thinkoutLOUD

The Greatest Evil of Religion and Football

2011-11-11T15:21:00.000-08:00

“In the meantime I would ask all Penn Staters to continue to trust in what that name represents, continue to pursue their lives every day with high ideals and not let these events shake their beliefs nor who they are.”

Replace Pen Staters with say Roman Catholics and this could easily be taken from a sermon of some priest after the major sex scandal with the Roman Catholic church broke. Or replace it with New Birth Missionary Baptists and it could be something Bishop Eddie Long might say after it came out that he had been accused by four different young men of manipulating them through his position and money to gain sexual favours when they were teenagers.

As it is, it is a quote from ex-football coach Joe Paterno in light of his former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky being charged with sexually assaulting 8 boys over a period of 15 years. Paterno for his part could have likely prevented the last 7 of those years of abuse since he was told of it in 2002 by a then graduate student assisting him who walked in on Sandusky abusing a 10 year old boy in the showers. Instead of reporting the incident to the police, Paterno merely referred it to higher ups at the university (who also failed to report it) and went about his business. Paterno was recently fired for his part in keeping what was happening under wraps as was the president of the university. Two others from the administration are actually facing charges for perjury and failure to report child abuse.

Over 4000 students at Penn State took to the streets in a riot after all this broke. Were they upset about their administration covering up child sexual abuse? Sadly no, they were upset that their beloved coach got fired merely for doing nothing to stop what he knew was happening. It’s a very sad reflection on the priorities of our society when people get more upset about a football coach getting fired than they do about him and others in positions of authority at the university overlooking sexual abuse of vulnerable children.

Since the charges have been laid, it has also come out that a janitor back in 2000 reported to his supervisor that he had walked in on Sandusky abusing a young boy thought to be around 11-13 years old. This incident also went unreported to police. All this despite the fact that accusations had been made against Sandusky back in 1998 but it was decided that there wasn’t enough evidence to bring a case to trial and it was dropped. It makes one wonder how many more times this guy may have been caught red-handed and nothing was done. And, administrative cover-ups aside, how does a grown man such as the janitor here and the grad assistant (now assistant coach, who oddly enough is retaining his job) walk in on a child being abused and react by reporting it to his supervisor rather than doing whatever it takes to stop the abuse immediately and then calling the police?

What could possibly cause so many adults to know that young vulnerable children are being abused and do nothing to stop it? Only two things that I know of, religion and football. Where does this cultish devotion come from for religious leaders and sports figures that can cause otherwise sensible and caring people to turn a blind eye to horrific evil happening in their midst because they must stay loyal to a charismatic religious leader or a winning football coach? This is something I will never understand…

A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words (Even When It Lies)

2011-10-25T08:17:00.000-07:00

Or perhaps it's worth even more than a thousand words when it lies...

I was checking out blogs I follow this morning and Jeremy Hooper over at GoodAsYou.org had a post about a collage picture NOM was using for it's new "New Hampshire for Marriage" site. The picture uses a shot from an Obama rally pasted with their own photos to give the impression that they have far more support than they actually have.

Here is the image from their site:

And here's where it actually comes from:

So, I headed over to the NOM site to have a look for myself. And I thought they must have changed the picture after having been called out on it as this is what I saw:

So I went looking for the crowd shot used in this photo knowing full well that the bigotry of NOM has never drawn such a crowd at any of it's rallies. I found it pretty easily (thanks to the wonderful world of image searches). Here is the real picture:

Yet another shot of an Obama rally. It turns out they hadn't changed the photo at all. I just hadn't noticed at first that the photo Jeremy posted had been of the second tab on their site not the one you see right away. So they actually have two photo collages on their site that deceptively use crowd shots from old Obama rallies.

As I told the folks at NOM (in a comment that won't get past moderation as they like to screen out the truth), It's pretty pathetic when you have to pretend that you have more support than you actually have by splicing your close-up shot with a wide crowd shot from an Obama rally from 3 years ago in Ohio. I'll bet many of the Ohians whose picture you are using deceptively would be very offended by you pretending that they support your bigotry.

Personally, I get very offended that groups like NOM waive the Christian banner around as though they somehow represent Christ or know anything at all about what He stands for. They feign moral superiority through the use of constant lies and half-truths. The sheer number of lies pushed around in the name of morality should be cause enough for any honest person that might have a problem with gay rights to give some serious thought to whether or not they have any truthful reason for their rejection. And if they feel they do, they should distance themselves from these charlatans as quickly and as thoroughly as they can. After all, the ends do not justify the means and evil communications corrupt good manners.

Wearing Purple; Seeing Red

2011-10-20T09:37:00.000-07:00

Today is “Spirit Day”. An initiative designed to bring awareness to the discrimination faced by many LGBT youth around the world. We are called upon to wear purple to show our support. I’m wearing a touch of purple today, but quite by accident actually as I completely forgot about this. But I really want to do something more than just symbolically show my support.

I live in a country that has had legalized marriage for same-sex couples country-wide since 2006. Most provinces had already extended marriage to gay couples by that point starting as early as 2003 for the province in which I currently reside. I have to say that I feel somewhat removed from the issue of discrimination despite being gay. I didn’t come out until I was an adult and when I did the only discrimination I faced was from my family (which has improved a great deal since then) and as I moved to another province shortly after telling them that wasn’t exactly something I had to face on a daily basis. I get comfortable in my little supportive world and can sometimes forget that even here there are young LGBT people who are harassed on a daily basis just for being who they are.

I was really surprised earlier this week when I glanced at a local paper laying on the table at the pizza joint on the corner while I was waiting for my Italian sausage sandwich to be ready and saw the front page story about a local gay teen that had committed suicide recently. It mentioned how he had been harassed constantly at school for being gay and I was surprised that still happened here, in my country, in my province. Upon reflecting on it, my surprise was entirely unjustified. Back in the province of my birth, a grade one child goes to an assembly and gets a lesson on gay families, but here in Ontario (the first province in the country to legalize same-sex marriage) such a thing is unheard of. Furthermore we have publically funded catholic schools where kids wishing to start a GSA (gay-straight alliance) are denied. My tax dollars support some bishop deciding that half the publically funded schools in my province are not allowed to have a simple club that could help improve the daily environment of the LGBT kids that attend those schools. That infuriates me. How is it that a province so progressive in its rights for adults can totally neglect the children?

I’m wearing purple, but I’m seeing red. As long as there is one child who feels that the only way to escape the constant harassment is through death, we are not doing enough…

Sometimes Dreams Do Come True and Love Always Wins in the End

2011-06-02T06:34:00.000-07:00

The craziest thing happened the other night. Shortly after I made my last blog post where I wrote about the crazy dream I had and how sad it made me to realize it would never become a reality, I got a phone call that changed my reality to something a whole lot closer to that dream.

I was sitting down watching Six Feet Under with my wife when the phone rang. It was my father on the other end and he had basically called to tell me that there would be a real change in the way he was treating me. He said that although he had not changed at all in his belief concerning homosexuality, he did realize that the way he was treating me was wrong and was going to change immediately. He went so far as to tell me that my wife and I are welcome to come stay in his home together. It's significant that I was watching Six Feet Under at the time because if you've ever watched that show you know that a frequent occurrence in the show is for one of the characters to have a dream sequence, sometimes while sleeping but often they will just start day dreaming right in the middle of something. As a viewer, you often don't realize that they have slipped into one of these dream sequences right away. You think that what you are seeing is what is actually happening on the show until it becomes sufficiently bizarre that you realize it must have slipped into a dream sequence. Well, Monday night I felt like I lived one of those dream sequences. Even after I hung up the phone, I looked at my wife and had to confirm more than once that the phone really did ring and I really did just have a conversation with my father. It seemed sufficiently bizarre enough that it felt like I must have been dreaming. You have to realize that one of the first things I heard out of my father's mouth when I first told him that I was in a relationship with a woman was that she would never ever be welcome in his house. That wasn't just that we couldn't sleep together in his house, we weren't welcome together in his house period. I could visit, but I had to do so alone. This was despite the fact that my parents knew my wife for years before we got together and she had been in their house before and even slept over when I lived with my parents before we got together as we had been close friends for many years. The idea that we could now spend time with my parents together and even sleep together in their house came as a sudden shock to my system. I was completely caught off guard. It seemed so far beyond the realm of possibility.

Yesterday, I called my father back and had a long talk with him. My mother was also present for most of it as he had me on speaker phone. It was by far the best conversation I had with either of my parents since I came out to them almost two and a half years ago. It was so refreshing. So freeing. For the first time, I didn't feel like I had to compartmentalize myself in order to have any sort of relationship with them. I've been living in a sort of bizarre limbo with my parents where I felt like they both loved me and despised me simultaneously and I was at a loss for how to deal with that. And now everything feels so different. I feel like there was a battle going on and love finally won. I honestly feel like we can start to build a real relationship again. I had begun to think that this day would never come and then suddenly it was here. I'm sure there will still be many awkward moments when the four of us finally get together. I'm sure it will be tense at times. But I really believe we can make this work.

And who knows what the future holds. Once my family are able to spend time around us and see that what we have is real and not what they imagine it to be, the door could open for a real conversation about theology and scripture. That's not to say we'll ever necessarily see eye to eye on the issue, but a real conversation would be wonderful in and of itself. The future is wide open. I never thought I'd see this day, so how can I put limits on what will happen from here. It just goes to show that love eventually wins. Love is the stronger force. It is the better way as Paul puts it. And it will triumph in the end!

The Cost of Being Oneself

2011-05-30T16:07:00.001-07:00

Have you ever had a dream that was so wonderful that it made it you really sad because you knew it was not something that would ever happen in reality? I had a dream like that this past Saturday. I don't wish to go into the details which I shared only with my wife, but suffice to say it had to do with my somewhat strained relationship with my family. It was a beautiful dream, but it left in me a deep sense of sadness because I can't imagine it ever becoming reality. It took some time before I could even reach the point where I connected my sadness to the dream and was able to articulate it to my wife, who as always was a wonderful source of encouragement. She is so understanding and has an amazing ability to put things into perspective for me when I become overwhelmed. Still, it left me thinking a lot about a decision I feel I must make before my upcoming summer vacation and I have a very real fear that the decision I am strongly leaning towards could have serious consequences.

I just want to be authentic. I don't want to hide who I am in order to make other people more comfortable. It's not that I want to be "in your face" and upset people intentionally. I just want the right to be myself. This is especially true around my family who, of all people, should be able to accept me for who I am. Unfortunately, it is only around my family that I feel I have to be something I am not. It feels like in order to have any kind of relationship with them I have to compartmentalize my life, my very self, and that is a very painful thing to do. I'm not sure I can continue to do it any longer. Is working to keep this sort of compartmentalized relationship destroying any chance of eventually having an authentic relationship? I can't help but wonder. But I'm afraid of losing any sort of relationship if I don't play the game.

I was at my parents' table over Christmas last year when my niece asked me repeatedly if I was married. I basically pretended not to hear her and proceeded to work hard at changing the subject, which you probably realize is not an easy thing to do with a six-year-old. I was acting like I was ashamed of my relationship with my wife, which couldn't possibly be further from the truth. But I knew that I couldn't simply say yes as that would lead to more questions which would inevitably lead to my niece finding out that I am married to a woman. I greatly fear that when that comes out (Yes, I do realize that it will come out and I am only delaying the inevitable) I may be cut off from having any contact with her. I love my niece and want to continue to be a part of her life as much as possible. The thought of being cut off from her terrifies me. I feel like I'm living a lie because she is not allowed to know the real me. I think that (maybe for the sake of my own sanity) I need to just be honest and let the chips fall where they may. As I prepare for a long trip back home this summer, I am nearly resolved that if the topic comes up (though I don't intend to bring it up) with my niece I will simply answer her truthfully, without hesitation. Will my worst fears come true? Or will my brother and his wife have a more sane reaction than I anticipate? Perhaps even if the initial reaction is as bad as I suspect, we will find a way to work through it and get on with life. Perhaps I'm not giving my brother enough credit, but this just seems to be such a touchy issue where sanity seems unlikely to be the prevailing force.

I honestly have no clue as to what gives this one issue such overblown importance in the mind of the average conservative Christian. It truly boggles the mind. I suppose it's the classic scapegoat mentality that has plagued the human race seemingly forever. Sanity has no influence on the scapegoat mentality; it defies all logic. I guess I need to hope that sooner or later reality might kick in and my brother and his wife will at least realize that they cannot keep their child in a bubble and they need to find a healthy way to teach her how to deal with a world full of people who have different perspectives on life than they do. For now, all I can think of when my niece asks me a question like "Are you married?" is the first reaction that I got from my sister-in-law when I came out: [My niece] must NEVER know. I thought it was one of the most ridiculous things I'd ever heard, but sadly, I knew she was serious and I have seen no indication since then that her opinion has changed in the slightest. So naturally, I fear what the cost will be when the bubble bursts…

A Pause For Reflection

2011-05-27T14:59:00.001-07:00

As I was reading an article today about couples in Illinois who were gearing up to finally have their relationships of many years validated by their states as their new civil union bill comes into effect next week, it gave me pause to reflect on how incredibly blessed I am to live in the true north strong and free. One couple in particular struck me as they told of how they had been together for 15 years but had given up any hope of being able to get married or anything like it. I, on the other hand, had no worries about being able to get married when I fell in love with my best friend and finally admitted to myself that I am gay. I live in a country where the gender of the person I love has absolutely no effect on my rights. Sadly, that is not true for many, even those living in "free" societies that claim to believe in equality for all but practice something very different.

I had an absolutely amazing wedding that was everything I had dreamed it would be. Nobody was able to take that away from me over something as petty as the person I was marrying having the same genitalia as me. The only thing that kept me from having the absolutely perfect wedding was the lack of my family celebrating with me. But I am very grateful that the particular religious convictions of my family and others like them could not be enforced on me to crush my dreams like they do for so many of my gay brothers and sisters south of the border in the so called land of the free.

Are We "Redefining" Marriage?

2011-04-13T08:56:00.000-07:00

I was reading a post on old and new categories on one of my favourite blogs today and the comments that went along with it and one of the respondents said something that caught my attention and got me to thinking about this whole “redefining marriage” debate that is going on. When I was in high school, we were taught to understand the construct of an atom using the Bohr model. You know, that one where you have electrons orbiting around the nucleus like planets orbiting around the sun. The Bohr model was replaced by a more accurate model of what atoms are really like long before I was even born, much less entered high school. It is in many ways obsolete. It is none-the-less still the number one model of choice when introducing students to the concept of atoms for the fist time. It is a simple way of understanding something that is in reality far more complex. It works in many situations and is therefore still considered useful even though it fails miserably on a deeper level. Of course, for the vast majority of us, who do not choose to pursue deeper understandings of quantum physics and chemistry, the Bohr model provides the understanding of what an atom is that will stick with us and most people never even realize that it is not correct. For those that do go on to pursue studies in these fields, it will likely seem that the atom is being “redefined” as they learn that it does not fit within the confines of the model they were first taught.

Similarly, people are now claiming that marriage is being “redefined” because we are looking at it in ways that do not fit within the model that they were first taught. But is it really being redefined? Marriage has never fit within the model that we are being told is the true definition of marriage. Marriage has always been a far more complex structure than what those that are supposedly “defending the definition of marriage” would have us believe. The history of marriage is an extremely varied one that has not been consistent over time or throughout different cultures. Marriage has always meant different things to different people. If anything, the people that are trying to fit marriage into a narrow definition that suits their limited view of what it is are the ones that are trying to “redefine” marriage. They are trying to take something that is in reality very complex and conform it to their simple understanding. But choosing to define marriage as being between one man and one woman no more makes it so than teaching the Bohr model of an atom makes it the way all atoms actually behave. Life isn’t that simple folks.

It is particularly perplexing to me that people attempt to use the bible to create these limited definitions. Marriage and sexuality in the bible is a very complex subject. It is very difficult to nail down what exactly a “biblical” view on the topic would be. But, like the Bohr model of the atom is taught to students to introduce them in a simple way to an otherwise very complex concept, so too people are taught the “biblical view” of marriage and sexuality as a very simplistic model that much of scripture does not fit into. And just as most people never go on to study deeper into quantum physics/chemistry and learn the failings of the model they were first taught, so too most Christians never go on to study deeper into the teachings of scripture on marriage/sexuality and learn the failings of the model they were first taught.

Where is this mysteriously nice and agreeable Jesus in scripture?

2011-03-30T09:53:00.001-07:00

I've been wondering from conversations with different people, where people get this idea of a Jesus who was nice, pleasant, agreeable and non-confrontational? I've read the gospels many times and I have not found in them this Jesus that the majority of Christians claim to aspire to. I see in scripture a Jesus who was extremely merciful in his dealings with people who sin and quite harsh and confrontational in his dealings with the religious folk of his day, especially those in a position of authority. I see the exact opposite from most Christians today. They are harsh and judgmental towards those who sin and very smooth-talking and agreeable with other Christians and especially those in a position of authority. All though they can be themselves quite harsh towards those of us they judge to be critical (the evil catch-phrase of Christendom so it would seem).

I have to say, I really think the vast majority of Christians would not like Jesus if he were walking the earth today. They would write him off as being critical, harsh, hurtful and unloving. And they would totally miss the point. They would get their backs up every time he said something that could be viewed as being critical of the way they do things or God forbid "personal", and never hear what is actually being said. Wait a minute, that's exactly what they did when he was here. Oh right, they didn't like him either. The outsiders flocked to him, but the insiders wanted him dead. I guess things really haven't changed much. We just have this general delusion in the church that we are trying to be more like Jesus and less "religious" when in fact we strive to be more religious and less like Jesus because Jesus was too harsh and critical to the insiders and too nice to the outsiders.

The gospels are full of stories of Jesus harshly rebuking people, we just distance ourselves from those stories by saying that "those people" (the Pharisees and such) were religious and we aren't so Jesus would never rebuke us like that. (Now might be an appropriate time to quote some nice catch phrase about pride and destruction but I'll refrain.) He would never say anything to us that could sting and hurt and be critical. I wonder what Peter would have thought of this picture we have of Jesus? I wonder how he felt when he objected to the idea of Jesus being killed and Jesus basically called him Satan. Talk about being harsh to the people you love.

Seriously, since when did becoming more like Jesus mean that we should be always sweet and agreeable and sugarcoat everything we say so as not to hurt anybody's feelings? I can't find that Jesus. Would somebody please point him out to me? Would the real Jesus please stand up?

I'm finding it really challenging to have "real" relationships with Christians and that saddens me greatly. You can have a good relationship with any Christian for as long as you don't find that you disagree about something that matters. But when you do disagree about something that you both feel passionately about, that's when you find out whether or not you have a "real" relationship; One where you can be open and honest even when you passionately disagree; One where you don't have to sugar-coat everything because you truly love one another and can therefore look past your differences without actually having to pretend they don't exist or be afraid to discuss them. I sadly find that a rare quality amongst Christians. I was fortunate to find one that I could passionately disagree with and not have it lead to hurt feelings and a strained relationship. I married her. I'm still looking for others…

Love is a Complicated Endeavour

2011-03-29T12:32:00.000-07:00

Do you get annoyed when people suppose that they know more about you and your motivations than you do?

Love is a complicated endeavour. For instance, when someone you love has major issues with a key aspect of your life and so asks you to hide that aspect of your life while around them because they can’t bear to see it, what do you do? Is the loving response to indulge them? Is it healthy to play along simply because it’s the easiest thing to do? What if not playing along threatens to end the relationship that you have with that person? Isn’t a strained relationship better than a completely broken one? When you know that nothing will be gained from confronting the issue, does that make it ok to play along? What if that relationship is with your father?

Love is a complicated endeavour.

Sometimes I think I may have become spoiled lately. Being in a relationship with someone who fully accepts me for who I am with no aspirations of changing me to fit her own image of what I should be may have spoiled my motivation to deal with other relationships that are so much more work. Frankly, if this were not family, I’d probably just let it go and never look back. Although, truth be told, I have historically not been good at simply letting relationships go by the wayside even when they were not family and turned out to be not so healthy. Something in me doesn’t like to give up on people no matter what happens. I haven’t yet decided if that’s always a good thing. Probably not. But then again, it’s probably one of the more Christ-like aspects of my personality.

I really do want to do the best thing, to handle every relationship in the most loving way possible. Because I really do love and care for the people in my life. But frankly I often struggle with what that looks like in practice. What is the loving response when someone wants you to hide a key aspect of your life because of their own insecurities, prejudices, or religious beliefs or whatever else you care to call it? Should I play along? And if so, for how long? I can’t help but think about the future. What happens when there are children involved? Will I be able to shield them from the hatred and still let them know the love of their grandparents? I really don’t know what the answer is.

I don’t question the truth of the lyrically famous, that love is a many-splendored thing, but it’s also a complicated endeavour.

Jesus Talks to a Gay Man

2010-10-26T19:41:00.000-07:00

I came across this modern retelling of the account in John where Jesus talks with the Samaritan woman at the well. I thought it was brilliantly written and simply had to pass it on. Please check out the link at the bottom to pass along a comment to the author and to read his own commentary on what he has written and the responses he got from posting it. These are not my words:

Jesus Talks With A Gay Man - (John 4:1-33, 39-42 - more or less...)

1 In late July, the Metro Chicago Synod heard that Jesus was attracting more first-time visitors and baptizing more adults than any other ELCA pastor in the city, 2 although in fact it was not really Jesus who had baptized them, but his irregularly-commisioned staff of unordained lay ministers. 3 Now when Jesus learned of this, he left the seminary community in Hyde Park and went back once more toward the ELCA headquarters on Higgins Road.

4 Now to get there, he had to go through an area just north of downtown called Boystown. 5 So he came to a part of Boystown called Northhalsted, not far from the plot of ground where ~~Emperor~~ Mayor Daley had ordained that the Chicago Cubs should play baseball. 6 Cub's Stadium was near there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey on the Red Line, sat down at a sidewalk café table outside the bar called Hydrate. It was just about lunch-time, and though the rainbow flags were fluttering in the breeze and the music inside the bar was pumping, there weren't many people around (because it's often hot and miserable outside, at mid-day in late July, in Chicago).

7 A waiter came to the table, wearing a bright pink "His+His" t-shirt and a "Silence=Death" armband, and raised one eyebrow at the man seated at the table in front of him in the "Come Follow Me" t-shirt. Jesus said to him, "Will you give me a drink?" 8 (All the lay ministers had gone down the street to pick up Subway sandwiches for the rest of the journey.)

9 The gay man said to him, "Hey...you tell me. After all, you appear to be a straight Christian, and I'm a gay man. Let's face it - we don't get many religious folks in Boystown, let alone places like this. And I'm not only a gay man, but I'm a Muslim gay man. So where does a guy like you get off asking someone like me for a drink?" (For Christians do not associate with gays, nor with Muslims if they can help it.)

10 Jesus answered him, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

11 "Hey, mister," the gay man said, "I'm the waiter here. I don't see you with an order pad or a serving tray, and it's tough for customers to even get close to our fountain-drink station, let alone our bar. So how are you going to get anything for me to drink, let alone 'living water'? Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you somehow greater than the folks who own this place, who let us drink have free water and soda (and snitch the occasional mixed drink) whenever we want?"

13 Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks your water, or your soda, or your beer will get thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

15 The gay man said to him, "Yeah? Mister...you know what, I have no idea who you really are, or even what the heck you're talking about. But you're the first Christian man in 20 years that hasn't spit on me, or called me 'an abomination' to my face. Somehow, I think I want some of what you're offering. Give me some of this water you keep talking about, so I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to get something to drink."

16 Jesus told the man, "OK - just call your wife and come back here, and we'll talk."

17 "Who are you kidding?" the gay man said. "Don't you know where you are? You're in Boystown, for cryin' out loud. I don't have a wife, or a girlfriend. Heck, right now I don't even have a boyfriend," he replied.

Jesus said to her, "You're right when you say you have no boyfriend. The fact is, you've had five boyfriends, and the guy you're living with now isn't even your boyfriend. He's just a guy you picked up in the club - some guy who doesn't even know your real last name."

19 Whoah, buddy," the gay man said, "that's pretty intense! How'd you know that about me?" Jesus was silent. "OK...I get it. Maybe you're one of those folks who can see right through people - maybe one of those guys with 'second sight.' Maybe you're one of those folks who 'have the Spirit,' like those televangelists say. 20 I don't know anything about that. My family - my people (the ones who are observant, anyway) - think that you have to pray five times a day to Allah to get that kind of power. The rest of the people I know don't even bother with that spiritual mumbo-jumbo...they just think you have to work out a lot, look good, live fast, die hard and leave a good-looking corpse. And all the Christians I've met think that I have to pray their way, and start living life their way, or I'm 'going to hell.' Either way, my day-to-day life is so empty, I'm not convinced that I'm not already in hell. What's a guy supposed to believe?"

21 Jesus said, "Believe me, my friend, a time is coming when you won't worship God in Mecca, or in the gym, or in the club, or in a church sanctuary. 22 You and your friends worship what you think you know, but do not know. Christians worship what they do know, for salvation is promised in Scripture. 23 Yet a time is coming - and has now come - when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

25 The gay man said, "I know that the church folks say that their Savior is coming. Maybe when he finally gets here, he will explain everything to us."

26 Then Jesus declared, "Then wait no longer. I'm the one they're waiting for."

The Irregularly-Commissioned Lay Ministers Rejoin Jesus

27 Just then the lay ministers returned and were more than a little surprised to find Jesus apparently talking with a gay man - one who appeared to be Middle-Eastern in origin, to boot. But no one asked, "What do you want?" or "Why are you talking with him?"

28 Then, leaving his tray and his order pad behind at the table, the gay man went back to the bar, and even next door to the gym and to the other clubs, and said to the people, 29 "You gotta come and see this... come see a guy who told me everything I ever did, and didn't run away or act disgusted. Could this possibly be 'the Christ' all those religious folks keep talking about?" 30 People came out of the gym, and out of the bars and clubs, and made their way toward him.

31 Meanwhile the lay ministers (the ones who considered themselves Jesus' disciples) kept saying, "Hey, padré, you may walk on water, but come on - even Michael Jordan's gotta eat something." 32 But Jesus said to them, "I have a source of energy that you know nothing about."

33 Then his disciples said to each other, "Did someone slip him some Mrs. Field's cookies while we weren't looking?"
....
Many Gays and Lesbians Believe

39 Many of the gays and lesbians who gathered from all around Boystown believed in Jesus because of what the waiter said: "You gotta come and see this... come see a guy who told me everything I ever did, and didn't run away or act disgusted." 40 So when the people of that area - gay men, lesbians, bisexuals (even people in civil unions from Vermont and Episcopalians visiting from New Hampshire) came to him, they urged Jesus to stay with them. So rather than continuing the ride out to Higgins Road, the irregularly consecrated lay ministers found some rooms at a nearby bed-&-breakfast, and he stayed in Boystown - amidst the people with whom most Christians would not associate - for two days. 41 And because of what Jesus spoke to the men and women there, many more became believers.

42 The people who heard Jesus said to the gay man who first encountered him, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

Ragamuffin Ramblings: Just how shocking is the Gospel?

Face-Value or Double-Faced?

2010-10-15T08:21:00.000-07:00

So, I’m getting a little tired of people employing a double standard when it comes to interpretation of scripture while being completely blind to the fact that they are employing a double standard. I find that extremely frustrating to deal with. I’m told I have to take Romans at “face value” by people who refuse to take so much of the bible at “face value”. But apparently if I took Romans at “face value” I would reach the conclusion that all homosexual acts are sinful and this is an important conclusion for me to reach therefore I must take Romans at “face value”. Laying aside for the moment that I don’t think that even at “face value” Romans says that, how is it that the same people that will tell me that I must take Romans at face value and reach that conclusion do not believe that a Christian that gets divorced can never remarry with God’s blessing? Why do they not have to take Matthew at “face value”? And how is that these same people can be fine with a woman preaching or teaching in the church? Why don’t they have to take Timothy at “face value”? And that’s just two small examples. I could fill page after page with scripture passages that these supposed “face value” and “plain reading” interpreters of scripture have alternate explanations for that do not jive with the simple reading they espouse. Yet somehow there is a total disconnect going on that makes it impossible for them to see that they are in fact being completely double-faced with their supposed “face-value” interpretation of scripture. On the one hand, they will tell you that there are other things that need to be considered if you quote Matthew to them and tell them that it is never ok for a divorced Christian to remarry (or for a Christian to get divorced for any reason other then adultery for that matter). Likewise, if you tell them that it is never ok for a woman to speak in church and quote Timothy to them, they have ways around that. On the other hand, if you try to tell them that there are other things to be considered before you can use Romans to condemn all same-sex relationships, they will be so quick to say that you don’t believe the bible if you don’t accept the “plain reading” or “face value” interpretation of Romans. (And of course, in reality, they mean the way they read it, because frankly I am a huge fan of the book of Romans and don’t get from it what they do at all, but that’s a whole other topic for another day.) Yet they see no incongruity in how they read scripture. There is a complete disconnect that I am incapable of comprehending. I’m very much reminded by this of a incident with a certain instructor that I had in college. I was doing a course on RPG (no, not role-playing games – Report Program Generator – it’s a programming language) and we had a big project that was worth something like 50% of our final grade. We basically had to write a complete program for a car rental business. We were given all the variable definitions that were to be used throughout the program. I reached a point along the way were I realized that there was no way that I could write a program that would accurately handle all possible situations without introducing another variable. So I went to the instructor after class one day and pointed this out to him. Unfortunately, while it was clear to me, I could not make him see what the problem was. I would present him with a situation and he would show me how to use the given variables to handle that situation. So then I would present him with an alternate situation and again he would show me how to use the given variables to handle that situation. But his use of the variables was different in handling the two situations and there was no way I could write one program that would handle both situations without introducing a new variable. But no matter how hard I tried, I could not make him see this. He was convinced he was doing the same thing both times even though he wasn’t. Now, you might be thinking he must have been an idiot, but he was actually very intelligent and an excellent programmer. There were also several other students from my class that stuck around and not one of them could see what I was seeing either. And they were also not idiots, they were in fact among the top students in the class. But there was some sort of barrier preventing them from seeing the two situations as one congruent problem that I could not seem to breach no matter how I tried. In fact, after much deliberation I eventually gave in and accepted that they must be right and I must be reading a problem into it that didn’t actually exist. But after I went home, I once again started to work through the problem and once again came across that same incongruity. There was no way I could make that program work for both situations within the parameters I was given. So the next day, I was with two of the students who were present the day before and they were asking the instructor some unrelated questions about how to proceed as I sat silently. The instructor looked at me and said, “You still think you’re right don’t you?” To which I replied, “yes”. He then said, “But you’re going to do it my way anyway right?” And I said aloud, “Yup, I’m going to do it your way” while thinking to myself, “I’m going to do it both of your ways, because they are not consistent and when I put them into practice you will not be able to deny the results.” And so that’s exactly what I did. I wrote the program the way that he had explained for the first situation and, as I expected, it failed to handle the second situation. So I called him along and showed him how it failed. He told me I didn’t do it right and basically gave me the second way of writing it. So I altered the program, ran it again on the second situation and sure enough it worked. But then I said, “watch this” and tried to run it on the first situation again, and exactly as I suspected, it failed miserably. Finally, with the results in front of his eyes, he could see what to me was plain all along. My inability to explain the problem to that instructor in such a way that he could see it before I actually wrote the program and had tangible results to show him was extremely frustrating. I am now finding myself with that same frustration when trying to talk to people who claim to rely on a plain reading or face-value interpretation of scripture. Unfortunately, I don’t think the latter can be resolved the way the former was. There doesn’t seem to be a “tangible results” factor involved in the interpretation of scripture. I can try to live my life as a demonstration of how a same-sex marriage can in fact be healthy, including spiritually healthy, and I have no doubt that I can achieve that, but in the end, for the “face-value” readers out there, they will always have a way to deny it. When I’m celebrating my 25^th wedding anniversary with beautiful children that were raised in a loving home with a healthy love for God, these people will still look at me and say that somehow (though they can’t see it) I am suffering the consequences of my sin. It must be so, because the bible told them so – Evidence be damned.

When Grace Brings Hope

2010-10-13T11:43:00.001-07:00

So, the wedding is over. And now that life is calming down and I actually have time to breathe again, I’m going to try and update this blog on a regular or at least semi-regular basis. We’ll see how that goes. I may just run out of things to say…

The wedding was absolutely amazingly beautiful and everything I wanted it to be. In some ways it’s nice that it’s over and now life is returning to normal. It doesn’t feel any different really, being married, except I now have this gorgeous ring on my finger all the time. I didn’t expect or want it to feel any different, so that’s not a bad thing. We already had exactly the life we wanted, though it was nice to be able to celebrate with family and friends and it never hurts to have all the legal ducks in a row.

And speaking of family and friends, I had a very interesting conversation with my father recently. He informed me that he no longer believes that I’m going to hell because I am gay (or because I made the choice to pursue a relationship with a woman, however you prefer to define it). He hasn’t changed his theological position on homosexuality being sinful and as far as I know it probably still ranks among the most evil of sins. Nonetheless, a change in his perspective on grace leaves him able to accept that I can still have a relationship with God even while doing something supposedly despicable in His sight.

After the initial shock wore off from receiving this news, I have to say that I find it offers me a hope that I was lacking previously. It reminds me that, even when a situation seems impossible, God is still at work behind the scenes softening hearts and bringing change. While my father and I will likely never see eye to eye on the theology of homosexuality, I am hopeful that we may one day reach a point where it is merely a theological disagreement that doesn’t cause a rift between us. I hope to one day reach a point where I can share a meal with my parents and my wife at the same table. Perhaps one day they can visit my home rather than having to shun it as the den of iniquity. Maybe by the time we have children, they might be able to come and visit with us as a family and be in the presence of my wife without loathing. These things would make me very happy. Theological differences are not that important. And so I hold out hope that grace will make a way for us to move beyond our differences and be like any other theologically dysfunctional family, loving each other through our differences. It can happen. A short time ago, I would have said it would never happen, but then along came grace and accomplished suddenly what I could never hope to accomplish in a million years, convincing my father that I can still be in a relationship with God regardless of my choice of partner. So who knows really what the future will bring. Hope is a wonderful thing to have.

cartoon: immovable prejudice

2010-08-31T08:50:00.000-07:00

I know I've been completely negligent in keeping up this blog. Things have been insanely hectic with preparing for our upcoming wedding. Once that wonderful day arrives and then, as all wonderful days inevitably do, passes by, things should settle to a normal level of insanity and I will return to blogging on at least a semi-regular basis. In the meantime, I thought I'd pop by from time to time and share something from another blog that caught my attention despite my currently short attention span. Please check out this post from David Hayward (aka the Naked Pastor). As always, David gives us all something to think about...

Be sure to follow the link and read the accompanying commentary.

cartoon: immovable prejudice

What's in a Name?

2010-07-22T14:59:00.000-07:00

In less than three months from now (Oh my goodness, perhaps I should be panicking, is it really that close?!) I am getting married to the love of my life. At first we had both decided that we would keep our last names when we wed. Being that it will be a groomless wedding, there is no particular expectation of name change anyway. We had even decided on what we would do when we are ready to have kids on that basis. As we both plan on getting pregnant, we decided that we would exchange last names for the children. In other words, the child I give birth to would carry her last name and vice versa. It was an interesting solution that we had both thought of independently before either of us shared the idea with the other. Of course, that still didn’t solve what we would do with the next child that we hope to adopt, but we figured we’d cross that bridge when we came to it. We’d have a few years to solve that dilemma in any case.

Recently though I’ve had a change of heart. I have decided that I am in fact going to take the family name of my beloved. In a practical sense, things will be much less complicated if we have just one last name for the whole family and neither of us would give even the slightest consideration to doing that annoying hyphenated thing (no offense to those of you who bear hyphenated names). It would be ridiculous for her to take my name since it is a family name and my family are anything but welcoming of our union. They will undoubtedly refuse to even recognize it and go on pretending that I am still single. They will most definitely not welcome my wife into the family or ever even refer to her as my wife. Her family, on the other hand, have welcomed me right from the beginning and made me feel as though I were one of them. So, it really only stands to reason that when we are legally wed, I should take the name of my new family, which will be the only family that will be family to us both.

The more I thought about it, the more I realized that if I were marrying a man, I would not have hesitated to take his name so that we might have one family name. I don’t really view my marriage as being any less traditional beyond the gender difference than if I was marrying a man, so why should I treat it any differently? I may be old-fashioned (no the irony is not lost on me) but I really think there is something special about new family ties being symbolized by the taking on of a new family name. In some cultures, it is customary for the husband to take the name of his wife. Here it is customary for the wife to take the name of the husband. These customs seem to have no meaning within the LGBTQ community but I think there is still value to them. We just have the wonderful freedom to not be defined by roles assigned based on inherent characteristics that are out of our control. But within the framework of that freedom, I have decided that it is an honour for me to take on the name of my beloved. Grant it, I’m not looking forward to having to go through the process of making all the changes, but I do welcome the change none the less.

Are there no limits?

2010-07-21T10:59:00.000-07:00

I wonder if this guy also believes that Hitler and all his soldiers were actually closet Jews. Seriously, are there no limits to human stupidity?

In the words of the late great Albert Einstein:

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."

and of course...

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”

Blogging

2010-05-28T10:50:00.000-07:00

So, admittedly I've been a little slack on the blogging here lately. The reason for that is because I've been involved in a very interesting conversation on another blog that is eating all my blogging time. So I thought I'd steer you in that direction in case you're having a slow day or are happy having your day eaten by a blog conversation. I frequent the nakedpastor blog, where David Hayward often sparks engaging conversation with his thoughts and cartoons. Recently he posted this cartoon, which you can imagine is somewhat controversial:
Feel free to join the conversation happening here: cartoon: heroes

Walk (Or Roll) A Mile In Someone Else’s Shoes

2010-05-26T13:05:00.001-07:00

This past Sunday, while spending time with some of my favourite people, as is so often the case on Sundays, I went on an outing to the mall/supermarket in my friend’s spare wheelchair. It was a very interesting experience that left me with (besides very sore arms) a new appreciation for those that wheel their way through this world. You never realize just how uneven everything is until you’re sitting in a chair, trying to roll straight on a very slanted path. Nor do you realize just how much work is involved in sitting on your butt and rolling around. And the narrow aisles of some stores were really not designed to be navigated in a chair. Nonetheless, I’m glad I did it. And as tempted as I was, I resisted the urge to suddenly jump out of the chair and frighten the wits out of random strangers.

It left me thinking though, just how true that old saying is that you should never judge someone until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes (or rolled a mile in their chair as the case may be). We like to think we understand where other people are coming from, but the truth is, if you haven’t been in the same situation there’s no way you can really understand what it feels like. And even then, while we share some experiences in common, no two situations are identical. Perhaps the only right way to walk is in a humble attitude of meekness and show grace, mercy and compassion towards everybody you encounter and to treat people the way you would like to be treated, even if you can’t imagine ever being in their shoes. Hmmm… Where have I heard that before… It seems to me like a humble man walked the earth a long time ago with that message that seems so lost on the vast majority of those of us that are trying to follow him from afar.

Hate Speech Vs Freedom of Speech or Religion and the response of Christian Media

2010-05-21T09:54:00.000-07:00

Today I was reading a reply on a blog where someone was commenting on what she perceived to be persecution and censorship of Christians in Canada. I don’t doubt the sincerity of the poster, but I suspect she ascertained her view of said persecution and censorship largely from Christian media. This got me to thinking about Christian media and how skirmishes between Christians and the courts are represented by them. I remember on more than one occasion back in my fundamentalist days being enraged by a report I had read about how some Christian was being charged or sued for this or that. Sadly, I must admit that I don’t recall ever checking out those reports outside of Christian media. Now that I no longer drink the kool-aid, so to speak, my response before getting outraged was to dig a little deeper. I did read some Christian responses to the case in question, but I also found the actual court proceedings on the website of the Alberta Human Rights Commission (you have to appreciate how freely we have access to information in this internet age). After checking out the actual court proceedings, I have to say, I was more than a little upset with the way the case had been represented by various Christian media outlets. I suppose their reporting is intended by them to be a show of solidarity with any Christian who feels they are being attacked for their beliefs, but I’m left wondering if they are afraid to even look at what the person’s accuser is saying before passing judgement that the Christian is being treated unfairly. It’s really quite ridiculous coming from people who claim to represent truth and integrity. Anyway, here is my response to the commenter on the blog:

Hate speech legislation undoubtedly makes for a very uneasy balancing act. On the one hand I am grateful that it provides us with protection against the type of blatant bigotry that goes untouched in the US such as the example of Fred Phelps and his clan who picketed the funeral of a young man who was brutally murdered just for being gay with claims that he had gotten exactly what he deserved. Free speech should never be abused to incite hatred and violence against people. It is particularly disturbing to me that such laws are at all necessary to keep Christians in line, as this should never be an issue for anybody that truly follows and promotes the example of love and forgiveness set by Jesus.

On the down side, it is pretty much impossible to draw a clear line on what constitutes going too far and inciting hatred and violence beyond simply exercising our cherished right to free speech. Inevitably, we are going to end up with people that are skirting the line, like the youth pastor in the case you have cited and it will not always be cut and dry as to whether or not they have crossed the line. It will be interesting to see what the Court of Appeal rules in this case and whether or not it gets taken to the Supreme Court as Mr. Boissoin has stated he is prepared to do.

What I personally find disingenuous is the way in way in which Christian media reports on this case. The statement you posted is a clear example of this, "Lund v Boission ( a youth Pastor who wrote a letter to the newspaper editor condemning homosexuality as non-Biblical.) he was sued and has been fighting in court for 8 years to clear himself of charges of ‘hate speech’ in Court of Queen’s Bench and now the Appeal Court of Alberta." I have read other reports from Christian media which are along the same lines. They claim that Mr. Boissoin was brought before the courts on this issue for condemning homosexuality as "non-Biblical" or "sinful" or "against God", etc. They try to scare their Christian audience into believing that merely speaking out against homosexuality in this country can land you in the courts. It is a blatant false misrepresentation of the case. Nobody is in any danger in this country for merely holding to and expressing the view that homosexuality is sinful or wrong or unbiblical, or even for stating that all gay people are going to hell. In my searching, I did not come across one single article offered by Christian media that gave a fair representation of why Mr. Boissoin is involved with this court battle. In order to gain a fair perspective of this case, I sought out the actual court proceedings which you can read here if interested . I have not read the entire document, but enough to see what was said that could be seen as in violation of hate speech legislation. As I suspected, Mr. Boissoin’s belief that homosexuality is sinful was not the problem. The problem was in the militaristic approach that he took which could fairly be seen as provoking violent behaviour. Here are a couple excerpts from the letter which Dr. Lund (the plaintiff) offered as being “militaristic and alarmist that seek to evoke war against homosexuals and their supporters”:

“My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume.”

“With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date – God and the “moral majority”. Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage you have caused.”

“Come on people, wake up! It is time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes all manner of wickedness abounds.”

That last one I find particularly disturbing. Seriously, one should not say “take whatever steps are necessary” without at least qualifying that to say that it does not include violent attacks against the “enemy”. It’s interesting to note that what sparked Dr. Lund to take action was that two weeks after this letter was published in the local paper in Red Deer (a small city in Alberta of about 90,000) a teenage boy was beaten simply for being gay, in the ensuing trial he told the court that he did not feel safe after reading the letter in the paper. No one claimed that the letter directly inspired the perpetrators, but lets face it, it certainly helps to encourage such behaviour when you paint homosexuals (and those who advocate for them) as toiling, day and night, to consume our innocent children and youth and then later call upon people to take “whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness”. It is particularly disturbing to have such things come from someone who has direct influence over youth. Testimony was given by a woman that worked in the youth centre that Mr. Boissoin ran that she “was personally aware that one of the youths who beat the 17 year old youth was a person who frequented the youth center quite often.” She also testified that, “Mr. Boissoin was aware of this and did nothing in response to the beating.”

There are many other disturbing ideas promoted by the letter, including comparing homosexuals to paedophiles and drug-dealers that you need to protect the children from and implying that homosexuality is a disease that your children may catch. He actually asked the question, “Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexually positive?”

Mr. Boissoin, in court, claimed that his intention was merely to stir up political debate and call people to take action politically, but on cross-examination he admitted that “he was unaware of a specific phrase in his entire article that pointed the reader to political action” and that “his article did not provide any sources of education, resources within the community for education, groups the reader could join, or references to voting or the ballot box or specific political remedies or actions.” And this is the real kicker, he also admitted “that the CCC was having a political meeting at the time he wrote the letter and he chose not to announce the political meeting despite having this knowledge at the time.” I find it pretty difficult to believe that the only action he intended to call the readers of his letter to was political when he avoided any political references and wouldn’t even mention a political meeting that he was a part of.

It remains to be seen how the Court of Appeals will rule on this case, but Mr. Boissoin was certainly skirting the line of hate speech and the likelihood that his motives were not hateful seems highly suspect. I am highly offended at the dishonest way Christian media has represented this case. Even if it is perfectly within Mr. Boissoin’s right to free speech and is found to not have crossed over the line of what is legally considered hate speech, a Christian moral standard should take higher ground than this. I don’t believe anybody truly upholding a Christian ethic is in any danger of facing charges of hate speech in this country regardless of where they stand on the morality of homosexuality.

When Rights Clash

2010-05-20T11:04:00.000-07:00

It was recently brought to my attention that the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is being asked to decide whether or not it is acceptable for the government to pass legislation that would exempt civil marriage commissioners (such as a justice of the peace) from performing same-sex marriages on the basis that it is against their religious beliefs. Two draft proposals are on offer to the courts. One would see the exemption only offered to those commissioners who were in their positions prior to same-sex marriage being legalized in Canada (those who took the job when their religious beliefs and the duties of their job were not at odds); the other would see the exemption being offered to all commissioners. You can read more about the case here.

At issue of course, is whether or not a person’s right to religious freedom allows them to deny a government service to a certain group of people, in this case same-sex couples. And so this is being billed as a clash of individual rights and the courts are being asked to decide which right is more important. I’ve read a few articles on this as well as a lot of comments being made in the blogosphere and it has all been rather interesting.

I would be opposed to ministers being told they have to marry same-sex couples or give up the right to marry at all, but that is not what is at issue here, despite the fact that many people suggest that is where this is headed. I don’t think it is a valid comparison at all as ministers have always had the right to refuse to marry whomever they chose. Just as churches and religious organizations have the right to discriminate based on religion in their hiring practices. A justice of the peace however is a different matter entirely. A justice of the peace is a government employee who is required to perform the duties of his job, one of which is to marry anybody that comes before him as long as they meet the legal requirements. Unlike a minister, a justice of the peace has never been able to require a couple to receive counselling before getting married, refuse to marry a divorced couple, or simply tell a couple that he doesn’t believe they are ready to get married and therefore will not perform the ceremony. What makes this issue unique? Why should a commissioner who is obliged to marry any straight couple (in the legal position to be married) that comes to him be allowed to refuse to marry a gay couple that comes to him (in the legal position to be married)?

Is it a violation of religious freedom to tell someone that they have to perform the duties of their job if they wish to continue in that position? What if we applied that to all areas of employment? Let’s say for example that Bob owns a convenience store which, among other things, sells an assortment of lottery tickets. Bob hires Sally who comes from a strict religious background that believes that gambling is sinful. A customer comes to Sally to buy a lottery ticket, but Sally refuses to sell the ticket to the customer because she feels she would be contributing to his sin and it therefore violates her conscience. Bob finds out that his customer was turned away, confronts Sally and she explains that she would be compromising her religious beliefs to sell lottery tickets and she is not willing to do so. Bob fires Sally. Can Sally turn around and sue Bob for discriminating against her on the basis of her religion? Should Bob be required to accommodate Sally? Maybe he should have to make sure that another clerk is available to take the customers wanting to purchase lottery tickets. If that’s not feasible as it is a small store where there is often only one clerk working at any given time, should he have to alter his business to not sell lottery tickets during Sally’s shift? Nobody would argue such a requirement to be reasonable. Rather Sally should find a job that she can do without violating her conscience. What then makes the issue of performing same-sex marriages any different? If Sally is hired to perform civil marriage ceremonies but then refuses to marry any same-sex couples because her religious beliefs are that homosexuality is sinful, why should she not be fired and left to find a job which she is willing or able to do without compromise?

We have the right to hold to any religious views that we believe in this country. And we further have the right not to be discriminated against when it comes to employment on the basis of those rights. However, that does not mean that we have the right to hold a job that our religious beliefs will not allow us to perform all the duties of. Granted I understand the unfairness of the situation for Mr. Nichols (the case in which this proposed new legislation is based) who was performing marriages for two decades without a problem before same-sex marriage was legalized in this nation. He didn’t take the job knowing that it would require him to do something against his conscience. It is absolutely unfair that he would now have to face a decision to do something he believes is wrong, or to give up his position. It is unfair. Life is unfair. Laws evolve and people have to make these choices…

Seriously? How does that support your argument???

2010-05-17T13:43:00.000-07:00

Do you ever get annoyed by people who provide sources to prove a point they have but are obviously hoping that people will just take them at their word and never check the sources? They expect us to just assume that nobody would supply a source if it didn’t back up what they were saying. And I have to admit, I have at times been guilty of making that assumption, especially if it was on something that went along with certain presuppositions that I had to some extent already accepted. I admit that I have been much more diligent to check sources of things that I already have reason to disagree with. I say that to my own shame as I realize that is a dangerous practice that plays a role in our wilful ignorance of issues that for one reason or another we feel are not important enough for us to take the time to research and come to an informed conclusion (or sometimes lack of conclusion) about. In this microwave society in which we live, we love it when we can get simple pint-sized information about vast and complex issues. It’s so time-consuming and draining to have to sift through large quantities of information and opinions and attempt to make sense of things so that we can make informed conclusions.

I bring this up today because while doing my usual web-surf over breakfast this morning, I came upon this page that has a letter written by the chairperson of a group called the “Uganda National Pastors Task Force against Homosexuality”. This is apparently a group representing several denominations and religious groups in Uganda that got upset last year when Rick Warren sent a letter calling upon Ugandan Pastors to speak out against the proposed “Anti-homosexuality Bill 2009” which would impose stiffer sentences on people committing homosexual acts and/or “promoting homosexuality” in Uganda, including the possibility of imposing the death sentence on cases deemed severe enough. (Homosexual acts are already illegal in Uganda, but clearly that is not enough for these “pastors”.) This group was actually pushing to have the bill passed and were offended by Rick Warren’s suggestion that they should speak out against the oppressive bill. So they wrote this letter to correct the supposed misrepresentation of the bill by homosexual activists that were causing “hysteria”. Apart from the ridiculous claims of how all the homosexual groups fighting for basic human rights are actually recruiting and spreading homosexuality (like it was some kind of disease) amongst the otherwise good and proper heterosexuals of Uganda like they have apparently already succeeded in doing here in the west, what got me thinking about the importance of checking sources was the very first point that they claimed constituted the “compelling circumstances that have necessitated the Anti-homosexuality Bill”. Point number one was:

“Increasing incidents of homosexual abuse of children and youth by people exercising power and influence over them like teachers, pastors, parents etc. A recent report shows this. Uganda: Child Abuse rampant.”

Now if you actually use the link they provide to the article that supposedly shows these increasing incidents of “homosexual abuse” of children, what you get is in fact an article on World Vision’s UK website that does in fact deal with rampant sexual abuse of children in Uganda but says nothing whatsoever about “homosexual abuse” as these people suggest it does. Now, I’m not trying to suggest that none of these horrible acts against precious innocent children are carried out by homosexuals or involve homosexual acts. However, while at least this article fails to address that one way or the other (probably because it is irrelevant as the crimes are equally disturbing regardless of the sexes involved) it is clear enough from the article that the sexual abuse of girls by men make up the largest segment of these crimes. Now don’t get me wrong, I am in no way downplaying the tragedy or severity of these horrible crimes, nor the need to deal with them. All I’m saying is that to read that article and see it as a support for the common link that bigots have long attempted to make between homosexuals and the sexual abuse of children is utterly ridiculous. And the fact that this group can pass this off as having anything to say about homosexuality just goes to show that they do not expect people to actually look at the sources they supply. And sadly, in many cases I suspect they will in fact achieve their goal of making their points look credible without the readers taking the time to check out their sources and see how ridiculous they are being.

Cartoon: Gay Couples Welcome

2010-05-12T10:42:00.001-07:00

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and so it is with great respect that I dedicate today's post to David Hayward (the nakedpastor) as he is my inspiration for posting today's thoughts in the form of a cartoon.

Letting Go

2010-05-11T11:02:00.000-07:00

I’m sitting here listening to the new Jennifer Knapp album entitled “Letting Go” and I find myself thinking about what it means to let go. How much am I willing to let go of in order to be able to truly serve the hurting and the broken? If Jesus is really the example I follow, I must be willing to give up everything to my very life. Many of the earliest followers of Jesus gave up their lives. Around the world today there are still Christ-followers that put their lives on the line everyday. Yet I struggle with the idea of giving up my comfortable life. I want to cling to the security I now have. I love my life. I love the comfort it affords and the fact that I know more or less what to expect in the future. I have never felt more comfortable in my own skin and I have never known more confidence in the future. Things are going according to plan for me for the first time and I want so much to sit back, relax, and drift along the gentle stream that winds softly through the forest of calm assurance. Is that so selfish? Is that unloving? I suppose it’s all relative…

Last week, while I was waiting outside the community centre for my partner to arrive for our ballroom dancing lessons, I was struck by the incredible imbalance of my life and the man across the street who was napping on a sleeping bag laid out on a slab of cardboard on the concrete steps of a church. We had some showers that day and I guess the alcove provided at least a little protection from the elements. I couldn’t help but wonder what that man’s story was. (I am actually only guessing it was a man as I could not tell from across the street with the person lying with their back towards me.) What had brought him to this point? Did he have any friends? Any family? How can I claim to know and experience the love of God while I work towards goals leading to my own pleasure while ignoring the suffering around me? I know I can’t help everyone, but am I really helping anyone? Am I making any real difference in this world or am I content to stay inside the little box that I’ve built that protects me from the pain and suffering all around me? That doesn’t sound much like Jesus does it…

I guess if I’m to be completely honest with myself, I could give up pretty much everything and throw myself into serving others if I had some sort of guarantee that I could make a significant impact in the lives of the broken. I guess my real fear is that I would let go of my own comfort and set out on a journey of ministering to the hurting only to find that I am inadequate and can accomplish nothing of any real value. I guess that makes it a trust issue. Do I really trust God to lead me in the right direction and to go with me and work through me? That’s the only way I can truly accomplish anything of real value… So, in the end, I must admit that my ability to let go of my comfort zone is entirely dependent on my ability to trust God to be all that I need. Not exactly a revelation but a lot more challenging to put into practice than I’m comfortable with…

A Feminine God in Christianity?

2010-05-10T18:30:00.000-07:00

I read an interesting article this morning entitled Recovering Discarded Images by Kristina LaCelle-Peterson. The article was part of a collection of articles on Women and the Church in a quarterly publication called Christian Reflection: A Series in Faith and Ethics which is published by Baylor University. You can subscribe to the publication free of charge if you live in Canada or the United States. I cannot comment on the value of the publication as this is the first article I’ve read from one, but it’s probably worth checking out, I thought so anyway.

Back to the point at hand, the article talks about the importance of embracing the feminine metaphors for God found throughout scripture in order to gain a richer understanding of God and also to remind us that women and men alike are capable of bearing God’s image in the world. I found this really interesting as I have never given much attention myself to the feminine metaphors of God found throughout scripture. I realized that, while I have ascribed to the idea that God is neither male nor female, I have nonetheless maintained an image in my mind of a very much male God. The image of God as father is so ingrained in my thinking that I have become somewhat offended at times when I have heard people refer to God as mother. And yet, maternal metaphors of God are not without scriptural basis, so it reveals my own ingrained prejudice to become offended by their use in worship or discussions of God. There is feminine imagery of God throughout the bible and yet we always focus on the masculine imagery. Is this intentional? Do we feel uncomfortable with the feminine imagery? Something to think about…

Even Jesus used feminine imagery of God. Next to the parable of the good shepherd which leaves the 99 sheep to seek out the one lost sheep, we find the parable of the woman with 10 pieces of silver who loses one and sweeps the house to find that one lost piece. I can’t tell you how many sermons I’ve heard on God as the good shepherd who seeks out that one lost sheep and yet I can’t recall hearing a single sermon as God as the woman seeking the one lost piece of silver. Does that strike anyone else as rather odd and inconsistent?

The Hebrew word for the spirit of God Ruach Elohim is in fact feminine, as is the word used to represent the manifest presence of God Shekhinah. And I heard recently that El Shaddai, literally translated could mean breasted one. I don’t believe God is male or female and I believe that we are all created in the image of God. But I think something is lost when we fail to pay heed to the feminine metaphors and representations of God in scripture. I am not a fan of some of the modern translations that attempt to make the bible more gender-neutral as I believe that such attempts are not consistent with the context in which the bible was written. There is no getting around the fact that the bible was written in a very patriarchal society and attempts to disguise that take away from rather than add to our understanding. It is, in my opinion, more beneficial to carefully examine the context in which the various books of the bible were written in to help us understand their message and how it can be applied to our lives today than it is to try to re-write the bible into our context, which is far from universal.

Original Intent

2010-04-30T09:14:00.000-07:00

Recently I've been reading a lot of different opinions on various blogs and other sites regarding the issue of homosexuality and the bible. It's an issue rather close to my heart given that I am both gay and a Christian, so I couldn't really get away from the issue if I tried. I have family members that are convinced that homosexuality and Christianity are mutually exclusive and I am fully aware that they are not exactly in the minority in at least the evangelical church world.

One thing that I've been noticing comes up a lot during discussions of homosexuality and the bible is the idea of original intent. In other words, there is an assumption that regardless of where one falls on the position of whether or not homosexuality is inherently sinful, we can at least say that it was not part of God's original intent in creation. It's the old God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve argument. (We're not quite sure who created Steve, but if you'd like a light hearted amusing take on the issue check out this commercial) To be honest, I have been getting increasingly annoyed every time I hear this argument. Bear with me for a moment and I shall explain why I have a problem with the original intent argument.

First of all, let me make it clear from the start that I am in no way going to attempt to convince you that homosexuality was a part of God's original plan. Frankly, I don't think there is any way we can know that with any degree of certainty one way or the other. What might have happened if there had been no sin? All answers to that question are pure speculation. We cannot possibly glean from the creation story of only two people what every future person would be like or how we would have related to each other in families, communities, society as a whole, etc. There were only two people in the story of original creation. Obviously one of them had to be male and the other female and they had to come together or else they would have been the last two people. But I fail to see how one couple is sufficient to demonstrate that all other forms of human relationships must deviate from God’s original plan.

I’ve been giving this some thought and it occurs to me that there is only one assumption that we can clearly make about original intent from the creation of only one couple. I think we could say with reasonable certainty (assuming we take the Genesis creation story literally) that incest must have been a part of God’s original plan. Think about it. If God created only two people, one male, one female, and then left them to multiply and fill the earth, as the Genesis account clearly states, then incest absolutely had to be part of his original plan. So, perhaps my real deviation from God’s plan was not in choosing to be with a woman but rather because God gave me two brothers and yet I was not content to seek a mate amongst them.

Ok, so there is actually one other alternative to incest in the creation story. Since death came into the world as a result of sin, one can assume that if there was no sin Adam and Eve and all of their offspring would have lived forever. So the alternative to their offspring mating amongst themselves would have been for Eve to have been the mother of all living, not through generations, but by literally giving birth to all of humanity. Granted it would have taken exponentially longer to fill the earth that way (and the math geeks out there would probably argue that there was no actual multiplying going on, but merely adding) but eventually over millions of years, the earth still would have been filled with no incestual (did I just make that up or did Microsoft decide it didn’t belong in their dictionary?) relationships being necessary. Of course, the problem with that scenario is that we wouldn’t have been left with God intending all future couples to be straight. We would instead be left with God intending all other humans to be asexual (or perhaps all Adam and Eve’s children were intended to be gay) so that no children would be born out of incest. So perhaps the deviation from the original plan was in having women other than Eve give birth which became necessary after the fall as Eve (and all that followed) were now eventually going to die and so successive generations were needed in order for the earth to continue to be populated.

I know you are all thinking that I am being absolutely ridiculous here. And you’re right. I am being ridiculous and am doing so intentionally to demonstrate my point. All arguments with regards to God’s original plan for all of humanity (had there been no sin) drawn from the story of the direct creation of only two people, followed pretty much immediately by sin, are presumptuous at best.

Of course, ultimately we are told in 1 Peter that Jesus was foreordained to die for our sins before the foundation of the world. So I’m not entirely convinced that there even was a Plan A that was abandoned as a result of sin, leaving us with Plan B. Clearly God had planned our redemption from sin before he even created us, so it’s not like we caught him off guard. I’m not saying that God intended for us to sin, but I suspect he at least knew it was inevitable when he gave us the right to choose in the beginning and so perhaps his “original plan” was built around that from the beginning…

Lessons on Trust and Love

2010-04-29T11:50:00.000-07:00

It may be a bad sign that I'm starting out this blog with my first post being, not something fresh, but a re-post of something I wrote a little over a year ago. But I really think this is an appropriate first post offering somewhat of a window into my world and may help to give you some idea of where I'm coming from in future writings. So without further ado, here it is:

So, I've been reading this really interesting book called “The Challenge of Jesus” by N.T. Wright, which I finally finished after a bit of an interruption from some newfound craziness happening in my already crazy world. This is not a book review and I’m not really going to give you any sense of what the book is about. If you want to know that you can always read it. I’m only mentioning the book at all to give credit for a poem I wanted to post which closes out the book. I assume it was written by the author as I find nothing to suggest otherwise. It seems the poem was written by Wright after a disappointing trip to the Louvre where he couldn’t get a good look at the Mona Lisa due to the painting having been put behind a very thick, protective (and apparently too reflective) glass shield. In any event, the nameless poem reads as follows:

A Paris newcomer, I’d never been
Followed by those dark eyes, bewitched by that
Half-smile. Meaning, like beauty, teases, dancing
In the soft spaces between portrait, artist,
And the beholder’s eye. But now, twice shy,
She hides behind a veil of wood and glass;
And we who peer and pry into her world
See cameras, schoolchildren, other eyes,
Other disturbing smiles. So, now, we view
The world, each other, God, through prison glass:
Suspicion, fear, mistrust – projections of
Our own anxieties. Is all our knowing
Only reflection? Let me trust, and see,
And let love’s eyes pursue, and set me free.

So, before I attempt any sort of quasi-explanation of why this poem struck such a chord with me, I should probably give you a little background information into certain events in my life which have lead me toward the space in which I currently find myself. Admittedly, a full and clear explanation would probably be enough to overload the servers to the point of crashing, so what you will get instead will likely appear somewhat coded and shadowy and parts of it may only make any inkling of sense to those among you whose paths have crossed with mine at specific points in the story of my life. For any confusion I might cause, I apologize in advance. Questions are always welcome, but I warn you that some things are beyond my capacity to explain in words. And most things are beyond my capacity to explain with any degree of brevity.

I suppose I should begin with a brief snapshot of my childhood. Note that this is indeed a snapshot and not a portrait and as such offers just a brief glimpse and not the full picture. So, if you get the sense that you have any real understanding of what my childhood was like from reading this, you are likely reading far too much into it. I was raised in a fairly strict but very loving Christian home. This is a heritage for which I am very grateful, though it may appear at times otherwise as I have reached some extremely different conclusions in certain areas that seem to contradict and defy all that I was raised to believe. None the less, I know in my heart that what truly sits at the core of my beliefs has not changed but rather been strengthened, even though I am entirely aware that there are those (possibly even reading this) that would beg to differ and do so quite strongly and with great conviction. I respect their right to do so, fully realizing that I would have been found amongst them not so very long ago.

Getting back to my point, I was raised in a world full of absolutes where there existed mostly blacks and whites without a lot of room for gray areas. This was a comforting world in many ways and I was very at home in it. I clung to this world for many years despite some rather intense internal conflicts that it at times caused for me, the depths of which I kept very well hidden from inquisitive minds and in some ways and at some times, even from myself. I was, in fact, the poster child for this world for many years and I played the role well. I was raised in a Pentecostal home with a strict code of conduct which was based, to the absolute best of my parents understanding, on the bible. I adhered fairly well to this code and (with a few minor exceptions) not begrudgingly. I never really went through the rebellious teenage years experienced by most but instead kept quite well to my convictions as they had by this time indeed become my convictions and not merely my parents’ wishes for me. I accredit this largely to the fact that, rules aside, the most important lesson I learned from my parents was one of love. Even when I disagreed with the rules, I could never seriously question their motives. The motivation behind the rules and any discipline that went along with those rules, always shined through very clearly as one of deep love and a great desire for nothing but the best for my life. It was largely through the unquestionable love of my natural father that I developed a strong sense of the love of my heavenly father. And it was that acceptance of the love of God that created in me the desire to live a life that was pleasing to my father God just as I always took great delight in doing those things that made my dad proud of me. (Yes, in case you haven’t figured it out yet, I’ve always been a daddy’s girl.) And so, from my teenage years and moving on into adulthood, I held strongly and with great resolve to the convictions instilled in me from a very young age and studied scripture and its exposition to build upon the foundation that my father had laid.

Fast forward now, not to the present time, but to a time only about five years in the past. I had become highly involved in a certain non-denominational church which shall remain nameless to those of you not already aware of its name. Actually, to say that I was highly involved, seems to me quite the understatement, but I shall leave it at that for the purpose of this explanation. In any case, certain events transpired that lead to my untimely release from said church. As I once heard a certain well-known preacher word it, I received the left foot of fellowship from amongst the brethren. The circumstances surrounding my excommunication from this church caused no small amount of pain and confusion in my life at the time and, at least in part, precipitated the early stages of the crumbling of my well built world of absolutes. If you think this is starting to make sense, I have to point out here that the erosion of my world actually had nothing to do with the personal pain of the incongruent treatment and hypocrisy that I was the recipient of from the leadership and people of the church in question. You see, I was already well versed in the hypocrisy of institutional religion by this point in my life and so, while it opened fresh wounds, this was not at all a new concept to me. No, the erosion of my world began, not as the result of any sort of external conflict, but rather with the internal realization of the inherent flaws in certain of my beliefs that I had come to hold to rather strongly over the years. Furthermore, the particular beliefs that were brought into question upon exiting this particular chapter of my life would not have, in and of themselves, caused even the slightest tremor to the foundations upon which my understanding of God and scripture were built. The key to understanding the logical progression set in order at this point in time is in the degree of certainty to which I held to the beliefs now in question. It was the sudden realization of how well I had been deceived by slick words and misquoted scriptures removed from their original context. Most of the beliefs in question were developed largely during my time at the church in question and not without my conscious suppression of certain misgivings at times. But one particular belief went all the way back to my childhood where I had always accepted it and never had any doubts about it. That particular belief had to do with the importance of tithing (giving a tenth of one’s income to God (which usually equates to the church) for those not familiar with the term). It was the destruction of this belief that sent me into somewhat of a tailspin of suspicion regarding my beliefs in general. Again, not because this belief was central to my faith or overly important even, but simply because I held to it for such a long time without seeing any reason to question it. My mind at this point started pestering me with constant nagging questions regarding what other beliefs I might be holding to unquestioningly that are in reality quite baseless. I began to realize at this point the problem with absolutes when they turn out to be absolute nonsense. To quote a random quote I stumbled upon on a discussion board, which I would credit to the author had I any idea who came up with it: The unanswered questions aren’t nearly as dangerous as the unquestioned answers.

So, I had reached the point where the questioning had begun, but it would actually be around three years later and several miserably failed attempts at assimilating myself into other churches before things would really start to fall apart. At some point in this process, I became rather disillusioned with churches in general. Not entirely independent of (though not solely related to) this process, I had also begun at some point to become somewhat disillusioned with God, or rather my image of God. This is where things get really difficult to put into words. I never stopped believing in God, nor altered any of my core beliefs regarding God, but at the same time I felt a grave sense of uncertainty that I had never experienced before. But even then, I was still sure of who God was. Yes, I realize I’m contradicting myself; I told you it was difficult to put into words. I was in a very conflicting contradictory space that is very difficult to explain even in hindsight. I was feeling very much abandoned by God, even though I still strongly believed that God would never abandon me. I felt as though I had lost my faith, even as I clung to it. There are no terms I can find to convey how completely conflicted I was at this point. I’d like to say that I was able to quickly resolve this conflict, but that simply isn’t true at all. In fact, while I did at times find a slight respite here and there, this largely continued until very recently. Over time, through a complete lack of being able to find any resolution, the conflict largely gave way to apathy, but the apathy was recognizable to me and thus fed the conflict. Yes, I know, I’m contradicting myself again. It is a complete contradiction to say that I was both apathetic and strongly conflicted at the same time, but I know no other way to describe it.

And so that brings us back into the present, or at least the immediate past. Up to the point where just a few short weeks ago my life exploded, or perhaps imploded. Where, in a very short span of time I regained my passion for God and life, adopted a whole new approach to the interpretation of scripture, came to terms with the fact that I am gay (something I had been secretly struggling with for many years, though apparently it was obvious to everyone but me), and fell in love with my best friend. All of those things are somewhat independent of each other, but at the same time intrinsically interwoven. And there you have more of the contradictions. I’m actually coming to embrace the completely contradictory nature of life and my understanding of it. I’m beginning to look back and see the history of our lives in a far less linear fashion than your typical timeline would allow for. I can recognize now the ability of two very different stories to be unfolding at the same time and be somehow interwoven into a larger narrative that seems to be completely incongruent on the surface and yet, when you dig a little deeper, you realize that it simply had to happen that way. And I realize as well, that our seemingly individual stories, not only intersect far more often than we recognize, but are in fact often intertwined to the point where two people can be living the same story even though both are feeling that they are walking the road alone. It’s often only through the benefit of hindsight that we can make the connections. And when we make those connections it can change our whole perspective. The story is the same one that we’ve been living all along, but yet it is radically different with a change of perspective. Nothing has really changed and yet everything is different, which is how I view my life at this point. To anybody looking from the outside, it appears that I have completely changed. But I know this is essentially the road I’ve been walking for a long time and the only thing that has really changed is the perspective.

So I said all that just to get to the point that I set out to make at the beginning, when this was just going to be a short note on how this poem spoke to me. I started out my life, as we all do, with a certain degree of naïve trust. But as life happened, experience taught me to let go of that trust and over the years I became more and more distrustful of people and in some ways of God. But as my perspective began to change, I began to see, as the author indicates in the poem, that much of my suspicion and mistrust was actually a projection of my own anxieties. I was basing things on the reflection of myself that I was seeing in the glass through which I was looking at other people and also at God. I spent much of my life trying to present a certain image of who I wanted to be. But the image I was presenting wasn’t really an honest one. It wasn’t intentionally dishonest, but it wasn’t trustworthy as it was not a true reflection of who I really was on the inside. I was intent on presenting the image that would reflect who I wanted to be and who I thought I had to be instead of just being and letting the reflection reveal who I was. In learning to accept myself, I am reaching a new level of trust toward others. A trust that is not built on naivety but on an acute awareness that we are all living an ever-changing story and we are often blind to the complexities as well as the simplicities of that story in the moment in which we are living it. There is no way of not looking at others through your own reflection. But when you recognize that you are in fact doing so, and you also allow your reflection to be an honest reflection of who you are, rather than trying to form it around who you think you should be, it opens up a whole new perspective. You can’t get away from your own reflection and the fact that it affects how you see other people. So, in the end, being able to trust your own reflection is far more important than trying to maintain that naïve trust of others. When you can trust yourself, you can trust that you have an accurate perspective through which to view others and the world around you.

Furthermore, in coming to recognize how your own reflection affects how you view others and the world around you, you realize this is also true for everybody else, whether they realize it or not. I’m finding that my acceptance of myself automatically makes me far more accepting of other people who are very different from me. It actually seems the most natural thing in the world to me now to just love people and accept them for who they are. There is an incredible freedom in not feeling the need to judge other people because you have come to accept yourself. The two are so closely linked as to be inseparable. You find one and you find the other and you are truly free. Let love’s eyes pursue, and set me free…