Fair and Equal

Today (while goofing off instead of working, I admit), I was surfing Youtube and stumbled across a critcism of one my favorite pastor/writers, Rob Bell.  It was on something called Way of the Master Radio, a satellite radio program sponsored by The Way of the Master.  This is a Christian Evangelical group headed by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort.  I've tried to see where they're coming from theologically, but without success.  From the tone of what I've heard so far, I'd say Reformed and fundamental, but that's just an educated guess.  Anyway, Way of the Master Radio (which was cancelled and replaced with Wretched Radio) was hosted by a fellow named Todd Friel.  Friel, a talk show host and former stand up comedian, was commenting on Bell's theology and said "We now know why Rob Bell's hermeneutic (method of interpretation, I had to look it up too), is so goofy". Followed by "Rob Bell's hermeneutic  is about interpreting scripture through the eyes of social justice".  He goes to say that Bell's church, Mars Hill Bible church, is becoming more egalitarian, so much that, "it will not be long...before something will come out of Mars Hill Bible church, with Rob Bell leading it, about it's okay to homosexual and Christian".  Now, if you've read any of the earlier entries on this blog, you know how I feel about that, so I'm not going there today.  No, what I want to talk about is the way Friel used social justice and Christian Egalitarianism as club on anyone whose theology differed from his.

First, let's talk about those two subjects.  Social justice is the concept that there should be equal justice throughout society, not just in the courts or the government.  This can take shape in many ways, but in my experience, the way works out in the church is through the various ministries like feeding hungry people, clothing them, sheltering them, helping them help themselves.  Christian egalitarianism says that all people are equal before God.  All people, man and woman, rich and poor, sinner and..., well, that one doesn't matter because we're all sinners, aren't we?  Both concepts, to me, seem central not only to the message of Jesus, but the principals this country was founded on.  Everyone deserves a chance and we're all equal.  One of those no-brainers, huh? 

Evidently, some folks (Friel included) have issues with this.  I was reading another blog (I know, I read a lot of them.  Looking for material for my own) about social justice which said that conservatives feel like the term "social justice" has been hijacked by Liberalism.  You know, welfare and all that?  Which shows we're kinda sucking at getting the truth out there.  Social justice is making sure we all have a shot at a decent life.  That's all.  I can only assume that's Friel's problem with it, he just assumes that everyone listen agrees with him and sees the light as he does and doesn't offer much in the way of explanatin.  The egalitarian part I had to do a little digging to get a read on, but I think have.  One of the big deals in Christian egalitarianism is gender equality.  That means that women aren't restricted from leadership positions in the faith.  They can teach, preach and lead just like a man.  And, they can.  The pastor at my church is a prime example.  She's one of the best ministers I've ever seen.  My father, who ranks preachers right up there with used car salesmen and politicians, agrees.  My feeling is echoes that of my oldest daughter.  It doesn't matter what sex you are if God has called you.  That attitude is absolutely heretical to fundamentalist.  Which, I believe, is at odds with Jesus' message of love and inclusion.

For me, the real problem with comments like Friel's goes beyond their ignorance.  No, these folks are out there, getting in others faces and forcing their narrow view down the public's throat.   And, because of that, unchurched folks believe that's the way we all are.  If you take the time to read anything by Hitchens, Dawkins and whoever else is the athiest du jour, you'll see that the vast majority of their complaints are about fundamental concepts and ideas and they rarely address mainline Christianity.  And, because they're fundamentalists in their own right, they refuse to acknowledge any viewpoint but that all Christians are fundamentalists.  Meantime, me and folks like me are left to clean up the mess and get about the business of helping those in need and trying to show people that all Christians aren't like that.  I'm getting tired of having to defend what I believe against positions and attitudes that I don't hold or even agree with.  All I can do is try to show my faith in the way I live, not just what I say.  Because talk is cheap. 

What's for Dinner?

Communal meals are one of the earliest traditions in Christianity. In the second chapter of Acts, it says " Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people."  One of the last acts of Jesus before his arrest was to have a meal with his closest followers.  A symbolic meal, the Eucharist or Communion, springs from that very instance.  We've gotten away from that these days.  Oh, once in a while there will be a special dinner at church.  Homecoming, dinner-on-the-grounds (that's a southern thing for you yankees), fundraisers, and the like.  But, a churchwide dinner after every Sunday service?  Not hardly.  Most Sundays, it's like the green flag dropping at Daytona once the service is over.  At my church, we used to have a 5th Sunday dinner when..., well, whenever there was a 5th Sunday in a month.  Since we've moved to our new building and haven't been able to stock our kitchen.  I miss them and I'm not the only one.  It's not just the food, which is elegant and plentiful, but the fellowship with friends that I miss.  These are people I genuinely like and I don't get to spend anywhere near enough time with them.

Meals are powerful.  How often do the Gospels mention food?  The feeding of the 5000, the numerous times he's confronted over a meal, the meals in Bethany with Mary, Martha and Lazarus.  Jesus used meals, which carried a huge amount of weight in 1st century Jewish culture, to teach.  Another quote from one of my favorite blogs, Jesus The Radical Pastor, John Frye puts it better than I, "In Jesus’ day a meal was a controlling cultural map. Who was eating with whom? Where? and What? And who was in charge? –all said something significant about social relationships. Powerful social code was telegraphed. It was what anthropologists call “the language of meals.”Are you one of us or one of them? Every meal in Jesus’ day was an answer to that question. Meals portrayed legitimate and illegitimate social relationships. “This man (read “scum bag”) welcomes ’sinners’ and eats with them” (Luke 15:1-2). Who was clean and unclean? Who was pure and who was polluted? Meals answered these questions." Later in the blog, Frye continued "Enter radical pastor Jesus and his new code. His meal-time good news message. He was subversively, non-violently redrawing Israel’s cultural-spiritual map. He offered new, happy redefinitions of who’s pure and who’s polluted. He didn’t have to say a lot. All he had to do was host a meal and break the bread and pour the wine. By these actions Jesus literally broke Jewish society apart, even family members had to chose (or not) to be in the new social structure Jesus was creating" . 

I think that bonding with others is also an important part of a communal meal.  In my work as a firefighter, I've seen how important shared meals are to a group.  Those that eat together are well-oiled companies.  Those that don't..., not so much.  I've seen in the church also.  Since our move into the new building and the ending of the dinners, gossip and political manuevering has increased and we're not as close.  I don't know that not eating together has caused all that, but it sure hasn't helped.  For years, in our youth group, dinner was an integral part of the meeting.  I got to know many of the kids over a plate of whatever the providing family sent in.  Meals naturally lead to talking and talking is how you find out things.  Sounds so simple and easy it should be a no-brainer, eh?  Well, some folks wanted to change the time of the meeting and have their kids eat at home so we did away with the meal and worked out a compromise.  We thought.  The time change was nixed, but the meal wasn't returned.  And, it makes a difference.  Oh sure, the kids can bring something in to eat, and some do.  But, it's just not the same.  There's something about sitting down to a shared meal that changes the atmosphere and pulls everyone together.  And, I miss it greatly.

So, what are we to do about all this?  Wouldn't it be nice to sit down with your church friends (and we all have "church" friends, "work" friends, etc) and have a big meal every Sunday?  Meet in the fellowship hall and extend that time away from the outside world and all it's crap just a couple more hours?  But, it's not that simple, is it.  That outside world is just too insistent.  The demands of family, work and everything else won't let us do that.  At least, not every Sunday.  But, what if we found a way to do it a little more often?  And, we made an effort to bring somebody new with us every so often?  What if they saw what happened at those dinners?  And, what if that brought them back to us, if they'd strayed away or just brought them in with us?

Got some change?

Lately, I've been told that I should just accept that a particular passage in the Bible is true, right and applicable today just because it's in the Bible.  Specifically that if Scripture calls something a sin, that settles the argument.  If you know me, you know that this statement is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.  Telling me to just accept something that I'm questioning pretty much guarantees that I'll never accept it.  This has caused a bit trouble for me in the past, mostly when I was in school.  At one time, I'd have never thought to question anything religious, but that changed when I was in my 20's.  Before that, I was involved in what can only be called a cult.  Religious in nature, one person calling all the shots and controlling everything and everyone.  Of course, no one involved would have called it that, but that's what it was.  And, it taught me a hard lesson.  I'll never accept anything without question again.  I look at it from every possible angle, take it apart, find out where it came from and generally put it through the wringer.  I'll never be taken in that way again.

This experience drove me away from the church for a long time, but about 6 or 7 years ago I returned.  I was looking for somewhere to go on Sunday morning and decided that since I grew Methodist and was familiar with that church, it was good place to start.  That first Sunday, I had a feeling of being home.  I really knew I was in the right place when the pastor told me that, in the Methodist Church, she'd never been told to check her brain at the door.  After my past experience, that really resonated with me.  As I learned more about my faith, I found this sentiment wasn't hers alone.  It runs through the entire denomination.  John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, often called his followers to "wrestle" with passages of scripture that troubled them.  So, this attitude has been present in the Methodist Church since the beginning.  I think it's one of the reasons the UMC hasn't been hit as hard as other groups in the shrinking of the Protestant faith. 

So, I have a piece of scripture that troubles me, so I think about it, read what others say about it, try to understand what the original author was trying to say and how it applies to me today.  After all that, I come up with an interpretation that strays from tradition.  And, being unable to keep my mouth shut, I spout off about it all over the place.  And, of course, some folks take issue with it, telling me that I'm wrong, I don't understand what it means, etc.  Some even tell me that it's true because it's in the Bible and not to worry about it.  My first thought is "that's a damn slim argument".  And, it ignores some pretty strong precedents, too.  What if Martin Luther had just accepted the selling of papal indulgences and never written those 95 theses?  Or, if John Wesley listen to those who made fun of him and his friends, calling them "The Holy Club"?  Or, and this one is big, what if Jesus just accepted the status quo of 1st century Judaism and never spoke out against it's exclusivism?  Now, I'm not comparing myself to these folks, I'm trying to say that sometimes you've got to swim against the stream to do the right thing.  If you're lucky (or at least, not totally full of crap), you might even have some company on the trip.

Read it Again

From 1830's until 1865, some people in the southern United States spent a lot of time trying to justify the abhorent practice of slavery.  And, the foundation for this defense rested on the Bible.  In the Old Testament, there are several passages about who the Israelites can keep as slaves.  Some of Paul's letters talk about proper treatment of slaves.  No where in the Scriptures is the practice of slavery condemned.  It was part and parcel of the culture, in the 1st century as well as the 19th, and accepted as part of the natural order.  But, as author Eric McKitrick said in his book Slavery Defended, "Nothing is more suspectible than an argument, however ingenious, that has been discredited by events" and I think we can all agree that the events of 1861-65 and after discredited the anti-slavery argument.  In fact, the whole idea of owning another human being goes against everything Western Christianity stands for.  At least, we like to think that.

In the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy and others, it says the punishment for any sexual sin (and there are others besides homosexuality) is death.  Now, I don't know about you, but I haven't seen any women being stoned in the town square because they were caught running around on their husband.  Which brings up another point: The Bible seems to legitimize treating women as second class citizens.  I'm not sure if it openly says so, but it certainly intimates that a woman's place is serving a man.  Some of Jesus' most radical teachings were those concerning adultery and divorce.  The remarks on those subjects in the Sermon on the Mount are directed at men, not women.  I say that because women didn't have the power to do any of that stuff in Jesus' day and men did.  And, they took advantage of that fact.  Turning back to Leviticus, people who strayed from the faith were ostracized.  And, being cut off from your family and friends was probably worse than death for a Bronze Age Jew.  While the Law of Moses was a vast improvement on what went before, mercy was in short supply.

Throughout the enumeration of the Law in the Old Testament, there are many different instructions about how to worship.  What animals to sacrifice, how that sacrifice is to be performed, by who and when.  There are intricate details about how to prepare yourself to go to the temple and present it.  Or, on how to cleanse oneself after committing a sin.  As for what was a sin, there were about 615 different laws that spelled that out for you.  They also dictated everything else you did, whether spiritual or secular, because to an ancient Israelite, the two were inextricably bound. 

By now, I'm sure you're wondering where I'm going with this.  Well, I'm going to tell you right now.  Everything I've been talking about comes from the Bible.  And, at one time, everything listed above was accepted as absolute truth by either Christians, Jews or both.  And, with one exception, we as Christians have let go of those of all these things.  The exception is sexual sin.  And, not just any sexual sin, but the queen mother of sins: homosexuality.  Now, in general, the passages in the Bible don't make a big distinction between, say, adultery and homosexuality.  But, in our culture, there's a world of difference.  Oh, people won't say so and, if you asked them, they'd deny it.  But, most folks are willing to turn at least somewhat of a blind eye to sins that involve straight sex.  Oh, sure there are a few bluenoses around that make it their business to get into everyone else's and tell them where they may be messing up, but those people are the exception rather than the rule.  If such were not the case, then the NC Baptist Conference  would have passed a resolution banning from membership anyone practicing any sort of sexual sin.  But, they didn't.  They went after the gay folks.  The very people who they say they want to help and lead away from sin.  Yet, they pulled the welcome mat.  In my own Methodist Church, while membership isn't at issue, the right of all people to have their relationship blessed is.  In a day and time when we should be promoting all kinds monogamy, we don't.  We only promote the kind that we're comfortable with, that of man and woman.  I could possibly get on board with this if anyone could give a reason for homosexuality being a sin besides what's in the Bible.  Because, while the Bible does say it's a sin, it doesn't say why.  The reasons of those early law-makers may apply to today and be totally relevant.  And, if they did, I'd be the first to say I was wrong and get with the program.  But, I seriously doubt that would be the case.  Because, if it was, why is it whenever I ask why, all I hear is crickets?

Bigger Fish?

On Wednesday, Dumbarton UMC, in Washington D.C. announced that will celebrate same-sex weddings. Here is the press release:
"(Washington, D.C.) A United Methodist congregation in Washington, D.C., has vowed to celebrate same-sex weddings, putting itself at odds with other Christian churches protesting the District of Columbia's new marriage equality law.

The pastor and 12 other ordained clergy who attend Dumbarton United Methodist Church in Georgetown said they would conduct such ceremonies after Congress failed to override D.C.'s new law on March 3. The larger United Methodist Church does not permit same-sex weddings, and no other Methodist congregation in Washington has taken the same step.

"As a pastor, I am called to extend care and grace to all people even as Jesus did," said Rev. Mary Kay Totty, pastor at the 238-year-old church. "We celebrate love and loyalty wherever it is found."

Dumbarton church's stand is poles apart from the protests by other Christian churches that same-sex marriages are against Biblical teachings. Catholic Charities has announced that it will close its adoption and foster care programs in the District, rather than provide services to gay and lesbian couples. Some Christian ministers have rallied against the marriage equality law.

But Dumbarton's Church Council, in a 28 to 0 vote February 10, pledged "to honor and celebrate the wedding of any couple, licensed in the District of Columbia, who seek to commit their lives to one another in marriage."

Totty said the church is aware the clergy are at risk by performing same-sex weddings in a denomination that does not sanction them. "However," she said, "marriage equality is about justice and civil rights. The District of Columbia acknowledges that it is wrong to discriminate against people based upon sexual orientation."

Recognizing such marriages is a logical step for the District's oldest Methodist congregation, she said. In 1987 Dumbarton publicly welcomed lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their families into full participation in the life and ministries of the congregation. With the new policy, couples wanting to be married will meet with the pastor to discuss the church's marriage guidelines and to discuss counseling. "We rejoice that at this point in history, the arc of justice now bends toward equal recognition of marriage for all couples," said Totty."

It's about time somebody stepped up and said "This is a ridiculous rule and we're not putting up with it anymore". You may not agree with me, but I don't think a committed relationship of any kind is what any of the writers of the Bible were talking about. Personally, I think those references were about prostitution. Actually, temple prostitution. Except for adultery, everywhere the admonitions against sexual sin come up, they are related to areas where people worshipped Ishtar, or Astarte, or Aphrodite. All different names for the same goddess. A goddess who represented fertility and sexuality. Worship of Ishtar included sacred prostitution. A religion whose goddess required you to have sex as part of worship had more heck of lot more appeal to folks than one based on service to God and neighbor. And, I'm sure, the people strayed in droves. The Canaanites practiced this religion, and Rome and Corinth were major centers of worship for the Aphrodite cult, to say nothing of the rampant commercial prostitution in both cities. Mosiac law was written when? That's right, when the Israelites were moving into Canaan. Who else comes out against sexual sin? Paul does, in Romans and, you guessed it, 1 Corinthians. The word used for sexual sin in the original Greek is "porneia", meaning sexual immorality or perversion. However, the word used in English translations of the Bible is "fornication". That word comes from the Latin word "fornix", meaning arch. What does an arch have to do with sex, you ask? The prostitutes in Rome used to ply their trade in the archways under the city and "fornicatio" (literally "done in the archway") became slang for seeing a prostitute. Eventually, around 1303 it picked up its current meaning of sex between two unmarried people. Now, scholars say that it's a slight mistranslation, but I find it interesting that the word used for sexual sin was originally a euphemism for prostitution.

What it all boils down is this: as long as we make homosexuality (or sex in general) something dirty, something to be hidden and ashamed of, people are going to get hurt. Not just those who practice it, but those around them. Their friends, their family and even us, the people who ostracize them. Nothing good can come of the continued paranoia about homosexuals and same-sex marriage. I keep hearing that same-sex marriage is a danger to the whole institution of marriage. I'd like someone to tell me how? Every problem I've seen with homosexuality doesn't arise from the act, it comes from how society views it. As I said just a few lines earlier, something dirty, disgusting and unworthy of the light of day. If we accepted it instead of fearing it, many of the problems would melt away. Not all, of course, I'm not naive and I realize we're dealing with human beings, imperfect as they are. As for the Biblical or religious objections, as long as it's two consenting adults and no is getting hurt, I really don't think God cares who we're sleeping with. Don't you think he has bigger fish to fry?

Who is My Neighbor?

One day, Jesus was talking to group of his followers when a lawyer (scribe in older translations) asks "Hey man, I like this 'live forever' idea you've been talking about. How does a fellow do that?" Jesus looked at him for a minute, then said "Well, you're a lawyer. What does the law say?" The lawyer answers "Love God with everything you've got. And, love your neighbor just like you love yourself." Jesus nodded and said, "Dude, you just answered your own question." But, being a lawyer, a simple answer wasn't enough for this cat. So, he says "Well, that sounds easy enough. But, when you say neighbor, are you talking about the joker that lives next door to me?" Some of the apostles, (mainly Peter, James and John) started muttering about what a doofus this guy was. Jesus just smiled and shook his head. Then he started telling a story. "One day, this guy was on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. Now, ya'll know how rough that road can be. Sure enough, as he was walking by some bushes, a bunch of dudes jumped and mugged him. Oh, it was bad. Beat him up, took everything he had, even his clothes, and left him laying there. Now, this brother was in bad shape. I'm talking about-to-die bad. After a while, a preacher came by and saw him laying there in his underwear. Man, he thought to himself, ain't no telling what's going on over there. I'm not getting involved, so he crossed to the other side of the road to avoid the poor guy. Later on, a deacon in the local church was passing by. He saw the fellow lying on the side of the road and said to himself "What a freak, laying on the side of the road in his underwear like that. Somebody ought to do something". But, he wasn't about to get involved with a character like that and he hurried on by. Next, a Samaritan", Jesus paused at this point, because almost as one the crowd drew an audible breath at the mere mention of the name "Samaritan". "That's right, one of those nasty, disgusting Samaritans came along. Guess what this cat did? He went straight over to the man, got out his first aid kit and went to work, mending the fellow's wounds as best he could. Then, he picked him up and carried him to the nearest hotel. Checked in and spent the next day looking after our poor, beat up friend. In the morning, he had to get on the road since he was traveling for business. But, he stopped in the office, paid for another couple days and told his friend, the manager, "Look, man, there's a dude up in 202 that was beaten up and robbed the other day. How about looking after him for few days and I'll make it good when come back through. You know I'm good for it". Now, if you were the dude laying in the road, who was your neighbor?" Without hesitating, the lawyer said "The fellow that looked after him". "There you go" said Jesus, "do the same and you'll be all right".

I told that story with the language I did to make a little easier to understand. Okay, I also did it because it was fun imaging Jesus sitting in the corner at Paul's Grocery on Poole Road, holding forth for the usual crowd. But, I like this story. In fact, it's one of my favorites. Everyone always focuses on the Samaritan doing the right thing for the guy. But, what gets me is that it's a Samaritan that commits the act of love. Nowadays, that would be akin to a fundamental Muslim doing the same for a Christian. And, at the end, he tells this highly religious lawyer, a guy that did nothing but study the Torah all the time, to be like the Samaritan! That would be like telling Billy Graham to follow the example of a drug addict or an alcoholic. The point, here, is that we not supposed to just love those we're comfortable with. No, Jesus said to love your enemies, because if you only love those that love you, what have you really accomplished? The other thing to be gleaned from this story is that everyone is our neighbor. Everyone. Not just those in our neighborhood, or town, or state. Or even country. When the earthquake hit Haiti, I heard more than a few voices that were upset that we were providing assistance over there. This happens whenever there's any high-visibility foreign aid programs. The thing that gets me is that some of the loudest of these voices are the same ones that tout the United States as a "Christian" nation. Makes me wish I was a Samaritan sometimes.

The Kingdom is where?

At the recent Faithworks Conference in London, Brian McLaren posited that " The Kingdom of God is not about me but about transforming the world and everything in it" (Maria McKay, The Christian Post). This is not the first time I've heard that sentiment, but Ms Mackay stated better than most. McLaren went on to say that we put ourselves and getting to heaven at the center of our faith. And, unfortunately, we don't consider what significance our faith has on the world around us. To that end, he said “We are not passive players conforming to the world but with transformed and renewed minds, we are agents of transformation". This really seemed to raise the hackles of Shane Raynor on his blog The Wesley Report. Well, that's not entirely fair. Here's the statement that got him torqued, "The Kingdom of God is about God’s Kingdom being done on Earth. It’s not a plan of upward mobility and how we get to Heaven but about how God’s Kingdom comes down to Earth … it’s a downward movement." Now, Brian McLaren says some things I'm not entirely on board with (that's true of almost any author I read), but this one isn't one of them. I agree with it 100%. The sooner we realize that result of following Jesus is working to bring the Kingdom here, to earth and not about sitting on a cloud with wings, halo and harp, the sooner we can start actually making it happen.

I suppose the whole idea of heaven works for some, but I find the idea a bit boring. Perfect joy, perfect peace and all that? Isn't this idea a bit selfish? I mean, God gives us a magnificent gift and we take just so we don't burn? God, being God, doesn't really care why we accept it; he's just happy to take care of his children. I know it's grace and completely unearned and all that, but shouldn't we at least attempt to do something worthwhile with it? Getting back to Ms Mackay's article on the Faithworks conference, "Christians, he (McLaren) said, have become “consumers of religious goods and services” who view the church as something that exists to fulfill their needs and house their soul until they went to Heaven." I wonder how many of us are comfortable with this view of our faith? And, what does that discomfort say about us? Are we willing to do something about it? In the youth Sunday School class this week, we were going over negative stereotypes about Christians and the kids had heard most of the ones I knew and even added a few of their own. Then, we talked about ways to change those impressions others have of us and they had some great ideas. Finally, I asked how many planned on trying to do this in the next week. Not a peep, not a hand raised, nothing. After a minute or two, they said they probably wouldn't try. When I asked why, they said it was easier to continue the way they had been. They weren't willing or able to step outside they're comfort zone and try something different. Typical teenage behavior. But, how many adults feel different?


"Our theology is perfectly designed to produce the results we are now getting. If you want a change in results you need a change in theology,” This statement of McLaren's mirrors a famous Einstein quote "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” So, what are we doing over and over and yet expecting different results?
At a time when Protestant Christianity is shrinking, we continue to preach the same old message and get our word out in the same old way. And, we get the same old result. A few young families, with a smattering of older folks making their way back to church. There remains a huge group who are desperately seeking something spiritual, some deeper meaning to life than making money, getting stuff and, when it comes to church, going to heaven. More of the same isn't going to cut it for these people. New ideas, new ways of looking at things, new ways of worship will. If Protestant Christianity isn't to end as a historical footnote, we've got to find the lever that moves these folks. Because they're where any real growth is going to come from. Those folks we're getting now? We'd get them anyway. Pastors are always calling on us as individuals to step outside of our comfort and make a difference. Maybe it's time we did the same thing as a Church.