Spiritual wickedness in high places

A month or so ago some Swedish research hit the news. It shows that there are measurable differences in the brains of gay men and women. Gay men tend to have brains that resemble straight women and gay women tend to have brains that resemble straight men.

This does not prove that sexual orientation is genetic, but this combined with a number of other physiological differences is starting to build a strong case.

So let’s assume, just for the purposes of discussion, that research does eventually prove that homosexuality is genetic rather than a lifestyle choice. The current research suggests that it may have something to do with the level of male hormones in the mother during gestation.

Where does that put those who feel that it is a sin?

Perhaps it finally relegates it to the same status as touching a menstruating women.

Doesn’t this start to feel similar to the situation two hundred years ago when the Bible was used to justify slavery?

Just to refresh your memory.

“When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property” (Exodus 21:20-21).

The Southern Baptist Convention was founded for the purpose of preserving the Christian basis for slavery. To their credit Southern Baptists apologized in 1995.

It will be interesting to see how many apologies are given when homosexuality is proven genetic.

The Bible is a wonderful book that God gave us as a sufficient guide to working out our own salvation. It is most effective in that role when understood as a metaphor for modern life because it was written in a different time. It was this understanding of historical context which allowed clergy to see past the explicit Bible passages supporting slavery to the larger message of God’s love for all His children and our obligation to love our neighbor as ourselves. They used this understanding of the Bible’s real message to oppose and eventually abolish slavery. I predict that this same historical context and understanding of the Bible’s real message will be applied to homosexuality too, and the clergy will again lead the charge to reverse the legal and social discrimination currently imposed on gay men and women.

“For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.” Isa 65:17-18

A recent survey has revealed some interesting things about the spirituality of the US population.

The most interesting is that Americans are much more inclusive as a group than those who claim to represent them.  We believe that there is not one path to heaven or one decisive revelation of truth.  Even though both the Southern Baptist and Catholic religions base significant portions of their teachings on the fact that those of other religions are going to hell, 60% of Southern Baptists and 80% of Catholics didn’t share that portion of their religions dogma. 

Similarly only 60% of Buddhists and Hindus claim to believe in central tenants of their religions (Nirvana and reincarnation).  That reveals a refreshing honesty about where people are in their own individual search for God.  They may identify with a particular religion, but are still uncertain about even the most fundamental elements of that religion.

Contrary to popular belief by fundamentalists, this remains a country that overwhelmingly believes in God (92%).  Also most of us claim that our views about wrong an right are based on fundamental principles that are common to us as believers in God rather than members of any particular religion or demographic.  Sounds like we Americans are really living the fundamental values expressed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence – everyone has the right to their own interpretation of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

I also visited a site that I’d like to share with you called JamesDobsondoesntspeakforme.com.  The site was started by some evangelical pastors who feel that James Dobson has confused his political goals with their spiritual ones.  I see this as consistent with the survey too.  Evangelicals are awakening to the fact their spiritual goals are much more positive than simply standing in opposition to gay rights and abortion.  Folks like James Dobson would like the rest of us to believe that Focus on the Family speaks with one voice for all evangelicals, but it just isn’t the case.  The very nature of the evangelical movement is a search for personal meaning through a transforming relationship with God and then reaching out to others to share that experience.  Because this is so fundamentally personal, it can’t really be defined or contained by any political party.

It is interesting to witness the process of thought being transformed into new and more productive channels.  Building a new heaven and a new earth takes time, but the process never stops.

Bill Curry had a curious letter to the editor published June 10^th edition of the paper that sponsors this blog. It was in response to a letter from someone who objected to the paper publishing a Phyliss Schlafly column supporting Ben Stein’s movie Expelled about creationism.  I read the Bible every day too and believe that God created everything, just not in the literal fashion that creationists like Mrs. Schlafly and Mr. Curry claim.

Mr. Curry took off on a revisionist history trip in an effort to connect science and Christianity.  He wrote that Bible-based Christianity is responsible for modern science because many of the scientists during the Scientific Revolution (16^th century) were Christians. Credible historians do see a connection, but not the one that Mr Curry asserts. The connection is that the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Counter-Revolution, the discovery of the new world, the fall of Constantinople, and the rediscovery of Aristotle undermined the status quo. It was finally politically acceptable (no more inquisitions) to challenge established thought and a new age of scientific discovery began.

Stranger yet, he claimed that the scientific method was inspired by a Bible quote. This is curious on two counts. First, historians attribute the scientific method to al-Haytham, a first millenium Muslim Arab widely regarded as the first scientist. Second, this same method is the foundation for the theory of evolution and the reason why the vast majority of the scientific world rejects creationism.

I do agree with Mr. Curry that science is revealing many wonderful insights every day that strongly suggest God’s presence, but scientific discovery is something we all share as humans.  It is part of our wiring.  Though it may be the result of individual inspiration, it is generally not attribued to prayer or spiritual belief.  It dates back to the discovery of fire - well before the invention of writing.  As a result, it is shared by all cultures and religions.

Finally in an effort to establish his position that good science is based on a belief in God, Mr. Curry took a swipe at Buddhism saying that the reason there aren’t any well known Buddhist scientists is because Buddhism is an atheist religion.  This is just wrong on so many points that I don’t know where to start.  It may be better to just leave you with a quote from one of our greatest modern scientists,

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.” Albert Einstien

“And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth.  And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead.  And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise.  And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat. And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done.” Luke 8:52-56

Recent news has raised a fundamental question regarding religion and the rights of parents.

The most recent case was a polygamist sect in Texas.  There were claims that girls below the legal age of consent were being forced to marry older men.  As the result of an anonymous phone call, now regarded as a hoax, the state of Texas protective services got a court order to take all of the kids except for newborn babies away from their parents.  That order was overturned by the Texas appeal courts because Texas protective services was unable to prove that the children were actually at risk.

There are also usually a couple of cases a year where parents choose to pray rather than involve a physician in the care of their children.  The state intervenes in an attempt to force a particular course of medical treatment when it appears the child’s life may be at risk.

In cases of child custody, the state usually has a significant bias, based on research, against removing a child from their mother’s care.  Generally that preference is overcome only when the state feels that the child may be at significant physical or emotional risk.  Just to put that in perspective, significant risk (as long as there is no obvious violence) has to be more than children whose parents are drug addicts or criminals.

As someone who believes in freedom of religion, the power of prayer, and cultural diversity; I’m really torn, because I’m also someone who believes that there is a role for government in modern society.  The temptations of personal gain are just too great for the private sector to handle in some cases.

In the case of monogamy, there is nothing explicit in the Bible prohibiting it.  Given the history of Abraham and others, however, I think that it is fairly obvious that if there were a problem with polygamy, it would have been spelled out pretty clearly in the same way as incest.  There are clearly other cultures in the world where polygamy is legal and appears to work fine for all involved.

Similarly, there are a lot of passages in both the old and new testament where prayer healed those whom the physicians had failed to heal.  There are also plenty of examples every day around the world of healing through prayer.

So in my mind, it comes down to culture and not religion.  We have a culture where monogamy is the only legal form of marriage in most places.  We also have culture where medical science is viewed as superior to prayer.

If you choose to be a polygamist, many people in our culture will assume that it is because (if you are a woman) you have been either brain-washed or coerced.  Similarly if you choose to rely on prayer to treat yourself and your family, you are assumed to be a delusional fanatic, or at least naïve and misguided.  So, in the interest of protecting children, we give the government fairly wide latitude to impose our cultural biases against both practices.

Imagine how the government would respond today if Jesus walked into a Ronald McDonald house and offered to heal all of the kids in there with terminal diseases.  What if He told them all to get out of their beds, pull out all of their tubes, get dressed, and call their parents for a ride home?  Just like Bethesda, some of the kids would believe Him and do as He asked and some wouldn’t.  As a result, some would be healed, and some would continue to depend on their physicians.  He, on the other hand, would likely get arrested and thrown in jail for reckless child endangerment.

So where do we draw the line between legitimate government involvement in the private lives of citizens and invasion of privacy/coercion to conform to the norms of the majority?

 I think it is always dangerous ground to attempt to speak for God.

Those of us who are Christians have the Bible as a sufficient guide to our salvation, but even here there are many paths. Jesus, the most perfect man to ever walk the earth, encountered devout people in his own town that he couldn’t heal of their bigotry and hardheartedness.

There are those in our community today who seem to have succumbed to the same temptation to turn Jesus message of love, humility, and tolerance into narrow-minded self-righteousness. The paper that sponsors this blog published a letter from one on April 26^th.

The author, Mr. Abraham, felt that Reverend Timothy McDonald, founder of the First Iconium Baptist Church in east Atlanta, was in error when he claimed that Jesus was crucified for political reasons. Mr. Abraham went on to quote scripture extensively to prove his point that Jesus death had a much more profound spiritual purpose. On that point, it is likely that he and Rev McDonald would agree. But in Rev. McDonald’s defense, those who killed Jesus did so because they viewed him as a political threat, not a spiritual one. In fact, it took Jesus resurrection and the Holy Spirit to open his own disciples eyes to him as more than a political Messiah.

This minor theological spat, however, was just the thin veneer that Mr. Abraham chose to dress up an ugly screed directed at African Americans, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witness, and any minister in Monroe who disagreed with him.

The author appears to have forgotten the example of another Abraham who became the father of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, “And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.” Gen 13:8

Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection was for all mankind through all time. It was for African Americans, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christians, Mr. Abraham and me. We are all brothers.

“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” Matt 5:21-24

 “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, this people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.” Matt 15:7-8

There appear to be two great sins in politics these days. The first sin is some public revelation of sexual immorality. This sin will get you in the paper, but you may be able to survive. The second is hypocrisy. That also by itself is not fatal as the current administration has proved. Commit both of these sins, however, and you are front page news and your career is over.

This isn’t anything new.

Gary Hart committed both of these sins when he challenged reporters to prove that he had been unfaithful to his wife. They did and it was the end of both his bid for the Presidency and his public life.

What really put an end to Newt Gingrich’s political career was the revelation that while he was savaging President Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky he was engaged in a remarkably similar affair with a married woman.

Same thing with the conservative evangelical minister and Focus on the Family spokesperson, Ted Haggard. It was the combination of his relentless condemnation of homosexuals and an affair with a male prostitute that brought him down.

Governor Elliot Spitzer is the latest victim of this perfect storm of political bad news. He built his political career on his aggressive pursuit of white collar criminals and prostitution while spending an estimated $80K with a prostitute.

What I’m curious about is what this says about us as a country.

Why is this the untouchable third rail in US politics and not something more tangible like lying to the public, mismangement, graft, or corruption?

Infidelity doesn’t seem to bother the French. They just elected a man who was having an affair with a woman he recently married and the woman he just divorced admitted to a having an affair for two years prior to Sarkozy’s election while they still appeared in public as a married couple. The extramarital affairs of his predecessor Chirac were so well known that he often joked about them in public. But, at least in the case of Chirac, he publicly acknowledged his affairs thus avoiding the appearance of hypocrisy (with the obvious exception of his marriage vows).

Clearly all of the people involved in these incidents (men and women) displayed moral and ethical weakness, but why should this particular combination of weaknesses cause immediate and complete collapse of public trust only in this country?

Why do we immediately call with one voice for the resignation of people like Spitzer, for example, and tolerate a President who says that we don’t torture and then vetoes a bill making one particular form of torture (waterboarding) illegal?

Why do some in this country object to Senator Clinton as a candidate because of her husband’s past indiscretions, but continue to support the current President spending $12B a week in Iraq?

Why do we get all bent out of shape when the Mayor of Detroit’s affair (which he denied) is revealed through public disclosure of text messages, but support the President’s call for amnesty for the phone companies which allowed the government to illegally look at everyone’s text messages (and email, and phone conversations)?

All I can figure is that the hypocritical sex scandals seem so black and white. They appear so simple and the solutions so obvious. So we focus our attention on those rather than the real problems caused by our failure to hold our elected officials accountable for how they have been running our country.

Even in Jesus time, there were way more people willing to stone the adulteress than drive the money changers out the temple.

At the end of the day, does that make us the real hypocrites?

I read an excellent post from Charles C. Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center. You can read it for yourself at the First Amendment Center site.

The post talked about what Mr. Haynes saw as the two biggest threats to religious freedom in this country in the coming year.

The first was the conflation of religion and politics. The second was Islamophobia.

For Christians, they both come down to a simple discussion.

Is it ever appropriate for Christians to impose our particular moral or theological views on others?

In my mind this brings up the whole discussion of free will.

We Christians have a particular view of the how a life should be lived. Though we may differ in degree, what we all agree on is the Jesus embodied the Christ spirit which made him the most perfect man ever to walk the earth. Jesus Christ brought a message from God to man that everyone has an unending spiritual life and if you would like to experience that life it’s fullest, you have to accept the same Christ spirit. The embrace of that message and spirit, however, has to be voluntary to be meaningful.

So we have these things as basic common understandings, yet we also seem to have a very difficult time when people practice free will and reject those things that we feel are sacred. Some of us start to insist that what had been a set of beliefs must now become a set of laws. In the minds of some, sinful behavior (not to be confused with criminal behavior) should be illegal, even though it is the practice of free will. Some Christians feel it is their duty to protect people from themselves as if free will is dangerous if actually practiced.

In a similar vein, some Christians view the current cultural conflict between fundamentalist Muslims and western societies as a religious conflict. Just one example of that are the e-mail attacks directed at Barak Obama. Rather portray him as somehow inferior because of his racial background, the Internet whisper campaign suggests something much frightening. They accuse him of being a closet Muslim.

If he is the right person for the office, it shouldn’t matter what his religion is (he happens to be a Christian). Even the constitution says that. And if we Christians really believe in free will, why would we care if someone chooses to worship in a non-Christian way?

So at the end of the day, it turns out that the greatest threat to religious freedom in this country is us Christians. That’s because we are unwilling to give others the same key to salvation that our Creator gave us – the ability to choose our own path.

“Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?” Isa. 29:16

There has been an ongoing spat in the editorial pages of the paper that sponsors this blog over the subject of evolution.

I understand that this is just another skirmish in the culture wars, but I just couldn’t resist a comment or two about it.

The whole idea that science somehow undermines God is in my estimation silly.

If you believe in God, almost by definition you also have to believe that there can be no power greater than God. Given that, then you also have to agree that God doesn’t need your help to defend Himself. He really does have it all under control.

Science isn’t about disproving the existence of God. Science is all about developing a deeper understanding of God’s creation and the truths that order that it. Science works because it continues to question the status quo without the limits of belief. If science discovers something that challenges current understanding, the old understanding is eventually abandoned and a new understanding takes it’s place.

Isn’t this what we Christians are supposed to be doing here too? We are supposed to be replacing the old earth-bound Adam with a new spiritual man. We work out our own salvation by increasing our understanding of who we are and how God is directing our lives. Every time that we become complacent because we think that we have it all figured out, God lovingly turns everything upside down. We regain our humility, agree that we don’t know as much as we thought we did, and resume our study and prayer.

Where religions and some Christians tend to jump the track is in feeling that they somehow have to spring to God’s defense when it is actually just their own beliefs, and not God that are being called into question.

Today’s creationists are the same folks who feared 400 years ago that God would somehow be undone if science disproved the Bible claim that the earth was the center of the universe. Just like the creationists, “devout” scientists in that age struggled to contain a growing body of scientific evidence within the belief system of a literal Bible. They failed then because they confused belief with science, and they are failing today for the same reasons.

A sun-centered universe eventually gave way to the big bang, but it did prove that the Bible is not nor was it ever intended to be a literal description of creation. God and the Bible, however, survived. That’s because God and His universe are in harmony and the Bible remains a sufficient guide to working out our place in that universe. The Bible remains relevant through the ages because it is NOT a scientific book. It is a spiritual book, a metaphor useful for instruction in whatever circumstance we find ourselves.

That’s why you can look at the current conflict between creationism and evolution as just another loving example of God patiently overturning a too narrow and literal reading of the Bible so that those who are reading it can make better use of it for their growth and understanding.

The news continues to generate interesting juxtapositions of stories.

The latest one is the announced pregnancy of Jamie Lynn Spears, the publisher delaying the release of her mother’s book on Christian parenting, the release of a study showing that sex education does have a positive effect in delaying sexual activity, and a another report showing that teen pregnancies are up for the first time in 14 years.

You’ve probably seen the stories on the 16 year old Disney star’s pregnancy.

There probably isn’t much more to say about her mother’s book.

Here are the facts from the CDC studies.

The first indicates that sex education actually does work in reducing sexual activity of those 15 and younger, particularly among boys. What they also learned is that those boys who did receive sex education and did decide to become sexually active were three times more likely to use contraception. The study also made clear that the earlier that sex education is provided to kids, the more effective it is. The study did not distinguish between programs that emphasized abstinence versus contraception.

According to experts, the report regarding the first increase in teen pregnancy in 14 years indicates that current education and prevention programs have produced all of the reductions that they are going to produce. Bill Albert, deputy director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy said, “The early wins may have been won. Future efforts may well have to be more intense, focused, and creative if the nation is to make continued progress in reducing teen pregnancy and childbearing. Put another way, yesterday’s way of doing business will no longer suffice.”

I could head off at this point on a discussion speculating how we could be more effective in reducing teen pregnancy, but that would only throw a few more logs onto a culture war fire that doesn’t need my help.

I think it is more interesting to think about a young girl who found herself pregnant through no fault of her own a couple thousand years ago. How frightened she must have been, and at the same time what great courage she must have shown in the choice she made. I’m also always impressed with the faith and trust that her fiancé demonstrated when she told him what had happened to her. Can you even begin imagine the anticipation, terror, pride, and heartbreak they experienced in their lives?

I suspect that every teenager who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant also confronts a set of overwhelming choices. For those of us who are parents, you know that even the planned pregnancies have an element of terror because helping bring another life into the world is such a serious responsibility. Imagine how overwhelming it must feel for those who are still in many ways children, when forced to contemplate the life-changing implications of every option.

Fortunately, then as now, God remains the real parent and creator of everyone. He was there to guide Mary and Joseph. He guided our parents. He is there right now for Jamie Lynn Spears. It’s up to her whether or not she listens.

I know that there are some Christians who feel very strongly that they should be able to judge this process and in some ways limit the choices that women have. I don’t share that view, but not because I don’t consider life sacred. What I do consider sacred is the relationship between God and His creation. It is not my place to try to take His place or the place of the women who have to make these choices every day. The comfort I take in this is that no pregnant woman makes these choices lightly, so I’m sure that most every one in their own way reaches out to God as they decide what to do.

It IS my place to make sure that everyone has good information with which to make wise choices, and access to the resources they need to prevent pregnancy if they choose to sexually active. Reducing unwanted pregnancies is the most effective way to reduce the need for abortion.

It is also my place to listen for God’s voice in my life and celebrate the fact that two thousand years ago He selected a teenage girl to bring His message of love and salvation to a hungry world. What is sometimes missed in this story though, and something I’m even more grateful for, is that God didn’t command this teenage girl to obey His will. He respected her right to choose. So though we use Christmas to celebrate Jesus birth, this holiday is also just as much about Mary’s choice.

Merry Christmas.

The paper hosting this blog recently published a letter objecting to Toledo offering some modest legal protections for gays, seniors, and others living together but not married.  The stated concern of the author was that this threatened the institution of marriage.  Rather than reject this as thinly veiled self-righteous bigotry, I thought I would do a little research and share it with you. 

As of 2004, the state with the lowest divorce rate was, that’s right, Massachusetts!  Massachusetts also is the only state where gay marriage is legal. 

The Southern Bible belt states with the largest populations of fundamentalist Christians also have the highest divorce rates - 50% higher than the national average of 4.2 per thousand people.    

The northeast has the lowest divorce rate.  That region includes Massachusetts and five other states that have domestic partnership laws (New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine).   

In the years since Michigan and Ohio adopted constitutional amendments to “protect” marriage the divorce rate in the country has gone down by about 3%.  The divorce rate in Ohio is 1.3 times the national average and is trending up.  In Michigan, it has held steady at 1.6 times the national average. 

So contrary to the writer’s claim, the facts suggest marriage doesn’t benefit from prejudicial statutes or judgementalism.  Marriage (and by implication families) seems to do best in states embracing diversity and practicing tolerance and inclusion.  That shouldn’t be all that surprising since this was Jesus’ advice too, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”