More Thoughts on Shaming (Two Rights Can Still Be Wrong)

Jesus said, “I came that they might have life and have it abundantly."
John 10:10b

In previous episodes:

Ginny Mikita, a Michigan attorney who was at that time a candidate for ordained ministry in the United Methodist Church, officiated  at the marriage of Rev. Benjamin Hutchison and his partner Monty. She did so using credentials obtained online through the Universal Life Church.

Three United Methodist clergypersons, from Texas, North Carolina and New Jersey, wrote to United Methodist leaders in West Michigan asking that Ms. Mikita be discontinued as a candidate for ministry and pointed out that by obtaining that online ordination she had “united with another denomination” and therefore should be discontinued as a member of the United Methodist Church. She was subsequently removed from candidacy and removed from membership.

In a strongly worded criticism, the Reconciling Ministries Network (an organization made up of United Methodists working for the full inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the UMC) said that Ms. Mikita had been “excommunicated.”

In response, Dr. David F. Watson wrote a blog post in which he said that, “This kind of rhetoric has one goal: to shame. Its purpose is to shame the pastors and denominational leaders who were involved in this matter . . .”

And then I wrote a response to Dr. Watson in which I noted  the irony of calling the RMN rhetoric shaming. I said that “The movement to exclude LGBTQ people from full participation in the United Methodist Church is built on shaming. What could be more ‘shaming’ than telling a group of people that their lives are ‘incompatible with Christian teaching?’”

All of this led to an energetic exchange on a Facebook page called, “New Methodists,” in which a pastor from Illinois, wrote: 

“Please provide evidence that Ginny Mikita was actually excommunicated. Likewise, please submit evidence that the Book of Discipline ever says that anyone’s life is ‘incompatible with Christian teaching.’ I submit that both accusations are distortions of what was actually done and what the BOD actually says.”

My colleague from Illinois is right on both counts.

Ginny Mikita was not actually “excommunicated.” and the Book of Discipline does not actually say that the lives of LGBTQ persons are “incompatible with Christian teaching.”

I know, and I assume RMN knows, what excommunication means. Ginny Mikita is still welcome to attend worship in any United Methodist Church. She can still receive communion. She is not denied fellowship in any way. The RMN language was hyperbolic in order to make a point. Regardless of the ecclesiological technicalities, it feels like excommunication and to many United Methodists, it looks uncomfortably like something out of the middle ages.

Dr. Watson’s argument is that by requesting and accepting those online credentials, Ginny Mikita did “unite with another denomination” and thereby remove herself from membership in the UMC. That’s true. But we all know that the Universal Life Church is not a real denomination. And there are probably thousands of United Methodists who have obtained credentials online in order to officiate at a friend’s wedding. I know some of them, and you probably do, too.

The practical reality is that Ginny Mikita was removed from membership in the UMC as punishment for officiating at a same sex wedding. That is not changed by the technicalities.

Just for the record, I did not cite the Discipline as saying that LGBTQ lives are “incompatible with Christian teaching.” I attributed that to what I called, “the movement to exclude LGBTQ persons from full inclusion in the life of the United Methodist Church.” 

And I stand by that statement.

What the Discipline says is that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” So technically, you could be gay without acting on those feelings, and that would not be “incompatible with Christian teaching.”

Let’s think about that. 

What is “the practice of homosexuality?” 

I guess we can assume that means anything involving the genitals is off limits. But what else is included among these unacceptable practices? Are some kinds of touching okay and others not? What about hugging or holding hands? What about writing a love letter? What about looking into the eyes of your partner?

I would submit that this is pretty close to telling our sisters and brothers that their lives are incompatible with Christian teaching. And to use Dr. Watson’s language, it is shaming.

And we should be ashamed. 

Gay Marriage and the Bible: Even the Devil Can Quote Scripture

Then the devil took him to Jerusalem, and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, saying to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you, to protect you,’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.’”Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”When the devil had finished every test, he departed from him until an opportune time.
Luke 4:9-13

In Luke’s version of the temptation story, the devil quotes scripture when he presents the last temptation. 

This is worth noting because the original story must have come from Jesus himself. There were no other witnesses. He was alone in the wilderness, fasting and praying. Shakespeare authored the famous quotation: “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.” But the idea originated with Jesus.

The importance of the detail is not diminished by the fact that the struggle was taking place within Jesus’ mind and soul. The devil or “tempter” was not some external spiritual being, but an inner experience of the spirit. It is useful to remember this story when we contemplate what the Bible says about homosexuality. It is widely accepted that “the Bible condemns homosexuality,” but the reality of the biblical witness is more complex and nuanced.

The assertion that the Bible condemns homosexuality is built on just 7 references. Three are in the Hebrew scriptures and four are in the New Testament. These are the passages typically used to “prove” that the Bible condemns homosexuality.

The late Walter Muelder, who was Dean of the Boston University School of Theology for many years, and a pioneer in the discipline of Christian Social Ethics, was adamant that when we go to the Bible for ethical direction, we cannot pick and choose. Seven passages are not enough to construct an ethic. They are not irrelevant. But they cannot be determinative. On the other hand, if you believe in biblical inerrancy, and you believe that each verse is equally inspired and authoritative, then you cannot question the authority of even a single verse, let alone seven passages. I think it is a useful exercise, just to be clear on what those passages actually say and mean, rather than to assume that we know. 

The Story of Sodom and Gomorrah

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. Ezekiel 16:49 

The first, and certainly the best known passage, is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. My guess is that when most people think about the sins of Sodom, they do not think about having “pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease,” and an unwillingness to “aid the poor and needy.”

But there it is.

We go to the Bible, looking for self-righteous moralisms and end up with social justice. Again. When it comes to the question of how we should be living our lives, it’s always about social justice. Or as Jesus summarized it in the Great Commandment, it’s about loving God and neighbor. (Loving God means loving your neighbor. And loving your neighbor is loving God.) We should keep Ezekiel’s commentary in mind as we review the narrative in Genesis. 

The story begins with a happy episode. Three strangers come to visit Abraham and Sarah, who are living in a tent by the oaks of Mamre. The men are messengers from God, angels, who have come to reaffirm the promise that Abraham and Sarah will have a son. They speak with Abraham outside of the tent. Inside the tent, Sarah laughs, because it seems preposterous that at her age she could have a child. And there is a wonderful interchange in which the men chastise her for laughing. She insists that she did not laugh and the episode ends with one of the men saying, “Oh yes, you did laugh.”

Then the men set out toward Sodom, and Abraham goes with them to show the way. God tells Abraham that the men are going to Sodom and Gomorrah to destroy the cities, because there has been such a great outcry over their sin. Abraham then begins to bargain with God. What about the righteous who live in those cities, will the LORD sweep them away with the guilty? Abraham drives a hard bargain, and God agrees that if they can find ten righteous, then the cities will be spared.

After the bargain is struck, “the LORD went his way,” and Abraham returned home, and “the two angels came to Sodom.”

At this point, things go downhill in a hurry. The strangers (angels) are met at the gate of the city by Lot, who insists that they spend the night with him. He makes them a feast, and they enjoy the meal together, but before they can lie down for the night, a crowd gathers outside. “The men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.” The crowd demands that Lot send out the strangers, “so that we may know them.” In other words, so that we may have sexual relations with them.

Lot goes out to argue with the crowd and even offers to let them rape his two virgin daughters, rather than give up the men who have come “under the shelter of my roof.” But the crowd is undeterred and threatens to do even worse to Lot if he does not give up the strangers. At that point, the strangers reach out and pull Lot back into the house with them, and strike “with blindness” all those in the crowd, “so that they are unable to find the door.”

In the morning the strangers send Lot and his family away to safety, and fire rains down on the cities until they are destroyed.

It is a dark tale. There are rays of light, but they are not easy to find. No one would count this among their favorite Bible stories. It is not the Sermon on the Mount, or the Good Samaritan. It isn’t the Twenty-third Psalm, or the Ten Commandments. It isn’t Micah or Amos or Hosea or Ruth. It isn’t even on a par with Esther.

The story is not just Patriarchal; it is deeply misogynistic. It’s good that Lot offers hospitality to strangers, and it’s good that he tries to protect his guests. But in his attempts to dissuade the men of Sodom from attacking the strangers, Lot offers to let them rape his daughters. And the story implies that the gang rape and humiliation of women is not as bad as the gang rape and humiliation of men.

It is difficult to claim ethical guidance from a story which is fundamentally immoral. One of the challenges in reading and interpreting the Bible is separating the timeless truths from the stories that simply reflect the prejudices and limited perspectives of a primitive people. The story of Sodom clearly falls into the latter category. We need to recognize it as such, and let it go.

Alternatively, we can focus, as Ezekiel did, on the guilt of Sodom that (apparently) first led to God’s judgment: “she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” That is a biblical truth which stands the test of time.

Two Verses from the Holiness Code 

in Leviticus

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. Leviticus 20:13

Little Good Harbor sits on the southeastern coast of Georgetown Island. It is a charming place with an equally charming name. It is a small harbor, but contrary to what one might expect from the name, it is not very good. It is too shallow and has too many rocks. Though it looks inviting, it is almost useless. So it is of “Little Good.”

The Priestly Code of Leviticus is in many ways the Little Good Harbor of biblical wisdom. It is not as shallow as Little Good Harbor, but there are lots of rocks. In the storms of life it does not provide safe haven. The idea of a guide for living that sets God’s people apart, is a good one, but the actual code is deeply flawed.

Leviticus has two almost identical verses of condemnation. The first passage, verse 22 of chapter 18, says simply, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The second passage, printed above, adds the penalty of death, and notes that those who commit such acts are responsible for their fate; “their death is upon them.”

The condemnation is clear and unmistakable.

Here, as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, we see reflections of a patriarchal and misogynistic culture. To lie “with a male as with a woman” was to treat the male as if he were female. This was the ultimate humiliation. Judaism and Christianity have moved toward gender equality, but the subjugation of women remains deeply imbedded in Middle Eastern culture. The condemnation of male homosexuality is a reflection of the patriarchal devaluation of women.

“Abomination” is a strong word. And it is not used often. In the Priestly Code of Leviticus, it is an abomination to eat an eagle, an osprey, or a vulture. It is an abomination to eat a burnt offering after the second day. And it is an abomination to eat anything unclean. Eating such things may be unappetizing, but it hardly seems “an abomination.”

The death penalty is serious. In Leviticus, it is mandated for murder, for adultery, for blasphemy, for cursing one’s mother or father, and for “wizards and mediums.” In Exodus and Deuteronomy, the death penalty is invoked for breaking Sabbath, as well as for outsiders who come near the Tabernacle. Looking back across the millennia, that seems a little harsh.

We know from historical research that the death penalty was seldom used for these crimes. At this point, the Torah uses the language of death, not literally as a legal sentence, but metaphorically, to indicate the seriousness of the offense. Just as in our less enlightened moments we might say, “anyone who does that ought to be shot!”

When we read that it is an abomination and that it calls for the death penalty, we read it as a very strong condemnation. But that reading is at least somewhat tempered by the recognition that many of the other offenses that are described with that same harsh language do not seem as “abominable” to twenty-first century readers.

Leviticus is tough going. More than one well-intentioned and sincere Christian setting out to read the whole Bible from cover to cover has struggled through the long narratives of Genesis and Exodus, only to come to a grinding halt when confronted with the strange list of arcane laws that make up the Priestly Code of Leviticus. In order to understand it, we need to avoid getting lost in the details.

If we set out to construct a sexual ethic on the foundation of the two condemning verses in Leviticus, then we need to explain why we are picking and choosing those verses and not also including the admonitions about the ritual purification of women after menstruation and many other similar laws. And we need to explain our use of a code which is patriarchal and misogynistic. Its purpose is to set the people apart from the surrounding pagan culture, yet in its attitudes toward women it generally reflects that culture.

The premise of the Holiness Code is that God’s people should be holy as God is holy; that in our daily living we should remind ourselves of who we and whose we are. When the rabbis read these laws, they read them with that end in mind. The details are flawed, the product of a primitive world view and a pre-scientific understanding. But if we can focus beyond that, on the vision behind the details, then we can find light for our journey.

Paul told the church in Corinth that the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. When it comes to the study of Torah, Rabbi Paul echoes the ancient rabbinic insight that God is found in the white spaces. Leviticus is about a people set apart and called to be different. The details may confound us, but the greater vision is of a life shaped by the calling of God.

Four New Testament References

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. Romans 1:26-27 

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. I Corinthians 6:9-10

This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching. I Timothy 1:9-10 

Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Jude 1:7 

As a Christian, I find the New Testament passages more troubling. We claim the whole Bible as our sacred story, but we also want to believe that Jesus brought a cosmic change in our thinking. Rightly or wrongly, I think we expect more enlightenment when we read the New Testament.

The passages from Hebrew scripture are more easily dismissed. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is clearly primitive. And no one takes Leviticus seriously.

Although Christians sometimes over-emphasize the uniqueness of Jesus’ teachings, he did bring a new perspective on many issues. He also deepened and expanded insights previously found in the Prophets. And he revealed great truths about human beings. But he did not change human nature.

Regardless of what we may believe about the inspiration of the biblical writers, we know that the actual words were written by human beings. The people who wrote the Bible (who put the letters and words on the page) were not perfect. And they were subject to the influences of the surrounding culture.

When Paul wrote his letters, he did not write them as sacred scripture. He was writing to specific people in specific places, offering advice and counsel intended for their situation. He did not know that two millennia later Christians would be studying those letters and reading them in worship as sacred texts. And the same is true for the unknown authors of the other New Testament epistles.

Of the four texts cited above, the last three can be dismissed rather easily. The last two, from the First letter to Timothy and from the Letter to Jude, were written fifty to one hundred years after Paul’s death, and do not carry the same authority as a letter from the Apostle. The Corinthians passage, like the passages from Timothy and Jude is written with ambiguous language which makes the meaning unclear. These texts are talking about some sort of inappropriate sexual behavior, but it is not clear what it is. (For a scholarly examination of Paul's language in these verses, click here.) What is certain, is that they are not talking about a loving, consensual, committed same sex relationship between two adults.

The Romans text is more difficult. We know with nearly one hundred percent certainty that it was written by Paul. That makes it hard to ignore if you believe as I do that Paul was the greatest Christian theologian, that all subsequent Christian theology is a footnote to Paul, and that his inspiration and brilliance were the driving force behind the spread of Christianity in the ancient world.

These two verses from Romans have probably done more to harm Christian attitudes toward homosexuality than anything else in the Bible. So what do we make of this?

First, Paul’s primary interest in this passage is not homosexuality, he is writing about what happens when we turn away from God. When we turn away from God, says Paul, we do “unnatural” things. The sexual relations which Paul describes are the result and not the cause or our turning away.

Second, his apparent reason for rejecting same sex relations is that they are “unnatural.” But our sense of what is “natural” is not fixed. In the nineteenth century, it was thought “unnatural” for blacks to be equal to whites. A hundred years ago it was “unnatural” for children with learning disabilities to be in public school. Fifty years ago a majority of Americans believed that marriage between blacks and whites was “unnatural.” Our sense of what is natural has changed. Is it unreasonable to believe that if Paul were alive now, he would see things differently?

Paul wrote about what he saw in the context of his own time and place. What may have been true in his time is not necessarily true in our time. One of the great biblical truths from Abraham and Sarah onward is that God always calls us into the future. As Paul wrote to the church in Philippi, “This one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward for what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call in Christ Jesus.”

Feeling Hope Today: But Where Will It All End?

When the invited guests did not come to the banquet, “the owner of the house became angry and said to his servant, ‘Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.’ And the slave said, ‘Sir, what you ordered has been done, and there is still room.” Then the master said to the servant, ‘Go out into the roads and lanes, and compel people to come in, so that my house may be filled.’”
Luke 14:21-24

Yesterday a friend posted about hearing news of the Supreme Court ruling on Gay Marriage while on vacation with her family in Provincetown:

Today, June 26th 2015, my family and I had the amazing experience of celebrating the Supreme Court decision in Provincetown, MA. It was the state (and town!)that the first same sex marriage was recognized. My children had the unique experience of witnessing history being made. My grandchildren will never know a world where you couldn't marry whomever you want to. Feeling hope today!!!

Hope. With exclamation points!

How different this week seems from last. A week ago it seemed like such deep darkness. And today, like my friend, I feel great hope.

On Monday came the decision by Governor Nikki Haley to ask the South Carolina legislature to remove the Confederate flag from the Capitol grounds. And other leaders across the South followed suit.

On Thursday I attended a local memorial service at Allen African Methodist Episcopal Church in Providence. It was a beautiful service. Amazing prayers of grief and comfort and hope. A wonderful sermon. But beyond the content of the service, I was filled with hope when I saw that half of the congregation that night was made up of white people. And outside of the church, in between the anthems and the preaching and the prayers, we could hear the sounds of children playing.

And then there was the Health Care ruling. Whatever one may think about the Affordable Care Act, health care ought to be a basic right. Taking health insurance away from millions of Americans would not have been a good thing.

And finally, on Friday the Supreme Court ruled that equality under the law requires the right to equal marriage for gays and lesbians. And President Obama delivered an inspiring and challenging eulogy for the Rev. Clementa Pinckney that ended with him singing “Amazing Grace.” It was amazing. And it was grace-filled.

Of course, not everyone sees the events of this week the same way.

Some see the events of this week as signs of moral decay and an assault on their worldview. 

Publicly and privately, on television and radio and all over social media, they ask, “Where will it all end?”

Rush Limbaugh predicted that once the Confederate flag goes, the American flag will be next. The opponents of gay marriage had all sorts of dire predictions. Most of them are not repeatable in polite company, but they believe we are on a slippery slope and they believe that God will destroy the country in righteous judgment unless we reverse course.

But seriously, where will it all end?

Jesus had an answer to that question. 

It will end in that strange and wonderful place called the Kingdom of God. It will end in a place where the poor are lifted up, the lame walk and the blind see, where everyone has enough and no one has too much, where the stranger is welcome, and everyone has a place at the table.

We are not there, yet. But this past week gave us reason to dare to hope that we are moving in that direction.

Franklin Graham Warns of Moral Decay

Those who say, ‘I love God’, and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also.
I John 4:20-21

The Rev. Franklin Graham has been in the news recently, declaring his determination to “fight the tide of moral decay that is being crammed down our throats by big business, the media, and the gay & lesbian community.”

On his Facebook page, Graham wrote:

Have you ever asked yourself–how can we fight the tide of moral decay that is being crammed down our throats by big business, the media, and the gay & lesbian community? Every day it is something else! Tiffany’s started advertising wedding rings for gay couples. Wells Fargo bank is using a same-sex couple in their advertising. And there are more. But it has dawned on me that we don’t have to do business with them. At the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, we are moving our accounts from Wells Fargo to another bank. And guess what—we don’t have to shop at Tiffany & Co., there are plenty of other jewelry stores. This is one way we as Christians can speak out—we have the power of choice. Let’s just stop doing business with those who promote sin and stand against Almighty God’s laws and His standards. Maybe if enough of us do this, it will get their attention. Share this if you agree.

This is not a new crusade for Graham, who is the director of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association started by his famous father. In seminary, my Old Testament professor, Dr. Harrell Beck, frequently expressed his dismay at the shallow theology and limited biblical scholarship of the elder Graham. The Rev. Franklin Graham and his sister, the Rev. Anne Graham Lotz share their father’s aversion to scholarly inquiry and theological reflection, but they have added something new to the mix. 

They are mean in ways that their father never was. 

In his most recent pronouncement, Franklin Graham is calling for a boycott of businesses that are, in his mind, promoting the gay agenda. His target this week is Wells Fargo Bank, and Graham announced that he will lead the boycott by withdrawing all the funds of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (nearly $300,000,000, as I recall) and depositing them in another bank. 

The story has its own amusing punch line.  The bank Graham chose as the new repository for his funds, BB&T, received an 80% score on the Corporate Equality Index of the Human Rights Campaign and this year they are sponsoring the Miami Beach Gay Pride Parade as well as something called the “Legacy Couples” program, which honors gay and lesbian couples who have been in committed relationships for ten years or longer.

But let’s get back to the Wells Fargo ad that touched off this most recent outburst. Where Graham sees moral decay I see joy and commitment and God at work in the world. It’s simply wonderful and you have to see it. 

How can you not love those two moms? How can you not love that little girl? And if you cannot love the moms and the little girl, then how can you possibly love God?

Bigotry and the Bible

We are not competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
But we have this treasure in clay jars, so that it may be made clear that this extraordinary power belongs to God and does not come from us.
II Corinthians 3:5-6; 4:7

Monday night, while I was waiting for the start of the Patriots game, I watched part of the debate among the candidates for Governor of Massachusetts, and I found myself meditating on those verses from Paul’s letter.

When I first encountered those verses it was in the old Revised Standard Version. In that translation, it says that “we have this treasure in earthen vessels.” To me that sounded rather elegant. I did not know what an “earthen vessel” was, but it sounded ancient and sacred. The New Revised Standard Version put my reverie to rest with the more accurate, “clay jars.” Nothing special. Completely ordinary. Maybe less than ordinary. Like tin cans, or plastic bottles.

Paul’s insight was that Christian faith grew not because of the competence of its proponents, but in spite of them. In an earlier letter, he pushed the Christians in Corinth to think about this in terms of their own lives. “Consider your own call,” he wrote. “Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are.” (I Corinthians 1:26-28)

As a pastor and a church leader, I have always found Paul’s insight comforting. And obviously true. I am sometimes amazed by the church’s ability to survive inept leadership.

But as I listened to the gubernatorial debate, I found myself wondering how far Paul’s insight might stretch. We can (and have) survived incompetence. But can we survive mean?

I tuned in as independent candidate Scott Lively was answering a question about the state’s spending to repair its decaying infrastructure.

It took me a few seconds to remember why his name was familiar to me. He is a pastor. And a well-known activist against gay rights. He played a role in helping Uganda to frame its now infamous anti-gay legislation. And he wrote a book called, “The Pink Swastika.” That fact alone tells you almost everything you need to know.

Pastor Lively turned the question about roads and bridges into a question of what he called the declining “moral infrastructure” in the state and went on to speak of the state’s commitment to teaching tolerance as part of children’s education as the promotion of “sexual perversion to children in the public schools.”

The next speaker, Republican Charlie Baker, quickly affirmed the need to repair the state’s roadways and then said he wanted to use the remainder of his time to respond to Lively’s comments, which he called “a veiled reference” to gay people. "As the brother of a gay man who lives and is married in Massachusetts,” Baker declared, “I want you to know that I found that kind of offensive, and I would appreciate you not saying things like that from this point forward.”

Lively responded quickly, "I believe in the Bible, Charlie. I'm sorry that you don't.”

Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate, seconded Baker’s comment and then cited her own record in support of gay rights before addressing the question of infrastructure.

No one addressed Lively’s invocation of the Bible in defense of his bigotry. And that was entirely appropriate. It wasn’t supposed to be a theological debate.

But it worries me that statements like Lively’s so often go unchallenged. This isn’t unchecked righteousness; it is, to use the biblical word, unrighteousness.

In previous generations, Lively’s retort has been employed by supporters of slavery and segregation, and opponents of women’s rights, among others. But in those previous generations, the other side of the debate had a larger proportion of biblically literate Christians who were motivated by the great biblical themes of justice and egalitarianism, rather than focusing on what Paul called “the letter” of the law.

The truth is that Scott Lively believes six biblical passages at the expense of almost everything else. Nobody said that. In fairness, it would not have been appropriate and it would have opened the door to even more outrageous statements from Scott Lively. But it left his statement unchallenged. And for many viewers that statement will sum up what they have heard about Christian faith.

Mike Huckabee and the Fallacy of Unchanging Convictions

We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.
Ephesians 4:14-16

At a Republican presidential debate in 2007 on CNN, the candidates were asked whether or not they believed the Bible. Actually, the questioner held up a Bible and asked them, “Do you believe in this book?”

As a pastor and as a Christian, I find questions like that uncomfortable and unhelpful. That’s a question that deserves a thoughtful and nuanced answer. After all, what does the questioner mean by “believe in?” Do you want to know whether or not someone is a biblical literalist, or do you want to know whether or not a person thinks the Bible is a sacred book? It is not suited to a sound bite or a short answer in a debate.

The only response I remember was delivered by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who is also an ordained Baptist minister. He said that the Bible is a complicated book and that there are many parts that we might argue about, “But,” he said, “the Bible has some messages that nobody really can confuse and really are not left to interpretation. 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 'In as much as you've done to the least of these brethren, you've done unto me.' Until we get those simple, real easy things right I am not so sure that we should be fighting over those other parts that are a little bit complicated.”

All things considered, that was a pretty good answer.

Huckabee’s answer gave me hope that he would be a thoughtful conservative Christian voice among the cacophony of self-righteous and mean spirited religiosity that masquerades as Christianity in our political debates. Heaven knows we need that.

Unfortunately, he has gone off the rails just about as often as anyone else. Sometimes it’s been funny, like when he assured an NRA audience that he was a stalwart supporter of the second amendment and illustrated his commitment by saying that he was an avid hunter. In a creative combination of his theology and politics, he told them he believed there would be duck hunting in heaven and emphasized the point by saying, “I can’t wait!” Jon Stewart observed that from the duck’s perspective this would mean that heaven would be duck hell.

Who can forget his remarks on abortion, birth control, and a woman’s libido?

In a recent interview on Fox News, Laura Ingraham asked him if Republicans were being unfairly labeled as “anti-gay.” Governor Huckabee responded by redirecting the question toward President Obama. He pointed out that in 2008, then candidate Obama took the same view of gay marriage that he did. And then he talked about how the President’s views had shifted.

"He said it was because of his Christian convictions," Huckabee observed. "Does he have them or does he not? If one has them, they don't change depending on what the culture does. You don't take an opinion poll to come up with a new point of view."

The Governor is right that we don’t do Christian ethics by taking an opinion poll. And he’s right that we can’t depend on the culture to define right and wrong. Greed isn’t good, no matter how much the popular culture may affirm it. But that doesn’t mean that our convictions don’t change over time.

For many years, The Christian Century ran a series called, “How My Mind Has Changed,” and they would ask prominent scholars and theologians to reflect on how their beliefs and convictions had changed over the years. Our faith is supposed to grow. And growth means change.

As James Russell Lowell wrote in his great abolitionist hymn, “Once to Every Man and Nation,”

New occasions teach new duties,
Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still and onward,
Who would keep abreast of truth.

In Governor Huckabee’s home state of Arkansas, there must be tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of Christians who grew up in the time when Governor Faubus was standing against the integration of the schools in Little Rock. As children or young adults, many of them believed in segregation and held that belief as a Christian conviction. But now, as adults, those same people are convinced that segregation and racism are wrong. Thankfully, their convictions have changed.

Similarly, there may well be millions of Protestant Christians now living who believed as children and young adults that women could not be ordained as pastors. A high percentage of those same people now believe that women can and should be ordained. Many now have female pastors whom they love dearly. Thankfully, their convictions have changed.

My own views have changed on a number of theological and biblical issues. I read the Bible differently, particularly in terms of its historical context. And my understanding of the atonement has changed dramatically.

We say that faith is a journey because it is. We don’t just make endless circles on the same track. We travel. We learn and we grow. And we change.

Methodists Behaving Badly

A lawyer asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
Matthew 22:35-40

When I logged on to AOL this evening, (I will pause now to wait for all of the tech-savvy folks to stop laughing at me for still using AOL. There, I hope that made you feel better.) across the top of the screen to the right of the “Unfolding Now” sign, it said “United Methodist Church.” Right next to “Prince William of Wales.”

I clicked on it and up popped the latest news in the ongoing story of the Rev. Frank Schaefer. He was tried and convicted in a church court for violating the Book of Discipline by officiating at the same sex wedding of his son several years ago. Today he was defrocked. Which sounds both painful and medieval. And it is. Painful and medieval.

The trial verdict had said that he would be suspended for thirty days and at the end of that time would have to declare to the Eastern Pennsylvania Board of Ordained Ministry that he would uphold the entire Discipline or else surrender his credentials.

Two quick notes on this:

First, they didn’t really mean that he had to uphold the entire Book of Discipline. They wanted him to say that he would not officiate at another same sex wedding. If he came back at the end of his thirty day suspension and confessed that he could uphold almost the whole Discipline, but he could not give up buying a lottery ticket for his elderly father on Father’s Day, I’m guessing that would have been overlooked. More seriously, if he had said that he did not agree with the Discipline’s support of unions and collective bargaining, that would not have been a deal breaker.

Second, no one supports the entire Book of Discipline. The Discipline is a big book and there is a lot in there. Universal healthcare, a woman’s right to choose abortion, gun control, just to name a few. And beyond the social issues, there are all sorts of directions about how we organize our churches, who can vote in church meetings and who can old office, which offices every local church “must” have and which ones are optional. And it changes every four years. Most of it stays the same, but some of it changes, and keeping up with the new rules is hard even for those who study it.

But Rev. Schaefer was clear in his response: “My conscience does not allow me to uphold the entire discipline because it contains discriminatory provisions and language that is hurtful and harmful to our homosexual brothers and sisters.”

So the Board of Ordained Ministry took his credentials.

Ironically, on that same AOL page that invited me to look at what was “Unfolding Now,” there was a link to the story about “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson who has been suspended indefinitely by A&E for his statements condemning homosexuality in an interview with GQ. His language is sometimes crude, but basically he supports the United Methodist Discipline.

Ouch.

So if the United Methodist Church had a show on A&E, would we be on indefinite suspension right now?

One of our church leaders in East Greenwich is a senior executive in a national company. He spoke to me about the odd disconnect he felt knowing that at work “we are all about inclusion and diversity,” but our church is refusing to recognize the full humanity of our gay and lesbian sisters and brothers. “It just seems bizarre,” he said, “that’s a no-brainer. We’re a church, for heaven’s sake.”

We have to stop this. A year and a half ago Bishop Melvin Talbert issued what he described as a call to "Biblical Obedience" in response to the unjust and discriminatory provisions of the Book of Discipline. At each new injustice, there are Bishops and church leaders who claim that they are only “following the process,” or “upholding the Discipline.” It has to stop.

These are hurtful policies. We are hurting our LGBTQ sisters and brothers, especially our youth. We are hurting faithful Christians who are only trying to faithful. These policies undermine our witness. They hurt the church, not just the United Methodist Church, they hurt the whole church.

It is stupid. And it is unchristian.

Bill O'Reilly, Dan Savage, and Bible Thumpers

For this reason, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty, yet I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love—and I, Paul, do this as an old man, and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus. I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment. Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful both to you and to me. I am sending him, that is, my own heart, back to you. 
Philemon 1:8-12 

Recently on “The O’Reilly Factor,” Bill O’Reilly commented that in the debate over marriage equality, the strong arguments were all on the side of same sex marriage. They just want to be treated like everyone else in American, he said. “That’s a strong argument.” By contrast, he noted that all the opponents can do is “thump their Bibles.” And that, he opined, is not a good argument.

Not that long ago, Bill O’Reilly was criticizing those who had shifted toward supporting equal marriage for what he termed “pandering” to public opinion. And he mocked those who said that their perspectives were “evolving.” His own shift, if that is what it is, has been much more abrupt. And it represents a seismic shift in the argument.

The public sentiment in favor of equal marriage is growing at an amazing rate. And that is a very good thing.

But what is not a good thing is that the Bible has been “thumped” from both sides.

Opponents misuse it, and supporters ignore it or denigrate it.

A friend posted a quotation from Dan Savage that is indicative of how the Bible has been dismissed in the debate. Addressing a high school group in Washington State, Savage declared:

“The shortest book in the New Testament is a letter from Paul to a Christian slave owner about owning his Christian slave. And Paul doesn't say, 'Christians don't own people.' Paul talks about how Christians own people.... the Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong: slavery. What are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? One hundred percent."

In spite of the fact that the Bible does not condemn slavery, at least not consistently, and there are many more verses condoning slavery than there are condemning it, we need to put that in historical perspective. Nearly two millennia after the last biblical writer wrote the last verse in the Bible, the framers of our constitution “got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong.” If Jefferson and his colleagues were wrong two hundred years ago, it’s not surprising that Paul was wrong two thousand years ago. We should also note that the “slaves” in Paul’s time were more like indentured servants than the slaves kept by the Founders.

But wait, there’s more.

Paul, like Jesus, was a radical egalitarian. In his letter to Philemon, he is appealing for the release of Onesimus. He hopes that Philemon will do this, out of a sense of Christian faith, rather than under compulsion, because he feels Paul’s appeal as a command. But one way or the other, he wants Onesimus freed and embraced as “a brother.” Paul understand the early Christian church to be an egalitarian community, and a model for what the whole world will eventually become when the Kingdom of God is realized “on earth as it is in heaven.”

John Wesley, who was deeply committed to biblical Christianity, was a life-long opponent of slavery. Wesley knew the many verses that condoned slavery, but he also saw that the whole thrust of the Bible, from the Exodus to Paul’s letters, was toward freedom and liberation.

While the founders were enshrining slavery in the Constitution, Wesley was condemning it. In his last letter, written to William Wilberforce, he writes: “O be not weary of well doing! Go on, in the name of God and in the power of his might, till even American slavery (the vilest that ever saw the sun) shall vanish away before it.”

Wesley did not oppose slavery in spite of his faith, but because of it. In the same way, we cannot develop an authentically Christian perspective on equal marriage by appealing to a few scattered verses of Scripture. We need to look for the broad themes and principles.

Something to Cheer About

Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 
Philippians 4:8 

Brendon Ayanbadejo is not a household word. He is a linebacker for the world champion Baltimore Ravens, but I confess that I had never heard of him before a Maryland legislator, Emmert C. Burns Jr., wrote to Ravens management asking them to silence Mr. Ayanbadejo’s outspoken support for gay marriage.

In a letter to Ravens owner Steve Biscotti, Burns said, "I find it inconceivable that one of your players, Mr. Brendon Ayanbadejo, would publicly endorse Same-Sex marriage, specifically as a Ravens football player.” Burns went on to request “that you take the necessary action, as a National Football League Owner, to inhibit such expressions from your employees and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions. I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing."

That last sentence reflects poorly on the NFL and says something very positive about Mr. Ayanbadejo.

Chris Kluwe, a punter for the Minnesota Vikings responded with a profanity laced essay to assure Mr. Burns that Ayanbadejo was not the only one in the NFL speaking out for gay marriage. He also scolded Burns for his apparent indifference to the First Amendment. In more muted tones, the NFL and the Ravens responded in terms of free speech and tolerance.

As the Ravens addressed the media storm around Brendon Ayanbadejo, the San Francisco Forty-Niners had a storm of their own. Cornerback Chris Culliver told a radio interviewer that a gay player definitely would not be welcome on their team or in their locker room. Team management responded with declarations of tolerance and the promise that Mr. Culliver would apologize and do public penance. Seriously. If there is one thing the NFL knows, it’s marketing. You cannot say that kind of thing in San Francisco.

From my perspective, this was perfect. I had someone to cheer for and someone to root against.

But it turns out that the Culliver case was not that simple. He made the offensive remarks during an interview with radio host and comedian Artie Lange. The radio host described it as a “goofy interview” in which he asks all sorts of “stupid” questions. That’s not an excuse, but it does put the remarks in a different light.

And then there was the apology:

"The derogatory comments I made yesterday were a reflection of thoughts in my head, but they are not how I feel," Culliver said in a statement released by the team. "It has taken me seeing them in print to realize that they are hurtful and ugly. Those discriminating feelings are truly not in my heart. Further, I apologize to those who I have hurt and offended, and I pledge to learn and grow from this experience."
If it’s not the best apology ever, it’s close. The most important thing in the apology is what he didn’t say. He didn’t utter the classic phrase, “If anyone was offended.” And he didn’t offer any excuses. He called his own words “hurtful and ugly.” He didn’t tell us that he is really a good person. And he promised to learn and grow from the experience. Following up on his apology, he issued this statement:

“As an African American male, I should know better. Hate and discrimination have a lasting effect and word matter. I also have a responsibility to myself, and especially to my young fans to be a better role model. The kids who look up to me and other athletes are the future of our country, and our future deserves better than fear, hate and discrimination…I was wrong, and I want to learn how to make it right. That’s why I reached out to an organization called The Trevor Project…No child should ever feel like they are less than anyone else, and God has put me through this storm so I can learn from my mistakes and help make sure no child has to feel that way, again.”

My guess is that the Forty-Niners had their PR people working on this, but I am still impressed with his willingness to take responsibility for what he said and grow from the experience. Sounds like a stand up guy to me.