Open Hearts — Affirming Pages

Guest Editorial on the Ethics that Matter

By: Richard V. Pierard  (With his permission)

Posted: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:54 am

 

 

Southern Baptists expel one church for gay members and another for hiring a woman as senior pastor. When an SBC official prays for the president's death, the SBC is mum. 

 

 When I read on EthicsDaily.com a few days ago that the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina had "defunded" the Baptist Center for Ethics, I was reminded once again of how little Southern Baptists really understand ethics.

 

When a Southern Baptist pastor like Wiley Drake in California openly called for God to bring about President Obama's death, we heard not a peep from the Southern Baptist Convention leadership or the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. To be sure, Drake has slightly eased off – President Obama should be kept alive until he can be tried for treason and then he would be executed, Drake now says – but he was never censured for what he had said.

 

 Yet the very same SBC expelled a historic church in Fort Worth, Texas, because it had some gay members. The Georgia Baptist Convention did likewise with a church in suburban Atlanta that had the audacity to have a woman as its senior pastor. Someone will have to explain to me how the latter can be seen as ethical actions by the denomination, but it is not a matter of ethical concern that one of its prominent pastors called for the death of the president of the United States. Remember, Drake is no marginal creature; he was a second vice president of the SBC and a candidate for even higher office this past year.

 

 Now we have prominent Southern Baptist figures falling all over themselves to get their names attached to the signatory list of the "Manhattan Declaration," released this past Friday. The original list includes nearly everybody who is anybody on the Christian right, as well as people who ought to know better, such as Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action and the presidents of Gordon-Conwell and Asbury Theological Seminaries and Wheaton College.

 

Goodness knows how many more are among the 30,000 people who have signed it since then. As one reads through this seven-page, single-spaced smokescreen document (as I did), one finds out that the great social issues of the day are abortion, homosexual marriage and a truncated definition of religious liberty that allows the Christian Right to do whatever it wishes in the name of freedom.

 

 Not mentioned in this "call of Christian conscience" is anything about climate change and global warming; adequate health care for all Americans; just immigration policies; combating poverty and hunger here and abroad; equal rights for women and racial minorities; or the ongoing specter of war.

 

 And now we see bumper stickers sprouting up all over the country with the phrase "Psalm 109:8." What is meant by this reference to a wicked ruler is, of course, President Obama. The key words in the passage, "May his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow," are ominous, to say the least. We have Christians imploring God to bring about the death of our president because they don't like his political beliefs, his race, his policies or what have you, and yet we hear not a word of rebuke from the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

 

 Friends, we are living in a dangerous age. Ethics have been discarded for the sake of political ideology and we are much the worse for this. As a Baptist layperson, I plead for the recovery of the kind of Christian ethics that address the real problems facing our nation. Those who do not want change are trying to divert people's attention to other matters of lesser significance, and some are even calling for the violent removal of President Obama from office.

 

 I have never seen such a dangerous situation in my lifetime, and the tragedy is that so many Christians are oblivious to what is going on. We must stand up and say a resounding "no" to the politics of hate and division. If Christians do not take the lead in solving our national problems but simply remain an integral part of the problem, then God have mercy on us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard V. Pierard is professor of history emeritus at Indiana State University. He lives in Hendersonville, N.C.

 

 

Homosexuality and Slavery in the Bible

-- Martin E. Marty wrote this for his "Sightings" column, today.  (References below)

Annually I write the report on "Protestantism" for World Book and other yearbooks.  For a dozen or score of years now, the lead story always has to be about churches tearing themselves apart in lose-lose battles over the blessing of gay marriages and ordination of homosexuals, et cetera.  One could wish it were otherwise, so that more churches could get back or ahead to more gospel and more mission.  There are, or may be, good reasons other than biblical ones to support or oppose issues on this subject.  But citing the Bible in church conventions trumps other approaches -- we are, after all, talking about Protestants! -- and such citing leads to stalemates.  On this subject, the five inches of type in my desk Bible (I measured them) get used to oppose any movement on this front.  It’s "the Bible says" versus "the Levitical laws, the other 600-plus of which no one pays any attention to, speak to a different culture, with different understandings."

Is it possible to bring newer understandings forward without a) disdaining, b) relativizing, c) picking-and-choosing texts to one’s taste, or d) ignoring the Scriptures?  Has not the church, almost universally, changed its teaching ("grown in understanding") on subjects?  It certainly changed and "grew" when its various bodies for the first time supported religious liberty in civil orders two and three centuries ago.  But many believe the best case is on slavery.  The South's preachers and theologians, virtually unanimously, gave biblically-based arguments for the enslavement of humans by humans, and often opposed their release.

Mention that and you get a quick reply: "The Bible nowhere commands slavery, and it does forbid same-sex relations."  One has to stretch to support the "nowhere commands" argument, since its divinely-inspired authors did something worse:  They took slavery for granted and, without criticizing it, often appropriated its existence and norms for making other points.  A review by Jennifer Knust of two new books in the July Journal of Religion indicates how that was done.  Some quickly chosen excerpts: "Ancient Christian writings rarely challenge the abusive, exploitative, and gruesome mechanisms of first-century chattel slavery. ‘Slaves, obey your masters.’"  "The Christian Bible has played an important role in legitimating slave systems," including in North America.  Author J. Albert Harrill finds that Christian discourse participated in and promoted an ideology that belittled slaves and naturalized slaveholding.  He "highlights the ways in which contemporary moral debates both shape and inform biblical criticism." On this subject "the New Testament cannot be viewed as a book of morals."

Everyone, including presumably New Testament authors, knew that domestic slaves, according to author Jennifer A. Glancy, had "the obligation to tend to the master’s physical body and sexual needs."  Even Jesus’ "parabolic slaves are beaten, flogged, cut to pieces, seized, imprisoned, handed over to torturers, and assigned to eternal death in order to teach theological lessons."  All taken for granted.  The parables "reinforced the violent power relations that sustained ancient slavery."  Arguments based on analogy, including this one, do not "prove" much of anything.  They can, however, be instructive when the history of cultures, from the biblical settings to our own, is neglected, or when simply saying "the Bible says" shows unmindfulness of creative possibilities -- and can harm individuals, lead to schisms, and hamper future witness.

References: 

Glancy, Jennifer A. Slavery in Early Christianity (Oxford, 2002).

Harrill, J. Albert. Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions (Fortress, 2005).

Jennifer Knust's review of these two books appears in The Journal of Religion, 89: 406-409, July 2009. 

 

 

Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com.  

 

----------

 

In July’s Religion and Culture Web Forum, “Flowers in the Dark: African American Consciousness, Laughter, and Resistance in Toni Morrison’s Beloved,” ethicist Jacqueline Bussie of Capital University pursues the question of why, in so many accounts, people in oppressive situations of suffering respond with laughter.  Focusing on the example of Toni Morrison’s slavery-era novel, Bussie, in an excerpt from her Trinity Prize-winning book The Laughter of the Oppressed, explores the complexities of the human condition and points toward a more nuanced understanding of ethics.  Invited responses will be posted later in the month from Joseph Winters, Cooper Harriss, John Howell, and Zhange Ni.

 

http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/

 

----------

 

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Here's another great take on "traditional marriage" values

Wayne Besen Gives Us Pause and Much to Consider

 

Truth Wins Out | P. O. Box 25491 | Brooklyn | NY | 11202

 

Friendly Fire In The Culture War  

by Wayne Besen

Like flowers in spring, the culture war is in full bloom. The most explosive flashpoint this past week was President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. She is under fire for saying, "I would hope a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Her comments caused the de facto leaders of the Republican Party, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, to become apoplectic and accuse her of reverse racism. The battle over her nomination seems like a flashback to the old battles in the 1970s and 80's over identity politics.

In Kansas, George Tiller, a brave and fearless abortion provider, was gunned down in his church. Of course, the anti-abortion fanatics deny any wrongdoing. But, this movement knows full well that when they single out and accuse individuals of killing babies, they are inviting extremists to take vigilante action.

"Who me?" they ask, as they disingenuously feign innocence.

Strangely, the one place a national consensus is building (albeit in its budding stages) is marriage equality. A landmark federal lawsuit by conservative lawyer Ted Olsen and his liberal counterpart David Boies has crystallized this phenomenon. They are charging that denying marriage licenses to gay couples is a violation equal protection and due process under the United States Constitution.

"This is not a liberal or conservative issue," said Olsen on CNN's Larry King Live. "This has to do with human decency, human rights, and equality under the law." On the same show, Boies deftly dispatched the argument that civil unions are acceptable, because they are marriage by another name.

"You're from Japan," Boies said on the show. "You can vote. You can do all the things that other individuals can do who are citizens. But, we are not going to allow you to use the word 'citizen' because you are from another country. That would be discrimination on an unacceptable basis. That is what we have here."

Gay and lesbian legal organizations are incensed by the lawsuit and say it could lead to a huge setback, if it results in a Supreme Court loss. A memorandum sponsored by every major gay rights group titled, "Make Change, Not Lawsuits," essentially tells the interlopers to get lost.

"The history is pretty clear:  the U.S. Supreme Court typically does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states," says the memo.  "The fastest way to win the freedom to marry throughout America is by getting marriage through state courts (to show that fairness requires it) and state legislatures (to show that people support it)."

The conservative columnist George Will echoed their position on ABC's This Week when he warned, "The consensus is moving toward gay marriage if they just let it alone and just let democracy work." He said that if the Supreme Court now ruled in favor of the freedom to marry, it would cause ongoing cultural division, much as the Roe v. Wade decision did with the abortion issue.

Of course, the GLBT organizations are correct in concluding that Olsen and Boies are engaging in a risky strategy that could easily backfire. The one wildcard, in my view, is Chief Justice John Roberts. He is a product of the Federalist Society, the conservative movement's powerful legal association. Olsen's involvement in the Federalist Society may help persuade Roberts to support equality. Or, at least, give him the cover he needs to vote his conscience without accusations of betrayal by conservative colleagues.

The legal issues aside, this case is a boon in the realm of public relations. We now have two of the brightest legal minds winning over the jury of public opinion in the media each day. Dick Cheney and Steve Schmidt, John McCain's campaign manager, are two more conservatives who reinforce marriage equality as a nonpartisan issue.  

Even as I write this column, the drumbeat of small victories keep mounting. The Nevada Legislature overrode the governor's veto by approving a domestic partnership registry by a two-thirds majority. This week, President Barack Obama signed a gay Pride Month proclamation. The organization Faith in America persuaded a key Southern Baptist writer, David P. Gushee, to call on Christians to offer an apology for the way they have treated LGBT people.

This steroidal push for equality has been supercharged by a group of democratic gay leaders who recently met in Texas to draft, "The Dallas Principles." Much like the Olsen/Boies lawsuit, their goal is to put gay rights on the fast track by pressuring Congress and the Obama administration to take immediate action. Their mantra seems right for this electric moment: "Now is the time for full civil rights for the LGBT Community. No delay. No excuses."

There is still no shortage of culture war vultures like the National Organization for Marriage's dour Maggie Gallagher. But, as more fellow conservatives defect, these zealots are finding their biggest threat is "friendly" fire.

VOX POPULI: What America Might Look Like If....

Prop 8 Decision: The Minority Report

Justice Carlos Moreno put the decision in a foreboding context: 

“The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority.”

It just became possible for 50.1% of California's voters to lop off the heads of any whom they disfavor.  Rachael continues to weep for her children.

Were I not hopeful that marriage rights for same-sex couples is inevitable, I would be quite morose today.  However, Californians will soon see this injustice and ultimately will recitfy it. 

This is not to say that its inevitablility is to be taken for granted.  We learned necessary lessons from the Prop 8 campaign and need to redouble our efforts.  This has already begun.  It must not stop until justice is restored to California.

Kerry Chaplin of California Faith for Equality Says It Best

Even in the Absence of Justice 26 May 2009

 

The verdict is in: this morning, the California Supreme Court ruled that the 18,000 marriages are upheld, but so is Proposition 8.  Our hearts are full for those 18,000 couples who are still married in the eyes of the law, but our hearts are breaking because even in our own country we are not free. Some of us will seek comfort and community in our congregations, some of us in private meditation, and some in the crowds gathering in the streets. As a Jew, I am reminded of the words spoken by Jacob when he awoke from his sleep: "Surely God is in this place and I, I did not know" (Genesis 28:16). Having dreamt of God, Jacob realized that even in the vast desert, with only a rock for a pillow, he was not alone. Even in the absence of justice, the Divine is with us. Though today our comfort might feel insufficient like a stone, know that more than ever, as our allies pour into the streets, we are not alone. As our congregations become more welcoming, we are not alone. As state after state recognizes the legal and moral necessity for marriage for same-sex couples, we are not alone. The presence of the Divine is with us - everywhere.

In Anticipation of California's Supreme Court Prop 8 Decision Tomorrow

If the court takes only the constitution into consideration, it will decide that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.  Under the 14th Amendment, equality under the law was established for everyone.  This was the basis for declaring anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional.  In the famous case, Loving Vs. Virginia, the court declared that depriving marriage between people of different races violated the equal protection clause.

The parallels between this and same-sex marriage are obvious if you've been paying attention.  Listen to what Mildred Loving, the wife in the case, has to say about the gay marriage issue:

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about. (Mildred and Richard Loving, Wikipedia)

Here's another voice that may sound familiar. The trial judge in the Loving case, Leon Bazile, proclaimed that

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Those who oppose same-sex marriage also believe that God is on their side and claim that since God made natural procreation impossible with people of the same sex, and that the "plumbing" isn't made for it, it's obvious that it is wrong.  This is why I began by saying that "if" the constitution decides the case, Prop 8 will fall.  But the justices are human beings who are subject to a variety of influences and may let other, extraneous, yet powerful voices influence their decision.  Such influences were demonstrably present in Loving V. Virginia, yet dismissed.  My prayer is that our justices will have the same integrity and stick solely to their constitutional duties.

So Much for Another Red Herring

United Methodist clergy forbidden to perform gay unions

 

"United Methodist clergy cannot perform same-sex unions—even in states where gay marriage is legal—the denomination’s Judicial Council ruled April 27 during its spring meeting in Denver, Colo. The ruling overturned resolutions from the California-Nevada and California-Pacific conferences that supported clergy who perform the ceremonies. In a separate decision, the council reversed Los Angeles Area Bishop Mary Ann Swenson’s decision to support the California-Pacific resolution."  Faithwatch, May 3, 2009.

 

So much for the over-hyped red herring trotted out by anti-gay marriage forces every time some state or other entity suggests legalizing gay marriage.  In this announcement, two things stand out as particularly noteworthy.

 

1.  Even though where it is legalfor same-sex couples to marry, religious organizations may opt out of solemnizing such marriages.   Contrary to the hysterical cries of the religious right, in America, the First Amendment guarantees the opt out privilege.  No religious group will be forced into doing something that betrays its own beliefs or conscience.

 

2.  As much as I regret this ruling of the Judicial Council, I applaud the U. S. Constitution for making the right to same-sex marriage possible and the right to deny it both available.   Whichever outcome takes priority in any locality will be determined by the judgment of the people in the marketplace of ideas.  Fortunately for those of us who are ardent supporters of same-sex marriage, the tide is running in our direction.  Nevertheless, it is the open-ended future of possibilities in America that is freedom's reward.  May it ever be so!

The Purpose of This Blog Site

This was my first blog for this site.  I think a reminder is in order.

Why would a straight, married, father of two heterosexual children, and Christian pastor want to get mixed up in the most controversial, hate-filled and career ending ministry in support of LGBTs? Especially when there is absolutely no pressure on me to enter this fray. No, I don't have a death wish, or have a gay lover secreted away somewhere. I'm basically a normal guy. I shy away from confrontation and go out of my way to find mutually satisfying outcomes in disputes.

So, what am I doing here? Very simply, I've learned that the gospel of Jesus Christ compels me to come to the side of the oppressed wherever and whenever they are found. Harvard’s Byrne Fone calls homophobia “the last respectable bigotry in America.” Christians may not be responsible for creating homophobia, but we sure are responsible for maintaining it. Victims of spiritual abuse (not to mention, for now, physical abuse) abound. We have literally driven these “other than ourselves” from our churches. They have been demonized, scapegoated and condemned for so long and so often that to find one out of the closet in a congregation beats the odds of winning the lottery. We should be ashamed, but we are not; we should repent, but we do not. And the most amazing thing of all is that we need, for our own sakes, the presence of nonheterosexual Christians in our congregations and don’t have a clue as to why.

I do not come to this struggle as their savior; I come as a repentant homophobe who has received much from the gay community and has more to learn about being a Christian from them. In future blogs, I intend to delve into the gifts gays bring to a congregation, gifts that are desperately needed, yet entirely absent from most congregations. Suffice it to say for now that the straight church has much to learn. In fact, if we don’t learn these lessons, we are at risk of losing our own way. No, I am no savior. I am a grateful recipient of their unmerited grace.

LGBT Christians (yes, there is such a thing), do not need us, at least not in our present state of hostility. They have managed to carve out an existence at the edge of the church at great expense to themselves which has ennobled them in ways that we cannot approach. When, at last, the straight congregations find their way to welcoming and affirming them, it will not be because we finally understand the issue. No, it will be because we finally understand our own desperate need for them in our midst.

This blog, then, is an effort to bring the straight church to its senses. It is an effort to bring the message of the inclusive gospel that will confront us with our sins and bring us to our knees. It is a plea to those we’ve textually abused not to abandon us, but to nurture us and witness to the life changing power of Jesus. This is why I am in this struggle, and hope to convince you to join it yourself. I can guarantee you two things: your life will never be the same, and you’ll be thankful for that. On the other hand, if you don’t need convincing, welcome aboard. I hope to hear from you, as well as those who disagree. Maybe we can come together on at least this: what we share in Christ is more valuable than our disagreements. And I ask you, would you be willing to extend that grace to those “other than ourselves?”

Why would a straight, married, father of two heterosexual children, and Christian pastor want to get mixed up in the most controversial, hate-filled and career ending ministry in support of LGBTs? Especially when there is absolutely no pressure on me to enter this fray. No, I don't have a death wish, or have a gay lover secreted away somewhere. I'm basically a normal guy. I shy away from confrontation and go out of my way to find mutually satisfying outcomes in disputes.

So, what am I doing here? Very simply, I've learned that the gospel of Jesus Christ compels me to come to the side of the oppressed wherever and whenever they are found. Harvard’s Byrne Fone calls homophobia “the last respectable bigotry in America.” Christians may not be responsible for creating homophobia, but we sure are responsible for maintaining it. Victims of spiritual abuse (not to mention, for now, physical abuse) abound. We have literally driven these “other than ourselves” from our churches. They have been demonized, scapegoated and condemned for so long and so often that to find one out of the closet in a congregation beats the odds of winning the lottery. We should be ashamed, but we are not; we should repent, but we do not. And the most amazing thing of all is that we need, for our own sakes, the presence of nonheterosexual Christians in our congregations and don’t have a clue as to why.

I do not come to this struggle as their savior; I come as a repentant homophobe who has received much from the gay community and has more to learn about being a Christian from them. In future blogs, I intend to delve into the gifts gays bring to a congregation, gifts that are desperately needed, yet entirely absent from most congregations. Suffice it to say for now that the straight church has much to learn. In fact, if we don’t learn these lessons, we are at risk of losing our own way. No, I am no savior. I am a grateful recipient of their unmerited grace.

LGBT Christians (yes, there is such a thing), do not need us, at least not in our present state of hostility. They have managed to carve out an existence at the edge of the church at great expense to themselves which has ennobled them in ways that we cannot approach. When, at last, the straight congregations find their way to welcoming and affirming them, it will not be because we finally understand the issue. No, it will be because we finally understand our own desperate need for them in our midst.

This blog, then, is an effort to bring the straight church to its senses. It is an effort to bring the message of the inclusive gospel that will confront us with our sins and bring us to our knees. It is a plea to those we’ve textually abused not to abandon us, but to nurture us and witness to the life changing power of Jesus. This is why I am in this struggle, and hope to convince you to join it yourself. I can guarantee you two things: your life will never be the same, and you’ll be thankful for that. On the other hand, if you don’t need convincing, welcome aboard. I hope to hear from you, as well as those who disagree. Maybe we can come together on at least this: what we share in Christ is more valuable than our disagreements. And I ask you, would you be willing to extend that grace to those “other than ourselves?”