Friday, August 26, 2005

I'm speechless...

Except to say something I never thought I'd say...Thanks Jerry Falwell (and I'm not even being sarcastic!):

On Aug. 5, during an appearance on MSNBC's "The Situation with Tucker Carlson," Falwell raised eyebrowns when he said he was not troubled by reports that nominee John Roberts had done volunteer legal work for gay rights activists on the case Romer vs. Evans.

In that case, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the state of Colorado could not create laws with the sole intention of discriminating against gay men and lesbians. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — the judges that
President Bush has said best represent his preferred judicial philosophy — along with Chief Justice William Rehnquist, dissented from the majority opinion.

Falwell, who in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, blamed the terrorist attacks on "the pagans, the abortionists, and the feminists and the gays and lesbians," and who describes himself as "very conservative," told Carlson that if he were a lawyer, he too would argue for civil rights for gays.

"I may not agree with the lifestyle," Falwell said. "But that has nothing to do with the civil rights of that … part of our constituency.

"Judge Roberts would probably have been not a good very good lawyer if he had not been willing, when asked by his partners in the law firm to assist in guaranteeing the civil rights of employment and housing to any and all Americans."

When Carlson countered that conservatives, "are always arguing against 'special rights' for gays," Falwell said that equal access to housing and employment are basic rights, not special rights.

"Civil rights for all Americans, black, white, red, yellow, the rich, poor, young, old, gay, straight, et cetera, is not a liberal or conservative value," Falwell went on to say. "It's an American value that I would think that we pretty much all agree on."

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said his group welcomed the apparent softening of Falwell's position on at least some gay rights.

"Like most Americans, it seems Rev. Falwell has reached the conclusion that everyone deserves basic rights," said Solmonese. "I hope he also supports legislation that would deliver on these values."


Hopefully, Falwell will be the first of many to realize that it is possible to maintain moral disapproval of homosexual behavior while at the same time helping secure equal rights for gay and lesbian citizens. We shall see.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

My Dream Team

Inspired by Dr. Elrod's nomination of Noam Chomsky to speak at Harding, and in an attempt to bring a bit of levity to the Ann Coulter discussions, I'd like to nominate a few speakers. This list is (partly) tongue-in-cheek, but I'd love to see any of these speakers on the Benson stage:

Richard Epstein
Dale Martin
Andrew Sullivan
Harold Bloom
Margaret M. Mitchell
Barack Obama

Anyone else want to make some nominations?

Monday, August 22, 2005

Give if you can.

I don't know Ira, Joe, or Katie, but I have heard enough to know they could use a bit of help. If you can, click the link below and give some money to help with medical bills. Skip a haircut or carpool for a couple of days to free up some cash if necessary:

Ira Hays Fund

Give them some crumbs, please

And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, Sovereign, Heir of David, my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." But Jesus did not answer her a word. And the disciples came and begged Jesus saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." Jesus answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Bust she came and knelt before Jesus, saying, "Sovereign, help me." And Jesus answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Sovereign, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their owners' table." Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly. (Matthew 15:21-28)

This is one of my new favorite stories in the Bible. It was only recently that it finally made sense to me, and I want to make a few observations about it. I don't claim that I'm saying anything new or mind-blowing, and much of what I'm saying is adapted from the writings of others, but here are a few thoughts:

The Canaanite woman was an advocate: This is important to remember. This woman was begging, not for herself, but for her daughter. She knows that Jesus can save her daughter, so she goes to him.

In the same way, we should advocate for others. Too often, I argue for inclusion of lesbians and gays in the church for the wrong reasons. I want my rights, and I want them now. That is not the road we should travel. I should become an advocate for gays and lesbians because they are spit on, cast out, and called names. I should be working for the sake of the little girl whose parents send her to shock therapy, and for the little boy who is beaten to a pulp at church camp because he has a lisp.

Likewise, I challenge you, Christian, to be our advocate. So often, I feel as though I am struggling alone. I need preachers, teachers, elders, fathers, mothers, and single straight people on my side. You don't have to believe that the so-called "gay lifestyle" is acceptable to God. As a Christian, though, you should believe that it is wrong to demonize, to judge, to trample, and to condemn. You should speak up when you hear the word "dyke." You should step in when you hear someone called a "sissy" or a "pansy." You should shout and scream and yell when rumors circulate about someone's "tendencies." We need you, and you have a responsibility to us as your sisters and brothers in Christ. It is our job, mine and yours, to advocate for the eradication of homophobia and bigotry in our fellowship.

The Canaanite woman was persistent: She didn't give up. She followed behind Jesus and his disciples crying and begging for help. The reason: she knew the stakes (her daughter's life), and she knew that help could be found (she had faith in the power of Christ).

In the same way, we advocates for change should be encouraged to keep working and to never give up. Keep crying out, because (1) the stakes are high and (2) change is possible. The stakes are high because people's lives are in the balance. And I believe that change is possible because I have faith that, with time, with effort, and with the help of the hand of God, we can convince people in Churches of Christ that gay men are more than AIDS storage facilities and that lesbians are more than butch women who just need some makeup and the right man.

We (all of us, even you) must argue for tolerance, acceptance, and eventual affirmation, and we must not give up.

Jesus is transformed as a result of this woman's advocacy: I think it is difficult to underestimate the implications of this point. Some state that Jesus was just trying to make a point. They argue that he always planned to help the Canaanite woman and that he was just trying to teach the disciples a lesson.

I see no reason to think that was the case. If it were, why go to the lengths of referring to the Canaanite woman as a dog? I, like many others, believe that this WOMAN, through the power of her weakness and the strength of her faith, changed Jesus' mind.

Advocacy can change people. It can make people think what they never thought they would, and it can encourage them to act in ways we never thought imaginable. But, to accomplish change, we have to advocate in the right way. When Jesus referred to the woman as a dog, she did not respond by calling him a pig, a fascist, or a bigot. That would be the easy response, as those who have ever been called a "faggot" can probably attest. When someone calls you a name, you want to strike back, whether with your fists or your tongue.

But when you are an advocate, you must remember the goal at hand: save your daughter's life (or, show the lesbians and gays in your fellowship that they are loved by God). Striking back at Jesus could have meant her daughter's death, so the quick, bright woman responds, "even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their owners' table." Though it nearly kills us to swallow our pride, we might have to say "even a faggot deserves better than to be abandoned by his family," or "even a sissy deserves to be protected from abuse." Serving the person for whom we advocate is more important than protecting our feelings.

Her self-effacing, humble, faithful response astounds Jesus. He praises her faith and instantly heals her daughter. She may not have won the game, she may have been forced to swallow her pride, but her daughter survived. May we be so faithful and so successful.

We should be advocates, not just in front our fellow man, but in front of God himself: Jesus was a man, but he was also God. We should be advocates in front of God for change, for acceptance, and for progress.

And, for those of you who believe that gays and lesbians cannot enter the kingdom, I ask you to be an advocate in this respect: ask God to change his mind. There's nothing in the rules against that, is there? Ask God to welcome all into his kingdom, regardless of sex, sexuality, sin, etc. Beg. Plead. Like Abraham plead for Sodom. It may not work, but, then again, it may. If you really believe that I am wrong, ask God to change his mind.

And finally, we should remember that even the crumbs are enough: The woman was able to say what she said ("even the dogs eat the crumbs") because she knew at least one bit of truth: the crumbs from God's table are a feast for the hungry. Her daughter didn't need a whole loaf of bread, she didn't need a glass of wine, and she didn't need a place of honor at the table. A crumb from God is enough.

In the same way, we advocates must trust that every step of progress that we make is a crumb of God. We already have his love, we have the love of his son, and we have the prophetic power of the spirit working among us. We're doing pretty well. As we argue for change, as we slowly gain acceptance, first in this church and then in that one, as individuals' minds are changed, we have to see these crumbs for what they are: more than we can ever need.

And so I ask you to advocate with me, using this clever, strong, faithful woman as our guide. Even if you don't agree with all my conclusions, surely we can agree that the way LGBT people are so often treated in our churches is wrong. Educate with me. Talk with those who idolize the masculine. Talk with those who think the white suburban family with 2.5 kids and a minivan is the familial model found in Scripture. Ask your Elders to have another look at the Scriptures with an open heart and mind. Do the same yourself. Point out evidence indicating that homosexuality may not be a chosen trait. Vote against those who demonize us for political gain. If a student is outed at your Christian school, stand by her, even if you are a professor and it may cost you your job and even if you are a student and it may cost you your scholarship.

Men, you have a special duty to us because you are so often the only ones who can be heard from the pulpit or in the classroom. You are the group that has the most privilege and power in our denomination. You are also the demographic group that most strongly opposes and demeans us, the group that is disgusted by gay men and turned on by gay women. A white, straight, male voice for change could accomplish much. Your lesbian sisters and gay brothers need advocates, and you have a duty to us as members of Christ's body.

Read these.

I will be posting on this same topic soon (hopefully today), but I'd like to recommend these two posts:

Matthew 15:21-28

"...he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary and was made man..."

Saturday, August 20, 2005

I don't think I'll be invited

There has been much discussion on Mike Cope's and Greg Kendall-Ball's blogs about Harding's recent decision to host Ann Coulter as a part of the ASI lecture series. I, like Mike and Greg, am angry about this decision (I've already called Drs. Carr and Reely and plan to send a letter to Dr. Burks), especially in light of Harding's refusal to allow certain C of C "liberals" to speak on the Benson stage (mind you, I'm using "liberal" in a relative sense). I find something odd about the fact that a woman cannot pray on the Benson stage, but Ann Coulter can stand up and demand that we invade countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.

Now, since Mike Cope, Max Lucado, and Jeff Walling aren't allowed to speak at Harding, I think it's a safe bet that I won't be invited anytime soon. But were I to have the opportunity, I might say something like this:

We see in the person of Jesus the way we should live. We learn from the Christ, God incarnate and among us, the way we should spend our lives. Accepting your place as a disciple of Jesus requires a commitment to God and to humanity: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Loving our neighbor, our fellow man, is the simple yet radical challenge presented by Christ's presence on earth. We learn from Christ that the one we hate is the one we should learn to love. The one who is cast out, spat upon, and ignored is the one we should serve. The marginal becomes the valuable when you seek to follow Jesus. If you are not serving your fellow man, you are not living as a Christian should. Love and service go hand in hand, and they are core values of true Christian religion.

History teaches us that Christians are not often servants. Christians often wage war, kill, maim, seek power, seek money, enslave, dominate and raise their voices in anger and judgment against people of color, Native peoples, women, gays and lesbians, and against each other. Being right and being in charge have moved to the heart of Christian religion; we have forgotten to love and serve.

Duties of love and service are not discharged when we drop our money in the collection plate, even if it is a lot of money. We should be willing to give everything we have, even our very lives, to ease suffering, to make peace, and to fight hate with love, all in the name of the God who loves the unlovable. In addition to our money, we should be willing to give our time, and we should seek to transform ourselves into the type of people that think of others first and ourselves second. If our lives as Christians are focused only on getting to heaven, we are selfish and we miss the point. The Kingdom of God is not something we hope to enter when we die, if only we avoid sin. Instead, the Kingdom of God is a goal, we should attempt to make it manifest here and now, in Searcy, Abilene, Malibu, the war zones we call inner cities, Africa, India, everywhere.

Loving God includes loving him with your mind. The act of learning about God can be an act of love and devotion. Theology, ideas, words and thoughts about God should be welcomed, not feared. Ideas drive humanity and bolster faith, and we should seek to know more so that we can be more than we currently are. Ideas are not always comfortable. They may challenge us to rethink our doctrine; the old ways may have to go because of our new understandings and because of our duty to love and serve.

We may, for example, learn that there really is neither male nor female in Christ, in spite of what our parents taught us. We may, by thinking, learn that our ideas about faith and heaven need to be updated. Loving our neighbor teaches us not to hate the lesbian and gay people among us; using our minds may tell us that not only should we love gays and lesbians, we should affirm them as full members of the body of Christ.

Harding, as a Christian institution, should be a place of love and of service. It should not be a place where the word 'faggot' is heard, where students who slip up are brushed under the rug or thrown out the door, where young people are told that who they are on the inside is dirty, wrong, and abominable. It should be a place where all feel welcome, and where all are taught the path of service and the beauty of love.

Harding, as a University, should encourage the life of the mind. New ideas should be given voice; those ideas that challenge the status quo should be valued as much as those ideas that affirm the old ways. Liberal thought, conservative thought, radical thought and traditional thought should all be heard. We should actively seek those ideas that can help us better ourselves and that challenge us to love, welcome, and serve.

Harding students, you have an obligation to love, to serve, and to think. This is not the entirety of being a Christian, but love, service, and thought are essential elements of the apostolic project. Harding faculty, you have an obligation to challenge your students to new levels of service and of thought. You should teach, in part, by example: serve the needy, give to the poor, challenge the status quo. Harding administration, you have an obligation to create an environment where all are welcome, where service is encouraged, and where new ideas are aired.

I end with Paul Tillich: "Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."

Friday, August 19, 2005

1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and get them sit ups right and

Thanks to Krister for sending me this link:

Kanye West Calls for End to Gay Bashing

Rappers haven't had a good track record in the way they've historically talked about women and gays. Perhaps a step forward has just been taken?

The Idolatry of the Masculine

Most of the discussion on this blog centers around men, probably because (1) I am a man (my experience is limited), (2) the discussion surrounding homosexuality in our Churches is largely driven by white men, and (3) the idea of a man being penetrated by another man (because that's all homosexuality is) is, for some reason, more threatening to the group controlling the discussion than is the idea of two women in a relationship with each other. Men together are perceived as disgusting or threatening; women together are often just dismissed (talk about the truly marginalized). I want to direct your attention to this interesting post over at Gay Spirituality & Culture. The pointed questions at the end are of particular interest. Read the whole thing, but I have copied and pasted the parts I found most interesting:

This:

...I went to the Exodus International website and found another testimonial, by Melissa Fryrear, who now works for Focus on the Family. She wrote about how she was attracted to girls at age seven, found a Bible verse against homosexuality at age thirteen (interpreting it to mean "Melissa is detestable"), and began to question why she hated "being a girl." Eventually, she came to a program called Crossover, where she "began to learn about this thing called womanhood." She writes "Goodness! Who knew there was so much to learn: plucking eyebrows, hair bleaches, hair waxings, facial mud masks, eye lash curlers, manicures, pedicures, push-up bras, tummy tuckers, rear-end boosters, last year’s colors, and next year’s fashions?"

And this:

There are few articles on the Exodus website devoted specifically to lesbianism, but one is particularly interesting as it relates to their view of spirituality. It's entitled "Control: The Last Stronghold of Lesbianism." After claiming that the roots of a lesbian orientation lie in sexual abuse or mistreatment, Alan Medinger (the author) goes on to describe how this abuse is rooted in God's curse ( "...your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" Gen. 3:16). This is an interesting interpretation of a curse directed at the the husband-wife relationship, especially for women whose "desire" is not for any husband. He goes on to characterize the lesbian relationship as characterized by "manipulation, jealousy, co-dependency", a generalization which he does not back up through citing any studies. Is it possible that the women who most struggle with their self-image as a lesbian resort to such unhealthy activity in order to retain their significant other at all costs? Is it possible that these are the sorts of women most likely to seek out a program like Exodus? These questions aren't addressed--they are ignored in favor of a sweeping generalization which appears to be supported by Medinger's reading of scripture.

The solution for this wounded, scared woman? To start seeing Jesus as her potential lover:
"But Jesus is seen as a man. Although a Christian woman knows that He is a man free of sin and could never hurt or abuse her, in the depth of her wounded heart she may be a long time coming to accept this truth. Emotionally and psychologically there is great difficulty in trusting even Jesus. But He can overcome this. He has a wonderful patience that will just keep wooing her until she can begin to trust Him."

We are now closer to the thrust of Medinger's argument--lesbian women are those who don't trust Jesus enough. If they were to follow more closely the old hymn, "Trust and Obey", they might find themselves (under the curse of God) desiring their husband and wishing that he rule over them.

The rest of the article describes, in broad descriptions, Jesus "[wooing the lesbian] until she can trust Him" and the now former lesbian "mov[ing] out from a lifetime of control and self-protection." There is no discussion of how these actions are linked to loving other women, to precisely what about a same-sex relationship requires "manipulation", or how the lesbian is to go about undergoing these changes.

These are the questions which I would like to put to Medinger and others, and see discussed more openly in the media, which is preoccupied with the nuances of gay men's lives in comparison to the occasional lesbian kiss-a-thon aired for ratings during sweeps.

1. Where is your evidence that all lesbian relationships are foundationally made up of manipulation and emotional enmeshment? How would your description of two relationships differ, given the same attitude and actions within each, if the couples were straight or lesbian?

2. Why do you consider "spiritual healing" for women to require steps like learning about mascara and tummy tuckers? If the goal is not obtaining a spouse, why the emphasis on beautification which is determined by the (secular) culture, for the sake of watching men?

3. (To the Christians) How do you explain the varied portraits of men and women interacting in the Bible, and the dearth of explicit verses describing the courting process, the way men and women "should" interact, and what "masculinity" and "feminity" really are?

4. Why is homosexuality, whether male or female, defined in your publications primarily around the concept of "masculinity"? For men, it is being "drawn to the masculine", and for women, it is desiring to "be masculine." Is it possible that your emphasis on a specific cultural manifestation of "masculinity" is itself a kind of idolatry, a lack of ability to really see the variety of ways that God allows humans to relate to one another?

These are just starting points for the dialogue. If America is going to move forward in understanding what the questions are in this discussion, it needs to move beyond stereotypes revolving around a static concept of "masculinity" (whether defined as a lack thereof, or an attempt to falsely attain it). If America is going to move forward, it needs to recognize that lesbian relationships are not merely sad copies of male-female marriages, cobbled together by needy and wounded women.

Unfortunately, the current discussion is lop-sided and focused on, dare I put it this way, the fears of straight men with regard to penetration by another man (yet another fear of the "feminine", defined as penetration). Let's move beyond this, begin to look at the full spectrum of relationships in our country, and do so with our blinders off, asking the hard questions.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

An Invitation.

I don't always have a ton of time to write new essays for the blog. In addition, it is only a matter of time before my knowledge (such as it is) runs out. Therefore, I would like to extend an invitation to anyone who may wish to accept it:

I would welcome brief essays I can post on the blog. I don't care what perspective you are coming from, or whether you agree with my positions or not. I'd love to have comments from some women (any queer ladies out there?), some who may have recently changed their perspective on the whole 'gay issue,' comments on specific scriptures, themes, personal stories, etc. I would also love a well-written comment by someone who can briefly state a good argument why I'm wrong about, well, anything. I don't need a magnum opus or a dissertation.

If I get any responses (which I doubt), I'll read them and get in touch with you about comments, etc. I'll then decide if I want to put it on the blog (I almost certainly will). You can send things anonymously if you need to, or you can ask me to keep your identity confidential (I'm, um, pretty good at that). I can be reached at gay_restorationist@hotmail.com

Any takers?

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

What makes people gay?

Shortly after I put up the post below, one of my friends sent me a link to this story:

What makes people gay?

Registration is required, and the article is a bit long, but it shows how little we really know.

Prayer o' the Day

Prayer of Soren Kierkegaard

Lord, give us weak eyes for things, which are of no account, and clear eyes for all your truth.

A lesson from an unlikely source.

I recently encountered some advice for parents, first through emails from friends (who, incidentally, are gay but do not consider themselves Christians...they send me stuff like this to mess with me), and second through my regular perusing of blogs and the internet. The first is a bit of advice James Dobson included in one of his newsletters (he quotes approvingly a Dr. Nicolosi), and the second is a list of how to know if your child is becoming gay (also from Dr. Nicolosi):

First:

Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

And Second:

Is My Child Becoming Homosexual?

Before puberty, children aren’t normally heterosexual or homosexual. They’re definitely gender conscious. But young children are not sexual beings yet — unless something sexual in nature has interrupted their developmental phases.

Still, it’s not uncommon for children to experience gender confusion during the elementary school years. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi reports, “In one study of 60 effeminate boys ages 4 to 11, 98 percent of them engaged in cross-dressing, and 83 percent said they wished they had been born a girl.”

Evidences of gender confusion or doubt in boys ages 5 to 11 may include:

1. A strong feeling that they are “different” from other boys.
2. A tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy.
3. A persistent preference to play female roles in make-believe play.
4. A strong preference to spend time in
the company of girls and participate in their games and other pastimes.
5. A susceptibility to be bullied by other boys, who may tease them unmercifully and call them “queer,” “fag” and “gay.”
6. A tendency to walk, talk, dress and even “think” effeminately.
7. A repeatedly stated desire to be — or insistence that he is — a girl.


If your child is experiencing several signs of gender confusion, professional help is available. It’s best to seek that help before your child reaches puberty.

“By the time the adolescent hormones kick in during early adolescence, a full-blown gender identity crisis threatens to overwhelm the teenager,” warns psychologist Dr. James Dobson. To compound the problem, many of these teens experience “great waves of guilt accompanied by secret fears of divine retribution.”

If your child has already reached puberty, change is difficult, but it’s not too late.

[Disclaimer: As my friends and loved ones know, I tend to have a bit of a temper, and statements like these make me boil inside (I can feel my pulse beating in my temple and and have difficulty seeing). So, knowing myself and my temper, I decided to wait overnight before writing about these two statements. I tell you about my anger only in the interest of full disclosure.]

We should learn from the above statements the danger of reductionist thinking. It is easy to reduce gay men to products of a bad home. It is very simple to state that a distant father and an overbearing mother cause boys to become gay and that hatred of men causes women to choose to be lesbians. It sounds good and is easy to package and mass produce. But simplicity does not make it right.

To speak biographically for a moment, there are ways in which I line up with the above descriptions and ways in which I don't. For, example, I started playing baseball and football when I was 5, and I wasn't too bad at it. I played catch with my father and brother, and my dad coached my football and baseball teams. My dad taught me how to tackle, and I wrestled and 'played rough' with him and my brother on a regular basis. I fought with my brother physically, and played with male friends and male cousins all the time. My mother was never overbearing, protective, or overly emotional and, though my father was somewhat emotionally withdrawn, he was at every game, spelling bee, event, graduation, concert, etc. I was never bullied, though my brother did occassionally call me a 'fag' when we were younger, before he knew that I'm gay (um, but when he did call me that, I beat the crap out of him and scoled him).

To give Nicolosi some credit: I probably cried more than most boys, and I did always feel different. And, I will add that most of my close friends are women and that I find it more difficult to make friends with men (though I should note that this is a post-adolescent development that is probably due more to personal idiosyncrasies, insecurities, and shyness than to my homosexuality).

But: I have a siblings. My sister, who was raised in the same family as I was, is shy, has a lot of male friends, and is a very talented and accomplished athlete. Mysteriously, she's straight. I also have a brother, who had the same father and mother as I had. Straight as an arrow. Oh, and I have NEVER wanted to be a girl. No offense ladies, I just like being a guy.

My point is simply this: to think that you can reduce homosexuality to a mental disorder with known causal factors is to fallaciously reduce it to something it is not. Nicolosi and Dobson are patently incorrect. Further, their reductionist explanations unnecessarily blame parents of gay children (who very often are already hurting and may blame themselves), and unnecessarily cause 'gay panic' in parents of young children (perhaps we could consider the case of a Florida man who slapped his son around so much -- in an attempt to toughen him up -- that the child slipped into a coma and died). And I'm trying to hold my tongue here, but to blame a bullied child for the taunts and jeers of bullies, especially when the ammunition for the bullies so often comes from their religious parents, is unconscionable.

Sexuality cannot be reduced to a bunch of environmental factors. Neither can it be reduced to a gene. In this arena, as in most arenas involving human beings, Occam's razor is, frankly, hogwash. When it comes to humans, the simplest explanation is almost never the correct explanation.

Dobson and Nicolosi want to reduce gay men and lesbians to a sum of factors, the product of a particular environment. They dehumanize by reducing. Very often, I do the same thing. But we should learn from Dobson, et al., not to reduce those who disagree with us to something less than human. People are not just Fundamentalists or Liberals or Conservatives or Fascists or Idiots or Bigots or Academics. Those who want to see lesbians and gays attain full inclusion should not reduce and demean the 'opposition' by calling them names or dismissing them as backwards. We shouldn't pretend to know what makes them who they are, and we shouldn't pretend to know their motivations. Our conclusions will invariably be incorrect. Reducing humans to factors or opinions or background or viewing them as nothing more than the sum of their constitutive parts is the wrong way to have a conversation. Not only do you usually end up with the wrong answer, but you forget that you are supposed to love and care for those with whom you disagree.

We can do better, and we should do better.

Monday, August 15, 2005

A Summary

[Preface: In the discussion I've referred to several times over at Greg Kendall-Ball's blog, one of the participants asked others to sum up their view of scripture. I have copied my response and modified it slightly. I hope this serves as a broad overview of my thoughts about scripture in the specific context of the so-called 'gay debate.' Specific arguments (i.e. arguments from nature, arguments about the nature of sin, arguments about meanings of greek words) are important, but I think it's important that we understand where these arguments fit into the big picture. I appreciate suggestions, comments, or questions. Feel free to question anonymously if you don't feel safe throwing your name out there.]

I believe Scripture to the be the word of God, and I believe it should be the primary, though not the exclusive, source of our ethics and norms. However, it seems to me (and many others) that Scripture comes to us through imperfect beings who lived in a certain time and place and who recorded the word of the Lord as they understood it in their specific context. Since we exist in a different context than that of the writers, we must look critically at the text, using our minds, hearts, and the prophetic spirit that flows through our community to try and figure out exactly what the scripture tells us. Scriptural inerrancy and infallibility are falsehoods we need to throw away, and the sooner the better for our denominational health. This does not mean that all scripture is a lie (as some assert); it simply may mean we are asking too much of scripture and that we need to rethink what exactly scripture is intended to be and how exactly it should function in our lives and in the life of the church.

Often, context and critical reading changes nothing about our reading of the text (e.g., ‘love your neighbor as yourself’). Sometimes, though, critical reading tells us that maybe we should rethink the way we view a text(e.g., ‘Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him,’).

Critical reading must be employed with prudence, as it is easy to import our own morality into the text. Context changes our reading on some occasions, but we shouldn’t remake the text in our own image. Another danger arises with the wildly divergent readings that can come out of a critical hermeneutic. When we reach varying conclusions, we have to commit to sticking together (“e pluribus unum”, to quote the back of my penny). Our diversity can actually be our strength: I grow when someone challenges my assumptions and conclusions just as I grow when someone challenges my unjust or unloving behaviors.

And I think it is important to state our goals. To what end do we read scripture? So often, we are reading so that we can figure out how to avoid hell. Poor form, in my opinion. Constantly trying to dodge some sort of divine bullet doesn’t seem like a very pleasant way to live, nor does it align very well with scripture. Instead, we should be reading the text so that we can become better people whose hearts are ever more closely aligned with the will of God. The question becomes “which behaviors are just, loving, and Godly?,” instead of “which actions must I avoid if I want to stay out of jail?” Remember that whole grace thing?

So, what do I do about the Biblical proscriptions against same-sex sexual activity? I read the text critically, using all of the intellectual and community sources of knowledge I possibly can (reason, tradition, consensus, history, etc, etc):

First, I try to put the verses in context. The statements come to us from a vastly different world from our own. In Leviticus, continuation of the tribe is paramount, as is setting up a barrier between "us" the chosen and "them" the unchosen. In this world, the people must bear children if they are to survive. In this world, males penetrate and females are penetrated. In this world, it is acceptable to own a slave. In this world, tattoos are abominable. In this world, mixing together two different kinds of cloth is contrary to the will of God.

Likewise, to Paul, a Hellenistic Jew, certain behaviors seem to be completely unnatural (para physin). Sex between men is unnatural. Why? Perhaps because, again, men penetrate and women are penetrated. Perhaps because all, or almost all of the male-male sexual relationships Paul ever heard of involved domination and exploitation (men with young boys, men with prostitutes, men with their slaves). Perhaps Paul just thought it was gross (I think it is difficult to overestimate the weight of this factor in Paul's and our own time). And as a reminder of how different Paul’s ideas about sex and marriage are from our own, just take a look at 1 Corinthians 7 (Wait, what? Paul would rather we stay single than get married, and he thinks of marriage as merely a prophylactic against porneia? I never heard that at my CoC university/marriage factory!).

We do not live in either of the worlds I just described. We don’t own humans (though often we outsource work to those who do). We think women and men are equally capable, equally intelligent, and equally valuable (well, we’re getting there). We don’t think that if a man dies without producing a male heir, we should pass his wife off to his brother as though she is nothing but child-producing chattel. We have gradually learned over the past millennia that sexuality is a little more flexible than we thought. We have learned there are men who want to love, honor, cherish, and commit themselves to another man, and who want to express that love in a sexual way. So maybe in our world, we should rethink the way we read Pauline and Levitical prohibitions on same-sex-sexual activity. Maybe it’s not always shameful and unnatural.

At the same, we must continue to affirm that domination, subordination, and injustice have no place in the life of a Christian. Sleeping with everyone you come in contact with is bad, not just because God once said it is bad, but because it is unhealthy for you and because you begin to view other human beings as items which you can use up and throw away. We should shout the message from the rooftops that people aren’t toys to be played with and tossed out. We should shout the message from the rooftops that pornography is bad because it always involves some form of coercion and domination. We should shout the message from the rooftops that women are not objects and that it is unjust to coerce them into taking their clothes off for the pleasure of someone who can afford to pay for it. Just scolding the American public for violating some random scripture doesn’t cut it.

It’s important that we avoid word games with arsenokoites and malakos if the only reason we are doing it is so we can get around a rule and avoid hell. If we are trying to attain greater contextual understanding, that’s swell and we should keep it up. Greater understanding never hurt anyone. But we must remember that we aren’t lawyers trying to convince a judge that our client isn’t guilty. And we must remember that concepts like faith, hope, love, and justice trump context any day of the week.

I think it is okay to be gay because I have, to the best of my ability, put certain verses in the Bible into context and come to the conclusion that Paul wasn’t really talking about my situation when he talked about same-sex sexual activity. Beyond this, I see no reason (from logic, nature, community, tradition, etc, etc), why LGBT persons must be excluded from the Kingdom.
I think that Paul would rather I focus on pursuing a just sexual ethic wherein I don’t treat people like a fast food meal to be consumed (and the wrapper discarded). I think that sex shouldn’t involve rape, power, domination, and exploitation, and I hope that I can be an example to others in the gay community of what commitment and love are. I think that by living like I hope to live, I can not only dodge the fires of hell (whew!), but I can better myself and align my life more closely with the will of God.

But whatever happens, I think the unity of the church is paramount. We can’t help those outside if we are fighting those inside. Vitriol and name-calling will get us nowhere, and I hope we can all (myself included) learn to be eager to listen, slow to speak, and never to judge.

I think I’ve gone on long enough. You get the point.

-GR

Saturday, August 13, 2005

TRADITION.

From G.K. Chesterton:

Tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of the common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record...Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father (Orthodoxy, 42).

I struggle with tradition. One one hand, I believe it has an important place in the life of the Church and of the individual Christian. It reminds us of our proper place in time and history: we are young women and men in a young denomination in a young country. Tradition tells us that we should think carefully before we neglect the accrued communal knowledge of millenia gone by. Tradition says that our physical and ideological mothers and fathers can teach us much, and that, before we do anything, we are wise to listen to the voices of the dead. It teaches us humility and reminds us that, just as the church came into existence without us, it will go on without us.

But that's not the end of the story. Tradition can be the muck that clouds our theological eyeglasses. Tradition can teach us to hold onto the status quo, regardless of who or what gets in the way. Chesterton's democracy of the dead can easily become a sort of fascist state, with those who held power in the past continuing to maintain their stranglehold on us. And we should never forget that, while our forbears teach us much good, they also occasionally teach us to hate, to enslave, to dominate, to destroy, and ironically, to never look back.

So how do we deal with tradition? There are many Christian traditions that concern me, but two are relevant to the focus of this blog (Aside: I should note here that watching CNN this morning reminds me that the focus of this blog may be a little off. I am a wealthy white male in a rich nation who ate a very large breakfast. Not a lot of people can say that. But back to the topic at hand.).

What do we do with our traditional posture toward women and toward the LGBT community? How do we discuss these traditions, and when, if ever, do we dismiss them?

After my comments above, it should be clear that I would never argue that we should dismiss tradition lightly. Our mothers and fathers are to be respected and we should always have our ears open to their voices. But sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they have read the Bible wrong, and sometimes years of human advancement teach us that we should move on and leave them behind. And occasionally, we discover that we should just step out of one tradition and into another better tradition(While there are long traditions of misogyny and homophobia in the Christian world, there are competing traditions of communalism, progress, liberation, and tolerance), or we discover that we should find a sort of via media.

Many theologians are abandoning the old interpretations of Scripture for new ones. While I don't think we should automatically dismiss all traditional doctrine and hermeneutics, I believe some new ways of reading scripture are necessary to wipe the muck off our lenses. That muck may have come from medievalism, Enlightenment rationalism, romanticism, fundamentalism, tribalism, and yes, even Western capitalism and individualism. We have to think about what the 2,000 years has done to us. We should hold onto the old way if we can. But love, prayer, community, etc, may lead us to believe that we and our forebears were wrong and that the tradition must change.

Beyond our Biblical interpretation, there is a tradition of discrimination and marginalization of gays and lesbians that we have to rid ourselves of. Our parents believed lesbians and gays to be perverts (or inverts). To them, gay men are lispy, limped-wristed caricatures focused only on sex and the conversion of as many young boys as possible. We all have AIDS, and we hope to give it to as many people as possible. But slowly, humanity (or at least significant chunks of it) is learning otherwise. As people get to know more of us, they discover that homosexuality is not invariably pathological. They discover that we are their sisters and brothers, that we love and want to be loved back, that we aren't always looking for the next covert sexual encounter. All lesbians don't secretly long to be men, nor do they "just need to meet the right guy." We are boring, just like everyone else. We are dentists and accountants and lawyers and waitresses and students. We aren't all defined by our sexuality, and we don't all live in the gay ghettoes of major cities.

Humanity, and the part of humanity that is in the Church, is learning that our ancestors may have been wrong. Traditional ways of looking at Scripture may have been wrong, as are traditional ways of relating to your gay neighbor. The tradition of marginalization faces a competitor: the tradition of acceptance. It has roots, and it isn't going anywhere.

We don't know everything, and we shouldn't dismiss Tradition lightly. But in this specific case, we have to look back, shake our heads, and say "never again." We have to join the competing tradition, or start our own, but we can no longer participate in the Old Way.

Friday, August 12, 2005

A parable

I enjoyed this post over at A Few Voices:

What's That Blue Thing DOing Here?

I don't understand the so-called "argument from nature," which is basically an assertion it is unnatural to be gay because (1) not many people are, and (2) we weren't built that way.

As Jennifer illustrates with the above story, our ideas of what is and isn't natural come mostly from our upbringing and from those things to which we are (or aren't) exposed. "Natural" is largely a construct, much like "pretty" and "funny." Basically, the more lesbians you know, the less weird it is to see two women walking down the street holding hands. When someone you know and love tells you he is gay, it can cause you to rethink what is and isn't natural (alternatively, you can dig your heels in and refuse to budge). The more often you hear someone say "you guys" instead of "y'all," the more you get used to it (though you may continue to say "y'all" until the day you die).

The second part of the argument from nature is more complicated and goes beyond whether your skin crawls when you think of two men having sex. It is the "argument from design/creation/biology" (aka the "Adam and Steve" argument ). I don't want to go into this too much (the post would become a book). Instead, as food for thought, I want to quote J. Burton's post from Greg Kendall-Ball's blog:

That being said, I do have a comment about sex qua penetration and the argument of nature. I assume that when we speak of nature, we are speaking of the way God created us. And so the nature argument seems to boil down to the idea of Adam’s penis fitting inside Eve’s vagina to produce mutual sexual pleasure. This seems like a tidy argument, but I think it only seems that way because we want it to be. I should point out before anyone else does, that God did not, in fact, create Adam and Steve. But does that mean that we should assume that there is no room for homosexuality in our world? I don’t think so. It’s easy to forget, but the creation story in Genesis was written for a specific purpose (and one which other portions of the Hebrew Bible do not seem to mesh), and for a specific people. And it happens to be a people for whom, as GR has mentioned in his blog, homosexuality was not expedient. But if we believe Adam and Eve were created compatible, then we should also acknowledge the fact that mens’ prostates have been created to be readily stimulated from the rectum. And women have been created to be able to attain clitoral orgasm without (sorry guys) the presence of a penis. Sex qua penetration is the locus of a certain kind of pleasure that grows from relationsihp, and, it seems, is not confined to male-female participants.

It seems as though arguments from nature/design/biology/creation are very easily dismissed as either (1) stemming from a lack of exposure to the thing deemed "unnatural" or (2) bases on a misunderstanding of biology, and the history and function of the Genesis creation narrative. Am I missing something here?

Thursday, August 11, 2005

NOOO! It wasn't us!!!

Heh. I liked this short article in the Christian Chronicle:

Click Here.

No, it definitely was not the Church of Christ that recently endorsed gay marriage. It was the United Church of Christ.

Theological Worldview Quiz

Interesting quiz. Decent timewaster:

You scored as Emergent/Postmodern. You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.



Emergent/Postmodern

71%

Modern Liberal

68%

Neo orthodox

64%

Classical Liberal

64%

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

57%

Roman Catholic

46%

Reformed Evangelical

21%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

11%

Fundamentalist

0%

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

Things You Learn From Google

I did a google search this moring to see what may be out there regarding gays and lesbians in Churches of Christ (I searched: gay "church of christ" -united).

Some results:

In October, Providence Road Church of Christ in Charlotte, NC, will be hosting a seminar sponsored by Exodus International, the organization which seeks to repair gays and lesbians of their sexual brokenness. This was a bit of a shock to me. In my experience, while Churches of Christ are staunchly anti-gay, we are not known for hosting seminars, especially seminars by non-C of C groups.

The Villa Rica C of C in Georgia has video of two lectures given by F. LaGard Smith on "God, Gays, and Government." There are 2 videos. In the first, Smith addresses nature/nuture and a few other topis. In the second, Smith is directly responding to the arguments of Daniel Helminiak, who has repeatedly written that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. I encourage you to watch and let me know what you think. F. LaGard Smith is highly respected in C of C circles, and I don't want to be too hard on him, but if this is the best the C of C can do, I'm hopeful about our chances for progress.

And then there's this, which I can only hope is a joke.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Prayer o' the Day

Wesleyan Covenant Prayer

I am no longer my own, but thine.
Put me to what thou wilt, rank me with whom thou wilt.
Put me to doing, put me to suffering.
Let me be employed by thee or laid aside for thee, exalted for thee or brought low for thee.
Let me be full, let me be empty.
Let me have all things, let me have nothing.
I freely and heartily yield all things to thy pleasure and disposal.
And now, O glorious and blessed God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, thou art mine, and I am thine. So be it.
And the covenant which I have made on earth, let it be ratified in heaven.
Amen.

Church of Christ Universities

Two inspirations for this post:

1. In my last post ("Truth Sets Free"), I suggested that everyone, especially college students, should consider looking up a gay-friendly church in their neighborhood, whether it be Abilene, Arkansas, Malibu, or Tennessee (there are C of C schools elsewhere, I know). A warning was required, though (don't get caught!).

2. In another post ("Should I Stay or Should I Go?"), I suggested that the C of C university I attended was nothing more than a church camp for 18 to 23 year-olds.

I spent a significant part of my time in college (a) trying to avoid getting kicked for being a sexual deviant and (b) wishing I had chosen a school that didn't require attendance of "Bible" classes on such topics as "how to have a good Christian family" (aside: the "Biblical" answer apparently involves something like: don't have sex until marriage, keep your sex life interesting, don't look at porn, have the wife stay at home with the kids, and ladies, don't wear tight clothing. I'm serious. The last one was said in class. It's YOUR fault if men lust after you. uh huh.).

Complaining about brotherhood universities is a bit too easy, though. The more difficult question to answer is: what should our universities look like? It's not enough to say that LGBT students should be made to feel welcome. It's not enough to say that serious academics should be praised instead of faux-intellectual fluff. It's not enough to say that Christian universities shouldn't further our denomination's deeply imbedded misogyny. We have to articulate a vision of what the C of C university should be.

Can Harding, ACU, Lipscomb, Rochester, and all the other C of C schools be both serious univeristies and Church of Christ universities, or must they choose one or the other? Must we emphasize either "Christian" or "university," or can we choose both?

I'm not looking for a middle ground. I don't want something that is a little bit Christian and sort of a university. Did I eat too many paint chips as a child? It seems to me that serious academic inquiry, which often challenges the status quo, has little or no place in a university which seeks to preserve the status quo.

I have thought long and hard about this, and no answers seem to come to mind. Should we be satisfied that our universities hire a token Democrat polisci professor and maybe the occasional non-traditional Bible professor? Should we be asking for more? What is the goal?

Thoughts, anyone? Bueller?

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Prayer o' the Day

Prayer of St. Benedict

O gracious and Holy Father, give us wisdom to perceive you, intellect to understand you, diligence to seek you, patience to wait for you, eyes to behold you, a heart to meditate upon you, and a life to proclaim you; through the power of the Spirit of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amen

Truth Sets Free

I ran across an interesting site (click the link below):

Truth Sets Free

I haven't looked through the entire site yet, and so must offer the disclaimer that there may be some things on it I don't endorse (duh).

The most fascinating thing on the site is the link that allows you to find a gay-friendly church. Click on the links for Texas (there are 6 in Abilene alone), Arkansas (Little Rock has quite a few as well), and Tennessee. If you are at a C of C university, I encourage you to carefully check one of these out some Sunday (don't get caught!). Obviously, I don't advocate leaving the C of C (see my post on that topic below), but I must say it is liberating to walk into a church and understand that your whole person is completely welcome and to know that you don't have to wall off a large chunk of yourself to join in the worship.

Friday, August 05, 2005

Poem o' the Day

Batter My Heart
by John Donne

Batter my heart, three-person’d God, for you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise, and stand, o’erthrow me, and bend
Your force, to break, blow, burn and make me new.
I, like an usurp’d town, to another due,
Labor to admit you, but Oh, to no end,
Reason your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captiv’d, and proves weak or untrue.

Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betroth’d unto your enemy:
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

Thursday, August 04, 2005

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

(NB: I apologize. The following post could do with some editing, but I'm not going to have time for that for a while, so this is the best I can do.)

No, I'm not quoting lyrics from the Clash. Ok, maybe I am. I will also quote that venerable philosopher, Homer (Simpson): "I'm not a bad guy! I work hard, and I love my kids. So why should I spend half my Sunday hearing about how I'm going to Hell?"

This post has been much more difficult for me to write than I had anticipated. I promised a post on why I remain in the Church of Christ because I thought it would be of interest to many – "many" meaning the four people that are reading this – and because I thought it would be easy to write. I mean, I’m still here, so I have to have a reason, right?

I must confess at the outset that I have done some ‘denomination shopping’ over the last several months. I have attended several Episcopal services and find comfort in the interesting mix of history, tradition, liberalism (in the classical sense), and social conscience. Plus, I like a good choir and snazzy vestments.

I always come back to the good old CoC, but I often wonder why. What draws me back? Why, though I am moved to tears by the language of the Book of Common Prayer and the beauty of a formal liturgy, do I return to the Church of Christ, with all its frustrating idiosyncrasies, fundamentalist tendencies, and pervasive gyne- and homo-phobia? I mean, there has to be a reason I return, doesn’t there?

Well, I decided to make a list of the reasons I stay. It was pretty good, I must say. I listed many of the distinctive characteristics of Churches of Christ, discussed them in light of the history of the Restoration Movement in the United States, and made the point that, if we take the best of our history and characteristics to heart, the Church of Christ is really no so bad after all, even if LGBT people aren’t yet welcome.

Bollocks. That’s not why I stay. I mean, sure, I do think the Restoration Movement is, at its core, an interesting and valuable faith tradition, one that can contribute much to the wider Christian world. And sure, I think that congregational autonomy is good, as is the ultimate goal of trying to become as much like the "pure," "unadulterated" "first-century church" as we can (even if the "first-century church" is a fiction, a creation of our denominational imagination). But the list seemed empty. The items on it are not why I stay.

I stay because the Church of Christ, simply put, is MY church, and I am her child. My church’s seal is fixed on my heart; it goes to the core of me and there is no way to distill out its presence.

I was raised in this church, I learned to speak of God, faith, and the Bible in this church, I learned to think and read and reason and argue in this church. I spent my Sundays in Bible class always understanding from where the words of the teacher came, even if I didn’t always agree with him. I spent Wednesday nights learning how to lead singing so that – if my voice ever changed – I could become a real song-leader. I passed hours at church camp memorizing Bible verses, leading devo songs, and practicing for Bible trivia. And though I rejected arguments that acapella music is the only scriptural way to sing, I secretly loved that we didn’t use instruments. The symbols and mythologies of this church make sense to me and comfort me.

I watched my Grandfather, an Elder, ascend to the podium to lead beautiful prayers. His prayers always seemed to follow that CoC rubric (you know the one), but the way he said them captured the attention of everyone in the room…his words told you that he was talking to God (thankfully, he let us sit in on the conversation). He taught me much. It was from him and my Grandmother that I learned that my church is a family. That means that you stock a little extra food, not just in the Church pantry, but in your own (you never know who might need it or when). It means that you visit people in the hospital and nursing home, even if you don’t know them that well, because they need to know that people care for them (you’d better take some food along with you, just in case). Being a family means Elders should always come to church with their pockets full of bubblegum to pass out to the kids. Oh, and being a family means and that no one should ever be made to feel unwelcome, not even that girl who is ‘in trouble’ or that guy who has fallen off the wagon, and not even that guy who can’t afford to come to church dressed as nicely as everyone else.

I gained a deep and lasting love of the Scripture from my church. I learned that truth matters, and that it is found in God and in a faithful reading of his word.

The Church of Christ is part of who I am. It always will be, even if I leave. It's not the totality of me, and it does not determine my future, but I love my church and I am thankful for its role in my life.

But that's not the end of the story. The church has also caused me (and many others) pain. Its anti-intellectualism and insular thinking make it a difficult place for those who would reassess our hermeneutics and promote change in our doctrine. Its fear of the Other makes it an unwelcoming place for the girl who speaks up too much or the boy who isn't very good at sports. Its pathologies run deep, and I don't know how to fix them.

It was from my Grandfather (the same one mentioned above) that I learned that you *must* be baptized if you want to get to heaven. There is no other path. It was my church that taught me to spread the word to "the denominations" that they needed to leave their heretical traditions behind and come to the true church (you know, Christ's church…the one he founded on Pentecost).

It is because of my church that my Grandmother (the one I mentioned above; the one who served tirelessly her entire life) has NEVER prayed in front of me. Not once. I haven't heard my mother pray since I was twelve, and I've never heard my sister pray. Their voices, it seems, are not as valuable as mine is (or was, until I came out…now I guess my voice is even less valuable than theirs…I don't get to pray at the dinner table any more).

It was in church that I first learned of AIDS. Apparently, it is a punishment from above. It was from church friends that I first heard the words "faggot," "queer," and "fudge packer." When I objected to my youth minster's homophobic comments, I was told that it was fine to talk to gay people. He continued: "just don't touch." Apparently, he wasn't clear on the fact that HIV isn't transmitted by mere touch.

It was in church that I first learned shame. That shame was reinforced at my CoC university, where my first research paper, which argued that perhaps the church should at least engage the gay community in a conversation, was met with disgust and a private conversation with the professor who (very kindly, I should add) asked me point blank if I was gay. It seems you can't care about the gay community unless you are one of "them." It was in a Church of Christ university that a professor indicated in class that "even her dog knows better" than to engage in same-sex intercourse, and it was this university that expelled wayward students in order to preserve the Christian environment.

At this university, the anti-intellectualism continued, in spite of the best efforts of some of the faculty and students (I won't praise them here; it wouldn't be very good for them, would it?). The university (which is better thought of as church camp for 18-23 year olds), or rather the administration of the university, don't really wanted to inspire thought. Instead, students should learn right doctrine and a few devo songs (that's what it means to be a Christian, right?).

So we've heard the good and bad. Why stay?

My family is sick, and it needs leaders. It needs help, and it needs healing. It needs a shift in focus so that we reach a point when the "Christian Affirmation" (if you haven't seen it, look it up) speaks of love, service, mercy, and justice and not communion, baptism, and instrumental music. My church needs intellectuals who can provide the foundation for preservation of its roots while helping it to shift away from its Enlightenment-influenced delusion that it maintains a firm grasp on the Truth of the Christian Faith. It needs people who will remind it of its place in a broader ecumenical conversation. It needs women who will teach their daughters and sons that gender doesn't matter anymore.

Our church will die if we don't save it. The world is leaving us behind. We weren't at the forefront of the abolition movement, the movement for universal suffrage, the civil rights movement, or the gay rights movement. We aren't speaking of things relevant to those outside our community. We aren't doing enough to alleviate suffering in the world at large and in our own backyards. We are at real danger of becoming irrelevant.

I just keep telling myself that we just have to stick it out. We just have to keep arguing that the church can be better than it is, that its hermeneutics can be broader, and that it should eradicate its fears of change and of those who are different. But this means we have to stick around, grab a shovel (to quote JTB on Chad Smith's site), and do the work.

For some it is impossible to stay. I recognize that, and I may someday join their ranks. For some, the pain is too deep, making it impossible to maintain faith if they stick around. I wish them well, but hope they will at least come back every now and again to chat and to remind us why they left (and to remind us that we should leave, too, if the church is smothering our faith).

The members of the Church of Christ are my people, and I have hope for us. I recently visited a CoC congregation that buoyed this hope. It was a place of healing, welcome, and open and genuine conversation. They aren't perfect, but they have a minister that is attempting to effect some real and lasting change. I pray he succeeds.

In sum: I stay because I can't not stay and because my church needs me. It's my family, it's a part of who I am, and it must have help. Or else.

Prayer o' the Day

Prayer of Clement of Rome

Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, establish and confirm us in your truth by your Holy Spirit. Reveal to us what we do not know; perfect in us what is lacking; strengthen us in what we know; and keep us faultless in your service; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Dale Martin

Work is keeping me busy, so I haven't been able to finish the post I'm working on. Instead, I'll direct everyone to this link:

http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html

This is an article by Dale Martin, a professor at Yale and (I think) former Church-of-Christer. He can be a bit inflammatory (NB: that was an understatement), and I usually don't agree with all he says, but he always makes for a fun read.

Soak it in and let me know what you think (no really, I really want to know). Also, check out the discussion on gays at Greg Kendall-Ball's blog