How Affirming Same Sex Marriage Is Part of the Modern Secular State telling Christianity as a Religion to Learn its New Place

The Growing Target of Affirming

I mentioned in a previous post that church open and affirming statements are vague and I suspect will increasingly be outdated. The affirmation that I suspected is being asked or demanded is this, that the individual’s constructed or discovered sexual identity be accepted and affirmed and their self-prescribed, imagined journey towards sexual and relational fulfillment be endorsed and supported by religious organizations.

Consider the case of this lesbian couple who were refused a wedding by a Rabbi. They weren’t denied on the basis of their lesbian identity but on their desire to have a multi-faith marriage. The imagined reader is perplexed at the Rabbi’s inability to cater to their religious/spiritual needs/demands. The Rabbi and other Jewish experts just kind of had to shrug apologetically because of the last vestige of constraint left in their religious system. We imagine that this too is simply a matter of time, that all such constraints are also on the “wrong side of history” and that some innovative Jewishy religious leader will emerge and establish a community or tradition that can embrace and support the unique blend of Judaism and Christianity that this lesbian couple are discovering/inventing/exploring at least for now. I’m sure the could find a nice Unitarian pastor or church that would be happy to facilitate or create a new service for them but it just wouldn’t have those same historical overtones that give our ceremonies a sense of meaning and depth. It wouldn’t feel authentic.

What We Really Want

I think many in ministry realize this isn’t just about same sex couples, it is about pretty much all of us. The best description seems to be the assumption of what Christian Smith describes as Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. If God is a therapeutic cosmic butler the religious institution of choice is supposed to be the local branch outlet that helps the individual spiritual pilgrim discover and develop their unique journey towards enlightenment, meaning, happiness, joy while likely including the intimate relationship or relationships that are commonly central to such a journey. Think Eat/Pray/Love but locally grown and on a budget.

Churches, desiring financial security and market share dominance, have instinctively picked up on this market and adjusted their advertising and implicit image messaging to transmit on this wavelength. Churches now compete in the same imagined space as therapists, yoga studios, self-help books, spiritual literature and a great many consumer brands like Starbucks and Apple that wish to posture themselves as assisting people in their journey of self-realization.

In this space a prohibition like refusing to affirm, service or facilitate the relational journey of same sex couples is simply unthinkable. You can put a lot of things in an Apple App but not the Manhattan Declaration. Churches in heavily blue state contexts that refuse to do this locate themselves in what is seen as a regressive, mean spirited, declining, obsolete culture associated with slavery, bigotry, racism, imperialism, misogyny, and the Republican party. In California we know that there are places in the country and even in this state where people not only believe this stuff by revel in it. We might have friends or family members who are part of that group. They give us an opportunity to show our magnanimity while we wait for them to fully evolve.

You Shall Have No Other Sin but Cheating Continue reading →

Posted in CRC, Culture commentary | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Bronwyn Lea on not taking a Stand on Gay Marriage

http://bronlea.com/2013/08/26/why-i-wont-take-a-stand-on-gay-marriage/

Posted in Daily Links and Notes | Leave a comment

Warning Note to Culture Warriors and Nationalists. Jesus says and does stuff that make all sides want to kill him.

NYC 1980s

Imagine you heard of a man who had raised someone from the dead. Imagine you could find proof of it in the man he raised. What would you do? 

John 12:9–11 (NET)

9 Now a large crowd of Judeans learned that Jesus was there, and so they came not only because of him but also to see Lazarus whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus too,11 for on account of him many of the Jewish people from Jerusalem were going away and believing in Jesus.

Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead, in front of a crowd of mourners after he had been in the tomb for four days. If this had happened today cell phones would have come out and Lazarus walking from the tomb complete with burial cloth would have been all over Facebook, YouTube and the evening news.

Word had spread and everyone wanted to see Jesus and to see Lazarus who was walking proof of Jesus’ power. I’m sure many people would have done their own investigation, taking to the people who saw Lazarus dead and talking to the people who saw him alive.

Now let’s imagine that you are convinced that the stories are true, that the people who testify to both Lazarus’ death and the public event of Jesus raising him are credible and that there isn’t any doubt in your mind that this Jesus, somehow, raised this man from the dead. What would you do?

Your first thought would probably be, “I want to meet this Jesus and see what he can do for me!” Your mind would immediately turn to whatever difficulty, illness, obstacle or recent death you may have suffered.

You would also be aware that you are not alone in realizing the opportunity that this Jesus presents to you. Dozens if not hundreds of people will be doing the same investigating, questioning and thinking about what they might be able to get Jesus to do for them. Chances are good, unless you somehow have an “in”, you’ll be in a long line and likely never get a chance to have a personal audience with Jesus. Last week the text began with some Greek speaking Jews who wanted to see Jesus so they tried to work their way up the chain of command.

Very quickly people are going to start trying to anticipate the next move. Events like this are rare and if you want to have a say in what comes you need to act fast.

The raising of Lazarus would not be welcome news to those already in power. Religions leaders had for a while already been approaching Jesus to see if there might be a way that they could recruit him to their position in their culture wars. Jesus, if he would align with one side or another could be a powerful piece that might bring their group towards triumph over their adversaries.

It seemed, however, that at every turn, Jesus refused to take a side. Jesus would repeatedly seem to assert that he was his own side and he would appropriate titles like “Son of Man” and make alarming claims to have come from heaven. He used the signs he did to legitimate his words and his claims that in fact he, and he alone, apart from the other culture war actors spoke for God and that if anyone wanted to align with God they should align with him.

This kind of thing was of course a complete non-starter when it came to forming a political/religious alliance. It would mean that those who had taken a public posture on one thing or another would have to abandon their cause and their religious/political and even familial tribe and align with Jesus. Factions were looking for an ally, not a Lord.

The chief priests who had as much to lose as anyone in this turn of events planned on killing Jesus and Lazarus, the quickest way to stop what seemed like an inevitable religious and political calamity. This might sound extreme today but in first century Judea killing was a common and fairly acceptable way of addressing a political adversary, at least if you could get away with it without crossing the Romans.

If you were not necessarily invested in the political/religious status quo, this Jesus presented an exciting possibility.

First, you want to keep someone like this around. Jesus, in himself, represented the opportunity for power to heal, power to command, power to change human history. Your parent, sibling or child might die and keeping this Jesus around meant a hope that they might be saved from death.

Second, you probably are willing to take a chance even on this religious man’s crazy talk.

If someone walking down the street says “I’m the Son of Man spoken of in Daniel 7. According to Daniel 7 God the Father will crush the empires that have been corrupting your children and taking your money and deliver into my hands an eternal kingdom that will never pass away!”

Most people hearing that might say, “Well, OK. You could be nuts. I won’t commit. Let’s just wait and see what happens.”

Then this person seems to have legitimately not only done a bunch of other rumored miracles including raising this known guy Lazarus from the dead. Well then you consider more carefully all that talk about “the Son of Man” and his special connection to the Creator God of Israel.

Maybe its now worth it to you to make a bit of noise, draw some attention to him and implicitly warn the ruling officials in Jerusalem who you rightly imagine will want to see him dead that if they act hastily they might have a riot on their hands. You have seen the crowds do this before, rehearse the centuries old Maccabean script of a Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem.

Triumphal Entry Continue reading →

Posted in On the way to Sunday's sermon | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Response to a Facebook Conversation on Empire and Loss

Defend? No. Normalize? What the European powers did to the groups they colonized does not seem wholly different from what the Aztecs and Incas and Assyrians and the empire of Mali and the Mogul rulers of India and the Qin in China and the Caliphate and Monguls and the Davidic Kingdom of Israel and Dineh of the desert southwest and nearly every other kingdom and empire have done in the history of the world. Each empire does this to the next until a stronger one comes along.

If someone would ask what “normal” is for homo sapien with respect to what they do to weaker peoples they encouter would be, I think history is pretty clear. This in fact seems perfectly “normal”. Would Darwin tell us that this isn’t? “Right” or “Good” or “Ethical” is of course another matter, but I would then ask where you get your ideas of good or right or ethical.

Within the histories of these empires working “the well-being of my tribe at the expense of yours” is normal, but within this “normal” we might also find variations, some preferable to others.

Iwhich I thought was an instructive book on empire. I recently read http://www.amazon.com/Gandhi-Churchill-Rivalry-Destroyed-Empire/dp/0553383760 . On the whole how can we evaluate impact of British Rule on India? What England did after WWII was really quite remarkable in the history of empires. It basically capitulated. Most of the blood shed in the end of British rule was done by Indians between Muslims and Hindus in what became a struggle for nationalism mixed with religion (Islam) and culture (Hindu, which is as much a culture as a reliigion).

And what might my embrace or protestation of empire mean? I daily benefit from the American empire. I can vote and protest the killing of Pakistanis and Afghans by drone strikes by I in a way leverage the benefits of this empire even while I protest. Offering protest or criticism to Nebuchadnezzar or nearly any other emperor was a sure way to the gallows. Shall I not observe that despite the evil (from my Christian perspective) of the empire that America benefits from I can applaud the fact that it allows me free dissent and protest?

In my perspective as a Christian the obliteration of the cultural goodness in the miriads of indigenous around the world is a great loss and a sin, even when done at the hand of Christianity wedded to empire as in the European cases. I can agree with a secular materialist on this matter. Where we part is that I also believe that the goodness in these cultures is not permanently lost, but is in fact remembered by a God who raises the dead and that all that is good in the myriad of pagan worlds consumed by homo sapien appetite will be reclaimed in a final day and in fact perfected to live again and forever.

Posted in Saved Blog Comments | Leave a comment

The Trinity is useless

Is “Trinity” Use-less? (Geoff Holsclaw)

Posted in Daily Links and Notes | Leave a comment

C.S. Lewis: “Three Kinds of Men” | TGC

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/05/10/c-s-lewis-three-kinds-of-men/

Posted in Daily Links and Notes | Leave a comment

TC on Monica Lewinsky on Shame and Understanding

TC

I think she’s right on the fact that shaming seems to cross identity boundaries. Part of that could be because I think culturally we are banking on trying to build an community ethic on mirror neurons. If I can identify with the targeted victim of shaming, then I won’t shame.

Less attention is focused on the dynamics of shaming itself. Shaming is, like violence or coercion or even nagging an attempt at control of the other. Let’s get people to stop being bigots, thugs or tools by shaming them, leveraging their crowd-sourced sense of self against them for our own political, social, cultural agenda and advantage. If I cause them pain I win.

Posted in Daily Links and Notes | Leave a comment

Todd Billings in Huffpo on Unanswered Prayers for Healing

Huffpo

Posted in Daily Links and Notes | Leave a comment

Early Church and Slavery

Posted in Daily Links and Notes | Leave a comment

America and Christianity

Posted in Daily Links and Notes | Leave a comment