August 2004 Archives

I pulled the weblog-post below from Andrew Sullivan's weblog. It doesn't surprise me, but reading through what Dew wrote reminded me of thoughts I had back in the early-to-mid 80's when I was in the height of my Evangelical self. (Click the link below to read the post. It may make my comments that follow more understandable.)

As absurd as this sounds, I used to wonder how non-Christian parents could ever really love their children! After all, the ability to love came only from Jesus. We could only truly love when we were in relationship with Jesus, so those who were not could not really love anything, but maybe themselves or evil. I would think that non-Christian parents were only interested in themselves - satisfying their own desires, lusts, or needs without putting their children or their children's needs before their own. I actually could not conceive of how non-Christian parents could truly love their children.

Think about that! What was I thinking? I was taking the Religious Right's ideas to some of their logical conclusions, I believe. These conclusions extend to just about every aspect of live.

Now consider the Republican Party and the political process - I now hear or read Religious Right politicos talking about RINO's (Republicans in Name Only). The term "RINO" applies to any Republican who does not support the policy points of the Religious Right. John McCain, Giuliani, or any moderate are examples, and I believe they are including non-Christian Republicans in that category as well.

After all, to have a country so instituted by God's will as is the United States, and knowing that our country is divinely chosen to fulfill a great purpose in the world, and knowing that a government's role is to see to the development of God's purposes, then only "born-again" Christians can rightfully lead this country. Since godly leadership can only be elected by those who approve of God's plan for the nation, then eventually, if left to their own devises, the Religious Right over time would justify limiting the vote to only those who can prove a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. After all, our founding documents first limited voting rights to landed men, so there is a Constitutional precedent for restricting those who can vote, just as long as it is not according to skin color or gender (those characteristics are enshrined in the Constitution). Non-Christians would only selfishly vote for those things that are going to benefit them, and those things will obviously be ungodly. Evil can only beget evil.

Thank God, and I mean it, that I am no longer in that mind-set (even though my current one is probably just as warped!).

I'm feeling much better, but still staying low. I actually have time on my hands.

I've been reading the latest edition of Christianity Today, which takes on the topic of gay marriage. The first article, What God Hath Not Joined: Why Marriage Was Designed for Male and Female, by Edith M. Humphre (associate professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary) deals with a variety of points from an anti-gay perspective. Under the heading Distorted Image, she asks what it means to give an authentic welcome to the Church for non-Christians. She says, "No one is to be excluded from the church or any aspect of its life by being Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free. The revisionists insist that homoerotic orientation (and, they mean, expression) is just as central to a person's identity and equally no bar to inclusion in the church." (emphasis mine) The next paragraph, she starts, "But what about Jesus' call to repentance?" She goes on to say that revisionists want to dismiss the sinfulness of homosexuality and proclaim it to be just another "Jew and Gentile," "slave and free" - "straight and gay," I presume.

One thing that truly frustrates me, especially as someone who can see a rational in both sides of the argument and wants to know Truth, is that prohibitionist Christians cannot come to this debate without first demanding the presuppositional claim that homosexuality, however defined, is sin, and everything then follows from that presupposition. Her comment about Jesus' calling people to repentance, as in the example of the woman caught in adultery, presumes that homosexuality is already sin and therefore cannot be accommodated in the church, period. How then, according to her, can there be any legitimacy in the calls by "revisionists" to allow homosexual people to be in relationship with any part of the Body of Christ. That would mean, according to the argument, that they are calling the Church to accept sin.

Robert A.J. Gagnon's does the same thing. He writes is book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (the proclaimed pinnical of Evangelical scholarship on homosexuality, which scares me) with a stated presupposition that homosexuality is sin and cannot be accepted within the Church. He says his book is written in response to the poor emotionally and psychologically bent gay people he has come into contact with, but it is simply an attempt to justify his preconceived idea of what is correct regarding homosexuality.

Prohibitionists demand the conversation begin with homosexuality as sin, before any evidence is examined. Accommodationists demand the conversation begin with homosexuality not as sin, before any evidence is examined. All their justifications and condemnations then flow from their presuppositions.

Where are Christians who can put aside posturing and declaring God's Truth before the conversation even begins? Where are the Christians, who are supposed to be striving to know God's Truth, who will come to the question with a clear slate and say, "I will examine the evidence and draw my conclusions afterward."? Where are they? Jeremy Marks in England, and Evangelical ex-gay leader who has made an 180 degree shift in his thinking, and Bishop Alexander of Atlanta, and Episcopalian who was opposed to homosexuality and has changed his position, are two examples of people who where theologically opposed to homosexuality and have changed their opinions due to the mounting evidence against the Prohibitionistç—´ positions. I would give anything to find a scholarly book that revealed the process someone went through who came to this question with a neutral attitude, examined the evidences, and drew a conclusion - on either side. I haven't found one from an Evangelical perspective, and this is what so disappointed by about Gagnon's book.

And it came to pass that God visited the earth, and He did behold a series of billboard ads attributing to Him utterances of such banality that they would never pass His lips in a billion years. And it came to pass that God in His wrath considered a libel suit, but in the end opted simply to mount a cantankerous, contradictory ad campaign of His own. . . .

I never said, "Thou shalt not think." - God

Okay, you've got multiplying down. Now let's try replenishing for a while. - God

I don't care who started it. Just stop it. - God

If you seek to know my ways, read a damn science book. - God

You'd better have stopped fighting by the time I get back, or you're all grounded. - God

If I wanted you to have seven kids, I would have given you a bigger planet. - God

You're not tracking those bloody footprints in here. - God

E=mc2. Yeah, that's one of mine. - God

You can have another kid when you learn to take care of the first one. - God

The dinosaurs didn't believe in you either. - God

Just look at this planet! Do you expect me to clean this up? - God

Here's a clue=ADif they say they're doing it in my name, they're lying. - God

I'm concerned about children's education. I favor lower child-to-parent ratios. - God

I gave you a bigger brain for a reason. Start using it. - God

If you don't clean this place up, you won't get another millennium. - God

I don't blame video games when my children start shooting each other. - God

I like to kick things off with a bang. A Big Bang. - God

If you didn't hear it straight from my lips, take it with a grain of salt. - God

All this will someday be your children's. - God

There is no such thing as killing in my name. - God

Stop smirking, America. I'm talking to you, too. - God

Today begins Orientation for the class of 2007. I went to chapel this morning for Morning Prayer for the first times since spring, and it felt good to be there with the new Juniors. I so vividly remember (easy, since it was only two years ago!) sitting in chapel our first day - everyone was dead quite and everything very still. I smiled, because all I wanted to do is break the silence and uneasiness by doing or saying something silly. Three years of study, relationship building, challenge, frustration, and excitement lay ahead. Now, two short years later, I look at the new Juniors and know what is going through their minds, feel the uneasiness over what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. In 45 minutes we head to the Refectory for lunch - new chief, no more water streaming down the walls, no more soot falling all over everything, and we begin again the ritual of communion with one another.

I have been involved with new student orientation in one form or another for the past 20 years, and this is the first year I am not. It feels funny - I feel like I need to be doing something, and I feel a bit left out. The experience of seminary, and particularly of General, is remarkable. I think much of it is unhealthy and unbalanced, but hey what do I know? We make it through and what doesn't kill us makes us stronger, right?

I am feeling butterflies in my stomach. Why? Because, being my last year, everything I experience from day-to-day will be the last such experience of seminary life and M.Div. degree preparation. It is all leading to GOE's, graduation, and (gulp!) being a priest in Christ's one holy and apostolic Church. Our attention and vision will increasingly leave this place and be focused on other things. This is all good, of course, but I have no idea what I will be doing, no idea of where I will be going, and suspicious of whether I will find a position. This is also the year that all hell will break loose over the controversies of the past year. The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Communion are in for a very bad year, I fear, and both entities could be very different come May 2005.

My God, what have I done? It is all too easy when there are three, two years yet to go, but when the last year has arrived and all things lead to an ending, it simply is not easy. I'm not ready. I know nothing. I could work for a non-profit. I could find another position working with students within a university. Being a priest, however, I just don't know. God help me! God help them!!!

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:21:40 -0400

From: Keucher, Jerry W.
Subject: RE: [HoB/D] "Normative"

Dan Martins writes with his accustomed elegance, "It isn't even so much about the words as about the 'music.' The scriptures 'sing' about the normative status of heterosexual marriage."

I agree. The real nub of the issue is whether "normative" here means "what usually happens," "what must happen" or "what shows forth most clearly the essence of the thing when it happens."

There's no doubt that heterosexual marriage is normative in the first sense. And I will grant (though I'll get potshots about this, I'm sure) that heterosexual marriage is normative in the third sense. The problem is that we're constantly saying that what's normative in the third sense must be normative in the second sense, that is, mandatory.

I think that a mutually fulfilling, lifelong, faithful heterosexual marriage that results in loved and productive members of the next generation is normal in the third sense. I submit that that's the sense Jesus is talking about when He says, "Therefore a man leaves his father and mother..."

The problem is that the Church goes on to say that since that's the kind of marriage that really shows forth what marriage is and what best shows forth God's relation to Creation and to the Church, that's what all marriages have to be like, and other kinds of behavior are not permitted.

That's the fallacy the Roman Church is officially in, even though marriages are "annulled" at a brisk clip by the marriage tribunals. Sex is normative in the second sense (that is, it is permitted) only if it occurs in circumstances that are normative in the third sense.

However, there are lots of straight marriages that are not normative in that sense. And the third sense is one that's very hard to police. A loveless, unhappy union that results in messed-up kids and lifelong misery for the couple is not quite what the Scriptures are singing about.

A series of legally and canonically sanctioned liaisons does not exactly capture the music of the image of God's covenant faithfulness to Israel. Such marriages would not have been permitted by the churches until very recently precisely because such serial monogamy was expressly forbidden by Jesus Himself.

However, when it comes to heterosexual sex, all the churches seem pretty much to have reached the conclusion that basically it's okay to have marriages that fall short of what is normative in the third sense. Permitting remarriage, whether following divorce or "annulment," overt or at least tacit acceptance of birth control (what else can you call it but tacit acceptance when an overwhelming percentage of RC couples use contraception?)--these things are accepted, perhaps reluctnatly, but nevertheless accepted. We recognize that there's a difference between normal (sense 3) and normal (sense 2).

In other words we have recognized, at least when it comes to straight people, that they are not perfect. Many, if not perhaps most, of their relationships may not fully embody every aspect of the Scripture's song. And if they mess up, they can have a second chance (at least). If they can't have children, or if they have so few that they have clearly had sex that was not intended to result in procreation, they are not forced to adopt in order to conform to the ideal. The third sense of what is normative is still appropriately held up as the goal at every wedding, even though the chances are very, very good that this particular expression will not be fully normative in that sense.

I was devastated when, at the age I was learning my letters, I also realized that I could never marry. As what we would now call a pre-schooler I knew that I couldn't. It would be a sham and unfair to whomever I married. It's very nice, I'm sure, when the song that you're innately inclined to sing is the same as Scripture's song, even if you'll probably sing a bit off-key in your personal rendition of it. It's not very nice when you realize that you are incapable of singing that tune. You must express the words in another meter and therefore another tune. (Not to press the poor metaphor to the wall, but the tunes, to my ear, are complementary, not dissonant. And I've done my best to sing it as well as I can.)

Here's the essence. Since we have realized that we should permit, even in the teeth of express Scriptural prohibitions, a distinction between what is normative in the third sense and what is normative in the second sense. We recognize that relationships that fail in significant and material ways to embody fully the ideal still embody important parts of it, and we permit them. So why not same-sex relationships?

The answer when we've reached this point is usually along the lines that the complementarity thing is so essential that it trumps every other aspect (life-longness, faithfulness, child-rearing, love). Well, that's just an assertion, not proof, and it really does seem to have more to do with the yuck factor than with Scripture's song. Dan, do you have anything else to offer on that point? And please excuse the length of this message.

This is a comment written to Sojourners concerning their "Take Back Our Faith" campaign. The writer sums-up well my own thoughts on the matter...

God is not a political football to be kicked around by Democrats and Republicans. Neither party is more Godlike than the other, and God does not favor one party over the other. God is not pulling for either George W. Bush or John Kerry to be America's next president. Our Creator gives us the freedom to make right and wrong choices, even the freedom to be an atheist or agnostic. We reap the consequences of our choices, good or bad.

But what God does require of us is that we do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly, not arrogantly, with our God. We must love God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and love our neighbors as well as we love ourselves. God wants all of us to walk the walk, not just talk the religious talk. If we do what God requires of us, it will help us to make the right choices in the voting booth. We dishonor and displease God when we deliberately use God for political gain. I am a person of faith who doesn't need Jerry Falwell to tell me who to vote for.

The convention is gearing up. I'm sick, so I'm not going to be able to do as much as I had wanted, but that's life.

Have you heard of RINO's? RINO's are "Republicans in name only." I have come across this term twice now and it is used by Religious Right Republicans to categorize all those other Republicans who do not agree with their beliefs. Now, according to them, if you are not a born-again Christian completely backing the agenda's of the Religious Right, then you are not really a Republican.

Here is the second reference I've read from CitizenLink (Focus on the Family):

Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition, meanwhile, said despite Cheney's statement, the Republican Party platform unveiled at next week's national convention will strongly endorse traditional marriage. Still, she expects the convention itself to be contentious.

"Don't be distracted by (California Gov. Arnold) Schwarzenegger or (former N.Y. Mayor Rudy) Giuliani or even the vice president," Lafferty said. "It is what George Bush says that counts, and he has been faithful and fearless on this important issue."

This is why I think this president and the Religious Right are so dangerous. The wedding of faith/religion/spirituality and nationalism never adds to either.

I read this article today posted on the House of Deputies/Bishops listserv post by Kendal Harman.

Honestly, I agree with many of his points - I experience very similar things at General when I talk with many here concerning more traditional understanding of theology, scripture, et cetera. I am told that I am known as the "Evangelical" among my classmates. Generally speaking, they are right, although I am continually drawn to High-Church and non-reactionary Anglo-Catholic piety and worship. After all, my field-placement parish is a "non-fussy, Anglo-Catholic" parish, and I love it. I am “Evangelical,” now (unlike before I became an Episcopalian) in the tradition of Anglican-Evangelicalism, not American-Evangelicalism, which has infiltrated Anglican-Evangelicals in this country and which now motivates those challenging and separating from the Episcopal Church USA.

The difference I have with the writer of the article is his understanding that there can only be one legitimate understanding from Scripture of the issue of homosexuality. In this way, the "traditionalists" are not comprehending those who believe that Scripture taken as a whole does not condemn life-long, monogamous, same-sex relationships. There is no comprehension on their part that anyone can have an alternative interpretation of Scripture and still have a high-view of Scripture and still align themselves with Scripture.

The author is right - liberals do not honestly comprehend the "traditionalists." Likewise, "traditionalists" do not honestly comprehend how there can be any legitimate interpretation of Scripture concerning homosexuality other than their own. The author's point is applicable to both sides.

Here is the article:

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:58:10 -0400
To: "bishopsdeputies"
From: "kendall harmon"
Subject: [HoB/D]

Let me try to explain this failure to understand us. I do this not to change
any minds, but to help them see what may be ahead.

Here is an interesting article from the LA Times.

The author initially pins the Religious Right to the door when he says that they pay attention to portions of Scripture, but then ignore other portions. It is very convenient, and exactly what the Religious Right accuses those who disagree with their interpretations of doing. Their accusations are hypocritical. If they want to use Lev. to condemn homosexuals, then they must pay attention and abide by the rest of the verse(s) - they must call for the death of homosexuals. They won't, at least for now, because they know that it won't play in Peoria. If they are successful in forcing the Constitution to conform to their particular religious notions, then perhaps that will be the next step to the final solution of preparing this nation born of God for Jesus' return and protecting Western Civilization from destruction and God's wrath. Who knows?

The other consideration is the Religious Right's misuse of Scripture, or the mischaracterization of the purpose of Scripture. The Bible is a book that deals with the heart of humankind - what we struggle with, fear, take pride in, and all that results as all these human conditions and emotions work themselves out in the temporal world. The Bible contains all that is necessary for SALVATION, not all that is necessary to do science, for civil government, and so forth. The Religious Right uses the Bible to force its sociological, anthropological, physiological, theological, et cetera, viewpoints on the populous. They attempt to force the Bible to be what the Bible is not, to the determent of the cause of Christ! In the long run, they will not succeed, because Scripture cannot sustain the weight that the Religious Right is attempting to place upon it. We will see that they are wrong, but how much harm is done in the mean time?

So, read the article...

Holy Terror
Religion isn't the solution -- it's the problem

What should we conclude from all this? That whatever their import to people of faith, ancient religious texts shouldn't form the basis of social policy in the 21st century. The Bible was written at a time when people thought the Earth was flat, when the wheelbarrow was high tech. Are its teachings applicable to the challenges we now face as a global civilization?

Take Back Our Faith is an initiative from Sojourners. The following is an appeal from Jim Willis from Sojourners. Read, sign, and vote - please!

An Election Year Campaign: Take Back Our Faith
by Jim Wallis

Together, we can take back our faith.

Yesterday, Thursday August 13th, was the final day for CPE. I am ever so glad.

The most significant moment of CPE, at least as of right now, has to be the following:

I walked up to my floor and got the census from the unit secretary. As I walked around the nurses' station, there was a man standing there who did not look too happy. I walked past him and did some paper work. When finished, I walked past the man once again and acknowledged him and he said, "Hey, I want to talk to you." "Okay," I thought, "what is going to happen here." He complained quite vigorously about the nurses who he said were ignoring him, being rude to him, and treating his wife badly. He said she had just been transferred from the ICU and had soiled herself. The man was trying to get someone to take care of his wife, according to him, and was getting nowhere. The issue was resolved and later that day I stopped in to see the woman.

She had been in the hospital for about two weeks. As I talked with her, I kept noticing the tube coming out of her nose and leading to a small reception tank. At first I was unsure what was going on, but as we talked I noticed a green liquid flowing through the tube out into the reception tank. There were green flakes passing through the tube as well. The woman had given birth two weeks prior to my first visit. Her baby was born with a high fever, so he was immediately taken to the NICU. The baby was big (9 lbs+), so she had a C-section. She quickly developed an infection that put her in the ICU. The green liquid was flowing out of her abdomine.

So, her baby was two weeks old and she had not yet seen him. She was so devastated and missed him so much. It was hard. She was very concerned because she felt her baby would not know how much she loved him and how much she missed him. I told her I would go down and visit her baby and tell him how much she loved him and missed him. I did that. The baby was beautiful (and big! - the nurse joked that they were going to take him home and put him right into pre-school). I prayed with the little guy and his nurse. He was almost over his fever. She was so thrilled when I went back to her room and informed her that I told her new son how much she loved him and how much she missed him. The patient had a huge smile on her face.

A few weeks later, after many visits, I entered her room to find her very depressed. Through a series of events, because she was not yet ready to leave the hospital and other reasons, her baby was taken to a foster home. She saw and held her baby once, but now she did not know when she would ever see him again. She had faith that her family would be back together at some point in the future, and that she had to heal, but she was so sad. After she told me what was going on, she looked at me and asked, "Can I ask you a question?" I said, "Yes." She then asked, "Why do you do this?" I was speechless. I could not answer her right away. For some reason, I had not thought of why I did "this" on a grand scale. Immediately, I was involved in CPE because it was a requirement, but her question was bigger then that.

I told her that I did "this" because through the very difficult times in my life I have always experienced God's presence, strength, and comfort. I did this because I have seen in my friends and family over time the same experience. I did this because I want people to know that even through their suffering and in what may seem their darkest hour that God is always there to help them, to strength them, and to give them comfort, despite the circumstances. So many people ask why God is doing this to them. I told the patient that I do not believe God does any such thing to people, but has promised us that He will never leave us or forsake us in the midst of our trouble, as devastating as the trouble may be, and that we can always rely upon God. I want people to know that. In a nutshell, that is why I did "this." She is so afraid that when she becomes well that her son will not know who she is. I told her that he will probably have to get used to her again, but that he will never forget who his mother is.

The experience with this woman and her son gave me the most authentic experience of CPE. With this incident, I felt the most connected with the patient in a very real and tangible way - I helped ease her suffering with the simple act of telling her son that she loved him and missed him. And finally, I was able to receive an honest and sincere question about why I did this kind of thing. A question from her that stopped me dead and caused me to reflect in the most authentic way yet about why I was sitting in a hospital room visiting patients whom I did not know doing what I could to help ease their pain and anxiety.

I prayed with every patient but one. I sat for hours listening to the most intimate details of patients' lives, had wonderful conversations, and read Psalms to patients who never regained consciousness. I grieved with families who lost daughters, cousins, friends, and husbands.

While I know that hospital chaplaincy is an important ministry, I also know that it is best left to those whom God has called to such a ministry. I am not one of those people. I am glad for the experience, but I am even more thankful that it has ended.

Years ago, I attended a Mennonite church on Capital Hill in Washington DC. I believe the name of the church was "Washington Christian Fellowship." I was visiting old college friends in Washington and several other people from our college campus ministry attended this same church. The pastor preached a sermon on what kind of influence this little church could have on Capital Hill. We were in the period right after a presidential election. Anyway, the pastor preached on the fact that the way of Jesus is always a third way! Not left or right, not Democratic or Republican, but always a third way.

I read this article from Sojourners this morning. Willis so aptly expresses my own sentiments regarding the politicized Religious Right and what has happened to "Christianity" as it is beginning to be regarded in this country.

Here is his commentary:

Take back the faith
by Jim Wallis

Many of us feel that our faith has been stolen, and it's time to take it back. An enormous public misrepresentation of Christianity has taken place. Many people around the world now think Christian faith stands for political commitments that are almost the opposite of its true meaning. How did the faith of Jesus come to be known as pro-rich, pro-war, and pro-American? And how do we get back to a historic, biblical, and genuinely evangelical faith rescued from its contemporary distortions?

I visited my last patient on Friday. I cannot remember the last time I felt so happy that something was ending. I think hospital chaplaincy is an important ministry, and I know, from what patients have told me, that I made a big difference in some of their lives, thankfully.

It isn't so much that I do not like visiting patients - that is okay in-and-of-itself. This is not, however, my ministry. I am not enlivened, strengthened, or energized by doing this stuff. In fact, I am exhausted by it.

I have had the privilege of meetings some very interesting people. I have had the privilege of praying over and reading to comatose patients who had no one else present with them. I have had the privilege of being with patients when they died – with them when they passed, watching, waiting, present with the body even after all the doctors and nurses have left. I have listened a lot, talked a lot, and prayed a lot - all very worthwhile. I am just glad it is almost over.

I responded to a medical code one recent afternoon. There were 10 doctors and nurses working to revive the patient, a very emaciated elderly man with MAC. I stood outside the door for an hour looking in, the room filled with staff and equipment. I prayed for them and the patient. I talked with a couple of the resident interns and the social worker. At one point, one resident asked if I wanted to go in the room even while the staff continued to attempt to revive the patient, but I said, “I will be soon whether he survives or dies.” Survives or dies. I was there for the patient either way, even when the doctors and nurses could do no more for their patient. Who else will wait with a person when all have given up? He had no family that was willing to claim him. There may no longer be breath, no longer blood flowing, but this mass of chemical compounds was still wonderfully and fearfully made in the very image of God, worthy of dignity and respect.

So, next week is all about wrapping-up. Final evaluations will be on Monday and Tuesday. A memorial service, exit interview, and group lunch will be on Wednesday, then, finally, the Health Care Chaplaincy's final banquet on Thursday. That's it. My CPE experience will be completely over. Hospital chaplains do make an incredible difference in the lives of many patients.

Oh, I am on-call today until 11:00 pm tonight. Who knows what could happen between now and then...

God models for us in chaos.

"On Communitarian Divinity" (a book by an African-American theologian incorporating an African sensibility concerning community.)
- God is community all by God's self. (Yes, this is common)
- It is not good that God is alone. (This is an interesting idea for the "Why?" of creation)
- It is not good for human to be alone. (We are in the image of God)

We do not know how to be free! (Absolutely! So many Christians idolize the United State and believe themselves to be free, but they are not. We do not know how to be free, as God defines it!)

God is free to be...