Noah's Awkward Sexual Encounter with his Son. (Genesis 9:22)

Oh, the arguments over this card! At every testing of the game something came up: a footnote in a study bible, a blog entry from a renowned preacher, a comment remembered from a Bible college, an indelible image seared into brain tissue one Sunday morning by an overzealous youth pastor trying to connect with the congregation by spicing up the sermon. And then there is the shock, horror, and confusion of those who had never, no never ever, heard this debate before:

Should the phrase "saw the nakedness of his father" be understood as a sexual euphemism — that Ham committed some sexual act with/to his blackout-drunk father — or does the literal reading hold true — Ham looked at his father's naked body and called his brothers in to observe their father's shame?

Clearly we have chosen the former interpretation. ["But you guys chose that because it fits with your game better: Perverts!"] {You don't know us! Shut it!}

As others have argued both sides of this controversy from critical analysis of the format, analysis of the Hebrew language, and analysis of the cultural milieu of the text, we will only comment from a point of biblical comparison and answer the second most asked question about this text: if Ham was the one who did something wrong, why was his son, Canaan, cursed? (Especially since Canaan wasn't even born yet. [What?] Re-read Genesis 7:6-7 Noah, Mrs. Noah, Noah's sons, and Noah's daughter-in-laws. Nothing is mentioned about Noah's grandkids.)

A few chapters later we encounter another family saved in the nick of time by the hand of God, when everything around them is destroyed — when the land, people, fluffy bunnies, and cute little duckling are wiped off the face of the local map; however, keeping His word, God does not use water. He uses fire.

---

Lot and his daughters 

In Genesis chapter 19 we are presented with the story of Lot, visiting angels, unwise sexual advances and promises, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the ending of the story most Sunday school teachers aware of its existence, close the Bible on after declaring that homosexuality is wrong, God will kill you for it, or turn you into salt you look at it ["allelu, alleluia! Let's go eat some cake and sing about Jesus loving all the little children of the world in rainbow colors! Except the Canaanites. Screw their children."].

We will present this closing scene in its entirety:

Now Lot went up out of Zoar and settled in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; so he lived in a cave with his two daughters. And the firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the world. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father." So they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she rose.

On the next day, the firstborn said to the younger, "Look, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father." So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger rose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she rose.

Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. The firstborn bore a son, and named him Moab; he is the ancestor of the Moabites to this day. The younger also bore a son and named him Ben-ammi; he is the ancestor of the Ammonites to this day. (Genesis 19:30-38, NRSV)

Here are the parallels between the stories of our two families in Genesis:

• Both live among "sinful" people who are destroyed by the hand of God

• Both are rescued as the remnant of (apparently) "righteous" people

• Both fathers get blackout drunk after the destruction

• Both fathers have something happen to them from the hands of their children while they are incapacitated (we argue that it is sexual in both stories)

Completing the pattern

• Both stories go out of their way to name the descendants of the evil-doing children, who become the "bad guys" of the Hebrew narrative during the Exodus from Egypt and entry into The Promised Land.

---

Form Follows Function

Check the Ancient Near East map in your study Bible and then read through the biblical narrative: Who were the evil, nasty, no good, very bad people who needed to be utterly wiped out, so their land could be passed through and/or inhabited? The Cannanites (Ham's descendants), the Moabites (Unnamed daughter of Lot #1's descendants), and the Edomites (Unnamed daughter of Lot #2' descendants). So what does this have to do with sexual encounters?

These are tales of etiology: stories of origins, reasons, explanations. When the young Hebrews ask,

"why do we hate those people who look pretty much like us, sound pretty much like us, but only dress, eat and worship slightly differently than us, but live not that far away?" 

the answer comes back from the text:

"Well my little one, a long time ago, the ancestors of those people did some nasty sexual things that I'll explain when you're older (because I'm afraid you might do them to me); they are people of, because they did things that you just don't do ever. Ever! So don't play with them."

In the Ancient Near East having some form of a sexual encounter with the patriarch of your family — your own father, who you are taking advantage of when he cannot defend himself — is beyond distasteful, beyond taboo. It is absolutely horrific. It is an abomination.It also serves as a great reason for why "we" would attempt the wholesale slaughter of "them" in the name of the Lord: that sort of evil trickles down from generation to generation, it's in the blood. Besides, they're living in the land we want.

This, combined with other arguments, lead us to say we don't know what Ham did, but it was freak nasty, not merely a look-see, inappropriate pointing, and calling of his brothers to gape with him. There was bad-touching involved.

But what do we know: we made this game, and you definitely think we're going to hell now.

Side note: Leviticus 18:7, which employs the same Hebrew phrase for "uncovered...nakedness," is used by the various sides in this debate. Alternately it has been used to argue that Ham had sexual relations of some kind with Noah, that he merely looked at his father's body, AND that Ham slept with Noah's wife (Yes, that would be his mother). But the question remains, which of those things would warrant the cursing of his descendant? 

Levitical sex ban (Leviticus 18)

We assume many of you have seen 76 Things Banned in Leviticus which has made the internet rounds quite successfully. The creator has received some of the same criticism we have: someone just out to make fun of the Bible or to push a specific anti-Christian agenda.

While we can't speak for his/her intention, the creator does being the list with the following statement: "Unless you've never done any of them (and 54 to 56 are particularly tricky), perhaps it's time to lay off quoting 18:22 for a while?" This seems like a fair request: asking for the reader to check his/her own eyes for logs and sawdust before bringing an ocular inspection on another. (c.f. Matthew 7:1-6, there will be a Card Talk about that one later)

Our game has a card specifically about chapter 18 of Leviticus, with all its sexual austerity, so allow us to combine the efforts of "76 Things Banned" and A Game for Good Christians in this Card Talk.

From chapter 18 of Leviticus, "76 Things Banned" scandalously lists the following:

25. Having sex with your mother (18:7)

26. Having sex with your father's wife (18:8)

27. Having sex with your sister (18:9)

28. Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)

29. Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)

30. Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)

31. Having sex with your uncle's wife (18:14)

32. Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)

33. Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)

34. Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (18:17)

35. Marrying your wife's sister while your wife still lives (18:18)

36. Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)

37. Having sex with your neighbour's wife (18:20)

38. Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21)

39. Having sex with a man "as one does with a woman" (18:22)

40. Having sex with an animal (18:23)

I've got to ask: how much of a problem do you have with this list?

Other than the heated words which will arise from #39, the issue of preferences for #36, and the inappropriate jokes associated with #40 and certain parts of the United States, who is really arguing that the rest are puritanical, sexually repressed laws? More importantly, why the hell are people listening to/agreeing with those people?

Are you really that anxious to sleep with your mother or granddaughter? Do you really want to take spiritual advice and/or biblical interpretation from the person who is?

A conversation about the passage's argued patriarchal slant is a fine point of debate,* but for the love of YHWH, let's shut up about how sexually oppressive Levitical sex laws are.

But what do we know: we made this game and you probably think we're going to Hell.

*Note on Levitical sex laws and patriarchy ~ The form of patriarchy called for in this passage of Scripture is for the express purpose of protecting women from being sexually subjugated by the men in the community. While this is not a "complementarian system", removing all traces of "women as property" claims (though other passages in the Bible do address that), it does express the idea that males in Hebrew society cannot merely claim any woman they want as their sexual property; furthermore, this is not, as some have argued, only based on the notion that the women are the property of another man. This rationale is clearly flawed, because in each of the hypothetical situations/relationships, the male in question could in fact be the patriarch over any of these classes of women, in the event a father, brother, uncle, (etc.) died. The prohibition is absolute, not conditional on who "owns" the woman.

The Pain and Pleasure of a God Who Hovers

[Talk for a future card]

We currently don’t have any cards that address Passover. Due to recent events in our lives and in the world (death, destruction, desperation) we are beginning to rethink this. The question of God’s presence in the face of human suffering is throughout the narrative. Allow us to localize it further.

“For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he sees the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.” (Exodus 12:23)

You know the story: through his proxy Moses, God has upped the plague ante in his battle with Pharaoh. The first born of every household will die at the hands of another divine proxy, The Destroyer (מַּשְׁחִיתהַ), if those inside do not have the symbolic blood affixed to their posts and lintel. The Destroyer will “pass” by if the blood is there.

But notice: “pass” is said twice in this verse, and they are not the same Hebrew word.

First “the LORD will pass{עָבַר `abar } through to smite the Egyptians” (and any Israelite who does not have the blood appropriately splattered)— the LORD, and The Destroyer, will deal death throughout the land. But on the houses with the blood, “the LORD will pass {פָּסַח pacach} over the door” and keep The Destroyer (and Himself) at bay. These two words do not share the same meaning.

The first pass {עָבַר `abar } means to transverse from one location to another— to pass over, through, under something; however the second pass{פָּסַח pacach} might be better translated as “to hover.”

Consider two other passages, in different contexts, where the word is used.

1 Kings 18:21:

And Elijah came unto all the people, and said,” How long will you hover {פָּסַח -pacach} between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.” And the people answered him not a word.

For centuries commentators have shown that Elijah is conjuring an image of a bird between two branches; while some have argued that the bird is “hopping” between the branches, the image of the bird hovering is more appropriate to the people’s context: a bird cannot keep up that type of exertion indefinitely, it must choose where it will land, as the people were being demanded for a choice.

Isaiah 31:5:

As birds flying, so will the LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it; and hovering {פָּסַח -pacach} over he will preserve it.

Again, a prophet uses this word with images of birds in flight. A simple fly over, a quick passing over is not enough to secure the borders of God’s people. The LORD takes up residence over Jerusalem to stop all intruding forces.

The word means to hover over, to remain above something, not merely to pass by.

The image of God hovering over us, protecting us, sparing us from evil, is a great comfort. Until we return to the Exodus passage, where we see the angelic/demon weapon of God’s will, heavily panting beside the Almighty’s wings, waiting to be unleashed.

Until we turn on the news and see the swirling mass of devastation in the Philippines.

Until we walk outside and a thousand disasters unimagined descend, or creep within our comfortably closed doors.

Were the Egyptian infants any more worthy of death than those in Tacloban or Newtown?

We will admit the context is different, but the image is plain: God hovers overhead as death and life hangs in the balance. An image we find a balm and a burden, depending on the time of day, or season of news cycles.

But what do we know: we made this game and are aware that sometimes this world feels like it is all the Hell that we need.

The Jubilee (Leviticus 25) [A New Year's Card Talk]

A New Year's Eve Card Talk (2013)

2014 is upon us. Fu.. .we mean, "yeah!"

2013 was great/horrible year for A Game for Good Christians. We were born, we shat our pants, we experienced growing pains with your help, and here we are: looking with hope and terror at what the New Year will bring.But let us usher in that New Year with some old words.

Leviticus 25 describes what is alternately called "The Sabbatical Year" and "The Year of Jubilee" (after which many a mega-church, Christian self-help poetry, and terrible small-church-group activities have been named).

In lieu of New Year's resolutions, we would like to suggest five simple (and not so simple) practices and ideas from this text which might make the upcoming months more enjoyable for us all.

1. Get some God-blessed rest ( ... but in the seventh year there shall be a sabbath of complete rest for the land, a sabbath for the Lord ... vs 4-5)

2. Try to suck less ( ... then you shall have the trumpet sounded loud; on the tenth day of the seventh month — on the day of atonement — you shall have the trumpet sounded throughout all your land. .. observe my statutes and faithfully keep my ordinances, so that you may live on the land securely. vs 9; 18)

3. Call your mother / Visit your family ( ... It shall be a jubilee for you: you shall return, every one of you, to your property and every one of you to your family. .. vs 10)

4. Don't be a dick to your neighbors ( ...when you make a sale to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor, you shall not cheat one another. .. You shall not cheat one another, but you shall fear your God; for I am the Lord your God. vs. 14; 17)

5. Don't be a dick to your family ( ... If anyone of your kin falls into difficulty and sells a piece of property, then the next of kin shall come and redeem what the relative has sold ... If any of your kin fall into difficulty and become dependent on you, you shall support them ...Do not take interest in advance or otherwise make a profit from them, but fear your God; let them live with you. You shall not lend them your money at interest taken in advance, or provide them food at a profit . . .if any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you, you shall not make them serve as slaves... 25, 35-37; 39)

Perhaps the real lesson is, just don't be a dick to anyone: God, others, or yourself.

Perhaps the lesson could be stated positively:

" 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength' [and] 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." ~ Jesus in Mark 12:30-31

But what do we know: we made this game, you probably think we're going to Hell, and we miss Dick Clark.

Happy New Year from the degenerates at A Game for Good Christians!!!

New Years Card Talks

Ring in a biblical New Year with our traditional (and not so traditional) musings on Scripture.

---

David carrying a warm sack of 200 foreskins (1 Samuel 18:26-28)

It's a simple love story really.

Princess Michal, daughter of King Saul, falls in love with the young, heroic, and dashing David: one time royal singer, newly minted premier warrior of the realm. The local boy makes good. But daddy is not happy. For many reasons, Saul wants David dead. And now that daddy's little girl wants to make him part of the family, Saul figures he can kill two birds with one stone: If David wants to marry Michal he must engage a Philistine horde in battle and return with 100 foreskins to prove his worth.

David, mostly unperturbed, set out about the task, returning with 200 foreskins! Why "warm"? Because we like to imagine things went down as Joseph Heller describes them in God Knows:that it took young and naive David a bit of time to realize that it would be much easier to take the foreskins off the Philistines if he killed them first!

As we come to the end of the second week of the New Year, how are those resolutions coming? Did you at least attempt our suggestions? Was your personal mission for the year any harder than David's? (That's what she said.)

Have you already given up or are you primed to continue with double the effectiveness that you originally planned for?

Perhaps it's time to stop making excuses, grab hold of your desire and ... you get the idea.

But what do we know: we made this game and you probably think we're going to Hell!

Image from The Brick Bible: A New Spin on the Old Testament

“Good Christians regularly raise unspoken prayer requests for__________” A Creed Card Talk/Reflection

Silence reigns as everyone awkwardly stares at the floor, the ceiling, and into the ethereal middle distance between eyes. The clever ones bow heads and pretend to pray. But all are individually thinking about that thing draining their minds of life. That thing they will not share with the rest of the group.

The unspoken prayer request is a staple of protestant youth groups, CCD classes, college Bible studies, and church small groups. They are what remain after the public prayers are heard. They are the shame of our crisis. The sin we pretend is private. The blessing we fear will sound like a brag. The worry we hide. The sum total of all we don’t want others to know about us because we’re afraid of what they will think:

"I don’t want them to know that I struggle with this . . .”

“My problems are not as important as what she just said . . .”

“They’ll know I think about those things . . .”

“They will think that I am just complaining . . .”

“This too will pass. No need to have other people involved . . .”

and besides,

“God knows what’s in my heart, so I don’t have to say it out loud.”

This last is the most Hell worthy, pretending to be holy, bullshit, cop-out we know.

To be clear: There are things you should keep to yourself. Sometimes, in some places, in some contexts, you should keep your God-loving mouth shut. But beyond those times of wise silence who do you trust? Who are you talking to about that-which-shall-not-be-named? If the answer is “no one,” your state of affairs is so much worse than you may have imaged.

The concept of the 3am friend is nothing new: the person you can call at three in the morning and they will be there physically, emotionally, and/or spiritually. The entire legal system in the Hebrew Bible was predicated on relationships within community, in terms of both not doing to others what you would have done to you, as well as the mitzvoth— acts of love and service— done not only for family, superiors, and social equals, but the marginalized and liminal: the poor, the widow, the orphan, the stranger.

We know that two heads are better than one, in work, in love, in laughter, in sadness. When we fall we need someone to lift us up, and God help the person who falls when they are alone. Even better is group of friends, for a threefold cord is not quickly broken (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12).

We know that healing comes through talking about our faults and troubles, and through praying with others (James 5:16); we know that time spent with other of the same mind is how we can push each other to do better in life (Hebrews 10:24-25);  and we know that with all the talk about forgiving each other (Matthew 6:12-14,  Mark 11:25, Luke 17:3-4,  2 Corinthians 2:10-11,  Ephesians 4:32,  Colossians 3:13)  , know that we are called to love one another (John 13:34).

But to love each other we must allow others to love us. We must love ourselves by allowing other people into our lives. We must accept grace as much, if not more than, we extend it to others.

Perhaps we need to re-examine the value of friendship and community. We can’t go it alone. At least not well and not for long.

But what do we know. We made this game and you probably think we’re going to Hell.

buzzfeed.com

"Being long dead before the Lord answers your prayer" (Jeremiah 29:10-11)

"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." (Jer 29:11)

Oh how good Christians love this verse as long as it is taken completely out of context.

---

In the 29th chapter of Jeremiah, the prophet writes a letter to the people in Exile: the people who have been taken away as captives from their homes. People in pain and mourning. The people writing Psalm 137 and wanting the heads of enemy babies dashed against rocks. [More on that here]

The above words are the most famous from this letter because they are so comforting. But they are only some of Jeremiah's statements to them. Good Christians tend to ignore the rest of the words, because they can be as jarring to our modern senses as they must have been to the hearts of the original audience. Before Jeremiah relays God's plans for a hope-filled future, he outlines the present God wants the people to live in.

Paraphrased, "Thus says the Lord":

Make yourself comfortable. Buy a house. Make it look nice. Plant some flowers and crops. Eat something. (vs 5)

Get married and make a lot of babies. When they grow up, find them spouses. Then spoil your grandkids. (vs 6)

Pray that only good things will happen to your oppressors. Yes, I said, "good things." Not bad. And if anyone tells you that it's My Will for bad things to happen to them, or for all of you to leave Exile, to be rescued, they are liars. I want all of you to stay there. (vs. 7-9)

It's going to be at least 70 years until I save the people. You're probably going to die there. (vs. 10)

For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope. (vs. 11)

---

A good Christian has a habit of making this his/her "life verse" without acknowledging two things:

1. The "you" in the passage is plural, not singular. God is speaking to the people as a whole, not one individual.

2. God was asking the Israelites in Exile to accept the situation as it was presented, and continue to live and serve.

The people who heard these words were told that they would die in Exile, but their children and grand-children would survive. Their descendants would live in the promised future. Thus these were not words about individual salvation, but rather communal commission.

In the midst of the captivity, under oppression, when things were not as they should be, God asked them to stay faithful and teach their children how to do so as well, even though they would not see home again.

Perhaps God asks the same thing of us as well. (But who wants that as a "life verse"?)

Perhaps this is why the Church and the Synagogue has upheld the example of Esther and Susannah, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, and the prophet Daniel: young people who were raised to stand strong and survive in an oppressive culture by their families. Even though the ones who raised them didn't make it out alive. Even though they didn't make it out alive.

Perhaps we could apply the words of this letter to our lives personally by twisting them to say that God will deliver us individually from some present or future aliment if we view our selves as the Exiles and their children and grandchildren in the text. But this seems like a stretch.

Perhaps it is better to read them in context and see them as words which teach us to hold on, to endure, to encourage others in our community when we are going through trouble, when certain realities will not change for us.

Perhaps we can continue to love others regardless of our fate, and find more appropriate passages which speak to God's rescue of our individual lives.

But what do we know: we made this game and you probably think we're going to Hell.

"King Solomon needed so many women because he was over-compensating for _____. "

1 Kings 11:3 records that among Solomon's women were 700 princesses and 300 concubines. A close reading of the Hebrew indicates that this verse is merely recording the number of foreign wives and concubines, not the total number of his women, which means that he had many more wives than this. The focus of the passage is on the women who worshiped gods other than YHWH and Solomon's building of high places and altars to those gods, which begs the question, what happened to Solomon? He was raised to be a good Jewish boy, and good Jewish boys don't marry shiksas, let alone 1000 of them. Seriously. Was the sex that good?

Our two cents: Solomon had mommy and daddy issues.

Read through 1 Kings chapter 1. This part of the "succession narrative" shows that David had no intention of making Solomon king until Bathsheba and Nathan got involved. Taking her cue from the story of Rebekah and Jacob screwing Esau out of his birthright, Bathsheba makes sure her little boy gets the crown by twisting the reality of a frail, old man who can't stay warm even with a beautiful young co-ed wrapped around his body.

Solomon had to live with this knowledge and the fact that his head never quite fully exited Bathsheba's womb; that it was her maternal manipulation that got him the throne, not the divine anointing his father received — attention from on high even Saul was allowed.

Because Solomon's kingdom begins with barely concealed deceit, there were immediate repercussions in the kingdom: an eminent civil war between those who have aligned themselves behind the rightful king (Adonijah, the eldest brother). A war is avoided because Solomon exiles or executes everyone who would stand against him; however, one should not miss that the text records Bathsheba's role in Adonijah's death.

Yes, Solomon built the Temple and centralized worship for the United Monarchy, but he did so on the backs of his people. The Hebrew text describes Solomon's actions in the same ways it does the Pharaoh who stood against Moses and Aaron. Solomon amassed wealth while enslaving his own people, creating Egyptian-like conditions in Israel. And while Solomon built one Temple to YHWH, he built countless more altars to "Astarte the goddess of the Sidonians, and Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites, and "built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites ... did the same for all his foreign wives, who offered incense and sacrificed to their gods." (1 Kings 11:4-8) And who physically built those altars? The enslaved people of Israel.

If we believe the sages of tradition, Solomon spent the rest of his life gathering wisdom and wine, whores and wives, vanities upon vanities. In the end his kingdom is divided and his legacy is the punch-line/by-word of the Deuteronomist's warning against kings. (c.f. Deuteronomy 17:14-20)

Perhaps this is part of the reason the book of Ecclesiastes is attributed to him: a book of wisdom and regret after a life ill-spent.

Perhaps he knew of his moral downfall and needed something to keep his mind off of his troubles. Something to keep him warm at night.

Perhaps this is why Solomon needed so many wives and concubines.

Perhaps the king had 99 problems and ...

But what do we know: we made this game and you probably think we're going to hell.

Jesus needing 2-3 people in order to show up (Matthew 18:20)

We’ll keep this example of Christians using a passage out of context so often that it has become a time honored Bible bastardization that no one blinks an eyes at, brief. A Christian cliché at its finest and most painful.

Most of us have heard someone say, “… for we know where 2 or 3 are gathered in Your name …”

Which normally translates as:

“Only a handful of people showed up for Wednesday night prayer meeting, but we’re going to continue anyway, because where 2 or 3 are gathered …”

Or

“God, we know you can do this thing we are asking for, even though there are only a few of us asking, because where 2 or 3 are gathered …”

Or

Some other example of “we have a small number of people, but God, You’re beholden to do what we want because the Bible says so.”

Can we read the passage in context? Please? Just once. Here is what Matthew 18:15-20 actually says:

“If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.”

The passage is dealing with Church discipline. The number of people specified harkens back to Deuteronomy 19:15’s injunction that it takes multiple people (witnesses) to bring charges against someone in the community.

Hence, as a wise friend with more theological letters behind his name than us once said, this passage is best summarized by saying, “where two or three are gathered in His Name, you suck.”

Besides the actually context of the passage, do you think God isn’t present when only 1 person is present in His Name? How’s your theology on that one?

Perhaps we can stop using pithy biblical statements and actually read the words.

Perhaps it’s time that we #BibleResponsibly.

But what do we know: we made this game and you probably think we’re going to Hell.