Inappropriate Conversations

Trenchant Analysis in 'The Gay-Hatin' Gospel'

I won't add many words as an introduction because this article written by Fred Clark speaks quite well for itself.  I cannot recall a more measured, detailed, or accurate analysis of, depending on how you look at it, "The Christian Problem" or "The Homosexual Problem." Evangelical Christianity of the politically-active persuasion has much to answer for, and most Christians know it. Slacktivist: Test Everything and Hold Fast to What Is Good"< "The religious right portrays itself as a religious movement seeking to reshape politics, but in fact it is a political movement seeking to reshape religion. Its agenda — at which it has been distressingly successful — has always been to turn a church into a voting bloc"  (Fred Clark).

Inclusiveness Through Exclusion?

The "ground zero" area in New York City is making news again.  This time, the protest is over remnants of the buildings in the shape of a cross being used in a memorial.  Reported on a Yahoo news blog called The Lookout, a group called American Atheists and four New York citizens are suing the state over the planned memorial. Atheist Group Sues Over Proposed Cross The lawsuit refers to this cross as an insult to many victims on September 11, 2001, specifically those who were not Christian.  While the plaintiffs' proposals include the option of expanding the memorial to include other images, their supporters seem committed to the idea of fostering an inclusive remembrance by excluding the Christian image altogether. "We are happy to donate a suitable and respectful display and pay all associated costs, and we won't stand idly by while atheists and their families are discounted.  We seek only fairness," David Silverman, president of American Atheists, wrote on his blog on July 28. I've spoken to this last September in Inappropriate Conversations #28 (Capitalism in the Realm of Ideas).  Christians and other Americans who denounced Muslims wanting to build a mosque and community center in the same part of town were wrong.  Inclusion is the way forward, the way to healing.  Silverman is correct to insist that this inclusion applies to atheists as well. I have two questions, though, and I only have an answer for one of them. First, how does suing to remove a cross from a memorial display foster inclusiveness?  In the Yahoo blog, Jewish citizens are quoted as finding this image "offensive and repugnant to their beliefs."  Welcome to America, bless you for speaking your mind, and join me in following the founding ideas of this nation:  you don't have any "right" to not be offended.  Free speech as a principle flat-out presumes that all of us will be offended from time to time by what we hear -- and see. Second, since I strongly support the idea of including memorial imagery to honor all of those who died on 9/11, what is the symbol that we should use for atheism?  I do not know the answer to this question, and I'm not suggesting that there isn't a suitable tribute. If we are serious about the issue being inclusiveness, though, then intellectual honesty requires at least one thing from us:  the symbol for atheism on this memorial cannot be "removal of the cross."  Our use of free speech must be more tangible, and more profound, than merely silencing those with whom we disagree. Here's a word of warning to Christians, though:  that same principle applies to you.  Including others in conversations about a calamity like 9/11 is precisely what Jesus would do (Luke 13: 1-5).  I openly distrust anyone who claims the Christian faith but cannot share in open discourse with others (1 Peter 3: 13-18).  Amen.

‘Gay Marriage’ answers the wrong question

An online friend asked a provocative question last week: Without using religion (there is separation of church and state still, right?), justify the ban on gay marriage. With New York recently approving gay marriage on a 33-29 vote, the timing of the question couldn’t be better. I do not support gay marriage, and my reasons are political rather than “biblical.” It seems like the wrong answer to a very good set of questions:

1. Shouldn’t someone facing life-and-death health circumstances have the person they love most at their side?
2. Along the same lines, is it acceptable that a committed couple should be denied the right to answer crucial hospitalization and medical questions without carrying a briefcase full of legal documents?
3. And many more, related to insurance, inheritance, etc.

I believe in the concept of civil union or civil partnership, and I’m very suspicious of all the emphasis being placed on the word “marriage.” I oppose gay marriage because government is a very ineffective tool for changing the definition of words. For the entire history of this country – and longer – “marriage” has been understood as a specific type of relationship between a man and a woman. This doesn’t mean that the language should not grow and evolve. It will and it must. I simply reject the emphasis being placed on labels (even where the labels may represent a legal shortcut) when crucial questions of human rights are at stake. For the record: I do not support so-called “defense of marriage” legislation. Instead, I’m a proponent of a system that looks much more like the United Kingdom’s answer to this question. At the same time, though, I think both polar groups on this issue are intentionally fanning rhetorical flames. Why frame the debate around marriage when the critical issues are in the details? One answer is the shortcut, and another is confrontation. The shortcut suggests that we don’t have to deal with all of the inequities in our system between marrieds and unmarrieds individually. If you expand the concept of marriage, then it works like a magic wand and all of the specific issues just disappear. Really? Take another look at the vote that just passed in a state that, rightly or not, considers itself one of America’s most progressive. That’s a 4-vote difference. Maybe this sets the stage for hundreds of gay marriages in New York. It also sets the stage for a sickening display of American politics at its worst. Millions of dollars from all over the country are going to pour into legislative elections in upcoming months to change the 3 or 4 seats necessary to overturn the vote. If it doesn’t work, it represents a tremendous waste of money and human capital. If it does work, the maneuvering will put devastating uncertainty into the lives of people who already wrestle with disenfranchisement on a daily basis. The liberal perspective is that gay marriage is the right answer. Ironically, liberals also have the perspective that “you cannot legislate morality.” Nevermind the assumptions behind words like “morality”; after all, we are leaving Christianity out of this discussion today. I’m more interested in the correct notion that the state legislature has no real power to change the hearts and minds of people. It has even less power when the debate itself is filled with angry words like bigot, hypocrite, and homophobe. So much for the shortcut approach to using marriage as a wedge. Yes, it avoids the issue-by-issue grind of dealing individually with questions about adoption, insurance, inheritance, etc. On the other hand, if you really want to change the hearts and minds of citizens, you cannot sidestep those debates. It ultimately takes even more time to remove questions around key issues from the government and drop them into the laps of (potentially confused) citizens. I fear that a large factor in the emphasis on marriage is confrontation. Forget the shortcut component, if only because it won’t make the ultimate changes in society any faster. Insisting that the balancing of rights hinge on the word “marriage” seems instead to be a technique to draw the religious right into battle. Perhaps I’m being cynical … not nearly as cynical as this approach to the issue, if I am correct. Look at the rhetoric. I’m not referring to the shameful things the religious right has said and done. If you need another finger to point accusingly at them, I’ll raise mine now. There. No, look at the rhetoric from the other side. If you are an ardent supporter of gay rights, be honest with yourself. At some point in this article, you carefully considered whether I should be described as homophobic or bigoted. I’m not making an accusation; no, I’m merely pointing out that we’ve been handed an issue where every answer is either 1 or 10 on a scale of 10. We should be dubious when a debate like this doesn’t have any scores in the 2-4 or 7-9 ranges. Well, 29 legislators in New York voted against gay marriage. Are all 29 of them prejudiced and radically opposed to human rights? Isn’t it more complex than that? Don’t get me wrong. It might not be hard to find very homophobic and misinformed people on that side of the ledger. But it might be an act of discrimination to assume such discrimination. One of the key reasons I prefer civil partnership is that it opens up the debate and forces everyone to address the issue with the details of human rights concerns exposed. I believe that many of those 29 “no” votes in New York would support hospital visitation and consent rights. We don’t know because we didn’t ask them that question, and a dozen other similar questions. If we take that issue-by-issue approach, I believe we will separate the bigots from those who (like me) are particular about language. We’ll divide what I call the politically-active Christians from the Christ-followers as easily as separating hate from love. Why wouldn’t we relish the opportunity to have this debate? My fear is that the agenda isn’t really about the rights of oppressed people, and it is more about calling our political enemies inflammatory names. Civil partnership would have passed in New York, and probably by a bigger margin. The legislature and perhaps the courts would have more work to do, but it would be righteous work … where the “right” in righteous would be all about civil rights. I suppose it is possible that some of the 33 yes-voters might have abstained in protest over terminology, but I also believe terminology would have brought in more yes-votes from the other side. As a heterosexual man, I know I can’t really empathize with gay friends on this issue. I can sympathize, though. I understand the importance of being recognized, and I know the historic dangers represented by what I’d call invisibility. Will Americans decide one day that our historic definition of marriage is too narrow? Perhaps. It just won’t happen because Congress or the president or courts insisted. As a side-issue on the notion of civil partnership: I would not limit this concept to sexual relationships. Even a committed platonic couple should be permitted to carry their partnership into legal contracts or end-of-life decisions without unnecessary or discriminatory hurdles. Homophobia is probably a big reason why we don’t see more of these relationships today. Friends may fear the bigotry they see directed toward gays and lesbians and wouldn’t want to walk that path in a celibate partnership. I wonder if they would find support from gay rights groups or not. Perhaps they’d be seen as “something else” or even as a threat to the fight for recognition. I am serious about this concept. If the U.S. adopts the approach of gay marriage at this time, we will still need a civil union concept in the future to cover the needs of non-sexual partnerships. The fact that this group will be even smaller makes the situation more disconcerting. I believe the religious right would be just as opposed to this non-traditional lifestyle. I have a secret suspicion that gay rights groups would stand silent, too. So, is the question we are debating from state to state really about the rights of couples who don’t fit the historic definition of “marriage”? If so, then we should change the terminology or more honestly confront our own prejudicial assumptions.

An Epitaph In Song

A friend laid down a challenge earlier this year: name ten songs you'd like to be remembered by.  What would these songs say about you, if they could be summed up and inscribed on your gravestone?  I took that challenge. 1) The Indigo Girls - Let It Be Me "If the world is night, shine my life like a light."  (Saliers) 2) Jars Of Clay - Faith Enough "It's just enough to be strong in the broken places."  (Haseltine, Lowell, Mason, Odmark) 3) Joni Mitchell - A Case Of You "I remember the time that you told me, you said, 'Love is touching souls.'  Well, surely you touched mine, because part of you pours out of me in these lines from time to time."  (Mitchell) 4) The Smiths - Half A Person "If you have five seconds to spare, then I'll tell you the story of my life."  (Marr, Morrissey) 5) Indigo Girls - Prince Of Darkness "By grace, my sight grows stronger, and I will not be a pawn for the prince of darkness any longer."  (Saliers) 6) Holly Cole - Make It Go Away "Isn't that what love is supposed to do? Make it go away, or make it better. I would do either one for you."  (Davis, Harding) 7) Maria McKee - I Can't Make It Alone "There is something in my soul that will always lead me back to you."  (Goffin, King) 8) Chris Rice - Go Light Your World "Praying to the Father in the name of Jesus, make us a beacon in darkest times."  (Rice) 9) The Electrics - Party Goin' On Upstairs "There were people there relieved of all their cares. You see, everyone was welcome; you just had to say you'd come to the party going on upstairs."  (Horner) 10) The Ink Spots - This Is Worth Fighting For "I gathered my loved ones around me, and I gazed at each face I adore. Then I heard that voice within me thunder: This is worth fighting for!"  (Delange, Stept) Are there moments of musical inspiration that you love enough to leave behind, as a final thought after you've gone?

Targeted Release Schedule

With the exception of a summer trip and some time around the holidays between Thanksgiving and New Year's Day, I have maintained a weekly schedule for Inappropriate Conversations.  Starting off, it was essential for me to set a pattern and establish some disciplines.  Although the format for this show is quite simple, I still needed to grow into it. Now, in 2011, my release pattern is going to be slightly more irregular.  What does that mean?  There will be more planned weeks off this year, but they will not follow a pattern.  Sometimes only 2-3 shows will come between off weeks.  Other times, it will be more like 5-6 shows. Reasons may be obvious for relaxing the pace of programs.  I didn't want to drop to every other week, though.  I have more to say than that schedule would allow, for one thing.  For another, I take inspiration in certain points on the calendar.  As an example, I might want to do something out of character for April Fool's Day this year, and that might not work so well if I was dealing with rigidly set "off weeks." So, the Inappropriate Conversations will keep coming out.  I know that some people find the content a bit unpredictable.  This year, the release schedule will merit that same description. Thanks for listening!

Merry Christmas 2010

I'll be taking the week off for the holidays, avoiding for at least one year saying anything inappropriate about Christmas.  What will I be doing instead? Worship, of course! I'll decide before Friday whether I'm attending one service or two this year.  It isn't an easy decision for me.  While I don't regard Christmas anywhere near as highly as Easter or Pentecost from a "holy day" perspective, most Christmas Eve services are truly beautiful.  I never attend out of a sense of duty.  For some, that rule might stop them from attending any Christmas Eve service ... if a sense of obligation is the only reason to go.  No, I'm expectantly considering whether to worship twice -- different services, of course. Like the fellowship that is unique to a particular community of faith coming together to sing, listen to music, and tell an old, old story ... I also will spend as much time as I can this Christmas Eve with the community at Simply Syndicated.  This year's live broadcast online of Richard & Allison's Super Happy Fun Time is the 3rd annual.  In the best possible way, those years have flown by. The first year, I listened with both tears of joy and genuine sadness as the show brought together a worldwide audience to mourn with those who had just lost loved ones but also laugh heartily and knowingly -- the way friends do when they get together.  Last year, I joined in both by using the chatroom (something I have avoided on every other website) and by calling in.  Yes, Richard & Allison's SHaFT is a live online call-in show. This year ... who knows?  I anticipate irreverent conversation, a genuine but quite secular approach to the holiday, and a very open community.  This show makes new friends feel like very old allies while welcoming strangers in a better way than most/all other online forums.  You are most welcome to join in: Simply Syndicated Radio The Christmas Eve show will start before 7 p.m. EST, because that is midnight on Christmas morning in England.  Sometime, likely to be shortly after 6 p.m. EST, Richard and Allison will start broadcasting live from the heart of England.  When I'm not raising a candle and singing "Silent Night" in an otherwise dark sanctuary, that's where I'll be. How does this holiday gameplan reflect the spirit of Inappropriate Conversations?  Perfectly, in some ways.  I might be the only person following along in the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke who will be tuning into SHaFT and earnestly wondering what I've missed.  I also may be the only person in the chatroom for the show who eagerly allows the sometimes outrageous humour [U.K. spelling shout-out!] on the internet to lie comfortably between two sincere moments of praise and reverence for Christmas. If that dichotomy makes no sense to you, then please keep listening to Inappropriate Conversations.  It's what this show is all about. Happy holidays, however you may observe them!

Doing the devil's bidding

October 31st is an excellent example of how some Christians who use spiritual warfare to oppose Satan actually act as his allies.  Forces of evil need only suggest that Christians react to something and many of us Christians immediately over-react. Is Halloween evil, inherently? No more than Easter or Christmas, if you only regard roots in pagan ceremony. Do ancient Halloween rituals represent a flawed understanding of science and spirituality? Of course, as did many decisions by Christian leaders in the Middle Ages -- just from astronomy alone! Should we take an essentially harmless social ritual and up the devil's ante by "making it evil"?  OK, evil deeds are done on this day. Evil deeds are done on every other of the 364.25 days, too, and that evil does not involve kids in costumes collecting candy. Why deny them? Here is the point: will Satan shed a tear if we ban all storytelling or performance involving zombies, cannibalism, vampires, ghosts and spirits, or other tales of supernatural forces intervening in our world in ways that expose our human frailty?  Tears of joy, perhaps. Censorship has consequences.  If you know Satan is a schemer, then why fall into this trap?  It's one thing to speak truth into the mockery that the evil one attempts to make of the gospel.  It's either naive or sinister for so-called Christian leaders to pave the way for future laws or judicial rulings that absolutely ban sharing the gospel as "occult." After all, as a Christian I believe that a man has risen from death and walked among us, that rituals involving ceremonially eating his body are a means of experiencing God's grace, not to mention drinking his blood, that a symbolic simulation of drowning (coming out of the water) is a sign of inviting the Holy Spirit to live within our hearts and guide us, until Christ comes again in supernatural power called "glory" to assume control of this fallen world. These concepts -- zombies, cannibalism, vampire feedings, ghostly possessions, supernatural activity -- don't have to be scary if we share the good news boldly and properly.  The most evil thing about Halloween today may be conservative efforts to ban it.  You want to stand up to the devil's lies and mockery of our Lord? Just tell the story and let the truth set things right.