Oh, Brother...

In the spring of 2005, I left my position as a Resident Director at Eastern Nazarene College. The time had come. In fact, it was probably past time. I started the job search for another position in student affairs. There were no real hits for a while, and then I received an email from the Director of Student Activities at Emerson College about a new position they were hiring for there. I knew three things about Emerson. 1) It is a Communication Arts school. 2) My cousin attended there. 3) It was a very liberal college- even for Boston. And for some reason, I knew immediately that I was going to be offered the position. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't nonchalant about the interview process, but I believed that if God was in the business of placing His people in learning situations, this was the learning situation for me.

I remember about a month after taking the position walking along the street with the president of the Student Government Association. She was (and I assume still is) a hard-core Democrat. (TANGENT ALERT!!! I found a "type" of person I didn't know existed while I was at Emerson- gay conservatives. It took me a while to understand how that was possible.) I think we were talking about Bush's defeat of Kerry. She began to get a bit angry as she spoke about Bush. I remember telling her that one reason I had difficulty listening to Democrats was because they were always so angry. I tried to express to her that it would be easier for people like me to listen to people like her if they didn't get so angry all the time. After a while it sounded like whining.) I'm sure she's glad I shared my wisdom with her.

Indeed Emerson College was a learning experience for me. I'm glad that I spent a short year-and-a-half there. I consider myself a moderate now, but if I'm honest, I think I'd have to admit to leaning further to the left politically. I finally began to hear and understand why liberals got so angry, and you know what? I find myself getting angry a lot now. My latest issue- "Obama is the Antichrist." My brother played the role of a sounding board yesterday and convinced me NOT to blog about it. I'm glad he did. My last blog was about as negative as I want to be. In fact, it was probably too negative. I kinda wish I hadn't written it. But it's out there now. A couple of weeks ago I blogged about homosexuality. I wasn't angry for that one, but the topic was important to me. The blog was heartfelt. My brother said he was proud of me, a comment for which I was grateful. I felt that I had made myself pretty vulnerable. There was kind of a pride for me for "putting it all on the line" so to speak. Whatever...

Yesterday my brother shared with me that he preached a difficult sermon this past Sunday. He expressed that some of his parishioners may have struggled a bit with what he said. I realized something then. Preachers are in the habit of making themselves vulnerable on a weekly basis. Sometimes more. I know this because there is not a Sunday that goes by that I don't critique almost every word that comes out of my pastors mouth when he's preaching. It simply comes with the territory. I usually keep my critical thoughts between my wife and me. I'm not one to tell my pastor how or what to preach. That's up to God. Fortunately, I believe my pastor really understands the gospel and preaches it well. He doesn't know it, but it's even worse for my brother when I'm listening to him preach. I mean hey, he's my little brother, I've been judging his every move his whole life. I mean, it's my God-given right as the older brother to guide and teach him the correct way to do things! It's a hard habit to break. So when he's preaching, I'm not only critiquing his sermon, I'm critiquing his delivery, his hair, his motions, etc... Alright, I'm not that bad, but simply said, I critique my brother differently than other preachers.

He sent me the link to the podcast of his sermon. Everyone is doing that now. I'm not just bragging on my bro when I say that it's one of the best messages I've heard in a long time. My brother is not an orator, so I'm not talking about the delivery, nor do I really care about the delivery. My brother is an unashamed and humble disciple of Christ and that is all he wants to be. He believes God called him into the ministry, and that's the only reason he's done it. Apparently the people in his church believe God has called him too, because they voted him into the pulpit. As a preachers kid, I understand that most sermons are "run of the mill" with a message from God, but nothing earth shattering or too difficult to hear. But there are also sermons that God lays on a pastors heart which are more difficult to deliver and more difficult to hear. It seems that these are the Sundays where the pastor "just doesn't have it" or was too "judgmental". I imagine these Sundays are very difficult for pastors. But they have to preach those messages! They are God's mouthpiece to their congregation. To ignore the direction of the Holy Spirit would place the minister in a state of sin. You all remember the Jonah story. It's a different setting and message, but Jonah wanted to avoid delivering it.

Jeremy's message this past Sunday was about the Christian perspective on life. Politics was mentioned several times. It really hit home for me because I'm afraid I've been guilty of focusing on the negative in this race. Actually, it wasn't even that I was focusing on the negative aspects of the candidates, but I've been very negative towards my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Simply put, as a disciple of Christ, he simply commands my obedience. He does not command that I offer my opinion on everything. This sermon is worth listening to. I hope you do. It's about half an hour long with a very important message for followers of Christ. In fact, I'm begging you...

Newly Discovered Text!!!! The Gospel of Ben Stein, some other dude, and SNOPES.com

I have most of my friends categorized into three email groups:

1) Friends who forward EVERYTHING. Emails from these friends are quickly deleted if the subject line includes "FWD" or indicates that the message within is likely nonsense that ends with something like "Send this to ten of your friends including yourself, and the Tamba Bay Rays will beat the Red Sox to move on to the World Series this year." I'm not superstitious and none of that stuff ever works. I trash it immediately.

2) Friends who only forward things to me that are either funny or true. For me this is generally family members or close friends. They all know me pretty well and only include me in the forward if they think I'll appreciate it. They're not trying to "inform" me or prove some point. They're just trying to make me smile or share information they know I care about. Most of the time they're right.

3) Friends who never forward anything. The only emails I receive from them are relevant to some aspect of my relationship with them. The first time I receive a forward from them it usually begins with "I don't usually forward things but..." I open it, knowing that as soon as I do this particular friend will no longer be in category 3. I will make a quick decision to place their name into category 1 or 2. This process usually works well. It was a bit more challenging for me over the past few days.

(Before I continue, it is very important that I make one thing very clear. I'm about to get very negative, sarcastic, and even condemning of an email I received from a friend. I am NOT upset with my friend. They were duped. I don't like to be duped, and I don't like it when it happens to my friends. So if you're one of the friends who sent this to me, or if you've sent it to others, don't feel bad. This isn't aimed at you, it's aimed at the "author" of the email.)

In the span of about 10 days or so I received the same forwarded email from two different people in my church community. These people were in category 3, people that I often receive emails from on various issues. They are both good friends. I have cut and pasted the email below. You may think you have received this email before (as I did). But you may find that it is a bit different. At any rate, please read the whole thing as the last portion of this post will be difficult to follow if you have not.

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees.. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to. In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein

As I mentioned earlier, I thought I had seen this email before but as I re-read it this time I was pretty sure it was different- longer in fact- than the last time. The portion I had received previously was Mr. Stein's commentary about Christmas. When I received the original "FWD" I checked snopes.com to see if it was actually legitimately Ben Stein's commentary. It was. I was appreciative of his candid remarks. (I always check snopes.com for things like these. Without exception! I hope you do too.) But this time around there were some issues for me.

When Ben Stein first issued these remarks, it was on TV. Specifically CBS Sunday Morning where he sometimes offers commentary. (This particular commentary begun with a short rant about how he didn't know who Nick and Jessica Simpson were and felt old.) The email even stated in the first line where the comments were from. Problem is, this most recent email ended with,

"My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully [typo NOT added],


Ben Stein"

I've never before heard someone on the TV offer commentary that ended with "My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully...". Not once. Nor have I ever heard someone try to guilt me into forwarding on their commentary with some magical Tivo as if my relationship with God depended on it. Ben Stein's original message had obviously been changed. I was miffed. I checked snopes again to see where the changes began. Snopes had updated their information, but the whole email was still listed as "true."

The addition to the email began mid-sentence where the new "author" deleted the names "Nick and Jessica" and relaced them with "these celebrities" in an effort to set up the rest of the email. The rest of the addition begins with the words, "In the light of the many jokes we send..." What follows is several quotes, many of which are defensive, about the state of affairs in the world and how they relate to the role of God in America. As far as I can tell the quotes were not made up, and snopes confirms the statements. What bothered me was the fact that somebody had the audacity to add stuff to Ben Stein's original comments which were good enough to stand on their own merrit! Further, Mr. Stein's point was not the same point as the author of the second half of the more recent email.

Stein's point was offered as an opinion and was, I thought, fair- I don't mind if people say to me, a Jew, "Merry Christmas!" People who find "Merry Christmas" to be offensive need to get over it." The second author's point was well intended, but uninformed- God is allowing bad things to happen to us because we have kicked him out of schools, etc... I immediately began to write a "reply to all" email to inform everyone that they had been duped. As usual, I began to get a bit long-winded and had to stop to go pick up my kids from their day care. I'm glad I did because I had some time to think more about this email.

While they don't clearly state that they are a Christian, I think it's pretty clear that whoever provided the "editing" professes faith in Christ. And as always, they've done a disservice to my savior. I get their point, but they had no right to change the commentary. Especially not in the name of God. Further, I'm not sure what kind of God they're serving.

One of my friends said that it was food for thought. Well, I thought about it, and here's what I think:

"Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?' "

I think Billy Graham is wonderful. I have a ton of respect for him as an evangelist and theologian. One of the reason I believe this is because I never heard him say things like this. I don't think what Anne is all that profound or insightful in this circumstance. Am I to assume that if every single United States citizen was a believer in God- Baptist even- then Katrina wouldn't have happened? No Anne, "we" haven't all demanded that God get out of our government. And even if we had, Jesus reminded us that God doesn't neglect people simply because they don't follow His will. Consider Mattew 5:45, "...He [God] causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

"In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK."

Again, "we" is a bit broad, don't you think? Besides, people who read the Bible and believe in God kill all of the time. Think Crusades, Inquisition, and abortion clinic bombings/shootings for starters. Clearly it didn't start with Madeleine O'Hare. Jesus believed in God and he was murdered. So did Stephen, Peter, Paul, Andrew, ...you get my point.

"Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK."

You're not honestly saying that Dr Spock is responsible for his son's suicide are you? I hope not because his son didn't commit suicide. His 22-year-old grandson who suffered from schizophrenia did in 1983. (Source: Wikipedia and snopes.com) But I've never heard that spanking gives children schizophrenia. In general, experts do know what they're talking about. I'm sure there are millions of children that were never spanked that will live long and prosper. Like me, for instance. As for Dr. Spock, I did a little research on him. I think he and Jesus would have gotten along well.

"Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'"

Gosh, you sound an aweful lot like Jeremiah Wright. If I remember the sound bite correctly, I think he said something like "The chickens have come home to roost!" Is that what you're trying to say?

"Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?"

No, I'm not laughing. Especially since you have added you're own bit of uninformed commentary to Mr. Stein's opinion. Apparently stretching the truth is not lying. You're lucky, because if it was I might have to spank you.

"Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in."

Funny how while I think I get your point, and might even agree with your intent I still wouldn't pass this on if my life depended on it. How dare you tell me that not forwarding a doctored email suggests I'm ashamed of my faith?

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein

It really strikes me that 1) This is no longer Ben Stein, 2) "honest" isn't a word that comes to mind after reading this, and 3) I didn't exactly feel respected either. You forgot to capitalize the "r".

Which could stand for repulsive.

It was then that something did occured to me. This is how some of the Bible was written.

I used to think that all of the books of the Bible were placed in order by age. That is, Genesis was the oldest and Revelation was the newest. This is not the case. In fact, many scholars believe that Job is the oldest book in the Bible, not Genesis. Revelation is the most recent, authored around 95 BC. The early church of Christ did not have the New Testament. Instead they were told stories, an oral history, of Jesus. They were told over and over again, until they were eventually written down. Paul's ministry and letters pre-date our recorded gospels. Mark is generally accepted as the earlies gospel and it is widely accepted that much of the information in Matthew and Luke was taken from Mark. I was gonna try to explain all of this, but I won't because I don't know enough about it. If you care, find some books that talk about it. Or check that peer-reviewed source (choke, cough...) known as Wikipedia. That'll do. My point is, there wasn't a scribe watching Jesus and then writing down everything he did (as they did with Mohammed. Oh yeah, that's a different religion. I'm sorry.) There are a lot of differences in the Gospel accounts of Jesus's life, and sometimes things got lost (or added) in translation during the years where the Bible was copied by hand.

Obviously I'm in no way comoparing the Bible to an email. Brotha pleez. Far from it. I believe that the ancient scribes and such had better intentions and were much better informed than the email author (particularly in light of Holy Spirit inspiration and direction), but I just couldn't help but wonder about how much different our gospels today might be from the original author's words and intent. This is the stuff of dissertations. Maybe someday...

"H" The Modern Scarlet Letter

Several of my friends have offered their opinions on homosexuality in their blogs. When my response to one of those blogs became longer than the blog itself, I decided to post it in my own blog. As is typical for me, this will be long. In fact, I can't imagine having another blog post be as long as this one. Perhaps someday I'll learn how to make short points, but for now, I'm unable. I hope you can excuse this. Four warnings:

1. I take forever to get to my point.
2. Even when (more like if) I get to my point, I do not come to a conclusion on this topic. So if you're looking for one, please don't be surprised.
   
3. A message to my gay friends that may be reading this: At this point in my walk through wisdom, not coming to a conclusion is the best that I can offer for you. I have a tremendous amount of love for you, and not just because the Bible tells me to love you. I also have a tremendous amount of respect for your courage. I've never had to fight a battle like you are fighting and I've never been rejected like you've been rejected. I do not consider myself any "gooder" than you. This issues has rocked my faith like no other.
4. I say things here that will probably upset every reader at some point- gays, Christians, gay Christians, fundamentalists- I try not to discriminate. But, I am not intending to upset you, I'm only sharing my journey with you. I have no malicious intent, and at no time to I claim that I'm correct and you are wrong. These are just my thoughts.
   

Homosexuality is the most difficult issue for me to discuss. I just don't get it. I've said before, one of my biggest obstacles to understanding this topic is that I'm not gay. I never have been and I never will be. It's very similar to having never been black. I'll never truly know what it's like to live as a black man in America since I've never been black in my life. I didn't always understand this. I used to think I could identify with homosexuals because I know what it is like to struggle with my own sexual temptations. The problem is, a homosexual is not simply struggling with the desire to have sex with someone of the same sex. They are not fighting for the right to get married because they want to have sex. People do not need to be married to have sex. People, both gay and straight, have extra-marital sex all the time. Sexual intimacy is probably last on the list of reasons homosexuals have for seeking marital rights. In fact, the fact that we focus so much on the sexual act probably says more about a Christian heterosexual's motivation for marraige than it does the homosexual's motivation for marriage. Sexual intimacy should be the last reason people get married. In healthy marriages, sexual intimacy is a blessed bonus.*

I guess the best way for me to understand how homosexuals feel is to consider that the circumstances were reversed. What if homosexuality was the norm and heterosexuality was illegal and considered sin and an abomination? What would that mean for me? Simply put, that would suck. Yet that's the reality for thousands of people. So what now?

Homosexuality has forced me to examine my values- where they come from and how they guide me. My values come from my upbringing and my faith. It is very possible that if I had been brought up in a different family, I would be of a different faith. However, I was brought up in a Christian, conservative home with Biblically based, Judeo-Christian values. Difficulty arises when many people use the Bible to support opposite sides of the same issue. Why do some people think the Bible says one thing, and other people think the Bible says other things? Apparently, the Bible isn't as clear as some people think it is. Frankly, sometimes the Bible is as clear as mud for me, but it's still sacred to me. Further, while the Bible can be as clear as mud, the Kingdom of God doesn't seem that difficult to understand.

I am reminded that according to the Bible, Jesus said more than once that he was sending a gift to help his followers in with faith. This gift was the Holy Spirit; it was not the Bible. The Bible is a blessed and sacred collections of Holy Spirit driven writings of various kinds (songs, poems, letters, etc...). It is a book about God's relationship with creation. It is a story about how God has interacted with man throughout history. I do not view it as a collection of do's and don'ts. I find more value in viewing the Bible for what it shows me, not what it tells me. For instance, you don't have to be a Christian to recognize the lyrics to the song Jesus Loves Me.

Jesus loves me this I know,
For the Bible tells me so...

I'm of the mind to change one little word so that it would be sung,

Jesus loves me this I know,
For the Bible SHOWS me so...

It's a small change, but it changes my perspective tremendously. It shows me how God has interacted with humanity in the past and informs me about how I might expect God to interact with me today.

Disagreements about what the scriptures mean is nothing new. The new testament is fraught with documented theological disagreements. (Think Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and Herodians.) The Bible also shows several instances where two or more Christian leaders (think Peter and Paul) disagree vehemently about certain issues (think ministering to gentiles and Jews). The early church leaders were trying to figure out some very important issues without the benefit of the New Testament. They had their scriptures, but relied heavily on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They weren't just "we agree to disagree" issues either. They were just as significant as out discussions about homosexuality. If the early Christians couldn't see clearly on some of the issues of their day simply by using the scriptures, who am I to say that the Bible is "clear" on issues of my day? I won't. And I'll always err on the side of Grace.

Understanding this, I try to approach the issue of homosexuality (and violence, and abortion, and whatever) by referring to the Bible, but also relying heavily on the guidance of the Holy Spirit to help me understand how to approach certain situations. Fact is, I won't know for sure until I take my last earthly breath. In doing this, I have felt free to consider God's motivation for delineating certain sins. For instance, why did God give the Hebrews the ten commandments? If you killed somebody before Moses received the ten commandments was it not a sin? Was it OK with God because hey, He hadn't given humanity the Ten Commandments yet? No. "In the beginning was the Word..." God's law has always been God's law. Unfortunately, it seems that we as a race were so incapable of maintaining diligence in adhering to God's natural law, we were so far fallen from what God wanted us to be that it became necessary to spell out how we were to live. Then we fell into the trap of adhering to a list of "sins" or "not sins" even to the point of categorizing sins. Nothing beneficial comes from this categorizing, and it detracts from the meaning of life. We're either creating a holiness hierarchy or trying to determine what we can get away with to avoid God's wrath rather participating in creation as God meant for us to. We're either striving for holiness, or we're not. We're either living in the Spirit or we're not. So what's my point?

I don't believe that God sat down one day and tried to find a list of the ten best rules for us. (Actually, Mosaic law had a lot more than 10 laws.) They weren't just rules for the sake of having rules. They were logical and critical fundamentals for progressive participation in God's ongoing creation. It was as if God was saying "Hey Hebrews! If you want to participate successfully in life, you'll need to adhere to these 10 basic things..." The end result is a holy relationship with God and each other which sustains life. The end result is not an eternal party with wings and harps. God's law is the necessary glue with keeps the creative process in place.

So what does this have to do with homosexuality? Well, it kind of explains my worldview. It explains where I'm coming from when I consider whether something is wholesome in God's eyes.

Let me be clear about something. I believe that most gay people actually are gay. They're not faking it. They mean it. Most of them didn't want to be gay. Coming out was a difficult process for most of my gay friends. They risked everything for it. They knew they would hurt people when they came out. I believe that most of them were born gay. It is real, and it is seldom a choice. There is a list of people that I believe are gay, yet for some reason have not come out yet. I will not be surprised when it happens. I didn't always feel this way, but I do now. (And so does my church leadership. They have stated that they believe homosexuality is rarely a choice. This will surprise many members of the Church of the Nazarene.)

I guess I just need to know where homosexuality fits into the Holy Creative Blueprint. One of the issues in this debate is that of whether or not people are born gay. This quickly moves towards the question of whether or not God makes people gay. One of my gay friends once asked me "Do you think God put gay people on the earth to control the population?" He wasn't being cynical. He really wanted to know what I thought. At the time, I didn't know how to answer him. Fortunately, I don't have a problem admitting when I don't have an answer. But it bothered me that I didn't have an answer. Let's assume that homosexuality is a sinful state. (Remember, I consider homosexuality to be a state of being, not a simple sinful act.) If I believe that people are born gay- which I do- and if I believe that God creates people, then this means that God creates them in a sinful state. This is many people's reason for believing that people are not born gay. God wouldn't create sin. As I see it, this leaves me with two options:

1. Homosexuality is not sinful.
2. God does not create babies.

At this point, my homosexual friends have hope, and some of my conservative, fundamental friends are cringing, thinking of that "knit me together in the womb" verse (Psalm 139:13), and getting ready to surf away to somewhere else on the www. One choice will make my gay friends happy, but neither choice is likely to make some of my other friends happy. What to do?

I choose option 2. (Now before my gay friends get upset with me, please remember that I promised I wouldn't come to a conclusion and I haven't. I'll get back to dealing with #1 in a moment.) I don't just choose option 2 to avoid choosing option 1 because the Bible is clear enough about homosexuality. I choose option 2 because there are other reasons I have trouble accepting that God is a baby making factory. I have trouble accepting a God that over-populates impoverished nations. I have trouble accepting that God creates babies that suffer. I have trouble accepting that a grown man can rape his 11 year old daughter and God would create the baby as a result of incest. I don't believe God is that cruel. That seems a bit sadistic. I don't believe God is sadistic.

I do believe that God sometimes intervenes in pregnancies. I do not know when or why, but I believe that it is possible. I believe that God values all lives, even the lives of babies born with challenges. Further, I believe that God doesn't just value the lives, but God can use lives to bring unlimited joy into this world regardless of mental capacity or physical agility. (I'll leave the abortion debate for another blog.) But I don't believe God creates most of the babies that are born into this world. In fact, as far as I know, there was only 1 Immaculate Conception. I believe God created a wonderful and good process of creation in the beginning- whenever that was- and gave us the magnificent privilege of participating in that process in many ways including procreation. So in essence, while I believe that God is the designer of the process, mommies and daddies create. And sometimes, mommies and daddies create a baby that is gay.**

So let me get back to the void I left by not choosing option 1. Is homosexuality sinful? I'm afraid the best I can do is offer a hearty "I don't know." How's that for not pleasing anyone? I simply don't know. But I do believe that putting your sexuality- hetero or homo- in front of seeking God's desire for a holy relationship with you is wrong. Our desire for intimacy with God needs to trump our desire for intimacy with anyone else. Our life's motto should be "God First" (not "Country First" as some have recently claimed.) And we cannot be putting God first as long as we are denying fundamental rights to our neighbor. So would I define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman. Well, yes (I think) and no (I think).

From a faith perspective, I once again try to consider what part marriage plays in Holy Creation. (I'm not sure I should be capitalizing that, but it seemed appropriate.) In as much as the creative process necessitates procreation, it is rather important that mommies and daddies have the tools to get the job done. Sounds a bit simplistic, I know, but it also seems kind of elementary. I'm very hesitant to consider gay marriage in the church. Probably beyond hesitant. It doesn't seem to fit well into the creative process. BUT...

I believe that many of the statements regarding homosexuality are also culturally relevant for the time in which they were written. At the time that the Old Testament scriptures were written the Hebrews were concerned with their very survival as a people. Homosexual activity was a direct threat to the survival of the Hebrew nation in that it could not result in offspring. Clearly this is not an issue now, and this argument it illogical. But at one time it was logical and essential for the survival of a people.

A few quicker thoughts on the topic:

• It is entirely hypocritical for the Church to vilify homosexual marriage when we can't even make heterosexual marriage work. Consider:

  "...data showed that the highest divorce rates were found in the Bible Belt. "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce...the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average" of 4.2/1000 people.

  	11 southern states (AL, AR, AZ, FL, GA, MS, NC, NM, OK, SC and TX averaged 5.1/1000 people. (LA data is not available; TX data is for 1997).
  	Nine states in the Northeast (CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT) averaged only 3.5/1000 people."

(Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm)

According to the same source, the state with the lowest occurrence of divorce is Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to allow gay marriage. It is high time that we began to openly discuss sexuality in our faith communities. I think we'd do well to re-examine the spiritual term "sexual temptation" which can, I think, ignore the biological sex drive that we all have, and stigmatize those who have pre-marital sex.

• The United States of America is not a theocracy and nor should it be. A state passing a law legalizing gay marriage does not mean that religious institutions must perform gay marriages. Some of the commercials that I've seen in favor of Prop. 8 in California have been filled with naive claims about the loss of religious freedoms at best, lies at worst.
• Christians, both gay and straight, really need to understand what marriage is in the Kingdom of God, remembering that according to Jesus as recorded in Matthew 22, "...at the resurrection people will neither marry or be given in marriage," instead we'll be in service to God. I'm not sure how this totally fits into this conversation, only to say that we really need to be sure we know what we're defending. If you can't imagine giving up your spouse for anyone, even God, then perhaps the Kingdom of God isn't for you.
• I really have a difficult time defending homosexuality when bi-sexuality is so pervasive as well. What am I supposed to make of that?
• I don't see any good reason a gay person shouldn't be able to visit their significant other in the hospital, get good health care, etc...
• I think we'd do well to re-examine the spiritual term "sexual temptation" which can, I think, ignore the biological sex drive that we all have, and stigmatize those who have pre-marital sex. It would serve us well to understand the ebb and flow of sex drives so that we can expect them and know how to deal with them when they flame! "Sexual temptation" is far too narrow of an understanding about what is really going on.
• We've all heard the term "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, this is a terrible way to approach the topic considering homosexuality is a state of being, not an act. So in essence, by hating the "sin", by definition, you're hating the "sinner." "H" the modern scarlet letter.
  

Like I said, I don't really come to a conclusion and am still "dealing" with this issue. I just don't know, and I'll err on the side of grace.


*In fact, people don't usually cheat on their spouse simply out of a desire to have sex with someone else. They are driven to a different person to fill an emotional void in their marriage relationship. This is a different topic for a different day.

**I know this leads us to the question, "Then is homosexuality genetic?" I don't know, but I do know gay people that don't have any gay relatives. At any rate, as far as morality goes I don't think it matters if it's genetic or not. Alcoholism is genetic and nobody seems to think that changes the moral issue any.

Stuff I don't get...

I think there will probably be two blogs this morning. This one will be short, the second probably will not. This is the first of many blogs about things that I just don't get. I have no idea what the subject of the second installment of "stuff I don't get" will be, but the subject this time around is beer- specifically Coors Light.

I've got this weird issue about commercials. I hate dumb ones. Even worse than that, I hate commercials that don't make sense to me. Even worse than that, I hate commercials that try to sell me on something that is totally the reverse of what the same company has been trying to sell me for years.

For as long as I can remember Coors Light has had commercials that stated that it was brewed from water "In the Rocky Mountains" so the water was cold. Then it was brewed cold, then filtered cold, then packaged cold, then shipped cold, then sold cold. I'm pretty sure the message was "Our beer is going to taste better because has always been cold!!!" Now all of the sudden all of the commercials are about the new Coors Light bottles and cans that turn blue when the beer is cold. WTF? If it's brewed cold from cold water in the Rockies, filtered cold, packaged cold, shipped cold, and sold cold, then why do I need a bottle or can that turns blue when it's cold? Were you lying before? Or should I allow my beer to get warm, so I can test out the cool (no pun intended) white-to-blue label? Have you given up on selling the beer on it's taste and now you're going to sell the beer because of the label? Geez.

The funny thing is, I don't buy beer that often ("rarely" doesn't come close to how infrequent it is) so I don't know why I even care. I have too much time to think.

He's Gone Country

I was never really a country music fan. I'm not sure why, really. To be honest, I think part of it was a snobbish Yankee attitude thing. Some of the twang bothered me a little. But my wife loved it, so I tolerated the country music in the car. Then one summer she dragged me along to a country music festival of sorts here in Boston. There were 4 performers at the show we saw. Keith Urban, Martina McBride, Alan Jackson, and one other that I can't remember. I have to admit, I was pretty blown away. I recognized a couple of Alan Jackson's songs and liked the music with simple messages that he performed. They're not all that deep, simply songs about life. And I found that it wasn't all that true about the "whoa is me" lyrics that are supposed to make everybody cry. He didn't just sing about losing his wife, dog, and truck. It was some stuff I could identify with. He's a man's man. Probably a bit too much testosterone for me, but it was OK. Keith Urban was relatively new at the time, but he could really rock. I still enjoy his concerts more than just about any others that I have been to. The musical talent impressed me as much as anything else at these concerts. I was expecting banjos, spoons, and mouth harps, with the occasional moonshine bottle thrown in for a bit o' bass. What I heard was some very talented musicians that actually sounded a lot more like rock than blue grass.

I particularly remember being blown away by Martina McBride's voice. I couldn't believe what she could do vocally. Her voice was so strong and never wavered. It seemed like she could belt out high, long notes, on pitch, endlessly. The pitch thing is important to me. Not a lot of people know this but I played piano for around 12 years. I never learned to read music too well, but I got pretty good at playing by ear. I knew if something was wrong if it didn't sound right. I don't play the piano any more, but I still have a really good ear for pitch. Some have told me I have perfect pitch. I don't, and I really admire those who do (like my sister and my friend Melody), but I am pretty good at hearing when someone is singing off key (including myself which happens a lot). American Idol can be hard to watch sometimes as I can hear when a contestant is a bit off. Paula and Randy like to refer to this as "pitchy." The thing is, Paula and Randy aren't really good at hearing when someone is pitchy and when they aren't. I've heard some contestants be really off and get high praise from the judges while others are right on and get lambasted by them for being pitchy. I roll my eyes a lot listening to those pretentious judges.

I also struggle with live bands some times. There will be a song that I hear and love on the radio and then I hear the artist do it live and I'm very disappointed because they really can't carry a tune that well. I'm often amazed that they did it well enough for the recording. I think this is one thing that I really like about country music. More often than not, the person performing is right on pitch, and they have a strong voice. Martina McBride is my favorite for this. She's just amazing when she sings.

I'm blogging about country music because last night I went with my wife to see Carrie Underwood. A band called "Little Big Town" opened for her. They sing a song called "Boondocks" which talks about having pride in being where you are from. "I feel no shame, I'm proud of where I came from, I was born and raised in the BOOOOndocks!" (This is one of my son Josh's favorite songs. Joy and I were really wishing he was there to see it.) The whole concert was wonderful. I really enjoyed myself and the company I was with. I think the Carrie Underwood story is great, and as annoying as American Idol can be sometimes, I love to see people who were "nobodies" attain a dream. Carrie Underwood is no fluke. She has an amazing talent. The vocal talent of Little Big Town was great too. I litterally get chills when I hear strong harmonies, and I felt them a couple of times while Little Big Town was on.

I remember another concert we went to a while back. It was a Tim McGraw and Faith Hill concert. Faith is another female vocalist that some would say tops Martina. Not for me, but it's close. I remember watching her and Tim (who is also her husband) sing and noting how much I was enjoying it. I'm not the type to go to a concert because I have some fascination with the performer. I don't really want to be them, but I do want to enjoy what they offer. When I'm at the concerts I often look around at all the people there interacting with the music, and the performer interacting with the crowd. It's a dance of sorts, with one building momentum from the other. I really like to watch the interplay- the artist doing something that brings joy into the lives of others.

I remember being particularly appreciative of this interplay at the Hill/McGraw concert. I had one of those "everything is right with the world" moments. It was a little weird, but very meaningful for me. I was simply so glad that these two, particularly Faith Hill, were using the talent that God gave them. It would have been a shame if they didn't use it. I looked around the arena at all of the people singing, dancing, and screaming in delight and really couldn't help but think God was pleased with the fact that she was using her talent to provide joy for others. Now granted, she wasn't leading hymns in church, but I don't think that's all God wants us to do with our gifts. I don't believe that we're gifted just to please God. Well, maybe I do, but I think that when we're helping others to experience joy, even the joy of listening to music at a secular concert, God is pleased. And I don't think God is totally pleased if we're not doing all we can to help others experience joy. It's part of what makes life worth living. Sometimes I think God still looks at some of His creation and calls it "good" when it's going according to His plan. Faith Hill, Martina McBride, Keith Urban, Tim McGraw, Toby Keith, Alan Jackson, Little Big Town, all using their talents in ways that bring joy into people's life must make God happy on some level in-as-much as their singing is according to plan.

So all in all, I'm very appreciative of my wife bringing country music into my life. I've seen quite a few country musicians now including: Faith Hill (wonderful voice), tim McGraw (great performer), Martina McBride (perfection in her voice), Alan Jackson (knows how to enjoy life), Tovy Keith (more testosterone here than at an NFL game. He's a bit too gung-ho for me, but he's got some great music.), Keith Urban (lots of energy), Kenny Chesney (somehow this little pipsqueak is all the rage with the women), Little Big Town (fun songs and good harmony), Carrie Underwood (talented girl with a wonderful voice, and not all that bad to look at!), and Charlie Daniels (a "Christian" that refers to people as panty waste. I'll let the Lord judge.) I'll continue to attend concerts where I can understand and appreciate the lyrics. Live music is great no matter what kind it is. I love that feeling that goes through your skin when the bass is so smooth and loud. My skin feels like it's rippling water with the vibrations running through it. I love it.

Jesus will not be President of the United States.

I’ve tried several times to begin a blog about the Presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain. I’ve failed each time because I’m not really a political guy. I’m way to moderate. I see some good in each candidate, and I see some things I don’t like. So it’s hard for me to have any real commentary that I feel anybody will care about. I have NO clue how to fix the economy and hate the fact that money even exists. I have NO clue about how to fix the health care system and don’t understand why people need money to help other people stay healthy. I also believe that neither the democrat nor republican party have a monopoly on honesty. I don’t know who to believe anymore. I believe John McCain was probably very courageous in that POW prison. I don’t believe Obama is Muslim or a terrorist. I believe they both love the United States and want better for the country. It’s difficult for this moderate to articulate how I feel about the race because I feel that they are both lacking in many ways, but neither are the epitome of evil that so many make them out to be.

It seems that every 4 years each Presidential race polarizes the United States of America than the last. There doesn’t seem to be much united about the process at all. There is invariably only 2 real candidates, and if we want to vote in the election, we need to either choose one of the two candidates or vote third party; the latter being frowned upon as throwing away your vote. I don’t really see this as throwing away your vote and seriously considered doing it for this election. I guess it’s the only way I can send any sort of message to say that I’m displeased with my choices. I have to be honest, there isn’t really a third candidate that I have any knowledge about, so I couldn’t say that I was voting for the person I thought would make a good President. Then there is the option of not voting. A friend of mine named Dave said that’s what he was going to do. I pretty much agree with all of what he said, except for me, I believe that as an American citizen that is enjoying the freedom that comes with my citizenship, I have a responsibility to show up at the polling station. I have considered submitting a blank ballot to fulfill my duty but also express my disdain with my options.

I don’t feel that a blank ballot is necessary for me this year. I believe both of the candidates have some good things to offer, and they both have some positions with which I disagree strongly. But I do believe both candidates mean well and want to see this country do well- albeit in different ways. While in the past I have made my decision based on who I thought was the least of two evils, I have decided not to continue to label anyone as evil and look at who offered me more. I need someone to believe in.

On a church-related website, my brother recently posted a link to a youtube video of some minority youths expressing hope in their future with Barack Obama as President. Essentially the video was saying “Hey, if Barack Obama can attain the Presidency, then I can [you fill in the blank]. My brother and I are a lot alike in that he is not really all that political, but shares some values with Obama. There are also some things on which he really disagrees. In no way does he believe that Obama is the savior of the United States, let alone the world. He has never made such a statement (I don’t believe) nor will he. He understands that Obama is a man with political aspirations, that he is very fallible, and he will make mistakes even if he is elected to serve this country as President. He simply posted a video expressing his appreciation for the possibility that there will be a President that inspires children to set lofty goals for themselves and work to attain them. It was apparent from some of the comments that followed his posting that not all felt this way. One of the follow-up posts said that the video reminded them of the Hitler youth movement and that they couldn’t believe how the spirit of antichrist has infiltrated our country, church, and schools (specifically church-sponsored schools). Essentially, they accused my brother, and others like him, of acting in non-Christlike ways because they have appreciation for Barack Obama. Really?! “Antichrist?” How on earth did we come to this? Am I to believe that Obama is the antichrist and John McCain is somehow closer to resembling Christ than Barack? Am I really supposed to equate a vote for John McCain as the Christian thing to do?

I find it very troubling that anybody would make any attempt to equate Christlikeness with a politician- democrat, republican, or whatever. This idea that America is a Christian nation is hogwash, and frankly, the more I examine the Christ in the Gospels, the less faith I have in the American way. The American way is NOT the way, the truth, and the life. It is NOT the Kingdom of God. Again, I believe my friend Dave was right on in his defense of his decision to not vote. When it comes down to it, there isn’t a politician out there that can offer what Christ offered. How did we come to this?

I am conscious of the fact that this next paragraph may leave people wondering if I believe that the Bible has an equal in relaying the Word of God. Let me assure you (both of you), I don’t. However, in recent years I have come to have a whole new appreciation for the it. I once saw it as God’s Word. I was supposed to read it and obey what it said, simply because it said it. It was there to help me avoid sinning and to tell me how to deal with sin should I fall into it. I have come to believe that this may be a functional way of looking at the Bible for some but I’m leery of viewing the Bible this way myself. In Jesus’ day, there were many people who looked at the scriptures this way and Jesus told them that they didn’t understand the scriptures. The Bible is still sacred to me. I believe it contains God’s Word, but it is not all of God’s Word. It is a book about part of human history and our relationship to God’s Word. It shows us what can happen when we choose to ignore God’s Word and it shows us our potential when we revere and stick with God’s Word. God’s Word existed before the Bible, and it will continue to exist should every Bible be burned somehow. The Bible does not usurp God’s Word. God’s Word is Truth, and the Bible helps me understand Truth. It showed me how one man- Jesus- lived Truth. The stories in the Bible of God’s interaction with man are critical to understanding Truth. They explain how God feels about various things that we do and how He dealt with our actions. Eventually, God felt it was necessary to give us written law because we had grown too self-centered and blind to follow God’s Word without Him spelling it out for us. And it also sheds some light upon how God feels about our capacity to govern for ourselves.

In the story about the Israel as told in the Bible, there came a time when the judges- a group of people who received direct communication from God- no longer satisfied the governing desires of the Israelites. The Israelites asked Samuel, the last of the good judges, to appoint a King to rule them. This upset Samuel since the judges received their instruction straight from God. God was displeased as well.

God answered Samuel, "Go ahead and do what they're asking. They are not rejecting you. They've rejected me as their King. From the day I brought them out of Egypt until this very day they've been behaving like this, leaving me for other gods. And now they're doing it to you. So let them have their own way. But warn them of what they're in for. Tell them the way kings operate, just what they're likely to get from a king"(The Message, 1 Samuel 8:7-9).

Samuel did tell them what was in store for them under the rule of a king. The king would take what he needed from the people by force. Essentially the people would then serve the king and not God. The loyalties would be split at best. The story which follows is one of corruption and lack of obedience to God.

Several years later (like hundreds of years) Jesus enters the picture claiming to be the King of the Jews, the Messiah, who was here to set things right. The problem was, the Jews were still looking for a king of political power. One who would conquer nations and put Israel back on the Imperial map. But Jesus would have none of it. He had no interest in earthly rule. This was Jesus' whole message. God wanted to rule men’s hearts. It was a different kingdom altogether. It was not of this world. If it was, Jesus would have set out on military conquests and his followers would have risen militarily. But again, Jesus would have none of that. It wasn’t how the Kingdom of God worked (and still works). This was evident in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was arrested by both his words and his actions:

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

God’s Kingdom wasn’t one of military conquest; it was not going to conquer people militarily. God wants people’s hearts, not their territories. Jesus understood this and shunned political leadership. I think this is one of the things Jesus was saying when he told people they didn't understand the scriptures; that they didn't understand the Word of God.

Why do I say all this? We fall into danger of not understanding scripture when we equate American Nationalism with working for the Kingdom of God. I say it because I am very disturbed by what I see happen to the church every 4 years around the Presidential election. I’m just tired of the demonizing that happens. It’s not even like people try to sell “their” candidate based on their qualifications. Instead they ridicule the “other side’s” candidate and talk about how terrible of a President they would be. And in the church, people have the nerve to throw around the label “antichrist” in regards to a particular candidate and those that might find some good qualities in them. I’m at a loss for words as to how to describe how dumb it is to pretend that the United States is even close to the Kingdom of God. It’s not. I won’t even pretend that it is. But I still plan to vote, and my Christian worldview will affect my vote.

If the two of you are still reading this entry, thank you. I can’t imagine why you’ve stuck with it this far. AND, I can’t imagine why you would care who I’m voting for or why. But for some reason, I just feel like sharing it. I’ve recently decided to vote for Barack Obama, and likely not for the strongest of reasons. But I’ll list a few here:

1 I do not really consider abortion to be a real issue any more. It only seems to be an issue at election time or when a judge is nominated to the Supreme Court. There has been a conservative republican in office for 20 of the past 28 years and nothing has changed in Roe v. Wade. Apparently, voting for a candidate based on this issue is not a great decision. Even if it did, I’m not really convinced that a written law will end abortion. It’ll make it illegal, but it won’t end the problem. I would like abortion to be legal and non-existant because it is unnecessary. I believe Obama feels the same way. I believe abortion is wrong, but I don’t want people not having abortions because it’s illegal, I want them not having abortions because they don’t believe they need to have one.

2 Gun control. “Guns don’t kill people; People kill people.” Yes, and it’s easier for people to kill people if they have a machine gun.

3 Global warming. Don’t know if it’s man-made or not, but I don’t see the harm in changing our habits to protect the earth.

4 Economy. Like I said, I don’t have a whole lot of knowledge about the economy. What I do know is that rich people don’t get rich by giving away their money, so I’m a bit skeptical of a “trickle-down” approach.

5 The war. First of all, I believe we were lied to about WMDs. I don’t think it was an accident. This war with Iraq was about a lot more than WMDs and how much of a threat Saddam was to the US. Also, I really don’t think that most of the American people want to be at war with the Iraqi people or the Iranian people. I think some very rich people, some of whom are in the American government, benefited from going to war in Iraq and would like to go to war with the Iran government for similar reasons. I don’t want my government killing innocents and calling it “collateral damage”. I don’t understand how the deaths on 9-11 made it ok to kill several thousand more Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s in the name of finding WMDs that didn’t exist. This wreaks of empire building and oil control. I won’t even argue about this. I just know how I feel about it. “Who would Jesus bomb?” isn’t just a smart-ass quip. Answer the question. Yes, I feel pretty strongly about this. And it’s NOT about the troops, it’s about those that created the war.

6 Finally, VISION. I describe my feelings about the two candidates this way: I’d like to have a cup of coffee with McCain and perhaps ask him for advice. That would be fun. I’d like to work for Obama. I believe he has the vision for not only a better America, but for a better world. He inspires me to do better and to be a better person. I believe he sees the potential for humanity. We, as a world, need to change and the US needs to lead the way. I struggle with McCain’s “Country First” slogan. My neighbors live beyond the borders of the USA and I care about them too. I think it is high time that our Presidents and citizens realize we're all in this world together so we should stop destroying each other.

I think I’ve rambled enough now, and this is beginning to sound a lot like gobble-de-gook. In summary, I’d only say this: Don’t compare these candidates to Jesus or this country to the Kingdom of God. It’s not even close.