I wish...

I wish for peace. Real peace. If only for a moment.
I wish for that space
to open up
here on Earth,
so that the fullness of that moment may be known -
so that humanity may experience, if only for a moment,
what it means to love –
all.

I wish for us to drop our pretenses
and our need to manipulate others.
I wish for us to find our way past
our games of one upmanship 
and to a place where equality reigns-
not because we are
equal in all things,
but because we are
equally loved in all things.

I wish...

I wish for that moment of peace,
experienced around the world,
that in that moment,
in that gifted space,
humanity might see the value
of all life -
that we might see past
race,
gender,
disability,
age,
wealth -
that all our false measurements of value
might,
if only for a moment,
be wiped away
and, in that moment,
we each see clear to the heart
of each other.

I wish...

I wish for a moment of peace
to break out upon the world,
if only for a few breaths,
to strip away our false gods of power
to pull back the curtain
on the falsehoods that divide us
and pits us against each other -
that the judgments and convictions
that trap our souls
would be released
as we exhale in those moments of peace
and be replaced with the makings of peace...
love,
grace,
forgiveness,
compassion.

I wish...

I wish that we would carry that moment
with us -
that we might
lavish in its comfort,
grow in its freedom,
be enriched in its wisdom,
be joyful in its protection
and be at peace.

I wish...
that we might extend that moment
into each of our relationships -
that we might trust each other more,
hurt each other less,
accept each other for who we are
and not what we wish each other to be.

I wish for you.
I wish for me.
peace. 

That is my birthday wish.

Prefer to listen to this article?
(You can also subscribe on iTunes or Podbean).

 

I like the idea of Lent. While it is one of the oldest observations of the Christian Church, it seems particularly helpful for our very busy and very full modern lives.

The idea behind Lent is to take a look at our lives, to do an honest assessment of our journey to/toward/with God and to repent of the things that are distancing us from God – to turn away from those things. Considering how many things we have in our lives today, the distractions, the obstacles, that get between us and our ability to follow the teachings of Jesus, I just can't help but think that Lent may actually be more needed now than it has ever been. 

But I also have to say, I dread THAT question. You know the one. It pops up about this time every year. Say it with me, “What did you give up for Lent?” Ugghh. 

It has almost become a benchmark of righteousness. 

“I gave up alcohol.” 
“Oh. Well, I used to give up alcohol, but it was too easy. So, I'm also giving up meat and television.”

At times, it feels like a one-upsmanship of devotion. “I'll see your night-time glass of red wine and raise you red meat and the bliss of zoning out to American Idol.”

I know this game so well because I fell into that Lent trap many years ago. It just feels so right, so normal, so … self-righteously-holy. It got to the point one year that, and I kid you not, I gave up all beverages other than water, all meat, TV (except for the NCAA tournament – a boy's got his limits), sweets (except for my Birthday Cake – c'mon, it's my birthday!), late night snacks (even ones of the non-sweet persuasion), and I added daily exercise and daily devotions, increased my giving to charities and told at least one person a day how good they were at what they do.

Why so much? Well, I'd been giving up and adding things to my life during Lent for quite awhile. It was my understanding that a big part of doing it was to identify with the sacrifice that Jesus made for us (you know, atonement theology stuff). Each year the “giving up stuff” was easier and easier, and just felt like it wasn't much of a sacrifice. So, I went from easy things, to harder things, to adding as many harder things together as possible, in order to feel the sacrifice. (I actually did give up the NCAA tournament one year... AND my birthday cake – you have no idea how much I love cake).

Upon reflection and in all honesty, I think part of giving all that stuff up was also so that when THAT question was asked, even if I didn't “win” the righteousness game, I would at least finish strong.

Then one year for Lent, I gave up... Lent.

But, like I said earlier, I can't help but think that Lent may actually be more needed now than it has ever been. But I don't “do” Lent. So, what's up with that?

Done right, at least by my assessment, Lent acknowledges the places in our lives that we are falling short of God's desires for us and strives to remove the things that cause those places. Soda, Cake, TV (while  not necessarily the best things for our relationship with God) are not likely to be the things that most get in the way of our walk to/toward/with God. 

So, why are those kinds of things what we most frequently give up for Lent? I'd say it's because the way we practice Lent has turned it into nothing more than a time for religious New Year's resolutions. The timing is perfect too. We've had just enough time to not follow through on our actual New Year's resolutions and to start feeling guilty about it. Lent gives us a second chance to not follow through... um, I mean succeed.

I'm actually not encouraging people to give up Lent. I'm asking you to give up practicing it the way far too many people have practiced it.

If discipline is helpful to you in your walk, Lent is perfect for you! But you do have to do it right. Assess what is getting between you and your relationship with God. (Here's a hint: it is much less likely to be your desire for sweets and much more likely to be your desire to keep up with the Joneses; it is much less likely to be the glass of red wine you have at dinner and much more likely to be the attitude you have towards those who are not like you or disagree with you). Give up something that really gets in the way of your relationship with God. 

It does not have to be something that you know you can consistently do. That's one of the traps of what Lent has become. We think that we fail at Lent if we don't actually make it through all of Lent having not done what we set out to not do.

Let's be real. If the thing you are giving up, if the thing that gets in the way of your relationship with God, is marginalizing people in need out of fear of losing your own comfortable lifestyle... you are going to mess us. You just are. Isn't that all the more reason to try, to be okay with messing up some, to begin to be more aware of it and to move toward the life that God desires for you?

In my eyes, that's what Lent should be about. Honestly, it's a lot harder than giving up cake... and a lot more rewarding.

Given that, why did I give up Lent? Well, it happened a number of years ago. I had finally stopped the religious New Year's resolution thing and had been trying to give up something that really distanced me from God's desires... and I had messed up. A LOT. All Lent long. So, when Easter hit, I didn't quit. I just kept going.

Maybe I didn't give up Lent, maybe I just decided to live in it.

And I still mess up. A LOT … but I just have to keep trying.

 

 

Prefer to listen to this article?
(You can also subscribe on iTunes or Podbean).

 

One of the fun things many bloggers miss out on is figuring out what Google searches bring a person to their blog. Until recently one of my favorites for The God Article was “is Mark Sandlin gay?” 

I had just posted my Clobbering “Biblical” Gay Bashing piece (which was ultimately picked up by Believe Out Loud) and it would seem that someone thought the best way to to disprove what I said, would be to prove that I am gay.

I know, the problems with that kind of logic are mind-boggling, but it happens all the time. If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. In this case, it also happens to be impossible to prove, because I'm not. And, at the same time, it really shouldn't matter if I were. It's like arguing that Newton's theory of gravity simply can't be believed because he directly benefits from it being real. Hogwash.

So, as I mentioned, Believe Out Loud picked up my Clobbering “Biblical” Gay Bashing piece and it kind of had a second life. I've even heard that it's making its rounds in some Mennonite circles. That's pretty cool. Along with it came a whole new set of Google searches bringing people to this blog. And among them is my new favorite. Are you ready?...

I'm a PROPHET!!! Woo hoo! And there was much celebration and general-merrymaking.

Actually, the Google search was for “false prophet mark sandlin.” But still, "prophet" – woo hoo? And there was mild joviality and arbitrary-frolicking.

Like I said, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. So, someone doesn't like what I say, or doesn't want to grapple with whether or not it is actually biblical, or whatever – so they Google “false prophet mark sandlin.” So, now that's a thing. Google databases have me and “false profit” forever linked. And I just don't care.

I am no prophet. False or otherwise. Big surprise, right? But I am just the littlest bit humbled by the whole thing. 

You see, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is one of my heroes. Now, he was a prophet. He spoke truth into modern day darknesses and did not worry about the consequences. Ultimately, he paid for speaking the truth with his life.

I, on the other hand, sometimes pull punches – stopping just shy of telling the full truth, as I understand it, because someone at my church may get upset or someone else may use it as a way to dismiss everything I say, or whatever. Speaking the truth can get you run out of town. You can find yourself homeless... and even friendless. I'm no prophet. 

Here's a dirty little secret, very few ministers are. We do not boldly speak truth into the darkness. Most of us allow fear of losing our job or, at least, of losing our “flock” box us in to the point that we are all Dr. Feelgood and very little Captain Justice. Honestly, I'm a bit embarrassed. More than that, this week as we celebrate Dr. King, I am ashamed.  

I am ashamed that when that guy searched for “false prophet mark sandlin” he didn't get a million Google hits. You see, when prophets get prophetic, people don't like it. They try to squash and silence you. In the day of Amos and Micha, if you were prophetic they chased you out of town. In our day and age of social media, well, there's no town from which to chase you, so they try to ruin your name. Slander. Hate. Name calling. That's the online equivalence of a pitchfork and torch.  

So, I make this promise as we begin 2012. While it is true, that I am no prophet, I promise to continually try to honor one of my all-time heroes, Dr. King, by not being so afraid to speak prophetically. I promise to never shy away from trying to shine light on the dark injustices of our world. I promise to always oppose violence and to do it non-violently and at the risk of personal peril if need be. I promise to not only speak of charity but to practice it with an eye set on exposing the systems that cause the need for it. I promise to exclusively practice inclusivity valuing each person regardless of color or creed, sex or sexual orientation, financial ability or level education, political affiliation or nationality – I promise to not just see you as my brother or sister but to treat you as my brother or sister.

In short, I promise to see this world the way that it should be - the way that God intended it to be and to not just talk about it, but to begin living into it. Because I may be no prophet and you might not be a prophet but that is no excuse to not speak prophetically, that is no excuse to not live prophetically, that is no excuse to not love our neighbor just as God as loved us. Yes, we may not be prophets, but we are brothers and sisters. We are each part of the human family and it is about time we started acting like it.

Happy Birthday, Dr. King. And thank you for showing us what a modern day prophet looks like. In progressive circles we often bemoan your loss and speak longingly of “the next Dr. King.” I sure hope we realize, before it's to late... that it's us.

... or Re:Hashing #MarkDriscoll 

Okay. Mark Driscoll hasn't actually said, “Jesus was a cowboy” (yet), but let's face it, that's what he thinks. Or, at least, he might as well.

Let me back up. If you don't know who Mark Driscoll is, I'll help you. I will try to be nice. It will be difficult. Of course, Driscoll would tell me not to worry about it, to go ahead and slug him in the chopper, because that's what it takes to be a minister. (I told you this was going to be hard).

Mark Driscoll is the lead minister of the largest church in Washington state (where men are manly and ministers are manly-er-er.... I told you this was going to be hard). He has devoted followers across the US and probably around the world watching his YouTube videos, reading his books, Tweeting about him (#MarkDriscoll) and going to his conventions (“re:tool and re:load, “reGeneration,” etc.). He believes that we've got this whole Christianity thing wrong. That we have gone astray and that our misguided teachings are, in large part, to blame for the slow death of the institutionalized Christian church. 

Now at this point, you may be thinking to yourself, “Hmmmm, I like the sound of that!” 

No. You don't.

Remember? “Jesus was a cowboy!” True, that's not exactly what he said, but he did say this:

and this:

If he believes that about Jesus, you just know he believes that Jesus would have been a cowboy. The hyper-masculating of Jesus (and, it would seem in his mind, by extension ministers... who, I suppose by the same argument, must be male) is a product of the same over-masculated mythological storytelling that gives us the manly-men type cowboys of the silver screen.

Once, at a conference he was doing in Huston, Driscoll invited five ministers up to the stage, put his hands behind his back, and told them to slug him in the chin. “I won't hit back,” he said. Following what I can only assume they saw as the teachings of Jesus, not one of them hit him. Driscoll kicked them out of the conference and preceded to pound his own face. Go ahead, re-read that last sentence. I'll wait. (Okay, admit it, you completely believed that right? So did I. But it's from a spoof site. But it just shows how crazy the guy is that it sounds completely plausible that he'd do something like that).

Driscoll seems to think Jesus was a macho man, tough guy, testosterone freak... a gun slinging cowboy. 

Can't you just see it now? Jesus riding into the sunset on a donkey, whipping his hat in the air, yelling out, “yippee ki yay!” Or delivering the sermon on the mount saying, “Blessed are the meek, for they will be able to see just how badass I am!” Or Jesus kneeling before Pilate and saying, “Go ahead punk - Make. My. Day.” No? Me neither. But that's Mark Driscoll's Jesus.

Here's his God:

Thank goodness we have Cowboy Jesus! According to Driscoll, it's all thanks to Cowboy Jesus that God can even stand to peek out of the corner of His divine eye to spy us at all. (I usually don't use pronouns for God, but I got all Discolled, testosterone and what-not, and so you got “His”... with a capital “H.”)

So, why am I picking on poor Pastor Driscoll when so many have done it so well before me? Why am I Re:Hashing (shameless, insiders joke to those who follow Driscoll) the trash about Driscoll ? It started with a post on a private Facebook group where a few folks were talking about him. Then a number of friends were sharing links about him. Then I heard he had a new book. About Sex. Cowboy-Jesus-Preacher-Man wrote a book about sex?!? OMG! (Please excuse my, less than masculine outburst).

I wasn't sure whether to “1-Click” buy it on Amazon or to throw up a little bit in my mouth. In the end, I did neither. Instead, I wrote this piece. Why? To show how absolutely nutty-cuckoo the guy is about things religious, so that I could then say this, “Why mess up something as good as sex by listening to what Cowboy-Jesus-Preacher-Man has to say about it?”

You're not sure he's as nutty-cuckoo as I say? No?

Try this one on for size:

Do you really want to trust sex advise from a guy who says something like this?

Or this:

Oh, and he sees visions, which he interprets as real events, in his head like watching TV:

Bottom line, Mark Driscoll has more that just a few issues around gender, he's more than just a bit of a bully and his biblical scholarship is... let's just say more than a bit off-kilter. Yes, he is an engaging speaker and yes, the certitude of his convictions can be somewhat enticing and attractive, but c'mon folks, let's face the fact that the guy is Christianity's Glenn Beck or maybe our Ron Paul. Sure he says some great things from time to time, “The distance between us and God is repentance,” but most of the time he's punching himself in the chin, watching God TV in his head and telling women that they have to look a certain way to be loved.

You're going to listen to that guy? Cowboy-Jesus-Preacher-Man who wrote a book about sex?!? 

No. Of course you are not.


(Author’s note: I'll be starting a hashtag related to this article: #JesusWasACowboy. Ex. “Jesus' first miracle? Water into whiskey. #JesusWasACowboy.” Share this article with your friends and invite them to play along. If there's room on your tweet add #MarkDriscoll to your post wo he will know we are thinking about him. Post your #JesusWasACowboy thoughts on The God Article FB page's Wall and in a few weeks I'll pick a winner and post it here).

 

Prefer to listen to this article?
(You can also subscribe on iTunes or Podbean).   

 

God sat in a pitch-dark, 
can't see your Divine hand in front of your face, 
darkness 
and had this thought.  
This Divine idea went off in God's head 
and that spark of God's imagination 
was unleashed on the darkness... 
and 'bang,' a very BIG bang, God-sized even.  

“And God saw that the light was good.”

One of the very first things the writers of the Bible tell us is that the light is good. In God's words of creation, in the actions of the Creator, light is brought forth and it is good.  

Just a bit further into Genesis, the Divine has this other thought, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.” We, it would seem, are made in the image of the Bringer of Light. We are made in the image, the likeness of God, of the one who not only brings light to the world but who delights in the light.

From Isaiah: “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who lived in a land of deep darkness— on them light has shined.” This is the beginning of a series of “songs” in Isaiah that are known as the Servant Songs.  Isaiah is writing to a people who have been marginalized. They've been run out of town and have been marginalized in Babylon. They've been there as outcasts for two generations and by this time this Servant Song is written, you can imagine the vision of the land they thought was given to them by their God must seem dim at best, if not completely dark. “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who lived in a land of deep darkness— on them light has shined.”

There's this thing about being marginalized, it is almost like being forgotten. You feel terribly alone. It is like a darkness has set in on your life. Hope seems like a pinprick on the sometimes all too dark horizon. You long for grace to yank off the blanket of oppression that is smothering you so that you can see the light of day.

That's where the descendants of David are. The people of YHWH are in a dark and difficult time. Just a few short verses after the scripture I just mentioned Isaiah says, “For all the boots of the tramping warriors (those who have conquered you) and all the garments rolled in blood shall be burned as fuel for the fire. For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. His authority shall grow continually, and there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom.”

In those words they find hope. In those words the pinprick of hope on the dark horizon becomes a burning light in the heavens just as darkness was divided by the Divine with light at the moment of Creation ... and God said, “It is good.”

We Christians now see this beneficent ruler in which Isaiah rested the hope of Israel and by extension the hope of the world as Jesus  Indeed, at Christmas and at Easter we co-opt these texts to remind us of what we have in Jesus - Wonderful Counselor, Prince of Peace.  

It would do us, and by extension the world, a great deal of good to remember the context of those titles. In these texts we are told, "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who lived in a land of deep darkness— on them light has shined."

We live in a land of deep darkness, a world where people are swallowed up in darkness every day. Each one longing to be nearer the pinprick of hope on the sometimes all too dark horizon; lying in wait for some grace to yank off the blankets of oppression, depression and recession that divide and limit us, smother us and keep us from realizing the fullness of the potential planted in us by our Creator; hoping to one day see a better and brighter future.

We must remember the context of the moniker of which we have ascribed to Jesus, who we know as the “Light of the World.” This king of which Isaiah speaks comes to bring light into the darkness. And as followers of that light, as children made in the image of our Creator, we must not only see the light and name it as good, but we must realize the potential for being that light which lies within ourselves.  

This land, which we've come to consider a great nation, does indeed lie in darkness, as does the world. The Prince of Peace told us that to be great, we must be the least of these. How well would any land rank if it's greatness, if it's ability to shine as a beacon onto the rest of the world, was measured by the living standards of it's poorest citizen?  Yet, that is what Jesus would have us do.

We must recognize, as Dr. King told us that, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," that, "We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

If one among us lives in darkness, we all live in darkness, because injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.  It is true, whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Will we weave the garments of our destiny, will we weave the garment of our lives, from the cold dark thread of injustice, turning our heads from those in need, turning our hearts and our hands away from the under-served and marginalized, or will we weave our garments from threads of light, humbling ourselves from our worldly places of privilege, serving those in need and seeing the reflection of our Creator in the eyes of those who have been pushed to the margins of society? 

Bringing light, bringing hope, into the dark horizons of this land is not simply good because one less person is suffering in the darkness of a life on the margins of society; it is good because it brings society one step closer to the bright future God intends for us all.

You see, throughout the Bible, we are called to let justice roll like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. In the US, most of us read that from a place of privilege, believing that it is our call as 'good' Christian to save those who are swallowed up in the dark injustices of this world. What we fail to realize is that our privilege has blinded us to the reality of a text which was written to a people marginalized.  

That is to say in Genesis, as God created, the world was designed in a way such that the rain falls and the sun shines equally on us all. When we read the Bible in a way that assumes we are more privileged than another, we make a mockery of God's divine plan for Creation. For, indeed, we all are  created equally in God's image. We all are, indeed, “caught up in an inescapable network of mutuality.” Just like God designed it to be and of which God said, “It is good.”  

It is true, as we were taught by the Prince of Peace himself, “When you do it unto the least of these, so too you do it unto me.” And could it be that we have missed part of that lesson? If the least of these are equal to God and God created us all equally in God's image... then when we do it unto the least of these, so too we do it unto ourselves.  "We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." It should not surprise us then that we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves...and to love our enemy as well.

Isaiah gives us a message of hope. Speaking to a people, who lived in a world where hope seemed like a pinprick of light on an all too dark horizon. In co-opting these text, in naming Jesus “Prince of Peace,” in claiming to follow the one who brought to those living in darkness a great light, we must vow to be a people of great grace striving to yank off the blankets of oppression that smother not only the marginalized of our world but by extension ourselves, so that one day this world can begin to see the darkness being divided by the light just as it was on the first day of creation. 

Created in the image of God, our lives are endlessly connected.  Not only were we equally created in that Divine image, but the world was created in such a way that the rain falls and the suns shines equally on us all. We have walked in the darkness which denies that reality for far too long.  

Let us commit to ourselves and to our God to be the light that breaks forth into the darkness.   

Let us commit to ourselves and to our God to no longer deny that when one suffers, humanity suffers.

Let us commit to ending the suffering – for one and for all – for once and for all.

 Prefer to listen to this article?
(You can also subscribe on iTunes or Podbean). 

 

(This article is also posted as audio file read by the author at the end of the post).

Ah.... I LOVE this time of the year!

Some people wait with bated breath for duck season, some for deer season, but for me it is all about Christmas season. That's right I'm one of those lefty, liberals that have declared a War on Christmas. That's right! Sign me up for the War on Christmas! … but maybe not for the reasons you might imagine.

You see, while I am signing up to help in a War on Christmas, I'm not on, what by default gets called, the “non-Christian” side. I’m also not signing up for the side that news pundits falsely purport as the “Christian” side. If anything, I’d make the argument that the dominant face of Christianity, as it is seen on television and promoted through news programming, is itself far from what Christianity is supposed to be about. It is a sort-of white-washed, sanitized version of Christianity that every year presents an increasingly cleaned up version of the Christmas story to the viewing public.  

You see, the baby we remember this time of year, was not part of the dominant culture the way the religion he started now is. The religious stories that were told in those days were told under the shadow of the dominant culture. They were stories of oppression and hardships, stories of overcoming unthinkable odds, stories of hope for a people living in times and cultural positions that – well, quite frankly felt hopeless.  

But today, our stories are told from places and positions of power. Today, Christianity is the dominant culture.  So, instead of story of a olive skinned middle-eastern, unwed, pregnant mother, who was seen as little more than property, giving birth to what the world would surely see as an illegitimate child who was wrapped in what rags they could find and placed in a smelly, flea infested feeding trough in the midst of a dark musky smelling animal stall… instead of that story, we end up with a clean, white skinned European woman giving birth to a glowing baby wrapped in impossibly white swaddling clothes and laid to rest in a manger that looks more like a crib than a trough in the midst of a barn that is more kept and clean than many of our houses.

So, “War on Christmas?,” sure sign me up. I'm pretty sure I'd prefer the elimination of what our modern “celebration” has become to the increasingly white-washed version we hear every year.

The Christmas story has been hijacked by a dominant culture. Places of power and positions of prestige have warped the comeuppance sensibilities of the original Christmas story. God’s vision of liberating the oppressed, the down trodden, has been slowly replaced year after year with a story that no longer brings fear to the Powers that Be, but rather supports the big business agendas of profit and mass consumerism.

“War On Christmas?” – come to think of it – they’re right. There is a “War On Christmas,” but it is actually waged by many of the very people who think Christmas is getting squeezed out of our culture in the name of plurality and other religions. If the Christmas they support wins – well, I for one, would have to say all is lost.  So, yes, there is a “War on Christmas” and we Christians have been supporting it. If the present day, white-washed version of Christmas continues to be the dominant version, then I believe a great darkness will smother us in a sea of privilege and perverse oblivion to the struggle of those most in need – the oppressed, the downtrodden. 

If the Christmas Present, with it's full on worship of consumerism, continues to masquerade as Christmas Past, our Christmas Futures will increasingly become a time when we give out of our abundance rather than out of a response to need and out of a response to God’s love – the kind of Christmas where we give to those who already have abundantly while the oppressed, the downtrodden, watch our overindulgence and rightfully judge us by actions that run contrary to our words of a child born to bring light into the dark corners of the world.

Isaiah 9:2 – “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who lived in a land of deep darkness— on them light has shined.”  That should be the dominant message of the Christmas narrative. Is it? Does the way we celebrate Christmas bring light into the darkness? Does it bring hope to the hopeless? Does our modern day Christmas celebration bring justice to those who have been treated unjustly? 

If your answer is “no” then, whether you knew it or not, you too believe that the Christmas Past has been white-washed by the Christmas Present.

During this season, as we remember not only the birth of the light of the world, a child sent to enlighten the darkness, we also remember his words, “No greater love has anyone than this, that they lay down their life for a friend.” As we remember the humble, unassuming way he came into this world, let us not forget that he left this world among thieves, as outsider hanging on a cross in an attempt to teach us something about God’s love.

A child born in a manger, no crib for his head – sent into this world to teach us something about the value of every human soul – sent in as the least-of-these, born to a poor woman in a borrowed animal stall – sent to teach us that “the least-of-these” is simply a human construct created by the insiders to define themselves over and against people they see as somehow less than themselves – sent to show us what a life looks like when it starts from the assumption that all people are worthy of God’s love.   

This Christmas I wish for you and for me light in the darkness of the Christmas Present. I wish for us enlightenment from God – an enlightenment that helps us see clearly the love for all people that laid in a manger some 2000 years ago – an enlightenment that encourages us to be the light to those trapped in the darkness of hunger, homelessness, oppression, poverty and war – an enlightenment that allows us to see we too have darkness in our lives – an enlightenment that helps us see beyond the cleaned up Christmas of the present to the humble, unassuming beginnings of our religion – a baby King, born to an outsider – born to save the world from darkness.

War on Christmas? A war on what Christmas has become? A war on worshiping consumerism in the sacred halls of Target and Best Buy while the world is swallowed up in the darkness of not having enough food to eat, a place to live, clean water to drink, access to reasonable health care? Sign me up, because I refuse to let the story of my faith be co-opted by corporations who only wish to convince us that we are privileged and we do deserve what we have more than other and we should revel in our abundance...even as we celebrate the birth of the child who laid in a feeding trough, who lived his life with no place to lay his head, who told us that “just as you do it unto the least of these so to you do it unto me... who gave up his very life that we might understand what true love looks like.

War on Christmas? Indeed. Where do I sign up?

 

Prefer to listen to this article?
(You can also subscribe on iTunes).

 

Mark also did an interview with "The Practical Christian" Radio Show about this article.
Listen to the interview here:

 

This is a bit long for a blog post, but some may find it to be a helpful resource. I wrote the piece for another project and it just wasn't a good fit. Honestly, if you are well read on the issue of the Bible and its take on homosexuality (or lack thereof), there is little new in here. For you, I hope this can be a quick reference. If you are not well read on such things, this may be a bit of a bumpy ride, but bumpy rides can be a lot of fun. Either way, I hope I was able to take what is sometimes thick reading, albeit important reading, and make it at least bearable and mostly straight forward.

Christianity and “Biblical” Hatefulness

We Christians are good at a lot of things. Helping others. Dressing up on Sunday.  Quoting scripture. Pot luck meals. Taking care of church members. Weddings. Funerals. Worship. But perhaps the thing at which we are the most persistently exceptional is misinterpreting the Bible then running amuck in the world because of it. Honestly, mad skills. And history backs me up on this one.

We have used the Bible to support, promote and act upon some pretty un-Christian things: slavery, holocaust, segregation, subjugation of women, apartheid, the Spanish Inquisition (which, no one ever expects), domestic violence, all sorts of exploitation and the list could go on and on. Oddly, if you ask theologians to pick one biblical theme to rule them all, most of them would say “love”... well, love and grace. Okay, love, grace and forgiveness. Fine. They probably would not specifically agree on a single term, but they would most likely name something that is, in every way, the opposite of the oppression, belittlement, hatred and marginalization represented by the numerous atrocities committed by the Christian Church.

More times than not, these atrocities are the result of trying to play God, pretending as if one group of people has complete knowledge of God's will and is more blessed or chosen by God. Not surprisingly, the people who see the world this way are always exactly the people who also happen to belong in the group they believe to be the uber-blessed. Lucky them. 

Time and time again, Jesus made it clear that we should not put ourselves in the place of playing God and that, unlike far too many humans, God welcomes and loves us all equally. Period.

But we keep doing it. We keep doing it even though each time after we argue, name-call, suppress others and fight for centuries, falsely playing the role of heavenly judge and jury, we slowly realize that we got it wrong. We realize that, in fact, Paul was not promoting slavery. We learn to contextualize his statements and letters. We become more skilled at interpreting the original Greek and, over time, we decide to stop quoting the Bible to support slavery (or the subjugation of women, or racism, etc.) because we finally come around to realizing that, as Rob Bell's book points out, biblically love wins. Always. 

And so we find ourselves here again. Doing the thing we do best: misinterpreting the Bible and ruining lives with it. We are, once again, ignoring the biblical bias for those who are marginalized, abused, belittled and negatively judged. Ignoring the biblical directive to show all the children of God love (and grace... and forgiveness). 


Hate By Any Other Name

Oh sure, this time around we have “softened” our approach, saying things like “hate the sin, love the sinner,” but we fail to recognize that what we are calling a “sin” and the person we are calling a “sinner” are one and the same. A person whose sexual orientation is homosexual, or bi-sexual, or queer can no more separate themselves from their sexuality than a heterosexual person can. It's like saying “hate the toppings, love the pizza.” It's just not the pizza without the toppings. We just aren't loving the person if we don't love the whole person. 

I suspect the “softening” of the language we use has everything to do with making us feel better and very little with making LGBTQ folk feel better, because it certainly doesn't make them feel any better. As a matter of fact, the love/hate (emphasis on hate) relationship that the Church continues to push on this group of people only serves to push them into closets and into even darker places, which sometimes leads to suicide. The Church and its approach to this issue are at fault for most of the hurt, anguish, self-doubt, abuse and death associated with being LGBTQ. Not very loving. Not very grace filled. But it certainly leaves us in need of forgiveness. 

Many Christians have lost their way in this twisty, turny maze of how to practice our faith. We would much rather reinforce the things we want to believe than believe the sometimes difficult teachings of Jesus. Who, on a side note, never said a word about homosexuality but did tell us to gouge out our lustful eyes. Which seems to me is more likely to leave us all blind than the “eye for and eye” thing. 

The Bible As A Sex Manual

So, as others have pointed out before, we use the Bible as if it is a sex manual, telling us what is and isn't acceptable in the eyes of the Lord your God. Thereby delineating out those whom it is okay for us to judge, and toward whom it is okay to direct all kinds of nastiness and holier-than-thouisms.

The reality is that the Bible is not a sex manual. I know, shocker. Right? Actually, it's a good thing (depending on your particular level of sexual prudishness – personally, compared to the Bible, mine is pretty high). You see, the Bible not only promotes marriage between a man and a woman, but it insist that that marriage be within the same faith. Not only should a wife be subordinate (Ephesians 5:22), but she should also prove her virginity... lest she be stoned (Deuteronomy 22:20-21). Oh, and the whole thing would probably be much better if it were arranged (Genesis 24:37-38). And that's just the warm up act.

According to the Bible, if a woman's husband dies and she hasn't had a son, she must marry his brother and have intercourse with him until she has a son (Mark 12:18-27). Sometimes, biblically wives are good, but concubines are better. Many of the “men of God” were not only married, but at least three of them had more than one concubine (Abraham, Caleb, Solomon) and they remained “men of God.” But like I said, “biblically wives are good” and there's no such thing as too much of a good thing. Right? So, why not have may wives? God frequently blessed polygamists (Esau, Jacob, Gideon, David, Solomon, Belshazzar). 

As far as sexuality and the Bible's perspective on woman as property and as slaves... well, as you can imagine, it does not get any better.


Making Choices
 
The point is this: most of us have matured enough theologically to recognize that we need to contextualize the writings of the Bible, and because of it we have moved passed using these examples as the end-all-be-all on acceptable practices of sexuality.  However, somehow, we have not managed to apply the very same understanding to the Bible verses that have become known as the “clobber verses” in the Bible. “Clobber" because they are the verses most used to clobber people who are gay or who support gay rights. 

That is really interesting when you consider that, of all the topics I just mentioned, sexual orientation is the only one that is not a choice. Polygamy, concubines, marrying your brother's widow? All choices, and we have decided to “get over” the biblical directives for them. Sexual orientation? Not a choice. (There are those who still argue otherwise, but the science is clear, so I'm not even having that discussion). So many Christians just aren't able to get past that one. Equally interesting to consider: it is actually more of a choice to judge and marginalize people over being homosexual, or, bi-sexual, or queer; than it is a choice to be homosexual, or, bi-sexual, or queer. Yet we judge them and not ourselves. 

Since we clearly have a difficult time letting go of the clobber verses, let's take them one by one and very briefly consider what is really going on in them. It should help us arrive at a clearer picture of what the writers of these scriptures were trying to tell us. What we will find is this: as we get caught up in judging others over what we want the verses to say, we miss the opportunity to understand how to be the people God is calling us to be. 

As we get started, we all need to be on the same page on one thing. When the Bible was written, the earth was flat, the sun orbited the earth and the idea of a person having a sexual 'orientation' was completely foreign. There is some debate about who actually kick-started the understanding of sexual orientation (Heinrich Hoessli or Karl Heinrich Ulrich - personally, I am on Team Heinrich), but it is clear that the concept of people having a sexual orientation was first introduced in the 1800's making it a thoroughly modern construct. 

Clearly, there are a few Bible verses that involve same-sex acts (and of those, almost all of them are male-male sex), but given the modern advent of recognizing the existence of sexual orientation, we must accept the reality that the writers of those verses were in no way trying to, let alone capable of, acknowledging, understanding and addressing homosexual orientation. What then, might they have been trying to tell us in the clobber verses? Let's take a look.


The Clobber Verses

Let me just say right off the top, three of the verses that are sometimes considered clobber verses have nothing to do with the question of homosexuality. Putting Genesis 2:21-25, Deuteronomy 23:17 and Jude 1:6-7 in the category of anti-gay verses is nothing more than an attempt to beef up the number of verses that are supposedly “against” homosexuality. They have nothing to do with it. So, I am simply going to ignore them. If someone attempts to use them as proof of the “abomination” of homosexuality, I suggest you simply ignore them as well.

Genesis 19:1-11

The great thing about defending the Bible against people who want to use Genesis 19:1-11 to gay bash is that you really don't have to do any work. The Bible does it for you. For better or for worse, this is also the verse with which the general population is probably most familiar in terms of what they think of as verses about homosexuality. Even the term “sodomy” is linked to this Bible passage. 

It is the story of two travelers (messengers from God) being given shelter by Lot and his family. Hospitality was a very big deal in those days. In this story, the men of Sodom decided to approach Lot's home and to make less than hospitable demands on him and his guest. To get a sense of how important hospitality was, when the men of the town say they want to force themselves (most likely sexually) on Lot's guest, Lot actually offers up his daughters instead. Despicable, deplorable, a great way to permanently damage your relationship with your daughters and the rest of your family (to say the least), but a sure sign that hospitality was a big deal. 

In the end, the men of the town did not get what they wanted. They wanted to exert their dominance of the guests. They wanted to humiliate them, as warriors after conquering a foe might do in those days, sexually putting another male into the position of a woman (who after all was thought of as property, as weak, and as soft and therefore less than a man).

Even though the men never actually exerted their power over Lot's guests in a male-male sex act, people still insist on using this text as proof that homosexuality is an “abomination.” Well, like I said, “the great thing about defending the Bible against people who want to use Genesis 19:1-5 to gay bash is that you really don't have to do any work. The Bible does it for you.”

Sodom is referenced multiple times in the Bible as an example of great sinning. And what might that sin be? 

In Isaiah 1:10-17 it is thought to be injustice, not rescuing the oppressed, defending the orphan, pleading for the widow. In Jeremiah 23:14 it is adultery. In Ezekiel 16:48-49 it is the sin of not aiding the “poor and needy.” In Zephaniah 2:8-11 the sin is bullying, boasting and pride. In the Wisdom of Solomon it is “the bitter hatred of strangers.” 

The sin is not about being gay. It is not about non-straight sexual orientation. The sin of Sodom was lacking hospitality, not being just, bullying, hating strangers, not caring for those marginalized.  Funny, they are all things Churches (and individuals for that matter) sorely need to keep in mind and be better at practicing when it comes to how we do or do not welcome LGBTQ folk into our lives. After all, in today's society, who is more marginalized, more bullied, more treated like a “stranger,” than them? Come to think of it, not so funny.

Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13

If someone were to canonize a buzz-kill, it would look remarkably, and uncomfortably, like the book of Leviticus. Honestly, this three-thousand plus year old holiness code is not exactly a big ball of fun. For starters, just try reading it. On second thought, I like you, so don't. Fortunately for you, I've done it for you. (I know, nice. Right? I'm just that kind of guy). 

Among the jewels you'll find in it are a mandate to kill disobedient children, a dietary restriction to not eat shellfish (God Hates Shrimp!), a law that would prevent bowl-cuts (or “rounding off the side-growth of your heads” – and to think I liked the Beatles), direction to not touch or eat the flesh of a pig (no bacon and cheddar soup for you!), and a prohibition on the rhythm method of birth control (you know who you are!). Oh, and presumably, gay sex (which, of course, is why I bring it up).

The section of Leviticus where we find the clobber verses is often called the Purity Code. “Purity” was mostly about two things. First, it was about keeping things the way they “should” be. “Should” is in quotes because the guidelines they used for what should and shouldn't be were mostly made up. Said differently, they arrived at their conclusions in a time that didn't have any science or at least not science like we have today. Which is to say, they didn't have any science. 

What they had was mostly superstition based on observation. A big part of this purity code was the idea that the world is consistent or follows particular preset rules. For the Israelites this meant things like: all fish have fins, animals with divided hooves chew cud, and male sperm contains the whole of life (women provided the incubation chamber). When things didn't adhere to this particular three-thousand year old way of understanding the world, they were considered an abomination or more precisely impure. 

The second thing the purity code did was define the Israelites as purely not Canaanites. That is, much like many Christians receive the mark of a cross on their forehead on Ash Wednesday or give something up for Lent, the codes in Leviticus helped define the people of Israel as the people of Israel. For the Israelites it was particularly meant to define them as not Canaanites. Basically, it's a way of showing “we are not them.”

It is true that there are other reasons for many of the laws (just like there are many other reasons to give something up for Lent), but these are two of the larger ones, and they are ones that most directly apply to these clobber verses.

So what do we, presumably enlightened Christians of a scientific age, do with this code? Clearly shrimp are good to eat (for most of us).  For that matter, as far as I'm concerned, to borrow from an old Benjamin Franklin quote, they are proof that God loves us* – that's just how darned delicious they are. 

What we do is recognize Leviticus for what it was: a good thing for the people of God based on how they understood the world some three-thousand years ago. Interestingly enough, when it comes to things like shellfish, eating and touching pigs, cutting our sideburns and beards, and stoning children who mouth off to their parents, we have already managed to do exactly that. Why? Because we understand that they are just flat out silly laws. Not all “fish” have fins. Some come in the shape of pink commas and are delicious with a nice Riesling. Because not all split hooved animals chew cud. Some roll around in the mud and make breakfast just that much better. For that matter, wrap them around a shrimp, throw them on the grill. I promise you, God will not smite you and once you bite into them you'll agree, they are not an abomination (they might, however taste slightly “impure” if you do not devein them well).

What many people have not been able to do is extend that simple understanding to these clobber verses. We have already established that it would have been impossible for these texts, or any biblical text, to be about sexual orientation. However, they do clearly describe a male-male sex act (sorry ladies, this one's just for the guys). But what we have to begin to understand is that the issues which these specific laws presumed to address within their society, much like the other laws I've mentioned here, are no longer recognized as true. 

Scholars have pointed to various reasons for ancient Israel's seeing male-male sex as taboo in Leviticus. It may be the same reason the rhythm method was thought to be wrong in the eyes of God, which presumably is that, as I have mentioned, they thought sperm contained the whole of life (how typically male-dominated-society of them). Therefore, in their way of seeing it, “Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate.” On the other hand, it may be that they thought it was taboo because it went against their understanding that mixing of kinds, just like the mixing of two kinds of cloth was taboo. Male-male sexual relationships, in that way of seeing things, mixes up their understanding of gender roles.

Whatever the reason, the perspective in these clobber verses were based on an understanding of sex and sexuality that was just as misinformed as their understanding of the earth in relationship to the sun, of fish, of pork and of reasons for stoning children. In our scientific age, it is time to let go of archaic perspectives and start recognizing the things that are truly an abomination in the eyes of God: lacking in compassion and love, exercising judgment against others, and practicing and encouraging hate.

(*The actual quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin is, “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” Sadly, while Ben most probably enjoyed a mug of beer from time to time, the actual quote is, “Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine, a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy.” In a happy coincidence, the same rains nourish the barley and hops that are changed into beer. In an even happier coincidence, wine and beer both pair exceptionally well with shrimp. God is good).


Romans 1:26-28

Good news ladies! Up until now, all of this clobbering has been about the guys. In Romans, you get to join in. Lucky you.

Romans is the one place the Bible speaks specifically about a female-female sex act. If you listen to Bible Thumpin' Gay Bashers, you'd be surprised to learn that, while the counts vary on how many places the Bible directly address heterosexual relationships, it is a lot. Then again, compared to the precisely one verse the Bible has about female-female sex, even two is one hundred percent more. 

The number of heterosexually oriented verses isn't exactly clear. One thing is really clear, there's plenty of them and, much like the Levitical purity code, we've managed to ignore many of them. So, if you aren't also denouncing the divorced, then get off your lesbian judging high-horse, because otherwise you are just picking and choosing who to judge out of your own accord, and then quoting the one Bible verse that seems to support your choice. And even then, as we will see, it doesn't actually support your argument. It actually does just the opposite.

In Romans, we have the most extensive discussion of same-sex intercourse in the Bible, a whole two seemingly specific verses – astounding. 

There are plenty of approaches to understanding what Paul is trying to teach us in these texts. Any good exegesis ultimately points to the reality that what Paul is talking about and what people who use these verses as clobber verses want Paul to be talking about aren't the same thing. That is, this is not about homosexual people having consenting homosexual relationships. 

One convincing analysis of these texts looks at the fact that one of the most prevalent forms of same-sex sex in the Greco-Roman world was male prostitution which frequently involved boys. In that analysis, the texts become a condemnation of pederasty and prostitution, things of which most Christians (conservative to liberal) disapprove even today. There is also the perspective that Paul's pointing to same sex intercourse as being idolatrous could be referring to the practices of priests and priestesses of Mediterranean fertility gods who regularly practiced that type of prostitution but elevated it, within a religious context, to the state of idolatry. Those approaches are valid and mostly convincing perspectives, but they do require a small leap of logic to arrive at their conclusions. Much less of a leap of logic, mind you, than believing that these texts are about something of which people at that time had absolutely no comprehension, but slight conjecture all the same.

The analysis that I find the most convincing concerns itself with the word “natural.” It is the word that has led many to speak of LGBTQ behavior as “unnatural” acts even though they occur throughout nature (in one study they were found in more than fifteen-hundred species). 

As it turns out, the word is actually not “natural.” Not surprisingly, Paul did not speak English. While Paul performed a number of miraculous things, speaking English (which wasn't around even in its earliest Prehistoric Old English form yet) was not one of them. Not to bore you too much, but the word Paul used was the Greek word, physikos. (Now that didn't hurt too much, did it?).

It's important to know the word in Greek because when it is translated into English, it loses a little of its original meaning. Without even knowing it, Lady GaGa has provided a better modern and contextual translation of physikos than the frequently used translation of “normal.” We will get to that in a minute. It doesn't mean “natural” or “nature” so much as it means “produced by nature.” Those who use these verses as clobber verses tend to understand “natural” to mean something closer to “normal” than “produced by nature.” Not surprisingly, they also then define what is and isn't “normal” based on their personal biases rather than on science or the reality of the world around them (e.g.: “I think gay people make me feel creepy, so I  henceforth do hereby dub it as an act of not-natural.”). 

In reality, physikos has more to do with how things naturally occur in God's Creation.  At this point, you may have begun to guess that physikos is based on the same root word from which we get the word “physics” which is, of course, the study of the realities of nature. Conveniently, the way Paul uses physikos here in Romans, it also means something very similar to “the realities of nature.” It is concerned with what is of our nature and not with what is defined as acceptable. That is to say, Paul is concerned with how God created something or someone to be. He is concerned with people going against their nature or in the words of Lady GaGa herself, if they are “born that way” he's concerned with them behaving as if they were not.

That is the sin here in Romans, acting against the very nature of who God created you to be. In this case he seems to be addressing the idea of a same-sex sex act in which at least one of the two are not attracted to someone of the same sex; they just are not born that way. 

Understood this way, it would be equally sinful for someone who is only attracted to someone of the same sex to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. It goes against their nature; they just weren't born that way. Ironically, those telling LGBTQ folk that these verses mean they have to stop being LGBTQ folk are actually telling them to commit the very sin against which these verses warn, going against their nature. God has a wicked sense of humor.

Because these texts have been used so much to address homosexuality, it was important to address the issue directly, but the worst thing we could do is to think it is primarily about homosexuality. It is not. 

Immediately following verse 28, Paul provides an extensive list of sins. It is so extensive that we all fall into at least one of the categories. “So there you have it,” says Paul, “we all sin. Don't try to deny it.” And let's face it, we all go against who we know we were created to be. How many times have you done something, felt guilt or shame, and then said, “I shouldn't have done that. That's not who I am.”? 

As Paul says in the very next chapter, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” As he also says to start that chapter, “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.”


1 Corinthians 6:9-10 & 1 Timothy 1:9-10

So, remember back a few paragraphs ago when we talked about a Greek word? And remember how it didn't even hurt one little bit? Good. We are going to do it again.

I have put the 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy clobber verses together because they both use a particular Greek word in a particularly similar way. The word is arsenokoitēs and it means “male prostitute.” (Behold the Greek scholarship. See that it is good and rejoice).  Actually, it could also mean “the customer of a male prostitute,” or  “boy molester” or  “someone who abuses themselves with a man” or  “using sexual manipulation to acquire money” or … (eh hem, “Behold the great and powerful Greek Interpretation!” <insert flashing light and crashing thunder>). 

So, the word in these two verses, that is frequently interpreted as “homosexual” (which is absurd because, in Greek, it is clearly only a word referring to men) or “sodomite” (which is absurd, among other reasons, because that was not the sin of Sodom, as we have already discussed), is really difficult to translate. Why? In part, because it is only found in these two places and also, in part, because it is entirely possible that it is a made up word. It is very likely that Greek speaking Jews created this word to port a Hebrew word to Greek and over time the meaning has been lost. So, it is just hard to translate. So difficult, in fact, that scholars can't agree on a single best translation. What most biblical Greek scholars can agree on is that it is not meant to be a blanket statement about a male-male sex act. Moving on.

There is another word used in 1 Corinthians 6:9: malakos. The good news about this word is that it is found in lots of literature, so there are plenty of references about its typical intended meaning. It literally means “soft.”  Some say it means “soft” as in “effeminate, but not in terms of sexual orientation.” Others, say it is connected with being wasteful of sexual and financial resources. Still others convincingly point to it singling out a particular type of male prostitution involving young boys. Also in the list of contenders: sexual perverts, sodomites, weaklings, the self-indulgent. (“Behold the great and powerful Greek Interpretation!” <insert flashing light and crashing thunder>). Like with  arsenokoitēs there really is no expert consensus on this. 

Malakos was a word that could be used to refer to things as diverse as men who were weak in battle (or who were “soft”), to men who lived extravagant and pampered lives (or who were... well, “soft”). It was not specifically about sexual relationships. If Paul was actually trying to describe something about a submissive male in a male-male relationship (which is still not the same as homosexuality as we understand it today), it's very likely that he would have used kinaedos, which was frequently used to describe that very relationship. But he didn't. So, stop acting like he was.


Clobbered 

In summary of my look at the Christian Church's use of the clobber verses, if you want to call homosexuality a sin, go ahead. But you are going to have to admit that it is not biblically a sin. Which means you are also going to have to admit that you are calling it a sin simply because that's what you want to do. Because of that, you are going to have to admit that you are a sinner for using God's name for false pretenses (it's a little thing we like to call using God's name in vain). And then, Paul has something to tell you, “...you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.” (Romans 2:1).

I've mentioned a time or two before, that the Church is dying. And because of the research  presented in books like unChristian by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, we know a lot of the reasons for it. 

While some people in the Church like to point to the economy as the chief reason reason for struggling churches, it's time to get real and just admit that while it really is terribly convenient to be able to say, "Really it's not us; it's that gosh, darned economy," it's just not true. Sure the economy necessarily effects most churches, but our problems have been going on much longer than that. And we are the root of our problem.

As Kinnaman points out, there are several problems that keep most young people who consider themselves spiritual from darkening the door of a church, but the big one is hypocrisy. And like it or not, part of that hypocrisy is tied up in politics. 

For decades now, the loudest voice in Christianity (or at least the most persistently visible) has been from politicians on the right. Let's face it, they have owned the national Christian voice. Touting Jesus as if they had been one of the original disciples, they have twisted the reality of the Gospels and God's biases for the oppressed, the marginalized and the undeserved into a pro-Americana doctrine that promotes the rights of the haves over the needs of the have-nots. They've actually figured out how to make it seem sinful to question war and capital punishment. 

And the dominant part of the Church has, at best, sat idly by as the political right has used the name of Christ to take God's name in vain by marginalizing more and more people as they pass laws that make it more difficult to obtain basic human rights like health care, reasonable access to shelter and the ability to feed our families.

We need modern day prophets to walk in the footsteps of Isaiah, Amos, Micah, Jesus and, yes, even Dr. King. People to stand up to, and to stand over and against the status quo. Voices calling out into the modern day wildernesses of plutocracy, militarism, white privilege and so many other anti-Biblical movements that serve only to marginalize and hurt specific groups of people.

In this age of social media, it might be that the Voice In The Wilderness that the world so sorely needs, might just be Voices (with an 's') In The Wilderness. It might just be your voice, my voice, our voices in a collective cry saying, "Repent! God does not love straight people more than gay people. God does not love the wealthy more than the poor. God does require us to DO justice. Not to just say it is a good thing, but to insure that it is a reality for all people." 

We must stand up to the Religious and Political Right who have been allowed to own the voice of Christianity for far too long and we must reclaim it.

The movement has already begun. Groups like The Christian Left, Christians Tired of Being Misrepresented and The Progressive Christian Alliance are already bringing like minded Christians together to speak biblical truths into the darkness of an already all too divided world. Blogs like John Shore, The God Article and Crazy Liberals and Conservatives are already standing up to, and over and against the status quo. 

Together we are becoming a mighty voice, but we must not stop there. We must further this growing prophetic movement by continuing to unite our groups, coalescing our efforts for justice and peace through technology. 

I am excited to tell you about the newest voice crying out in this right wing created wilderness. JWAD: Jesus Was A Democrat launched a very impressive website this week and it is backed by an equally impressive purpose, "to begin an honest national discussion that examines the disparity between the politics of many American Christians and the teachings of Jesus."

All of the issues I've just mentioned about the hypocritical nature of the Political Right falsely claiming to be the sole voice of Christianity in the U.S. and using it to further policies that are clearly unChristian are precisely the impetus behind JWAD's efforts. They are smart, focused and clearly well versed in the teachings of Jesus. 

To be a voice that will be heard, we must continue to grow our numbers, our efforts and our outlets for sharing the Good News of Jesus' teachings which promoted equality, justice, peace and caring for those in need. 

For that reason, I encourage you to join up, follow or 'like' all of the groups I've mentioned here, but I particularly encourage you to encourage the newest member of the movement, JWAD, by checking out their “Call to Action” and “help shine a light” on their part of all of our efforts.

No time to read this article? Listen in while you work:

 

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”  For Dickens, those lines are meant to set the stage for a novel that takes place during the difficult times of the French Revolution. It is also a novel that struggles with the social injustices that come along with war and the pursuit of power.  It is sort of a call to arms for the characters that will be called upon to live out another of the book's themes – self-sacrifice.  It also can be argued that the opening line is an inverted foreshadowing for one of the predominate themes of the book – resurrection.

Now, from what I just told you, you should be able to deduce two things rather quickly.  1) My first undergraduate degree, indeed, was in English (yes, I am a book geek) and 2) in his themes of social justice, resurrection and self-sacrifice, Dickens is clearly flirting with topics near and dear to the heart of the New Testament.

That is where the Spirit of God drives us, toward lives focused on social justice, metaphorical resurrections and, when even necessary, self-sacrifice. But increasingly, that is not the case in many traditional churches in the U.S.

Part of our problem is that we have attempted to domesticate the Spirit of God.  The very ruah (breath of God).  The wild winds that ignited the flames of creation as they whipped recklessly over the face of chaos – in the beginning; God's essential nature described in Deuteronomy as a devouring fire; the radiant and elusive Spirit that gave the revelation of Jesus' messiahship at his baptism; the Spirit Jesus himself would describe to Nicodemus as being mysterious and unpredictable like the wind; the winds that rushed into an upper room ripping the windows open, resting as a flame on the disciple's shoulders, causing them to speak in tongues and be looked upon as if they were drunk; that Spirit scares us because we can't control it.  So, we have attempted to domesticate God’s Spirit – much like the common dog.  We tried to tame it, teach it to curl up beside our hearths and be obedient.  We want to quantify it, objectify it, demystify it - train it, contain it and constrain it. Like our children, we want it stop being so wild and uncontrollable.  We want it to lose its propensity to form something new out of a world in which we feel comfortable.

The Spirit however is unruly.  It is apt to doing a “new thing,” to bringing about a change on God's people and on the world which God created.  Should we really expect anything less out of the Spirit of God – not the God we created in our image, but the God that said, “behold, I am about to do a new thing,” the God who used chaos to form this world, the God who did the unthinkable and became human flesh, the God who overcame death itself...should we really expect the Spirit of that God to be docile, domesticated and dormant?  In churches throughout the U.S., we seem to.  

Churches throughout the U.S. must ask themselves, which Spirit do we follow? The one we, as a society, have created out of our own needs?  The one that allows us to trust in ourselves?  The one that plays nice and gives us warm fuzzies?  Or are we ready to celebrate the Spirit of the biblical text?  One who is willing to grapple with chaos. One that is unruly, unexpected, unconventional and unconcerned with what we want or how things have always been done.  Which one do we truly celebrate?

History has proven that churches that survive, churches that move forward with God are inevitably ones that are willing to, particularly in the worst of times, embrace the Spirit of Change – God's New Thing.  

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”  The difference between those two things (the best of time and the worst of times) is which Spirit we invite into our midst – the domesticated spirit of humanity OR the wild and wonderful Spirit of God.

The modern day story of the Church is the tale of two Spirits.  Much like Dickens' tale it is the story of social-justice, self-sacrifice and resurrection.  Let us live into that story, our story, the story of the Children of God.  Let us make room for the true Spirit of God to work as we walk in the footprint of Jesus, being willing to sacrifice our fear of the unknown in order to bring about change, willing to let our wants be sidelined for God's justice knowing that they are step on a lifetime's journey to God that will conclude one fine day as we rest in the arms of the one whose Spirit has brought us this far.

I'd like to conclude the way I started, with a quote from Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities.  And just as I started with the quote that opens his tale, I'll conclude with the one that closes his book.  I think they are both more than appropriate for our tale of to Spirits.  As we choose what we are going to do, which Spirit we are willing to make room for, on our journey to our ultimate resting place with God, remember these words, “It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.”