Episcopalians be the only religious word in their daughter's life, right?

Continue to be loving and respectful to them when they permit you to be, and be welcoming when they finally drop the shell and come back (so long as they stay respectful to you and those you love... very important point. Reconciliation without respect is not reconciliation.) 

There is nothing respectful about tolerating child-like behavior. Respect them by demanding that they face the world like intelligent adults, rather than petulant five year olds. I am sorry they have put you in this position, but remember that it is they (not you, not your boyfriend) who created this situation. You aren't choosing between them and him. You are choosing between letting them make you stay their little girl forever, or becoming the grown, competent woman that God means for you to be. 

God bless while you and they walk that line.

Reader Question- Regarding Divorce

A few months ago I was talking to one of my girlfriends about a guy she is interested in, and she told me that she was going to date him until she found out that he had been married before and gotten a divorce. At that point she told him they could never be anything more than friends.

I didn't really say much to her about it, but I disagree with the view that this guy can't ever get married again because he made a mistake and got married too young. But if you take what Jesus said about divorce at face value, it looks like that is the case.
What do you think?

DFTBA, Sarah

---------------

Hey there, Sarah, and thanks for writing in!

Divorce is sort of a "last generation" sin, by which I mean it used to be a real hot topic issue until the church really started talking about homosexuality. I do suspect that it will start to rise in importance again as we get used to marriage among non-hetero couples. (I've known a few gay couples who, in their rush to make a court date during a window of legality, later came to regret the rushed decision.)

The problem isn't really about divorce, though, any more than the fire exit is a problem with a burning building. In fact, when the building is burning, a fire exit is literally a lifesaver.

The real problem is our lack of seriousness concerning marriage itself.

I do some pre-marital counseling as a rule before I will marry anyone. It is mildly incredible how much energy couples are willing to put into a wedding, and how hard it is to get them to think at all about the actual marriage. I mean, think about it. The wedding will take an hour or two, TOPS. Some are significantly shorter. Then there is a fun party that the happy couple misses most of and then...

and then...

You have two people looking at each other, trying to figure out what, precisely, life is supposed to look like now. And in some cases, the picture is actually fairly bleak.

If we believe in a God who loves us and wants us to have good lives(which I do, as it happens), AND if we assume that sin is going against the will of that God (again, which I do, more on that in another post) then the sin is not the exit from the relationship that was causing you excessive grief or even actual physical or mental abuse.

The sin was getting INTO that relationship in the first place. And like so many sins that we can commit, the sin is its own punishment. In these cases, getting a divorce to get out of a harmful relationship is, in fact, doing God's will. It is true that maintaining a marriage over decades is hard work, and I will encourage people to do that work, but I will never, ever, tell someone that it is God's will that they stay in an abusive situation. Period. God does NOT want that for you, OR for your abuser. You wouldn't give heroin to a drug abuser. Putting a human being into the reach of an abusive spouse or parent is no better.

This does bring us to the question of subsequent marriage, however.

There are ways to read the Bible that make Marriage a one and done scenario, and they are NOT inherently abusive. I get the mindset, as well... maybe if someone knows they only get one shot, they'll take that shot seriously. I don't think it will work, though. I haven't met many couples who thought they would be anything other than completely happy when they got married.

I prefer to remember that we believe that God exists outside of time, and so does not experience our lives as a step by step process. Going again with the above assumptions... that God wants us to be happy... I think it is safe to say that marrying a person God made partially for you to be happy with is not a sin, even if you got a little confused along the way to meeting them.

That gets wibbly-wobbly Timey-Wimey pretty quickly, and so I don't blame the people who just say "Nope, you're divorced already, so I won't marry you." That is, of course, their decision. But to the divorced guy, or any divorcee who is wondering if they are now required to be alone, I would remind them that the very first thing described as being "not good" in Creation was loneliness.

Be wary about marriage, and do not take it lightly. But, once you have gotten in, if the building is burning, don't worry about the ethics of the fire escape. Get out, and then hopefully take some of that learned wisdom into the forming of your next relationship, should you choose to do so.