Open Hearts — Affirming Pages

A Reflection on the Unreflective Gen. Pace

In the interview directly below this entry, I commented that for many people, religious views are inherited, and not often formed by reflection.  Here’s a case in point.  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said yesterday, in testimony before congress, that “We should respect those who want to serve the nation but not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God's law."

General Pace, do you still have your baby teeth?  Are you constantly outgrowing your shoes?  Have you learned to tie them yet?  Does your voice occasionally crack?  Have you experienced acne as yet?  Does your mommy still potty train you?  In your upbringing…in your upbringing…, General Pace, when will you grow up and begin to think for yourself, little man in the big boots?  Still playing with guns?  Still taking orders from authority figures?  My God, our armed forces are in the hands of a presumed adult with delayed onset thinking-for-oneself maturity issues.

“God’s law,” to someone who takes the Bible literally (non-thinkers), says that acting on same-sex attraction is a capital offense; that they should be killed.  Unreflective people who are used to taking orders just might execute this one if called upon.  Pun intended. It’s the logical outcome of Voltaire’s horrifying observation that “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” 

I’m wondering how we can show respect to those who want to serve the nation “but not through the law of the land.”  Yes, that’s it; let’s keep gays as second class citizens.  Oh, sure, they are willing to lay their lives on the line for our country, but suggesting that they deserve equal treatment is going too far.  Many of the presidential candidates are willing to lower the drinking age to 18 under the reasoning that if you are willing to serve your country you should legally be served a beer.  To see the relationship of that argument to gays in the military requires reflection.  But, since the Bible says…well, you know what it says…why bother?

What Makes Me Tick?: An Interview by Bob Corwall

This interview originally appeared in the Faithfully Liberal blog at www.faithfullyliberal.com.

Q. You’re straight and happily married, so why this cause?

A. Yes, it’s true that I have no “hidden agenda” behind my interest in promoting gay equality in the churches. It comes, very simply, from my understanding of the gospel: We are to welcome one another as Christ has welcomed us—unqualifiedly, without exception.

Q. Since your background is fairly conservative, what was it that changed the way you looked at homosexuals?

A. I was raised in a very conservative home, both politically and religiously. My understanding of the gay community was formed by all the stereotypes that typically accompany such an upbringing: that they are in the main promiscuous, self-centered, lust filled, choose this “lifestyle,” and are not to be trusted around children. I happened to move from North Dakota to San Francisco and, in the course of getting to know the gay community, I discovered the startling reality that GLBTs are as normal as any other large segment of America. Also, working with many gay Christians challenged my view that “gay Christian” is an oxymoron. So, I began a lifelong pursuit of examining the scriptures used to support the antigay view and found the traditional interpretations wanting.

Q. What role does religion play in how we view homosexuality?

A: One’s religion is usually a received phenomenon. We accept what we are given with little reflection. Since most people are not familiar with gay people (at least knowingly), our religion provides us the context for understanding and relating to them. If one is raised in an environment where GLBTs are named as abominations and condemned to hell, it is difficult not to become homophobic.

Q. To take this to another level, since you teach a seminar on the Bible and Homosexuality, what is the role of biblical interpretation in forming our views?

A. Most Christians don’t form their views, they inherit them. In the case of Fundamentalist, those who teach them seldom interpret the Bible; they are content to “let the Bible speak for itself.” So the surface reading of the scriptures is left as the final meaning rather than as the starting point for understanding. It’s as though the Bible should be read the same way we read the morning paper, without taking into consideration that some 2,000-3,000 years separate us from the original documents. If you are going to take the Bible seriously, you can’t take it literally; what it says may not be what it means in the least.

Q. If religious communities have traditionally been inhospitable places for gays and lesbians, how might they become open and affirming?

A. Change can only come when people are given, or give themselves, the opportunity to meet gay Christians. That’s why “coming out” is so important. When people discover that the notions they have just don’t hold up, change can begin. That’s why I encourage gays to go back to their churches, even though they can be unwelcoming places, and be a living witness against the lies told about them. Most of the congregations I am familiar with which have become open and affirming did not make the change simply for reasons of justice (although it happens). Most discovered that the GLBTs among them deserved to be treated with gospel welcoming.

Q. Although ordination is a point of contention in most churches, it’s marriage that is the issue that seems to be a problem even for the most progressive among us. Why is this?

A. I’ve discovered that the refusal to marry same-sex couples comes more from polity than from belief. If the restriction were lifted, there would be immediate and wholesale gay marriages performed all over the country. In spite of the restrictions, many clergy do it anyway, and many others perform union blessings that are in reality marriage by another name. I find it very curious that we won’t allow gays and lesbians to marry, and then accuse them of not behaving as we straights (should) behave!

Q. With younger Americans seemingly more accepting of homosexuality, do you see a major sea change in both the church and in the broader culture occurring in the near future?

A. Projecting the effect of the Millennium Generation taking the power now held by the Baby Boomers is wonderful to contemplate. All the polls suggest that being gay is a non-issue for them. However, as in all the major sea changes in America, from slavery, segregation, women’s rights and now gay rights, the church always comes in last. The citizenry as a whole is much farther ahead of the church on gay rights. I’m not looking for much to change in this regard. We have much to answer for.

Q. Finally, Steve, is there anything we’ve not yet covered that you just have to get off your chest?

A. Yes, indeed, and thank you! Ultimately, the refusal of marriage to same-sex couples is a denial of their humanity. The first “not good” of creation was God’s discovery that “it is not good for the human to be alone.” When the church denies marriage to gay couples it is saying that you are not worthy of having your loneliness relieved in the only way it is possible. In other words, you are not worthy of being a human being. Imagine the anguish of a straight person not being able to marry, ever, unless he or she married someone of the same sex. God created us all in the image of God. Who are we to denigrate that which God has made?

Plessy v. Ferguson and Gay Marriage

The landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in Brown v. the Board of Education in 1954 overturned segregation and finally conceded in the words of Chief Justice Earl Warren, “ that the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

A recent and stunning announcement in San Diego serves to underscore the same sentiment in the case of gay (in)equality. Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders recently signed a City Council resolution that urges the California Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage after recognizing the impact it would have on his daughter, a lesbian.  "Two years ago, I believed that civil unions were a fair alternative," Sanders said. "Those beliefs, in my case, have changed. The concept of a 'separate but equal' institution is not something I can support….In the end, I couldn't look any of them [my family and friends] in the face and tell them that their relationships—their very lives—were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife Rana."

What the mayor tapped into here, along with the keenly felt American sense of fairness, is a biblical reality that goes largely unnoticed.   After the first creation story of Genesis 1, God looked over all of creation and pronounced it “very good.”   This followed six days of creation, each pronounced, in turn, “good.”   Then, in Genesis 2, the first “not good” is proclaimed.  God discovered loneliness in the human heart, and that “it is not good for the human to be alone.”  Immediately God goes to work to end human loneliness and establishes forever that every human has the right to live in a loneliness-relieved relationship.

Ultimately, the refusal of marriage to same-sex couples is a denial of their humanity.  When the church denies marriage to gay couples it is saying that you are not worthy of having your loneliness relieved in the only way it is possible.  In other words, you are not worthy of being a human being.  Imagine the anguish of a straight person not being able to marry, ever, unless he or she married someone of the same sex.  This is the direct connection that Mayor Sanders made as he compared the life he lives with his wife against withholding the same benefit to those such as his daughter.  He could not refuse what God has ordained.  God created us all in the image of God.  Who are we to prohibit that which God has deemed necessary?

Jena, Louisiana-- Time Warp or Timely Warning?

Three nooses hanging from a tree, under which African American high school students recently began to gather, brought back memories to a community and nation that many hoped were long buried and finally forgotten.  However, the days of lynching are not that far behind us.  The so-called “new South” is not that new; old prejudices are still there, just better managed in public.  It’s hard to change human nature.

Numerous studies have been conducted over the years that inquire into the causes of hate crimes.  Most of these involve racial incidents, yet other categories, such as homosexuality, have been examined, as well.

How hate turns into violence seems to follow the same path regardless of the object of that hate.  There is a well-established pattern that flows from a perceived threat or fear to murder.

            A group is perceived as a threat

            The group is dehumanized

            The group is demonized

            The group is destroyed

In the case of African Americans, the perceived threats include miscegenation; safety of white women, competition for jobs.  Dehumanizing is accomplished by calling the men, “Boy,” use of the N-word, “watermelon eaters,” “perpetual children,” etc.  Demonizing takes the form of characterizations as sexual animals, voodoo worshipers, biblically cursed to be slaves.  Lynching without personal or societal remorse follows.

In the case of nonheterosexuals, the perceived threats include homosexual rape, AIDS, child molestation, the so-called “gay agenda.”  Dehumanizing is accomplished by calling them faggots, queers, fairies and the like.  Demonizing takes the form of characterizations as sexual animals, sexual predators, pedophiles, and biblically condemned to hell.  Murdering without personal or societal remorse follows.

I participated in a demonstration in Hawaii that captured the reality of this cycle.  A group of about 125 of us carried a coffin 110 miles around the island of Oahu over a twelve day period.  Fifteen people actually made it every step of the way.  (I didn’t.)  We were calling attention to hate crimes in Hawaii because the legislature was about to vote on a hate crimes bill.  The coffin held 167 death certificates of people murdered, in the year following the murder of Matthew Shepard, simply because of their sexual orientation. This included a three day old infant strangled by her father because of her “ambiguous genitalia.”

The commonalities between the African American and nonheterosexual experience are abundant: 

            Perception as the enemy

            Derogatory name calling

            Projected sexual deviance

            Biblical condemnation

            Unremorseful murder

In the wake of Jena, Louisiana, let’s not forget that that this story is more than that of racial strife in America.  It’s the continuing saga of fear and resentment of the dreaded ‘other’ whose only crime is that of being different.  So, next time you begin to form a derogatory slur in your mouth, regardless against whom it may be directed, consider that what you utter today may mean someone’s death tomorrow. 

An Inconvenient Truth

Today televangelist Juanita Bynum filed for divorce from her husband, “Bishop” Thomas Weeks, who is accused of beating her, saying their marriage has been “irretrievably broken.”  The couple often appeared together promoting their bestselling book, Teach Me How to Love You: The Beginnings.  Theirs is a multimillion dollar ministry, world-wide in scope, offering cures for all of life’s ills through faith in Jesus. This begs the question, Why didn’t that work for them?  Is this another case of “Physician heal thyself?”

As you surely know, divorce is condemned in the Bible.  God says in Malachi, “I hate divorce.”  Jesus was particularly severe in his condemnation of divorce, making remarriage virtually impossible without infidelity.  Nothing is plainer in Scripture than the fact that divorce is condemned.  There is no wiggle room here.  Facts are facts; plain is plain. 

Divorce was once a stigma in society.  If you were divorced, you were not eligible to hold office in your church (if you were allowed in at all), you were considered suspect in polite circles, and likely couldn’t get elected to public office. The red D on your forehead marked you for life. 

This is no longer true in our day.  Divorce is looked upon as an unfortunate turn of events, but no longer as the career killer and social liability it once was.  Not only are our pastors and teachers likely to be divorced (this is Bynum’s second marriage), a Republican politician with two divorces and a third wife is leading his rivals for nomination as his party’s candidate for president.  In fact, recent surveys found that Christian Evangelicals are more likely to be divorced than non-Evangelicals. 

I have a friend who carries with him a card that reads, “And I [Jesus] say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”  (Matthew 19:9)  He keeps it handy for those occasions when someone trots out a supposedly equally clear Scripture that condemns homosexuals.  The point is this:  we are eager to condemn those we find unacceptable while letting ourselves off the hook.  Divorce? Fine.  Homosexuality?  No way!

Don’t get me wrong; I’m on the side of leniency for divorced people.  Life is complicated and often resistant to hard and fast rules.  Grace is the only cure for those who can’t be perfect, which is all of us.  Even the Gospel writers and the apostle Paul found ways to ameliorate the hard sayings on divorce.  Mark, for instance, adds that women may divorce their husbands, as he was writing to Romans where women had this right.  In Matthew’s audience, Jewish women didn’t have that right.

Normally, I wouldn’t be commenting on this unfortunate turn of events for reverends Bynum and Weeks, were it not for the fact that they insist on naming homosexuality as a main factor in the destruction of the family.  Homosexuality is only a problem in some people’s minds; divorce is a problem in fact.  If Christians (televangelists and others) really wanted to do something about the appalling condition of American families, they would do much better going after the causes of divorce and leave our gay citizen alone.  They are not the problem. It is much easier to name the enemy that is without, than have to deal with the enemy within.  I know this is an inconvenient truth, but at least it has the virtue of being the truth.

Who Speaks for the Mrs. Craigs of Our World?

Amid all the name calling (pervert, hypocrite, etc.) and gay bashing surrounding the story of Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), the true victim is singularly overlooked: Mrs. Larry Craig.  In a perfect world, there would never have been a Mrs. Craig.  Nor would there be any women who, unexpectedly, find themselves married to gay men (and vice versa).  The hundreds of thousands of lives turned upside down by revelations, public and private, of a losing struggle against one's sexual orientation would, instead, be ancient history. 

One of the most destructive effects of forcing nonheterosexuals into the closet is that they are made to live double lives.  In order to survive, they need to appear to be just like their straight friends and neighbors.  Although the reasons many get married are complicated, often it becomes necessary to avoid suspicion, so they can keep their jobs and positions of respectability.  They love their spouses, but not in a romantically fulfilling way.  Inside, they are eaten up by the estrangement from their true selves.  Over time, many of them can't take this double life any longer and choose to end the marriage, and in too many cases, end their lives. 

Take my friends Theresa and Ron.  After eight years of marriage, Theresa came to Ron in tears, sobbing, "God made me wrong!"  Ron knew instantly what she was about to confess.  Their married life resembled more of brother/sister relationship than husband and wife.  Ron, heartbroken, realized that Theresa needed to be free for either of them to have a chance at a fulfilling relationship.  Now some twenty years later, both have found what they were looking for. 

Many are not as fortunate.  A not so happy ending occurred with David.  He took his life, unable to confront his wife with the burden that took his own life away.    

Of course, some small fraction of gays and lesbians would get married and have children even if there were no social disapproval.  I know several couples with gay spouses who choose to stay married even though both partners are fully aware of the other's orientation.

This perfect world I speak of is not one with no nonheterosexuals.  Rather, it is one in which those whose lives can only be fulfilled with someone of the same sex are encouraged to live out their hopes and dreams.  It is one in which children are allowed to find their own special sexuality and to find it good.  It is one in which no one is persecuted, laughed at, shamed or ridiculed, because of how God made them.  Yes, it is one in which no spouse needs to hear relationship ending words or have to bear the heartache of an unfulfilled partner.  It is a world with no Mrs. Larry Craigs.