Hope

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love. 

 -President Dwight Eisenhower, in his farewell address

Sadly, we don't seem to be any closer to realizing that vision than we were fifty years ago.  But it still remains an ideal worth striving for...

Miscommunication, Part 2

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

One of the biggest problems currently facing the United States is that we can no longer communicate with each other.  People on each side of any given issue are coming from such a different worldview that they literally cannot understand what their opponents are saying.  At the same time, however, they act as though their opponents understand them perfectly and are willfully disregarding and disrespecting that knowledge.

One of the things I love about Jon Stewart is that he makes a serious effort to dialogue with those he disagrees with (i.e. most Republicans) - something that rarely happens these days, even on "serious" news programs.  But even he doesn't always succeed, as the above clip demonstrates.

Granted, Stewart has a perfectly valid point when he notes that many (if not most) viewers would interpret Mike Huckabee's commercial as saying that anyone who fails to vote in line with the religious right's agenda is going to hell.  Even some evangelicals haven't studied the Bible well enough to recognize the allusion to the testing of believers' works by fire mentioned in 1 Corinthians.  And the fact that Huckabee would give the go-ahead to such an easily misinterpreted message exposes his own blindness to the fact that not everyone understands his perspective.

Unfortunately, Stewart gets so caught up on that point that he leaves himself with inadequate time to point out that the commercial's intended message is just as manipulative, and only slightly less threatening.  Huckabee may not be threatening people who vote the "wrong" way with a one-way trip to damnation, but he is still telling them that to disobey the religious right on the issues in question is to go directly against the will of God.

It's a message that gives Huckabee's allies a reinforced sense of their own rightness, and leaves them feeling as though they have done their duty to try to correct those who disagree with them.  It's also a message that fails completely to communicate to anyone who doesn't already agree with them, while widening the rift.  And Stewart, though I commend him for trying, failed to bridge any of that distance.  I often wonder whether such a bridge is even possible in our current political climate.

Post-Election

It's been quite a week.  Whether this proves to be *the* turning point in the battle for LGBT equal rights or merely a bright spot in a protracted conflict, a clean sweep of victories in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington is worth celebrating.  Across the country there are dozens of reasons for supporters of equality to be optimistic.

Even so, it would be premature to declare that it's all smooth sailing from here.  And while I obviously don't buy the religious right's line that the results of this election are going to trigger God's wrath, I also don't think it would be appropriate to invoke God's favor in the other direction.  What's wrong for one side is wrong for all sides, and my greatest hope is that more Christians will wake up, like this evangelical leader has, to how thoroughly (and inevitably) the quest for political power corrupts the Gospel.  As individual Americans it's entirely appropriate for all of us to be involved in the political process.  As a church, that's not how we're called to be defined.

That awakening appears to be gradually happening, but only time will tell if enough people wake up before the church's moral authority has been completely depleted by its current lust for power.

What Would It Take?

Disagreement is uncomfortable.  I suspect many people feel as I do that it would be far more pleasant to live in a world where everyone agreed on everything (or at least everything of importance).  In reality, though, we sometimes place too much importance on agreement.  A neighbor who thoughtfully disagrees often makes a better friend than an ally who tolerates no dissent.

For that reason (among others) I've made a conscious effort to maintain contact with friends who fall on the opposite side of the fence when it comes to the issue of homosexuality.  That's not always possible, given that far too many conservative Christians remain completely closed to any genuine dialogue, but when it is possible I've found it to be worth doing.

Craig Adams, who I first met through the now-defunct Bridges Across, is one such individual.  Although he still holds to a Side B position, he remains open to listening to what those on Side A have to say.  On his blog he recently explored the question of what it would take to convince him that he was wrong.  Among other things, he points out the differences in worldview and approach to Scripture that separate the two sides and hinder meaningful dialogue.  Merely arguing over the clobber passages is never going to bridge that divide, even if one side were to somehow manage to "win" the debate.

In the end he doesn't reach a conclusive answer as to what would change his mind, but I don't find that surprising.  Having originally come from a Side B perspective, if anything it's even more difficult for me to envision returning to my former beliefs.  Even so, it would be hypocritical of me to insist that I couldn't be wrong on this issue, however firmly I now hold to my hard-won convictions.

(For those unfamiliar with the terms Side A and Side B, link here or here.)

So what would it take to sway me?  After pondering the question, here is what come to mind:

First and foremost, I would have to sense God's leading.  My journey to Side A began with a deep and profound encounter with God that triggered a flood of questions that, in turn, made it impossible for me to remain where I was.  Every step of the way I dragged my feet, desperately afraid of being led astray by my feelings; I resolved early on that I would not abandon Side B for the sake of indulging in what feels good, or out of anger toward the false promises I'd been fed by the ex-gay movement.  And every step of the way God continued to encourage both my questions and the conclusions I was reaching.

As a fallible human being I must acknowledge that, despite the caution with which I undertook this journey, it is still possible that I have been misled by my own feelings.  It's a purely academic possibility in my mind, given everything I've seen and heard over the course of the last eight years, but I still accept the importance of remaining open to new information.

I wouldn't expect God to work in my life in exactly the same way twice, but I would still expect to see evidence of a broader movement of the Holy Spirit.  If Side B is correct, then adhering to a traditional sexual ethic should be good news, something positive that gay Christians can embrace rather than merely resign themselves to, and something that advances the Kingdom of God (which, as Jesus repeatedly told us, is in the here and now) by helping to make the world a better place.

By "better place" I mean better for everyone, not just for the many heterosexual Christians who have used their Side B beliefs as an excuse to make themselves more comfortable by shaming, ostracizing and casting out those who are different from them.  If Side B represents the heart of God, then upholding that standard should make members of Christ's body more compassionate - not merely in the abstract "I don't want you to go to Hell" sense that too often embodies the evangelical (mis-)definition of compassion, but in the sense of moving them to want to get to know their LGBT neighbors better so that they can understand what life is really like for those they're asking to make such large sacrifices.  I wouldn't expect everyone to go to the lengths that Timothy Kurek did, but that is the sort of empathy that is integral to my definition of compassion.

I don't expect the entire church to suddenly become perfect, but at the present time there still seems to be very little middle ground between those who believe God is fine with same-sex relationships and those who want all gay people to go away entirely.  The majority of those who do try to bridge that gap typically end up, like me, moving over to Side A.

And for those gay Christians who do faithfully live by Side B standards, there is still far too little acceptance among those who should be their strongest champions.  If God is truly the inspiration behind Side B, then a gay Christian who lives a celibate life and who feels called to ministry should be openly embraced by his or her church and viewed as eligible for any position of spiritual leadership, without being tainted by the deep suspicion that most conservatives still seem to hold for them.

Having said all of that, I do have the luxury of still being single as I ponder the above possibilities.  Were I in a committed relationship, I might not be open to entertaining the idea that God could want me to abandon someone I so deeply love.

And having said all of that, even if I were somehow persuaded to return to a Side B worldview, that would not include a return to fighting against legal equality for LGBT individuals.  The use of political power to impose "God's standards" on others is antithetical to the invitational message of the Gospel and, in the long run, a thoroughly self-destructive crusade.  On that point I cannot, in good conscience, compromise.

I also could not return to the ex-gay doublespeak that I once twisted myself in knots trying to conform to.  Whatever God's will may be for how I live my life, the fact remains that I am not heterosexual and, barring supernatural intervention, I never will be.  I cannot simultaneously live a life of integrity and lie about myself just to make the heterosexual majority more comfortable.

If I really am wrong, I trust God to eventually bring me around, even if that journey doesn't end up looking the way I imagine it now.  But for now, at least, I know that I'm right where I need to be, and that God is present and active there.  And why would I want to be anywhere else?

Judgment

Edward didn't know what to think about the killing of Askama or the violence said to have been triggered by the Jesuit missionaries.  But if Emilio Sandoz, maimed, destitute, utterly alone, had turned to prostitution, who could condemn him?  Not Edward Behr, who had some measure of the man's strength and of what it must have taken to bring him to the state he'd been found in, on Rakhat.

Johannes Voelker, by contrast, was convinced that Sandoz was simply a dangerous rogue, gone to appalling excess in the absence of external controls.  We are what we fear in others, Edward thought, and wondered how Voelker spent his time off.

-Mary Doria Russell, The Sparrow (page 169)

Life Soundtrack 32

Home, by Phillip Phillips

Today Highlands Church said goodbye to the building it's called home for the first three years of its life.  It wasn't unexpected; we always knew it was temporary until the developer who owned the building was ready to move ahead with his plans, and soon we'll have an even better building to call home.  And ultimately, a church is the people who attend it, not the location where it meets.

Even so, it can be difficult to say goodbye to a building that has served as a sacred space, a safe haven and the place associated with so many good memories.  A building may just be a building, but it still takes on the life and character that the people who call it home imbue it with.  And so knowing that it will soon no longer be there can be a cause for sadness, as we wait for God to make another place our home.

Grace

Grace is not about showing others what you do.  It's not even about showing God what you do.  It's about seeing God for who He is (a loving Father), and being changed by that encounter.

It's when we manage to forget about ourselves that we can truly focus on Christ and let go of our selfish interests.  The path of believing that our salvation depends on works, even good works, destroys our love of God.  This means-to-an-end relationship with God is a dead end.  The path of faith and fruit, by contrast, makes all good works possible.  It is the difference between obedience and gratitude.

Works says: Be good, or else...
Grace says: Be grateful, and then...

Getting back to [the book of] James's original example, we don't "demonstrate" our righteousness by feeding the homeless and hungry person; we celebrate our freedom by doing so.  We do it because we care - genuinely and deeply - for the welfare of others.

-Jay Bakker, Fall to Grace

In theory, many if not most evangelical churches would agree with the above statement.  In practice, most members of those churches (including the pastors) are still more motivated by fear of hell - if not for themselves than for those they believe are headed toward eternal condemnation.

While I'm not convinced one has to become a universalist to get to a place where fear is completely overcome by grace, I am convinced that actions motivated by fear of hell (however well concealed by slogans of grace) are a sign that there is error in one's theology.  It's not an error that would jeopardize one's salvation, certainly, but it nonetheless has negative consequences in the here and now.

Seriously

Yes, I know they're serious, and even that their rhetoric is pretty tame compared to most of what comes from WorldNet Daily, but even so I think this video would work better as a parody than as a serious message.

For my own part I'm not greatly enamored with either party, or with the vast majority of politicians in general.  But if you want me to vote for Barack Obama, just keep churning out over-the-top garbage like this.

Anyway, as long as we're talking about politics, Rachel Held Evans hits it on the nose with her response to the current convention rhetoric...