Lazy Religion Tackles Gay Marriage: With Liberty and Justice for Most (Timothy Kurek)

 

I'm hardly an expert on Christian faith, but it does seem to me that much of what gets practiced by the main stream seems to cherry-pick from the message Christ tried to deliver.  In our anxiety about change and urge for expediency, have we turned to the golden calf for validation?

Lazy Religion Tackles Gay Marriage: With Liberty and Justice for Most

 

With liberty and justice for most... Wait that's not it. Some? A few? Oh no, it's liberty and justice for all.

 

I was raised in the Bible Belt, a hyper-conservative Christian who in the past few years has had his worldview crushed and rebuilt at the hands of experience. Where I once would have fought, and ardently so, against a same-sex couples right to marry, I have been blessed to meet and be live in community with the people I was always taught to shun. My beliefs changed and changed radically, and so I sit with bated breath as I wait to hear the Supreme Court's decision in the landmark court cases that have been going on the past few days.

 

Right now the United States Supreme Court is about to rule on both Proposition 8 from California and DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act). It is a truly historical moment in our young country's life. It's the moment we decide if all really are equal, or if the only citizens allowed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are heterosexuals and those under the umbrella of main-stream Christendom. But what strikes me as I peruse my Facebook news feed or read the blogs of many of my friends and peers is the true lack of understanding about one crucial point. Same-sex marriage is not, in any way, shape or form a religious issue. Same-sex marriage is a matter of the state, and I am baffled by the fact that we live in a country that promotes itself as the greatest country on earth, a country founded on the principle of freedom, yet we are somehow still okay classifying "the other" as the lesser. Just how long will we allow there to be second class citizens? Did the civil rights movement of the '50s and '60s teach us nothing? These are not criminals we are persecuting, or even non-citizens. The "other" I am referring to are upstanding, tax-paying, citizens of these United States, and these citizens are suffering at the hands of one of the most toxic entities in existence, lazy religion. A few thoughts about lazy religion...

 

Lazy religion is obsessed with arm-chair activism and other such movements that don't require effort, sacrifice or calling. With the age of the Internet, the true causes of Christianity are being shelved, only to be replaced by political motivations that stem from a poor understanding of government and a poor understanding of the Bible. Several years ago I watched as Proposition 8 passed in California. I watched as my Christian brothers and sisters sang and danced in victory, having "struck a blow" in the defense of "traditional biblical marriage." The problem? In the days following I also witnessed mobs of angry gay and lesbian patriots marching in most major cities.

 

They marched in defense of their California brothers and sisters, and marched because they had to. The pain of doing nothing after Prop 8 passed would have set the cause of equality back and further entrenched the nation in an archaic and unconstitutional mindset. But more than anything I think they marched for hope. While mainstream evangelicals celebrated a victory over an issue, they never understood that they were actually celebrating the oppression of millions of flesh and blood people. People made in the image of God, possessing the inherent dignity that their humanity affords. And for what?

 

Lazy religion is addicted to empire and control. It doesn't acknowledge personhood. James 1:27 tells us that pure and undefiled religion is this: to take care of widows and orphans in their time of need and to keep oneself spotless from the world. Jesus also defined our focus, to love God and to love our neighbors (the other) as ourself. Is it right then that our mindset should be to politicize individuals and who they love, and to want to dictate those individuals lives through the manipulation of the state? A friend of mind, David, spent 40+ hours a week during this last election volunteering at a call center, dialing numbers and asking voters to look at this issue from a different point of view. When I asked him why he was spending so much time politicking, he told me that he felt he had to for a time... And then I could hear his voice crack and tears began forming in the corners of his eyes.

 

"Tim, I'm sick of being looked at as a political issue instead of as a person, an equal." I've never thought about things that way until he said that. Lazy religion doesn't think in terms of people; it thinks in terms of abstract theological concepts and issue based stereotypes. It politicizes unique and beautiful individuals made in the image of God. Lazy religion has no place in this debate...

 

So as we wait for the decisions to be made, and as we walk through the rest of this historic journey toward equal rights for everyone (not just in this country but also all over the world -- Australia, I'm looking at you) it is my prayer that the stances taken will be rooted in grace and consideration for all.

 

We can all be bigots, but we don't have to be. We can disagree and argue this issue to its conclusion but in the end it is essential we remember that lives really are at stake, and as a man of faith respecting and honoring the image of God in the other is almost as important as the issues themselves. No matter what side of the issue you fall on, you can live out the calling of love intentionally and realistically, and respect the many journeys the collective "other" have walked.

Jesus Loves Obama

"VOTE FOR THE MORMON, NOT THE MUSLIM! THE CAPITALIST, NOT THE COMMUNIST!"

 

I'd be really curious to see just which election race this pastor is following, because there ain't no Muslim in the Presidential debate.

 

But what if there was?  To quote Coiln Powell - is there something wrong with being a Muslim in the USA?

 

There's also been questioned raised about Obama's authenticity as an American, despite his birth certificate proving otherwise.  Is there something wrong with being an immigrant in a nation of immigrants?  Yes, there's a a law about Presidents having to be born in the US, but is it a valid one?  The US is lucky in that its borders remain consistent, but what if they didn't?  Is it birth or belief that determines who is committed to the country?

 

Back the Christian thing, though.  I wonder how thoughtfully these "Obama's not a Christian" types have considered the underpinnings of their faith.  Their approach is more cult-like, focused on insiders and outsiders to the religion than they are Christ's actual message. 

 

Jesus had something to say about the insider/outsider thing: If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. (John 15:19)

 

The disparagers of diversity shouldn't need reminding that Christ himself wasn't a Christian - he was a Jewish reformer.  The first Christians weren't card-carrying members of Club Christ, either; they were believers in a man and his vision of a world that stood for something more than individual gain (granted, I think his message was Sufi-esque rather than directly literal).  Christianity began much more in the vein of Occupy, except rallied behind a leader, than it did an institution.  All the trappings of an organized religion came later.

 

The same, oddly enough, holds true of Islam.  Islam holds Christ up as a prophet rather than an end-game and kicks the ball further down the field to Mohammad.  Islam is no more a repudiation of Christianity than Christianity is a repudiation of Judaism; both offspring of the original Abrahamic religion are, if anything, adaptations to time, place and context, just was was Martin Luther's Reformation.

 

The Qu'ran (or Koran) validates the message of Christ: HE has sent down the Torah (Law of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus Christ) before this, as a guidance to the people; and HE has sent down the Discrimination (judgement between right and wrong). (Surah 3:3-4)

 

It shouldn't have come as any surprise to faithful Christians that Libyan Muslims praised God upon finding Ambassador Stevens alive in the Benghazi embassy and tried to get him help.  They were simply acting out a shared principle: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12)

 

In my opinion, those who wish to carry on the mission Christ laid out shouldn't be focused on division - that's a bit too much like casting the first stone.  Likewise, they shouldn't be looking to demonize any man or woman as being "un-Christian" - the act of demonizing itself is unbecoming of Christians.

 

But how does that help Christians who want to ensure they have a President that reflect their values?  That's a church and state thing - leave unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.  You can support a candidate that reflects your beliefs, but to demand only leaders that share the Christian brand is to stray from what Christ taught in the first place.  Instead, what Christians can do is what everyone else does - advocate and empower candidates with their perspective: And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. (2 Timothy 2:24)

 

What would Jesus do were he around today?  He would love both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney; he would probably love Ahmadinejad, al-Assad and Kim Jong-un, too.  Instead of campaigning against, he would share his counsel with both sides, and anyone else willing to listen.  This is no surprise if you're a Christian, because that's exactly what the Gospels depicts Jesus as doing in his time.  True followers of his message will do the same.

 

"Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:20)

Billy Graham: God, Freedom, America

 

 

"If God doesn't punish America, He'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."

Wow.

 

 

It takes a special kinda special to equate "financial collapse, Civil War and the Final Shredding of the Constitution" with God's judgement. I seem to remember something about leaving to Caesar that which is Caesar's - somehow, I don't think Matthew had the 2nd Amendment in mind with talk about turning the other cheek.

 

This, to me, is the ultimate irony.  Chuck Norris tells us that we must fear "socialism or something worse" should Obama, the democratically elected President of the United States, win a second term.  Implied somewhere in his calmly delivered rant is that a vote for Democrats is a vote against freedom.  He suggests, as have other GOP voices, that the moral fabric of the United States of America is eroding.  Unless you vote Republican, not only will America as they know it collapse but you will apparently be hastening Armageddon.  Norris' wife, Gina, points out that 30 million Evangelical Christians stayed home in 2008, with the implication being that these good Christians would have automatically voted against Obama if they'd cast their vote.

 

 

It's a bit of a syllogism, that; Democrats are freedom-hating socialists and if you vote for them, you must stand against freedom and true American values.  If you believe in godly, Christian values, the American Way and freedom, you have only one choice - vote Republican.  Let's say that again; if you want to be free, you only have one option available to you. 

 

 

This has been the Republican theme for the past four years; President Obama's agenda is dangerous and any progress on his initiatives must be stopped, for the good of the country.  Obama clearly isn't American - in his values, that is.  You can only have freedom and protect America by working against the Democrats; American values must not be left at the tender mercy of a democratically elected President.

 

 

Among the ungodly voices offering apples to the American people is Bill Clinton, twice-elected US President.  In his recent offering at the pagan alter of the DNC, he had this to say:

 

 

We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think “we’re all in this together” is a better philosophy than “you’re on your own.”

 

 

Nothing about Republicans destroying the moral fabric of the nation; nothing about it being a sin to work with those on the other side. Clinton makes a simple case that we can accomplish more when we all commit to working together.  In fact, he talks about the great opportunities he has had to work with Republicans ranging from Reagan to Bushes 41 and 43. Partisanship, he tells us, must not get in the way of achievement. "I work with Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are focused on solving problems and seizing opportunities, not fighting each other."   He goes on to make the case as to why a vote for the Democrats isn't a vote for economic collapse:

 

 

Who’s right? Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What’s the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!

 

 

Again; Clinton doesn't suggest that Republican rule will spell the end of America or implode the economy.  He simply points to the record and makes an evidence-based case that Democratic Governments have a history of creating nearly double the number of jobs that Republicans do.  Clinton's lays out his facts told with tantric vigour and makes it clear that he's speaking from his own perspective, not from a position of divine morality.  Nowhere in his speech does he imply that the only path to freedom and prosperity lies through emulating his choices, nor does he suggest fire and brimstone await if America ignores his advice.  He opens the door; he doesn't try to force his audience through it.

 

 

Bill Clinton loves Billy Graham - an affection that stems from Graham's refusal to segregate his congregations at a time of racial tension in American history.  This unwavering commitment to a belief that we are all God's children had a profound impact on a young Bill Clinton; ‘This guy has got to be real," Clinton thought, "because he did this when he didn’t have to.’ ” Graham, for his part, loves Bill Clinton back.  There is no suggestion in this that Graham ignores the sins that many of Clinton's detractors focus on; instead, Graham seems to embody the concept of "What is a good man but a bad man's teacher? What is a bad man but a good man's job?"  A man of God, Graham is a gardener; he understands that positive growth comes from nurturing the good, not through brush fire.

 

 

Now, Graham is calling for repentance of the "American lifestyle" and asking Christians to register as Mathews for his upcoming "My hope with Billy Graham" outreach in 2013.  Much of Graham's mission seems to embrace "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," which comes from John.  So, why Mathew?  The Gospel of Matthew establishes Emmanuel (literally meaning, "God is with us") as one of Jesus' titles. One theme in the Gospel of Matthew is that faith is not the purview of a select group of faithful alone, but that the Word should be made available to everyone.  Another theme is that the mission presented by God was not tasked solely to one party, but to every disciple.

 

 

The question, then, becomes this - what is the "American lifestyle" to which is Graham referring?  The answer might not be what the flock expects.

 

Waiting For Superman

You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They'll race behind you. They will stumble. They will fall. But in time, they will join you in the Son. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders.

Max Landis, the brilliant writer of Chronicle, has done a hilarious rant about the enduring popularity of Superman.  Landis contends that Superman is boring because, in essence, he's perfect; powerful, wise, compassionate, constant.  He's unrelatable, says Landis, which is why he's not relevant to an audience that wants to see themselves reflected in their heroes.  This logic rings true; none of our heroes are perfect, no legend is without flaws.  The Greek and Norse gods were essentially Dawson's Creek with superpowers; every mythic character from Gilgamesh to King Arthur to Anakin Skywalker had their fatal flaws.  They've either died heroes, or lived long enough to see themselves become villains. 

That's why Game of Thrones makes for such compelling reading/viewing. 

Landis also rips to shreds the chintzy way DC killed Superman off for ratings, then just as quickly brought him back.  Superman didn't change, his world didn't change, the audiences felt ripped off.  The stakes going in seemed so huge, yet there were no consequences.  It didn't ring true; our mythic protagonists, be they of good character or bad, must change the world with their passing.  Whether heroes or villains, these icons must die if they are to be reborn as more than just men, if they are to become legends.  Giants do not walk the earth without leaving footprints.

It has been said that there are no giants any more.  The larger-than-life leaders who shaped entire nations with their great and/or terrible visions have been replaced with technocrats, tweaking away at the margins.  An aversion to risk has replaced boldness; messaging has replaced vision.  We actively tear down our icons, whatever the forum; in an almost Socratic way, we subconsciously seek out and exploit the chinks in their armour.  We mistrust superiority as an oppressive force that, because it must by its inherent nature be flawed, will lead us into temptation.

Yet, locked away in the deep recesses of our hearts lies hope that one day the perfect hero will rise, take our sins onto their shoulders or do away with challengers and show us the way to a better world.  It's one of the great contradictions of humanity; we crave assuredness and unwavering discipline in leaders, but know our leaders are only human and therefore fear the inevitability of their - our -  failure.  We know that when we place our faith in all-too-human unwavering confidence, we inevitably end up disappointed.  This is why we tear our icons to shreds; if they seem too good to be true, they probably are.  It behooves us to deconstruct their perfection and discover those fatal flaws before they are able to harm us.  The only leaders who can bring us to the promise land, truly, must be superhuman.

But there are no Supermen in the real world.  We're waiting for someone who's not coming.

Which is why we love come-back stories.  We feel as though flaws are ingrained into our nature; the only way to grow beyond our faults is by first succumbing to them.  As much as we want to destroy our icons, we draw inspiration when they rise from the ashes/shed the skins of their mistakes; in so doing, they provide us with hope that we too have that power.  Whether you look at religions (accepting original limitation and being reborn) or overcoming "personal weaknesses" (admit you're an alcoholic then strive to be sober) or any form of education (tests, coming-of-age ceremonies, graduation ceremonies, etc.) we have a habit of building rituals around the notion of personal transitions.  We need these moments of personal transcendence to be wrapped in contextualized significance if we're to accept them as having real social meaning.

It's no surprise, then, that we expect our heroes to fall down, spend time delegated to the wilderness and be reborn as role models.  It's through the process of failing that they learn to pick themselves back up and transcend normalcy into exceptionality.  If gifts are not earned, they are not respected and therefore, not to be trusted.

There's a lesson in this, one that we already know but most of the time choose to ignore.  Failure is inevitable; not something to be avoided, denied or trickled down to others, but sought out.  When we cut away (which is different than deny) all the doubt that holds us back and actively challenge ourselves, there's a bit of a multi-faceted hero in each of us.

Which is why the best leaders don't impose from without - they nurture from within. 

RELATED - saw this quote, had to post here: "They are like Superman emerging from the phone booth in times of crisis; their abilities to concentrate and solve problems go up."       

Taking a Bite Out of Original Sin

For some Christians, evolution would, if true, completely shatter the doctrine of Original Sin. After all, if humans evolved, then there wasn’t an Adam, there wasn’t a Garden of Eden, and there wasn’t a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If that’s the case, these Christians believe, then there wasn’t a Fall and there wasn’t a reason for Christ to be crucified. Thus, in their minds, evolution is completely incompatible with Christian teachings.

For me, “original sin” is a way of offering a pre-neurological explanation for selfish, reactive behaviour.  I therefore think that the most ardent religious extramists (of any religion, or any ideology for that matter) are actually the embodiment of that which they purport to stand against.  This isn’t reason to fight or ostracize them, though, but an opportunity to share the spark of understanding.  Sin, the Tree of Knowledge, Adam and the expulsion from Eden are all metaphors for the development of individual and social consciousness.

Does that make you feel uncomfortable?  Then you see my point exactly.  Answers are challenging, they force us to re-evaluate and to grow.  The truth was never handed to us – it’s up to us to discover it.

The truth will set you free – when you’re conscious of it.