The
Congregational
Church of
Manhasset (UCC)
We are a proud
part of
the
United
Church
of Christ.
The Congregational
Church of Manhasset
1845 Northern Blvd.
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: 516-627-4911
FAX: 516-627-4963
Copyright © 2002-5
The Congregational
Church of Manhasset
Questions
or |
Page last updated
9-12-05
CONGOblog A weblog of The Congregational Church of Manhasset (UCC) Archives--June 2005
6.24.05 Marriage: Then and Now I'm headed to Boston on the youth mission trip next week, so the CONGOblog will be taking a break until after the 4th of July.
In the meantime, to continue the ongoing discussion of same-sex marriage here on the blog, your homework assignment over the break is to listen to the terrific interview with Stephanie Coontz on the NPR show On Point. She's a professor at Evergreen College among other things, and she has a new book Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage.
This interview does not directly address same-sex marriage (having not read the book, I don't know if it comes up there), but it seems so very pertinent to today's debate. She points out the changes over time in the Western understanding of marriage and understands it as a movement from a male-dominated institution based often upon economic reasons to a more egalitarian commitment based upon compatibility. I think she does a fine job of pointing out the fallacy in the way marriage is often portrayed. "The Good Old Days" were many times not so good.
I appreciated her comments, because she sees her role as an historian to provide information enough to break through the statements made by those on the right and left. She finds that the changes over the last fifty years in the way our culture understands marriage brings both positive and negative results. I understood her to say that even with the many contemporary problems occurring within marriage, the general movement of history has been towards more egalitarian, compatible and loving marriages.
After hearing her thoughts, I tend to think that we can view the changes in marriage as a steady slide into the abyss or with more optimism, as a slow movement--with lots of fits and starts--towards marriage relationships that are more just and healthy. If the latter view is chosen, might not same-sex marriages be a positive movement of inclusion of those normally excluded and validation of each person's worth, rather than a slide towards barbarism?
Foucault is one of my favorite philosophers--despite what postmodernist types have made of him. His specialty was to chart out the history of an idea or field of study (e.g. medicine, prison, sex, etc.) to show how the things often taken for certain and eternal truth at a given time were in most cases culturally and temporally bound. For example--and perhaps most relevant to our time--he wrote about sexuality and showed how many twentieth century views of sex whose adherents claimed were the result of divine, scriptural or scientific origins were actually carryovers from Victorian understandings of gender roles. Of particular note, homosexuality understood as sexual orientation first appears in the Victorian era in medical texts. Therefore, the understanding of homosexuality most commonly used today--that of orientation--is no more than 150 years old. The question naturally arises--what does it mean that scripture and church tradition understand homosexuality in a far different way (i.e. as particular behavioral acts) than we do today (i.e. as orientation--an inherent part of a person's identity)?
It seems to me, that at least, we should be very careful about the assumptions we make about sex and marriage, because we may discover that the things we take for granted as "normal" may be merely a trend in the thought of our time. Of course, this cuts both ways when it comes to an issue like homosexuality, so humility remains essential and unfortunately often in short supply.
Peace,
Chase
6.21.05 John Danforth on Politics and Faith I haven't forgotten about the discussion of same-sex marriage and the upcoming debate over support for same-sex marriage at the United Church of Christ General Synod (the national meeting of our denomination that will take place later this summer). But, I'm getting ready for the youth mission trip next week, so my thought processes are a little skewed.
In the meantime, here's an article that Merritt W. pointed out to me. It's another NYTimes editorial by John Danforth, retired Republican senator from MO and United Nations Ambassador, not to mention an Episcopal priest and someone who is pretty darn conservative politically. He used to be considered solidly on the right of the Republican party, but given the rise of the Religious Right he is now a moderate Republican at best. His editorial provides an articulate argument that one can be a conservative Christian and still respect others in our pluralistic culture. Government is generally a hindrance to rather than a means of advancing one's faith in the public sphere. Since, the Times site only keeps editorials and articles up for a week before starting to charge for them, here's a few excerpts for the long term:
- Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings.
- But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.
- We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.
- Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.
- For us, living the Love Commandment may be at odds with efforts to encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to holding together a diverse country, and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith. Aware that even our most passionate ventures into politics are efforts to carry the treasure of religion in the earthen vessel of government, we proceed in a spirit of humility lacking in our conservative colleagues.
- For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours. Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord's table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love.
*******
In Jimmy's sermon on Sunday, he shared the stories of several notable figures (James Earl Jones, Oprah, etc.) and the people who mentored them. He found these stories on a great web site on mentoring called Who Mentored You? It's definitely worth checking out.
Peace,
Chase
6.16.05 The 10 Commandments, the Poor & Parents I'll step away once again from the discussion of same-sex marriage to pass along a few things that I've come across and found interesting.
1. Chris Hedges, a long-time war correspondent, minister's son, divinity school graduate, etc. has a new book out entitled Losing Moses on the Freeway: The 10 Commandments in America. I mentioned a great article by him in a May post on his insightful account of his trip to the Religious Broadcasters Association convention. He also wrote a best-selling book entitled War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning on his experiences as a war correspondent. His new book sounds fascinating given the way the 10 commandments are thrown around in the culture wars and there's a great interview with him available on-line from a show this week on the NPR show On Point. Interestingly, the host makes the point to ask callers and listeners if they can actually name all 10 of the 10 commandments. Can you?
2. Jesus said, "The poor will always be with you," and ever since his words have been taken out of context as an excuse for people of faith to ignore the needs of the poor. I came across a nice article in Sojourners magazine about the context and meaning of this passage that is worth reading. Maybe you can be the one who sets the record straight the next time you hear this statement at a cocktail party.
3. On Sunday I preached on the topic of parents passing on their faith to their children. (You can now read it on-line!) Not included with the sermon is the quote I placed at the top of the order of worship from Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. It's worth passing along:
If children are to be allowed to be children, we have to ask about what prevents adults being adults…A society that pushes us towards dependent and frustrated patterns of behaviour will not enable adults to be ‘at home’ with their limits and their choices in a way that makes it possible to welcome or nurture [children].
--Rowan Williams, Lost Icons
Peace,
Chase
6.15.05 The Bible and Homosexuality Whenever there is a debate about homosexuality, the Bible always gets brought up. So what does the Bible have to say about it? This question is more complicated than it may seem, because like most ethical issues and the Bible, there are two questions involved--what does the Bible say and what do we do about it? To cut to the chase (no pun intended), I believe that if we could poll the writers of the bible, they would most likely consider homosexuality a sin, but I also believe that given history, science and experience, we do not have to view it the same way. I'll explain what I mean about both points.
What do the Biblical writers say about homosexuality?
The short answer is not a whole heck of a lot. Compared to issues like poverty, idolatry and violence, homosexuality barely makes a dent in the entire Bible. Here are the passages in question:
Genesis 19 and Judges 19--cases of homosexual rape
The Genesis passage describes the visit of three angels to the city of Sodom. They are met by Lot who welcomes them into his house. Men from the town surround the house and demand that Lot hand over the men, so that "we may know them." Yes, that's "know" in the biblical sense. Lot refuses and makes the disturbing offer of handing over his daughters instead. The men refuse and the angels blind them. Lot flees the city along with his wife and daughters and the city is destroyed by God.
In Judges 19, a Levite stops in Gibeah, an Israelite town, where he is taken in by an old man. The men of the town show up and demand that the Levite be handed over so they can "know him." The host refuses and hands over the Levite's concubine instead. They rape her and abuse her and leave her for dead. The next day the Levite heads home and then cuts up the body of his concubine (who may or may not already be dead) and sends a piece of her body to each of the twelve tribes of Israel. They come together and destroy Gibeah.
These are awful texts. Phylis Trible, currently at Wake Forest Divinity School and longtime professor at Union Theological Seminary in NY, has called the Judges passage a "text of terror" in her book of that name. Scholars generally think that the Judges passage was the original and the Genesis passage was based on it. The parallels are strong. In both passages, the real issues involved do not amount to a condemnation of homosexuality as we know it today. I do not know anyone who would want to justify rape. This hardly amounts to a mutual and loving homosexual relationship. Instead, these passages describe men who are set upon rape (in the Judges passage rape of either gender) and upon abusing the hospitality of strangers. Hospitality remains a primary value in the Middle East today. To take a stranger under your roof is to guarantee their protection (which may explain if not excuse Lot's disturbing offer of his daughters).
The Genesis passage about Sodom is where we get the modern words "sodomy" and "sodomite." There is a long and twisted etymology behind these words. Mark Jordan, professor at Emory and a former teacher of mine, has a great book called The Invention of Sodomy that traces the usage of these words throughout western religious history. In the Bible, Sodom is often used as an example of wickedness, but in all of these cases, idolatry is the sin of its citizens rather than homosexuality. In church history, "sodomy" is used to refer to any number of so-called immoral sexual acts. Not unlike today, to call someone a "sodomite" is a great way to assassinate their character. An examination of the legal code of the various states in our country reveals that depending on what state you're in "sodomy" may mean all kinds of sexual acts including ones done between consenting heterosexuals. It seems very few folks actually read Genesis 19.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13--ritual purity
In each of these laws, sex between two men is called an abomination, and in the latter one, the punishment is death. I'm always suspicious when Christians reach into Leviticus to justify their point. It seems like the only times Christians ever read it is when they're looking to justify an opinion they already hold. There are all kinds of laws in this book about how the ancient Israelites were to conduct themselves in regards to ritual purity. Some of these strictures we agree with now and some we do not (e.g. condemnation of wearing clothing made of more than one material, having sex with a woman during her period, etc.). Certainly, no one today except the most virulent opponents of homosexuality would want to impose a death penalty on homosexuals. That interpretation which draws a distinction between then and now should make us realize that each of us recognizes a difference between our context and theirs--we just have to decide how much of a difference and why. It's also interesting to note that lesbians are off the hook, as far as Leviticus goes.
1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10--some difficult words
Both of these passages occur in the letters of Paul (although many scholars believe Paul did not write 1 Timothy) and they occur in a particular genre of writing called a vice list. It was common when making a point in Greco-Roman literature to include a sort of rhetorical flourish--a list of virtues or vices. Paul does both in his letters. Those who make the list include liars, thieves, murderers, slave traders, etc. The words in question are malakos and arsenokoites. An examination of the various translations of these words from the Greek into our English translations will reveal a number of different meanings. Scholars have postulated that the words may mean homosexuals, or the active and passive partners in a male homosexual acts, homosexual prostitutes, etc. The best work I've read on the translation of the words is by Dale Martin, professor at Yale Divinity School. He examines the many ways the words have been translated in English and the many, many more ways the words were used in Greco-Roman literature. He concludes that malakos generally meant effeminate--i.e. a man who did not exhibit typical Greco-Roman masculine behavior--or someone not macho enough. arsenokoites is more problematic, because it is used to mean all kinds of things, most often to refer to someone doing some kind of exploitation of others probably in a financial sense. If Martin is correct, and I think he is, at the least these verses should be used very carefully, if at all, in any kind of debate today.
Romans 1:26-27--idolatry and creation
If any passage in the Bible is relevant for the contemporary debate, it is this one. In Romans 1, Paul describes the folly of idolatry. He writes that humans have turned away from God and worshipped creatures on earth as gods rather than the God who created them. This idolatry results in a distortion of the created order where, among other things, men have sexual relations with each other and women have "unnatural relations." This may be the only passage that refers to lesbianism, and even then, some scholars have argued that the reference to women is more general and deals with women taking any kind dominant role in sex--after all, in the ancient world, men were dominant in everything.
Some scholars have tried to argue that this passage does not really refer to homosexual acts. I think they're wrong. There just doesn't seem to be any way around it. The most convincing argument I've come across is that of Richard B. Hays, professor at Duke, who writes--I think correctly--that Paul here is working off of the creation accounts in Genesis and argues that all of creation is distorted once one chooses to worship something other than God. Paul's view of the created order and I think that of Genesis as well is that God created humans, male and female, and they are meant to engage in heterosexual behavior only.
I think that if we could ask Paul today what he thought about homosexuality, he would be against it. The question for us is if Paul was against it, should we be against it also? Certainly, there are a number of ideas Paul held that we do not abide by today, most noticeably his view of marriage. For Paul, marriage was for those who could not control their sexual desires. Celibacy was far superior and a sign of a stronger Christian. Today, I certainly do not hear many folks who oppose same-sex marriage advocating celibacy as an ideal.
The Ethics of the Bible or Where the Ethics of the Bible Point To
One of my seminary professors, Sandra Hack Polaski, just wrote a book called A Feminist Introduction to Paul. In it, she makes a great point about Paul being both a man of his time and a man who remarkably was ahead of his time. In some ways, he advocated some radically modern ideas about women's leadership, equality of classes (at least in the church), charity, etc. In other ways, he was patriarchal and sexist. I like a lot her understanding of Paul's ethics. She draws a distinction between Paul's ethics and where Paul's ethics point to. She says that if we look to the outer margins of Paul's ethics and beyond--if we choose to apply his ethics even to issues that he did not apply them--we can find Paul's writings especially relevant for us today.
For example, even though Paul was at times patriarchal and took a condescending view towards women, in Galatians 3:28 he writes, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." Surely, all of us are guilty of holding beliefs or ideals that we do not always live up to. If we realize that the Gospel Paul preached points toward the inclusion of all people regardless of the major divisions of his day (gender, class, nationality), then we can apply it to the goal of including everyone regardless of the major divisions of our day.
A Paradigm from the Book of Acts--scripture vs. experience
Another one of my professors, Luke Timothy Johnson, has written a book entitled Scripture and Discernment: Decision-Making in the Church. In it, he examines the case of Acts 15. In this passage, we find the example of the Jerusalem Council, when the leaders of the mother church in Jerusalem met to discuss Gentiles who had become Christians without first becoming Jews and being circumcised. At this time, the early Christians still understood themselves as being a form of Judaism. There was a clear process in scripture and tradition as to how a person converted to Judaism, but Paul had preached to Gentiles who had in turn received the Holy Spirit and been baptized. After hearing the details, the council decides that other than a few dietary rules, they will make no demands upon the new believers. Since God was already at work among the Gentile believers, they chose not to make them follow the dictates of scripture and tradition.
In other words, the experience of God changed their understanding of scipture. Johnson argues, and I with him, that the testimony of the many gays and lesbians who are Christians should persuade us that we should choose the side of inclusion and recognize the work of God in the lives of homosexuals. Just like the early Christians chose not to make new Gentile converts undergo circumcision, so we too should not make our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters be anything other than who they are.
Wow, this has been a long post...
Yes, this has been a long post, but there's a lot to say and I have merely cruised through it. The conversation will continue--although, so far, it's pretty much been one-way. I'm glad to know your thoughts and will post them or not post them depending on what you desire.
Peace,
Chase
6.10.05 Nicholas Kristof, The White Stripes, etc. Okay, maybe my next post isn't about homosexuality and the Bible as I promised yesterday. Taking a break from the same-sex marriage discussion, here are two interesting things--one related to previous posts on the Darfur discussion and another just for fun.
America's On-going Silence on Darfur
Nicholas Kristof continues to be the only voice in the media talking about the genocide in Darfur. The mass-murder of civilians in this part of Sudan by the government and government-backed militia groups is disturbing enough. Also disturbing is the fact that African Union peacekeepers are ready to offer protection to displaced civilians provided they have funding for their mission. In this week's column, Kristof details his trip to a village protected by peacekeepers and the people who have returned to their homes in order to continue their lives. He makes a strong case that Darfur is not Somalia and the United States can make a huge difference and save thousands upon thousands of lives with a relatively small commitment of energy and money--and no US combat troops. Here's the biting conclusion to his column:
"Mr. Bush values a frozen embryo. But he hasn't mustered much compassion for an entire population of terrorized widows and orphans. And he is cementing in place the very hopelessness he dreads, by continuing to avert his eyes from the first genocide of the 21st century."
Of course, the Democrats as well as Republicans along with the American media have ignored this crisis as well. There are some church groups, however, who are trying to raise the issue in D.C. Read more...
Jack White of the White Stripes on God and Creativity
I was glad to come across an interview on NPR's Fresh Air with Jack and Meg White who make up the band The White Stripes. I enjoy this hard-rocking stripped-down band for their music, but I've been intrigued by Jack White, who, among other things, produced Loretta Lynn's recent Grammy-winning album and performed in the movie Cold Mountain and on its soundtrack. It's not every day that a rock musician can play bluegrass. Their new album is entitled Get Behind Me Satan a reference to Mark 8:33. I had assumed it was a kind of throw-off line and merely figurative. What would a rock band know about Jesus' rebuke of Peter anyway? You know what happens when I assume don't you?
It turns out White was raised Roman Catholic and still considers himself to be a religious person. In the interview he spoke very openly about the creative spirit in humans being a gift from God and a reflection of God's creative work. He made the point that a barrier to artistic work is a lack of humility. Only when a person accepts the fact that they are not God, cannot create like God or make something perfect can they begin to produce art. That'll preach!
Peace,
Chase
6.9.05 Questions and More Questions About Marriage and the Bible It's taken me a few days to write this post, because it's a busy week and also because this is a tough topic. Where does one begin a conversation about same-sex marriage?
Here are some of the questions involved in this issue that came to my mind:
- What is the definition of marriage and what is its purpose?
- What are the religious, cultural, societal and financial elements involved in a marriage?
- What is the state's stake in a marriage?
- What does the Bible say about marriage?
- What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
- What does the Bible say about the role of each gender in marriage?
- What does the history of Christian theology and tradition say about these three things?
- How has marriage changed through the centuries?
- How has marriage changed in the last 100 years, specifically the last 40-50 years?
- How has our culture's understanding of sexuality changed in the last 50-100 years?
- What about heterosexual couples who live together--especially those in long-term committed relationships--but are unmarried?
- What about the high divorce rate among heterosexual couples?
- What is the difference between a marriage and a civil union?
- In what ways do our traditions of marriage reflect our culture and in what ways do they transcend our culture?
- How has the changing role of women in our culture impacted our understanding of marriage?
- Is there a difference between our modern understanding of individual rights, especially those of women, and that of the Bible?
What questions does this issue raise for you?
In regards to the question of what does the Bible say about marriage, finding a single coherent view of marriage in the Bible is more difficult than it may appear. How a person approaches the Bible may predetermine the kind of answer one finds on this issue or any other. All people, whether they realize it or not, interpret the Bible. Each person makes choices about which parts of the Bible are more authoritative for them. Each person goes through some type of process of applying the ideas written in another age to our own. One of the biggest problems involved in this debate over same-sex marriage is that so many Christians fail to take seriously their own presuppositions that they bring to the Bible and to admit their own choices as to what texts are relevant to us today and why. Many people claim that God supports their point of view based on a particular piece of scripture, but few want to engage the reasoning behind their choice of scripture and their claim of God's support.
A few general things can be said about marriage in the Bible:
1. There are a variety of ways marriage is understood in the Bible. Marriages in the Bible run the gamut from polygamous relationships to monogamous ones. Some are seen as a sacred covenant and others are seen as mere business. In some women are cherished and in others women are chattel.
2. With few exceptions, marriage is patriarchal--meaning that men hold the power in the relationship. Generally, men provided financial income and made decisions regarding the family and its relationship to the world at large.. Men also held the power to divorce their wives but wives held no such power. The chief role of the woman in the relationship is to give birth to children, especially male children. Women may have had a degree of freedom, but that freedom only existed within the bounds of their husband's authority.
3. Marriage is often used, especially by the prophets, as a metaphor for the relationship between God and Israel. Later Christian writers used marriage as a metaphor between Christ and the church. That marriage is used this way illustrates that it was valued as an institution. In almost all cases, God or Christ is understood as the male and Israel or the church is understood as the female. The metaphor was effective on many levels in terms of commitment and in terms of the power dynamics. Just as God holds power over humanity, so also the husband holds power over the wife.
4. It is safe to say that the Bible presumes heterosexuality as the norm for sexual and marital relationships. (Although it is a whole other issue as to what exactly the Bible does say about homosexual acts and whether it says anything at all about modern conceptions of sexual orientation.)
5. In most cases, marriage is valued, but in some, specifically in the case of Paul, marriage is understood as necessary for some but inferior to celibacy. (see 1 Corinthians 7)
6. Marriage between a man and a woman is understood as being instituted by God. Both the Creation account in Genesis 2 and Jesus in Mark 10 understand marriage in this way.
The question for us is in what way do the perspectives in the Bible towards marriage apply to us. Answering that question invites many more:
- Clearly, some perspectives on marriage (e.g. polygamy) are not ones we would choose for ourselves, what ones do we agree with?
- Our understanding of individual rights, especially those of women have changed dramatically since the times of the Bible. How do our conceptions of gender and equality fit with those of the Bible?
- Today, marriage is generally understood as a something desirable for many reasons, especially in terms of personal fulfillment and love. Often this involves raising children, but not always. Some couples do not want to be parents. Others are older and do not want to raise children. In some cases, couples come to a marriage having been divorced and children from previous marriages are either grown or in the custody of former spouses. Given that marriage today is often not for the purpose of raising children or raising children is just one purpose among many, how does the Bible's understanding of marriage and its strong emphasis upon procreation apply to our situation?
- Today we strongly value individual rights and human love and intimacy. In many ways, our values reflect a long Western intellectual tradition that may differ from that of the ancient world. What remains the same between then and now and what is different?
- Views of marriage in the Bible were shaped by the culture around them and the theological perspective of the writer. For example, Paul's preference for celibacy and understanding of marriage as something for people who could not control their sexual desires was shaped in large part by his belief that Christ would return soon--within his lifetime--and Christians should devote themselves to their faith in the short time left to them. Given these contingencies, what things transcend culture and time and what do not in regards to marriage? Furthermore, in what ways are our own views of marriage contingent upon our own time and culture?
- If we acknowledge that some of the views of marriage in the Bible do not line up with our own and how we believe God would have us live today, what about the Bible's presumption of heterosexuality as the norm for everyone? Some would say that their understanding of heterosexuality as normative is consistent with the Bible, and others would say there are multiple sexual orientations that the writers of the Bible were unaware of. How do we choose between these views and many others?
There are, of course, more questions to ask about marriage in the Bible and how it applies to us and about marriage in general. In the coming days, I'll ask some more and I'll await responses from readers.
My next post will be about homosexuality. What does the Bible say about it? What doesn't it say about it? How do modern understandings and beliefs about sexual orientation relate to the discussion?
Peace,
Chase
6.6.05 A Healthy and Holy Conversation (I hope) Buckle up your seatbelts, because we're going to talk about a really touchy subject, one that seems to evoke perhaps the strongest emotional reaction I have seen since the abortion debates of the 1980's. The topic in question: same-sex marriage.
Take a deep breath. Exhale. Take another deep breath. Exhale.
(Continue deep breathing until you are able to keep reading and the red cloud obscuring your vision fades away. The red cloud is caused by blood boiling inside your brain.)
This is such a touchy subject precisely because it impinges upon so many concepts that we rarely question, because we take them for granted and assume everyone else operates with the same kind of presuppositions. These concepts include: sex, gender, marriage, commitment, religion, government, the Bible, God, Creation, love, sexual orientation, sin, etc. These are the kind of words that we assume we have a concise definition for and that we often assume this definition is shared throughout our culture. Unfortunately (or depending on how you look at it, maybe fortunately), rarely do such simple definitions exist much less a cultural consensus about them. Even a little word like sex--merely three letters--can bring to mind issues of procreation vs. pleasure, definitions of "normal" and "abnormal" sexual behavior, the role of government in legalizing or outlawing certain sexual acts or behaviors, consent and human rights, health and illness, and the list goes on.
It is worth noting that when it comes to talking about sex, especially and many of the other terms and issues raised by a discussion of same sex marriage--the church does a very poor job contributing to a healthy debate. Usually the people with the loudest and most shrill voices get the most air time and are the ones who frame the debate. Debate often is the last thing to occur; recrimination, denunciation and condemnation are much more likely.
Why do I bring such a difficult concept up? I bring it up here on our church's blog, because this issue will be debated at the national meeting of our denomination, the United Church of Christ, taking place this summer. You can read more about the UCC General Synod here. More importantly, I believe that, as Christians, we need to practice healthy and holy conversation about issues like this one. If we mean what we say about loving each other and loving God, then we need to find ways to talk together about complicated issues--issues that we may even disagree about--in a manner that enacts love and grace. Hopefully, that kind of discussion can happen here on the CONGOblog as well.
Please note: the way our denomination works is an issue can be debated and a position can be taken by our denomination at a national level, but that decision is NOT binding on individual churches that make up our denomination. Unlike other denominations that have a top-down hierarchy and where decisions made at the top affect all people who claim to be a part of that particular church body, the United Church of Christ has no such hierarchy. The national body may take a stance on a particular social issue, but there is no requirement that individual churches take that same stance. A specific church and the believers that make it up can agree with, disagree with or simply not bother at all with a position taken by the denomination at a national level.
For example, our denomination was the first Christian denomination to ordain an openly gay man in 1972 and the only major Christina denomination to declare itself "Open and Affirming" of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered persons in 1985. The fact that these actions took place 33 and 20 years ago respectively along with the fact that most UCC churches have not taken their own stances on these two issues should reveal that no matter what the UCC decides at the national level it will be a long time, if ever, before most of the denominations churches ever deal with issues of sexual orientation and same sex marriage.
As we all might expect, the simple fact that this issue will be discussed at our denomination's national body has already provoked protest and controversy. In addition to the churches and groups that are sponsoring resolutions affirming same sex marriage, there are other churches and groups sponsoring resolutions against it. Get ready for plenty of folks outside of the UCC to weigh in this summer on what our denomination does. You can read more about the various viewpoints at the UCC Press site.
In the coming days, I will post some of the questions raised by and involved in the debate over same sex marriage. My aim will not be to advocate a particular stance, but to simply facilitate some thought and discussion. We'll see if I succeed.
Peace,
Chase
6.1.05 Chase curses about Darfur Yesterday, Nicholas Kristof had another of his prophetic columns about the continuing genocide in Darfur. I know, I know that I have returned to the topic of Darfur on multiple occasions in this blog, but I just can't let it go. I remain continually stunned by the world's ambivalence towards the massacre of children, mass rape of women and ethnic cleansing of an entire ethnic group. We don't even have to send our troops in, an African Union peacekeeping force is ready to go if it ever gets the funding to do so. What the hell are world leaders thinking? What the hell are our nation's leaders thinking?
In Kristof's column, a copy of a letter from a reader is pictured. It reads
"Why should the U.S. care for the rest of the world? The U.S. should take care of its own. ... It's way past time for liberal twits to stop pushing the U.S. into nonsense or try to make every wrong in the world our responsibility."
Kristof lists several reasons why it is in America's interest to stop the genocide in Darfur: the genocide is destabilizing oil-rich Sudan and Chad, failed states become fertile ground for terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and diseases like polio. The most compelling reasons, however, comes in Kristof's example of a woman named Magboula. Her family was forced out of her village by the Sudanese army and then the government supported janjaweed militia caught up with them. Her husband was killed, she was whipped, mocked and then gang-raped. She fled across a desert with her five children--the youngest is 6 months old--and now lives in a refugee camp surviving on handouts from other refugees.
Kristof makes the point that if there were pictures of the suffering people of Darfur on American TV every night, as was the case with the tsunami earlier this year, something would be done. I have no doubt that media attention would help, but I am not so confident that we would stir ourselves to help. A natural disaster is relatively simple to understand--drowning is bad--in comparison to the tribal politics of Africa. Americans are used to thinking of Africa as a "failed continent" and its problems seem too complex for the type of easy solutions we prefer. Furthermore, I hate to say it, but I really do believe that there is a subtle form of racism at work. If the people of Darfur were white and/or Christian, I believe Americans would actually care about them.
The silence that is most disturbing to me is that of the church. You would think that after a century of genocide--the Armenians, the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc.--we might begin to realize that shaking our head and apologizing for our inaction later is just not enough. In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus tells a parable that makes it pretty clear that whenever we help the material needs of another--no matter how low in status they are--it is as if we did it for Jesus. Vice-a-versa if we fail to do it, then it is as if we failed to do it for Jesus. This is a sobering parable.
Why is it that we do not apply this parable to the people of Darfur?
By ignoring their plight, we turn our backs on Christ.
Why is it that American Christians will get outraged over a Super Bowl half-time show and ignore the killing of tens of thousands of people?
I was pleased to read of one church's plans to hold public prayer vigils in Washington D.C. outside the National Press Club to raise attention for the genocide in Darfur. This is from an interview with Brian McLaren, who is sort of the guru of postmodernism and the evangelical church.
So were trying to do something about this and one of the things were going to do is five Sundays of outdoor public worship in Washington, D.C. where I live, and the second week, we're going to be in front of the National Press Club. And we're going to publicly, in prayer, thank the journalists who have covered Darfur in trying to keep this on the national consciousness. But we're also going to pray by name for all the news directors who are giving us twenty hours of Michael Jackson coverage a week and seconds, or minutes or nothing in Darfur coverage. Those are moral decisions...
If only more Christians would follow this group's example.
Peace,
Chase