April 2006 Archives

I've been somewhat busy lately and not too inspired to write. Here's a photo of me and some of the gang from church, taken at OutFront Minnesota' Just Fair Lobby Day yesterday at the capitol in St . Paul. That's me and Aaron at the back on the right.

—from explorefaith.org

On Monday evening I attended the Soulforce Equality Ride rally in Elliot Park, across the road from North Central University.

It's interesting to compare and contrast North Central's position statement on the Ride with the Riders' own perspective.

The NCU Administration avoids dealing with Soulforce's charges of religion based discrimination, claiming in at least one place that to do so would violate student privacy rights under FERPA. Having listened to David Coleman's story and that of other LGBT NCU alumni, the university's definition of 'privacy' seems to be somewhat flexible, as also their definition of 'truthful.'

NCU asserts that it does not "summarily expel students who reveal that they have same sex attraction."

It is true that NCU does not expel students for revealing same-sex attraction. It places them on probation or suspension for not leading a compatible "lifestyle", and allows them to return only after effectively becoming "exgay." Which is effectively the same as expulsion, since most LGBT are unable to "change" who we are. The belief that LGBT youth can "overcome" their sexual orientation through self-discipline, prayer and reparative therapy is a religious myth right up there with creation science. Which is to say it is a fantastic and cruel assertion unsupported by either the biblical or scientific evidence.

Also, the University does not tolerate "gay-bashing" or abusive acts on our campus. These are contrary to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ who we as Christians are called to follow.

This would appear also to be an outright falsehood, unless one refuses to consider coercion into discredited and harmful reparative therapies a form of abuse. I know from my own experience that gay bashing takes many forms; not all of them leave physical scars.

NCU prefers to distance itself from these, the least of Jesus' brothers and sisters, by characterizing them as political opportunists who have rejected attempts at "mediation", whatever that means. Their message characterized as "political", not because of what they say (which is very religious) but because they draw a link between the school's religion based discrimination and the oppression of young gays and lesbians both inside and outside the church.

NCU's inability to see that it's faith-based policies toward LGBT youth produce consequences which are fare from the fruits of Christian love—and that their refusal to see these kids as brothers and sisters in Christ rather than as part of some "homosexual agenda" to undermine Christian society—are what is truly contrary to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Mike Airhart and Timothy Kincaid hit the nail on the head in a discussion on Exgay Watch about the AFA's tactics. And I'd like to drive the nail home.

Mike points out how religious right anti-gay groups demonize gays and lesbians through abuse of language. We are repeatedly objectified as 'homosexuals' and 'sodomites' and not people (and certainly never 'Christians'). Our orientations, struggles, triumphs and deeply held desires are dismissed as 'choices', 'preferences' or 'lifestyles', as if they were something we could simply shrug off like yesterday's clothes if we really wanted to.

[T]he AFA dehumanizes same-sex-attracted persons and their families and supporters by repeatedly referring to them as "homosexuals." While an isolated reference to the noun might be sensible, AFA persistently uses the word alone, without modifiers. The objective of this tactic is to reduce people to nothing more than their sex drives -- and then to project that smear onto same-sex-attracted persons, falsely accusing them of defining themselves solely by their sexual attractions or conduct.

If the smear tactic stopped there, AFA could already be condemned for savaging human souls, reducing decent people (including Christians) to smut. This is what AFA -- and its allies, Exodus and Stephen Bennett -- consider Christian "ministry."

In a recent New York Times article, Gary Wills starts off by saying 'there is no such thing as a "Christian politics'" and that 'Jesus brought no political message or program'. I came across his piece via a discussion started by DonByrd on the Talk To Action forum. Wills says,

This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not.  ...

I haven't heard a lot of Democrats saying that. I've heard liberal Christians like Jim Wallis saying that that neither side of politics has it right, and challenging moderate and progressive people fo faith to take back the public square and deny the right its monopoly on religious language, which is a different proposition.

Anyhow, Wills goes on to make some good points about the differences between the Gospel and the social and economic programs of government:

I was browsing the satellite images on Google Local today. I was taking a look at the Gold Coast in Australia, where I lived in my late teens. I was somewhat surprised, therefore, to see a hundred foot long man floating just offshore from the main beach road:

I've heard of people spotting weird things on Google, but this is hilarious. Here's the full image if you want to see for yourself.

Senator Michele Bachmann, Katherine Kersten, the Minnesota Family Council and their ilk couldn't care less if Susan Herlofson dies. As reported in today's Star Tribune, Herlofson has stage 4 breast cancer. She and her partner Pat Ferrian believe she wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for health insurance provided by Ferrian's employer, the University of Minnesota.

If the state constitution is amended to prohibit state recognition of same-sex marriages or their 'legal equivalent', then the U of M would likely be forced to stopped providing domestic partner health benefits to Susan Herlofson and others like her.

Bachmann denies that her consitutional amendment will result in women like Susan Herlofson losing access to health care. But that is exactly what will happen once government is prohibited from extending marriage-like rights to non-married families. After all, the 'legal equivalent' language is in the proposed amendment wording specifically to deny such rights. It serves no other purpose. It is happening now in Michigan, where an amendment passed in 2004: the University of Michigan is now barred from offering domestic partnership benefits to new employees.

The effect of so-called 'pro-family' activism by the religious right, as always, will be the erosion of rights and protections for any family that doesn't conform to the stereotype. The amendment favored by Bachman, Kersten and others, worded so broadly as it is, would create a legal vacuum that will quickly be filled by litigation to test its effects and reach.

If the amendment passes, its real implications will be decided by the courts, not by the legislature and certainly not by the citizens of Minnesota. So "let the people decide" really means "deceive the people, tie the government's hands and let conservative judges decide."

This weekend's news provided two examples highlighting the conflict conservative religious academic institutions face when confronted with issues related to academic and journalistic freedom.

The University of Notre Dame will continue to allow controversial arts programs—including a GLBT film festival and performances of 'The Vagina Monologues'—on campus in spite of the fact that they may be construed as contradicting the Roman Catholic church's teachings on sexuality.

Although university president Rev. John I. Jenkins had earlier questioned the appropriateness of allowing events such as 'The Vagina Monologues' to be performed on campus, after listening to students and faculty he admitted that there was "no reason to prohibit performances" and that student discussions of the play were "serious and informed." He added,

"I am very determined that we not suppress speech on this campus. I am also determined that we never suppress or neglect the Gospel that inspired this university ...

"If I didn't learn anything from all this, ... I'd be very disappointed and surprised. What I learned was we do really need to find ways to advance discussion about issues that have to with women."

Kudos to Notre Dame for common sense and a mature approach to academic inquiry and free speech. While Notre Dame is within its rights as a private institution to determine what views and values might be sanctioned within its walls, it recognizes that the gospel and free speech perhaps need each other to flourish, and that one does not need to be championed at the expense of the other.

Not so at North Central University, a Twin Cities campus operated by the Assemblies of God, a conservative Pentecostal denomination. The university's administration was apparently upset over the April 4 issue of the student newspaper 'Northern Light', which included coverage of the Soulforce Equality Ride and an op-ed piece critical of the denomination's teaching concerning 'speaking in tongues'...

'Outrageous' is the word that immediately comes to mind.

Breaking News: "Viacom, NBC-owned cable channels become next to reject UCC's ads"

Now a bunch of cable networks owned by NBC and Viacom have rejected the UCC ad: USA, Telemundo, Nick@Night, TV Land, MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, Bravo and even the gay oriented LOGO network! Independently owned Discovery and Univision have aslo decided not to run it.

Reasons provided include that the ad takes "a position on controversial issues or may be deemed as disparaging to another religion" or is of a "political nature".

Funny how the commercial and cable networks will run ads from the Swift Boat Veterans or the Mormon Church. Funny how some of these networks run religious programming that is disparaging of virtually all religions and viewpoints other than conservative fundamentalism. Funny how these networks will give unlimited time on their Sunday morning boradcasts to representatives of right wing religious organizations with extreme political viewpoints...

Funny how the cable networks will run comedy programming with liberal references to negative stereotypes of 'fags', 'wetbacks', 'niggas' and Scientologists and endless vulgar references to every imaginable body function... Yes Comedy Central, I'm referring to you. How can the network that runs The Daily Show, Chapelle's Show, Mind of Mencia and Southpark (all of which I enjoy, by the way) reject something as wholesome as a humorous UCC ad on the grounds that it is too political or controversial?

Here's what UCC representative Ron Buford had to say today about the networks' "heartbreaking" rejection:

"This is `sorry, cable trouble' all over again," said Buford, who is African American, harkening back to the 1950s when some television stations refused to run network news that positively portrayed the Civil Rights Movement.

"There could not be a more concrete example of what happens when our media is in the hands of a few corporate elites who simply don't agree with you. They can simply turn you off. Click, goodbye," said Buford, who insists that the UCC's commercials are neither "political" nor "advocacy," but a sincere attempt by the church to address the oft-ignored feelings of rejection and alienation that many people say they have experienced from organized religion.

Oh, this makes my blood boil. Hat tip to the UCC's Chuck Currie again, writing this time on Street Prophets. 

"God made so many different kinds of people; why would God allow only one way to worship?"

"When I meet a man, I am not concerned about his opinions. I am concerned about the man." 

"I felt I have not the right to want to change another if I am not open to be changed by him as far as it is legitimate." 

—Martin Buber

The proposed Minnesota anti-marriage amendment was voted down in the Senate Judiciary Committe today 5-4 along party lines. Its supporters will now try to bring on a vote on the Senate floor before the end of the current legislative session.

Michele Bachmann's lesbian stepsister, Helen LaFave, spoke to reporters afterward about how an amendment would hurt gay families. Coming out publicly for the first time,

LaFave said she disagrees strongly with Bachmann, R-Stillwater, the state's most visible champion of the amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and other legal equivalents.

"We've heard a lot of discussion about what this is all about," said LaFave, 46, of Minneapolis. "What this really is about is insurance coverage, inheritance rights and medical decision-making" for same-sex couples...

"This issue has been very hurtful to me personally, and divisive for our family." 

As Eva Young points out, LaFave wrote an insightful letter to the Star Tribune about Bachmann a year ago. 

Several others spoke of the real pain being caused already by the amendment's supporters. As reported by the AP via the Pioneer Press: 

"The whole premise is that if we do this, gay families and gay people are somehow going to go away," said Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville. "They're not going to. They're in my neighborhood and they're in your neighborhood. A constitutional amendment isn't going to stop any of these couples from falling in love, from making commitments to each other, from starting families. The only thing it would do is take away their rights."

... Cathy Peck, a Bemidji woman with a lesbian daughter, teared up as she described the emotional wringer she's been through over the issue.

"It makes us even more fearful for our gay and lesbian children," Peck said. "When you have pronouncements from authority figures, hateful letters to the editor, hate speak on the radio - these people are talking about our precious child, who came out of my body, and it hurts."

And from the recently chastened Star Tribune:

Ann DeGroot, executive director of OutFront Minnesota, the state's leading gay and lesbian advocacy organization, said passage of a constitutional amendment would create a "caste system" for families in Minnesota, including the potential for harming unmarried heterosexual couples and single-parent families.

"We believe this constitutional amendment is an attack on families," DeGroot said. "I look forward to a time when all of us can work together on legislation that strengthens and supports all families in Minnesota."

I want to share the following sermon by Rev. Nancy Wilson, Moderator of Metropolitan Community Churches. It contains reflections on MCC's participation in the recent Ninth Assembly of the World Council of Churches, and was delivered on March 6, 2006.

I believe this story is a wonderful example of how the Spirit of God is moving in ways that the mainstram media never reports and many in the religious right could not even begin to contemplate.

FYI, the 'open communion' Nancy rerfers to is the eucharistic sacrament of holy communion as celebrated in MCC and in many other inclusive church communities. We believe that the communion table is open to all through Christ's invitation and that none are to be excluded. This open and gracious invitation to God's table in our shared worship is still considered too radical by many Christian communities.

God, in your grace, transform our world

"When he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. And many were gathered together, so that there was so longer room for them, not even about the door; and he was preaching the word to them. And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven."

"Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question thus in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say ‘Rise, take up your pallet and walk.’ But that you know that the Son of Humanity as authority on earth to forgive sins" — he said to the paralytic — "I say to you, rise, take up your pallet ad go home." And he rose, and immediately took up the pallet and went out before them all; so that they were all amazed and glorified God saying, "We never saw anything like this!"

A few months ago I posted on the confusion surrounding fundamentalist misinterpretations of the story of Sodom. Shortly thereafter there was a lively discussion on the same topic in a Yahoo group I subscribe to. The following essay is reprinted with the permission of the author, Peg McMahon:

Understanding Ezekiel 16:49-50 is central to understanding Sodom

The important thing to take away is the idea of what God looks at when judging a nation:  societal attitudes of pride (hubris) and complete indifference to the plight of the poor. This is a very different criteria than that of promoted by the religious right. They concentrate almost exclusively on personal behavior — a misreading of scripture, in my opinion.

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom:
She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned;
They did not help the poor and needy.
They were haughty and did detestable things (toevah) before me.
Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

I also agree with Mary-Ann Tolbert completely (I encourage reading her entire article).

As a woman, I can attest that the connection between sex and aggression and between penetration and power is alive and well. Think about what people really mean when they say "F*@k you!".

I often think that this attitude lies at the heart of both society's institutionalized hatred of women and its extreme reaction to male homosexuality — a reaction far more emotional and negative than that toward female homosexuality.

If the penetrated partner is debased, well, women are born for it. In a sense, they are born debased. But it's unthinkable that a man would give up his privileged position (on top, if you will) to willingly become degraded in this manner. Macho men find it frightening and repulsive.

Reading Tolbert's exegesis of the Sodom story, I would take it one step further. Part of the function of many of the stories in Genesis is to explain why things are the way they are.

Vital lesson in Holocaust memories

Australian High Court justice Michael Kirby is quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald in a speech promoting the launch of Heirloom, a new anthology of Holocaust survivor memories:

Justice Kirby said an early lesson is that "every diminution of freedom takes us in a wrong direction.

"Every act of discrimination by our Parliament and governments dishonours our nation. We honour the memories recorded in this book most worthily when we resolve to respect the freedoms and dignity of all people and to be vigilant for our own."

Understanding the lesson began with appreciating the stealth of the Holocaust, which had not appeared overnight. "It all happened gradually. It crept up insidiously."

There were laws, followed by yellow stars and banishment to the back of the tram. Step by step came exclusion from public transport, closure of businesses, consignment to the ghetto, the beatings and cries of Jews out!, the selective deportations and the "final solution".

He was undoubtedly referring to the conservative Australian government's treatment of religious minorities and unjust incarceration of middle eastern refugees. The lesson here is not lost. Smaller injustices left unchallenged lead inevitiably to larger ones down the line, as society becomes increasingly innoculated to what is going on.

As Kirby points out, the middle classes of Nazi Germany who allowed the holocaust to happen with nary a protest were mostly good people with 'family values'. They "returned to their homes and children at night, attended meticulously to their hygiene and settled down to listen to beloved recordings of Schubert and Beethoven that made them cry."

Tip of the hat to Jeffrey at Mahler's Prodigal Son.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard claims that his government's plan to veto a proposed law in the Australian Capital Territory, that would recognize civil unions, should not be viewed as 'anti-gay'.

Mr Howard and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock view the ACT laws as an attempt to undermine federal legislation introduced in 2004, which defines marriage as a union between a man and woman to the exclusion of all others...

"This is not an anti-homosexual gesture. This is a gesture to support the special and traditional place of marriage as a heterosexual union for life of a man and a woman in Australian society. Why we're against what the ACT is doing is that, in all but name, they are equating same-sex unions with marriage. I don't support that, not because I'm against homosexuals, but I think there should always be a margin for marriage as we understand it in our society ... you don't equate a gay union with a traditional marriage - that's our position."

So he's not anti-gay, just in favor of preserving special civil, political and economic rights for heterosexually married couples (including those married in common law, or de facto) while denying those same rights to same-sex unions.

Kevin Phillips writes provocatively in today's Washington Post on how the GOP—'the first religious party in U.S. history'—is leading America toward a theocracy.

According to Phillips the development of a theocracy can be seen in the emergence of several conditions: a ruler who claims to speak for God, a ruling party controlled by religious believers, the establishment of religion as the ruling authority in government, and a public and foreign policy guided by sacred scripture.

Theocracy's emergence in twenty-first century America is rooted in three central pillars: 'the oil-national security complex, with its pervasive interests; the religious right, with its doctrinal imperatives and massive electorate; and the debt-driven financial sector, which extends far beyond the old symbolism of Wall Street.'

Over a quarter-century of Bush presidencies and vice presidencies, the Republican Party has slowly become the vehicle of all three interests -- a fusion of petroleum-defined national security; a crusading, simplistic Christianity; and a reckless credit-feeding financial complex. The three are increasingly allied in commitment to Republican politics. On the most important front, I am beginning to think that the Southern-dominated, biblically driven Washington GOP represents a rogue coalition, like the Southern, proslavery politics that controlled Washington until Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860.

Language is a powerful thing. Language can convey powerful ideas, it can be used to inform and educate, but it can also be misused to malign and distort the truth.

One such gross distortion is the widespread use in public discourse and the media today of the words Christian, evangelical and bible in ways that depart considerably from their historic, mainstream meanings. Terms such as conservative Christian, Judeo-Christian heritage, Christian right, evangelical, bible-believing, biblical values, and so on. You know the kind of language I'm referring to.

All of these terms seem to have become unhinged from any strightforward dictionary sense of their meaning. For instance, evangelical these days is more likely to mean someone of conservative political views (definitely a Republican) who is against abortion and gay marriage and believes George W. Bush was appointed President by God, rather than describing someone for whom the defining characteristic is a commitment to spreading the Gospel of Jesus, as taught by Jesus. Likewise, bible-believing usually means someone who reads parts of the Old Testament and Paul literally, but believes the sermons of Jesus should generally be taken figuratively. They 'believe' the parts about the six-day creation and man-on-man sex, but not those parts that talk about feeding the poor, releasing the prisoners or forgiving others' debts. And so on and so on.

This misuse of language has become so pervasive that we hardly notice how incongruous it is. Thus we have arrived at a point where historic, mainstream churches—who endeavor to live the words of Jesus each day in their ministry and social witness—are accused of declaring independence from God, whereas political opportunists and liars who see no law above their own (and rarely even attend church) are anointed as men of God...