Inappropriate Conversations

Addressing the Inaugural Controversy

I suppose I am not alone in being offended by the controversy over whether Louie Giglio or someone else is going to pray at the ceremony for President Barack Obama's second term as president.  My reasons, though, probably put me in a very small minority. I respect Giglio, and I respect his decision.  In that, I've just separated myself from those who vehemently wanted him removed from that role, but I've also separated myself from most Christians who seem to have missed everything Giglio did not say when he declined.  His statement, "Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago..." is a far cry from stridently defending the sanctity of his current beliefs against any (insert numerous complaints from religious conservatives) abomination. This shouldn't be particularly confusing. Most politically active Christians struggle to comprehend things Jesus did not say or do either.  They would be just as quick to presume their favorite words of condemnation fit just as nicely into Giglio's mouth, too. I am not offended by what Giglio did or didn't say.  I'm disappointed, but not offended, by those who made the call for Obama to rescind the invitation which Giglio preemptively declined.  My views have changed as information has grown over the past 15-20 years.  I have asked God for wisdom as well, which implies a desire for growth that cannot happen without development and often change.  Perhaps the same can be said about Giglio. No, I'm offended by some of the Christian responses, including this one by Randy Alcorn:

We redefine sin, and minimize it in a misguided attempt to win people by saying what they’d rather hear. What bothered me most as I read dozens and dozens of comments was seeing professing Christians distance themselves from Louie Giglio. These new kind of “Christians” are a mirror image of this culture, craving popularity and acceptance. If that’s you, please understand—and I am trying to be honest, not cruel—that you bear no resemblance to what it has meant for two thousand years to be a true follower of Christ. Believe what you choose to, but please, in the interests of accuracy, stop calling yourself a Christian.

Stop right there.  Being a true follower of Christ is not about maintaining the mantle of empire bestowed upon Christianity by Emperor Constantine centuries ago.  Throughout those years, many Christians have called for the church to correct its course.  Martin Luther alone is proof that this notion of Christian understandings of both scripture and science being unchanged for 2,000 years is false.  More to the point, Jesus doesn't command us to believe anywhere near as often as he commands us to do:

• Go and do likewise
• Feed the hungry
• Care for widows and orphans
• Whatever you have done for the least of these, you have done for me
• Go and make disciples

Those of us who do the things that Jesus commanded -- and, to be honest, a great many Christians are much more accomplished than I am -- bear a much better resemblance to the true followers of Christ than anyone who is so committed to a political position that he or she would deny evidence, scientific research, and testimony even from believers who understand homosexuality in a way that I, frankly, never will. If we are to love God with all of our hearts and souls and strengths and minds, as Christ commanded, then we need to stop attacking other Christians who are using their minds.  If there is to be a litmus test for "true Christianity" after all, Jesus tells us that his followers will love God this completely and love their neighbors selflessly.  Who is your neighbor?  Of course, that question was asked and answered in Luke 10.  Jesus was answering the same question in Matthew 25 when he spoke of "the least of these." Giglio's speech from decades ago and Alcorn's defense of that viewpoint today clearly speak about "the least of these."  The problem is that you cannot identify a group of people with such dismissive terminology and ignore the fact that denying they exist (it's "just a choice" or there is "no such thing" as a non-heterosexual identity) also denies the existence of Christ in the hearts of those who presume to call themselves the only true believers. "Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me," Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 25:45, New International Version) I am a Christ Follower, a Christian, a man who has faith in Jesus in part because of the role the Holy Spirit has played in my life.  I have asked some (certainly not all) tough questions of my Lord and I've been blessed to have heard answers.  I do not presume that every thought that enters into my head is "of God."  Likewise, though, I don't presume that God has nothing to tell me, that he is done answering prayer, and that God has nothing more to reveal through his Spirit even though we know much more is being revealed through the light of conscience and nature, as Paul described in his letters. I'm more than willing to believe Giglio has taken such an ambivalent stance toward this controversy because he knows that God isn't finished with him yet. I hope the same can be said of me.  I'm not unaware of what has been called "Christian" for the past 2,000 years, but I'm also alert for what the Lord is doing around us at this very moment.  It's possible that 2,000 years from now, how we behave today as Christians -- what we "do" as opposed to what we "believe" -- will be part of the tapestry of faith that our distant ancestors will refer to  homogeneously as what "Christianity has meant for the past four thousand years." May this be the moment when we decided that calling on people to lie to and about themselves "for the sake of Christ" is an abomination.  May this be the day that what we've been led to believe about our neighbors stops having any relevance to our ministry compared to what we go and do ... as Jesus commanded.

College Football's 2012 Non-Championship

Although this year is nowhere near the nightmare for the Bowl Championship Series that last year proved to be, it remains true that college football fans have been slighted as always. The bracket below shows the playoff system we could be watching.  All 11 conference champions are seeded in a bracket with the next best 5 "at large" teams based on BCS ratings.  The only adjustment I've made was moving Georgia up to avoid 1st- and 2nd-round rematches of games played in the regular season. I'm not suggesting that the decisions necessary to reach a "March Madness" type of bracket would be easy.  Still, they are possible.  If SEC teams, for example, just dropped their annual game against lower division opponents, the football season wouldn't be too long for any of these teams.  As for other teams in bowl games, could those match-ups be any worse than they are this year even without a playoff system? Of course, I'm not suggesting that Arkansas State is likely to upset Notre Dame, or that Tulsa or Utah State might advance far into this tournament.  As any college basketball fan would attest, though, they have earned the right to play. College Football playoffs, as they should be, for 2012 season

Show Me the Neo-Conservative Nanny State

In "liberal" v. "conservative" debates we've heard all year, one repeated argument is over entitlement and self-sufficiency.  One side argues in favor of social programs as a crucial safety net for the most vulnerable members of society.  The other side notes the cost of the programs and the potential for those same people to become dependent upon the support of government.  I've placed quotations around these ideological terms because the lines get more blurry than you would think around a concept I'll call The Nanny State. Originally a British expression, Nanny State refers to government policies over-reaching and essentially "babying" the public.  It can function as both a liberal complaint (conservative fiscal policies designed to protect wealth) and a conservative one (legal requirements on products that invite litigation).  The tone of this current election year leans toward complaining about government coddling the perpetually unemployed. Earlier this month, though, Missouri voters have given us a spectacular example (emphasis on "spectacle") of conservative, religiously-oriented over-reaching.  Quoting FoxNews.com: "Missouri voters approved an amendment to the state constitution Tuesday [August 7, 2012] that proponents say will help ensure the right to pray in public.  The amendment was on a statewide ballot and had widespread support, though critics said the right to pray is already protected under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.  State GOP Rep. Mike McGhee and other supporters agreed, but they said Amendment 2 is really an effort to make the state constitution match the U.S. Constitution and protect Christianity, which they said is under attack." We probably should be deeply concerned about elected officials or their constituents setting out to change government in ways that will "protect Christianity."  Where Jesus said, "Give back to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (Matthew 22: 21), Missouri would like to force Caesar to name-and-claim what is truly God's. The concept of Nanny State comes in when McGhee and others justify the amendment.  With limited anecdotes, examples have been given in interviews -- last week on National Public Radio "Tell Me More" and elsewhere -- of cases where teachers or other officials have misapplied the law or overstepped their authority. From the same Fox article online: "McGhee, whose legislation led to the amendment proposal, told FoxNews.com about an incident in which a teacher told a kindergartner singing 'Jesus Loves Me' while swinging on the playground to instead sing 'mommy loves me.'  McGhee thinks the teacher simply didn't know the law and said the proposed amendment attempts to make clear such rights." Why wasn't something done to provide corrective First Amendment instruction to the teacher in cases like this?  How does it make sense to pass an amendment to the state's constitution that merely repeats the current state of the law?  Are we afraid to give crucial information to teachers about executive orders going back to the Clinton administration that cover this exact same ground for all states? Or, did the state already step in, whether by school administrators or other agents?  If so, why conceal that fact, if not to make voters perceive an "urgent need" where none exists?  Or, have all the talking points from this amendment merely been a smokescreen to cover-up what truly is new in the amendment: a rule that students can legally opt-out of any coursework that might conflict with their personal religious convictions? Missouri voters have taken a terrible step.  They are out of line with Jesus Christ, from a conservative Christian perspective.  It appears that they have coddled teachers who needed to hear stern words of correction about interfering with a student's private and personal faith (yes, it is still private and personal on the playground or in the lunchroom, as long as it isn't proselytizing).  They have placed the possibility of a student being offended by educational materials above the necessity of learning itself. If the Nanny State element isn't clear, I'll explain in reverse order. Third, it is over-protective and counter-productive for the state to presume it can enable children not to be offended by school work.  It stunts their development intellectually, and it inhibits their ability to speak apologetically against ideas they may grow up to oppose. Second, a constitutional amendment to "make clear such rights" certainly represents the worst kind of conflict avoidance.  What will McGhee recommend if this governmental "reminder" doesn't work?  At what point would Missouri lawmakers propose the most direct approach instead: talking with teachers and other officials who make mistakes?  Surely we don't need a constitutional amendment every time someone gets confused about the state of the law! First, Missouri voters have presumably made a statement about how important it is to protect public expressions of religion.  Some conservatives have referred to this as a "public prayer amendment."  The headline on the Fox article reads: Missouri votes to fortify public prayer with amendment that critics call unnecessary.  Whether it is necessary or not, the entire idea is a slap in the face of Jesus and a renunciation of his teaching. "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men.  Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.  But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."  (Matthew 6: 5-6) This amendment is not what Jesus would do.  Clearly and directly, it is not what Jesus would have us do.  Perhaps, though, supporters of the "conservative" form of Nanny State don't defer to Jesus at all when they speak of protecting Christianity.  For some, that belief system is more political than religious and the power being consolidated is anything but spiritual.

If 'Pro-Life' Has Meaning

In a fascinating exchange of interviews on NPR Fresh Air last month (the Inappropriate Conversations page on Facebook has links), an American nun and priest traded perspectives on the true meaning of the term "pro-life."  The priest referred to the position of the pope on specific issues like abortion and euthanasia.  The nun made a distinction between pro-fetus policies and the larger set of pro-life policies including poverty and war among other threats to life.

I have always maintained that the term itself, pro-life, is meaningless.  From an earthly perspective, all of us will die.  From an eternal perspective, the response of some in the church to controversial issues like abortion strongly and wrongly imply that God's metaphorical hands are tied.  He is somehow powerless to save, either during an earthly lifespan, regardless its length, or afterward.

Of course, politically-focused church members and representatives quickly backtrack from these flirtations with heresy.  However, their policies don't line up with either a confidence in God's Providence or with the commands from Jesus and his apostles that hatred is unacceptable and we must not express it.  In both a gospel and letters, the Biblical writer John speaks for Jesus very clearly.

"Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.  We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.  But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?  Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth." (1 John 3: 15-18)

Jesus said, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.  I do not receive glory from men; but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves." (John 5: 39-42)

In the epistle, John refers to Jesus' words in the Sermon On The Mount (Matthew, chapters 5-7).  In the gospel, John quotes Jesus directly.  Two warnings are clear.  One is a statement that you cannot be pro-life and express hatred, not toward politicians or doctors or women who've had an abortion, and not toward homosexuals.  The other is Jesus explaining that the Old Testament must not be an object of worship; that's not what the Bible tells us to do, even about the Bible itself.  Jesus says that those Hebrew Scriptures provide a testimony about Him, and that following those rules and laws will not give life.  It is one of many passages where he makes claims to deity that his Jewish contemporaries could not (and did not) miss: Jesus says that He is the way to eternal life.

These points matter, perhaps now more than ever.  In the midst of angry words this week over the meaning of "marriage" and the significance, or relative insignificance, of Levitical laws, more than one Christian on more than one occasion told me (with alarming confidence) that "Jesus tells us to hate ..."

I used quotation marks for a reason.  That's a direct quote.  It comes, in part, from the non-Biblical notion of some Christians that they must "love the sinner but hate the sin." It's a borderline heretical concept, where these Christians have taken the words and anthropomorphic descriptions of God's character from the Old Testament and presumed that they must be "like God."  It's heretical when this transforms into "playing God" by deciding through the politics of our times that Christians can levy judgment against others on the basis of Hebrew Scriptures in God's name.

Jesus has told us two things that we must not forget.  First, we aren't commanded to hate anything or anyone; in fact, Jesus commands us not to hate.  The line about "Jesus tells us to hate" is dangerously misguided and the driving force behind most of the very public actions from Christians in recent days.  Second, as Christians our guidance comes from Jesus and not a set of rules that he directly told us cannot supersede His love.

If we make a mistake here, we are not "pro-life" no matter what our political policies proclaim.  The Bible says we are murderers.  My fellow Christians have taken action and spoken words this week that were ultimately designed to shun our neighbors, supporting people who finance organizations with goals of isolating, arresting, or perhaps executing those same neighbors as "an abomination."  It is blasphemy to claim that this is what Jesus would have us do.

Asking Honest Questions Can Build Character in BSA Challenge

Chuck Norris is in the news for what some are describing as "taking a stand" against changes that would permit homosexuals to volunteer to serve the Boy Scouts Of America. I don't intend to address this issue directly, but it raises a question that I first mentioned in Inappropriate Conversations #8.  On the topic of The Sexual Revolution, I asked if "celibate homosexual" has tangible meaning in our society.  The related question is whether "homosexuality" is an inherently sexual concept. For some this will sound silly.  After all, the word "sex" is embedded within the term in a way that intends to communicate something other than gender.  No, I'm going to keep gender out of this.  But must there be a link between orientation and sexuality?  We don't limit the term "gay teen" to sexual experience.  There is such a thing as a sexually-active gay teenager versus a gay teenager who is completely inexperienced in the area of coupling.  So, clearly, we can -- and, therefore, should -- make a distinction between orientation and sexual practice. What does this have to do with the Boy Scouts Of America? The answer is hidden inside this question: who in this debate is sexual-izing (making something "about" sex) the concept of homosexuality? To connect back with IC #8, is there such a thing as a celibate homosexual?  (My answer is Yes, by the way.)  Would that individual be welcome to serve as a Scouting volunteer?  Let's focus there, rather than on Chuck Norris.  Frankly, he isn't asking the right questions. Here's the dilemma you must face if you favor the long-standing Boy Scouts ban: 1)      If a celibate homosexual would not be welcome as a BSA volunteer, then this really isn't about sexuality at all.  It's just about discrimination and prejudice.  Rather than teaching these young men the values that have made America strong, the organization is doing the exact opposite. 2)      If a celibate homosexual would be welcome (please don't turn the word "allowed" into a pejorative and demeaning qualifier), while others would not, then perhaps the issue is solely about sexual practices ... but who is making "sex" the issue?  Certainly not the volunteer.  Gay parents who want to help surely aren't sexualizing the conversation unless they are volunteering solely for a topic like sex education. Who is making sexual orientation "all about sex" in this situation?  I think we know the answer to that, and those people should be ashamed of themselves. I'm not saying that it is wrong to consider this conflict, or many other examples, as a question of equality and discrimination. I'm also not saying that the BSA organization cannot decide to keep discussions of sexuality out of their mission.  I'm only saying that supporters of the long-standing BSA policies are the ones who have put sex in center stage when the debate (if necessary) should be solely about orientation. That is a very different thing.  We need to start asking more pointed questions of people who confuse the two concepts, or try to confuse others through willful obfuscation. There is no badge for deception.

C.S. Lewis in His Own Voice

Here is C.S. Lewis, speaking via radio address some of the words that would become Mere Christianity and other works, including several parts that I have quoted in Inappropriate Conversations. C.S. Lewis Original Recording Inappropriate Conversations references include: 12: Have we evolved beyond religion or is Christianity itself that mutation? 20: Reading ‘Chapter And Verse’ on what I don’t believe 21: Permanent Things that I believe 49: R.S.V.P. 61: Impermanence of Time

Us versus Us

I have been a supporter of Jennifer Knapp since I first heard her Contemporary Christian hit single “Undo Me” years ago. She sings an apology and words of reconciliation about several social situations: “It’s time to get down on my knees and pray, ‘Lord, undo me.’ Put away my flesh and bone ‘til you own your spirit through me.” That support only increased last year, when I learned that she had “come out” about being in a relationship with a woman. I don’t know the label that Knapp would use for herself, and I won’t make any assumption. I do know that the mixture of CTC and LGBTQ is surely the most challenging of any in the music business. So, like others before her – Ray Boltz in CTC and Chely Wright in Country as examples – I have been very intentional about supporting her career even more now. Whatever headwind she was already facing as an artist has surely turned stormy. The first line from her new CD, Letting Go, speaks volumes: “Careful what you say; careful who might hear. …” She also speaks of being tired of “standing on the edge of myself.” Violent dismissal and confrontation toward gays and lesbians is all-too-easy to document. See below for a recent example out of Cleveland, Ohio: Rape Away The Gay This may be intentionally shocking, from a conservative talk show host trying to incite others. Still, it is easy to trace the pattern from the current political noise to numerous school bullying and teen suicide cases to here. Does “pray away the gay” equal “rape away the gay”? No, but that’s a fallacious comparison. Both are wrong. One is a criminal suggestion. The other is a hideous abuse of theology, a view of prayer that refuses to comprehend the concept “thy will be done” which Jesus taught in the Sermon On The Mount. I have a problem, though. I’m hearing, indirectly, suggestions that something is wrong in my support for Knapp and others. No, it isn’t religious right voices telling me that the support is incorrect (I’d have to pay attention in a way I don’t intend to). “Incomplete” might be a better term. I’m left to wonder if my support is dangerously insufficient. “I was convicted by @jennifer_knapp saying those of us who r straight but affirming need to out ourselves as allies of LGBTQ.” Although I am on Twitter now (as ic_greg), these are not my words. Still, the words of @FemmeMinister have resonated with me. Why do I struggle with terminology like “allies” when my actions tend to be affirming in my own uninformed way? A quick look at the headlines confirms the danger of being silent. I’m not silent, though. Long ago, I was convicted that it is far better to say something that should not be said than not to say something that should be said. I am ignorant (inexperienced) of many things LGBTQ, but it is easier to apologize for mis-understanding and getting something wrong – compared to dealing with words not spoken after consequences that could have been changed. Is the solution really about taking sides, though? I ask because I don’t know. After more than a year of on-again/off-again contemplation, I haven’t answered this question. To me, the notion of “allies” implies the balancing notion of “axis” and I think that’s a fair assessment. My LGBTQ friends need support in the face of fierce opposition. Naturally, that implies a good force of allies standing up to an axis of evil, in the political language we’ve used my entire lifetime. At least within Christianity, I don’t see even most of the hateful people within the church as enemies who need to be vanquished. As an example, I reject the somewhat common notion that Christ must be denied in order to affirm any LGBTQ issue. No. Whoever the non-allies are, they are people who need to be reached not repelled. Will a firmly entrenched “us versus them” position make things better? Isn’t this a segregation of sorts? The problem isn’t “us versus them.” It’s “us versus us.” Picking a side in an ongoing debate can be a crucial and necessary step for some. Knapp is probably right, like Martin Luther King, Jr. (on civil rights), that quietly disapproving of homophobia from the sidelines is a curse. It isn't enough. I want to be affirming of those who “out themselves as allies of LGBTQ.” Standing up isn’t wrong. I’m hearing a different calling, though. If picking sides takes away the opportunities I have to reach those “with ears to hear” on the other side of the political spectrum, then taking on the mantle of “ally” is a mistake. I have questions that I’m still pondering. It’s important to get others within the church and conservative politics to face their own questions. To honestly challenge those who haven’t yet dealt with their ignorance and/or bigotry, I can’t be on the other side of a battle line. I can't be on either side. I need to be fully engaged. I believe there is far more “us” in this struggle than “them.”