Tag: Christianity

Biblical gay bashing

Sandlin notes why the Bible is NOT a sex guide, for reasons you might have heard.

QUEEN-JAMES-GAY-BIBLEAs a Christian, I’ve long been fascinated by the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the Bible, for a couple of reasons.

There are a LOT of things in the Bible that we don’t do anymore, such as stoning people, because… well, why DON’T we stone the medium or the blasphemer or people who worship other gods? Maybe it’s that we’ve gotten a different understanding of God’s will over time? So why the rigidity about homosexuality?

Another reason I’m no longer a Biblical literalist, as I was when I was 12, is that much to my shock and surprise, the Bible actually was NOT written in English! So there is often room for interpretation. It’s entirely possible (likely) the Bible doesn’t always mean what we THINK it does.

I’m intrigued by this article Clobbering “Biblical” Gay Bashing, in Patheos. The author, Mark Sandlin, acknowledges that “if you are well-read on the issue of the Bible and its take on homosexuality (or lack thereof), there is little new in here. For you, I hope this can be a quick reference.”

Sandlin writes further: “Perhaps the thing at which we [Christians] are the most persistently exceptional is misinterpreting the Bible then running amuck in the world because of it. Honestly, mad skills.” (I would have written “amok,” but whatever.) “And so we find ourselves here again.”

We would much rather reinforce the things we want to believe than believe the sometimes difficult teachings of Jesus. Who, on a side note, never said a word about homosexuality but did tell us to gouge out our lustful eyes. Which seems to me is more likely to leave us all blind than the “eye for and eye” thing.

I must say that Christians of all persuasions, liberal and conservative, are REALLY good at ignoring “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

Oh sure, this time around we have “softened” our approach, saying things like “hate the sin, love the sinner,” but we fail to recognize that what we are calling a “sin” and the person we are calling a “sinner” are one and the same. A person whose sexual orientation is homosexual, or bi-sexual, or queer can no more separate themselves from their sexuality than a heterosexual person can… We just aren’t loving the person if we don’t love the whole person.

I suspect the “softening” of the language we use has everything to do with making us feel better and very little with making LGBTQ folk feel better, because it certainly doesn’t make them feel any better. As a matter of fact, the love/hate (emphasis on hate) relationship that the Church continues to push on this group of people only serves to push them into closets and into even darker places…

Still, I appreciate the attempts by the church to change the language, and I think it matters for some. Pope Francis saying “Who am I to judge?” is surely a vast improvement over “You’re going to hell,” as though we actually make that judgment. A church is not likely going to go from A to Z on any issue without the intervening steps.

Sandlin notes why the Bible is NOT a sex guide, for reasons you might have heard (marrying concubines and the like.)

Most of us have matured enough theologically to recognize that we need to contextualize the writings of the Bible, and because of it we have moved passed using these examples as the end-all-be-all on acceptable practices of sexuality. However, somehow, we have not managed to apply the very same understanding to the Bible verses that have become known as the “clobber verses” in the Bible. “Clobber” because they are the verses most used to clobber people who are gay or who support gay rights.

He then describes them in turn. Some of the argument was, to me, self-evidently correct, but some were new. Check it out.

You want to talk about REAL religious persecution…

Open Door USA has a map where Christians are being threatened in this world today. Please note that the United States is NOT listed.

kristallnachtWatching part 5 of the Ken Burns masterpiece on The Roosevelts last month, I saw a brief mention of those terrible events of November 9-10, 1938, Kristallnacht, the “Night of Broken Glass” “the wave of violent anti-Jewish pogroms… throughout Germany, annexed Austria, and in areas of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia recently occupied by German troops.”

Not an hour later, I was watching the CBS Evening News, and there was a report about anti-Semitism being on the rise in Europe again: “The memories of Jewish persecution — of the November 1938 Kristallnacht when Jewish institutions were destroyed — are burned into German memory. Frankfurt’s main synagogue, badly damaged that night, is one of those now under armed guard.”

The ethnic minority in Iraq called the Yazidi who was faced with elimination by ISIL, or ISIS this past summer.

Open Door USA has a map where Christians are being threatened today, including much of Asia and northern Africa. Please note that the United States is NOT listed.

I mention this preemptively to say: Americans, there may be a war on Christians in this world, but it ain’t happening here. Let me make it crystal clear: people wishing you “happy holidays” on December 24 does NOT qualify as religious persecution.

Proposed Arizona legislation supports Sharia law

ANY religion can be reason for taking a wide range of discriminatory actions against another.

It’s quite the irony: Arizona was one of the states that had introduced legislation banning Sharia law, which is the moral code and religious law of a prophetic religion; this usually understood to refer to Islam in our country.

Yet with the passage of Arizona Senate Bill 1062, passed by both houses of the AZ legislature, the legislature may have inadvertently opened the door for Sharia law in the state.

But conservative Arizonans should also remember that as there is no state-sanctioned religion in the United States, SB 1062 provides a foothold into Arizona of both Sharia law, and, yes, even Satanism. Believe it or not, “the Devil made me do it”… will become the law of the land in the Grand Canyon state.

Take a look at the bill. The items crossed out like so was in the original law. Items IN CAPS are the new regulations.

Sec. 2.  Section 41-1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
41-1493.01.  Free exercise of religion protected; definition
A.  Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.
B.  Except as provided in subsection C, government OF THIS SECTION, STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
C.  Government STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSON SEEKING THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE ACTION demonstrates that application of the burden to the person PERSON’S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE is both:
1.  In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
2.  The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
D.  A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING.
E.  A PERSON THAT ASSERTS A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION MUST ESTABLISH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
1.  THAT THE PERSON’S ACTION OR REFUSAL TO ACT IS MOTIVATED BY A RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
2.  THAT THE PERSON’S RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS SINCERELY HELD.
3.  THAT THE STATE ACTION SUBSTANTIALLY BURDENS THE EXERCISE OF THE PERSON’S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
F.  THE PERSON ASSERTING A CLAIM OR DEFENSE UNDER SUBSECTION D OF THIS SECTION MAY OBTAIN INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF.  A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.
E.  G.  In FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.
H.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, “STATE ACTION” MEANS ANY ACTION, EXCEPT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 41-1493.04, BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.

Thus religion – ANY religion – can be the reason for taking a wide range of discriminatory actions against another. The law was supposedly “helping” people who did not want to serve gays. But might not a mixed-race couple be denied service because “MY religion” frowns on such things? That pregnant young woman does not appear to have a ring on her finger; throw her out! Talk about your slippery slope. The burden of proof is on the government to declare a compelling state need. This is not merely discriminatory, it is bad law.

The Oklahoma law considered back in 2010 was just as awful, but they had the good sense not to pass it. I would support a boycott of any state passing and signing into law, such a draconian measure, because only the loss of resources will have any effect on changing the tide.

Note to self: do not talk about religion on Facebook

While I’m perfectly willing to debate religion, I find it tiresome when persons unknown to me make assertions about me that are untrue,

Twice late last month – once on Christmas eve – I had “conversations” about religion on Facebook. It’s often unsatisfying, because I am a believer in spite of uncertainty, and these folks are usually convinced of their rightness.

Oddly, both ended up involving the Biblical phrase “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, render unto God what is God’s.” Without getting into the whole back-and-forth, one guy insisted that the verses, appearing in all three of the synoptic Gospels (all, except John), meant that we are directed to obey earthly authority, pay taxes, and the like.

My view is more in line that it suggests a separation of church and state, and that, further, the church should speak out when the state is going wrong, rather than embrace the state’s bad behavior (apartheid, slavery, exploitation, et al.) If you read the Wikipedia article on the phrase, you’ll see that there are several different interpretations of those verses, including both of these, a notion which I can accept.

The guy on Facebook cannot. While I’m perfectly willing to debate religion, I find it tiresome when persons unknown to me make assertions about me that are untrue, such as “You don’t know the Bible very well” or “You must not have read very much of the Bible.” Defensively, I sneered (if you can sneer online): “I have read the Bible at least three times all the way through,” noting the King James, New Revised Standard Version, and the New International Version.

Now he has ticked me off, and I assert something about the nonviolent direct action of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and others being in the Jesus tradition. Bored with me, he went away.

He’s like those people I grew up with who were convinced at least two-thirds of the world is going to hell. This, BTW, was the mindset that drove me out of the church by the time I was twenty. As the article says:

…we WILL NOT judge another person’s soul. Jesus warned us not to do so. Paul warned the same thing. Jesus will be the judge. Period. It is not our job and we are not qualified.

I’ll give a big AMEN to THAT.

Knocking at Midnight: Martin Luther King, Jr.

The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.

I like to look for less familiar text for Martin Luther King’s birthday. Unfortunately, soundbites from his I Have a Dream speech, for instance, have been so torn from its context as to make it unrecognizable.

A Knock at Midnight (found here [PDF]) was delivered on 14 September 1958. It has some Cold War references that I removed, not because there aren’t modern-day equivalents, but for clarity, and an attempt at brevity. The text was based on Luke 11:5-6, RSV: “Which of you who has a friend will go to him at midnight and say to him, “Friend, lend me three loaves; for a friend of mine has arrived on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him”? It’s all MLK until the end.

Although this parable is concerned with the power of persistent prayer, it may also serve as a basis for our thought concerning many contemporary problems and the role of the church in grappling with them. It is midnight in the parable; it is also midnight in our world, and the darkness is so deep that we can hardly see which way to turn…

Midnight is the hour when men desperately seek to obey the eleventh commandment, “Thou shalt not get caught.” According to the ethic of midnight, the cardinal sin is to be caught and the cardinal virtue is to get by. It is all right to lie, but one must lie with real finesse. It is all right to steal if one is so dignified that, if caught, the charge becomes embezzlement, not robbery. It is permissible even to hate if one so dresses his hating in the garments of love that hating appears to be loving. The Darwinian concept of the survival of the fittest has been substituted by a philosophy of the survival of the slickest. This mentality has brought a tragic breakdown of moral standards, and the midnight of moral degeneration deepens…

When the man in the parable knocked on his friend’s door and asked for the three loaves of bread, he received the impatient retort, “Do not bother me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.” How often have men experienced a similar disappointment when at midnight they knock on the door of the church…

In the terrible midnight of war, men have knocked on the door of the church to ask for the bread of peace, but the church has often disappointed them. What more pathetically reveals the irrelevancy of the church in present-day world affairs than its witness regarding war? In a world gone mad with arms buildups, chauvinistic passions, and imperialistic exploitation, the church has either endorsed these activities or remained appallingly silent. During the last two world wars, national churches even functioned as the ready lackeys of the state, sprinkling holy water upon the battleships and joining the mighty armies in singing, “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.” A weary world, pleading desperately for peace, has often found the church morally sanctioning war.

And those who have gone to the church to seek the bread of economic justice have been left in the frustrating midnight of economic privation. In many instances, the church has so aligned itself with the privileged classes and so defended the status quo that it has been unwilling to answer the knock at midnight. The Greek Church in Russia allied itself with the status quo and became so inextricably bound to the despotic czarist regime that it became impossible to be rid of the corrupt political and social system without being rid of the church. Such is the fate of every ecclesiastical organization that allies itself with things-as-they-are.

The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority. If the church does not participate actively in the struggle for peace and for economic and racial justice, it will forfeit the loyalty of millions and cause men everywhere to say that it has atrophied its will. But if the church will free itself from the shackles of a deadening status quo, and, recovering its great historic mission, will speak and act fearlessly and insistently in terms of justice and peace, it will enkindle the imagination of mankind and fire the souls of men, imbuing them with a glowing and ardent love for truth, justice, and peace. Men far and near will know the church as a great fellowship of love that provides light and bread for lonely travelers at midnight.

Midnight is a confusing hour when it is difficult to be faithful. The most inspiring word that the church must speak is that no midnight long remains. The weary traveler by midnight who asks for bread is really seeking the dawn. Our eternal message of hope is that dawn will come…
***
Obviously, this sermon is about faith – there’s a great story about the Montgomery bus boycott near the end – but it’s also about what the role of the church should, and should NOT be in the greater society. Just as the Greek Orthodox church in czarist Russia became too tied in the mind with the government as to be ineffectual as a change agent, so too it is with the modern western church.

 

The church ought not to be in a role to be a cheerleader for the government when it wages war, ignores and oppresses the poor, accepts injustice, and looks the other way when inequality takes place. I can’t help but wonder that the increasing amount of agnosticism and atheism in this world is a DIRECT result of the church’s failure to follow its own mission statement, which, I will suggest, is the paragraph italicized above, even while the church wrings its hands over the increasing secularism of the society. Perhaps the church is merely reaping what has inadvertently sown. Perhaps, in the United States, a greater separation of church and state would be good for the soul of the church.

Ramblin' with Roger
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial