Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Our Three Problems

I was listening to an interview with a writer the other day and he said that, whenever he teaches a writer's workshop with kids, he always tells them about "The Big Three Problems."

That is, he says that every story – every main character in every story, really – needs to face three different kinds of problems. The first kind is the BIG problem. The outside situation like saving the world or escaping the enemy or finding the lost treasure.

The second kind is the RELATIONSHIP problem. Everyone has to deal with other people, and in a story, the way people get along has to be challenged, has to change. You see this in a big way when it comes to love stories.

The third kind is the INNER DEMONS problem. We all have them, and in a good story, the main characters must face them if they are to change as people.

Leave out any of these problems and the story goes flat. I know. I've written enough flat stories. But put them in, and you have – life.

That's right, the reason these three big problems are important to stories is because they are important to life. We all have them and when we face them as the challenges they are, we grow as human beings. Life becomes fuller, more meaningful, the way, I dare say, that God intended.

Run away from those problems, however, and we become as flat as badly written novel.

Sunday, July 29, 2007

Vacation

I am on vacation! Actually, because I didn't go anywhere this week, I'm sitting in my house while parishioners worship in the early service. What a strange sensation to watch from my window as they go into worship – I'll worship somewhere else today, slipping out while everyone is inside so they won't see me and wonder why I'm skipping out. Of course, I announced vacation long ago, but somebody always misses the memo.

Vacation brings up two quick thoughts. First is, it's really fun to go to someone else's church now and then, almost always a non-Episcopal one. It's great to be able to sit with my family, too, something I rarely get to do. It's a refreshing joy to just sit there and be a regular worshiper who doesn't have to say anything powerful or compelling or even controversial. I don't even have to stay awake through the sermon! It feels like, well, vacation.

Second is, how very important vacation is. This has been an annual discussion ever since I became a priest. In fact, I know a lot of folks upset that I get so much of it – four weeks, five Sundays. They think of it as a little decadent, lazy, and maybe even French. Too many proudly proclaim that they haven't had vacation in years. Now, it is true, some of them live in fear of losing their livelihoods if they dare to claim their rights. I remember once asking a grocery store employee what her day off was, and she said, "Day off? I don't get days off." Let alone vacation.

This is tragic. And it is wicked on the part of those who deny their employees the rest and re-creation they need.

I spend a lot of time trying to convince people that they need to rest – not all the time because there is work to do. But we all are designed by God to stop our work from time to time and rest. God never made a commandment about overtime, but the fourth commandment says "Rest." Not only rest, but make provision for your servants to rest, too. Even your animals. The penalty for working on the Sabbath? Death.

The church wastes a lot of time and energy squabbling over things that are barely mentioned in scripture – like gays – but it virtually ignores the systematic dismantling of Sabbath time. But our society has done just that – we consistently shrink the rest time for employees in the name of becoming more "efficient" or "competitive." Competition, by the way, is not a biblical value.

What we need is not more people working 70-80 hour weeks (whether because they are forced to or because they want to "get ahead."). We need, as a society and as the people of God, to do our work and then take our rest so we can appreciate the world God has given us. The very tired appreciate very little, neither their hard-earned money nor each other. Think about it. You and I will die someday – and all that money will disappear, and eventually nobody will know we even existed. That's not depressing; it's liberating.

So take vacation. Take what you can get as long as you're putting in your proper work as well. It is not so much a right as a divine responsibility – and a divine gift.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

The Last Harry Potter

It's been a few days since I wrote – more on that in a day or two.

I already told you I'm one of those huge Harry Potter fans. My son and I went to our local bookstore on July 20 and stayed up till midnight at one of those Harry Potter parties, waiting for our copy. Actually, we bought three copies. One for my wife and me, and one each for the boys.

There were several of our friends from school and church, and I was glad to see that several adults came in costume (so I didn't feel like a fool).

The book, which took me longer than it might have because I had to work most of Saturday as well as Sunday, took me until 12:30 Monday morning. I finished it sitting in a hotel room with the rest of the family asleep around me. I'm now reading out loud to the family (a tradition, even though my youngest son is already nearly finished).

The real thing for us, however, was what was in the book. If you're not a Potter fan, you won't care. If you ARE a Potter fan and haven't read it yet – well, first, I applaud your restraint. Spoiler Alert: I'm going to reveal possibly more than you want to hear, so read on at your own risk.

The first thing I want to note is the use of scripture in this book. I don't mean loose references to it, but actual quotes (albeit not cited) that were crucial to the foundation of the story. Admittedly, these quotes were on graves, but they were on the graves of important people (Harry's parents, for example). Quotes like, "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also," (Matthew 6:21) and "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" (1 Corinthians 15:26).

Does that prove profound Christian teaching or insight? Of course not. But it does show both Christian influence and a pretty good sense of where Christ led us. Because think about what Harry Potter generally teaches: Death is not the end of it all, nor is it an all-powerful enemy that conquers us. Rather, it is the next stage in life. Those who cling to this life as if there is nothing else (like the archenemy Voldemort) are actually the least powerful, the most to be pitied, as Harry concludes in the end. They are also those who are most likely to cause mayhem in the world (followed closely by those who think they are the only people going to heaven).

The second thing I want to note is that the book ends the way you would want it to. Does Harry live? Does he get back together with Ginny? Do Ron and Hermione finally formalized their relationship? Read the book.

As J. K. Rowling said over and over, several people (and non-humans) die, and it breaks my heart from the first to the last. I got a little weepy at a couple of them because they were characters who have been with us from pretty much the very beginning. But she said wars do not respect individuals, wars often kill and leave alive those we think don't deserve it. And so it is with this book. Nobody is left unscathed. Everybody loses someone.

But in the end, people survive, and those people CAN pick up and live. And even in the darkest of times, people manage to find life and joy and some inner peace. Which is indeed how life works.

In the end, I'll tell you that I loved the book, will probably be disappointed in the movie version (as I have for all of them), and will read and reread it many times. It will also form the basis of countless conversations which will, undoubtedly, shed light not only on J. K. Rowling, but on what it means to live life well.

Last note. I read in TIME Magazine an article about Harry Potter and how Rowling, unlike C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkein doesn't refer specifically to God (though, where Tolkein does, I don't know). Sure, the reviewer admitted, she talks about the power of "love," but he considers that rather wimpy and generic. I wonder if he was looking for specific resurrection references (which, by the way, you can see in the last book) or commandments. To my thinking, Rowling cut through a lot of the words to get to the heart of scripture, the heart of Christ (who, I believe, enjoys these stories immensely). Sure, she references mythology and ancient alchemists and the sort – it's a story! But look at the heart! As scripture tells us, God is love.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Blog in the Family

Did I ever mentioned that my cousin is a priest, too? Not since my Methodist minister great-grandfather and his Methodist minister cousin have we had this many clergy in our family at the same time.

She just got ordained last year, so is kind of new at the game. But, Kris is a decade younger than me and a lot more tech savvy, too, so I wasn't in the least surprised when she e-mailed and said, "I'm taking a stab at a blog." If you want to look at it, it's http://therevmama.blogspot.com/ Hers is a beautiful sight with prayers and good books to read (for what it's worth, I'm reading "The Loss" by Siegfried Lenz), and although it's new, I can tell it'll be great.

You can guess what I did. I e-mailed back and said, "I'll link your blog to mine if you link mine to yours." Sure enough, she did it. What a nice cousin I have.

In truth, there are countless Episcopal clergy blogs out there – it boggles my easily boggled mind. But it is nice to pop out there and see family doing the same thing I'm doing – happily "priesting" and blogging away. So I'll see you out in the blogosphere, Kris!

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Meditation

Thought I would get back to more pleasant things. How about meditation?

Now, you might not be surprised to learn that my usual meditation practice consists of sitting in my study with a cup of coffee. When the coffee is gone, I'm done. What I do between the time of getting the coffee and drinking the last drop varies. The only rule is, I have to take off my glasses, and I can't do anything else. Sometimes I just sit there with my eyes closed and savor the flavor. Sometimes I get restless and can't seem to sit still even that long – I catch myself reaching for the glasses or picking up a book (though without the glasses, that's pretty useless).

It's not much, but it's what I've got, and let me tell you, a good cup of coffee in the early morning can give you a lot to meditate about.

But this morning I did something a little different. I sat with my wife for an hour and meditated on what it takes to heal the earth of all the damage humanity has caused it. It was one of those web-generated international pleas that my wife found and thought worthwhile – all it asked was that as many people as possible all meditate or pray for one hour, all at the same time, for the healing of the earth.

What will it achieve? I don't know. I certainly allowed images of the damage we've caused to pass through my mind. There followed pictures of folks doing what they could to heal it, too. No specifics here. All I want to say about the experience is that a) the hour went pretty fast, all things considered (I didn't have my coffee), and b) if you're going to spend time with others in prayer or meditation, pondering how we might be part of the solution to human-induced ecological harm isn't a bad way to go.

The only thing I'll add is, just because the event is over doesn't mean I'll stop praying for the earth – or those of us who occupy it. So, keep praying, keep meditating. And if you can do it without coffee, more power to you.

The Nigerian Connection

Peter Akinola. The Most Reverend Peter Akinola, Archbishop of Nigeria. Would-be Pope of the Anglican Church.

Of course, there is no Anglican Church; we are the Anglican Communion made up of autonomous churches who choose to be together.

And of course, Peter Akinola is not the only person responsible for the crisis within this communion. He is, however, the loudest, most virulent, and most hypocritical of the bunch. And dare I say, least Christian?

Others – the smart ones I talked about when I started this blog – have brilliantly documented the archbishop's crusade against gays and against the Episcopal Church in the United States.

So what do we make of a man who threatens violence against his enemies (Muslims with whom Nigerian Christians had clashed), proposes and supports laws that punish homosexuality (and supporting gays) with five years in prison, and criticizes other African bishops who wondered why the church was spending so much time on homosexuality rather than poverty and human suffering. In that criticism he said, "Poverty is not an issue, human suffering is not an issue at all, they were

there before the creation of mankind." (East African Standard (Nairobi), and www.AllAfrica.com).

I'm just a simply country parson, as they say, and I don't normally meddle with international affairs. But I can tell you this: I don't believe for a minute that the "gay issue" has anything to do with following Christ. Archbishop Akinola says all it takes to be cured of homosexuality is "repentance and faith in the

saving grace of our Lord, Jesus the Christ." But wait. If that were the case, then all who have faith would be straight. There would be no Bishop Robinson or any of the countless gay priests who have graced the church over the years, either closeted or out in the open.

No, this isn't about faith or even morality. It's about power. The man wants to rule the church, and one thing that frustrates him is that the Episcopal Church is democratic. We elect bishops. We vote on our laws. We do things together as the Body of Christ, glorying in the power of the priesthood of all believers. That riles him because he can't tell us what to do (the way he can at home).

My study of history (studied German culture and history in grad school under a special fellowship) screams out to beware every time someone in power starts picking on a relatively defenseless group, making them the scapegoat for the evils of the world. That's how I see the witch hunt on gays. It's a convenient way for those who scream the loudest to draw attention away from their own sins – like encouraging violence and ignoring poverty. Those who habitually and gleefully point out the motes in the eyes of others are not to be trusted.

It is my belief that Archbishop Akinola wants to get rid of the democratic and inconvenient Episcopal Church because we pose problems for him. We are small – very small -- but financially powerful. We do things that we think right even if no one else does (and we are not alone in our inclusion of gays in the full life of the church. Canada performs same sex marriages, as does New Zealand. Though Canada has gotten some anger aimed at it, it is nothing like what he has shot at the U.S. – and he hasn't said anything I know of about New Zealand at all.). Once he's rid of the pesky folks, once he's achieved full schism, I suspect he intends to work very hard at becoming the head of that church.


 

Monday, July 16, 2007

The Nigerian Connection

Peter Akinola. The Most Reverend Peter Akinola, Archbishop of Nigeria. Would-be Pope of the Anglican Church.

Of course, there is no Anglican Church; we are the Anglican Communion made up of autonomous churches who choose to be together.

And of course, Peter Akinola is not the only person responsible for the crisis within this communion. He is, however, the loudest, most virulent, and most hypocritical of the bunch. And dare I say, least Christian? Just my opinion. But others – the smart ones I talked about when I started this blog – have brilliantly documented the archbishop's crusade against gays and against the Episcopal Church in the United States. They speak much more eloquently and insightfully than I can. So if you want better information, try Thinking Anglicans – I've added it to my links.

So what do we make of a man who threatens violence against his enemies (Muslims with whom Nigerian Christians had clashed), proposes and supports laws that punish homosexuality (and supporting gays) with five years in prison, and criticizes other African bishops who wondered why the church was spending so much time on homosexuality rather than poverty and human suffering. In that criticism he said, "Poverty is not an issue, human suffering is not an issue at all, they were

there before the creation of mankind." (East African Standard (Nairobi), and www.AllAfrica.com).

I'm just a simply country parson, as they say, and I don't normally meddle with international affairs. But I can tell you this: I don't believe for a minute that the "gay issue" has anything to do with following Christ. Archbishop Akinola says all it takes to be cured of homosexuality is "repentance and faith in the

saving grace of our Lord, Jesus the Christ." But wait. If that were the case, then all who have faith would be straight. There would be no Bishop Robinson or any of the countless gay priests who have graced the church over the years, either closeted or out in the open.

No, this isn't about faith or even morality. It's about power. The man wants to rule the church, and one thing that frustrates him is that the Episcopal Church is democratic. We elect bishops. We vote on our laws. We do things together as the Body of Christ, glorying in the power of the priesthood of all believers. That riles him because he can't tell us what to do (the way he can at home).

My study of history (studied German culture and history in grad school under a special fellowship) screams out to beware every time someone in power starts picking on a relatively defenseless group, making them the scapegoat for the evils of the world. That's how I see the witch hunt on gays. It's a convenient way for those who scream the loudest to draw attention away from their own sins – like encouraging violence and ignoring poverty. Those who habitually and gleefully point out the motes in the eyes of others are not to be trusted.

It is my belief that Archbishop Akinola wants to get rid of the democratic and inconvenient Episcopal Church because we pose problems for him. We are small – very small -- but financially powerful. We do things that we think right even if no one else does (and we are not alone in our inclusion of gays in the full life of the church. Canada performs same sex marriages, as does New Zealand. Though Canada has gotten some anger aimed at it, it is nothing like what he has shot at the U.S. – and he hasn't said anything I know of about New Zealand at all.). Once he's rid of the pesky folks, once he's achieved full schism, I suspect he intends to work very hard at becoming the head of that church.

I could be wrong; only time will tell. But this much I'll say. There isn't much of what I have seen in Peter Akinola that resembles Christ or his teachings. I'm sure it's there, but he's not letting folks here see it.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Abandoning the Faith

If you listen to critics of our church – the Episcopal Church, though this argument is beginning to happen in other denominations – you would have to believe that Episcopalians don't actually believe in God, let alone Jesus as the Son of God or the Trinity. You would be apt to believe that we don't have any particular morals other than, "If it feels good, do it."

That is such utter hogwash.

The charge is, because we ordained a gay bishop and aren't groveling in apology for doing it, that we have abandoned the faith. Again, hogwash.

The ordination of any gays is based on differing readings of scripture – and we certainly do read scripture differently – as well as an evolving understanding of the state of humanity.

Let's have a look at "the Faith." The basic statement of faith in the Anglican Communion rests in the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. While one is significantly longer than the other, they are in essence similar. One of our other most basic sets of rules is the Ten Commandments, which Jesus summarized pithily by saying, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself. We also have the Articles of Religion as our national denominational guide, and our Canons and Constitution to govern our organizational life.

I think a good place to start is with the Apostles Creed. It's shorter than the Nicene, so I can print the whole thing:

"I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen."

To the best of my knowledge, nobody, including Bishop Gene Robinson, denies anything in this creed. We are altogether with it. It is the statement of faith, and as the Episcopal Church does not abandon it, how can one say that we abandon the faith? Hmmm.

Regarding scripture, let me quote from our Articles of Religion, passed in 1801: "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

Our catechism says this: "We understand the meaning of the Bible, by the help of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true interpretation of the Scriptures."

I know I'm quoting a lot of stuff at you but there's a reason. If we're abandoning the faith it must be because we are throwing out the statements of faith and the instruments for understanding the will of God. BUT, we're not! We affirm the Creeds. We interpret scripture within the guidelines of the Articles (though their authority is somewhat uncertain), AND we certainly invoke the Holy Spirit's guidance in interpreting scripture. It's just that the Holy Spirit is guiding us (The Episcopal Church) into a specific direction.

By the way, that direction is one that says all of us are sinners, don't look at the dust speck in your neighbor's eye when you've got a log in yours, love your neighbor as yourself, don't judge, and every single human being is a beloved child of God who might just be called to service.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Harry Potter

I know there are a few other things I promised to talk about regarding the whole split-in-the-church-over-gays issue. I'll get back to them later.

But for something a little lighter and different…. My family and I saw the new Harry Potter movie last night, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." To be honest, while I'm a huge fan of the books, I've never liked the movies that much. Each of them has felt more like a scrap book where they cut and pasted bits and pieces of the book together without any real sense of the story.

When I read the reviews of this newest installment, I did not hold out much hope. After all, the book itself was much darker, much less enjoyable reading, and MUCH longer. How could they do anything but produce a snore. Which is exactly what the reviewers wrote.

But then again, since when have the reviewers ever gotten it right? To my surprise, I liked it. In fact, I thought it was the best movie adaptation of any of the Harry Potter books so far. The story held together, there was plenty of laughter despite the clear and growing sense of dread and doom.

What made it more impressive for me was that they got the essential elements. They got the idea of Harry growing up and struggling with his becoming a man. They got the idea of his discovering how the world is not black and white but multilayered, with each of us possessing light and dark yet being able to choose which will dominate. They got it right, in the climactic battle scene when Voldemort tries to possess Harry, and Harry gets to speak to Voldemort. What does he say? "You'll never know love. I feel sorry for you." Those aren't the words he says in the book, but they encapsulate very nicely what Harry was all about. I was really pleased.

If you're one of those folks who hates Harry Potter because there are wizards in it, you won't find any agreement with me; wizards are just a device for telling a real morality play that says, "Love is more powerful than Force." Which is what Jesus said.

So go see the movie. And forget the critics.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Biblical Arguments 2

I meant to write this yesterday but got caught up in other things. It's a follow up to the previous day's post on this seemingly imminent split in the Anglican Communion over homosexuality. Last post, I talked about the Old Testament arguments. Today, I said I'd talk about the New Testament, which means almost exclusively Paul. There's only one other passage that could be vaguely related to the topic, and that is in that single-chapter epistle Jude. "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion." (verse 7). As we discussed earlier, the sexual immorality and perversion of Sodom and Gomorrah related to rape and inhospitality.

Which leaves us with Paul.

In the spirit of self-disclosure, I say up front I'm not a big fan of Paul. I realize many Christians think he is the best part of the bible – I even had an evangelical author tell me that he only quoted Paul – never Jesus – because his words were more accurate than the words the evangelists quoted Jesus as saying. The title of his book: Classic Christianity.

I have read Paul for years and will admit that he gets a lot right. But he is not Jesus, is not perfect and must not be taken as word-for-word divine. That would be blasphemy. Remember, the Word is not a book but a person, Jesus Christ. Listen to Him.

Besides, Paul is all too human in other ways: he's arrogant, pig-headed, and self-promoting for starters. In his opinion, only he has it right, and if anyone else ever disagrees with him – the other apostles for example – they are always wrong. As far as I can tell, the only reason Paul is taken so seriously is because he was not only a busy missionary but a furious letter writer. He wrote passionately and prolifically, which are two ingredients to promoting yourself.

So, we begin by admitting that regardless of what Paul says, it is not necessary to take it as divine law. What Jesus says is far more important. Having said that, let's look at the three big passages in Paul. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 Paul discusses "male prostitutes and sodomites." The Greek words for these are malakoi and arsenokoitai, and they refer to a situation not really practiced in our society anymore. (in 1 Timothy, Paul uses the same word – arsenokoitai – in his condemnation, so the same rules apply). In Corinth, as in other places of the time, it was not uncommon for heterosexual men, often married, to keep on the side young boys (malakoi as many scholars assert) to fulfill their sexual desires. When they did this, the men were arsenokoitai. As I say, it was a pretty normal practice. The boys were often slaves who had no choice – or they were paid prostitutes. Paul would rightly condemn this practice.

Biblical scholars, however, argue about the word malakoi. In the common usage of the day, it referred to "soft" and could mean the texture of cloth or a person who was cowardly, or lazy, or a "dandy" – that is one who primped and who liked to woo the ladies. In other words, the very words are difficult to define, so we are ill-advised to read something written so long ago say with such certainty exactly what it means.

Yet, he himself seems to sin by then condemning them: he says, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9-10) It is Christ who is the judge, not Paul (a fact he seems to forget quite often), and it is for Christ to determine who will enter heaven and who will not.

If you are a strict Pauline devotee, however, be careful. Paul does not limit his condemnation to sexual issues. Alcoholics are clearly headed for hell as are the greedy – and that would cover a large percentage of the population.

The other two Pauline passages are not easy to gloss over, except to say in all his writings, there are only these two more. And yet in Romans 1:26-27 when Paul condemns men who "committed indecent acts with other men," there is a long and strong argument that Paul's primary focus is pagan cult worship and cult prostitution.

A lot of people would argue with these interpretations, yet scholars can provide just as good arguments for this reasoning as anything, so for those who are adamant that their way is the only way, I say hogwash. Not that I think Paul thought too positively about homosexuality. There's every reason to believe he did not think such a thing as we commonly call it even existed – for him it was cult practice or abuse of a weaker person or selling one's body. These, by the way, are things that most gays I know would condemn as well.

Sunday, July 8, 2007

Biblical Arguments

I said I was going to start talking about this whole "We have to break up the church because they're not doing things the way they should" argument that some so-called conservatives in this country as well as throughout the Anglican Communion are on.

The argument is, of course, about homosexuality and the Episcopal Church's ordination of Gene Robinson as a bishop in 2003. I'll get to scripture in a minute but we should start by reminding ourselves that there are lots of Christian leaders – and have been throughout the ages – who are gay. Most of them have simply hid their orientation because it would get them in trouble. So, at least Robinson and the Episcopal Church are being honest.

But on to the bible. If you say that, "Because it says so in the bible, it is absolute truth and must be followed to the letter," then you are either ill-informed or a liar. The truth is, much of what is written in the original texts is just plain unclear. Having studied Hebrew and Greek in seminary, I'm well aware of the many places in scripture where translators are making educated guesses – and not all translators agree on the meanings. So to say it says so in one version is pretty weak.

That's especially true because the few passages that can be interpreted as having anything to do with homosexuality are among those of questionable meaning. So we have at the beginning a group of people who will split the church over a very small number of passages that are not even clear. Go figure.

We must add to this the fact that Anglican scriptural study has never been based on literalism. Not that anyone is a true literalist – in part because the scriptures conflict internally – because they are written by many faithful people who disagreed with each other, in part because we pick and choose what is most meaningful to us and reject the rest.

On to those passages: Genesis 19 (Sodom), Judges 19 (Sodom redux), Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13, Deuteronomy23:17, 1 Kings 12:24 & 15:12, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:9, Jude 7.

That's pretty much it. Notice that there's nothing in the Gospels. That's because Jesus never said a word about it. He spoke plenty about sexual relations, though never in the same way as Paul; Jesus spoke plenty about how to treat the poor, too. But nowhere does our Lord and Savior speak about homosexuality. Perhaps we ought to focus on the things important to Christ.

As to the eleven passages listed, you can already eliminate the Sodom story. It's not about homosexuality. As Isaiah says when he addresses Sodom and Gomorrah: "Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow." Isa 1:15-17

However, it is also clear that something was going on between the men of Sodom and the angels. What was it? Rape. Not uncommon, homosexual rape was a way of intimidating others, emasculating them, doing violence on foreigners or losers in a battle. This is all about the violation of the very real law of hospitality, a violation far greater than we can understand today. By the way, the Episcopal Church condemns all forms of rape.

It's a whole essay to address the rest, so I may not be done with this today, but if you look Leviticus, Deuteronomy and 1 Kings just note that they all refer to temple prostitution which was indeed both heterosexual and homosexual. Temple prostitution does not exist today, so it's difficult to count these as having any meaning for us. And yes, the church condemns all forms of prostitution.

I'll save Paul for tomorrow because he's a special case. But if you take anything from this, remember, just because it says one thing in the bible does not means that this is exactly what it says. Translations are notoriously inaccurate, and they say as much about the interpreters (both the translators and the later readers) as they do about the original writers.

 

Friday, July 6, 2007

The Start of a Long Rant Series

You would think that with all the ranting I've done and am going to do, I would be a miserable guy. But no! I'm actually a pretty happy fellow. It's just that there are things in this world that need addressing, and this is a way to do it.

The long rant I'm going to start today is all about the church and its "gay problem." What that boils down to is that our church (the Episcopal Church) ordained a gay bishop (the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson), and a lot of folks are upset about it. Mind you, before there was ever mention of gays, a lot of folks were upset with the Episcopal Church for being too "liberal," whatever that means. A gay bishop is simply an excuse to do what these folks have wanted to do for a long time.

First let's start with little history of controversies. Just in the past thirty years, we have had our share. It started in the 60's when the church joined in on the civil rights movement. That upset a lot of folks. Then, in the 70's two big things happened. First, we started work on updating the prayer book. This spawned hate mail, cries of the end of the church as we know it, the end of the world, the end of capitalism… But let's face it, the "old" prayer book had only been around since 1928 – the new version actually reintroduced some ancient liturgies (look at Eucharistic prayer D). But some people left the church, and others stayed mad. There's even a Prayer Book Society devoted to the 1928. Go figure.

The second thing that happened was – horrors! – we ordained women as priests. Never mind that in China a woman was ordained in the 1940's. Never mind that the word "apostle" is applied to at least two women in the new testament, and women are noted as judges in the old testament. But again, it was the end of the world. Of course a century before that there was conflict over ordaining blacks, but that's the old days, you know.

So, you can see already that we are prone to conflict because, "We've never done it that way!" which is a classic line for those who don't want anything to change. That's the background. Next you can look for the biblical arguments for and against gays being okay in the church, the argument that the church has abandoned the faith by ordaining gays, the suggestion that this is all about power and not about faith, and my personal thoughts on Bishop Robinson as well as the Nigerian Bishop Peter Akinola who is behind trying to kick the Episcopal Church out of the Anglican Communion. Enough for ya?

Thursday, July 5, 2007

Religious Literacy

I'm sitting at my computer in the middle of an electrical storm thinking this is really dumb – I should turn this sucker off and unplug it.

But then I started thinking of the awesome power of God who created and creates all this wonderful weather. And then I started thinking about how little we know about God.

There was a radio program the other day about schools – and universities that are starting to teach programs in religious literacy. They seem to be getting the general go-ahead from most quarters, and I have to say, I agree.

Religious literacy isn't something that tells you what to believe. It's a program that seeks to make all people, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof, aware of the various belief systems. When you think about it, that's just good citizenship. Because religious values, beliefs, myths, misconceptions all have played a huge role in how this nation was developed. Same holds true for most nations.

Today, millions believe a wide variety of things. There is so much tension, so much mistrust out there because we don't even know what the other guy thinks or believes. We can't begin to grasp how he or she sees the world. When they do something, it seems strange and threatening to us.

So, I think religious literacy is a good idea. If you are – as I am – WAY too old for school, perhaps you can talk to your pastor about starting a class at your house of worship, whatever it be. You could take the lead not only in suggesting the class but in arranging for guest speakers – rabbi, imam, priests and leaders of various denominations and faiths.

Because no matter how varied our faiths are, it's ultimately the same thunder and lightning up in the sky, the same world, that we all share.

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

Independence Day

Happy 4th of July.

I've never been a real flag waving sort of guy. I love my home, of course, but I've always made my first allegiance to God. And God is often at odds with our government and our culture.

Still, I was out on the street watching the 4th of July parade today. I cooked out with the family – had hamburgers, hot dogs and ice cream. I would watch fireworks if it weren't for the rain.

It's part of the community, and although the community isn't always right, this is a relatively benign celebration. It's been 200 + years since that Declaration of Independence was signed, and many of the sins committed under the aegis of that new country are brutal. You could argue that even declaring a new country here without the consent of the people who were here before us was indefensible. But there we are, and it's unlikely to change.

What we can do with the holiday, is dedicate ourselves to making sure this country commits fewer and fewer of those sins. And to care for those within our country who need us. Because we are all part of this country – and we are all part of God's family, brothers and sisters wherever we are.

I read the Declaration to my kids today so they'd have a clue about what was in there. They rolled their eyes, of course, but I figure there's some stuff in there they ought to be aware of. I don't know how many folks even know what's in the Declaration, but I'm willing to bet that many of those who wave their flags the highest have little or no idea. I say, know what's in there, appreciate the good – and put it in its proper perspective behind the God who is love.

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

Cable Catastrophe

Catastrophe is a bit hard, I know, but it sounded good with "cable."

Really, this is all there was. We're trying to get the church on cable internet access so we can join the current century and do a lot more. We want to evangelize (which means "share good news about Christ's love for us", not "beat the unbelievers over the head with a bible"), but we want to do it in a way that people will actually hear.

As a friend of mine said, our church missed out on radio because it was too modern. Then we missed out on TV because it was tacky. Well, by golly, we are not going to miss out on the internet!

Well, maybe our congregation will – for a while at least. We were all set to get our cable internet installed – I mean today. The guys came. They looked around. First thing they said was, "Yer phone box is down in the basement, so that's where yer gonna have to put the router." Then next thing they said was, "Wadda ya mean, ya got a fire alarm system? That's not compatible with cable telephone!" (We were going to transfer our phones to cable while we were at it – believe it or not, it was going to save money).

So now, we can't do it the way we wanted. I've been crunching numbers, and it looks like we can still save money with cable, but we're going to have to keep one landline for the alarm. Rats. And because they couldn't touch a thing thanks to the alarm, it'll be another month of dial up before we can get it rescheduled. I hope our treasurer survives till then!

On the plus side, God is still in heaven, still loving us, still helping us put all these little irritations in perspective. And believe me, the day my biggest worry is a problem with installing cable is a pretty good day.

So celebrate the good news – God really does love you. Cable will come – I have a good feeling about August.

Monday, July 2, 2007

Seventh Inning Stretch

Okay, here's a gripe. The other day we went to a ballgame (Hudson Valley Renegades – mostly baseball bores us, but minor league games a cheap family outing, and all those silly contests they run between innings are hilarious). Just before it started, a girl who looked like she just entered middle school stood at home plate and sang, "Oh say can you see…?" while some guy tromped up and down the stands yelling "Beer here, get yer beer." People treated both of them with equal reverence. I'll give the girl credit; she sang beautifully, (I could have done better on the "beer here.") and yet, I've never approved of the hand on the heart reverential moment. Reverence is for God.

But that's not my gripe. What gets me is that lately, when you get all the way to the seventh inning and they invite you to stand, I expect Take Me Out to the Ball Game. Instead, that night the announcer said, "Ladies and gentlemen, please stand and remove your lids (they're not hats anymore)." The first time I experienced this, I thought to myself, "Since when is the ball game song a 'remove your lids' moment?"

It wasn't. It was God Bless America. It's a well practiced drill these days: everyone stood, faced the flags at the right field fence and put their hands on their hearts. The little girl who had done such an admirable job with the anthem trooped out to home plate again and sang it every bit as well as Kate Smith – she really did have a great voice.

The song was written in 1938 by Irving Berlin, a Jewish man at a time when Jews in Europe were in the midst of a horror we have difficulty comprehending. But how did it become our unofficial national anthem? I suspect it's because it contains the word "God." Ever since 9/11, we have worked very hard to make sure we know that God is on our side. Singing this song – and I bet most folks don't know many words past "God bless America…" – makes us feel we're in the right. Always.

Well, it's bad theology. Not that God shouldn't bless us, nor that we should give thanks for the great bounty God's given us. It's just that the way it's used, what it's really saying is, "God bless us and screw the rest – especially the terrorists and the French!" It sort of goes along with those bumper stickers that say "God Pride? You Bet!" -- even though pride is a sin. That's not what God teaches us. God will never bless one nation over another, never choose one people over another for special perks. If our religion teaches us anything, it's that God loves and blesses everyone.

Look, it was hard enough watching the Renegades get pummeled by the Staten Island Yankees. Then I have to stand for bad theology? My only consolation is that, after it was over, we all sang Take Me Out to the Ball Game, and even the beer guy sang along.